Updates to new iWork will restore some old features, Final Cut-style

Apple will be bringing back some missing features over the next six months.

Read the whole story

 

[Torrijos]

Well I still am pretty happy to suffer from the "not the correct Apple ID" bug.

 

[iguanarama]

It would be possible for Apple to not roll back features when they decide to try a different approach or user interface in some software. And yet this happened with iMovie a few years ago, and then again in Final Cut, and now again.

For me, they tinker a bit too much with software when there's a user base of learned behaviour and expected functionality. It's different to not having so-called essentials like cut-and-paste at launch in an iPhone: features like AppleScript support were there, relied upon, and then removed. They can do better at this *and* explore new interface designs. Those are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ogreboy]

This happened with iMovie first. Then FCP. Now iWork. Clearly it's Apple's preference to raze their stodgy old apps to the ground, to have them reborn in a modern form.

It's painful for the early adopter, but the fact that they're able to pull it off over and over is impressive. Painful for a bit, like every other razing, but the long term gains are huge as they ramp up on building new features off the base.

This makes for an exciting future of complete feature parity between the Desktop, Mobile and Cloud versions of iWork. None of the three will ever be the 'gimped' version. You'll always be using the full suite. That's nice. And worth this small-term sacrifice.

It must be the envy of many software companies that Apple can keep up this cycle of re-doing their apps, getting its users in an uproar, and then calming them down as they (per plan) carefully add back secondary features. It seems to work and it's in everyone's best long term interests.

I do feel for those affected by it, but at least the old iWork apps are still usable.

 

[Aaron Priven]

First they came for iMovie, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use iMovie...

 

[emag]

iguanarama[/url]":703a7sm4]It would be possible for Apple to not roll back features when they decide to try a different approach or user interface in some software. And yet this happened with iMovie a few years ago, and then again in Final Cut, and now again.

For me, they tinker a bit too much with software when there's a user base of learned behaviour and expected functionality. It's different to not having so-called essentials like cut-and-paste at launch in an iPhone: features like AppleScript support were there, relied upon, and then removed. They can do better at this *and* explore new interface designs. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Would you rather that Apple hold off on releasing a rewritten and significantly improved (for most users) version until all the corner-case features that a small minority of users depend upon are re-implemented?

I disagree. Customers who need those features are free to continue using the old software until the new software meets their needs. For everyone else, having the new software available as soon as possible is of real benefit.

 

[7t9]

Lets not forget Quicktime X

 

[redtomato]

I think the issue here is one of keeping the customer informed. Compare:

"Hey we're going to release a total rewrite of the software you depend on. It'll be better and faster. We want to get it out there quickly so not all the features will be there, but once the core has survived wide release , we'll start bringing the features back and adding more amazing stuff. Are you depending on a feature not yet in the rewrite? Don't panic! You're completely free to carry on using the old software free as long as you want, as long as the new rewrite doesn't meet you needs."

with:

" This is the new shiny. Everyone will get it. It will replace your old shiny. It is good. You will use it.* "

.
.
.

* [hidden feature: many things missing in the new shiny** ]

** [hidden hidden feature: the old shiny is actually still there, hidden in a folder somewhere that we haven't told you about ***]

*** [hidden hidden hidden feature: actually we're gonna start adding some things back in after a while.]

 

[Oelph]

I don't think this is painful for anyone really. Apple have made sure the old apps are left behind, so people can continue to use those and skip the upgrade for now. At the end of the day no one has really lost anything, and Apple are able to harmonise and refresh the product line with a clean slate.

 

[Ryuji]

Thanks for this news. I'll point a number of friends to this article, as they were worried by the loss of features.

 

[Zandros]

Going off the text on Apple's site, the apps were "rewritten from the ground up to be fully 64-bit".

These aren't ancient apps exactly, and apart from Keynote they were released well after Apple had started the 64-bit transition with PPC 970. Why would they have written them in a way such that a complete re-write was needed to support 64-bit?

 

[iguanarama]

eMagius[/url]":1tih2qp7]

iguanarama[/url]":1tih2qp7]It would be possible for Apple to not roll back features when they decide to try a different approach or user interface in some software. And yet this happened with iMovie a few years ago, and then again in Final Cut, and now again.

Would you rather that Apple hold off on releasing a rewritten and significantly improved (for most users) version until all the corner-case features that a small minority of users depend upon are re-implemented?

I disagree. Customers who need those features are free to continue using the old software until the new software meets their needs. For everyone else, having the new software available as soon as possible is of real benefit.

I think that's false choice. Apple can make a significantly improved version, and not remove features.

And while some features may be 'corner-case', there are some major ones removed as well. Take Numbers. They removed split cells, page headers and footers, custom formatting. You can no longer sort selected rows, only all rows! These are notable features.

People update their software expecting it to be better, to expand on the previous version. They expect this because it's what everybody does. I can't think of another large software company that has, multiple times, removed numerous features in an 'upgrade'.

Anyway -- and this comes from an Apple/Mac guy, a fan, of 25+ years -- it feels like Apple gets a bit casual in their regard for existing users and usage, in order to try out new interface styles and take new directions. It's unnecessary, and their success continues despite, not because, of it. (Edit: I'm going to qualify that for software changes, and say their success continuing 'despite' it is because they do a lot of great software dev't work. They just don't always seem to step up when it comes to continuity of experience and transitions from old approaches.)

 

[Ryuji]

eMagius[/url]":2ee0gl9g]

iguanarama[/url]":2ee0gl9g]It would be possible for Apple to not roll back features when they decide to try a different approach or user interface in some software. And yet this happened with iMovie a few years ago, and then again in Final Cut, and now again.

For me, they tinker a bit too much with software when there's a user base of learned behaviour and expected functionality. It's different to not having so-called essentials like cut-and-paste at launch in an iPhone: features like AppleScript support were there, relied upon, and then removed. They can do better at this *and* explore new interface designs. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Would you rather that Apple hold off on releasing a rewritten and significantly improved (for most users) version until all the corner-case features that a small minority of users depend upon are re-implemented?

I disagree. Customers who need those features are free to continue using the old software until the new software meets their needs. For everyone else, having the new software available as soon as possible is of real benefit.

On paper I agree, but I saw too many people caught in the version crossfire, for example with an old Mac (incompatible with Mavericks and thus with the new iWorks) and a new iPad (with only the new versions). Apple is very good at creating void zones where you have no compatibility scenario and are required to upgrade something.

I'm amazed by their ability to get away with this. Fortunately I always saw those situations as a bystander, since I'll never trust anything important or long-term to Apple-made applications (lack of continued support and/or aggressive rewrites, file format problems, etc).

 

[qazwart]

Oelph[/url]":akel0cfn]I don't think this is painful for anyone really. Apple have made sure the old apps are left behind, so people can continue to use those and skip the upgrade for now. At the end of the day no one has really lost anything, and Apple are able to harmonise and refresh the product line with a clean slate.

Except, of course my wife who was in the midst of writing a multipage newsletter, opened it in the new Pages app, and found features she depended upon were gone. She didn't realize that the old app was still there. And, she had already converted the app over to the new format, so she couldn't open it up in the old version. Besides, with all the conversion back and forth, who knew what it would look like.

Maybe it would help if there was better communications.

"The new versions of the iWork apps are a complete rewrite, and do not necessarily match feature-for-feature everything in the older versions. However, the older version is still there, and you will be given a choice on when you double click on a document whether or not you want to open up the new version. We will be continuing to improve the new versions of iWork."

That would have been helpful. Instead, the new versions pushed the old versions off the Dock, became the default app for the documents, and the old versions don't appear in Launchpad.

 

[Scallywag]

Deleted.

 

[iguanarama]

That would have been helpful. Instead, the new versions pushed the old versions off the Dock, became the default app for the documents, and the old versions don't appear in Launchpad.

This. Most users I help don't know how to downgrade software.

An aside: I don't know if I'm coming across as an Apple hater, which would be laughable (ask my wife) and my mistake in how I'm putting my point across. However, in recent years I've seen Mac and iOS changes that have caused great frustration for a number of non-techie users that I help, and I've just had the sense that Apple doesn't always hold the big picture of usage when trying out new software ideas. (iTunes is another example: I've had people pulling out hair just trying to find things within the new iTunes interface.)

 

[pkirvan]

It's interesting that removing a couple features for a few months has generated a huge amount of publicity for what was previously viewed as second-rate amateur-focused software. Remember iWork was only made in the first place as a contingency- in case Microsoft ever dumped the Mac with Office they could accelerate iWork development to fill the gap.

Now every single dot-update of iWork is going to be front-page news on sites that never previous cared about the software at all. Hard-core fans have come crawling out of the closet to sign its praises and beg for improvements. If all publicity is good publicity then this is a huge win in terms of increasing iWork's profile.

 

[xizar]

Zandros[/url]":36ur4xtb]These aren't ancient apps exactly, and apart from Keynote they were released well after Apple had started the 64-bit transition with PPC 970. Why would they have written them in a way such that a complete re-write was needed to support 64-bit?

Because people were using "ancient" versions of OS X on "ancient" iterations of the Mac.
I had a friend who last year bought a Power Mac G4. And she was happy about the *upgrade*.

I was sad to see Rosetta go, as it meant I couldn't play Diablo or Starcraft anymore. But I moved on.

To a Windows PC... where I could play Starcraft, if I wanted to.

TL;DR?
Apple only dropped legacy support for 32-bit OS recently.

 

[Zandros]

xizar[/url]":294yamlf]

Zandros[/url]":294yamlf]These aren't ancient apps exactly, and apart from Keynote they were released well after Apple had started the 64-bit transition with PPC 970. Why would they have written them in a way such that a complete re-write was needed to support 64-bit?

Because people were using "ancient" versions of OS X on "ancient" iterations of the Mac.
I had a friend who last year bought a Power Mac G4. And she was happy about the *upgrade*.

I was sad to see Rosetta go, as it meant I couldn't play Diablo or Starcraft anymore. But I moved on.

To a Windows PC... where I could play Starcraft, if I wanted to.

TL;DR?
Apple only dropped legacy support for 32-bit OS recently.

Clearly I didn't mean they should've gone 64-bit in 2005 (they couldn't have, since the frameworks weren't 64-bit IIRC). I just assumed there was a way to architect the applications so that the move would've been relatively easy instead of needing a "complete re-write".

 

[sleepcountry]

I'm all for occasionally nuking apps from orbit and starting from the ground up. It is the inability to do this that is how you get monstrosities like Microsoft Office.

Like others have said though, it would have been much better if Apple was more up-front with the return of features that didn't make the initial release.

 

[Oelph]

It seems like the big issue here is communication. If they'd been told up front then they could've mitigated any issues.

 

[BadSuperblock]

pkirvan[/url]":2c9lv4hd]It's interesting that removing a couple features for a few months has generated a huge amount of publicity for what was previously viewed as second-rate amateur-focused software. Remember iWork was only made in the first place as a contingency- in case Microsoft ever dumped the Mac with Office they could accelerate iWork development to fill the gap.

Now every single dot-update of iWork is going to be front-page news on sites that never previous cared about the software at all. Hard-core fans have come crawling out of the closet to sign its praises and beg for improvements. If all publicity is good publicity then this is a huge win in terms of increasing iWork's profile.

Except that because of the removed features, the extra free publicity will not be that iWork is " second-rate amateur-focused software," but "VERY second-rate amateur-focused software."

 

[filecat13]

I agree with the comments on poor communication. OTOH, I'm not sure how you put this info in a big reveal without making it seem really stupid.

"From now on iWork is free! If you buy a Mac or iOs device. Or if you've already bought iWork. Just be aware that it's a complete re-write from the ground up, so some features you might use now will be missing. In case you need all these features, we're going to keep your old version of iWork installed so you can use it instead, at least until we get most of the missing features back into the new, free iWorks over the next six months. So in a way, you won't have to use the new, free iWorks if it messes up your workflow; you can use the four-year-old version. But today, iWorks is free!"

(sound of a lone cricket in the auditorium, then someone whispers not so quietly, "What in the f@#$!ng h#!! did he just say?" followed by a chorus of "BOO! BOO!")

 

[filecat13]

I don't know why I keep putting an "s" at the end of iWork. Forgive me.

 

[sleepcountry]

Oelph[/url]":1z10wddf]It seems like the big issue here is communication. If they'd been told up front then they could've mitigated any issues.

I think Apple simply shares Homer's view on communication.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSCN7I2nBDE

 

[john1215]

Wait, I'm confused. Will iOS be getting AppleScript?

 

[jonah]

Considering that Apple did really nothing with iWork between early 2009 and late 2013, I'd say that they had plenty of time to both change the interface and keep features alive.

Four years is a long frickin' time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple sucks at iterating to improve low priority products. They always have.

 

[arcadium]

As a SW dev I think this is great and wish more companies adopted this approach. Sometimes software needs to be rewritten. Unfortunately most firms keep adding kludge a which hurt the software tremendously in the mid to long term.

What still sucks though is Apple's communication. I would have thought they would have learnt from FCP. Apparently not.

 

[Aerrin]

Michael Bushnell[/url]":11ogg9w6]

Oelph[/url]":11ogg9w6]It seems like the big issue here is communication. If they'd been told up front then they could've mitigated any issues.

What do you people not understand about this comment: "We're going to double down on secrecy on products."?

They will never communicate about unreleased products in the manner in which you are asking them to.

Secrecy during the dev cycle and secrecy on launch day are two different things. I agree that Apple could benefit from getting out in front of these things.

 

[sleepcountry]

jonah[/url]":16frghw2]
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple sucks at iterating to improve low priority products. They always have.

But isn't that in the definition of "low priority"? I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled all but just a few developers into the iOS 7 project. As I understand it, Apple has an order of magnitude fewer engineers than guys like Microsoft.

 

[jonah]

sleepcountry[/url]":30nltr1j]

jonah[/url]":30nltr1j]
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple sucks at iterating to improve low priority products. They always have.

But isn't that in the definition of "low priority"? I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled all but just a few developers into the iOS 7 project. As I understand it, Apple has an order of magnitude fewer engineers than guys like Microsoft.

They updated iWork a grand total of zero times in the past 4.5 years. If they'd had anyone at all working on the thing, you'd think they'd have more to show for it.

 

[Marlor_AU]

redtomato[/url]":3mnen3bu]" This is the new shiny. Everyone will get it. It will replace your old shiny. It is good. You will use it.* "

* [hidden feature: many things missing in the new shiny** ]

Except they didn't do that. When you upgrade iWork, it keeps the old version in your Applications folder, ready to use whenever you like.

Upgrading file formats automatically is frustrating, and if you decide you want to use the old version, it requires the files to be exported back to the old file format, but that's about the only caveat.

 

[IanSid]

Apple's pattern of:

1) Ignoring an app for years
2) Announcing a new version of the app
3) Saying the new app is better or - sometimes - the best
4) Removing features
5) Not telling anyone about the reduced features
6) Removing the old app from general availability
7) In some cases making backwards compatibility nearly impossible or unnecessarily difficult
8) Saying nothing for weeks after its release
9) Finally issuing a brief explanation
10) Months later adding some of the features back

is bordering on cruel for anyone who requires steady application support. Surely, a company as capable and rich as Apple can do better than this.

 

[Likkie]

I seem to recall a number of commenters predicting this would happen.
Damn! Now they get to say "I told you so".

 

[Thorzdad]

eMagius[/url]":2f7bcrry]

Would you rather that Apple hold off on releasing a rewritten and significantly improved (for most users) version until all the corner-case features that a small minority of users depend upon are re-implemented?

Most users? Care to cite your basis for claiming the re-write is improved for "most users"? Are you defining "most users" as "people who have never used iWork apps before"? Otherwise, I have yet to speak with a regular user of any of the iWorks apps who think the new versions are an improvement.

 

[mrnomnoms]

I'm surprised that there is this narrative of 'shock' that features were missing given that for years whilst iWork stagnated the persistent rumour of 'starting from scratch' pretty much became something of a factoid that was being thrown around the blogosphere and Mac forums.

For me I'm not particularly phase about the loss of features given that the over all look, feel and functionality of the the software is pretty good but I'm happy that they're adding back more features if it means uniformity of functionality across the board when it comes to compatibility.

 

[alj_ars]

qazwart[/url]":172xflt2]

Oelph[/url]":172xflt2]I don't think this is painful for anyone really. Apple have made sure the old apps are left behind, so people can continue to use those and skip the upgrade for now. At the end of the day no one has really lost anything, and Apple are able to harmonise and refresh the product line with a clean slate.

Except, of course my wife who was in the midst of writing a multipage newsletter, opened it in the new Pages app, and found features she depended upon were gone. She didn't realize that the old app was still there. And, she had already converted the app over to the new format, so she couldn't open it up in the old version. Besides, with all the conversion back and forth, who knew what it would look like.

Maybe it would help if there was better communications.

You are inventing a problem here. All your wife has to do is to "save as" in iworks09. Hardly difficult.

Now, instead of a support note a few days after, that should have been a release note shown before opening the first document in old format, and Apple is guilty here of the casual attitude "that works for the majority of users, so it is ok".

That is some remains of Jobsian secrecy and should be dropped as fast as possible as they are probably the worst major software company in this aspect. This support note is a tiny step in the right direction.

 

[tardigrade]

"However, some users of the old software have complained that the simplified versions have removed or broken existing functionality."

Seriously?

Maybe replace that sentence with, "However, Apple removed a large number of features in Pages that constitute BASIC F*****G WORD PROCESSOR FUNCTIONALITY!!"

That would be a fair and unbiased, proportionate journalistic statement. Look at what's gone for goodness sake.

 

[Entegy]

Michael Bushnell[/url]":14s5tx4k]

Oelph[/url]":14s5tx4k]It seems like the big issue here is communication. If they'd been told up front then they could've mitigated any issues.

What do you people not understand about this comment: "We're going to double down on secrecy on products."?

They will never communicate about unreleased products in the manner in which you are asking them to.

So? It can still be called out as a really bad thing. The lack of a product road map is annoying. It makes scenarios like FCPX and iWorks nasty surprises.