 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / April 2007iLife/iWork anytime soon?
Aloha everyone, I was thinking of purchasing iLife and iWork, but was waiting for June, assuming that they would be release around the same time as Leopard. Now, knowing that Leopard has been delayed until October, I'm in a bit of a quandry. While I don't think they'll be bundled into Leopard, part of me still thinks that they'll be released in conjunction with Leopard. Obviously, only his Steveness and a few other people at Apple Inc. really knows for sure, but I was wondering if anyone here has an idea of whether of not we have a chance of seeing them earlier. I'm thinking of just buying it now anyway - Keynote, which blows PowerPoint right out of the water, is worth the price all by itself! HawaiiMacAddict > Aloha everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > part of me still thinks that they'll be released in conjunction with > Leopard. Me too. My gut feeling is that all three products will be released in October, though iLife/iWork might be delayed as late as the next MacWorld so that Steve has something new to show off. It is likely that the next release of iLife and iWork will take advantage of new features in Leopard. It is unclear yet whether they will require Leopard. If so, they obviously can't be released before Leopard is available. I think it is more likely that they will work on a late version of Tiger but some new features will require Leopard. Even if they don't require Leopard, but some major features are only available if you are running Leopard, then this means Apple cannot release the new versions of iLife/iWork until all features they depend on (in Leopard) have been publically announced. They seem to have a new policy that a paid upgrade is required whenever hidden features are revealed (as for the 802.11n support in Core 2 Duo Mac models), for accounting purposes, but this might only apply to hardware rather than software. This suggests that IF Apple announce all Leopard features at WWDC (June), then that will be the earliest point at which iLife/iWork can be released. If there are still some unannounced features in Leopard (used by iLife/iWork) then iLife/iWork would not be released until Leopard is out. If there are significant new Leopard-dependent features in iLife/iWork, they might decide to hold them back anyway, so they can do a big splash and demonstrate the new features, rather than keep people waiting with promises of new features in October. On the other hand, selling a copy of iLife or iWork with pending new features is even more likely to encourage someone to upgrade to Leopard to be able to access those features. Another factor is the rumoured inclusion of the new spreadsheet application in iWork. The more time they have to polish it (and other new features), the more stable the initial release can be. Delaying iWork until after Microsoft Office 2008 is released (August?) might also give them a chance to tweak a few features to improve iWork, or to add support for importing Office 2008 documents.  SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > Delaying iWork until after Microsoft Office 2008 is released (August?) > might also give them a chance to tweak a few features to improve iWork, > or to add support for importing Office 2008 documents. Or just kick some MS Office a.s... ;-) Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > Me too. My gut feeling is that all three products will be released in > October, though iLife/iWork might be delayed as late as the next > MacWorld so that Steve has something new to show off. > > It is likely that the next release of iLife and iWork will take > advantage of new features in Leopard. There has even been speculation that it might be included in Leopard. Anyway I do look forward to the spreadsheet - then I might not even need NeoOffice anymore. Marc SignatureSwitzerland/Europe <http://www.heusser.com> remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@cheersheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> wrote: > > Me too. My gut feeling is that all three products will be released in > > October, though iLife/iWork might be delayed as late as the next [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Anyway I do look forward to the spreadsheet - then I might not even need > NeoOffice anymore. I read that speculation as "there might be a bundle which sells Leopard plus iLife plus iWorks for a reduced price" (compared to buying them separately). This is not the same thing as including it "in" Leopard. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@cheersheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > This is not the same thing as including it "in" Leopard. Where did you read that? I have not seen anything like that anywhere, I am am quite well informed since computing is both my job and my hobby. If Apple did bundle iWork and iLife with Leopard, it would go against its previous history of how it sells that software. I also suspect it would piss off Microsoft, which is not in Apple's best interest. Even now, Apple does not give iWork away free, even on brand new Macs. There's no guarantee that Apple won't break with tradition, or perhaps some Apple resellers will offer such a bundle on their own, but only time will tell and I suggest no one hold their breath waiting for that to happen. > > Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@cheersheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Where did you read that? One of the rumour sites. Hunting... <http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0704leopardjune.html> Also referenced here (from the earlier ThinkSecret article). <http://news.softpedia.com/news/More-To-Leopard-Than-Just-The-OS-51070.s html> > I have not seen anything like that anywhere, I am am quite well informed > since computing is both my job and my hobby. If Apple did bundle iWork and > iLife with Leopard, it would go against its previous history of how it > sells that software. I also suspect it would piss off Microsoft, which is > not in Apple's best interest. I have seen some people suggesting iLife/iWork could be "included in" Leopard (as in Marc's earlier comment), i.e. if you buy Leopard as a retail product (at the normal price, about what we're paying now for Tiger), you would get iLife and iWork with it. I think this is highly unlikely in the case of iWork (for reasons of competition). It seems a little more plausible for iLife, as Apple used to include iTunes, iPhoto and iMovie in retail copies of Mac OS X (up to 10.3), but Tiger only includes iTunes. The "in Leopard" speculation appears to be based on misinterpretation of the ThinkSecret rumour, possibly combined with the usual distortion involved in gossip. When I read the above rumour on ThinkSecret, I interpreted it as Apple selling an additional cost bundle which includes Leopard, iLife and iWork. If the products sell for US$129, US$79 and US$79 individually (total cost US$287), they might do a special bundle where you could buy all three for something in the order of US$210 to US$250, giving a significant discount on the total price but still costing a lot more than buying just Leopard by itself. If this does happen, I'd expect it to be a limited time offer. Retailers do this sort of thing all the time. Any competitor worth their salt should react by offering a similar discount. Microsoft makes a packet on Office, so I'm sure they could afford a limited time discount to encourage new sales of Office 2008 rather than having potential customers move to iWork. I have a low opinion as to the accuracy of this rumour. It seems rather dubious since it came as part of a confident rumour of Leopard being released in June, just days before Apple officially delayed it until October. > Even now, Apple does not give iWork away free, even on brand new Macs. > > There's no guarantee that Apple won't break with tradition, or perhaps > some Apple resellers will offer such a bundle on their own, but only > time will tell and I suggest no one hold their breath waiting for that > to happen. Apple is the main retailer for their own products, so if there is any truth to this rumour, I'd expect the bundle to be through all of Apple's sales channels. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > > Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@cheersheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > <http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0704leopardjune.html> That thinksecret article is wrong with regard to when Apple will release Leopard, I suggest people not put a lot of stock on its other claims, especially since it was published only a sort time before Apple announced that Leopard will not be released until October. > Also referenced here (from the earlier ThinkSecret article). > > <http://news.softpedia.com/news/More-To-Leopard-Than-Just-The-OS-51070.s > html> The softpedia article references the thinksecret article as its source, so I also suggest it not be given a lot of credibility. You have, in effect, cited only one article and the first article is clearly of dubious credibility in my humble opinion. > > I have not seen anything like that anywhere, I am am quite well informed > > since computing is both my job and my hobby. If Apple did bundle iWork and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > retail product (at the normal price, about what we're paying now for > Tiger), you would get iLife and iWork with it. I have seen no such thing, but the reality is, we'll just have to wait to see how this pans out when Apple actually tells us the full details of the next versions of Mac OS X, iWork, and iLife. > I think this is highly unlikely in the case of iWork (for reasons of > competition). Exactly. > It seems a little more plausible for iLife, as Apple used to include > iTunes, iPhoto and iMovie in retail copies of Mac OS X (up to 10.3), but > Tiger only includes iTunes. I don't ever recall Apple including iLife apps (except iTunes) for free with any Mac OS X version and I have used every Mac OS X version since the public beta first came out. > The "in Leopard" speculation appears to be based on misinterpretation of > the ThinkSecret rumour, possibly combined with the usual distortion > involved in gossip. Exactly, which is why speculation is usually not worth the bytes that are used to form it. > When I read the above rumour on ThinkSecret, I interpreted it as Apple > selling an additional cost bundle which includes Leopard, iLife and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If this does happen, I'd expect it to be a limited time offer. Might be. Like I said, only time will tell. > Retailers do this sort of thing all the time. Any competitor worth their > salt should react by offering a similar discount. Microsoft makes a > packet on Office, so I'm sure they could afford a limited time discount > to encourage new sales of Office 2008 rather than having potential > customers move to iWork. I might be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any Apple reseller bundle iWork, iLife and a Mac OS X upgrade together, but it is a very good idea. > I have a low opinion as to the accuracy of this rumour. It seems rather > dubious since it came as part of a confident rumour of Leopard being > released in June, just days before Apple officially delayed it until > October. Most rumor sites tend to be wrong, so I don't begrudge you your low opinion on the accuracy of this rumor. > Apple is the main retailer for their own products, so if there is any > truth to this rumour, I'd expect the bundle to be through all of Apple's > sales channels. I agree. Offering a discounted package deal for Leopard, iWork, and iLife is a great idea. Keep in mind, that Apple might do something its never done before, which is to release new iLife, iWork, and a new Mac OS X, all at the same time. In the past, Apple has not released a new OS version at the same time as a new iLife and iWorks version, so who knows what Apple will do this time in terms of pricing. Further, Apple can conceivably release iWork '08 and iLife ;08 in June before releasing Leopard in October. It is possible that some features in the new iLife and iWork versions might be tied to the new iPhone, which is due for a June release. > Further, Apple can > conceivably release iWork '08 and iLife ;08 in June before releasing > Leopard in October. It is possible that some features in the new iLife > and iWork versions might be tied to the new iPhone, which is due for a > June release. I wish Apple would stop putting calendar years into iWork and iLife like that. "iLife '07", "iLife '08", etc. It creates the impression that after that year passes, the software won't be worth much anymore and is now obsolete. (Same goes for Intuit and Quicken) I mean, is there something wrong with simple version numbers? 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc. That doesn't tie them down to any specific year. Signature"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!" - Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings' > I wish Apple would stop putting calendar years into iWork and iLife like > that. "iLife '07", "iLife '08", etc. It creates the impression that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I mean, is there something wrong with simple version numbers? 1.0, 1.5, > 2.0, etc. That doesn't tie them down to any specific year. Then don't fall into that thinking and you'll be fine. Ever heard of "marketing"? > > Further, Apple can > > conceivably release iWork '08 and iLife ;08 in June before releasing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > after that year passes, the software won't be worth much anymore and is > now obsolete. (Same goes for Intuit and Quicken) Really? Perception is reality, but that's not something that's ever occurred to me. > I mean, is there something wrong with simple version numbers? 1.0, 1.5, > 2.0, etc. That doesn't tie them down to any specific year. Six of one, half dozen of another. Its really just a name for a suite of software; so I don't care how Apple names its versions because the numbering system has nothing to do with functionality. > > Further, Apple can > > conceivably release iWork '08 and iLife ;08 in June before releasing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > after that year passes, the software won't be worth much anymore and is > now obsolete. (Same goes for Intuit and Quicken) Who says they're calendar years? > I mean, is there something wrong with simple version numbers? 1.0, 1.5, > 2.0, etc. That doesn't tie them down to any specific year. What's wrong with the numbers 05 and 06? SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > I wish Apple would stop putting calendar years into iWork and iLife like > > that. "iLife '07", "iLife '08", etc. It creates the impression that > > after that year passes, the software won't be worth much anymore and is > > now obsolete. (Same goes for Intuit and Quicken) > > Who says they're calendar years? iLife '04: introduced at Macworld Conference & Expo, 2004 iLife '05: 2005 iLife '06: 2006 'Nuff said, really. Signature"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!" - Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings' > I wish Apple would stop putting calendar years into iWork and iLife like > that. "iLife '07", "iLife '08", etc. It creates the impression that > after that year passes, the software won't be worth much anymore and is > now obsolete. (Same goes for Intuit and Quicken) Although I'm no marketing expert I've wondered whether this is a good or a bad thing for sales. Microsoft do this with Office and it always strikes me that if you wish to buy Office 2004 (which I think is the current one I might be mistaken) then if all feels rather out-of-date although in reality of course it doesn't make much difference. SignaturePatrick - Brighton, UK If you wish email me from my web-site: <http://www.patrickjames.me.uk> Inventory service in Sussex: <http://www.inventoryworks.co.uk> > I wish Apple would stop putting calendar years into iWork and iLife like > that. "iLife '07", "iLife '08", etc. It creates the impression that > after that year passes, the software won't be worth much anymore and is > now obsolete. (Same goes for Intuit and Quicken) It creates that impression for _you_. For me, it just makes it very easy to know about when that version was released. Then again, when a client asks me whether something of theirs is obsolete, I ask them if it's still capable of doing what they want it to. By that definition, someone's copy of iLife '04 is no more obsolete than my 2004 Prius is right up until they want to use it for something that requires a newer version. Signature<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers <http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift > > One of the rumour sites. Hunting... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > especially since it was published only a sort time before Apple > announced that Leopard will not be released until October. I quite agree. I was just commenting on another instance of the distortion of this particular rumour. > > Also referenced here (from the earlier ThinkSecret article). > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > effect, cited only one article and the first article is clearly of > dubious credibility in my humble opinion. Yes, I knew that. > > It seems a little more plausible for iLife, as Apple used to include > > iTunes, iPhoto and iMovie in retail copies of Mac OS X (up to 10.3), but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with any Mac OS X version and I have used every Mac OS X version since > the public beta first came out. My "10.3" in the paragraph above was in error. On further reflection I realised that it was actually 10.2. When I've installed Jaguar from the retail CD set on an empty hard drive, the computer ended up containing copies of iPhoto 2 and iMovie 3, so those applications are installed as part of Jaguar. I haven't done a Panther install recently from retail CDs, but I expect they don't include iPhoto and iMovie, since iLife was already available as a retail product when Panther was released (but wasn't when Jaguar was released). The Tiger retail CD/DVD set definitely doesn't include iLife components (other than iTunes). In any case, I think it is extremely unlikely that Apple will go back to including all of the iLife applications as part of the standard retail Mac OS installation. iLife is now a separate product which has grown substantially since Jaguar and is worthy of being sold separately. There is a possibily of a higher priced bundle which includes Leopard and iLife (and iWork). SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz >>> One of the rumour sites. Hunting... >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > There is a possibily of a higher priced bundle which includes Leopard > and iLife (and iWork). Well, even though this is mainly for "fun", as I am the only one in my worksite that uses a Mac, I decided to go ahead and buy the Tiger version (using the prrojected new naming version) of iWork (I got the Tiger version of iLife when I bought my Macs - one good thing about switching only last August). Of course, once I see the Leopard version, I may just go ahead and buy that one as well - as a matter of fact, I'll probably just HAVE to buy it hehehe :D It will be very nice indeed - I, for one, can't wait for Leopard to be released, and knowing that the new iLife and iWork suites will incorporate Leopaard features makes me even more impatient for their release as well! >I don't ever recall Apple including iLife apps (except iTunes) for free >with any Mac OS X version and I have used every Mac OS X version since >the public beta first came out. It was included with my wife's iMac though. > >I don't ever recall Apple including iLife apps (except iTunes) for free > >with any Mac OS X version and I have used every Mac OS X version since > >the public beta first came out. > > It was included with my wife's iMac though. right - ilife is bundled with new macs. it is not bundled with os x. > >I don't ever recall Apple including iLife apps (except iTunes) for free > >with any Mac OS X version and I have used every Mac OS X version since > >the public beta first came out. > > It was included with my wife's iMac though. iLife is included on all new Macs; always has been since the first version. > > Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@cheersheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Where did you read that? (First: I am not David or Marc...) I believe it was on ThinkSecret a couple of weeks back. > I have not seen anything like that anywhere, I > am am quite well informed since computing is both my job and my hobby. > If Apple did bundle iWork and iLife with Leopard, it would go against > its previous history of how it sells that software. I also suspect it > would piss off Microsoft, which is not in Apple's best interest. Read the posting carefully: He says they may be a bundle which _sells_ Leopard plus iLife plus iWorks for a reduced price". That is not the same as "bundling it withXX", which generally implies "for free" (or no _extra_ charge, anyway). > Even now, Apple does not give iWork away free, even on brand new Macs. Only on brand new Macs in fact. Not with the OS. > There's no guarantee that Apple won't break with tradition, or perhaps > some Apple resellers will offer such a bundle on their own, but only > time will tell and I suggest no one hold their breath waiting for that > to happen. That is very true. Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > > Even now, Apple does not give iWork away free, even on brand new Macs. > > Only on brand new Macs in fact. Not with the OS. It came installed on my MacBook Pro, but only demo versions, not the full meal deal. SignatureI am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end. - Margaret Thatcher > > > Even now, Apple does not give iWork away free, even on brand new Macs. > > > > Only on brand new Macs in fact. Not with the OS. > > It came installed on my MacBook Pro, but only demo versions, not the > full meal deal. Sorry - my bad. Missed the "not". iLife comes on new Macs, iWork not (or only in demo versions). Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > > > > Even now, Apple does not give iWork away free, even on brand new Macs. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sorry - my bad. Missed the "not". > iLife comes on new Macs, iWork not (or only in demo versions). Ayup. The demo version of iWork comes on a separate disc with the current version of Tiger. SignaturePaul Sture >Read the posting carefully: He says they may be a bundle which _sells_ >Leopard plus iLife plus iWorks for a reduced price". That is not the >same as "bundling it withXX", which generally implies "for free" (or no >_extra_ charge, anyway). What I'd like to see is a bundle that sells upgrades to all of these bundled. > What I'd like to see is a bundle that sells upgrades to all of these > bundled. Considering that Apple hasn't offered upgrade prices on any of these individually, I'd say the odds of seeing such a bundle are nil. Signature<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers <http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift >> What I'd like to see is a bundle that sells upgrades to all of these >> bundled. > >Considering that Apple hasn't offered upgrade prices on any of these >individually, I'd say the odds of seeing such a bundle are nil. Probably - but bundling them with the OS when people buy our computer is fairly new. If Apple is now thinking that they are part of the basic computer, a group upgrade might work as well. Also, as more iLife programs are being made available for Windows, Apple might want to make it easy for Mac users to have the latest and greatest. > Probably - but bundling them with the OS when people buy our computer > is fairly new. And is just a rumor on one website... Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > more iLife programs are being made available for Windows What iLife app, other than iTunes, runs on Windoze? > Apple might want to make it easy for Mac users to > have the latest and greatest. They have already done that. It's called the Apple Store. <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore> Grab your credit card. I can't imagine anything easier. Signature:) JR PowerMac G4 MDD 1.25 SP Mac OS X 10.4.9 >> more iLife programs are being made available for Windows > >What iLife app, other than iTunes, runs on Windoze? From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be iPhoto. But Apple likes rumors. >> Apple might want to make it easy for Mac users to >> have the latest and greatest. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Grab your credit card. I can't imagine anything easier. I expect lots of people won't bother to upgrade these applications - unless they're bundled with their OS-X upgrade. But I'm not an expert on marketing, the Apple folks should look at what people actually do, and see how it fits in with their goals. > From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be > iPhoto. From what I've read, anyone who believes things like this is missing a screw. > > From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be > > iPhoto. > > From what I've read, anyone who believes things like this is missing a > screw. If they develop an iPhoto Store, maybe. But don't bet on it. Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > If they develop an iPhoto Store, maybe. But don't bet on it. Um, they have one - for all intents and purposes - it's the ability to order prints and photobooks directly from iPhoto, no? SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > > If they develop an iPhoto Store, maybe. But don't bet on it. > > Um, they have one - for all intents and purposes - it's > the ability to order prints and photobooks directly > from iPhoto, no? No. Because there is no - or very little - business in it for them. It is a fundamentally different business proposition. The iTunes Store is a way for Apple to sell their hardware and services while hopefully making a $ or two in the process as well. Now if Apple had reinvented the digital camera cum viewer and owned that market the way they do with digital music players, then an "iPhoto Store" might have served the purpose of pushing contents for those viewers (i.e., pushing Apple hardware which they really make money off). As it is, iPhoto for Windows would make it less advantageous to own a Mac compared to a PC, and Apple would lose $$. So I guess I should have said "develop an iPhoto store AND reinvent the digital camera". Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > > If they develop an iPhoto Store, maybe. But don't bet on it. > > Um, they have one - for all intents and purposes - it's > the ability to order prints and photobooks directly > from iPhoto, no? But that's not the same as buying 99 cent songs. The iPhoto store allows one to print THEIR photos in a calendar, photo album, etc. but the cost is a hell of a lot more than 99 cents; and the effort to compose and design the printed content falls upon the user and its a lot of work. I printed a photo album consisting of photos of my sister's wedding and it was an ordeal that took me at least 200 hours for 80 photos, and the better part of two hours to upload the high resolution pdf that iPhoto creates. This is not something people do on a frequent basis like many do with iTunes purchases. > From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be > iPhoto. But Apple likes rumors. Interesting idea - might make for another ongoing revenue stream for Apple, as folks buy prints and photobooks via iPhoto, but is that a win or lose versus potential mac sales that don't happen because folks can now use that app without a Mac? They made that calculation for iTunes(and iPods) and it was a huge winner. I wonder how big Apple's revenue via iPhoto print sales are. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be >> iPhoto. But Apple likes rumors. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >versus potential mac sales that don't happen because >folks can now use that app without a Mac? I don't know how many people buy Macs because of iTunes either. But lots of people shy away from Macs because they don't believe it has applications. Reminders that some very good applications are on Macs first might be a good marketing tool. I take these rumors with a grain of salt - but they are fun to talk about. Decisions like this are marketing decisions. >They made that calculation for iTunes(and iPods) and >it was a huge winner. I wonder how big Apple's >revenue via iPhoto print sales are. I wonder if the Mac like look for iTunes helps more or hurts more. Trying to click the blue bar and hitting the application behind can bother Windows users. I've seen Mac users complain that Mac Firefox looks like Windows. Well, Windows iTunes looks like Macintosh. > I've seen Mac users complain that Mac Firefox looks like Windows. > Well, Windows iTunes looks like Macintosh. I wonder how they managed that? Macintosh iTunes doesn't look like Macintosh. > Well, Windows iTunes looks like Macintosh. That's debatable. >> Well, Windows iTunes looks like Macintosh. > >That's debatable. It is gray, has buttons on the bottom left, no blue bar at the top - it's a lot closer to the Macintosh look than to the Windows look. > It is gray, has buttons on the bottom left, no blue bar at the top - > it's a lot closer to the Macintosh look than to the Windows look. And with the funky, etched-in menu at the top of the playback window it looks like some kinda PC crap. Hence the word "debatable". >> It is gray, has buttons on the bottom left, no blue bar at the top - >> it's a lot closer to the Macintosh look than to the Windows look. > >And with the funky, etched-in menu at the top of the playback window it >looks like some kinda PC crap. Hence the word "debatable". Well, on Windows machines, they can't separate it from the application window. > >> It is gray, has buttons on the bottom left, no blue bar at the top - > >> it's a lot closer to the Macintosh look than to the Windows look. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, on Windows machines, they can't separate it from the application > window. No, really!??? > > From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be > > iPhoto. But Apple likes rumors. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it was a huge winner. I wonder how big Apple's > revenue via iPhoto print sales are. My guess is minimal. It is more a way of making it more desirable to own a Mac because you can use iPhoto for all your photo needs. Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc >They made that calculation for iTunes(and iPods) and >it was a huge winner. I wonder how big Apple's >revenue via iPhoto print sales are. Of course, iTunes is free. It has to make money elsewhere. iPhoto could make money for Apple in the same way as Office Mac makes money for Microsoft. How do we start a sentence with "iPhoto" or "dBase"? > How do we start a sentence with "iPhoto" or "dBase"? Same way as with "van Doorn"? No-one starts - or ends - a sentence with dBase any more though, do they? Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc > > From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be > > iPhoto. But Apple likes rumors. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it was a huge winner. I wonder how big Apple's > revenue via iPhoto print sales are. Not really? The only reason iTunes exists on Windows is to provide Windows users with the ability to purchase content from the iTunes store. Apple gives away iTunes to Windows and Mac users; it doesn't make a dime from that software; but it makes a bundle from people who use iTunes to buy content from the online store. iPhoto, on the other hand would not bring Apple any benefits by giving it away to Windows users and I highly doubt Apple would offer it for sale to Windows users. One thing that distinguishes the Macintosh from Apple's competitors is iLife, so why would Apple remove that distinction by offering it to Windows users? That makes no sense. > > > From what I've read, their next app to be ported to Windose will be > > > iPhoto. But Apple likes rumors. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a dime from that software; but it makes a bundle from people who use > iTunes to buy content from the online store. Not quite true. The Windows version of iTunes predates the iTunes Store. The original reason was to get Windows users to purchase iPods. MusicMatch just didn't provide the degree of interplay that Apple felt necessary to make the iPod attractive to a broader market of Windows users. > iPhoto, on the other hand would not bring Apple any benefits by giving > it away to Windows users and I highly doubt Apple would offer it for > sale to Windows users. One thing that distinguishes the Macintosh from > Apple's competitors is iLife, so why would Apple remove that distinction > by offering it to Windows users? That makes no sense. I'll agree with this analysis at present. That doesn't mean Jobs/Apple doesn't have something up the sleeve to make iPhoto on Windows a viable proposition at some future date. SignatureSpenser > > Not really? The only reason iTunes exists on Windows is to provide > > Windows users with the ability to purchase content from the iTunes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > necessary to make the iPod attractive to a broader market of Windows > users. nope. windows itunes was announced at the same time the itunes music store was announced, in april, 2003. it shipped later that year. In article <marc.heusser-E4F965.13164021042007@news.unizh.ch>, Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@cheersheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> wrote: > > Me too. My gut feeling is that all three products will be released in > > October, though iLife/iWork might be delayed as late as the next [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Anyway I do look forward to the spreadsheet - then I might not even need > NeoOffice anymore. Just as Appleworks and iPhoto were included with my iBook (a consumer model, but IIRC not the professional models at that time) I would not be surprised to see iLife and/or iWork to be bundled with new systems. I don't think the full suites would come with Leopard. I too have put off upgrading to the latest iWork on the grounds that a spreadsheet may be in the offing. SignaturePaul Sture > Aloha everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > thinking of just buying it now anyway - Keynote, which blows PowerPoint > right out of the water, is worth the price all by itself! Neither Tiger, nor any of the previous Mac OS X versions included iWork or iLife bundled in, so I doubt Leopard will change that. I suspect Apple will release new versions of both software suites in June, but only Apple knows for sure. Your choice is actually very simple. If you need the software now, buy it now. If you can wait before buying it, wait. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.