Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Ted L. Nancy · Apr 29, 2010, 01:56 PM

Will Apple ever make an iWeb pro? Something like Dreamweaver?

(X is to iWeb as FCP is to iMovie)

If yes, then for those of us that have sites created in iWeb, do you think there would be an easy way to transfer them to the pro software?

besson3c · Apr 29, 2010, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy

Will Apple ever make an iWeb pro? Something like Dreamweaver?

(X is to iWeb as FCP is to iMovie)

If yes, then for those of us that have sites created in iWeb, do you think there would be an easy way to transfer them to the pro software?

WYSIWYG is not pro web development, period. The days of relying on WYSIWYG web development for non-hobbist websites is behind us. Pro development = a nice text editor. If any an iWeb Pro is more likely to be a future version of XCode than anything resembling its current form. The only way that Dreamweaver is a professional app in today's day and age is if you like using it as a text editor, that is it. Pro web development now has nothing to do with file management, creating static HTML pages, or WYSIWYG with an exception to something like the TinyMCE editor which provides some very intentionally limited WYSIWYG.

Sorry if this comes across as overly opinionated, I obviously feel strongly about this.

HenryMelton · Apr 29, 2010, 03:41 PM

I'd certainly buy an enhanced iWeb. (not pro in deference to besson3c's sensibilities)

Having gone through many generations of web tools from "a nice text editor" to completely database driven designs, what I use has never been 'pro', but it has been important with a need for easy updates. I'm currently using iWeb for two sites and I have a list of enhancements I'd spend money for.

However, if it meant rebuilding each page of those two sites, I'd certainly move with caution. I'm using iWeb to save time, and a rebuild would be a horrible time sink.

turtle777 · Apr 29, 2010, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

WYSIWYG is not pro web development, period. The days of relying on WYSIWYG web development for non-hobbist websites is behind us. Pro development = a nice text editor. If any an iWeb Pro is more likely to be a future version of XCode than anything resembling its current form. The only way that Dreamweaver is a professional app in today's day and age is if you like using it as a text editor, that is it. Pro web development now has nothing to do with file management, creating static HTML pages, or WYSIWYG with an exception to something like the TinyMCE editor which provides some very intentionally limited WYSIWYG.

Sorry if this comes across as overly opinionated, I obviously feel strongly about this.

Do you really think what you are proposing (dynamic web pages, HTMl with text editors etc.) will EVER go mainstream ?

Can you see teaching your mom how to do that ?

-t

besson3c · Apr 29, 2010, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Do you really think what you are proposing (dynamic web pages, HTMl with text editors etc.) will EVER go mainstream ?

Can you see teaching your mom how to do that ?

-t

Dynamic pages are mainstream, look at the thousands of bloggers out there...

The future of DIY websites is essentially get somebody to make you a template (or download a free one at a site such as this), plug it into a CMS, download any plugins/widgets/HTML snippets on the web you'd like to use to add functionality to your site, go.

turtle777 · Apr 29, 2010, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Dynamic pages are mainstream, look at the thousands of bloggers out there...

The future of DIY websites is essentially get somebody to make you a template (or download a free one at a site such as this), plug it into a CMS, download any plugins/widgets/HTML snippets on the web you'd like to use to add functionality to your site, go.

You still need a host that supplies the CMS.

-t

besson3c · Apr 29, 2010, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

You still need a host that supplies the CMS.

-t

And?

turtle777 · Apr 29, 2010, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

And?

Not every host provides ready-to-use CMS.

But every host provides a webserver where you can load HTML pages via FTP.

-t

besson3c · Apr 29, 2010, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Not every host provides ready-to-use CMS.

But every host provides a webserver where you can load HTML pages via FTP.

-t

Not every video based website offers HTML5 video yet, but it is pretty easy to predict where things will end up in x years. Yes, hosts that are limited to hosting static content are still prevalent, but things are changing. As much as I generally dislike Dreamhost, their one click install stuff is a pretty good reflection of where things are headed, I think.

I'd also argue that hosts that provide a ready-to-use CMS are not all that uncommon either.

Big Mac · Apr 30, 2010, 03:53 AM

I have your back on this one, Ted. I've often thought that Apple could make a great competitor to Dreamweaver, a high end counterpart to iWeb. Yes, WYSIWYG web design has its downsides, but I don't think that means they have no place at the table whatsoever.

besson3c · Apr 30, 2010, 04:56 AM

It has its place, it is great for simple, basic, static sites. I never claimed that WYSIWYG doesn't have any use at all, I just think that it doesn't belong in the same sentence with "pro", is all.

turtle777 · Apr 30, 2010, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It has its place, it is great for simple, basic, static sites. I never claimed that WYSIWYG doesn't have any use at all, I just think that it doesn't belong in the same sentence with "pro", is all.

That I agree with.

-t

besson3c · 10:36 PM

To be honest, I'm actually surprised that iWeb even exists in its current form.

One of the definitions, and certainly hallmarks of so-called "Web 2.0" sites is dynamic content. Apple has their MobileMe business trying to make money. Why doesn't iWeb create a secure tunnel directly to a database table hosted on MobileMe which would control the display of your page template, and focus on making iWeb a WYSIWYG editor for this database driven content much like WordPress's WYSIWYG editor is - whether this is a web or desktop app?

It's absolutely absurd that Apple's idea of a "blog" in iWeb is to get people to upload static pages. That is not a blog! Since Apple prides themselves on being so forward thinking and with modern trends, why would they have made iWeb so incredibly backwards in this respect? They have the damn resources with their MobileMe servers, not to mention a carrot to get people to buy MobileMe. Heck, they could even charge for new page templates and new widgets and stuff. Perhaps an iWeb store?

By making iWeb database driven you could allow people to create honest-to-goodness blogs that people can search, you could get the blog pages to interact with the social networks at the user's discretion via Facebook Connect/Widgets, TweetMeme, Flickr, etc. (in theory you could do this with iWeb now, but there is no way of pushing out updates to these hooks so that they don't break when/if the API changes unless Apple wants to basically support every version of iWeb forever). Not to mention, it might actually make MobileMe worth buying in the minds of more people...

cgc · May 1, 2010, 06:08 PM

There are some programs that are considered more advanced versions of iWeb but nothing I'd consider a pro version of iWeb.

Check out Rapidweaver, Sandvox, Flux, Freeway, and Freeway Express. I'm sure others are out there but those are the one's I tried before settling on Rapidweaver.

Doc HM · May 2, 2010, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

To be honest, I'm actually surprised that iWeb even exists in its current form.

I'm not. Apple is very very good at backing itself into dead ends and then abandoning projects. I suspect that iWeb is dead to Steve and will never evolve much beyond what we have now.

What Besson proposes does indeed sound compelling, but Apple has left plenty of compelling ideas on the table in the past.

edit: It occurs that this is probably a philosophical blind spot for Apple (and Jobs) Evolving iWeb into what besson imagines would involve opening up content, creation and use in a very "open" way. This isn't how Apple thinks at all. They are all about channelling people through gates set very firmly by Apple.

Salty · May 2, 2010, 09:23 PM

Which is strange since the Mac is known for being about content creation. iMovie, Garageband, iPhoto (to a lesser degree) are all about creation, they've found out that there's more money in selling people stuff than there is in helping them create, which is kind of, actually incredibly sad.

That said it'd be great if Apple allowed mobile me users to host their own @domain.com emails, link them up with their mobile me emails, use established blogging apps like Wordpress, or established CMSes, or even their own. Apple could do a hell of a lot to empower budding web designers, and people who want to create a good site for their own businesses, nonprofits, etc, but who can't afford to hire a pro to develop for their small project.

besson3c · May 2, 2010, 10:41 PM

Salty: I agree with you, but then again Apple has not really demonstrated that they are comfortable with being a good hosting service or running these sorts of cloud services. How often do you hear people raving about MobileMe? This is certainly nowhere near as vocally as people rave about, say, the iPhone, iPod, or OS X. As a company I can understand wanting to focus on what they do best.

What I don't understand is why Apple takes on these sorts of things and then just does them half baked? Another good example is their server software products. Steve Jobs told the Nike CEO to focus on their best products and get rid of their garbage products, but this seems rather hypocritical to me. I might be exaggerating if I labeled iWeb and OS X Server as absolute garbage, but I think it is fair to say that these products are nowhere near what we expect from Apple.