Home > Mac OS X > GoBe Productive 3.0 == New Apple Office Suite?GoBe Productive 3.0 == New Apple Office Suite? Adam Scheinberg 2003-01-15 Mac OS X 32 CommentsMatthias Schonder writes “Check out this article. Maybe Gobe for OS X is closer than we think“. I don’t know if the momentum of OpenOffice.org can be stopped, but how could anyone not welcome Productive to their suite of tools? About The Author Adam ScheinbergVice President, Information Technology at Massey Services, Inc • President, Board Member, The Mockingbird Foundation • All Things Web, Umphrey’s McGee • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiastFollow me on Twitter @sethadam1 32 Comments 2003-01-15 1:24 pm Everybody knows the GoBe team were mostly the original Claris Works (later Apple Works) team.I fail to see why that would insinuate(sp) Productive will move to OS X.As a HUGE BeOS fan gone OS X; it would be a great thing as far as I’m concerned. 2003-01-15 1:31 pm I wonder if Apple would risk to marketa cross platform office suite.I think it would be the only way tocompete in the current market. But Iguess they woudn’t want to step toohard on the toes of MS. 2003-01-15 2:00 pm Well, I could. Lack of features.besides, personally, I see no future for AppleWorks. With the release of Keynote, I don’t think they are into completely integrated stuff anymore. Maybe one day they would release a word processor, a spreadsheet apps, a basic image editing tool, etc. 2003-01-15 2:05 pm Well, that surprised me. I have been under the assumption for a long time that GoBe was none too happy with Apple, so I don’t know what to believe about this rumor.*IF* it is true, then I’ll be a seriously happy camper. As an ex BeOS user now using a Mac, the addition of GoBe’s wonderful product will be great. It may not have all of the super-duper-wizz-bang-deluxe features as Microsoft Word, yet it is still one of the most elegant programs that I’ve had the chance to use. Small, sleek, and quick.What I want to know is: Eugenia, what do you have to say about this? You always seem to know what GoBe has been up to. Is there anything you can tell us?-grovel 2003-01-15 2:27 pm >Eugenia, what do you have to say about this?After the demise of Gobe, a few of its engineers went to work at Apple. They did not take… GP3 with them. The IP of the product was left at FreeRadicalSoftware, Inc. and Bruce Hammond. The fact that some people sought a job at Apple does not mean that GP3 will come to OSX. However, that does not mean either that Bruce might not have talks with Apple regarding his product! We don’t know that.However, reading the MacRumors site, line by line, it is a misunderstanding of the situation rather the author having any knowledge of what is happening under the tables and he is just “rumoring” about it. 2003-01-15 2:44 pm See? OSNews isn’t just a Mac hating site. They do have quality articles. 2003-01-15 3:01 pm Mail, iCal, iTunes, Finder, Safari, Addressbook, iPhoto are all seperate applications (where others tend to throw them all together in a few big applications), eventhough they are all very nicely integrated. (UNIX KISS: one application that does one thing, but does it well. Make it integrate well).Gobe Productive would kind of stick out if it was one big application. 2003-01-15 3:02 pm “I don’t know if the momentum of OpenOffice.org can be stopped…”You’re kidding, right? The only fields where OpenOffice (and StarOffice) are gaining any real traction are on systems that have no high quality native office suite, such as Linux.Windows and Mac are still Microsoft thralls. 2003-01-15 3:04 pm Since a final release for a real native version of OpenOffice for Mac OS X isn’t scheduled until the Q2 of 2004, I don’t think any one is worried about it’s momentum. 2003-01-15 3:11 pm Nevertheless, Apple is going to need a contingency plan if and when M$ drops Office for MacOS X. In such an event, it would be best if Apple, in accordance with “UNIX KISS” (UNIX? Simple? :-)) churned out a word processor, a spreadsheet, and so forth.If I were Jobs I wouldn’t go for OpenOffice, but rather develop something in-house (possibly based on OpenOffice). As long as Apple is dependant on M$, they’re vulnerable. 2003-01-15 3:17 pm the people got hired by apple (again I might add given that most of them originally came from there) yet they did not aquire the GoBe IP. In other words, GoBe Productive will not see the light of day on OS X. The people in question are more likely to either work on Apple Works and/or being involved with Keynote. 2003-01-15 3:22 pm rajan r: “With the release of Keynote, I don’t think they are into completely integrated stuff anymore. Maybe one day they would release a word processor, a spreadsheet apps, a basic image editing tool, etc.”Considering the model of how Address Book is incorporated into Mail, Safari, and iCal, I think an Apple office suite would indeed be separate applications, but still tightly integrated. 2003-01-15 3:38 pm Maybe a leetle off topic: does anybody know if it’s even possible to get ahold of a copy of GoBeProductive3 for Windows anymore? I have the BeOS version and downloaded the Linux alpha which is usable. I didn’t get around to buying the Windows version before things blew up. 2003-01-15 3:39 pm if apple churns out their own office suite they will be just as likely to do so (perhaps more) by doing what they did with safari. take good code from an OSS project and complete it.koffice for mac? gnome apps? something like that maybe….. 2003-01-15 4:10 pm Yes, the rumour seemed to have misinterperated a few things… a number of the GoBe dev’s went to Apple yes, so it is highly probable they are working on AppleWorks or even a new breed of productivity tool, probably taking a seamlessness lead from Productive’s book.Apple tend to do this a lot! – You’ll notice that the lead developer of Chimera was recruited by Apple to work on Safari… I’d guess that the same is occuring here.Exciting stuff. Apple is in a fantastic position, to be able to whipe the slate clean and start things afresh, and do it right. On Office suite with the seamless-ness of Gobe Productive would be nothing than a good thing IMHO. 2003-01-15 4:51 pm I don’t know if Apple would actually replace AppleWorks. It has a very active world-wide user group, is used in schools and comes with every consumer Mac. It also has a pretty good database module, which is absent from GoBe. I could see elements of GoBe put into AppleWorks and I could also see Apple making higher end applications for the office, especially is Microsft starts pulling out on Office. As Rajan, said they already have KeyNote. 2003-01-15 5:03 pm would seem to be the best candidate if Apple were to port something. It is under the GPL so it would have to be released as OSS.I would definitely welcome it too since KOffice is nice enough but lacks some refinements. Plus, KDE and MacOS X are very natural fits for one another.Isn’t that strange, though? The Un*x project which tries to copy Macs the most (GNOME) is the one least liked by Apple. Maybe they don’t like their ideas being ripped off. 2003-01-15 5:09 pm Gnome is based on C. Apple’s new (graphical) products are object oriented, so they do want to have to do with mostly C++ or Java or ObjC. 2003-01-15 6:01 pm This is complete speculation, but considering Apple wrote the bridge framework between Qt and objective C while developing Safari, perhaps they can continue to refine that API until a project like porting KWord could become relatively feasible.I would assume that the bridge api is at the moment just comprehensive enough for khtml and kjs, but one can hope, right? 2003-01-15 6:18 pm The rationale for thinking Apple will continue to repeat similar product development projects like Safari is flawed.Apple tries to understand what is most needed, what sets them apart the most.Safari it was simplicity and speed.With an Office challenger, it will be Office compatibility. Besides Office for the Mac, AppleWorks is the MOST compatible office package–better than OpenOffice and Gobe.Apple will stick with it’s own technology but needs to add new features–probably needs to break a part the apps so they can function on their own while maintaining integration. (Hint: Keynote–it was the missing piece. MS knows they have it now. AppleWorks already has fairly good word processing and spreadsheet functionality that is rather compatible with Office.)As for the article talking about Apple acquiring Gobe, you need to read better. The article discusses acquiring developers. Something that’s much better than acquiring Productive–Productive just doesn’t match up with Apple’s needs, technology, or strategy–AppleWorks is much closer to this and is still related to Productive anyway, after all.It’s much nicer to know that Apple has attracted some of the best developers across the industry into its fold (Eazel developers, Hyatt and the Moz guys, GoBe people, Hubbard, Sanchez, etc….) 2003-01-15 7:41 pm …well, seriously, I’d like to see some of the ideas from Productive brought back into Appleworks. I’ve tried to like AppleWorks 6 but so far I’ve failed in my attempts. (As it stands, I’m either waiting for Nisus Writer X, or gearing up to stupidly try and write my own editor.) 2003-01-15 8:19 pm Gnome is based on C. Apple’s new (graphical) products are object oriented, so they do want to have to do with mostly C++ or Java or ObjC.C would be easier to bind to ObjC, than C++. And Gnome is object-oriented designed, just implemented in non-object-oriented language, for some reasons.That, and they would have to write a pretty extensive layer that makes Qt unnecessary. Mapping KParts to whatever MacOSX uses doesn’t seem easy either. I personally have my doubts that they would use KOffice. If not for technical reasons, than for the GPL license, it isn’t completely LGPL like KHTML. (same goes for the gnome office project I guess) 2003-01-15 9:55 pm Ages ago Apple said they were doing some coding to help OpenOffice.Org OSX build.. then retracted the statement a few days laterI am tempted to wonder if the Apple X11 X-Server is a fruit of that notion.. an app that makes X11/Xfree86 apps at home on OSX makes OpenOffice a lot more complete as it removes completely the necessity to port to Quartz/AquaAny thoughts? 2003-01-15 10:04 pm shouldn’t it be apple office = gobe (or apple office =: gobe)? 2003-01-15 10:10 pm First off, Cd, that statement came from Sun, and it took Apple, the Oo.o group and particularly the Mac OS X Oo.o developers by surprise. There was really nothing substantial to it although I think Apple is doing lots of interesting things these days to entertain all possibilities on all fronts.However, linux zealots and the like may love running X Windows apps, using GTK, etc… But Mac users don’t. Even more than Mac users, Apple themselves hate the idea of running a windowing environment on top of their own GUI.If Apple does have any plans with Oo.o (and I don’t think they do–they may assist them, but I highly doubt they intend to deliver their own packaging of Oo.o), they will certainly want it Aqua-fied. Since Oo.o is working on Aqua-fying Oo.o, why do you think Apple would stop before that and release an app that didn’t even run under it’s own GUI?You may want that (and by the way you can have it now), but Apple, Mac users, and myself do not see X Windows as a good environment for Apple applications. Hell, I don’t think we see it as a Mac environment at all.And note, as I said above, AppleWorks has better Office compatibility than OpenOffice–why take two steps back? 2003-01-15 10:25 pm AppleWorks is ancient code and the last version(s?) were developed by a third party under contract. I doubt Apple will continue to use this code base. The trend in the iApps is to build single function apps in Cocoa that integrate well.I suppose that Apple could take outside code (like they did with iTunes and–to a lesser extent–Safari) but I suspect that they will start from scratch: a new code base gives them better longevity and allows them to maximize their use of the Cocoa frameworks. It also allows them an opportunity to extend the frameworks to benefit all of their developers. In the long run, Cocoa apps will be much easier to maintain.An added side benefit of individual apps is that third parties can much more easily target individual functions for replacement with more powerful/vertical market apps. This is nearly impossible to do with traditional suites like AppleWorks or Office. Individual, scriptable apps are less likely to kill off the developer ecology. This is even more true if all of the object frameworks used to make the iApps are available to third parties. 2003-01-15 10:28 pm if it’s anything like Gobe 2 for BeOS – forget it. That app was such a waste of money and time. 2003-01-16 12:53 am It had a few problems, but I rather liked GP2 a lot. It had all the features I actually use in Word and none of those I don’t, which I suspect is more or less true for 90% of Office users. It’s like people who e-mail documents in Word format solely for the font formatting features, or, as Dogbert once put it, “a bit like sandblasting a soup cracker.” 2003-01-16 12:55 am I don’t think there is anything to the rumor at all.BUT, if APPLE ports OO/SO to Mac OS X and returns the code GPL’d that would be a good thing for Stallmanites.I mean, if ANYBODY can clean up that code – its APPLE. A bunch of hackers attempting it in their spare time is admirable but hardly effective. If APPLE is secretly working on it I’m sure its quality is/will far surpass what anyone has seen so far. Though, my bets are if APPLE is working on an office suite its either proprietary or KOffice – not OO/SO.Most Linux users touted SO as the greatest thing since sliced bread the second it was GPL’d (though prior it only had 4 users). 2003-01-16 1:03 am “AppleWorks is ancient code”http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000027.htmlYes, let apple start from scratch, lose the many tried and true programs that have been beloved and use by many (including me). No, let apple keep appleworks and let them upgrade it. Modernize it, beautify it, and ready it to wow the computer world.My prediction, Apple will announce a HUGE upgrade to appleworks within the next, say, 18 months, and openly put it in competition with MS office. It will not be built from scratch but it will have (along with an all around big upgrade to appleworks) some extra surpise (duno what). 2003-01-16 1:51 am AppleWorks isn’t that ancient… And it wasn’t done outside. Apple bought Clarus, integrated them into Apple, spun them out, and most of the original team went on to found GoBe. Yes, Productive and AppleWorks have the same roots. AppleWorks has seen 2 major revamps that did much to improve the application.Unfortunately, the application was original geared to education and to the consumer market. And it also received little attention. (What four years since the last substantial upgrade?) If they are positioning against MS, and they are, they will need to change this. Which they should be able to–it is already quite powerful, it’s just overly candy-fied. Remove the childlike iconography, make each “unit” independent but tightly integrated, bring in a few new features to get closer parity with Office… and you will have a software product that puts Oo.o to shame and will instantly have a user base greater than Productive’s (counting all the platforms it is or has ever been available for.)And they should assist Oo.o when possible too. Get two solid alternatives on the market, but work on their own package mostly. Same as Safari. You do realize that Hyatt and others are still working on Moz, right? I think Apple deserves to be commended simply for that–hiring great OSS coders, having them develop internal projects, and not prevent them from dedicating some resources to other OSS projects and outlets. 2003-01-16 12:29 pm glibc-ed C would be harder to bind to Obj. C than C++ to Obj. C++. As for the license, yes, that is an disadvantage, but if Apple actually plans of selling it to make money rather than to sell makes, I really really think they are high. Besides, not all of KOffice is GPLed.