“If Apple buys Adobe, is the operating system market up for grabs? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see why. Borrowing heavily from Mr. Cringely’s terminology, there are several industry realities and stories, each having its own vector/trajectory that might lead one to seeing the importance of Adobe to Apple’s well being. Adobe owns key graphic sector applications. Meanwhile, Microsoft has a strangle-hold over Apple with Office for the Mac. Were Apple to buy Adobe, it would give Apple the leverage it needs to ensure Microsoft keeps making Office for the Mac,” John Kheit writes for The Mac Observer.
“Make no mistake, Apple is much like Blanche DuBois; it relies on the ‘kindness’ of Microsoft. At any given time, all Microsoft has to do to put Apple down like a sick pony is stop making Microsoft Office for the Mac,” Kheit writes. “Right now Microsoft will not do that for a slew of reasons, e.g., antitrust issues, Microsoft makes a boat load of money on sales of Office to Mac users, etc. Nevertheless, were it to become threatened as Apple transitions into more markets, Microsoft will not hesitate in pulling the plug on Office, and down the tubes Apple will go.”
Kheit’s “transitions” include:
• Apple’s ‘iWork’ office suite, which Apple is developing “at a glacial pace”
• Apple and Intel: the target is Windows
• Apple Media dominance: iPod+iTunes, potential future CE products
Kheit writes, “Were Apple to buy Adobe (and what the heck, maybe Quark), it would own enough key applications necessary to Windows users to thwart Microsoft. Should Microsoft threaten to pull Office from the Mac, Apple could then threaten to pull the Adobe products from Windows. This would be bad for both companies, and basically get them into a big ole game of mutually assured destruction (or at least mutually assured losses of revenue). Could Apple do this? Sure it could. Adobe’s market cap is around $17 Billion. Apple has well over $7 Billion in cash and its market cap is over $60 Billion. Apple has enough cash and stock for a buyout. And if Apple purchased a majority stake, the stock would soar for both companies; you might even see a dip in Microsoft stock. That would be a home run for Apple.”
Full article, an excellent, thought-provoking read, here.
Is Microsoft Office really that critical for Apple Mac? Seriously, would Apple’s Mac platform just up and die without future versions of Microsoft Office? Apple would have to stop doing promotions like this: Get Microsoft Office for up to 50% off when you buy a new Mac at the Apple Store, but doesn’t the Mac have a lot more going for it besides the ability to run Microsoft Office? Anyway, Apple would gain Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Flash, etc. if they bought Adobe. It would be a blockbuster deal, that’s for sure. What do you think?
Advertisements:
• The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
• The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
• Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Adobe to acquire Macromedia in $3.4 billion stock deal – April 18, 2005
Apple and Adobe go to war – March 26, 2003
Adobe prefers (and promotes) PCs over Macs – March 24, 2003
>>JEG wrote: Most Windows users could care less about iWork and OpenOffice. Try to convince a Windows user to come to the Mac so that they can use OpenOffice…..they’ll laugh at you.
Agreed. I’m a Mac user as well… and I still couldn’t care less about iWork and OpenOffice. It’s MS Office for me.
—
>>leodavinci wrote: Anyone who thinks otherwise is viewing the situation for a very narrow niche… I’ve been running my publishing business since 1989 and MS Office was never, ever, necessary.
It’s funny how you call people narrow and then argue it from the perspective of running a publishing business, which of course not everyone does.
I was in the publishing business – well, advertising sales of a bi-monthly magazine – and EVERYONE had MS Office on their Macs.
—
>>Hammer wrote: Virtual PC will now run better, and this virtual invironment where Windows apps can run sans Windows comes to life.
I’m thinking the same thing. However, it’s not a sure thing that Microsoft will port VPC for OSX/G5 over to OSX/Intel.
What if some group went the other way with it and “virtualized” OSX/Intel to run in Windows?
Leo: What’s narrow is the general public’s point of referrence. I have no doubt 90% of customers of all stripes could get by just fine with Office-like alternatives, but try convincing them of that. I’m very much a ‘real is the better reality’ kind of guy, but I don’t ignore the substantial obstacles that ‘perception as reality’ consistently throws up. I don’t think that should be underestimated here.
hammer: You’re absolutely right that moving to x86 will allow easier development of cross platform software (although I think VPC will esentially be an expensive redundancy from here on out, no matter how well it runs). However, for that to be such a huge issue in driving the transistion, there would have to be equally huge gaps in current software compatibility/availability between PPCMac and Windows. I just don’t see that. For all but the most niche of apps (like say autoCAD), there’s equivilents to be found on either platform. Now access to the lucrative gaming market has been argued as somewhat of an incentive, but I doubt we’d have seen 40% sales growth this last year if even that was a big a deal as some believe.
Increased software availability and development is a good thing, but seeing how that wasn’t killing Apple in the first place, I think it winds up being more of a bonus than a main motivator.
R: Coke was always served up ‘semi-flat’ in those taste tests. I actually did a few back in the day. When I bought my own bottles and re-did the test, Coke always won (for me).
>>>Odyssey67: I have no doubt 90% of customers of all stripes could get by just fine with Office-like alternatives, but try convincing them of that.
It’s that sort of thinking that dooms competing products – and this isn’t specific to Office, but of any product.
—
>>>I’m very much a ‘real is the better reality’ kind of guy, but I don’t ignore the substantial obstacles that ‘perception as reality’ consistently throws up. I don’t think that should be underestimated here.
You may be overlooking what motivates people to choose one item over another.
Offering wares that perform almost as well and offer much of the functionality as an existing product (probably already purches) isn’t motivation. Those are prerequisites for consideration.
Motivation is price. Motivation is increased performance, increased productivity… decreased time doing tasks that your tools should do… increased time away from work. Motivation is knowing this product will work well with others and there is no need to worry/wonder/stress out about it.
The benefits of using MS Office are real! It’s not a figment of the imagination of millions of corporate workers, doctors, lawyers, students, and such. With such proliferation comes easier and more productive work days because you’re not dealing with other software/missing functionality/alternative implementations.
Argue in terms of price – OpenOffice is free!
Well, at first glance it seems like a no-brainer. Go with the freebie! But, you’ll lose hours and gain headaches in the switch and in the sharing. Until MS opens up the Office formats, nothing will be compatible to the point of being seamless.
I’ve used OpenOffice and it’s amazing what that project has accomplished. I still went and bought MS Office… haven’t touched OpenOffice/NeoOffice since.
To someone not concerned with Apple-fanaticism/MS-hatred, Office is worth the price charged and then some! Why worry about the shortcomings of an alternative? Aren’t there more important things to deal with in the course of a workday? To many, wasting even a couple of minutes fiddling with an alternative isn’t viable.
I know that when my stomach is growling because I had to skip lunch to meet a deadline, the last thing I want to worry about is whether OpenOffice is going to display all my tables properly or if vlookup works the same as it does in Excel.
Motivation is very real!
>>>Odyssey67: I have no doubt 90% of customers of all stripes could get by just fine with Office-like alternatives, but try convincing them of that.
It’s that sort of thinking that dooms competing products – and this isn’t specific to Office, but of any product.
—
>>>I’m very much a ‘real is the better reality’ kind of guy, but I don’t ignore the substantial obstacles that ‘perception as reality’ consistently throws up. I don’t think that should be underestimated here.
You may be overlooking what motivates people to choose one item over another.
Offering wares that perform almost as well and offer much of the functionality as an existing product (probably already purches) isn’t motivation. Those are prerequisites for consideration.
Motivation is price. Motivation is increased performance, increased productivity… decreased time doing tasks that your tools should do… increased time away from work. Motivation is knowing this product will work well with others and there is no need to worry/wonder/stress out about it.
The benefits of using MS Office are real! It’s not a figment of the imagination of millions of corporate workers, doctors, lawyers, students, and such. With such proliferation comes easier and more productive work days because you’re not dealing with other software/missing functionality/alternative implementations.
Argue in terms of price – OpenOffice is free!
Well, at first glance it seems like a no-brainer. Go with the freebie! But, you’ll lose hours and gain headaches in the switch and in the sharing. Until MS opens up the Office formats, nothing will be compatible to the point of being seamless.
I’ve used OpenOffice and it’s amazing what that project has accomplished. I still went and bought MS Office… haven’t touched OpenOffice/NeoOffice since.
To someone not concerned with Apple-fanaticism/MS-hatred, Office is worth the price charged and then some! Why worry about the shortcomings of an alternative? Aren’t there more important things to deal with in the course of a workday? To many, wasting even a couple of minutes fiddling with an alternative isn’t viable.
I know that when my stomach is growling because I had to skip lunch to meet a deadline, the last thing I want to worry about is whether OpenOffice is going to display all my tables properly or if vlookup works the same as it does in Excel.
Motivation is very real!
>>>Odyssey67: I have no doubt 90% of customers of all stripes could get by just fine with Office-like alternatives, but try convincing them of that.
It’s that sort of thinking that dooms competing products – and this isn’t specific to Office, but of any product.
—
>>>I’m very much a ‘real is the better reality’ kind of guy, but I don’t ignore the substantial obstacles that ‘perception as reality’ consistently throws up. I don’t think that should be underestimated here.
You may be overlooking what motivates people to choose one item over another.
Offering wares that perform almost as well and offer much of the functionality as an existing product (probably already purches) isn’t motivation. Those are prerequisites for consideration.
Motivation is price. Motivation is increased performance, increased productivity… decreased time doing tasks that your tools should do… increased time away from work. Motivation is knowing this product will work well with others and there is no need to worry/wonder/stress out about it.
The benefits of using MS Office are real! It’s not a figment of the imagination of millions of corporate workers, doctors, lawyers, students, and such. With such proliferation comes easier and more productive work days because you’re not dealing with other software/missing functionality/alternative implementations.
Argue in terms of price – OpenOffice is free!
Well, at first glance it seems like a no-brainer. Go with the freebie! But, you’ll lose hours and gain headaches in the switch and in the sharing. Until MS opens up the Office formats, nothing will be compatible to the point of being seamless.
I’ve used OpenOffice and it’s amazing what that project has accomplished. I still went and bought MS Office… haven’t touched OpenOffice/NeoOffice since.
To someone not concerned with Apple-fanaticism/MS-hatred, Office is worth the price charged and then some! Why worry about the shortcomings of an alternative? Aren’t there more important things to deal with in the course of a workday? To many, wasting even a couple of minutes fiddling with an alternative isn’t viable.
I know that when my stomach is growling because I had to skip lunch to meet a deadline, the last thing I want to worry about is whether OpenOffice is going to display all my tables properly or if vlookup works the same as it does in Excel.
Motivation is very real!
>>>Odyssey67: I have no doubt 90% of customers of all stripes could get by just fine with Office-like alternatives, but try convincing them of that.
It’s that sort of thinking that dooms competing products – and this isn’t specific to Office, but of any product.
—
>>>I’m very much a ‘real is the better reality’ kind of guy, but I don’t ignore the substantial obstacles that ‘perception as reality’ consistently throws up. I don’t think that should be underestimated here.
You may be overlooking what motivates people to choose one item over another.
Offering wares that perform almost as well and offer much of the functionality as an existing product (probably already purches) isn’t motivation. Those are prerequisites for consideration.
Motivation is price. Motivation is increased performance, increased productivity… decreased time doing tasks that your tools should do… increased time away from work. Motivation is knowing this product will work well with others and there is no need to worry/wonder/stress out about it.
The benefits of using MS Office are real! It’s not a figment of the imagination of millions of corporate workers, doctors, lawyers, students, and such. With such proliferation comes easier and more productive work days because you’re not dealing with other software/missing functionality/alternative implementations.
Argue in terms of price – OpenOffice is free!
Well, at first glance it seems like a no-brainer. Go with the freebie! But, you’ll lose hours and gain headaches in the switch and in the sharing. Until MS opens up the Office formats, nothing will be compatible to the point of being seamless.
I’ve used OpenOffice and it’s amazing what that project has accomplished. I still went and bought MS Office… haven’t touched OpenOffice/NeoOffice since.
To someone not concerned with Apple-fanaticism/MS-hatred, Office is worth the price charged and then some! Why worry about the shortcomings of an alternative? Aren’t there more important things to deal with in the course of a workday? To many, wasting even a couple of minutes fiddling with an alternative isn’t viable.
I know that when my stomach is growling because I had to skip lunch to meet a deadline, the last thing I want to worry about is whether OpenOffice is going to display all my tables properly or if vlookup works the same as it does in Excel.
Motivation is very real!
Microsoft Office is critical for the Macintosh for only one reason: it’s the only productivity suite that can reliably handle Office’s document formats, and it is the tight control of the formats that has allowed Microsoft to leverage Office into the must-have application suite that it has become.
However, Microsoft has announced that Office will move away from the closed formats and support their Microsoft Office Open XML format (MOOX), a competitor to the OASIS Open Document format, but it remains to be seen exactly how “open” it will be. If they do, it won’t matter which productivity suite one uses, as long as it supports MOOX. Personally, I seriously doubt that Microsoft will make it fully open; doing so is tantamount to putting a bullet in their cash cow. Their insanely huge pile of cash is due in large part to the colossal profits they reap from Office. Maybe they recognize that they can’t hold back the tide of competing products and are angling for licensing fees.
An Adobe takeover would be like an Iraq takeover: MASSIVELY expensive, long drawn out battle sucking out enormous resources, and very shaky return if successful.
Apple should develop functionality across its entire lineup, so that if the need should arise to become competitive, it’s just a matter of cut ‘n paste.
I do like the idea of a “Super App”, that does everything the user needs. That would be fun.
As many people have already indicated, MS Office is currently essential for the Mac, by definition because it is the industry standard. So not having it would be a real barrier to entry for potential switchers.
Apple buying Adobe is something I have thought about for a number of years. I am not sure it is as beneficial move as some people suggest. For a price of $17 billion, Apple couldn’t afford to forego 90% of the Adobe’s revenue stream by ceasing sales to the PC world, and then they still have to pay the ongoing bills for all those extra staff and company assets. That’s pretty much like pissing $16 billion up against the wall.
NOT GUNNA HAPPEN!!!
At least not like that…
I think potential switchers are more easily persuaded if office is available for os x (after all, they are using windows right now so common logic does not apply
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> ).
Help me out here. Lets say M$ dropped Mac office. Apple introduces Numbers. You can already export to Word, Powerpoint via Pages and Keynote and Numbers would support Excel I would assume. So what’s the problem again?
…what the problem is…
1) Microsoft Office is a recognized brand name. It’s the dynasty MS player and users are like fans, they don’t want to trade. People want the same experience with their business application on a mac as they get on a pc. Believe it or not, most people don’t even know about neo/star/open/any office alternative.
now..if you have someone even looking at a mac..
2) iWork??? You have to be joking right. Sure Keynote is there, but Pages sucks. Why does Pages suck? Because even with it’s wonderfully hidden wizard system (thanks Apple), it isn’t Word. If it had a ‘interface’ or ‘visual’ compatibility mode then it would do the trick. iCal, iSync, Mail…almost kinda groupware but not quite. Filemaker owns, but it just needs to be part of the package and have ‘access compatibility’ (like that’s even a serious product). Numbers? Don’t see it. In fact, Excel is one of the best of the Office apps (help is reasonable). So we’re missing a couple things and they will only be introduced slowly or massively when needed because..
3) Look and Feel of Microsoft Office can be copied 100% by Apple including and server side junk (Exchange). Why? When was the last time Microsoft used a patent they had against Apple for appearance?
4) Microsoft Project ..this just needs to be done a long time ago.
5) so…Adobe…should not have been able to Backwire the Macromedia stuff again. This article would have been better suited for publication when there were two smaller companies..although Adobe is downsizing a bit there. Should Apple buy Adobe? No they could buy some current products.
If ‘Freehand sucks because everyone uses illustrator’ then there’s no reason for Adobe to not sell it (funny how they weren’t forced to divest ill of fh this time around). That would see a ‘Apple only’ product in the second release that could kill illustrator and meh up to indesign (id pwns). Fair enough there. GoLive or Dreamweaver? Either one w/ a different interface or less bugs. and so on and so forth..because that leaves competition, but allows Apple to make some bank w/ it’s own products and not have to worry that…
OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING BECAUSE COMPANY X STOPPED MAKING PRODUCT Y FOR (EITHER: Macs, Apples, Apple Computers, Macintosh Computers, or Mac OS X..obviously missing the hideous yet possibly correct iHyphenated ‘Apple Macs’).
Apple should have bought Macromedia 2 years ago as well as bought Maya from Alias.
With Macromedia it would have gotten Flash, but also a lot of tech that could have helped them in making a real PSD competitor, a vector graphic package (Freehand) and tech for iWork as well.
Now Adobe is way over valued especially since its apps are aged and blotto as MS Office is.
I think the need for Office for the mac is a lot less necessary for the platform’s survival these days, as people are seeing Apple independently from MS for the first time due to its new found CE presence.
Apple needs a Maya3D app in its Pro VFXs stable, that is clean and powerful and interfaces elegantly with FCP/Shake/Motion/Logic/DVDstudioPro, something to make it a one stop shop for professional vfx studios, and give it more OSCAR/screen credits, as well as more video game credits.
This always brings in workstation business, but also gets kids excited about what you can do with a Mac, which leads again to more sales in the long run.
At this point it could buy SideFX softwares Houdini which is independent and in some ways would be a better fit to shake, as it is ground breaking in similar ways.
The thing is the “stupid” iPod and CE focus of the company is making them miss some key opportunities, in the professional sphere that really could make Apple a complete solution company.
This is so annoying, as it would really help it take away what is left of the SGI legacy.
(the best thing would be if it bought Autodesk with Discreet, oh my god that would be SO excellent I could cry.)
I say buy! MS has made the announcement recently that they’re opening up their Office formats.
Apple can just make their own kick-ass office suite that is compatible with MS.
I wouldn’t be concerned, and I see no reason why anyone should be.
Whenever Apple sees something big missing from their offerings, they either fill the gap by creating it themselves, or by buying it from someone else and improving upon it. I see no reason why Adobe wouldn’t make a great acquisition for Apple!
Costs too much in money and headaches. The clue is Aperture. Despite its weaknesses (hopefully to be corrected soon), it is one sweet app. It tells us that Apple is capable of doing just about anything it wants when it comes to software – on the high or low end.
Microsoft and Adobe can threaten by simply treating Apple with disrespect – so easy to do in many little ways from “late” to “suboptimized” releases. Apple would respond with software that threatens their market. I bet it’s cheaper to come up with competitive software than to buy Adobe. I’ve always thought that Jobs is too smart to not have a “skunkworks.” Fast-track it and we could have a Photoshop or Office killer in no time at all.
What is the point? Office for Mac gives Microsoft inside information on what Apple is doing with OSX. To drop it would lose them both revenue & expertise, and probably cost another mass-migration of their developers.
Imagine Ballmer trying to explain that to MSFT shareholders, let alone the DOJ. There is no way M$ will drop the Mac version.
NOT very likely I think…
Were Microsoft to close down OfficeMac it would be put to death by anti-monopolists, both governmental and popular.
Adobe is trying to digest Macromedia now. It’s not in perfect shape and would distract Apple from its own amazing innovative run.
Please DO NOT disturb the work of the geniuses at Cupertino.
But he’s right of course: the operating system market is now up for grabs…
Go Apple!
I agree that most switchers want the ability to use Office for Mac, however it is appaling to use, especially compared to iWork.
Bring on Numbers, better Pages and possibly Database and you’ve got a monster suite.
MW: Worked (I’m not making this up)
Agree RS. But I think Apple need to get the names sorted out really well first. I reckon its one key to making it’s useability and acceptability. “Send me a Pages document sounds bad. Maybe the singular is better…
Send me an Excel file or a Word doc sound easy on the ear, send me a Filemaker or a Numbers file sounds like hard work…
Keynote is a great name though.
“Mac without Office becomes a total write-off in business, including Marketing and Advertising departments where it is grudgingly allowed to exist.”
I totally disagree, at least as far as advertising goes. If you worked in the field you’d know we’d all rejoice if they elminated Office for Mac. I can open any Office file right inside my layout programs (even the wonderful Adobe products like Creative Suite that so many of you fools here seem to love to dis). I don’t need Powerpoint, Word or even Excel.
We creative types let desk jockeys make pretty pictures in Powerpoint so they’ll leave us alone when it comes to ‘real’ creative. InDesign beautifully imports Word and Excel files into my pre-defined tables.
And this notion that you can’t have a Mac in a Windows environment is silly. Those who work in the creative field know this well. Since we don’t need 50 IT people to support our every working moment, we can be self sufficient. We can do most if not all of our own support (I still need the networking team to actually wire the ethernet ports). Everything else is either figured out by the OS itself or is so simple, I can do it.
My marketing director was very supportive of my switching our entire creative team over to Macs. He knew it was the preferred set-up for creatives and was surprised that we worked on Windows before. I’ve even found many of the IT guys come up and help us just to look at our lovely 23″ monitors and see how printers are automatically configured to work (right out of the print dialog).
I thumb my nose at all these doomsdayer type stories. I’m proud to be an Apple cultist. I wear my religion on my sleeve.
I thumb my nose at all these doomsdayer type stories. I’m proud to be an Apple cultist. I wear my religion on my sleeve.
Yep, me too would rather be a Mac cultist than a Windows fascist (neo-nazi)!
a) I briefly was stuck on the “Dark Side” for a year with a Toshiba laptop and Win98(?). I could have bought MS Office for it, but opted for WordPerfect Office, which I thought was a much-nimbler program – it was nearly as weighted down with bloat like MSO… I went that route, because I had owned WordPerfect 3.5 on my previous Mac. Needless to say, I was severly disappointed when Corel – bless their incompetent hearts – dropped the Mac with the switch to MacOS X.
However, I think that Corel has WPO on Linux, so how much of a challenge would it be for them to bring it to MacOS X on Intel? Hard, I’m guessing, because it made me nervous when they bought Painter…
b) Appleworks did suffice for most of what I wanted to do word processor and/or spreadsheet wise, but was disappointed to see Apple drop it like an illegitimate step-foster-child with genital warts when they announced iWork… Why couldn’t they have just updated Appleworks, thrown in the “nifty new” features of Pages, and added Keynote? Rewritten in Cocoa it would have offered plenty of basic power in writing/page layout, drawing/painting, spreadsheet, presentation, and would have been sufficient to meet the needs of 75% of the iMac/iBook/mini crowd…
c) Buying Adobe just creates too many problems – more than it supposedly solves. Now, what would have made sense is to buy the orphans from the Adobe/Macromedia merger… Likely GoLive and Freehand… Heck, Final Cut came from Macromedia, so there is a history. And if Apple aimed Freehand and GoLive at the pro market, ala the FCP Production Suite, it may alleviate any concerns Adobe might have. Heck, FCP was a better product than Premiere anyway.
d) Microsoft still owns stock in Apple AND Corel, so they have a healthy-enough fear of the DOJ to keep competitors alive. Their Corel stock has (probably) seen very little growth (I think it was $100-150M they invested about 3 years ago). But their Apple investment, back in ’97(?), shortly after SJ rreturned to the helm at Apple, was $150M of non-voting shares(?), and the stock was worth around $15-17 at the time… That’s approximately 10 million shares… Today, after the stock split back in 2004(?), those 20,000,000 shares (give or take) are worth around $1.5B (with a Billion!)… It was a 2-1 split, yes?
Microsoft is stupid when it comes to writing clean, quick & nimble code, but not when it comes to business acumen. They’re not about to piss away the investment they’ve made that appears to be paying any dividends. Not to mention the $300M or so they net,…., that’s NET….. each year from MS Office Mac sales… And they need all the revenue they can get for those looming massive lawsuits and nasty recalls on the “rushed-to-market-just-to-beat-Sony’s-PS3” XBox 360… Speaking of which: I wonder if it was a marketing snafu, wherein an engineer was referring to how hot the dang thing got, and not its 3D field of view…
e) So, buying Adobe makes no sense. Apple needs commited partners, especially with the transition to Intel. MS knows how to butter its own bread, and that Apple preserves are sweet on it. Apple may take some consumer app-space, with iLife and iWork, but they need a healthy & happy developer community. Adobe would be too much of a distraction – Apple makes incredible software (when they want to), but they use it to sell hardware. Buying Alias for Maya would have made sense. An acquisition like iView Media Pro could be tweaked into an iPhoto Pro – but only if they wanted to take on Adobe.
f) I think the real push from Apple is going to be in the digital home. Adding Front Row to iLife ’06 (with bluetooth remote), make it act as a concierge to iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, and iTV-DVR (hint-hint)… Eliminate DVD Player and QuickTime Player as stand-alone apps, folding their functions into Front Row. Let the iLife apps retain their independence (for creation, organisation, management), but Front Row would be the interface you see when accessing their playback functions. License iMDB to add database functionality to your DVD and iTMS (iTVS?) TV and features collection.
In my sixteen years of using Macs I have never, I repeat NEVER needed MSO, so that is a totally bogus argument. Apple needs M$ Word macro viruses about as much as I need to contract MS. (horrible disease!) whatever…
That Word is available for the Mac means that I can have G5 tower at work when everyone else has Windows boxes, and means that I can have all Macs home. I’ve spent about $5000 on Macs, between home and work, in the past two years, and that’s just on new ones.
Let’s be perfectly clear on one point–OpenOffice sucks hard, is a giant bloated mess, and even the NeoOffice/J guys quickly admit that OpenOffice’s code base is such a bloated, meandering, obtuse nightmare that almost any volunteer that looks at it runs away screaming at the idea of trying to adapt it to OS X.
>FUBAR wrote: In my sixteen years of using Macs I have never, I repeat NEVER needed MSO
If that’s how things are for you… great. Too bad for Apple you’re not their ENTIRE target market.
In my 21 years of pc computing (started with ][e and a C64), I’ve used MS Office/Word since ever since…
My 21 years trumps your 16 years.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />