Talk:iWork

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IWork article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about IWork. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about IWork at the Reference desk.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Apple Inc. High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

First Apple software with a serial number

Is this true? Doesn't Mac OS X Server require a serial number? Doesn't Final Cut Pro require a serial number? I don't use either of these but I seem to remember that they both require serial numbers. AlistairMcMillan 00:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Think So

I dont think it is the first. Maybe they are only talking about the trial version. Somebody expand this! User:Chris is me 00:52, 15 May 2005 (CDT)

Hello, I don't speak enough english to write this bit, but those critics should be incorporated in the article :

Apple File Formats by Tim Bray
[[1]]

Interesting sections :

"This document does not describe the complete XML schema for either Pages 1.x or Keynote 2.x. The complete XML schema for both applications is not available and will not be made public."

"Important: This document only covers the file formats for Keynote 2.x and Pages 1.x. Future versions of those products may use a different file format than the ones described here. Developers should understand that Apple cannot guarantee that the file formats described herein will be supported in those future versions of the iWork applications as they are currently supported. Changes to these file formats ought to be expected."

Opinonated Article

The article appears to have a negaitve tone to it about it compared to Appleworks. It just seems a little neutral. Also, when inserting a comment on Apple's use of XML-base file formats, you sould start your own header and not link to sites not relevant ot the software (eg, should users post evry iWork review and rumor on the links section?) Also, please format your text into a format reabale by anyone with a 640*480 screen, which is considerd a minimum.

Logo fuzzy... Contents section

I added a logo to the infobox. (The page seemed really boring...) But, the logo is low resolution. If someone can find a better copy, please upload it. Also what do you think of the contents section? I realize that Pages and Keynote already have their own articles, but I know this article needed expansion. Let me know what you think, this is one of my first edits. -Bte288 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer A Stub

What isn't included that makes this article a stub? I couldnt find anything, so Im deleting the stub. I tought it was gone before... lemme check the history. Any objections before I do it? Ccool2ax 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leading MS Office Alternative?

From the page on WordPerfect: "Reports surfaced late in January 2006 that Apple's iWork had leapfrogged WordPerfect Office as leading alternative to Microsoft Office. This claim was soon debunked [[2]]..." Which page is correct?

Criticism section

iWork has been criticized due to the lack of a spreadsheet or database program as well as a project management program.

This seems an odd way to start the section, and definitely not NPOV. How can I criticise a glass of milk for not being a hot dog? Or my cat for not being two cats or three? I think it's fair enough if someone wants to cite a magazine review that expressed disappointment at the lack of a spreadsheet and the other bits. But as it stands now, this is just pointless whining. Comments? Neale Neale Monks 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to make it less whiney. Having a serial number isn't a criticism unless you use bootlegged software. It's completely normal register commercial software. As for not having a spreadsheet, as said before, not having something that you aren't saying you're offering isn't a valid criticism (though it may be disappointing). The file format criticism may be valid, so I've tried to explain it a bit.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ODF support?

Does iWork '08 support ODF? -Matt 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not at all. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, great. More proprietary formats. Just what everyone wanted... 74.101.126.124 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never the less, is it really NPOV to explicitly point out that the software does not support ODF directly after a list specifying which format it does support, as the article currently does (March 4, 2008)? The list of formats supported also shows clearly what formats are not supported, and if one should make a list of all formats a certain software does not support, it would make a long list indeed. I do not know how other Wikipedia articles do, but why treat ODF as a special case? TobiasPersson (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because ODF is standardized by ISO? That makes it special somehow. Lloeki (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Numbers 08.png

Image:Numbers 08.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bento

Given the comparison to AppleWorks, this should probably include a link to FileMaker Bento. --70.71.224.200 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iBiz?

Resolved

Apple bought the iWork name from a company who has since changed the product name to iBiz. Should this not be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.243.118 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If you have a reference to confirm it. Mlewan (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a statement. mabdul 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox screenshot

Someone knows why the infobox screenshot does not display? --Kozuch (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

iWork.com is a small stub and is directly related to iWork, and thus it should be merged into this article. Any objections? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - iWork.com will grow into its own article as Numbers and Pages have. It is a separate product from iWork and at some point will require an additional fee. I don't think it is warranted to merge it into this article just because it is short. ~ Paul^T+/_C 08:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might do, but hasn't at this point in time. It's not really about article size, but content. iWork.com is not cited at all (yes, easily fixable), but if you read the text of the article even with citations it is simply reproducing information already found in the main iWork article, e.g. file types supported. A major factor for me in thinking this needs merged is the fact that you cannot use iWork.com without iWork. If former were a standalone service, i.e. didn't require the latter, then I'd agree it deserves a separate article, but as of now it's completely dependant on iWork and thus belongs there. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How different of a situation is that compared to the fact that Numbers, Pages, and Keynote cannot be purchased individually either? Should they be merged as well? The service requires iWork, but it doesn't come automatically with the product and will cost extra. It is an accessory to iWork but it is a separate product that deserves its own article. ~ Paul^T+/_C 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Paul's right. iWork is merely a software suite comprising these separate products, and iWork.com is one of those products.VisvambaNathan (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I just wrote on the iWork.com article's talk page, I propose a merger again, seeing as the iWork.com website has been discontinued by Apple. Surely, then, it merits nothing more than a historical note on this page (and perhaps on the iCloud page). --Akhenaten0 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot outdated, the box shot also outdated.

The box design and screenshot is outdated, and does not reflect changes made on iWork 09

it needs to be updated IMMEDIATELY! Otherwise, I will mark it as "outdated" Bentoman (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a free image to use for the new box design there's nothing that can be done except deleting the image currently there (though I fail to see why this is needed and why it's such a concern for you). Also, it's not very productive to make the type of post you've made, i.e. threatening volunteer editors to fix the problem 'IMMEDIATELY' "or else I'll do this...." Instead of wasting your time writing this post, and our time by needing to read and respond to it, you should have fixed the problem you believe exists yourself. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, took your advice, and made the edit my self. The box shot, and screenshot has been deleted until updated image is located. Bentoman (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Keynote Remote started

Just a notice that I started the article for Keynote Remote and it needs some work done on it. Photographerguy (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well honestly, if you look over the policy on notability, you'll find that this iPhone/touch app is not notable enough for its own article, especially since the information would fit in nicely with the already existant Keynote article. I think the Keynote Remote information you've done should be moved over (merged) into the main Keynote article, and have the new article created. Good job and initiative however, it is appreciated. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File format

Regarding the paragraph about file format that was removed and added a few times today, I agree that it should not be left as it was written, as it was wrong. However, there may be some valid way to add similar content back in, if anyone feels like having a go. The main problem, as far as I am concerned, is that it described the files as folders today, February 2009. However, since iWork '09, which was released a few weeks ago, the default file format is standard files, which easily can be attached with any mail application.

If someone wants more details, I wrote some longer entries on the pagesfaq blog: http://pagesfaq.blogspot.com/search?q=attach

If I may come with a general comment about Wikipedia's iWork article, it is that it looks very poor. It would probably improve faster if people spent more time adding unfinished unstructured facts, and less time on bluntly removing things that are not yet perfect. Mlewan (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version History needed

I don't have the wiki chops to make a nice table for this, but this article could really use a version history. I've done the research here:

K=Keynote P=Pages N=Numbers

iWork 05: K2, P1 iWork 06: K3, P2 iWork 08: K4, P3, N1 iWork 09: K5, P4, N2

Thanks for doing this! Source? (just in case it's challenged). I'll table-ize it soon when I have the time (probably within the next week or two). Please don't forget to sign your comment with four of these:~. Again, thanks, and happy editing! Airplaneman ^talk 03:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added the table. Sources are in the pages for the suite's components.Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey is the Version History up-to-date?.

Isn't iWork 11 out? shock2provide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.1.56 (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Issue

"Numbers differed from other spreadsheet applications, including Microsoft Excel, in that it allowed users to create documents containing multiple spreadsheets on a flexible canvas using a number of built-in templates." I'm a little confused about what this is trying to say. It claims that other spreadsheet programs including excel can't have multiple spreadsheets in one document and don't have a "flexible canvas." From my experience with Calc and Excel this isn't true. -Vcelloho (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully flagging the article will draw attention to this. -Vcelloho (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excel can't have multiple spreadsheets on a single canvas, as far as I know. It can have multiple spreadsheets in a document, but that's a different thing. Nandesuka (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then the phrasing should be revised to better define what a canvas is since it is unique to Numbers and won't make sense to users who aren't familiar with Numbers. -Vcelloho (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential iPhone version

I was thinking of adding a section on the possible leak of an iWork for iPhone. The story would seemingly have the weight to carry its own merit. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel wolfgang (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I've decided to go ahead and post the information (Joel Wolfgang 12:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel wolfgang (talk • contribs) [reply]

Went official today if someone wants to add it in - http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/05/31iwork.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.156.33 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keynote

The section on Keynote has the sentence "Its features are comparable to those of Microsoft PowerPoint, though Keynote contains several unique features which differ from similar applications". Neither this section not the linked keynote page given any indication to the lay reader what these features are. I would suggest someone knowledgable about the product give some examples of them or the clause is removed from the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.146.180 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Components Section

The components section looks like it should be updated. I believe that iOS apps should be moved out of 'Web Services' to 2.3 and Web Services should be moved to 2.4 and 2.4.2 should be added to include iCloud both the original information about sharing docs and now the new iWork for iCloud information. Any thoughts on this? We should also note that iWork.com has been shut down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel wolfgang (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links broken

Whatever I follow iWork the link or search for Apple Productivity Apps in apple.com, it redirects to apple.com/mac/ or apple.com/ios/ it looks like they want to separate the applications from each others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.89.62.141 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus about what is the most common name in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IWork → Apple Productivity Apps – Just as the intro states:

“

Apple Productivity Apps, formerly known as iWork

”

It is no longer known as iWork, but instead known as Apple Productivity Apps. Proud User (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. sst✈^(discuss) 06:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It may be too early to change the page name. Anybody know when iWork was renamed Apple Productivity Apps? Currently, there are not enough RS using the name Apple Productivity Apps. A redirect is adequate here. Meatsgains (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The redirect should be the other way around (Redirecting iWork to Apple Productivity Apps) to reflect the actual naming of relevant software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vista980622 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IWork. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814024014/http://www.apple.com/iwork/ to http://www.apple.com/iwork/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free apps: October 2013 or October 2014?

I noticed that Apple's page regarding free iWork apps now reads "purchased on or after October 16, 2014" as a requirement for free iWork apps. However, the same page in the WayBack Machine reads October 1, 2013 during the first crawl. Which date is correct? Is the program linked to App Store accounts or to computers? Is an older computer no longer eligible for free upgrades? (I am using Mavericks and cannot upgrade to the latest software.) --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on IWork. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]