I’ll admit it: when Phil Schiller began demo-ing the new version of iWork at the iPad launch today, I began checking e-mail. Why would anyone want to do use spreadsheets or a word processing program on a device on such a device. That’s what laptops are for.

But after the event was over, a number of analysts mentioned iWork as a critical differentiator. Given the lack of apps right out of the gate (that will take at least some time, regardless of how good the new SDK is), iWork would give people a reason to choose an iPad rather than a netbook.

I’m not so sure about that. If anything, it may eliminate a reason not to buy an iPad.

To me, iWork’s importance would become clear if the iPad becomes a hit based on its strenghts as an entertainment and communication device. If that happens, millions of people who currently own Windows PCs and use Office would be exposed to iWork. And if they like it, the next time they went shopping for a PC they’d be more likely to buy a Mac.

But maybe I’m overthinking it. What do you think? Does the new, improved iWork for the iPad matter at all to you?

Reader CommentsPlayballTim January 28, 2010 2:54 AM

Why not just give away iWork pre-installed on iPads?

Apple needs to differentiate the iPad from the iPhone/iPT and they need people to try and buy iWork for the Mac.

The more users view the iPad as a fully-functional touch-computing device, the more the iPad is differentiated from the iPhone, and the more people like me – Apple & iPhone fans – realize the extra utility of an iPad. I think iWork on the iPad will be an incredibly sticky app – everything from editing presentations on the fly to the app that is used to compile the grocery shopping list. In this sense, the $10 purchase price for each iWork app may be a fraction of the value provided for the consumer, making it a good deal, but still a missed opportunity for Apple.

At the same time, iWork – while a good effort – isn’t even remotely relevant to Mac. Adoption far lags MSOffice use on the Mac. (Do you know anybody who uses iWork?) Adoption of iWork by Mac desktop/laptop users isn’t going to rise meaningfully because some iPad users are keeping their grocery lists on a $10 app. In short, using the iPad to drive potential Mac versions of iWork is a bit stupid, which is a surprise, because Apple’s marketing is usually MUCH sharper.

But, using the iPad to sell more iWork MIGHT work. Why not take advantage of the one place MSOffice isn’t sold (the app store) to drive more sales in the other market where MSOffice and iWork compete.

Beyond the marketing/positioning chatter, consider the math:I’d guess the installed iWork base is around 1-2,000,000 users (if that). If Apple is really, really lucky, a quarter will buy 1.5 iPad versions of iWork. Total revenue = $750,000.

But, with predictions of 4-8 million iPads sold in the next year, if 10% of them converted to Mac (full version) iWork sales, Apple would make $4.8M from iWork (Mac) sales in 2010 (assuming 6M iPad sales)

(Even better: the new iWork users purchase updates of iWork in later years, making even more $$ for Apple.)
Besides, there’s precedent – Apple used to ship Appleworks (the iWork predecessor) on every Mac.

PXLated January 28, 2010 3:27 AM

The thing with iWorks is it can open/convert Office docs. Everyone I know that needs those has iWorks installed as it’s far cheaper than Office – Much nicer too. Keynote alone is worth the price of iWorks, make PowerPoint look like an ancient piece of software.
—–
So, to me, it’s essential if you want to use the iPad for work where people are emailing you spreadsheets and such.

Steven January 28, 2010 5:13 AM

iPad had to be something above and beyond “iPod touch on steroids” in order to justify its cost and to differentiate it from netbooks. I think a multitouch iWork suite helps to accomplish that.

TheKiltedOne January 28, 2010 6:22 AM

I think I have a slightly different perspective on what the iPad is from many, and therefore approach the question from a different angle.

I see the iPad as being the first in a new generation of PDAs. The PDA market died when Blackberries and smartphones began to really take off. Palm tried to make the jump, but didn’t quite make it. Now all they have is a marginally “smart” phone.

The problem I have with smart phones is they make it difficult to use as your main method of managing you schedule, contacts, task list, etc. And don’t even think about taking notes in a meeting on one.

The iPad has roughly the footprint of a standard sized day planner. The form factor is perfect. I already carry a day planner with me, now I can replace it with something much more useful.

As for iWork, I definitely think this is good. I don’t necessarily think it’s going to be “new and improved” so much as I think it’s going to be streamlined (i.e. dumbed down, simplified, lacking some features of the Mac version) and redesigned to take advantage of the multitouch interface. With an Internet connection, one could always use Google Apps to create and edit documents…. hey, how about that… isn’t it interesting that Google added file storage to Google Apps not too long ago and here we have a device with no real file system for storing documents, only syncing them via iTunes?… Sorry, got distracted there for a moment… But iWork is going to look and work much more elegant.

Now, if Apple really wants to stick it to the man, the next version of iWork for the Mac will also be available in a Windows version.

Perry Clease January 28, 2010 12:43 PM

“Do you know anybody who uses iWork?”

Yes, I use it. I have Office installed, but rarely use any it these days.

@PlayballTim I think that Apple isn’t giving iWork away for free is because they want to encourage 3rd party developers to create similar apps for the iPad. I may be wrong about that, but it is certainly a reason.

Jose January 30, 2010 2:03 AM

Hmmm,

Saw your CNet video podcast earlier today, thought I would stop by share my thoughts on the whole iWork on iPad thing.

I honestly think Apple (and Jobs especially) think that touch interfaces are the future of computing UIs.

It is more efficient. Think about it. It takes more effort and time to hit a GUI element with a pointer/mouse combo than with a finger (not to mention that touch is far more ergonomic as it reduces repetitive stress).

Its also much more intuitive. I think the original iPhone’s early success (prior to the app store’s arrival) is a testament to this as at the time touch was the only primary differentiator (I guess accelerometers were unique as well but it seems very unlikely this could have had such an impact in customers minds as multitouch had at the time). Relative to other contemporary phones at the time, the original iPhone had weaker tech specs than all other phones out there. In fact, from a strictly hardware feature perspective, the iPhone has never been the best hardware platform by any measure (ignoring multi-touch). Faster, lighter, smaller, better quality screens, better cameras, etc have all been readily available in other phones. Nonetheless, the iPhone has been a runaway success. I think it’s the UI (and Apple’s enviable software polish) that has accomplished that. The App store (all multi-touch based software) since then has extended such lead.

I agree to some extent that iWork was probably developed as an offering that could help people see greater viability in trading away a netbook for an iPad. But more than that I think Apple views this as the beginning of a whole new way of computing. The iPad is so much more than just a larger iPod Touch. It’s qualitatively different (no, I haven’t drank the kool-aid). Can you picture running the iPad version of iWork on your iPod Touch??? Why then, is it such a stretch to think that this form factor truly enables new possibilities? I personally believe that Apple will continue to invest VERY heavily in multi-touch optimized software UIs going forward. It certainly feels that way as most recent OS X work has been either largely derivative of iPhone OS work (much of 10.5′s innovations) or at the very least developed with the iPhone OS in mind (given the A4′s likely multi-core design, 10.6′s GCD comes to mind. Imagination also mentioned planned OpenCL support but the iPad’s GPU remains unknown). Furthermore, cross-pollination is one thing, but it is unquestionable that iPhone OS has seen much more rapid development vis-a-vis OS X since 2007. OS X-only developers I have spoken to unanimously feel this way.

This of course is in stark contrast with MS. I still cannot believe they shipped multi-touch in Windows 7. If there is one thing that could plausibly be attributed as the root cause of MS’ TabletPC, in my mind, it would have to be the fact that they never bothered to optimize their touch UI. And yet here they are, attempting to do the very same thing again in Windows 7. Apple, meanwhile, rewrites even its basic built-in contacts app for the iPad….I’m sure everyone is going to have a blast on Win7 machines hitting those close window boxes with their fingers….Hope at least they build some “wrapper” for the impending Win7 slate onslaught.

To be fair, Windows has a legacy + enterprise burden that Apple lacks. And therein lies the rub. Apple innovates not only because of their natural tendency to do so, but because it pursues business models that allow it to. This is I think why it hasn’t pursued the enterprise in any significant manner. Sure, it likes to see adoption rise, as Cook stated recently, but not at the expense of its creative freedom. In many ways, Apple is soooo much better positioned to break from the past than Microsoft is. In Apple’s mind, and I think rightly so, I believe they view people as the ultimate end user. They don’t have strict purchasing guidelines, a need for product road maps, require extensive 24/7 support, etc. Sure, the enterprise market is large and highly profitable. But the consumer market is larger. Even those IT suits that plan and approve corporate purchases – not to mention all those they purchase hardware for- are as individuals, “regular” consumers. Why straightjacket your business model ala Microsoft when you can cater to a much larger, more forgiving audience that can then serve as your own product advocates?

Health, sales, real estate are oft-cited examples of verticals that may spearhead iPad adoption. But that misses the point again. Yes, they are the low-hanging fruit, but this is much bigger than just niche markets. This is about the intersection where computing meets with the human form in the most natural way we have yet encountered. All one has to do is to realize how despite having the same underlying interaction model (touch), usability and market adoption has skyrocketed from the switch of stylus for finger (and “finger-optimized” UIs). It is funny to read that some pundits call the iPad “risky”. Bold perhaps, but where’s the risk????? The App Store has proven that people LOVE multi-touch interfaces. Apple has seen an incredible UI and UX experiment unfold in front of its eyes and remarkably seems to be the only one who is committing to this wholeheartedly.

IMHO, the iPad’s entertainment+gaming leisurely focus is not a reflection of Apple’s vision but more so of its short-term viability as a product category. Movies, games, books, music, web browsing etc are all reasons in themselves for wanting such a device and thus have been focused on so as to maximize the odds of a favorable product launch. Obviously these are not peripheral offerings within Apple’s businesses – quite the opposite actually – but in the iPad’s case I think they are far from the central idea behind it. It is all that could be conceived as potential lures for the wider adoption of a new interaction model. One that MS will have a hell of a hard time following given their immense legacy baggage and significant enterprise customer base that resists change so strongly.

In the end, I don’t think the endgame is to sell OS X iWork copies as you suggest in your post, although that will quite likely be a side-effect for some time. In the end, I think it may be to stop selling them altogether at some further out future point in time, and only sell a multi-touch version. iPhone OS, in 2.5 years in the market, is already unquestionably the best CE operating system. It is currently one of the most targeted development platforms out there. If anything, it would seem more reasonable for Apple to pursue ways that would allow Mac users to actually use them as native apps. As way of example, virtualization and/or JIT techniques would all be options. Apple’s LLVM work certainly is extremely applicable to such a scenario.

With time, I think Apple believes that this is the way we should work with computers. It may take quite some time to get there, but it unquestionably is heading down that path. I for one cannot fathom a reason why mice would remain preferable over the long run. I know I would not only enjoy, but would find greater productivity in touch-enabled versions of iMovie, GarageBand, Logic, etc (obviously I am not advocating for these to run on an iPad. Instead, perhaps on a multi-touch iMac, as recent Apple patents point towards). Pros have used everything from dedicated touch screens to FingerWork’s gesture pad for this very purpose quite successfully for some time now.

I firmly believe the future as Apple sees is is to move towards these kinds of Apps, not away from them. I would be very surprised if Apple doesn’t pursue very active development of its multi-touch iWork suite.

Cheers,

P.S. And while they are at it, I think this is a GOLDEN opportunity for a switch to Dvorak. I myself don’t know how to type in Dvorak. I saw an article asking for support since it should be relatively easy given that they are soft keyboards after all. But the issue is SO MUCH LARGER than just convenience to those that type on a Dvorak layout.

The world has come to a regrettably irrational hysterisis with regard to the QWERTY keyboard. We are stuck in a world where virtually EVERYONE uses a keyboard layout that was designed to be inefficient because of historical limitations. Moreover, almost nobody makes a Dvorak keyboard because nobody wants to learn and be dependent on a highly non-transferable skill. Ridiculous vicious cycle. Providing us with a soft-keyboard could be the beginning of a keyboard revolution too!!!!!!! Ironic how a touch UI could help us move to a better keyboard!!!!!!!!!!

RR January 30, 2010 10:38 AM

iWorks and iBooks positions Apple to replace binders and textbooks in schools and colleges. Instead of backpacks there will be iPacks.

Joe January 31, 2010 1:20 PM

I too saw your CNET interview. I think that it was a mistake to not talk about the A4 chip. According to iSupply, the cost of the Iphone chip is $14.

The A4 has been acknowledged as being much more speedy, on a larger LED screen.

So instead of using something like Morestown, the A4 enables the Ipad to price much lower than the competition.

Also, because Apple is the biggest Nand purchaser in the world, there are economies of scale that come together that allow them to make a tablet computer at a far lower cost than their competitors.

So, Apple before they bought PA Semi, and before they became the biggest purchaser of Nand in the world could not do this Ipad without it costing much more.

I’d say this is about a $20 to $30 advantage over competitors–just the NAND and A4.

steveballmer February 6, 2010 5:10 AM

iPad will NEVER catch on!

Chris February 22, 2010 8:44 PM

Maybe if you did use iWork on the iPad, you could use the spell check function, or have a handy device to proofread your blogs before you post them. This is business week, not geocities.

Shane March 12, 2010 1:54 PM

“…over thinking it.” I don’t think you’re thinking very much at all. iWork apps. rewritten to take full advantage of the multi-touch screen is huge and goes a long way towards making the iPad a useful device for business, academia as well as the casual user. Your limited thinking makes for a very jaded post on this topic.

FYI, I switched from Office for Mac after I upgraded to an Intel powered Mac because it took MSFT forever to get a version of Office for Mac that was stable enough to run on an Intel Mac (see the irony here boys and girls) its not like MSFT and INTEL weren’t already SO in bed with one another.

iWorks is a very compelling suite of applications and Office for Mac is still too cumbersome chunk of code; iWork is a much better experience than using for old Office suite, however its compatible so the installed user base of MSFT Office users can interface / collaborate with iWork users.

etootoo001 March 21, 2010 12:50 AM

http://www.etootoo.com

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price

our price:
CA POLO EDHARDY GUCCI T-SHIRT $15;
TRUE RELIGION EVISU G-STAR COOGI JEAN $36;
AIR MAX NIKE SHOX JORDAN JORDAN FUNSHION JORDAN RING SHOES $35;
GUCCI COACH shoes DG shoes $33
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32;
edhardy New Era POLO cap $15;
coach okely prada nike DG Sunglass $16;

http://www.etootoo.com

etootoo001 March 21, 2010 12:55 AM