Previous 1 6 7 8 9 10 Next 1,534 Replies Latest reply: Jan 31, 2015 11:34 AM by Kurt Weber Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • PaulBee Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Gavin Lawrie wrote:


    As goals they are just fine (just one app, cross platform feature set).  But for an existing product it is not OK to do this in a way that disorients and disengages the people who use / rely upon it.  Maybe it is a calculated decision by Apple - but that doesn't make it an OK decision for those adversely affected by it.

     

    It is quite probable that hardly anyone used Pages and even fewer used it as a pro-tool.  But for those that did, a change that appears to 'break' large collections of documents and undermine substantial investments without any warning, and no clear migration path seems a harsh outcome - and one that is unwarranted.

    I totally get where everyone who relied on Pages is coming from on this -- my needs were simple compared to most power users, and there are a few things I'm disappointed are gone, so I'm sure it's much worse for others.

     

    But it does seem to me that Apple made an effort to limit disruption -- specifically by NOT upgrading the iWork apps in place, the way most apps update. If installing Pages 5 erased Pages 4.3 with no hope of recovery, that would be a huge deal. As it is, though, they left us copies of all the existing iWork apps. So there's no real disruption, only a lack of an upgrade.

     

    And yes, users who stick with Pages 4.3 won't get iCloud support moving forward, but I'm assuming power users weren't making massive use of the iOS apps anyway since opening Pages files in iOS permanently broke most things in the file that weren't supported by the iOS app. (And I'd argue that having both apps do less is in many ways preferable to having a sync system that could strip a synced file of elements.)

     

    I guess what I'm saying is that as long as Pages 4.3 remains a viable option, maybe the biggest issue here on Apple's part isn't the features themselves as much as it is communication.

  • mayavirupa333 Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    You have stated the problem very accurately. “Apple wanted…” Exactly. However, there are a lot of “apple users” who wanted all sorts of other things, and over the last ten years, the corporation has become too bloated and diversified to listen properly. Apple took over the music business, the phone business and the pad business. Well done! However, people like, er, me, who liked to do something like, er, DTP, cheaply and simply within the Mac UI - things like Pages were a good idea. It was a clever attempt to straddle WP & DTP - thus the 2 sets of templates.

     

    The natural development of this would be to increase the DTP capability and simplify the WP. The WP could then be applied easily in phone-land and pad-land, while the more sophisticated DTP would satisfy the “lost tribe” of, er, computer users.

     

    In fact, of course, the “lost tribe” were abandoned as falling somewhere between the $3,000 Pro buyers (who can afford software to match), and the mass-consuming phoners & padders who live in the happy world of finger-painting style $5 “apps”.

     

    So iWork was dumbed down for iOS. And now the iOS version is ported to Mac OS in a classic act of top-down market rationalisation.

     

    This sort of creative killing happened in the 80s in the Movie business, once the old tyrannical but visionary studio heads had gone, and the suits had arrived. Which pretty much describes what we saw at that Special Event on October 22nd.

  • enteecee Level 2 Level 2 (315 points)

    This is exactly right.

     

    And directly to Sekoya's Challenge:

    1)  Those goals are worthy ones.  Great ones, in fact.

    2)  A better strategy would have been to delay those goals until they could impliment them well.  Apple is famous for waiting until they get it right before release, so we know they can do it when they care.

    The unfortunate message to be clearly drawn from this is that there are some products that they just don't care about working well and/or some users that they don't care to serve.

     

    It feels sad and ironic to me that after 20 years of showing PC people that I could do serious work on Macs, it's only now that everyone owns an Apple product (or two) that it's really starting to seem like Apple doesn't believe it anymore.

     

    It's wierd to think that Apple employees are putting together their own documents without being able to view facing pages.  Without Mail Merge working well.  They must be using something else, which strikes me as odd.

  • Paul Reading2 Level 1 Level 1 (20 points)

    I am appalled. This is like a schools LITE version. It has totally runied a huge document I was working on and I can't go back. How can Apple treat its customers like this. They knew there would be a fuss because they did not remove iWork 09 during the upgrade process.

     

    This is a disgrace. I cannot add additional pages to the document without doing the whole layout on each page from scratch. In the past I just added a new page from the template chose or duplicated an existing page and modified the content.

     

    I am disgusted by this.

  • Gavin Lawrie Level 2 Level 2 (395 points)

    PaulBee wrote:

     

    I guess what I'm saying is that as long as Pages 4.3 remains a viable option, maybe the biggest issue here on Apple's part isn't the features themselves as much as it is communication.

     

    Sure.  Mostly it is communication.  If Apple had seen fit to run a semi-public beta (much like they did with iOS and OS X) they could have defused much of this, as the pro users would either have tried the beta or heard about it.  But it would also be good to have a path that saw 4.3 upgraded - that it has remained viable over the years since it appeared with barely maintenance upgrades is a testament to how good it was when it arrived.  A few of the changes in 5 are long overdue (e.g. getting RTL text handling to work properly): it is a pity (or perhap ironic) that those people who waited and waited for these upgrades to appear may not now be able to access them (for fear of breaking everything else). 

  • enteecee Level 2 Level 2 (315 points)

    Gavin Lawrie wrote:

     

    it is a pity (or perhap ironic) that those people who waited and waited for these upgrades to appear may not now be able to access them (for fear of breaking everything else).

     

    Exactly where I'm sitting now.

  • cheekyjeremy Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)

    I am completely fine with the new UI. I think it looks great, I just want the actual features to be returned, then it will be an overall improvement

  • enteecee Level 2 Level 2 (315 points)

    Agree- I like the contextually aware Inspector that's no longer drifting in it's own window.  It jsut doesn't have many tools left in it!

  • Kenneth Collins1 Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Yes, it would be an excellent strategy, and it is consistent with their current practices. They have MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. They have iMac and Mac Pro. They had Final Cut Pro and iMovie, they had Aperature, iPhoto, and Preview, and even though they've screwed some of that up for a while, it is clear that it is a good strategy.

  • PeterBreis0807 Level 7 Level 7 (32,860 points)

    Sekoya wrote:

     

    I am sure most of the features will come back over time. This is how it happened with iMovie and Final Cut Pro. The UI won't change back to older one, that direction is set. The feature parity with iOS and iCloud is set and will be retained from now on.

     

    In the mean time, just pretend that Pages 4.x is a 'Pages Pro' that has all the features you like but is not fully compatible with the iOS and iCloud versions. And that Pages 5.x is a Pages Lite that has feature parity with the iOS and iCloud versions. The best of both worlds, those that want a simpler UI and feature parity can get it, those that want the existing feature set (and maybe UI) can have it too.

     

    And consider those two points:

    1. Apple wanted to create and had ideas for how to create an even easier to use Pages. Should they have released a second application called Pages lite? Sounds confusing and messy (how do the two versions of Pages share files if they don't have feature parity?). Or should they have a completely different application (eg, called Letters)? Would be a bit less confusing, interactivity between the two applications would have the same problems. And with Letters having a UI that still has a lot of the Pages one and a lot of feature overlap, confusion would still exist. In particular if some the welcome UI changes would also have been added to Pages as well as to Letters.
    2. Apple wanted to have complete feature parity between Mac, iOS and iCloud, it wanted to have robust synching. Apple wanted to make Pages a multi-user application (synching a document between different locations and having multiple people working on it has quite a few similarities on the implementation side). Apple also wanted a fully touch optimised UI for Pages (on iOS). And it wanted a high-quality in-browser version.

    Is it too far-fetched to assume that implementing all this while retaining all features is quite a complex task? Are any of Apple's goals here not something that has a lot of merit? Yes, ideally all the above would have been achieved with full feature set retainment. But making an intermediate step, ie, releasing a 'Papers lite' application while explicitly not overwriting the existing version, does not have a lot of benefits for the user as all advances (UI, feature parity, collaborate editing) can be had for those that are happy with the feature set of Papers 5.0? The only real complaint against this strategy is that it was not communicated at all (plus things like making it impossible for new users to still get the old version, something that was taken care of with iMovie and to some degree also with FCP) and making the interoperability between the two versions of Pages not as good as it should have been.

     

    But I challenge you to tell me why the goals set out in point (1) and (2) are not worthy goals or why a different strategy to achieve them would have be undeniable better.

     

    Hi Sekoya

     

    Just keep thinking that. Hold the nice thoughts and ignore what is actually there in front of you on the screen.

     

    Peter

  • Kenneth Collins1 Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Personally, I don't care if they find a different way to implement a feature. I do care if a feature is missing or stunted.

  • Kenneth Collins1 Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Yes, you are right. The slogan needs to change from: "Think Different." They've gone past "What Were They Thinking" to "Were they thinking?"

  • Kenneth Collins1 Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Sekoya wrote:

    Interesting, keep using Pages 4.x is suddenly a worse option than using Word? What part of Pages 4.x or Word changed with the release of Pages 5?

    The part of Pages 4.x that changed with the release of Pages 5 is its future. Word has a future, Pages 4.x does not. We eventually have to replace Pages 4.x with something, and that something is not Pages 5, which is not its successor, but an entirely different kind of software with the same name. I'm sure that Pages 5 is delightful, but not for people who need the feature set of Pages 4.3.

  • PeterBreis0807 Level 7 Level 7 (32,860 points)

    Updated Check List

     

    New Pages 5 added, removed or altered features:

     

    Added

     

    + Right to Left text

     

    + Single model templates. No More Word Processing/Layout templates

     

    + Share outside iCloud

     

    + Phonetic Guide for Chinese & Japanese

     

    + Template names can be changed inside the Template Chooser

     

    + Text language is detected automatically

     

    Removed

     

    Select non-contiguous text

     

    Outline view

     

    Customizable Toolbar

     

    135 templates

     

    Capture pages/sections

     

    Drag reorganize pages

     

    Duplicate pages

     

    Delete page

     

    Manage Pages

     

    Subscript/superscript buttons

     

    Select all instances of a Style

     

    Retain zoom level of document

     

    Facing pages


    Layout Breaks


    Layout Margins

     

    Endnotes

     

    Media Inspector links to iPhoto library on external drive


    Media Inspector links to Aperture Library

     

    Alignment Guides

     

    Styles Drawer

     

    Merge Fields


    Drag and Drop VCards

     

    Default Start Up page

     

    Vertical Ruler

     

    Style Function key shortcuts

     

    Bookmarks and Links

     

    Images within Tables


    Mathtype/Grapher Equations/Formulae within Pages

     

    Import Styles

     

    Clean Import of older .pages formatting

     

    User Guide

     

    Search Sidebar

     

    Open Type features

     

    Textbox linking


    Background Object selectable


    Storyboards


    Text to Tables


    Tables to Text


    Tables in Headers/Footers

     

    Word export to iCloud


    Export to .txt or .rtf

     

    Multiple Comments view

     

    T.O.C. clean numbering


    Character Styles  ?


    List Styles   ?


    Selective formating in Character Styles


    Insert File Name


    Search in Media Browser


    Bullet points in comments


    Search comments


    Two up view


    Paste and keep style


    Accented characters in Footer

     

    Mail Merge

     

    Altered

     

    ↪ Pages '09 files previewed on iPad via iCloud are irrevocably converted

     

    ↪ Update is missing for older installations, Apple is reportedly working on a solution via a redeemable code or update on their Support Download site

     

    ↪ Wrap methods have been cut back severely

     

    ↪ Documents reconverted back to Pages '09 lose all template information

     

    ↪ Language set under Edit > Spelling and Grammar > Show Spelling and Grammar now document wide

     

    ↪ Subscript/superscript text is now a convoluted route Gear > Advanced options > Baseline > Subscript/Superscript

     

    ↪ Header appears to be multi-column

     

    ↪ New file format (but still .pages?) not backwardly compatible

     

    ↪ Page numbering method changed

     

    ↪ Template file storage location moved …somewhere?

     

    ↪ AppleScript Library for Pages 5 has changed with many classes and commands removed which indicates how the feature lists have been slashed

     

    ↪ Character Styles are in the Text Inspector under Bold, Italic etc

     

    ↪ Tabbing within Table cells appears to be inconsistent, tabbing internally with numbers.

     

    ↪  Drag and Drop text only works with .txt files now

  • cosmofromwatertown Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Someone needs to be fired (Jonny Ive?). This whole minimalist thing is just stupid. The hubris of doing this is reprehensible.

Previous 1 6 7 8 9 10 Next