From: Michael G Schwern Date: 00:11 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Numbers doesn't do ODF Apple's new whizz-bang Spreadsheet application, Numbers, which comes with iWork 08 does not support Open Document Format. My choices for exporting are: PDF, which retains my pretty graphs but has no value as a spreadsheet Excel, which is just moving to another proprietary format CVS, which loses my pretty graphs and formulas Grrrrrrr. Just like Quicktime still won't do Ogg and you have to actively fight iTunes to recognize it. Grrrrrrr. And as long as I'm bitching about iWork, I purchased iWork 06 in July. iWork 08 with Numbers comes out in August. Do they offer an upgrade price? Nope.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 01:12 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF I'm not impressed with any of the iWork applications. They would possibly have been killer apps 15-20 years ago, but they're really clumsy today, even compared with Office, which is a pretty hateful collection of applications (except for Excel).
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 04:12 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF * Michael G Schwern <schwern@xxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-16 01:20]: > Apple's new whizz-bang Spreadsheet application, Numbers, which > comes with iWork 08 does not support Open Document Format. > [...] Just like Quicktime still won't do Ogg and you have to > actively fight iTunes to recognize it. http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/06/16/juggling-oranges http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/01/12/sharecroppers http://john.jubjubs.net/2007/06/14/a-pictures-worth-100m-users Recent moves with the iPhone have only reinforced these issues. In summary, fuck Apple. Sincerely,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 04:56 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF > Lots of words describe Steve & his Stevenotes, but "careless" and > "accidental" do not. > You think? I think the bloke who wrote that hasn't been paying attention, because Steve's dropped some real clunkers over the years... and not just the overoptimistic 3 GHz G5 or the Cube... Apple's success, such as it has had, has often been despite Steve, not because of him. What Steve's good at isn't avoiding blunders, it's blundering with style, like a cat who lands on his feet and then somehow convinces you it meant to fall in the first place just because the landing WAS so stylish. That's the reality distortion field. And it's hateful whether it makes you trust Apple blindly or blame them for the mistakes you made by doing so.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 05:16 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-16 06:10]: >> Lots of words describe Steve & his Stevenotes, but "careless" >> and "accidental" do not. > > You think? I think the bloke who wrote that hasn't been paying > attention, because Steve's dropped some real clunkers over the > years... and not just the overoptimistic 3 GHz G5 or the > Cube... Apple's success, such as it has had, has often been > despite Steve, not because of him. What Steve's good at isn't > avoiding blunders, it's blundering with style, like a cat who > lands on his feet and then somehow convinces you it meant to > fall in the first place just because the landing WAS so > stylish. > > That's the reality distortion field. And it's hateful whether > it makes you trust Apple blindly or blame them for the mistakes > you made by doing so. Nothing you wrote actually contradicts that blog post. Regards,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 05:33 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF On 15-Oct-2007, at 23:16, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > Nothing you wrote actually contradicts that blog post. The blog was all about how a badly designed chart was a great insight into Steve's, because Steve couldn't possibly have been careless. Steve's all ABOUT impulsive behavior, and off-the-cuff thinking, and making snap decisions seem like they're a master plan. He makes decisions, he's got people to take care of the details. And it works, because he's competing against companies where they don't do that.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 20:09 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-16 06:40]: > The blog was all about how a badly designed chart was a > great insight into Steve's, because Steve couldn't possibly > have been careless. > > Steve's all ABOUT impulsive behavior, and off-the-cuff > thinking, and making snap decisions seem like they're a > master plan. There’s a difference between making mistaken gut-feel tech bets and being careless in putting on a keynote show. Those keynotes are prepared and rehearsed as well as any Broadway show is. > He makes decisions, he's got people to take care of the > details. And it works, because he's competing against companies > where they don't do that. That's rather too simplistic. I think the reason Apple works is because they're the Disneyland of computing. Just listen to the clips of Steve Jobs in Macworld's stickergate summary: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2007/08/stickergate/ (There are two MP3s linked directly from the post.) Apple, starting with Jobs, see their business as entertaining their customers. They care about putting on a great show. Most computer companies see their business as utility making, and corporation-oriented utility making to boot. People respond to that. Hell, I do too. I certainly like Apple better than the rest of the pack, for caring more than the rest about things I personally also care about. I just know better than to think this means they care about me, or you, or any of their individual users, any more than cares any other big technology company. Regards,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 22:25 on 16 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF On 16-Oct-2007, at 14:09, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > There=92s a difference between making mistaken gut-feel tech > bets and being careless in putting on a keynote show. Those > keynotes are prepared and rehearsed as well as any Broadway > show is. But only stuff Steve cares about is going to get fixed. I can't =20 imagine Steve caring about that kind of detail, Firefox is not an =20 Apple product or a Microsoft product so it's not on his radar, the =20 important thing is that it's showing Safari with a bigger market =20 share. It's like when he did the iPod mini announcement and panned =20 flash players, and then a year later he came out with a flash player. >> He makes decisions, he's got people to take care of the >> details. And it works, because he's competing against companies >> where they don't do that. > That's rather too simplistic. I think the reason Apple works is > because they're the Disneyland of computing. That direction is one of those decisions. I don't like it. It doesn't work for me. It's lead to decisions that =20 make Apple's products less attractive to me. I'm with Mac not because =20= Steve Jobs is making the right decisions all the time, but because =20 the results of those decisions have produced a product line that =20 works for me. Not because they Apple cares about the things that I =20 care about, but because the Mac does what I need better than the =20 alternatives. So... that decision doesn't please everyone. But at least it's a =20 decision and he's sticking to it. I'd rather he stick to his =20 decisions, good or bad, than they all be good... because then even if =20= I have to put up with the bogus ones, at least I have a reasonable =20 confidence that they'll stick to the ones that matter to me.=
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:46 on 17 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2007-10-16 23:30]: > On 16-Oct-2007, at 14:09, A. Pagaltzis wrote: >> There’s a difference between making mistaken gut-feel tech >> bets and being careless in putting on a keynote show. Those >> keynotes are prepared and rehearsed as well as any Broadway >> show is. > > But only stuff Steve cares about is going to get fixed. I can't > imagine Steve caring about that kind of detail, Firefox is not > an Apple product or a Microsoft product so it's not on his > radar, the important thing is that it's showing Safari with a > bigger market share. Q.E.D. for that blog post. > It's like when he did the iPod mini announcement and panned > flash players, and then a year later he came out with a flash > player. He always does that. If he dumps on an idea, you know he doesn't like it. However, if his position turns from "that sort of thing sucks and no one would want it" into "no one has done these well", then you can assume that such a product is in the works at Apple. Until it is finally release, his rhetoric will gradually turn toward specific flaws of existing examples of that kind of product. The iteration of the cycle eventually ends when he gets up on a stage and says "everyone else's sucks so we have done this right." >>> He makes decisions, he's got people to take care of the >>> details. And it works, because he's competing against >>> companies where they don't do that. > >> That's rather too simplistic. I think the reason Apple works >> is because they're the Disneyland of computing. > > That direction is one of those decisions. > > I don't like it. It doesn't work for me. It's lead to decisions > that make Apple's products less attractive to me. I'm with Mac > not because Steve Jobs is making the right decisions all the > time, but because the results of those decisions have produced > a product line that works for me. Not because they Apple cares > about the things that I care about, but because the Mac does > what I need better than the alternatives. By "cares about similar things" I meant they pay attention to aspects of their products that matter to me as a user of products of that kind. At least more so than other companies of their ilk. I think you are saying exactly what I was saying, not finding a contradiction at all. > So... that decision doesn't please everyone. But at least it's > a decision and he's sticking to it. I'd rather he stick to his > decisions, good or bad, than they all be good... because then > even if I have to put up with the bogus ones, at least I have > a reasonable confidence that they'll stick to the ones that > matter to me. Forget it. Apple's an enterprise, maybe not an evil one like Microsoft or (at least the old) IBM, but they're no wellfare organisation and aren't going to care about you or me unless it directly affects their bottom line. That's just reality. Regards,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 01:17 on 17 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF On 16-Oct-2007, at 18:46, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > He always does that. If he dumps on an idea, you know he doesn't > like it. However, if his position turns from "that sort of thing > sucks and no one would want it" into "no one has done these > well", then you can assume that such a product is in the works at > Apple. Until it is finally release, his rhetoric will gradually > turn toward specific flaws of existing examples of that kind of > product. The iteration of the cycle eventually ends when he gets > up on a stage and says "everyone else's sucks so we have done > this right." Yes, yes, I know all that, that's the conventional wisdom. But that really sounds more like Palm than Apple... Jobs will shortcut the whole thing... in the case of the iPod mini - iPod shuffle thing his position went from "no one would want it" to "we've done this right" in one year, without any intermediate steps. He didn't say 'nobody's done flash right', he said 'flash is a stupid idea, because for $50 more you can get a hard disk'. In the case of the Mac mini there hadn't been any comments to imply that "no ugly monitors on nice macs" was going down even up to the month before. > By "cares about similar things" I meant they pay attention to > aspects of their products that matter to me as a user of products > of that kind. They don't do that for me. At all. Some of the stuff they pay attention to makes their products more hateful. Some of the stuff they don't pay attention to they desperately need to. Some of the stuff, *Microsoft* does a better job. Like keyboard shortcuts. And even the old Windows 3.11 File Manager is a better file manager than Finder. Seriously. They are not all that good at picking a course. They're good at sticking to one. TOO good at it, sometimes, for my liking. > I think you are saying exactly what I was saying, not finding a > contradiction at all. Except how they don't actually do for me any of the things they seem to do for you. Isn't that a contradiction? > Forget it. Apple's an enterprise, maybe not an evil one like > Microsoft or (at least the old) IBM, but they're no wellfare > organisation and aren't going to care about you or me unless > it directly affects their bottom line. Um, how exactly did you get the idea that I thought they cared about you or me? I'd have thought pointing out that their decisions really sucked some times would have implied the opposite. My point isn't that they're in it for my good, but that they're consistent about what they're in it for. > That's just reality. Yes, they're just another company. Those three blog entries you quoted all seemed to imply some preternatural cunning that I just don't see. Conventional wisdom reads all kinds of stuff into The Steve, and he plays up to it, but really, there's a whole lot less there than conventional wisdom thinks. I've gone right over to just looking at what they DO, not what the Steve Show looks like, and hold my nose when they obsess about something hateful, because as long as they're obsessive about everything I've got a reasonable expectation that the bits I like are included in "everything". So while I've got my exit strategy in place, I don't think I'm going to need it.
From: Matt McLeod Date: 09:07 on 17 Oct 2007 Subject: Re: Numbers doesn't do ODF [I already sent this once, but I suspect Siesta has eaten it silently. I did try to change my subscription address a while ago but Siesta was... unco-operative.] A. Pagaltzis wrote: > By "cares about similar things" I meant they pay attention to > aspects of their products that matter to me as a user of products > of that kind. At least more so than other companies of their ilk. > I think you are saying exactly what I was saying, not finding a > contradiction at all. There's something I need that they clearly don't care about, and that has turned me from being someone who uses Apple gear almost exclusively into someone who gave up a brand-new shiny-shiny iMac to take a crappy HP desktop. That thing? Resolution independence, or workarounds to make it less necessary. As screen resolutions go up those design choices that seemed pretty nice back when I had a 15" or 17" display have become so bloody tiny that I just can't comfortably use a modern Mac any more. Well, not one that I can afford or convince an employer to buy, anyway. Don't talk to me about the screen zoom or running the LCD at a non-native resolution. Both are stop-gap measures that can get one past a very very short-term problem, e.g., reading a web comic. Neither are suitable for prolonged use. They dropped resolution independence in Leopard after talking it up, so we're looking at at least the end of 2008, probably mid-2009 before there's another shot at that one. In the meantime Macs are now useless to me. I'm sure Steve has excellent eyesight, so maybe I'll have to wait until those start going before Apple will take it seriously? A peril of such a cult of personality. There are many many hateful things about running Linux on a desktop, but at least I can set the damned fonts to something I can read. Matt
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi