Previous 1 69 70 71 72 73 Next 1,534 Replies Latest reply: Jan 31, 2015 11:34 AM by Kurt Weber Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • Tristan Hubsch Level 2 Level 2 (210 points)

    Taken from <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6049?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>,

    In rewriting these applications, some features from iWork ’09 were not available for the initial release. We plan to reintroduce some of these features in the next few releases and will continue to add brand new features on an ongoing basis.

    [Emphasis TH]

     

    Just thinking out loud: Two or more textboxes (incl. the "text column"-boxes from a layout for a newsletter or such) and/or shapes can be "Unite"-d—while they are on the same page, whereupon text inserted into one of these objects will flow into the other; not sequentially, but making (I believe, correctly for the "Unite" function) the union of objects behave like one irregularly shaped and even discontiguous textbox. However, I have not figured out how to trick Pages 5.0 to "Unite" such objects accross two or more pages (to mimic the DTP linking of textboxes). Perhaps Apple could include that as one of the "brand new features"?

     

    By the way, should you find this useful: if you rotate a textbox, and then unite it with another (unrotated) textbox or shape, the text will be reflown horizontally throughout the united irregular-shaped textbox—which you can now rotate as a whole.

  • enteecee Level 2 Level 2 (315 points)

    Given the way they have worked in the past, I expect that many of what they consider "brand new features" will be new ways to accomplish funtionality that we had with previous features... if you catch my pedantry.

  • Peter Thomson Level 2 Level 2 (350 points)

    enteecee wrote:

    This is how they try to do things: under-promise, over-deliver.  not that they always succeed at that, but it does seem to be a part of their secrecy.

    As we know from this upgrade! Over-promise, under-deliver!

     

    I was at first excited to see a response, but agree with Tristan Hubsch that there is not much in the list with regard to DTP. The reason I moved from Word to Pages was because Word always felt like a WP with elements of layout added on top. Pages worked like they started with layout as a base. It made more sense and was intuitive to use for DTP. I'll be sending my feedback to Apple based on their announcement.

     

    I'm not a developer, and I recognize that it is an incredibly complex process. But isn't this Apple? Aren't they supposed to be committed to excellence? If they were going to make a big announcement, why wasn't it up to par? I expect more based on who they say they are and what they say they stand for. Some people may think I've been drinking too much kool-aid, but over the years, Apple products have worked well for me. Based on this experience, I do have a certain level of expectation. This too I am communicating to Apple. Here's hoping that Apple resurrects Pages as a solid DTP solution for all who have used it as such.

  • montcley.jean Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I do catch ...

    Let's hope you are seeing righht !

    Jean.

  • KiltedGreen Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Pages didn't have mail merge until about the 3rd version as I recall but many still found it incredibly useful. That doesn't make up for the removal of the feature but some of us here found Pages superb from iWork '06 and it just got better and better. Until now.

     

    We have all been forcibly and unwillingly regraded to some non-existent earlier version, but I still find that even Pages 5 can do a lot of things (unless you compare it with 4.3) and I for one find file compatibility with iOS to be a major advantage of V5. The iPad is not a toy ( http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/profiles/ ) and to be able to edit OS X documents on my iPad is very useful indeed. I realise that many here have no interest in iOS at all and so such a change carries no weight at all and may draw ire for being seen as the reason as the loss of features in the OS X version. However, as an earlier post of mine pointed out, file parity in and of itself need not cause "dumbing down" of the OS X version that was a different design/timescale/whatever decision mande by Apple.

     

    And as for "under promise and over deliver" - that's what any software company with a brain would do. Over promising and under delivering doesn't win prizes in anyone's books as this iWorks fiasco clearly shows and Apple have clearly been well and truly bitten.

     

    As for the features Apple are putting back, it makes sense to return the most requested features with the least effort in the shortest timescale. They may not be the features that you want but as any developer will tell you, you can't have them all back at once unless you want to wait even longer. The will prioritise and their priorities may well not be yours. C'est la vie.

  • Kenneth Collins1 Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    No conspiracy.

     

    They released NewPages 1, because it is functional, but not full-featured. It's very unusual to upgrade software and leave the previous version fully functional on the disk. That means they left Pages 4.3 on the disk for people who need the features that aren't in NewPages 1. They thought that would be enough, but they had no idea how we were using Pages 4.3. We rightly panicked, which they did not anticipate, and they realized that they needed to reassure us. We should not take their notice as a complete list of future features, just the ones that are next.

     

    That notice means that Pages 4.3 will be around until Pages 1 contains at least the same functionality.

  • cosmofromwatertown Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Newpages 1............. seriously?

     

    I agree, no conspiracy. But more likely designed by a bunch of twenty-something 'gee wiz' kids who have more regard for videogame-like performance than professional functionality. The features aren't there because they didn't think they were important.

     

    What's driving Apple is money - they thought they could target a younger crowd with a more hip, minimalistic interface. The only thing motivating them now is the 1 to 2 star rating in the app store generated by forums like this. Their recent announcement is a consession merely to slow down the degrading approval ratings. They see the future of the product eroding if they can't establish a foundation of users. They are merely tossing a bone otherwise they would commit to professional features, not just what's easy to incorporate.

     

    I also have no sympathy for the plight of software developers who feel they have some divine mission to push the envelope, yet release an unfinished, broken program to a chorus of self-generated acclaim. Again, seriously? There are people out there with real tough jobs, military, doctors, construction workers, police, fire.... No responsible professional fishes for this kind of acclaim and sympathy. If something similar would happen, they would apologize and do everything they could to make it right.

  • cosmofromwatertown Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    "It's very unusual to upgrade software and leave the previous version fully functional on the disk. That means they left Pages 4.3 on the disk for people who need the features that aren't in NewPages 1."

     

    Oh, really?

     

    Then why isn't Pages 4.3 available for download in the app store?

  • PeterBreis0807 Level 7 Level 7 (32,475 points)

    But Kenneth the only acceptable "pairing up" of Pages 5 and Pages '09 would be the one where they could freely open other's files without screwing them up.

     

    That is the massive problem Apple has manufactured. Out of no-where and without warning.

     

    What is the point of parity between Pages 5 and Pages for iOS7 when there is no such parity with its predecessor, not even a tidy progression!

     

    And lost in the debris of this "upgrade" is what happens in this four cornered mosh pit, with work that has to be submitted and received from the much larger world that runs MsOffice?

     

    Software has a purpose. Pages '09 had a purpose and mostly hit its targets. We were all hanging out for an upgrade that sharpened its tip and got it to hit the rest.

     

    Instead we now have software that only has some vague promise, no specific purpose other than to exist on more than one platform, and a bent tip.

     

    Apple broke the legs on the race horse because they didn't fit Apple's new smaller horse float. Now after some delay it has posted a notice to everyone who had put money on Pages, that they have called the vet.

     

    This horse still can't run, has no prospect of running for a long time, and even if and when it gets back on the track won't have its old form.

     

    Apple has made no announcement as to what it really intends. Is Pages, when it recovers, just going to pull the milk float, or be sent to the knackers yard? At that point will there be anyone left who even cares?

     

    Peter

  • robogobo Level 2 Level 2 (290 points)

    All speculation. You have no eveidence for any of this, and it's a horrible metaphor. 

    PeterBreis0807 wrote:

     

    Apple broke the legs on the race horse because they didn't fit Apple's new smaller horse float. Now after some delay it has posted a notice to everyone who had put money on Pages, that they have called the vet.

     

    This horse still can't run, has no prospect of running for a long time, and even if and when it gets back on the track won't have its old form.

     

    Apple has made no announcement as to what it really intends. Is Pages, when it recovers, just going to pull the milk float, or be sent to the knackers yard? At that point will there be anyone left who even cares?

     

    Peter

  • gto49us Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    There is a lot of speculation and opinion here, and the discussion is really accomplishing very little. We all agree Apple made a "mistake" with Pages 5.0, well, at least the Pages 4.3 users do. Until we hear and see something from Apple, we are just spinning like "tops out of control."

     

    Apple seems to want to appease its Pages users by adding back some of the features of the old Pages, but 6 months in the life of any Apple product is a long time. In the meantime, I'll continue to use the old Pages until it won't work for me anymore, which may be a long time...maybe not. Then I'll find something else.

     

    When I think back to what I used ages ago - all the word processors I've used since I started using computers in the '70s under MS-DOS...wow!

  • montcley.jean Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Sad to say I do agree with your point of view ...

     

    All this is making many of us much uncomfortable.

     

    Jean.

  • Hirschkorn Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Kenneth Collins1 wrote:

    It's very unusual to upgrade software and leave the previous version fully functional on the disk.

    Umm... yeah. That's what Microsoft or Adobe do: whenever they upgrade the Office or Creative Suites, they strip off half of the stuff professionals use, and then reassure them through an open letter: "Duuude, chill, we'll add most of those in a future update. Why the long face?"

  • PeterBreis0807 Level 7 Level 7 (32,475 points)

    Evidence for a metaphor robogobo?

     

    Are you 10000% sure there is such a thing?

     

    Peter

  • Tristan Hubsch Level 2 Level 2 (210 points)

    gto49us wrote:

     

    There is a lot of speculation and opinion here, and the discussion is really accomplishing very little.

     

    Too true—and all too frustrating: There exists a non-negligible number of people who came to rely on Pages 4.3 functionality in their profession, and who—owing to the dearth of solid information—are forced to base their decisions on suppositions and past experiences with discontinuation of Apple software, hardware and services. Yes, I know that Pages 4.3 has not been erased from my machine by the Pages 5.0 upgrade, but so was the iDisk with its web-hosting capability available for about a year before the final flick of the switch, and so was AppleWorks (with its database functionality) allowed to run for a while by virtue of the transitioning patch before the OSX upgrades finally flicked that switch too, and so on.) So...

     

    gto49us wrote:

     

    [...] 6 months in the life of any Apple product is a long time. In the meantime, I'll continue to use the old Pages until it won't work for me anymore, which may be a long time...maybe not. Then I'll find something else.

     

    ...sadly, yes for many: find something else. The 6-month timetable for regaining a small fraction of lost abandoned functionality and no explicit indication as to when the rest of the functionality may be regained (which in itself may well be regarded as an implicit indication: "pfff...forget it") may well have been stated as "never."

     

    For what it is worth, assigning any human emotion/intent (from malice to magnanimity, from cavalier carelessness to contemptible conspiracy, ...) to a corporation is bound to waste time, to say the least. Using that time to find a substitute program that: (1) can do the things you need, (2) to which you can convert your previously created documents, and (3) which will hopefully provide a more stable working environment may well prove more effective.

Previous 1 69 70 71 72 73 Next