Thanks, that was helpful. But I'm very concerned about the new Photos app. At least one of my clients has masses of photos (around 150Gb) which she clearly doesn't want all to be in the cloud. Will it be like Mail, in that you can store some in a sort of IMAP, and the rest on the local machine? Or am I going to have to store the other photos in another app, like Picasa?
I suspect that, like iWorks, you will have a choice where your photos are stored, and likely may be able to choose to have some stored in the cloud and others stored locally.
Obviously, though, we won't know for sure until the new Photos is released.
It seems almost unthinkable that they would force all photos to be stored on iCloud. But there are other examples of Apple assuming everyone has infinitely fast Internet connections (e.g. installing GarageBand on multiple computers requires downloading many gigabytes for each) so I guess there's a small chance. With my rural DSL Internet connection that would make it unusable for me. It would make it unusable for a lot of people besides me and for a lot of different reasons, though, so I'm remaining optimistic.
Spending the 20 bucks for Mac OS X Server and turning on the (Software Update) Caching Server on one of your machines would probably be worth it. It also caches the app store for Mac and iOS.
iMovie 10 for OS X and Final Cut Pro X share the same core with alternate user interfaces for different users.
The interesting development will come when iMovie on an iPad will be able to edit a Final Cut Pro library shared via iCloud.
Metal will allow Apple to implement their Motion app for newer iOS devices. Why? Because there's a copy of Motion built into Final Cut and iMovie for OS X. It is there to do clip compositing and effects.
Why run Final Cut on an iPad - because a Continuity feature will be to make simple changes in iOS before going on to make changes in OS X later.
TL;DR iOS-ification means continuity between iOS and OS X devices
Apple has crippled iWork a lot. There are no more layout documents in Pages. The new iWork should have been named iWork light. In many aspects it's much worse than the old AppleWorks. Apple has a long tradition to radically stop legacy support. One needs to have old computers to ensure access to old documents. Very bad style.
There ARE layout documents in Pages 5. They just aren't called that.
To make one, simply disable Document Body in the Document panel of the Document Setup inspector.
Maybe, but several other features are gone, e. g. import of AppleWorks documents. iWork never became a true successor of AppleWorks. Pages 4.6 in some aspects is still behind it. And there is no database, no drawing. Worst of all, the file format is not documented. One can't easily write replacements. Legacy support by Apple is very bad.
True: Apple has never made legacy support a priority, and I have been bitten on more than one occasion by that lack of support. This unfortunate Apple habit does not make me happy; see, for example, "Rosetta and Lion: Get Over It?," 23 May 2011 — http://tidbits.com/article/12191
However, as I have just spent more than a week documenting the drawing capabilities of Pages 5, I must disagree with your assertion that Pages has no drawing—in the Mac app, at least: just click the Shape icon on the toolbar and then click Draw with Pen, or, alternately, choose Insert > Line > Draw with Pen.
Yes, there is drawing, but not as good as in AppleWorks. And no import of AppleWorks drawings (MacDraw, ClarisDraw would also be fine, and svg )
Agreed. The latest version of Pages has 628 ratings in the App store, and more than half give it one star out of 5. Pages 4 met the needs of vastly more users than Pages 5 does. Those users are either staying with Pages 4 or migrating to LibreOffice or Nisus.
Killing users' files is THE most hostile habit Apple has.
I am finally jack of it after 30 years with Apple. No more. Anybody who trusts Apple with their work is a massive fool and deserves everything that will happen to them.
I sincerely wish PC users had to throw out or redo as much work as I have been forced to do over the years of Apple's 180° changes of direction, all cloaked with the predictable NewSpeak.
An early version of OSX even trashed my AppleWorks Tax files. Now THAT cost me!!!!
Definitely! There was absolutely no reason to dumb down iWork Mac to make it appear "seamless" with iWork iOS. A more competent job would have been to "smarten up" iWork iOS so it would work with the ORIGINAL iWork: iWork Mac. But it seems the GOOD Mac OS programmers have left the building, and all that is left are the "wannabes" who started out programing iOS. Along with the "iOS0zation" of Mac OS, Apple is slowly turning the Mac into non-upgradable platforms as shown by the release of the first new iMacs which can't even have the RAM upgraded (unless you pay Apple's extortion price). With the vast improvements Windows has made (8.1 looks to be the best yet) it is time to consider it as an alternative after 30-plus years with Apple.
Layout without TextBox linking? …no, merging Textboxes is NOT linking.
After struggling with repeatedly trying to recreate a very efficient series of Travel Guides I had constructed in Pages '09, I gave up on Layout documents as beyond a joke.
I did that - thinking that the layout would change ...
but it removed the 'document box' that contained all the text - GONE. No option to save a copy. I closed without saving - TOO LATE. Now I am hunting for an older copy 'somewhere' on my backups. Trying to stay in P09 and experiment with Pages 5. Not comfortable with it.
I am not a power use. Very average I would say - I use my Mac for browsing the internet, Facebook, email, using iTunes for my music, using iPhoto to manage my photos. Occasionally I will use one of the iWork apps - lately mostly Pages. When I got Mavericks a Pages update was prompted, for version 5.0 which I promptly downloaded thinking it was an "upgrade" to version 4.3 which I had been using. Thankfully this "upgrade" didn't delete my version 4.3, because later on I went and read the comments from all the prior 5.0 version users of Pages that had suddenly had an app that wouldn't do most of the, admitidly, power user things that they were used to from the software, and therefore had a dumbed-down application. Apple says they are adding again features. Will those power users get all their tools back in future updates? What happens when Pages 4.3 is finally unsupported. My fear is that Apple will do this with Photo, give us an app that doesn't have the power of it's replacement.
My only disagreement with what you say is the phrase "dumbed down", which implies that Apple has deliberately removed features to make the app more appealing to the less intelligent or sophisticated. That is not what is happening. "Less capable" is more accurate, and the reason is because the app has been rebuilt from the ground up and a lot of features are missing simply because they weren't a top priority for the initial releases.
There are, in fact, some surprisingly non-"dumb" (that is, power-user) features in Pages 5. That they aren't the same features as the ones that are currently missing is a separate issue.
I have a (very short) list of improvements in Pages 5.
I am curious as to your view of what are improvements.
Enough to balance everything that doesn't work, or screws up?
I no longer use Pages. I produce weekly large files (this week over 800 pages) consisting of research and articles. I depended on bookmarks to be able to easily access all that material. No longer. And the app just wants to control everything like Word does.
I have left Pages behind and am a very happy user of Nisus Writer Pro. But in order to access previous documents (they are sermon research, added to every 3 years via the lectionary cycle) I have to open in Pages, export in Word, open in Word and copy past to Nisus in order to preserve the bookmarks. Something is horribly wrong here.
While I understand what you are saying about Pages, I cannot help but feel it is a "dumbing down" action - the program has lost its power in significant ways.
The loss of Appleworks support. The inability to save or open RTF's (to send files to others). The loss of the bookmarks. All of these are valuable resources for one who uses a word processor for heavy work.
BTW I look forward to you book on Pages! Thank you.
The book is already available as a pre-book, and, when you buy it, you get a free update each time I add new material. It has already received four updates since its initial release, and I expect to have a new update ready shortly.
Just a question about Pages 5: In Pages 4 the outliner has a serious bug, because there are only headings and one «Text» styles. No other non heading styles. Has this issue been solved?
Yes. But not in any way you'd like: Pages 5 doesn't offer any outlining mode whatsoever.
However, if you are looking to make hierarchical lists, Pages 5 does offer very powerful list styles which include hierarchical and tiered numbers, but no outlining mode where you can collapse or expand an outline into a document.
If you really want a writing tool (not a publishing tool) that offers robust outlining and planning capabilities, and that lets you look at your document as text, outline, or note cards, I suggest you look at Scrivener.
Very sad! I liked this feature in AppleWorks since its introduction in Version 4. Together with hierarchical styles this made AppleWorks much more powerful than Pages.
I appreciate your perspective AND I empathize with people with large photo collections and sophisticated graphic arts needs. We are a giclee shop and have a huge collection of images, mostly artwork scans and photos, all of which we edit for color accuracy in printing. We chose Aperture over Adobe LightRoom because of our commitment to Mac products. iPhoto is so limited compared with Aperture, it is hard to imagine that a merging of the two is going to provide the same support for professional graphics that Aperture does. Are core features of Aperture needed by graphic arts professionals going to be made available to novice photographers mostly interested in social networking? These seem like hugely different audiences. Apple has made a point of trying to compete with LighRoom. Is that posture going to continue? Is Aperture leaving commitment to professional image management behind?
Mike, I'm a pro photographer and I've used Aperture since early beta. I am comfortable enough, plus there's no viable alternative, so I'll wait and see what Photos is like. I also think it will be a real winner for consumers and prosumers. That said however I will not be using iCloud and I have no intention of doing ANY content creation with iOS. I use an iPhones and iPads extensively, on a daily basis, but only for content viewing, email, etc. time will tell, but I'm not thrilled.
If one of the features they remove in the transition from iPhoto to Photos is facial recognition, I'm all for that. Talk about a huge time waster. The least they could do is provide an option to turn it off.
This article is an exercise in moving the goalposts. It argues that iWorks hasn't been "dumbed down," it's only "lost features" (a semantic distinction at best) for the sake of document integrity with the iOS version.
So okay, document integrity may be a nice thing, but this leaves me with a couple of obvious questions. 1) Why is it inconsistent with a robust feature set? 2) If for some reason that trade-off *is* necessary, why is Apple confident that more users want cross-device consistency than want robust features?
I like my iPhone, but as others have noted, it's a device for viewing content, not creating it. And if Apple's strategy is built around getting us to put everything in the cloud, well, sorry, but I prefer that my documents live on my own hardware.
Frankly, there's a trend the last few years. It's not just iWorks. iTunes 11 was NOT an improvement on 10.7. iPhoto 9.5 was NOT an upgrade. iMovie 8 was NOT an upgrade. Even OSX has been downhill since 10.6. It's disturbing.
Yes, it IS a semantic distinction: that is, a distinction in meaning. ;-)
But, to answer your two questions…
1) Cross-device data integrity is not inconsistent with a robust feature set. But developing a robust feature set does take time. The latest iWork apps are all brand-new apps; they may share the names of their predecessors, but they are not built on the same code base, nor do they use the same data architecture. For that matter, while iWork apps may be missing a number of features from previous versions, they do have some powerful features. Take a look at what you can do tables and charts, or lines and shapes, for example, in Pages 5—fully functional spreadsheets and complex interactive charts within a word processing document are hardly features aimed at novices, nor are vector graphics with bezier curves.
2) What makes Apple confident that users want more cross-device consistency in their apps? The number of devices sold and currently in use: several hundred million iOS users vs. fewer than 80 million Mac users. These days it is far more likely for people to come to the Mac from iOS than the other way around.
Personally, I'm disappointed at the absence of some very useful features in the new iWork apps. But I also understand what Apple is attempting to do with those apps and am interested in seeing how they will evolve. Meanwhile, I have other apps, from other vendors, that I can use on my Mac, apps that DO have the features that I need.
Historically, Apple has never used its apps to corner the market for any particular software niche, but to do two things: 1) to demonstrate and promote the capabilities of its hardware and OS technologies, and 2) to provide new Apple users with devices they can use immediately right out of the box. With the latest iWork, Apple is continuing that tradition.
Mike, I believe your statement in 2) is spacious. We all know that an extremely high percentage of Smartphone users simply use them as a phone... especially Android-based phones. I suspect a very large number of iPhones are in use with little more than the apps they came with. Furthermore, most of these apps never get used. I suspect many don't even get updated. As you say, the huge success of the iPhone has brought in an enormous number of new users... users with little or no experience with Smartphones or computers for that matter. They may add a few games, but they are hardly power users.To them it's just a cell phone. To me, Apple is hell bent on developing complete cross-platform compatibility for an audience that, for the most part, couldn't care less.
Gee, if only Apple sold a different type of mobile device in quantities of hundreds of millions, something more suited than a smartphone to content creation, like, say, a tablet or a pad…oh, wait…
I disagree. Aperture was already falling way behind Lightroom in features to the point I was strongly considering my some 120,000 images to Lightroom. This type of app has moved from being a image management tool to being where most image manipulation occurs without using Photoshop which has a destructive workflow. Lightroom has continued to add features like lens correction and layers while Aperture and IPhoto haven't added much except being able use eithers library. Aperture in my opinion is a much better image management tool but a much worst image manipulation tool. I can't see the new photo being better in either functional area. And all these articles saying the lost functionality will be covered by 3rd parties I "what the heck". They already do. I use perfectphoto and NIK plugins for aperture, Lightroom, photoshop etc so this us already here. I'm not happy with Apple and I think all photographers should push hard on Apple. The real agenda is to sell us on cloud storage at a $.
My frustration is going from a single file to the package format, which is VERY easily corrupted in a 10.9 server environment. I consider the current iWork to not be usable in many environments, which is tragic.
I am happy to thump chests on this.
Pages 5.2 is severely dumbed down [110 missing features, many crucial, and a never ending string of bugs].
The iOSification refers to the SHIFT from the Mac UI to a much more iOS UI. The fact that Apple hasn't gone 100% of the way to iOS is no plus. If they had at least it would be consistent . It isn't.
So now you have how many UIs?
The previous version/s which have the merit of running on all platforms, although Apple made it impossible on iOS 7 to maintain formats and synch and multiple v5s.
iWork for iCloud is a thorough kludge and deserves its beta moniker. The only place Apple was honest with its users. All the other versions it was not honest just how many problems there were with the launched version and all the many (incompatible) upgrades since.
The multiple versions with their shifting formatting as you go from one to another, dual install on Macs and bad Export to Word and PDF are an ongoing pain and never ending confusion for users.
Surely the problem was the iOS version taking liberties with the data. Apple could have fixed that without altering the OS X version of iWork.
I have 40+ years experience building robust maintainable software and find it hard to comprehend what looks like incompetence.
"Looks like" ≠ "Is." Unless you have seen the older iWork code base and data formats, you (and I) can only speculate about the competence of the current development team.
What competent programmers launch a completely new set of applications, mostly auto installed and don't tell users:
That it damages their files then automatically saves over them?
Installs parallel copies of the applications which users frustratingly open alternately to enormous confusion?
Knowingly has an enormous number of features missing, therefore the cut-down templates, but doesn't tell the users.
Has duplicate parts of the UI still floating around
Has a long list of serious bugs that they haven't even done basic checking for.
Just by sweeping through the UI, took me an hour and a bit, I discovered a great majority of these on first opening. That suggests they hadn't done this elementary testing. Much of the rest also strongly suggests that the last thing they had on their mind was the users and the consequences to their work.
Apple support was still misreporting what happened months after the event which shows they had no better idea than the users what had happened.
Unfortunately, Dropbox for iOS does NOT understand the new scheme. If you change a file on your Mac, your iPad will never know about the update.
Dropbox is aware of the issue and told me they weren't going to fix it.
Not just DropBox, all 3rd party servers.
Apple has not clarified the package structure which seems to be a house of cards waiting for a passing butterfly's wings to send it over.
does anybody know how I can reinstall what Apple now calls Pages 09 to my computer so I can delete the present disaster and be able to continue do use the previously valuable program?
If you had the previous version of Pages on your Mac when you installed Pages 5, you still have it unless you manually deleted it; installing Pages 5 does not remove any of the iWork ’09 apps. The older version of Pages should be in your Applications folder, inside the iWork '09 folder. Just launch it like you would any other app.
Unfortunately, I deleted it. I have it on my Macbook Air, though. Any advice will be most appreciated! Thank you.
Try copying the Pages 4 app from your Macbook Air to your other Mac. Unless you deleted the system framework files used by the iWork 09 apps, it should work.
DON'T delete the Pages 5 app, though; you'll need it to export any of your Pages 5 files back to Pages 4 format.
Thanks for the help. I am using a new computer but found the Pages from my backup disk of my former computer had a copy and brought it over. Now I can successfully open years of Pages documents without fear of lost data. Many thanks.
Speaking of opening old Pages documents, does anyone know of a way to search the disk for Pages documents that are too old for Pages 5 to open? I don't want to be out of luck someday when Pages '09 isn't compatible with the latest OS X and I need to open a document that I haven't opened in a long time.
Maybe do a Finder search for Pages documents with modification dates prior to October 2013?