Apple today released updates for its iWork apps for the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and iPad mini.
Pages, Numbers, and Keynote have all been updated with “stability improvements and bug fixes.”
The updates are available for Pages, Numbers, and /or Keynote users via the App Store.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
Apple is touting its Vision Pro spatial computing headset which was made available in the U.S. earlier this year to businesses…
Even if the iPhones looked good enough for resale, Apple’s contract with its recycler GEEP explicitly required that every product it sent be…
The “Delta” Nintendo game emulator launched Wednesday as one of the first officially approved iOS apps to emulate Nintendo consoles…
Apple TV+ announced Thursday that “Sunny,” its 10-episode mystery thriller with a darkly comic bent starring Rashida Jones, is set to…
Major Apple supplier TSMC, the world’s largest chipmaker and a major Apple and Nvidia supplier, forecast second-quarter sales may…
How about an update to Pages, Numbers and Keynote for Mac?
1000
1000000 that’s better.
On the poll…
I bought most of my AAPL at about $200/share or less. Some of it was bought in 1999 or so at a split adjusted $6/share. I’m still buying as much as I can manage, as well as reinvesting dividends. She’s good with that. I’ve doubled her self-directed IRA in less than 3 years, and AAPL is hardly the only stock in the portfolio.
Non Sequitur…
Whoa.
Pages and Keynote for iOS need to be brought to parity with the iOS versions. Keynote for both could hugely benefit from better creation tools. Numbers needs a strong refresh.
Huh? Your first sentence make no sense whatsoever – it’s circular. A needs to be brought to parity with A.
Now if Apple will spend some time making iCloud really useful – like Dropbox for instance. But I doubt if Tim Cook is aware of Dropbox.
The philosophy is totally different.
Drop Box philosophy: A Hard Disc in the sky. You can see the disc. You can see the folders, you can see the files. Just like a backup disc. Totally file structure dependent.
Apple philosophy: Your files never get destroyed or lost. Your files at your fingertips at all times. Your files on all your devices. You don’t even need to see an icon of the disc in the sky because there are no folders to play about with. You shouldn’t even be aware that there is a disc in the sky. Everything is just there. Just not like a backup disc.
Totally file structure independent.
There is probably some logic in providing both worlds. I.e. Add Dropbox feature to the iCloud.
Does Drop Box work better (faster) than iDisk did?
Yes
Yes and NO.
The disk and folder paradigm is alive and well with the iWork on iOS apps and iCloud.com. Make folders on your idevice, manually organizing content, login and access anywhere on iCloud.com.
I agree with what you state is their vision as being their end plan, however it has been dangling in the wind awhile and isn’t fully baked yet.
Implementation differences can be compared, but all server services (“clouds”) are based on two goals: subscription-based computing and data mining of user files.
Aside from -perhaps- personal media consumption, no closed “cloud” server is going to be user-friendly or cost competitive over the long term for users who need easy file sharing and/or complete data security. And even for media consumption, your cell provider will do everything possible to rape you with data billing.
It really isn’t that hard to host one’s own data onto the web or onto one’s network. NAS is cheap — and you won’t have to rent your data back or jump through hoops to share files! The only problems with NAS for consumers is usually speed and setup — no surprise, since many pre-canned NAS boxes run Windows.
If Apple wanted to really innovate, it would save its customers a lot of money by offering a blazing fast Time Capsule NAS that not only backs up a Mac at home, but also securely serves that archived data to any associated iOS or Mac in the world even when your main machine is off. When the master Mac is turned on again, then per user instruction on a per-file basis, the TC-NAS can transparently re-syncs those master files the user wants updated.
Why rent when you can own?
Bring back iWeb!!!
And iChat and the former photo sharing setup and iDisk. They have a stinking confusing,pile of shift now.
an Aperture update would be groovy !
waiting
waiting
I share your pain. I bought Aperture when it was first released and have stuck with it since, but, Aperture has been ignored for too long by Apple.
I rely on my workflow software to earn a living, Aperture has just been falling behind Adobe’s offerings of late. I’d waited long enough for Apple to release Aperture 4 with better functionality etc, but nothing from Cupertino.
So, despite my reluctance toward Adobe (I have always used Photoshop), I switched to Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS6 from Aperture 3. Apple are just too vague (read: silent) about the future (if any) of Aperture.
Adobe’s bread and butter line is the creative pro. Lightroom 4 is very, very good and Adobe will continue to update and improve both Photoshop and Lightroom.
Apple has lost one Aperture user here.
You didn’t mention any specific reason why you switched to Lightroom. I’m not a user of either, but the general opinion online is that the two tools are comparable, feature-wise, and the preferences are split, depending on personal tastes.
So, if this is the case, your decision seems to be an abstract, strategic one, based on speculation regarding some future prospects. Much like the decision of some people to abandon FCP7 when they realised FCP X was radically different. The existing version of Aperture hasn’t stopped working, nor has it suddenly lost features, to cause an immediate change. Adobe’s software tools are expensive (in general, much more expensive than Apple’s). Decision to migrate is thus not an easy one and people usually make it when it is clear that the existing feature set is not adequate, and the competing platform promises much better feature set. It seems to be that the existing feature sets between these two competitors are quite comparable. So, spending all the extra money (plus training time away from work) to move to the competing platform with similar features seems a bit of a risk. It is based on the assumption that, at some point in the future, Adobe will update their applications, while Apple wouldn’t update their own. It also assumes that the cost of acquiring that update from Adobe (when it eventually arrives) will be lower than the cost of doing business with Apple’s original tool (assuming no update ever comes), or the cost of updating that Apple tool (if the update does arrive). These are rather arbitrary assumptions. I’d probably not take such chances with my money; I’d stay with the tool I had already bought.
Come on, Predrag, stop making up excuses why Apple should be so @#%$%^^& slow with their updates.
Long-time Apple-loyal professionals deserve competitive tools from Apple, and they don’t deserve to have their software needs questioned on this forum.
There is a reason Adobe’s pro-level tools cost so much. If Apple can’t compete, they have no choice but to cut their price. But Apple doesn’t. Apple attempts to charge premium prices for, in many product categories, software and hardware that is not class-leading.
Or, worse, Apple has started to pull MS moves by replacing a functionally excellent piece of software with a “new”, not better, interface with features removed. Way to piss off a customer base. FCPX was a clear step backward.
Apple is the richest company the world has ever seen. If it can’t deliver what both iOS consumers and Mac creators & professionals want, then that is an embarrassment to Apple’s formerly impressive legacy.
I have Aperture and Lightroom – the most recent versions of both. I would say there was feature parity 18-24 months ago. In my humble view, Adobe has moved ahead by providing Lightroom 4.x with enough editing features that the need for external editors (such as their own Photoshop) has decreased. Specific example include perspective correction – an important feature when using wide and ultrawide angle lens to shoot tall buildings. To do this type of correction in Aperture requires a plugin or external editor. Another example would be application of brushes for several of the features. Very often, applying brushes is Aperture is hit and miss. In Lightroom, it is precise and it simply works.
Yet, I use Aperture more than I do Lightroom. I like the way it looks and feels, and I also like how easy it is to transfer a project from my laptop to my desktop and vice-versa. But I think that is going to change. I cannot afford to ignore the reality that my work can be made easier by using Adobe’s product. To deliver a better product, I have to use the best tools available to me. And yes, Aperture is a good tool, but it is no longer the best.
Is it possible to add custom fonts? No? That’s cool, I’m sure most Fortune 500 companies will understand when there’s a presentation that can’t be done with their corporate typeface.