Yet another calendar issue

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
109 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

mmatty

---- Paul Atroshenko <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I am glad that tidbits talk does not seem to have any professional film-makers on its list, otherwise the air would be thick and blue with horrible language, as the video pros comment on the latest versions of Final Cut Pro(sumer). I know a few video pros in Sydney and none of them has had a nice word to say about Apple's recent attitude to them.

There are some pro film and video people here. Though I'm not one, I've been working with a post production company that does pro editing. The responses I've heard about the latest FCP are mixed.

Marilyn


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

mmatty
In reply to this post by Dan O'Donnell

---- Daniel O'Donnell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Not all the pros dislike it, some find it to be a major improvement. I
> recently took a 2day training session in LA on FCPX by an Associated Press
> video journalist based out of LA and NYC and he really likes the
> improvements.
>
> http://www.dvworkshops.com/

Another thing that corporations and individuals like is the price of FCPX - $299. Just upgrading any previous version of Avid will cost a lot more, probably a whole lot more.

Marilyn


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Rodney

On Sep 5, 2012, at 17:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Another thing that corporations and individuals like is the price of FCPX - $299. Just upgrading any previous version of Avid will cost a lot more, probably a whole lot more.

I don't pay close attention to video products, and my memory is faulty at the best of times these days, but somewhere around $1,500 for Avid sticks in my mind...




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Yet another calendar issue

George Wade
In reply to this post by Rodney
It is really that  txt  only conveys 1% of what we have to say:   on a good day.  And we don't have time to video conference — so put on a positive pair of ears when reading TidBits everybody.
G.

On 5 Sep 2012, at 04:49, Rodney wrote:

>
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 04:41, "Mark D. McKean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'm just going to bypass all that antagonistic verbiage ...
>
> No problem, but "antagonistic verbiage"??? I honestly have never intended to antagonize anyone.
>
> Hey, I'll cop to "snarky".  I almost never intend to do it, and I absolutely never intend to do it on TidBITS.  I'm usually trying to make a point via an analogy, but then I look back (after it is too late), and discover that yes, it was snarky, and I'm embarrassed and ashamed of myself.  I always promise myself that Ill never do it again, until next time.  You really can't teach an old dog new tricks, I reckon...:-(
....

> I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
>
> Rodney



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Yet another calendar issue

Paul Schinder
In reply to this post by David Ross

On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:50 AM, David Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9/5/12 8:33 AM, Paul Schinder wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:08 AM, David Ross<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/4/12 12:03 PM, Qazwart wrote:
>>>> By the way, how does it break things like CAD documents? Seems
>>>> like you'd must be hitting Command-S all the time. Seems like
>>>> Autosave would save you the trouble.
>>>>
>>>> Where it is broken are people who work on Network drives. There
>>>> Autosave doesn't work at all.
>>>
>>> CAD users are all the time saving to a new name on the office
>>> network server so they can leave the last iteration of the file
>>> intact as they move forward. The do a save as the first step of a
>>> Save As is a huge hassle. And this isn't just a CAD issue. It
>>> applies to most anyone working on huge complicated documents. Which
>>> means it does not apply to the typical user situation. Which is why
>>> Apple is doing it.
>>
>> That sounds to me like the developers of the CAD software are just
>> being lazy and letting Apple choose their save strategy for them.
>> I'm not a Mac OS X developer, so I don't know for sure, but it'd be
>> strange if Apple were preventing them somehow from saving state and
>> archiving old state as they go along (open a file, write it out,
>> close it).  You don't *have* to do it Apple's way, do you?  I for one
>> use a lot of X11 software on my Mac (like xemacs) that doesn't buy
>> into Apple's paradigm.
>
> You dropped my comment that this was more than a CAD issue. It basically applies to anyone working with large complex documents. You can do that in a CAD app or in MS Word. Same issue applies.

Same question applies.  If the Apple way doesn't work for your users, why do it the Apple way?  (Unless, of course, Apple prevents you from doing it any other way.)

>
> And the problem is that Apple changed the operation of a very basic function in a profound way. So software vendors are all scrambling to deal with this. Especially those who have to support SL, L, and ML and more. Which Apple doesn't really do.

I understand that software developers have limited resources, but most have had more time with ML with early releases than the rest of us have.

>
> David
>
>

Paul Schinder
[hidden email]






____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Alex Forbes
In reply to this post by Rodney
Watched the Conan video. Cute! I'm sticking to still images, PhotoShop and Graphic Converter.

Alex Forbes


On Sep 5, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Rodney <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:13, "Dr Digby L. James" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are you sure it was Leno? What about this one.
>
> http://teamcoco.com/video/conan-editors-love-final-cut

You're right.  That was the video I was thinking about.  Thanks!





____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Yet another calendar issue

Qazwart
In reply to this post by David Ross
On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:08 AM, David Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:

> CAD users are all the time saving to a new name on the office network server so they can leave the last iteration of the file intact as they move forward. The do a save as the first step of a Save As is a huge hassle.

Have you thought of using a version control system?

In a certain sense, the "Autosave" is doing that. However, your problem is that it's saving every single change and not just the ones where you have a solid integration.

A version control system would allow you to save particular revisions, and even save a comment on each version. Plus, the files would be shareable since other users could check them out. You also have the ability to "branch" a particular file, so you can try certain things.

I don't know how CAD software works. In software development, files are text so changes can be "merged" from one branch to the next. For example (keeping with the CAD theme), if you branched, worked on the kitchen and living room, decided you like the changes in the kitchen, but not the living room, you could merge the kitchen back to the main branch where someone did work on the master bedroom. Then, on the main branch, you have your new kitchen and bedroom.

You also might want to look at box.com. I never used it, but it might help in your particular situation.

--
David Weintraub
[hidden email]



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Yet another calendar issue

Alex Forbes
My own needs are simpler, so I just periodically "save as" a copy of Pages projects I am working on, manually, for example BIO7.124.pages.

So I can delete or rewrite whole chapters while preserving records of older versions. as author, only I would know when that becomes appropriate.  I would not need to save a version for minor revisions and inserts.

I use the same scheme when I code in Perl. I develop in a protected TEST folder, save versions as I make major changes or rewire existing ones, and finally put the finished code in an appropriate "production" library.

But versioning control systems such as Qazwart discussed, including branching and checkout, are absolutely essential for many very big projects you see, such as in programming shops, and certainly, large or industrial scale CAD projects. They allow workflow control, multiple contributors, the ability to swiftly back out poorly tested changes that don't work as intended (restore to a previous "state"), and prevent loss in some cases of hundreds or thousands of hours of work.

Cheers,

Alex Forbes


On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Qazwart <[hidden email]> wrote:

Have you thought of using a version control system?



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

adamengst
Administrator
In reply to this post by Qazwart
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM, David Weintraub <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why does Pages need an update? It's perfect the way it is ;-).

Oh, don't get me started. :-)

> Apple first came out with iWorks in 2005 which is 7 human years ago and about a bajillion Internet years. At that time, people were beginning to move to Macs and Apple wanted a program to help people make flyers and do word processing. They wanted to write letters and mail them. iWork wasn't going to be a Microsoft Office replacement. It would be for light work to do the tasks that people did at home.
>
> Now, let's zoom forward to 2012 and take a look at what the average computer user does with their computer. They blog, post to Facebook, Tweet, email, store their music and photos, and maybe even some photo editing. Word Processing is way down the list. No one creates flyers -- they post to Craigs List. No one writes letters. Heck, they barely email. You now post on Facebook, Tweet, or text someone.

There's no question that usage patterns have changed, but I would
argue that many of these new things are just that, new. You're not
going to use Facebook to balance your checkbook (much as Mark
Zuckerberg would like that) or use Twitter to produce the flyer for
your kid's school's bake sale. Those tasks haven't changed, and you'll
do the Facebook and Twitter stuff on top of it.

But more to the point, the real world of business hasn't changed
either. In running our company, we still need to use word processing
software, spreadsheet software, accounting software, file transfer
software, network monitoring software, etc. And if anything, our needs
have become more significant over time. And since time is money, we
need to do these things as quickly and efficiently as possible. We
certainly don't even want Apple providing all those tools, but a lot
of the company's moves seemed aimed at making it hard for independent
developers to keep innovating and moving the state of the art forward.

There's an interesting new distinction appearing - the concept of
pipes versus platform (this is the App.net versus Twitter
distinction). The Internet is pipes - technical infrastructure that
anyone can develop for by following agreed-upon technical standards.
But Apple is moving more and more in the direction of a platform,
where if you aren't willing to play by rules that have nothing to do
with technical issues, you can't participate at all. It's less
bothersome with iOS, where the rules were there from the start, but
with the Mac, it's a tough switch.

cheers... -Adam



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

adamengst
Administrator
In reply to this post by mmatty
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:54 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I haven't felt the need for any additional features in a word processing program for about a decade. Since the need to create printed documents, labels, etc. for mailing is greatly reduced (hence the US Postal System's well documented woes), I doubt that there are enough convincing features that could be added to Pages that would convince a big number of consumers to upgrade.

But if you think about creators like us, there are plenty of features
that could be added to a word processor like Pages, such as:

* Collaboration features
* Better/more configurable PDF and EPUB export
* Mobipocket export
* Long document navigation
* Outlining
* Connection with content management systems

Apple certainly wouldn't do many of these, because they wouldn't want
to encourage competitors like Amazon with Mobipocket support, for
instance. But it's still a feature we'd like and would happily pay
for.

cheers... -Adam



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Alex Forbes
The old "Apple Way" would have been to build in a better mobipocket app creator - better than anything else you could get, so that you'd have to buy Pages to create the quality in mobipocket content that knowledgeable buyers became used to expecting.

Alex Forbes

On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:

Apple certainly wouldn't do many of these, because they wouldn't want
to encourage competitors like Amazon with Mobipocket support, for
instance. But it's still a feature we'd like and would happily pay
for.



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Zeedar Marc
In reply to this post by adamengst

On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> a lot of the company's moves seemed aimed at making it hard for independent
> developers to keep innovating and moving the state of the art forward.

I don't mean to be an Apple apologist, and I certainly don't love everything that Apple does (for instance, I could complain that Apple "forced" me to buy a new Mac this summer just so I can run Mountain Lion since all my perfectly good Macs were considered "obsolete" by the company), but I question this viewpoint.

I wonder: how much of this view comes from a curmudgeonly attitude of not wanting change? Do we see today's young generation complaining about how Apple does things? It seems to me in only comes from the older generation, those who've been "supporting" Apple for decades and now feel betrayed and left out of the company's future plans.

Just what, exactly, has Apple done that is so awful? On the one hand, they've added restrictions to publishing software on their platforms, but (mostly) these restrictions are for the long-term good of the users (such as improved security via sandboxing or restricting potentially evil apps on iOS). They've also created a brand new multi-billion dollar development environment, making iOS, and its brother, OS X, the hottest platforms around. I don't see Apple making it "hard" for independent developers or developers not innovating -- I see Apple creating a rich new playground and developers flourishing.

Granted it's mostly *new* developers, as many of the old-timers are finding it difficult to make the transition. (It's obviously a lot easier to build your app from the ground up to support restrictions like sandboxing than it is to retrofit existing apps.) But I don't really see that restricting innovation.

I'm also not sure I see the problem with Apple limiting their software (dumbing it down). The problem is that Apple -- being the size they are now -- *must* go after huge marketshare. They can't just create Pages for Writers or Pages for Editors, they have to create Pages for Everyone. That means it must be simple and easy to use and therefore lacking in some capabilities. The same goes for FCP, iMovie, etc. (You'd think with Apple's size they'd have the resources to do everything, but Apple's best attribute is focus, and dropping support for aging technologies and moving forward is a key part of that.)

I'm not saying I _agree_ with Apple's decision or direction, just that it's understandable. But that's exactly why there are third parties who provide the software that Apple won't.


Marc Zeedar
Publisher, Real Studio Developer Magazine
www.rsdeveloper.com






____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

adamengst
Administrator
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Zeedar Marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I wonder: how much of this view comes from a curmudgeonly attitude of not wanting change? Do we see today's young generation complaining about how Apple does things? It seems to me in only comes from the older generation, those who've been "supporting" Apple for decades and now feel betrayed and left out of the company's future plans.

Oh, heck no. I'm all for change. I want my Macs to make me faster,
more capable, and more productive at the things I need to do to run my
business. I fully understand what Apple is doing, and it may make
sense for their business, but it doesn't make sense for mine.

I don't use Macs for fun or because they're pretty or even because
they don't have as many security issues. I use them because they
enhance what I can create and what I can accomplish. I very seldom use
an iPad for any task beyond testing because it doesn't make me better
at anything I need to do.

Of course, I'm weird. I don't watch much TV, and I don't watch many
movies, and I never play games, and I spend next to no time on
Facebook, and when I read books, I prefer physical books that I can
lend to friends and family. What I do on the Mac is work, specifically
in the publishing industry, and that's what I haven't seen Apple
working to improve in any real way, or in ways that are better than
what has been available from other sources for some time.

iBooks Author is a perfect example - it could be a great program, but
instead, Apple made something that's worthless in a real-world
publishing environment (it's basically single-user and has no
collaboration features) and then made it even more worthless by
requiring that any commercial books made in it be sold only through
the iBookstore. It might make sense for them, but it makes no sense
for me.

cheers... -Adam



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Alex Forbes
"But it works for us!" is what happened to DEC, Sears, Kodak, Motorola, Sun and so many more. Scary!

On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:

… It might make sense for them, but it makes no sense
for me.



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

mmatty
In reply to this post by Zeedar Marc

---- Zeedar Marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Just what, exactly, has Apple done that is so awful? On the one hand, they've added restrictions to publishing software on their platforms, but (mostly) these restrictions are for the long-term good of the users (such as improved security via sandboxing or restricting potentially evil apps on iOS). They've also created a brand new multi-billion dollar development environment, making iOS, and its brother, OS X, the hottest platforms around. I don't see Apple making it "hard" for independent developers or developers not innovating -- I see Apple creating a rich new playground and developers flourishing.
>

In addition to this, Apple is probably very aware of the disappointing sales of the last few iterations of Microsoft Office. One of the big reasons Windows Mobile & Windows Phone 7 turned out to be enormous disasters is because MS bent over backwards to enable them to run on outdated and cheap hardware, and nobody wanted to write apps for them either. Windows 7, Vista, etc. weren't anything stockholders would consider big successes either. If I remember correctly, the revenues of just iPhone were more than double of all of Microsoft's.

> Granted it's mostly *new* developers, as many of the old-timers are finding it difficult to make the transition. (It's obviously a lot easier to build your app from the ground up to support restrictions like sandboxing than it is to retrofit existing apps.) But I don't really see that restricting innovation.
>

For more than a few years, MS has stumbled because they did not focus on innovating. Neither did Nokia or Motorola, and the phones these companies released in the last few days have had less than stellar reviews. Nokia's shares got hit with a big blow in the stock market:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443819404577633352198554784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
> I'm also not sure I see the problem with Apple limiting their software (dumbing it down). The problem is that Apple -- being the size they are now -- *must* go after huge marketshare. They can't just create Pages for Writers or Pages for Editors, they have to create Pages for Everyone. That means it must be simple and easy to use and therefore lacking in some capabilities. The same goes for FCP, iMovie, etc. (You'd think with Apple's size they'd have the resources to do everything, but Apple's best attribute is focus, and dropping support for aging technologies and moving forward is a key part of that.)
>
> I'm not saying I _agree_ with Apple's decision or direction, just that it's understandable. But that's exactly why there are third parties who provide the software that Apple won't.

I don't think they are exactly dumbing down; they aren't spending money or time on developing something that will most probably have limited sales. And while they are far from abandoning the Mac, Apple has been focusing on where the market is exploding - mobile. Sales of Macs have been doing OK mostly because of demand via owners of iOS devices.

Marilyn


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Qazwart
In reply to this post by adamengst

On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's no question that usage patterns have changed, but I would
> argue that many of these new things are just that, new. You're not
> going to use Facebook to balance your checkbook

Checkbook? What's that?

Back in the 1980s, I bought Quicken because between my wife and I, we wrote over 100 checks per month. We each had our own checkbook and a third checkbook we used to pay bills. The monthly act of reconciling our check book took hours. (There's an old joke about reconciling your checkbook by doing it three times and taking the average).

Last month, we wrote four checks. Reconcile the checkbook? We get constant updates of our account on line from our bank. There's no longer a need to reconcile our bank account. Heck, we got rid of Quicken a couple of years ago when we updated to Snow Leopard and Quicken no longer worked. We realized we never missed it.

Quicken once was a make or break program for the Mac. Jobs had to beg Intuit to keep the Mac version of Quicken alive if Apple had any hope of surviving. Now, I don't even know if they still have a Mac version.

> But more to the point, the real world of business hasn't changed
> either. In running our company, we still need to use word processing
> software, spreadsheet software, accounting software, file transfer
> software, network monitoring software, etc.

Apple a few years ago, Apple made a play to the corporate world. There was the Xserver, but Linux and cheap PC servers made it impossible to compete. There's no profit to be made in Corporate sales.

iWorks was never really an alternative to Microsoft Office although I suspect that Apple at one time was thinking of heading in that direction. Now, Apple is putting there efforts into social integration. iWorks gets updates, but it'll be a while before it gets a major overhaul. Maybe if Microsoft stopped making Office for the Mac.

A friend who works at a major PC manufacturer told me that about only 20% of consumer PCs are sold with Microsoft Office on them. And most of those are "student editions". If it wasn't for their corporate sales, I doubt if Microsoft would make any money on Office.

> There's an interesting new distinction appearing - the concept of
> pipes versus platform (this is the App.net versus Twitter
> distinction). The Internet is pipes - technical infrastructure that
> anyone can develop for by following agreed-upon technical standards.
> But Apple is moving more and more in the direction of a platform,
> where if you aren't willing to play by rules that have nothing to do
> with technical issues, you can't participate at all. It's less
> bothersome with iOS, where the rules were there from the start, but
> with the Mac, it's a tough switch.

The Mac is an interesting problem for Apple:

• Although sales are way up, it isn't a major contributor to the bottom line. Resource now go towards iOS.

• Most people who by the Mac now come to it from iOS. These are consumers who look for a "platform".

• Now the Mac is selling, it's become a security target. Apple has a reputation for lack of malware, but that was mainly by default and not for excellent security.

What we see on the Mac is Apple using what they learned in iOS about security and applying it on the Mac to protect those very nontechnical consumers that make up the vast majority of Mac users. The tight sandboxing on the Mac store makes it hard for me, but nice for my Mother.

As I said, I don't like the direction Apple is taking. I need the geeky stuff. But if I ran Apple, I'd probably make the same decisions.

--
David Weintraub
[hidden email]



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

George Wade
In reply to this post by mmatty
Revolutions are complex events to attempt living through or even to 'Stumble Upon'.  One of the best ways is to appear to have taken charge.  I'm waiting for one of Lu's pithy signature lines to explain the next seven cornered cross roads.

But were I younger I'd develop something with a team.  As I'm older I'm studying by video and taking notes in an outliner.


George


On 6 Sep 2012, at 14:52, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> ---- Zeedar Marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just what, exactly, has Apple done that is so awful? On the one hand, they've added restrictions to publishing software on their platforms, but (mostly) these restrictions are for the long-term good of the users (such as improved security via sandboxing or restricting potentially evil apps on iOS). They've also created a brand new multi-billion dollar development environment, making iOS, and its brother, OS X, the hottest platforms around. I don't see Apple making it "hard" for independent developers or developers not innovating -- I see Apple creating a rich new playground and developers flourishing......
>>
>
> In addition to this, Apple is probably very aware of the disappointing sales of the last few iterations of Microsoft Office.
...................

> I don't think they are exactly dumbing down; they aren't spending money or time on developing something that will most probably have limited sales. And while they are far from abandoning the Mac, Apple has been focusing on where the market is exploding - mobile. Sales of Macs have been doing OK mostly because of demand via owners of iOS devices.
>
> Marilyn



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Alex Forbes
In reply to this post by Qazwart
I still use a recent Quicken for Mac. Runs great on ML. But I admit I'm hopelessly behind on reconciling my accounts.

Alex

On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Qazwart <[hidden email]> wrote:

Quicken once was a make or break program for the Mac. Jobs had to beg Intuit to keep the Mac version of Quicken alive if Apple had any hope of surviving. Now, I don't even know if they still have a Mac version.



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

Dave Clark
In reply to this post by adamengst



On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Adam Engst <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Now, let's zoom forward to 2012 and take a look at what the average computer user does with their computer. They blog, post to Facebook, Tweet, email, store their music and photos, and maybe even some photo editing. Word Processing is way down the list. No one creates flyers -- they post to Craigs List. No one writes letters. Heck, they barely email. You now post on Facebook, Tweet, or text someone.

My business relies heavily on Pages for legal word processing.  This includes pleadings to be filed (sometimes E-Filed) and Emailed to other lawyers, clients, and hopefully never printed except by the judge's clerks. This task is being done by tens of thousands of lawyers across the country, most of whom use Windoze and Word, but many like me are using Macs and Pages.  

I thought Apple had given up on the legal market, but now that I've solved the formatting problems, I can pretty much ignore Word except for a few odd tasks.  

On the other hand, if WordPerfect for Mac suddenly became a reality and worked in Mt Lion, I'd move to it in a heartbeat.  We can all dream.  

Dave Clark
From my iPhone
949-639-9418


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Apple doesn't need us (was Re: Yet another calendar issue)

David Ross
In reply to this post by Qazwart
On 9/6/12 7:18 PM, Qazwart wrote:
> Last month, we wrote four checks.

I'm not sure I wrote 4 checks in the last year.

I don't count the ones I order via my bank for things like the mortgage
via their online payment system.


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
123456