Playing Apple's 'Numbers' Game
|
Less than a week after Microsoft delayed Mac Office 2008's launch, Apple released—as in available today—iWork '08. Oh, there's a new spreadsheet application included. |
What's really shocking: iWork '08 supports Microsoft's OOXML (Open Office XML) file formats, a capability Microsoft hasn't yet delivered for Mac Office 2004. That support makes Apple's productivity software more compatible with Office 2007 than Mac Office, which can't meaningfully open or save OOXML files.
This evening, I tested the open capabilities with .docx files in Pages and .pptx files in Keynote. While there was some format degradation in some PowerPoint files (mainly those using Office 2007 SmartArt), content was readable and usable.
Office 2008 vs. iWork '08
Apple's new productivity suite now matches Office 2004 application for application; feature comparison will require more testing. Apple iWorks' Pages, Numbers and Keynote match Mac Office's Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Mac OS X's Address Book, Apple Mail and iCal cover basic features of final Office 2004 application Entourage; iWork is only available for Mac OS X.
For consumers and students, at least, iWork '08 covers all the basics and ensures Office file interoperability. That said, iWork '08 can read OOXML files but, in this iteration, only save them as Office binary file formats; they're the more widely of the two formats used anyway.
This is a huge iWork release that raises the question: Why Mac Office? My previous post on Linux answers that one. Businesses want Office.
But how much longer does Microsoft want Mac Office? The answer to the question is why Apple needs iWork. Businesses—and many consumers, for that matter—buy applications, not operating systems or platforms. Competitively, Microsoft could inflict the most damage against Apple by stopping Mac Office development. There is increasing reason, particularly as Mac and iPod sales soar. To be sure, Windows PCs are in no danger from Macs. But Apple is an increasing nuisance to Microsoft in entertainment and consumer devices; the iPhone is ready to encroach on Windows Mobile turf.
Microsoft has good reasons to want to slap down what it perceives as an annoying gnat. Mac Office would be a good way to do just that. Apple should be prepared, and iWork is a good start.
Late afternoon, today, I drove 15 miles to Apple's first retail store, in McLean, Va., to buy iWork. Apple typically sells software the same day it's announced. Besides iWork, Apple also released its iLife '08 digital media suite and redesigned iMacs. I purchased Family Packs for both products. The Family Pack is a concept long resisted by Microsoft, even with the Windows Vista Family Discount.
The iWork '08 Family Pack is quite a deal: Five licenses for $99, compared with three for the Office 2004 Student and Teacher Edition, which sells for $50 more. Apple also got the product out for back to school, which Microsoft missed with Office 2008. As explained earlier, the addition of Numbers (seriously, no pun intended) makes iWork '08 a more viable consumer or student alternative to Office 2004.
Still, Apple would have done better for back-to-school buyers by releasing a few weeks earlier. K-12 schools in my county start on Aug. 27. Many new and transfer college students will be able to move into dorms the same week, even with classes commencing the first week of September. I'm assuming new iMacs will appeal to the lower grades, while some college students might choose iWork '08 over Office 2004.
It's Your iLife
Apple greatly improved iLife, which hasn't been updated since January 2006. Apple ships the software for free on new Macs, and there has yet to be anything comparable on the Windows PC—nor will there ever be unless Microsoft ships it. Sure, there are media suites like Roxio Creator 9, but they add to OEMs' cost of Windows PCs and reduce margins.
Apple rationalizes iLife development costs as part of research and development. Dell, Gateway and other OEMs must pay extra for comparable Windows software. The iLife suite adds tremendous value to the Mac, for which the customer pays nothing extra.
While Apple has greatly enhanced iLife, some of the most important changes take place on the Web, with increased integration with Apple's .Mac. Two months ago, I emphasized the importance of synchronization, something Apple does a better job of getting right than Microsoft.
Today, Apple increased .Mac storage to 10GB. The service costs about $100 a year. New .Mac feature Web Gallery allows publishing of digital content using iLife '08. Users of Apple's iPhone can post pictures directly to their Web Gallery. The new .Mac feature supports high-quality photos and videos, so that extra storage will get used.
I've been asking Microsoft to support higher quality photos on Windows Live Spaces for years. Better support will come with Windows Live Folders, but that's only available to a small number of testers.
The iLife '08 application iWeb offers more robust Web site creation and new changeable themes. People with personal domains can point them to iWeb, if they're brave enough to edit their cname record.
Both features, iWeb and Web Gallery, rely on at least some synchronization to move content between a Mac (or iPhone) and .Mac.
Microsoft has indicated that synchronization will be an important facility in its forthcoming Web services platform. That's the future, while Apple delivered something today. In fairness to Microsoft, its Web services task is more daunting, simply because of scale.
Where the Apple and Microsoft Web services strategies overlap is approach. Neither is Web 2.0 politically correct because of tight integration between their software and services.
Related Posts:
- What Works?, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 3, 2007
- Mac Office Loses Its Mojo, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 2, 2007
- It's Not iPhone, It's My Phone, Microsoft Watch, July 13, 2007
- An Apple a Day ..., Microsoft Watch, June 11, 2007
- Can Microsoft Be the Wrench in Google Gears?, Microsoft Watch, June 6, 2007
Comments (16)
Wow. This is almost like a paid advertisement for Apple (almost).
For what it's worth, I really wouldn't be surprised if you actually went to the K-12 schools in your area and persuaded students and teachers to switch to Macs.
And this version of iWork will not appeal as much to business as to individuals (I'm sure you'll hate that). Moreover, IT Managers may tell you they want Office. The truth is that it's not just Office. If that was the case, Macs would have had a higher share among businesses. After all, Microsoft does have a version of Office for Macs. So, what's the real reason? It's application compatibility. There are several applications that work only on Windows. Also, the overall cost of managing Windows PCs may be lower than Linux PCs or Macs. That was my version of Joe FUD 8/6/07. Clips? Macro?
Posted by reflections | August 7, 2007 10:54 PM
years from now, we'll all learn of a deal Microsoft and Apple have... to phase out the need for 'Office for the Mac'. Microsoft wants to get outta this, hence their very slow exit from the mac market (5 year commitment was not renewed last time). Also reference MSFT's standardization efforts, in part to ensure Mac office users can always read Office4Windows files.
And the final bit of evidence, is the increasing functionality of virtualization to enable Office4Windows WITHIN the mac os. It negates the need and crazy expenses Microsoft has for such a small audience.
Posted by no more mac office from msft | August 8, 2007 1:28 AM
There's a simple reason why business chooses PC's - the huge cost differential of buying OEM software bundled with them. Mac software isn't available as a low-cost OEM version, and the "value" that Apple provides in the form of a "pretty, shiny box" which accounts for the big difference in system cost isn't worth jack and sh!t to businesses. Businesses want Office, but most won't pay the over-inflated price for a pathetic notebook processor in what Apple would have you believe is a "desktop" system, nor will they pay full retail pricing for Office Mac. Businesses should look elsewhere - there's nothing worthwhile here. Why an IT website would focus on a toy computer made by Fisher Pri...er, Apple, is just retarded.
....and before someone criticizes for the use of the word "retarded" as they have on other boards, may I remind you that FSJ used it (and variations) on a nearly daily basis. Now he works for another fake news site - Fox'rbes.
BTW: 08/08/07 2:01AM EDT Apple Store is DOWN!!
store.apple.com: "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable"
What, are they getting AT&T to run it now??! :D
Posted by Waethorn | August 8, 2007 2:04 AM
Wow, the haters are still out there, sitting in their IT cubes, sipping stank coffee, and staring at that cheapo Dell monitor. Scott Adams had it right when he created the Mordac character in Dilbert
http://tinyurl.com/24opmp
Most IT shops at large corporatons are run by people who equal or exceed Mordac in their zeal.
Posted by Jenny | August 8, 2007 9:49 AM
"It negates the need and crazy expenses Microsoft has for such a small audience."
MS Office is the direct result of the Mac versions of Excel and Word ported to Windows in the mid '90s. Do you remember the DOS version of Word and how totally lame it was compared to Word on the Mac? Did it ever occur to you that without the MBU, Microsoft would never have developed this cash-cow product for Windows?
The MBU is an intelligence operation, funded by Mac customers for the past 20 years. It gives Microsoft "R&D" a window into the most innovative company in the industry. Just another example of Bill Gates' evil genius.
Posted by Ed T | August 8, 2007 11:19 AM
thanks "Jenny" for falling head-first into your own stereotype. Nice work.
Ed T - everybody knows the platform that some of the office apps started on. And here's a hint... it wasn't NEXT (macosx). Your sentimentalities aside, this is a BUSINESS decision. Emotions, like you seem to believe come into play... quite frankly have NO baring on the decision.
Posted by jennys_data_gets_lost | August 8, 2007 12:41 PM
MBU turns a profit every quarter, while gaming & devices have cost MSFT shareholders over $5 billion in losses. Yeah, keeping Office/Mac in the product lineup is one tough business decision...
Posted by Ed T | August 8, 2007 2:54 PM
Ed T, you got it wrong AGAIN. Its not a matter of PROFITABILITY. Every single PROFITABLE company, makes the switch from being concerned about profit/loss... to being concerned about MARGIN. And that, as you'll notice in my original "no more mac office from msft" post... is what is important here.
Profit Margin = Profit / (gross revenue - costs)
When the original poster said "crazy expenses" this is what they were talking about... C O S T S
Posted by jennys_data_gets_lost | August 8, 2007 7:19 PM
Ed T: one more note... in your world... how do you explain a company EVER selling a profitable division? I mean, that happens day in and day out. How do you come to grips with that in your madness?
Posted by jennys_data_gets_lost | August 8, 2007 7:20 PM
I think it's ironic that you talk about "crazy expenses" for the MBU and imply that since it generates less than 75% margins, the MBU should be sold or shut down. The same company's E&D division has $5B in cumulative losses and single-digit margins, and top management tells us this represents an investment in the future, worthy of infinite shareholder patience.
Where is your call to shutter E&D? Madness indeed.
Posted by Ed T | August 9, 2007 4:01 PM
There's a clear picture when you look at MBU's margins. All of the software is available at retail only. Compare that to low-cost bundled OEM software on the PC, and you can see why Office for Mac is making a lot of money.
Posted by Waethorn | August 9, 2007 7:12 PM
Ed T says where is my call to shutter E&D.
I didn't realize this was a set of comments related to an article on E&D. Yep, I just checked the headline again and its clearly not about that. FWIW, close E&D too. Now that I've said that... what do you have to say?
Posted by jennys_data_gets_lost | August 9, 2007 8:20 PM
"Now that I've said that... what do you have to say?"
OK, we agree on one thing! Activities that benefit shareholders should stay, and everything else needs to go.
Like millions of other Microsoft shareholders, I can only watch in horror as Ballmer and his crew run the damn company like a lemonade stand. Billions of dollars are wasted on R&D, vanity initiatives, and ill conceived strategies. The pitiful dividend they pay benefits only the main players, meanwhile the share price is flat-lined.
Posted by Ed T | August 9, 2007 11:11 PM
flat-lined? i wish all my stocks were doing that well this year
Posted by lk | August 10, 2007 5:14 PM
Just to bring the discussion back to iWork. While I have to admit that Apple's done a decent job with it (and I'm one of those few who use both a mac and a PC), it is NOTHING compared to Office 2007. Had Apple released this before Office 2007, I would have said it won hands down over the older office, but with the new one - doesn't stand a chance. It's just nowhere NEAR that intuitive or fast to work with. No Smart-Art, no too many clicks required to do simple things like font and size changes, formatting is a bitch compared to the point and click now present in Office. I now use mostly a mac with Office 2007 for Windows using coherence mode with Parallels. This is the same mistake Microsoft made with Vista - it wasn't as good as OSX, but yet far better than OS9. Didn't cut it.
Posted by Karan | August 14, 2007 9:00 AM
Epic Failure. I can't believe she thought she could buy thousands of dollars worth of iPhones.
Posted by jacobryan003 | August 17, 2007 1:23 AM