AppleWorks 7

[Archmage]

Thinksecret reports that AppleWorks 7 will be called iWorks.

The suite will include Keynote, Document (word processor), a spreadsheet app, and a database app.

iWorks won't have an integrated environment like AppleWorks 6, but instead, the applications will integrate similar to the iLife software.

 

[aethier]

Well i hope its better the AppleWorks 6, because if not im just gonna stick to office.

aethier

 

[aethier]

Well i hope its better the AppleWorks 6, because if not im just gonna stick to office.

aethier

 

[boskie]

more details from Think Sercret

 

[alset]

Let's hope this one can really compete with some of the high-end features in Office. Apple needs to deliver a top-notch suite to gain market share in business.

Dan

 

[Freg3000]

Eh

To me, this is bad news. Here is my logic:

I was hoping that Apple could create an iWorks/Appleworks 7 suite which competitively rivals Microsoft's Office, but at the same $79 price tag, or maybe a bit more. In order to create a user base, it would be included on all new Apple computers.

About the price however-Keynote is currently $99. If Keynote will be included in the new suite, you already have a price higher then the current Appleworks 6 price. Add in "Document" and the spreadsheet App at the same price point of Keynote......and we are up to $300 or so.

Apple needs to produce these future Apps, either as Appleworks 7 or iWorks. But whatever they decide, they must not screw up the pricing structure. Sell it like an iLife with full integration and Office compatibility at a decent price, and then we have another reason to love Macs.

JMHO.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Give me an Apple Office Suite with


1. Capable Wordprocessor.

2. Keynote

3. Capable Spreadsheet

4. Capable Database

And I'll gladly spend $200

Add

1. Outlining
2. Diagramming

and I just might kill for it or at least severely maim.

 

[King Cobra]

MS Office does have more features than Appleworks 6, flat out.

The purpose of a software company, Apple, is to put out quality Software. Appleworks did not change too much since it was ClarisWorks 5.0. Except for the name change, Apple added Y2K compliance, a few extra features, and made the interface look more like Apple.

Apple has to compete with MS Office if they are going to be recognized. The current uses for Appleworks 6 are plenty and sufficient, but for more high-end users, it just isn't enough. Apple has competed against MS in terms of internet browsing, video software (albeit, iMovie 3.0.1 was a little sketchy, but iMovie 3.0.2 is more responsive), and mp3 software/hardware.

One of the more common areas of usage for a computer is word processing and data analyzing. This is where MS Office has a large advantage. Office can incorporate a vast feature set, as well as hold a high price tag. This is why the upcoming version of "Appleworks", whether or not it is going to be titled Appleworks, will be a large update, but competitive for price.

 

[yzedf]

Not just compete with Office. People already do that, and fail.

Must be compatible 100% with MSOffice. It is what everyone uses as the benchmark. Regardless of whether MSOffice is compatible with itself (Office 2000 is notorious for this amongst different languages).

 

[alset]

With response to price concerns, I think it is worth noting that Office is sold as separate components. I expect that Apple will do the same with this suite. That's not to say you aren't paying a premium for the goods, however you aren't locked-in if you only need one of the apps.

Dan

 

[cubist]

Yeah, well, you can buy Office for $499, and Word or Excel separately for $399, so getting the separate packages is not a great deal. Plus there is this deal right now to get Office with a new Mac for $299.

Now if we are going to insist on 100% office compatibility, because we interwork with PC users, few people will be willing to pay more than $299 for it.

OTOH, office compatibility in Appleworks 6.2 is poor.

Keynote can produce PPT files, can also read PPT files (is this so?), and has unique features that PowerPoint doesn't have. I think this is a good approach to compatibility.

I wouldn't insist on 100% compatibility either - with files that make heavy use of VBA, compatibility isn't going to be very likely. (How does OpenOffice do in this regard?) But I would like it to be a lot more compatible than Appleworks 6.2 is.

 

[Doctor Q]

I find that the AppleWorks word processor has all the features I routinely need. I have to use Word sometimes but I don't when I have a choice. If I'm doing a mixture of text and drawings, I find Word hopelessly nonintuitive and always use AppleWorks drawing. I've used ClarisWorks/AppleWorks since version 2 and have always thought Apple did a good job in selecting the word processing and drawing features appropriate for a low-priced suite.

On the other hand, I find the AppleWorks spreadsheet almost totally useless. It lacks so many conveniences that I use it at most a few times a year, whereas I use Excel many times per week.

But that's the nature of a low-priced suite - the developer picks the tradeoffs and the customers have varying opinions. Overall, I think AppleWorks has been a great value for its price.

If Apple goes head-to-head with Microsoft:

(1) What would be the advantage to iWorks over Office? I assume it would be cheaper that Office but more expensive than AppleWorks. But people who need full compatibility aren't going to jump ship just to save a few dollars. And home consumers and budget-minded students don't necessarily want to pay for more complexity than the current AppleWorks has.

(2) Won't this tempt Microsoft to scale back their Office development efforts, putting at risk the Office document cross-compatibility that assures buyers that Macs are "real" for business purposes?

(3) Will AppleWorks stay in the product line, perhaps as "iWorks Express"? It would be a shame for Apple to drop an affordable product that serves so many so well, but would they really want to maintain two word processors and two spreadsheets?

Apple certainly knows the market better than I do, but I don't understand their strategy with this one.

 

[wdodd]

OpenOffice

I haven't used OpenOffice for anything more than to play around with it, but I was hoping that Apple would support this open-source project. I don't know if the OpenOffice license will allow them to do this, but it would be great if they would optimize the core and then enhance with proprietary apps like Keynote, etc. If they shared the improvements and kept the proprietary extensions, I think they could still realize their goal of creating valuable software that encourages people to buy Mac hardware.

Alternatively, they could work out a licensing deal with Sun for StarOffice and do something similar.

 

[tduality]

Re: OpenOffice

Originally posted by wdodd

Alternatively, they could work out a licensing deal with Sun for StarOffice and do something similar.

Or help out this poor soul.....
(taken from http://marketing.openoffice.org/conference/friday_A.html#fa1330)
Biography: Dan has been doing Mac porting since 1996, and Mac programming since roughly 1994. He is currently an undergraduate student studying Archaeology at Beloit College, but likes OpenOffice.org a lot and that's why he works on it in his spare time. He spends more of that precious spare time working on the OOo build system than he would like, and not enough time working on making OOo into a insanely great, visually attractive, and stunningly fluid Mac OS X application. His ideal job, when he graduates this spring, would be actually getting paid to work on OpenOffice.org for the immediate future.