 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / July 2004Arlo Rose on the Dashboard TIATC
http://www2.konfabulator.com/journal/ I just want to take a moment to clear some stuff up. A lot of places have been writing up the Konfabulator versus Dashboard story, and a lot of them are taking choice sound bites from interviews and using them to make me sound like I've... well... lost my mind. First off, I was never fired from Apple. The group I worked for was laid off and I was given a chance to go work somewhere else inside Apple. I had been there for quite some time and was ready to move on, so I took a voluntary layoff package. It was my choice to leave. Next, we've never said the word widget was our creation. The word widget has been around forever and then some, but what we did do is coin it as a term for a small user created application that was specific in purpose. It's our document type, and we do feel it was uncouth of Apple to co-opt it. Also note that I make a habit of capitalizing it in the context of a Konfabulator Widget as I feel that it's always been a proper noun in this usage. Regarding the conspiracy theory about Konspos and prior knowledge of Dashboard, here's the scoop. We knew Dashboard was coming, and we'd been told by *many* people that it was being developed as a "Konfabulator Killer". We never knew the specifics of it other than it was rumored to be the exact same thing as Konfabulator integrated at the system level. We didn't know that it was going to be touted as part of Expos, and we didn't know that their format was going to be closer to a web page than a structured XML file. As for Apple having Dashboard technology in Copland or Mac OS 9, they didn't. My idea for Konfabulator was born from wanting to have a really simple run-time environment for people to develop small specialized applications that could look and behave however they wanted. The key point being that it is up to the user to make the cool Widgets. The user would know what they needed, and the user could then create that. The concept had nothing in the slightest to do with Desk Accessories, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Active Desktop. It was about empowering the user to make their own little apps that did what they wanted. But what about Desktop X, you ask? I have to be honest, as far as I'm aware Desktop X wasn't anything like Konfabulator until after Konfabulator came out. During development someone pointed us at their site, and all I saw was an app that let you run applets in a controlled windowed environment. Heck, even after we released Konfabulator 1.0 there was an article on their site talking about how their app needed to be more like Konfabulator because we had "gotten it right". Mind you, I've never said we were the first to introduce the concept of little apps running on your desktop that are informative rather than functional, what I have said is that we were the first to come up with a run-time environment closely integrated into the system where you could build your own little apps with no prior knowledge of a complicated programming language. I'm truly and deeply impressed by the support our customers have shown us the last few days, and I'm glad we have such an incredible user base. We have no plans to stop working on Konfabulator, we have no plans to abandon the platform, but what we do plan to do is strengthen Konfabulator's feature set, continue to work toward our cross-platform solution, and develop unique software that people can't live without. :-) Cheers, Arlo Rose ------ Most of what has been said on this topic is of the straw man variety. Arlo has not threatened a terror bombing spree against Apple. His only major complaint is the use of the exact same term he uses(widget) which will make distinguishing between widgets(apple) and widgets(konfab) konfusing. Also, while Apple used the term widget in 1996 in QD3D, the term was used in the opposite manner from Arlo's usage. QD3D uses the term to mean a hook that outside developers use to interact with system software. Arlo uses it to mean the app that outside developers create which then interacts with Konfab. The term widget itself was invented by economics profs as an imaginary product to use in abstract examples. I don't know why the software industry has become so keen on it. Widgets are not Desk Accessories. DAs were a method of providing multitasking functionality in a non-multitasking OS. That's all. End of story. Konfab widgets are a way of providing advanced non-programmers with the functionality of a programmer. Since Apple had to write a javascript "runtime" for Safari buying Konfab might have meant paying for work they had already done in a different context. I still think they could have handled this better. They did offer to buy Watson and I think a similar deal should have been offered to the makers of Konfab. Will I switch to Windows because of this? No. But I hate seeing Apple slide into being just another company. Maybe they have already slud that far, but they don't have to rub it in our faces. While I appreciate you bringing attention to Arlo's own words. I feel ythe need to point out that in your own. The Concept for Konfabulator is extremely similar to the concepts behind OpenDoc. The difference is that Konfabulator uses the dsktop as a canvas and OpenDoc uses whatever OpenDoc enabled application you want as its canvas for laying out useful little streamlined single purpose tools. I have a great deal of respect for Arlo and Konfabulator. And I loved the concept of it except for one fatal flaw. I very rarely am able to see my desktop easily. I generally have at least 1 web browser window if not multiple windows/browsers open, photoshop documents, image ready, dreamweaver, mail, adium, and who knows what else open at the same time. This made the Konfabulator system somewhat useless to me as I loved the concept but there was no way to bring it forward to the front to be of use. The bottom line is Konfabulator was an extension on existing technologies, much like Dashboard. > Most of what has been said on this topic is of the straw man variety. > Arlo has not threatened a terror bombing spree against Apple. His only > major complaint is the use of the exact same term he uses(widget) which > will make distinguishing between widgets(apple) and widgets(konfab) > konfusing. Excellent news. It also seems like Apple using the term "widget" was a bit of a slip of the tongue. Officially, they're gadgets. Hopefully they'll be better about that in the future.  SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > Most of what has been said on this topic is of the straw man variety. > > Arlo has not threatened a terror bombing spree against Apple. His only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bit of a slip of the tongue. Officially, they're gadgets. Hopefully > they'll be better about that in the future. See... <http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/dashboard.html> ...that's enough tongue slippage to bring me to... oh well, never mind, you get the idea. KP SignatureRemove _me_ for e-mail address Ken "Stojakomiss" Prager wrote: > <http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/dashboard.html> > > ...that's enough tongue slippage to bring me to... oh well, never mind, > you get the idea. *BLINK* Okay, time to put this baby to bed. 1). Apple has clearly ripped off this new feature. Parsing it in historical double-speak doesn't change reality, and the reality is they took an idea, and just plain hijacked it so they could add another feature set to Tiger. There's no gray area here. Apple simply stole Konfabulator. End of discussion. 2). Apple never offered to buy Watson. They did offer Dan Wood a job, but he refused it. He was miffed they didn't offer to buy Watson, but now someone has, and thus the universe is again in harmony. 3). I like Konfabulator, but I have multiple Macs and thus can leave one running doing nothing but Konfabulating. Ergo, I will like Apple's version, which again, is nothing but a blatant theft of concept. It's so blatant, so obvious, so incredibly guileless that only a complete putz would suggest otherwise. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Yes, sometimes otherwise good companies do bad things. Apple steals from Xerox, MS steals from Apple, Apple steals from MS, Sun steals from everybody, Amazon patents air, and the ABA keeps their membership gainfully employed. This is America, people! As Picasso once opined, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal." (Note to Mr. Prager: What is up with The Kings? Good grief.) Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid ...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > add another feature set to Tiger. There's no gray area here. > Apple simply stole Konfabulator. End of discussion. Yes, and Konfabulator was "borrowed" from NeXT. > [snip] > > (Note to Mr. Prager: What is up with The Kings? Good grief.) (0.7 x Webber) - Bobby Jackson = Early Vacation Ken P. P.S. One trade rumor scenario I heard just yesterday has Webber going to your team for Kurt Thomas and Penny H.. Chew on that for awhile! SignatureRemove _me_ for e-mail address > Yes, and Konfabulator was "borrowed" from NeXT. It's only recently that I was able to patch my NeXT box to be Y2K compliant (thereby making me Y2K complacent) and I hear what you're saying, but that's true of so many pieces of software that it's a bit like saying frozen pizza was borrowed from the real unfrozen article. IOW, duh. > (0.7 x Webber) - Bobby Jackson = Early Vacation This should have been your year, although your math is faultless. > P.S. One trade rumor scenario I heard just yesterday has Webber going to > your team for Kurt Thomas and Penny H.. Chew on that for awhile! Naturally, I would hate that, but I don't believe the Snicks can make the cap room and/or effect any trade that would actually improve their roster. Thomas has gimpy ankles, Penny's best years are long gone, and won't the Maloofs trump any deal with a piece of their casino action to keep C. Webb in town? Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid > > (0.7 x Webber) - Bobby Jackson = Early Vacation > > This should have been your year, although your math is faultless. Next year? We'll see what free agency leaves or brings... > > P.S. One trade rumor scenario I heard just yesterday has Webber going to > > your team for Kurt Thomas and Penny H.. Chew on that for awhile! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > won't the Maloofs trump any deal with a piece of their casino action to > keep C. Webb in town? The radio hosts pretty much shot that down for not making financial sense for either team. Ken P. SignatureRemove _me_ for e-mail address > Apple simply stole Konfabulator. End of discussion. Unless the method of operation is embodied in a patent, or there's a user interface that's subject to look and feel copyright, you can't "own" a concept. And if you can't own something, it can't be stolen. They tried this back in the 80's when one company sued another company for "stealing" the idea of a spreadsheet program (I think it might have been Lotus vs. Microsoft due to Excel's similarities to Lotus 1-2-3). IIRC, the only thing that the judge said might be protectable were the specific command sequences (e.g. pressing "/" to get into the command area, and the commands themselves), but not the general notion of a spreadsheet (which Lotus "stole" from Visicalc -- before they acquired Software Arts). SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** > Unless the method of operation is embodied in a patent, or there's a > user interface that's subject to look and feel copyright, you can't > "own" a concept. And if you can't own something, it can't be stolen. Agreed, but my comments were not intended to suggest a legal remedy or illegalities on Apple's part. Instead, consider them more on the lines of if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it's a duck. Dashboard = Konfabulator, and everything else is just so much hot air. Far more important and compelling features are to be introduced with Tiger. Dashbaord, like Konfabulator, has that in-store, neato burrito appeal, and no doubt something Apple marketing sees as YAF (yet another feature) to make ponying up more Euros a bit less painful. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with Apple or any other software company engaging in this kind of imitation. But since I don't make a living from coding, that's an easy call for me to make. Those who do code for a living (p/t or otherwise) could be understandably gunshy if Apple simply continues to co-opt all that is good in the 3rd-party marketplace (notwithstanding the exhaustive history of widget, gadgets, DAs, gidgets and fladgets previously discussed, ad nauseam.) Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid -= I link therefore I'm spammed =- >> Unless the method of operation is embodied in a patent, or there's a >> user interface that's subject to look and feel copyright, you can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > talks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it's a duck. Dashboard = > Konfabulator, and everything else is just so much hot air. Dashboard and Konfabulator might look similar from the outside, but under the skin could hardly be more different (a robot duck is not a duck). It would have been polite for Apple to have given Arlo Rose more credit for the inspiration behind Dashboard, but what they have come up with is in fact wildly different. See this rather lenghty explanation by John Gruber: http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator SignatureIan Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/ > It would have been polite for Apple to have given Arlo Rose > more credit for the inspiration behind Dashboard It would have been polite but legally stupid. By giving any credit to Konfabulator for the inspiration, Apple would be giving Mr. Rose a legal basis to sue. Oh and IANAL. Until Dashboard was announced, I had never even heard of Konfabulator. After trying Konfabulator out I doubt I'd have much use for it. We'll see how much I like Dashboard. > > Unless the method of operation is embodied in a patent, or there's a > > user interface that's subject to look and feel copyright, you can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > talks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it's a duck. Dashboard = > Konfabulator, and everything else is just so much hot air. So what's everyone's point, then? Is there something immoral about seeing something useful and then implementing something similar? It's done all the time. Every graphical web browser was essentially "stolen" from Mosaic, every spreadsheet stole from Visicalc (or whichever later spreadsheet the programmers happened to see), there have been numerous reimplementations of Emacs, etc. I guess the issue here is that when the OS vendor bundles a feature into the OS, it drastically impacts the market for third-party competing applications. But on the other hand, should Apple be stifled from making useful improvements to the system if they happen to compete with third parties? Sometimes both parties can win, if Apple acquires the third party or licenses the software, but if Apple doesn't want to implement it the same way (and it sounds like there's quite a bit of difference between Konfabulator and Dashboard under the hood), that solution won't generally work. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:11:41 -0400, barmar@alum.mit.edu suggested: : I guess the issue here is that when the OS vendor bundles a feature into : the OS, it drastically impacts the market for third-party competing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : difference between Konfabulator and Dashboard under the hood), that : solution won't generally work. Well, remember how bent out of shape people got about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? Signatureagreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg > Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:11:41 -0400, barmar@alum.mit.edu suggested: > : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, remember how bent out of shape people got about Microsoft bundling > Internet Explorer with Windows? Only because Microsoft is a monopolist. Apple doesn't control 90% of the desktop market. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:51:29 -0400, barmar@alum.mit.edu suggested: :> Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:11:41 -0400, barmar@alum.mit.edu suggested: :> : [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : Only because Microsoft is a monopolist. Apple doesn't control 90% of : the desktop market. Irrelevant. The complaints were just as silly then as they are now. Signatureagreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg >Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:51:29 -0400, barmar@alum.mit.edu suggested: >: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Irrelevant. No, it isn't. Use a monopoly to subsidize attempts to establish another monopoly is NOT silly. You'd have a better time saying that those attempts ultimately benefited consumers. Signature- -Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new] - http://www.aatrevue.com > :> Well, remember how bent out of shape people got about Microsoft bundling > :> Internet Explorer with Windows? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Irrelevant. The complaints were just as silly then as they are now. The problem, IIRC, was that Internet Explorer was not removable. If you preferred, say, Netscape Navigator, nothing prevented you from using it, but Internet Explorer was integrated tightly into the system and could not be removed. Thus you could never *entirely* switch to a different browser. So why bother? Microsoft's monopoly was being used to drive another company out of business. (And it worked pretty well, too -- where's Navigator today?) Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> > > Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:11:41 -0400, barmar@alum.mit.edu suggested: > > : [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Only because Microsoft is a monopolist. Apple doesn't control 90% of > the desktop market. No, but they control far more than 90% of the Mac market. SignatureJerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/> Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address. This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses. > > Only because Microsoft is a monopolist. Apple doesn't control 90% of > > the desktop market. > > No, but they control far more than 90% of the Mac market. Unlikely. For starters, given about 12,000 native OS X applications... > > > Only because Microsoft is a monopolist. Apple doesn't control 90% of > > > the desktop market. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > For starters, given about 12,000 native OS X applications... "Control" refers to providing the operating system that runs them. There are also many thousands of native Windows applications, but Microsoft still controls the desktop market. My point was that even though Apple has the monopoly on Macintosh systems, that's only a small fraction of the computer industry, not enough for anything they do to be considered anti-competitive. That's because their competitors are not limited to the Macintosh market -- many companies provide software and hardware accessories for both Macs and PC's. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** >> > > Only because Microsoft is a monopolist. Apple doesn't control 90% of >> > > the desktop market. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >many companies provide software and hardware accessories for both Macs >and PC's. Consumers define markets far more than the product does. Signature- -Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new] - http://www.aatrevue.com > So what's everyone's point, then? That's what I'm wondering. > (and it sounds like there's quite a bit of difference between > Konfabulator and Dashboard under the hood) With respect, only the überest of überweenies really care about what's under the hood. Ours is a largely shallow, largely appearances-only, driven world. If Dashboard looks like a clone of Konfabulator, and provides near identical functionality, the strings that pull the levers are largely irrelevant. The narrative of what begat what completely loses sight of what matters to the consumer. Sure, there's a direct lineage from the original Walkman to the iPod, but I don't see people buying Sony MP3 players in solidarity and/or burning their iPods protest. How else do we explain the millions of knock-offs of Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Gucci, etc.? Let's be candid here: Apple has a vested interest in getting people (like me) to buy every single update to OS X (and I have) and the more bells and whistles they can throw into the mix, the more palatable the price point becomes and the more compelling a purchase you have. Paraphrasing Gordon Gekko, "Cruft is right. Cruft works. Cruft clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit." Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid ...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere > The narrative of what begat what completely loses sight of what matters > to the consumer. Sure, there's a direct lineage from the original > Walkman to the iPod, but I don't see people buying Sony MP3 players in > solidarity and/or burning their iPods protest. Sony introduced their iPod killer* today... <http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/07/01/walkman/> * at least in their mind. KP SignatureRemove _me_ for e-mail address > Instead, consider them more on the lines of if it walks like a duck, > talks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it's a duck. Dashboard = > Konfabulator, and everything else is just so much hot air. This is simply not true, no matter how many times you post it. In a later post of yours... > With respect, only the überest of überweenies really care about what's > under the hood. Ours is a largely shallow, largely appearances-only, > driven world. This is inconsistent with your earlier (and later) posts that the technical details *do* matter when you said Konfabulator was nothing like desk accessories. So which is it? SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > This is inconsistent with your earlier (and later) posts that the > technical details *do* matter when you said Konfabulator was nothing > like desk accessories. So which is it? A complete mischaracterization of my comments. I never said nor implied as much. If you read my comments otherwise, I'm guilty of lack of clarity in articulation. but I think you're just looking to make a case where there is none. Perhaps if you had quoted them, instead of building a strawman argument, it would have been a better tack? For those who persist in seeing Daskboard as something other than Konfabulator, my sincere congratulations. Evidently Steve's [Jobs] legendary reality distortion field is a contagion, and in this case, Usenet is the vector. Reminds me, a bit, of the time when I had the temerity to state that the original release of OS X was not ready for prime time. Quite a few people got their knickers in a bunch when reading as much, and behaved in a similar manner. Some people see things as they are, others as they wish them to be. No need to reply, I've wasted enough bandwidth on this bizarre thread, and will kill it upon posting this. Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid ...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere > For those who persist in seeing Daskboard as something other than > Konfabulator, my sincere congratulations. So did you read John Gruber's "Dashboard vs. Konfabulator" article at this URL I posted earlier? http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator If you did (read it properly, not just glance at it) and still persist in seeing Dashboard as the same as Confabulator then I can only conclude that you yourself are under the influence of a reality distortion field at least as powerful as the famous Jobsian one. Either that or you are trolling - stop it before you make a fool of yourself. There are clearly many significant differences between Dashboard and Konfabulator, and to dismiss them all as irrelevent is simply not cool. If I were Apple I would have offered money or fame to the Konfabulator guys in exchange for their blessing but I would not have asked for any code or anything since it would have been of no use to me. Dashboard will have many advantages over Konfabulator (again, see the John Gruber article) and it would have made no sense to simply bundle Konfabulator with Mac OS X. The only thing I would have been "buying" is goodwill. SignatureIan Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/ >>Unless the method of operation is embodied in a patent, or there's a >>user interface that's subject to look and feel copyright, you can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > talks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it's a duck. Dashboard = > Konfabulator, and everything else is just so much hot air. [...] But there have always been a number of different ducks out there. Konfabulator is nice enough, but apparently did not fit well with the Apple architecture the way the engineers wanted. There is more to a feature or app than the way it looks 'n feels. Everyone wants shading, shaped windows and alpha-blending. It's /de rigeur/ for many OS X apps, especially the little cute ones we all love so much. However, Konfabulator is a runtime engine for making little Javascript widgets available to the user. For me to make a Konfab widget, I'd have to make sure that any potential users purchased the runtime. And then I'd have to make sure it actually worked on your machine. Dashboard widgets are web pages that can be displayed outside of the browser context. They leverage the WebCore (including the ECMAscript engine, which is part of WebCore) and hook nicely with Cocoa, if necessary. Dashboard is just Safari released from the browser frame context. This is a Good Thing. The most important point of both Dashboard and Konfabulator is *not* that they present widgets to users -- this is a pretty common and not-very-original idea. The important point is that they allow a broad range of people to _design_ widgets for use on the target OS (OS X for Dashboard, OS X and Win32 [eventually] for Konfabulator). Konfabs strengths also lie in it's ability, like Java, to provide a platform-independent runtime environment. This is cool, and if I needed to target a mixed environment, and/or needed Unix or Xwindows support, I'd choose Konfab. It's more likely that something like Konfabulator will make it to Unix, as it is just an external Javascript runtime. Dashboard is engineered to work closely with OS X frameworks _only_. Dashboard is also easier to develop for, as it is just plain 'ol web standards. If you can make an HTML/CSS and (optionally) ECMAScript driven web page, you can make a Dashboard widget. That's not to say that this is everyone, but I would never consider making a Konfab widget. I'll probably make Dashboard widgets simply because I'm always making little "widgets" on the various web sites I work on. Dashboard frees those widgets from the browser. And you don't need an external (and non-free) /custom/ runtime that can crash, or be the wrong version, or need to be started up when the first widget is run, or any of the myriad other things that can go pear-shaped when targeting a runtime environment. I don't want to be married to a custom XML format for my widgets, either. I want to just give you the widget and have it run, period. No one is arguing that both fulfill much the same space for the end user. However, I'm glad Apple engineered Dashboard the right way, and did not buy, borrow or steal the Konfabulator way. The Apple way is infinitely better and more robust from a design and an engineering standpoint. It is a different duck, altogether. Of course, none of what I just said is really my own ideas. Most of this hot air is presented at Daring Fireball, which is a nice overview of the whole tempest-in-a-teapot: <http://daringfireball.net/2004/07/konfab_confab> > Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. > Yes, sometimes otherwise good companies do bad things. Apple steals > from Xerox, MS steals from Apple, Apple steals from MS, Sun steals from > everybody, Amazon patents air, and the ABA keeps their membership > gainfully employed. This is America, people! So I wonder when the litigation will start over this "theft." > 3). I like Konfabulator, but I have multiple Macs and thus can leave one > running doing nothing but Konfabulating. Ergo, I will like > Apple's version, which again, is nothing but a blatant theft of > concept. It's so blatant, so obvious, so incredibly guileless > that only a complete putz would suggest otherwise. Hmm, by the same logic, Konfabulator must be a rip-off of Desktop X on Windows, which appeared 3 years prior. Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> > Ken "Stojakomiss" Prager wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > add another feature set to Tiger. There's no gray area here. > Apple simply stole Konfabulator. End of discussion. All right, so what did Apple steal? It can't be the under-the-hood implementation, because Dashboard's implementation is very different from Konfabulator's (and superior in numerous ways; it's more powerful, it makes it easier to create widgets, and it should require less overhead). It can't be the concept of desktop widgets, because that concept is 20 years old. And it can't be the visual design. Dashboard and Konfabulator look similar because they *both look like OS X software*. Apple *designed* the OS X look (transparency, rounded edges, shiny UI elements) that inspired the look of Konfabulator in the first place. So, what did Apple steal? [snip] Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > > Ken "Stojakomiss" Prager wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So, what did Apple steal? Nothing, if what you want to see is code theft. But surely you wouldn't disagree that Apple 'stole' something from Watson in Sherlock 3, even though the code and implementation was quite different? Apple is known for paying when they want -CODE- as in SoundJam/iTunes. Apples wrongdoing here is leveraging an idea. That idea was using a common scripting platform as the base for mini applets. I am not claiming that this is new for Konfabulator, but the execution (i.e. not the implementation) is exactly the same. I'vve said it many times recently, and I still think it's valid - without Konfabulator, Dashboard would not have existed - and that warrants some form of recognition. SignatureSandman[.net] > But surely you wouldn't disagree that Apple 'stole' something from Watson in > Sherlock 3, even though the code and implementation was quite different? No, I would disagree with this. Sherlock was in development long before Watson. Why should it surprise anyone that when someone ran ahead and added features to Sherlock, Apple would eventually start to catch up? SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > Apples wrongdoing here is leveraging an idea. That idea was using a common > scripting platform as the base for mini applets. So why isn't anyone complaining that Apple "stole" the idea of a web browser when they created Safari? Surely bundling that has had an impact on Netscape's use on Macs. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** > But surely you wouldn't disagree that Apple 'stole' something from Watson in > Sherlock 3, even though the code and implementation was quite different? I most certainly _would_ disagree. How could Apple steal anything when they were already working on their implementation _before_ Watson was released? > Apple is known for paying when they want -CODE- as in SoundJam/iTunes. Yes, and that's when they _should_ pay. In the software industry, companies buy & sell code, not ideas. > Apples wrongdoing here is leveraging an idea. There's nothing wrong with "leveraging" someone else's idea. Especially when it's not a new idea. The _real_ work is in the implementation, i.e. writing the program. > That idea was using a > common scripting platform as the base for mini applets. I am not > claiming that this is new for Konfabulator, but the execution (i.e. not > the implementation) is exactly the same. If you accept that the idea of designing some sort of environment or framework for applets isn't new, exactly what part of Konfabulator _was_ a new idea? The word "widget"? Programmers have been using it for years, usually to refer to some kind of small but useful program or user interface object. Scripted applets? Been around for years. JavaScript? Ditto. Easy for non-programmers to write useful applets? Two words: 'Hypercard' and 'AppleScript'. Making it possible to give those applets a graphical appearance just like software written in "real" programming languages? No, that's just a logical step for scripting languages, and was on many scripters' wish lists for years. Arlo & Perry _may_ deserve credit for being the first to do it on Mac OS X, but not for giving Apple the idea, because the idea was around long before Konfabulator. In article <wayne.morris-34A38C.21394201072004@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, Wayne C. Morris <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote: > > But surely you wouldn't disagree that Apple 'stole' something from Watson > > in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they were already working on their implementation _before_ Watson was > released? do you have proof of that? watson was released november 27, 2001 <http://www.karelia.com/pr/pr.html> i don't know what karelia did for betatesting, but its possible versions were available prior to the official release. jaguar was announced on may 6, 2002 at the developer's conference and shipped august 24, 2002, (actually it shipped the prior evening at 10:20pm). thats five months to get something to demo and just under nine months to ship it. <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/may/06jaguar.html> <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17jaguar.html> i don't know if apple was working on it prior to seeing watson or not, but they certainly had plenty of time to clone it. if you are going to claim they started on sherlock before they saw watson, then kindly supply proof. > > I most certainly _would_ disagree. How could Apple steal anything when > > they were already working on their implementation _before_ Watson was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > jaguar was announced on may 6, 2002 at the developer's conference How is Jaguar in any way relevant? Go to any system with OS 9 installed, open the Applications folder, and tell me what you see. I see Sherlock 2, created September 25, 2000, and copyrighted all the way back to 1996 (which makes sense, after all, that's Sherlock *2*). If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> > > > I most certainly _would_ disagree. How could Apple steal anything when > > > they were already working on their implementation _before_ Watson was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > back to 1996 (which makes sense, after all, that's Sherlock *2*). If > that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. Sherlock 3.5 was the version that had functionality that was very similar to Watson. Earlier versions didn't. SignatureSandman[.net] > > How is Jaguar in any way relevant? Go to any system with OS 9 > > installed, open the Applications folder, and tell me what you see. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sherlock 3.5 was the version that had functionality that was very similar to > Watson. Earlier versions didn't. So? The point is that Sherlock was on its way long before Watson. The fact that Watson got the functionality that it did first doesn't mean that Sherlock wasn't going there already. When you think about it, what happened with Watson is that the author took the idea of Sherlock and extended it in a logical direction, and then when Apple didn't stop developing Sherlock in that logical direction, threw a fit. Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> > So? The point is that Sherlock was on its way long before Watson. The > fact that Watson got the functionality that it did first doesn't mean > that Sherlock wasn't going there already. When you think about it, > what happened with Watson is that the author took the idea of Sherlock > and extended it in a logical direction, and then when Apple didn't stop > developing Sherlock in that logical direction, threw a fit. sherlock changed a lot between versiosn 2 and 3. infact, they are very different. the find file functionality was moved into finder and the web searching and plugin architecture totally overhauled. sure, sherlock existed long before watson, but it wasn't until after watson shipped that sherlock morphed into a watson clone. the issue is, did apple see watson and think 'wow, we should do that too' and then clone it, or were they already planning something similar? and, if they were, how did watson influence it? the only hard facts are that watson came out first and sherlock 3 shipped nine months later looking nearly identical. that doesn't prove they cloned it but it certainly raises suspicions about what happened. until someone provides proof (such as an engineering spec dated prior to watson's appearance), it will remain conjecture. >the issue is, did apple see watson and think 'wow, we should do that >too' and then clone it, or were they already planning something >similar? and, if they were, how did watson influence it? Sherlock had Channels, but as far as I remember, did not reformat the data into a meaningful form until after they saw what Wood was doing. Rumor has it he was offered a job at Apple, and they liked what he was doing enough to give him presentation time. Did you ever use Sherlock Channels? I never thought of it as anything more than something that would merely hit multiple search sites at once, and all the channels did was narrow that search to a given subset of sites. If you didn't have broadband, you probably never saw how neat Sherlock could be, in comparison to a regular browser search, and even if you did have broadband, the sites Sherlock was hitting got a lot stingier with info (needing to sell ads, for example) and Sherlock found more and more worthless crap, if anything. Watson could hit sites that had more complex search forms (such as needing your zip code) and took the time to reformat that information meaningfully. And kept on top of server changes of the sites they used most often to grab that info. That is, they had a dedicated staff, even if it was mostly Dan Wood and a mail list full of enthusiasts, a staff that kept the show running. Even at that, I may have used Watson maybe once a week tops. TV Listing, Movie Listing, at one time they did Airlines I think, but they couldn't keep that going. And you couldnt' print the info out. Where Watson worked best, the sites providing the info weren't that concerned about having an app take the info and reformat it... it didn't effect their income model in a bad way, and may have saved them some server bandwidth over all. TV Guide still gave you that damn Goldstar freakin set your VCR code, hoping it would increase sales of VCR+, and you didn't have the garbage of the web site to deal with. MoviePhone and Fandango still could sell online tickets if someone saw the movie info in a friendlier format... they weren't that concerned with eyeballs seing their site, or having to provide the entire web picture. > > > How is Jaguar in any way relevant? Go to any system with OS 9 > > > installed, open the Applications folder, and tell me what you see. I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and extended it in a logical direction, and then when Apple didn't stop > developing Sherlock in that logical direction, threw a fit. Sherlock did web page parsing for search results up till version 2, but in 3 they did web page integration. For example, you could add a Sherlock channel your self in 2 and told it what URL the search request should go to and how the result should be parsed. In Sherlock 3 (3.5 even, I think) the integration was tighter and developers could (yes, it was no longer something anyone could do, unfortunately) develop channels that interacted with webpages and displayed the result, for example the Yahoo directory listing, and so on. SignatureSandman[.net] >i don't know if apple was working on it prior to seeing watson or not, >but they certainly had plenty of time to clone it. if you are going to >claim they started on sherlock before they saw watson, then kindly >supply proof. Sherlock has had many faces. It has been web search, file search, both; it has had ads, it has had channels. I It had channels before Watson, the channels just weren't as elegant as Watsons. And they aren't now. Sherlock has been changed and then relatively abandoned several times since its inception. Wood was brought up to show off/ introduce Watson during some Apple Event, there was a quicktime webcast of it. I have read that Apple offered to hire him, he decided to stay independant. Apple had its hands full with other parts of the OS during the transition to OS X; what they wanted for Sherlock could be assigned to someone, or lead by someone who already had big ideas for it. The proper attitude was not for hire. Sherlock existed, with channels, whatever they may have been able to do, before there was a beta of OS X. Watson is pretty much built in carbon, if not cocoa, and would not have been Sherlock during OS 8.6 - OS 9.1 days. I have variously loved or hated sherlock. I loved its take on file search, you could drag and drop a file for metadata info, such as file type and creator, and search that way, and save the search. Because of the way Uni..uh OS X handled metadata, searching by type was completely lost when OS X started up, and is just now returning, probably with some old BeOS folks help, in Tiger. As a web tool, Sherlock was best on a high bandwidth connection, before the sites being hit realized someone was taking their useful data and summarizing it, without benefits of showing ads. It fed and aggregated multiple search engines basically, very quickly. Web sites don't like their ad banners not being seen, if they are selling ad banners. Watson worked much better, as it not only reformed data in a meaningful way, but there was an army of volunteer coders, almost OpenSource style, assuring that their apps could still parse the information as the sites providing the information constantly shifted the way it was presented. Apple never had time to chase that dog... Sherlock was a low priority app that wasn't sure what its function was going to be, and probably one of its biggest mistakes was trying to become Watson, without being able to provide the man power to constantly maintain and update the app. This was probably becoming a problem for Watson... people liked Watson enough to shell out for it, but they weren't about to buy it again, and it probably needed more cashflow to support keeping it up to date. And something I always hated about Watson... couldn't print crap off of it. What good is getting that info, if you cannot print it, or cut and paste into something that can? I took screenshots when I needed the info and printed that on paper. But maybe Watson will be back... merely as a crossplatform Java app, for wintel, Mac, and *nix. > > > Ken "Stojakomiss" Prager wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Dashboard would not have existed - and that warrants some form of > recognition. I don't know what that means. You say the execution is the same even though the implementation is different. How is the execution the same? Do you mean the visual look of the products is the same? Is your objection that Dashboard has the same sorts of widgets as Konfabulator (e.g. clock widgets, stock tracker widgets, etc.)? Basically, I'm asking what Dashboard and Konfabulator share with each other that they do not also both share with other things that have been around for years. Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > > Nothing, if what you want to see is code theft. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't know what that means. You say the execution is the same even > though the implementation is different. How is the execution the same? Semantics of course. But what I mean by execution here is how the idea is manifested. Konfabulator (and other similar devices) has a platform where they enable small applets to run an easy scripting code and display it in a space that has full support for alpha channels and antialiasing. Contrast that with > Do you mean the visual look of the products is the same? Is your > objection that Dashboard has the same sorts of widgets as Konfabulator > (e.g. clock widgets, stock tracker widgets, etc.)? Basically, I'm asking > what Dashboard and Konfabulator share with each other that they do not > also both share with other things that have been around for years. I'm not trying to attribute the invention of these widgets to Konfabulator. I'm saying that Dashboard looks and feel (i.e. what I meant by execution above) a specific way because of Konfabulator. Hadn't Konfabulator existed, neither would Dahsboard - or at least that's what I think. Just as I think that Sherlock 3 wouldn't have been what it is without Watson (regardless of claims that Apple worked on S3 looong before Watson, but that doesn't add up). SignatureSandman[.net] > > > Nothing, if what you want to see is code theft. > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > code and display it in a space that has full support for alpha > channels and antialiasing. Contrast that with Uh, I don't see that Konfabulator should be getting any credit for alpha channels and antialiasing. Those are simply OS X design elements that it makes use of. And once you get into things like "easy scripting code" you're talking about technical details, where there really aren't that many similarities. Basically the only similarity is that neither requires you to do "real programing" to create widgets. Although Dashboard gives you the option, actually, while Konfabulator doesn't. > > Do you mean the visual look of the products is the same? Is your > > objection that Dashboard has the same sorts of widgets as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > been what it is without Watson (regardless of claims that Apple > worked on S3 looong before Watson, but that doesn't add up). The Sherlock/Watson thing is different. Apple didn't have software that served the same conceptual function as Watson 20 years ago. Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > I'm > saying that Dashboard looks and feel (i.e. what I meant by execution above) a > specific way because of Konfabulator. Or is it that Konfabulator looks like Dashboard because it was designed to look "at home" on the OS X desktop, like something Apple would create? If two different companies design a dishwasher to fit a particular space and match a particular décor, it should be no surprise to anyone when they come out looking very similar. > Hadn't Konfabulator existed, neither > would Dahsboard Got any hard data to back that up? Otherwise, that's just your opinion. Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> >> Hadn't Konfabulator existed, neither >> would Dahsboard > >Got any hard data to back that up? Otherwise, that's just your opinion. I think it's a poorly supported opinion, given the technical restraints/requirements and past history. Signature- -Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new] - http://www.aatrevue.com >> I'm saying that Dashboard looks and feel (i.e. what I meant by >> execution above) a specific way because of Konfabulator. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Got any hard data to back that up? Otherwise, that's just your > opinion. Of course it's my opinion. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I don't see it as logical to assume that Apple and Arlo Rose would have ended up with nearly visually identical products without knowing about each others - especielly when we know that Apple has done similar things in the past with Liteswitch and Watson. Hadn't Konfabulator existed, I could imagine a series of different looks and executions on these widgets, ranging from metallic to grey/beveled (think volume/brightness/eject on screen symbol). Or even having them all attached to a master window which is on the "backside" of the main window (think fast user switching effect but not a cube, you see the backside of the desktop which have these small utilities attached to it, as frames or squares). All of these could have been considered "mac like", so it's not like there is only one possible outcome when you want to make mac-like widgets. SignatureSandman[.net] > Of course it's my opinion. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I don't see it > as logical to assume that Apple and Arlo Rose would have ended up with nearly > visually identical products without knowing about each others - especielly > when we know that Apple has done similar things in the past with Liteswitch > and Watson. Liteswitch is a bad example. Its UI was modeled on something already present in the OS. Why? So it would fit in well without disrupting the user experience. Similarly, Arlo used to be involved with Apple's UI design process. He did a good L&F for Konfab - one that has regularly been praised for how well it blends into the OS X experience. Doesn't it make a kind of sense that other people following the same design guidelines would come up with something that look similar? > Hadn't Konfabulator existed, I could imagine a series of different looks and > executions on these widgets, ranging from metallic to grey/beveled (think > volume/brightness/eject on screen symbol). > Or even having them all attached to a master window which is on the "backside" > of the main window Ulch! > All of these could have been considered "mac like", so it's not like there is > only one possible outcome when you want to make mac-like widgets. It's true that there are many possible ways to imagine this. What I find hard to believe is how few people seem to want to accept that maybe if one person well-grounded in the platform's UI philosophy came up with Design Q that another well-grounded person creating a roughly similar product might possibly have come up with Design Q' independently. G SignatureStandard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom, they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his "standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon > > Or even having them all attached to a master window which is on the > > "backside" of the main window Very likely I'm out of touch, having not yet made the jump to OS X, but the mental image I formed on reading this sentence is of an icon I can click somewhere on the screen, in response to which the entire desktop image kind of graphically flips or folds over -- like turning over a page -- and now I'm on a totally separate independent desktop, with totally separate apps, windows, etc, that's also up and running "on the back side" of the previous desktop (maybe for a second user). I appreciate that something equivalent to this could be (and probably has been) implemented without using the "back side of the main window" metaphor; but has this specific "back side" metaphor been implemented anywhere, on Macs or elsewhere? > > > Or even having them all attached to a master window which is on the > > > "backside" of the main window [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > metaphor; but has this specific "back side" metaphor been implemented > anywhere, on Macs or elsewhere? Well, when you switch users in OSX, you are moved to his or hers desktop by a rotating cube effect, which results in it feeling like that users desktop is attached to another side of the cube that forms your desktop. Look at the bottom of this page: http://www.apple.com/macosx/ This is why my proposed 'effect' above also would have been very "mac-like". SignatureSandman[.net] > Well, when you switch users in OSX, you are moved to his or hers desktop by a > rotating cube effect, which results in it feeling like that users desktop is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is why my proposed 'effect' above also would have been very "mac-like". Ah, I see. Neat. Can one use the multiple-user capability of OS X -- and specifically the rotating cube effect -- to set up multiple "workspaces" for a single user? -- In effect, two or more "users", but only one set of files and applications for all these applications, so you can jump back and forth between "projects" and associated desktops, but not have to keep track of which user owns which files? (Obviously I need to get converted over to OS X and try all this out for myself, but any tips or advance understanding I can acquire will make the conversion easier.) [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] > Ah, I see. Neat. Can one use the multiple-user capability of OS X -- > and specifically the rotating cube effect -- to set up multiple > "workspaces" for a single user? -- In effect, two or more "users", but > only one set of files and applications for all these applications, so > you can jump back and forth between "projects" and associated desktops, > but not have to keep track of which user owns which files? I'm sure you could set something like this up. Applications are, in general, shared among all users on a machine. As to files, you can put files into the /Users/Shared/ folder and access them from any account. You'll have to play around with privileges, though, as new files added to /Users/Shared/ are read only for other users, I think. Maybe you could set up a folder action that would change the privileges of any file added to that folder? It's definitely possible, you've just got to work out the details. Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> >> Well, when you switch users in OSX, you are moved to his or hers >> desktop by a rotating cube effect, which results in it feeling like [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > so you can jump back and forth between "projects" and associated > desktops, but not have to keep track of which user owns which files? Well, no. This isn't a function of this, although I'm sure you could set up two identical users some way in OSX - I wouldn't know for sure. Using this to switch between projects seems like a huge waste of resources though. > Obviously I need to get converted over to OS X and try all this out > for myself, but any tips or advance understanding I can acquire will > make the conversion easier. This probably isn't one of them. :) SignatureSandman[.net] >> Of course it's my opinion. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I don't >> see it as logical to assume that Apple and Arlo Rose would have ended [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > present in the OS. Why? So it would fit in well without disrupting the > user experience. This line of argument have come up quite a lot lately. It seems to suggest that Apples "version" of these things would have looked exactly like it did even if the developers of it woiuld have been sitting isolated in Alaska without internet access. Apple already -had- a app-switching mechanism in 10.1, but in 10.2 it was suddenly changed, and it looked exactly like something already existing. When computer builders released all-in-ones with translucent plastic in 1999 we all stood and screamed 'theft!' or similar things. These companies had -copied- Apple! Even though they didn't use similar technology inside (ZnU's argument) and even though transparent plastic had been around for ages. I'm as big of a Apple advocate as anyone, but I'm not blind - I do recognize when Apple "copies" someone else much as I recognize when someone else copies Apple. > Similarly, Arlo used to be involved with Apple's UI design process. He > did a good L&F for Konfab - one that has regularly been praised for > how well it blends into the OS X experience. Doesn't it make a kind of > sense that other people following the same design guidelines would > come up with something that look similar? No, actually not. Last time I read them, the UI guidelines for Mac OS X had no rules with regards to the type of applications Dashboard/Konfabulator uses. Basically, Konfabulator rides on a fairly established -icon- standard in OSX, with highlights and "aqua" feel. These aren't UI guidelines. >> Hadn't Konfabulator existed, I could imagine a series of different >> looks and executions on these widgets, ranging from metallic to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ulch! I bet you would have praised it if Apple released it :-D >> All of these could have been considered "mac like", so it's not like >> there is only one possible outcome when you want to make mac-like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > similar product might possibly have come up with Design Q' > independently. Since Apple seems to have magically arrived at the exact same look as third party developers in the past - I don't understand how a connection can't be made? Are you basing your argument on the notion that Apple developers hadn't even SEEN Konfabulator and the similarities between Konfabulaor and Dashboard are -purely- coincidental? SignatureSandman[.net] > >> Of course it's my opinion. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I don't > >> see it as logical to assume that Apple and Arlo Rose would have ended [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > even if the developers of it woiuld have been sitting isolated in Alaska > without internet access. In the case of Liteswitch, that's a pretty fair bet. Read what I said again: The Liteswitch UI was modeled on something already in OS X. Precisely. > Apple already -had- a app-switching mechanism in 10.1, but in 10.2 it was > suddenly changed, and it looked exactly like something already existing. Yes. Something already existing in their own system. It's ridiculous to be annoyed with Party A for copying Party B when the thing under consideration was copied by Party B from Party A in the first place. > When computer builders released all-in-ones with translucent plastic in 1999 > we all stood and screamed 'theft!' or similar things. These companies had > -copied- Apple! Because they had. Look more carefully at what was actually happening. "We" weren't screaming "theft!" simply because they were using translucent plastics on the case. They were mimicking the whole appearance of the iMac to such a degree (down to the translucent sheath on the power cord) that everyday iMac users were confused about seeing Windows running on them at first glance. When questioned, their response was that obviously it was going to look like an iMac because that was the natural appearance of an all-in-one machine - despite 20 years of all-in-one desktops from several different vendors that didn't look anything like an iMac. There was no prior art that justified the presence of a competing machine that looked like the iMac. Not a shred. But the argument here is that Apple is guilty of copying the appearance of something that has historically been praised for looking like something Apple would have designed. If Konfabulator was "Mac-like" when it came out, then why is something that resembles Konfabulator called "Konfabulator-like" instead of acknowledging that it, too, is Mac-like? John Fogerty's music sure sounds a lot like CCR, doesn't it? > I'm as big of a Apple advocate as anyone, but I'm not blind - I do recognize > when Apple "copies" someone else much as I recognize when someone else copies > Apple. I recognize when someone's head gets cut off in a guillotine, but Vincent Fournier does it onstage it turns out that that's usually not what happened. Copying is _an_ explanation for similar appearance. It's not _the_ explanation. > > Similarly, Arlo used to be involved with Apple's UI design process. He > > did a good L&F for Konfab - one that has regularly been praised for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Basically, Konfabulator rides on a fairly established -icon- standard in OSX, > with highlights and "aqua" feel. These aren't UI guidelines. You want to read those last few sentences again and see if it all sounds consistent to you? > >> Hadn't Konfabulator existed, I could imagine a series of different > >> looks and executions on these widgets, ranging from metallic to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I bet you would have praised it if Apple released it :-D No. I would've said "Ulch!" and wondered how it got past QA. The fact that you've twice said that such a design would be "Mac-like" suggests that you really don't understand what makes a UI Mac-like. It's not, despite your comment in another post, comparable to the spinning cube presented by user switching because the nature of the shift you're illustrating is completely different. > > It's true that there are many possible ways to imagine this. What I > > find hard to believe is how few people seem to want to accept that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > even SEEN Konfabulator and the similarities between Konfabulaor and Dashboard > are -purely- coincidental? No, and that's not a reasonable reading of the paragraph to which you responded. I'm suggesting that it's unreasonable to assert that parallel evolution is not a possible explanation. That it is utterly ridiculous to argue, essentially, that if A resembles B and appeared after B that it _must_ be a copy of B. SignatureStandard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom, they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his "standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon >>>> Of course it's my opinion. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I >>>> don't see it as logical to assume that Apple and Arlo Rose would [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > again: The Liteswitch UI was modeled on something already in OS X. > Precisely. Obviously, I disagree. Apple already had a implementation of app switching, and changed that to somethat just happened to look exactly like something else? No, sorry. >> Apple already -had- a app-switching mechanism in 10.1, but in 10.2 it >> was suddenly changed, and it looked exactly like something already >> existing. > > Yes. Something already existing in their own system. What are you thinking about here? >> When computer builders released all-in-ones with translucent plastic >> in 1999 we all stood and screamed 'theft!' or similar things. These [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > years of all-in-one desktops from several different vendors that > didn't look anything like an iMac. Now you're arguing FOR me here. The above sentence could just as easily read: "their response was that obviously it was going to look like a OSX app because that was the most natural appearance of this kind of apps - despite 20 years of similar apps from several different developers that didn't look anything like Konfabulator" It's the samme exact argument. >>> Similarly, Arlo used to be involved with Apple's UI design process. >>> He did a good L&F for Konfab - one that has regularly been praised [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You want to read those last few sentences again and see if it all > sounds consistent to you? I have no problem with that - what do you mean? There aren't any GUI guidelines from Apple that sets the rules that Arlo Rose based the UI design of Konfabulator around. >>>> Or even having them all attached to a master window which is on the >>>> "backside" of the main window [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that you've twice said that such a design would be "Mac-like" suggests > that you really don't understand what makes a UI Mac-like. What?? My idea above is based on the entire cube-effect when you switch user in OSX - it's very mac-like these days, these kind of effects. Ironic too, since preferences of the Dashboard apps all seem to be on their "backside". Howw very un-maclike, right? :) > It's not, > despite your comment in another post, comparable to the spinning cube > presented by user switching because the nature of the shift you're > illustrating is completely different. No, actually it isn't. >> Since Apple seems to have magically arrived at the exact same look as >> third party developers in the past - I don't understand how a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ridiculous to argue, essentially, that if A resembles B and appeared > after B that it _must_ be a copy of B. Yes, but please be clear with me on this - did Konfabulator had ANY affect what so ever on the final result on Dashboard - what is your thoughts? Or are you claiming that the Dashboard developers hadn't even seen Konfab? SignatureSandman[.net] [snip] > > No, and that's not a reasonable reading of the paragraph to which you > > responded. I'm suggesting that it's unreasonable to assert that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thoughts? Or are you claiming that the Dashboard developers hadn't > even seen Konfab? Go read the last few posts at <http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/>. It's pretty clear that Dashboard has very little to do with Konfabulator. Hyatt sees Dashboard more as what you get when you free Mozilla-style sidebar panels from the browser. The impression I get is that Dashboard is just a part of what seems to be a much larger effort from Apple to break down barriers between the desktop and the web. Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > The impression I get is that Dashboard is just a part of what seems > to be a much larger effort from Apple to break down barriers between > the desktop and the web. Which is, frankly, what we should be focused on. This can not be a good thing. Part of his latest few posts reveals that to execute native code the module has to be chowned to root. Does that mean that once a password is entered a web gadget runs as root? SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > The impression I get is that Dashboard is just a part of what seems > > to be a much larger effort from Apple to break down barriers between > > the desktop and the web. > > Which is, frankly, what we should be focused on. This can not be a good > thing. It can be a bad thing. It can also be a good thing. Dashboard doesn't really go far enough yet for us to find out. We'll have to wait for Apple to fully extend the ability to use web technologies for UI into real applications, which I think in inevitably something we'll see, probably in a release after Tiger. This approach will be a bad thing if it results in desktop user interface becoming as haphazard and inconsistent as web UI. It'll be a good thing if it simply provides developers with a flexible, standards-based mechanism for specifying UI and making application interfaces remotely accessible. > Part of his latest few posts reveals that to execute native code the > module has to be chowned to root. Does that mean that once a password is > entered a web gadget runs as root? I think just the native code runs as root. This is a good feature, of course. It means that no native code can be run unless a human explicitly decides to allow it to be run. The JavaScript code and whatever else exists in widgets themselves is contained in a sandbox where it can't do damage, just as it is when it's running inside a browser. Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > > > The impression I get is that Dashboard is just a part of what seems > > > to be a much larger effort from Apple to break down barriers between [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > developers with a flexible, standards-based mechanism for specifying UI > and making application interfaces remotely accessible. On a sidenote - I remember you being very negative about the web-like direction the Windows UI took in Windows XP, but here you seem to embrace this as good - I am curious on what you think about this, since I am having a hard time deciding myself if I like it or not. SignatureSandman[.net] > > > > The impression I get is that Dashboard is just a part of what > > > > seems to be a much larger effort from Apple to break down [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > embrace this as good - I am curious on what you think about this, > since I am having a hard time deciding myself if I like it or not. Using web technologies for desktop UI is a good thing, I think. It should give developers a lot of flexibility, and make it much easier to do things like creating custom controls. It can be standards-based, and cross-platform, and it's a natural way to handle remote display. Using web-like *interface* for desktop apps is a bad thing. UI standards go out the window, the lines between content and interface get blurred, and linear wizard-like approaches are encouraged. So far, I don't see Apple falling into the "Well, we're using web technologies, so everything should look like a web page!" trap. The Dashboard widgets certainly couldn't be mistaken for web-based apps. We'll have to see how things develop when (I probably should say "if", but it doesn't feel like an "if") Apple starts using web technologies more broadly for UI (i.e. in full-fledged desktop apps). Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > Using web technologies for desktop UI is a good thing, I think. It > should give developers a lot of flexibility, and make it much easier to > do things like creating custom controls. It can be standards-based, and > cross-platform, and it's a natural way to handle remote display. I'm thinking more about security. Remember, these gadgets are WebCore based. So anything they can do has been rolled into the same code base as the Safari. And apparently, some of them are run as root. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > Using web technologies for desktop UI is a good thing, I think. It > > should give developers a lot of flexibility, and make it much easier to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > based. So anything they can do has been rolled into the same code base > as the Safari. And apparently, some of them are run as root. No, if they call native code, then *that* has to be run as root. This is not a security hole, it's a security feature; it means that native code can't be run unless someone with superuser privileges approves it. Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > No, if they call native code, then *that* has to be run as root. This is > not a security hole, it's a security feature; it means that native code > can't be run unless someone with superuser privileges approves it. What it means for practical purposes is that we'll regularly be asked to authenticate when using gadgets. And when we do, it will give the gadget root privileges. I think I'd almost rather have any gadget able to do anything within my user context. Maybe I'm wrong, and somehow they'll be limited to the current user context anyway. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > > > > The impression I get is that Dashboard is just a part of what > > > > > seems to be a much larger effort from Apple to break down [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > but it doesn't feel like an "if") Apple starts using web technologies > more broadly for UI (i.e. in full-fledged desktop apps). So, what you're saying is that UI elements should be rendered using WebKit and consist of html/css/javascript/whatnot instead of being native cocoa/carbon/interfacebuilder widgets? What is XP doing here? Are they emulating a web "look" but using native widgets? I don't know. You seem to make a difference between web "technology" and web "interface" but the widgets in dashboard use web "interface", no? Being a web developer, if I could sit in interfacebuilder and build apps out of html/css/javascript/perl/php/applescript, that would be awesome, but would it be good? I don't know. SignatureSandman[.net] > > > No, and that's not a reasonable reading of the paragraph to which you > > > responded. I'm suggesting that it's unreasonable to assert that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's pretty clear that Dashboard has very little to do with > Konfabulator. I've already read all of the three Dashboard blogs by Dave, and they are very interesting. But he is talking about technical differences, which I am quite aware of. When I said "Final result" above, I didn't mean "final technical desicion" but rather "final look". It is obvious to me that the visual representation of Konfab influenced Dashboard, and I'm quite sure that Apple wouldn't even have released Dashboard now if it weren't for Konfab - even though they differ technologically. SignatureSandman[.net] > > > > No, and that's not a reasonable reading of the paragraph to > > > > which you responded. I'm suggesting that it's unreasonable to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It is obvious to me that the visual representation of Konfab > influenced Dashboard, So we are talking about visual design. Frankly, looking at Konfabulator and Dashboard, I don't really see any visual similarities which are not simply inherited from OS X. They both use translucency, shiny highlights and rounded edges, all of which you see everywhere in OS X. If you start looking at individual widgets, they're really not much more similar than that. Look at the two clocks, for instance. I mean, they're both clocks, and they both share the characteristics I just mentioned, but otherwise they don't look much alike. Ditto for the calendars, and most of the other widgets in the default sets. > and I'm quite sure that Apple wouldn't even have released Dashboard > now if it weren't for Konfab - even though they differ > technologically. But Hyatt says he basically thinks of Dashboard widgets as browser sidebar panels freed from the browser. I would say that it could easily be seen as just a natural first step in Apple's attempts to break down barriers between the web and the desktop. (The eventual conclusion will be allowing developers to develop interfaces and custom controls for real applications using web technologies, of course. Microsoft is going there, and the approach does have some advantages, so Apple probably has to do it as well.) Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > > It is obvious to me that the visual representation of Konfab > > influenced Dashboard, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > simply inherited from OS X. They both use translucency, shiny highlights > and rounded edges, all of which you see everywhere in OS X. Actually, no I dont. No application provided by Apple use this. They are either white or metallic (or garageband-mess). This is the UI style Apple has been using for OSX all the time. They have moved towards more and more metallic. Apple provides us with some utility apps, such as Calculator.app, that show us quite clearly what such apps look like. With Dashboard, Apple is introducing a new UI 'look' to applications (or rather, utilities) which has only been available through Konfab until now. > > and I'm quite sure that Apple wouldn't even have released Dashboard > > now if it weren't for Konfab - even though they differ > > technologically. > > But Hyatt says he basically thinks of Dashboard widgets as browser > sidebar panels freed from the browser. I know - did you also note that he never mention Konfabulator at all in his blog? I'm sure he has been told not to. I'm not calling him a liar, but it sure sounds like a "well, what other similar technology could I claim to have based this on?" to me - to divert attention from Konfab... SignatureSandman[.net] > > > It is obvious to me that the visual representation of Konfab > > > influenced Dashboard, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to applications (or rather, utilities) which has only been available > through Konfab until now. So you're telling me the real innovation that Apple is taking from Konfabulator is making glossy colored stuff rather than just glossy white stuff? > > > and I'm quite sure that Apple wouldn't even have released > > > Dashboard now if it weren't for Konfab - even though they differ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > could I claim to have based this on?" to me - to divert attention > from Konfab... No. Dave Hyatt is an ex-Mozilla developer who has been working with the concept of creating desktop UI using web technologies for far longer than Konfabulator has existed. He has been heavily involved with XUL. See, for instance, this XUL documentation from four years ago: <http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xptoolkit/index.html>. The contact address given is Hyatt's. Signature"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004 > > > > It is obvious to me that the visual representation of Konfab > > > > influenced Dashboard, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Konfabulator is making glossy colored stuff rather than just glossy > white stuff? Yes, much like the real innovation Gateway took from Apple was making translucent plastic. It's the exact same thing, really. No matter how trivial one wants to make it sound (remember the "So they copyrighted the color blue?" threads in csma?), there is an obvious connection between the "look and feel" in Dashboard and Konfabulator, and I am claiming that Apple hasn't used a "look and feel" that was already present and established in OSX prior to 10.4, but is introducing something new - which, as I said, has only been seen in Konfabulator until now. > > > > and I'm quite sure that Apple wouldn't even have released > > > > Dashboard now if it weren't for Konfab - even though they differ [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > <http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xptoolkit/index.html>. The contact address > given is Hyatt's. I am aware of that. And it's not like I want to call him a liar - but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that Apple has specifically told him not to mention Konfabulator publically (much like Casady & Green wasn't allowed to mention the SoundJam deal for -two years- to anyone). I'm saying that there is probably a reason why Apple would tell him not to, and it seems obvious that they did, since if they didn't, I have a hard time seeing how Dave could write an "explanation" about Dashboard without addressing the Konfabulator hysteria. SignatureSandman[.net] > > In the case of Liteswitch, that's a pretty fair bet. Read what I said > > again: The Liteswitch UI was modeled on something already in OS X. > > Precisely. > > Obviously, I disagree. You disagree with the statement that Liteswitch's UI was lifted from something that was already in OS X? Then there's no help for you, because you are either ignorant or blind, and in either case it's willful. > Apple already had a implementation of app switching, > and changed that to somethat just happened to look exactly like something > else? No, sorry. Apple had an implementation of application switching where the feedback was, frankly, bad. They had other keyboard-invoked functionality with a different, and much better form of feedback. Later they changed the app switch feedback to the other form. Note that these behaviors were almost certainly done by distinct subsets of the OS programming group, so the divergence at initial release is not unreasonable. > >> Apple already -had- a app-switching mechanism in 10.1, but in 10.2 it > >> was suddenly changed, and it looked exactly like something already [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What are you thinking about here? The feedback that occurs for the volume, brightness and contrast keys, obviously. > >> When computer builders released all-in-ones with translucent plastic > >> in 1999 we all stood and screamed 'theft!' or similar things. These [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 20 years of similar apps from several different developers that didn't look > anything like Konfabulator" It could read that, but it doesn't and it's not really an analogous statement. > It's the same exact argument. Not really. A major distinction is that there _is_ prior art in this case. No one had done a machine that looked like an iMac before 8/98, but plenty of other all-in-one designs had existed dating back at least to the late 1970s. Asserting that the iMac design is the obvious design of an all-in-one is immediately stupid - if that was "the" obvious design, why'd it take so long to get there? > >>>> Or even having them all attached to a master window which is on the > >>>> "backside" of the main window [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What?? My idea above is based on the entire cube-effect when you switch user > in OSX - it's very mac-like these days, these kind of effects. I know what your idea is based on. In the case of user switching, the entire desktop environment is being removed and replaced by something else. That's a very different kind of interaction from controlling the appearance and visibility of little applets and informational windows from within the current user session. A large part of what makes a behavior or appearance "Mac-like" is whether or not it's appropriate for the task. What may be Mac-like feedback for one task may be very distinctly un-Mac-like for another. > Ironic too, since preferences of the Dashboard apps all seem to be on their > "backside". How very un-maclike, right? :) You're seeing, I think intentionally now, both similarities and differences where none exist. > > It's not, despite your comment in another post, comparable to the spinning > > cube presented by user switching because the nature of the shift you're > > illustrating is completely different. > > No, actually it isn't. Yes, actually it is. Completely replacing the visible user environment is a fundamentally different action from hiding and showing windows. > >> Since Apple seems to have magically arrived at the exact same look as > >> third party developers in the past - I don't understand how a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > what so ever on the final result on Dashboard - what is your thoughts? > Or are you claiming that the Dashboard developers hadn't even seen Konfab? Nice attempt at trollery. I'm not making a claim one way or the other. What I'm asserting, as I've now stated multiple times, is that noone outside of Apple can say definitively to what extent Konfabulator influenced Dashboard. Not I. Not you. Not Arlo Rose. As I've already said, my problem with this discussion is the people who, completely unencumbered by facts, insist that Dashboard _must_ be a ripoff. That there is absolutely no way the superficial similarities might have otherwise arisen. G SignatureStandard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom, they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his "standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon > > > In the case of Liteswitch, that's a pretty fair bet. Read what I said > > > again: The Liteswitch UI was modeled on something already in OS X. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because you are either ignorant or blind, and in either case it's > willful. Well then - I suppose there's nothing more to add, then? SignatureSandman[.net] > especielly when we know that Apple has done similar things in the > past with Liteswitch and Watson. We know nothing of the sort. Liteswitch is basic functionality that Windows has, and Mac OS had back with Office 6. And Watson was an extension to Sherlock, which in turn was later extended to nearly the same level. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > especielly when we know that Apple has done similar things in the > > past with Liteswitch and Watson. > > We know nothing of the sort. Liteswitch is basic functionality that > Windows has, and Mac OS had back with Office 6. Eh, I'm talking of execution here. In 10.1, app switching was handled by the Dock, in 10.2, it was handled by big icons in a horizontal line across the screen with a semi-transparent frame around them - exactly how LiteSwitch had done it for quite some time. > And Watson was an extension to Sherlock, which in turn was later > extended to nearly the same level. Watson was a stand-alone app, not an extension to Sherlock. SignatureSandman[.net] > Eh, I'm talking of execution here. In 10.1, app switching was handled by the > Dock, in 10.2, it was handled by big icons in a horizontal line across the > screen with a semi-transparent frame around them - exactly how LiteSwitch had > done it for quite some time. And it is almost exactly like Windows handled application switching. And almost the way the Mac handled them back in the PowerPC 6100 days with Office 6 installed. The appearance just looks a bit more like other widgets in Mac OS X (such as the volume control). > Watson was a stand-alone app, not an extension to Sherlock. What? I think you're confused about what I said. Maybe it's my fault, maybe I didn't say it well. Watson was something like Sherlock 2, only with more functionality. Sherlock 3 was also like Sherlock 2, only with more functionality. Saying Sherlock 3 was a Watson rip off is like the Mac OS X Finder is like NetFinder. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." >> Eh, I'm talking of execution here. In 10.1, app switching was handled >> by the Dock, in 10.2, it was handled by big icons in a horizontal >> line across the screen with a semi-transparent frame around them - >> exactly how LiteSwitch had done it for quite some time. > > And it is almost exactly like Windows handled application switching. 'Almost exactly' != 'exactly'. >> Watson was a stand-alone app, not an extension to Sherlock. > > What? I think you're confused about what I said. Maybe it's my fault, > maybe I didn't say it well. Watson was something like Sherlock 2, only > with more functionality. Sherlock 3 was also like Sherlock 2, only > with more functionality. NO, I don't agree with that at all. Watson took the idea of Sherlock 2 and made something bigger and better. Sherlock 3 did the exact same thing. > Saying Sherlock 3 was a Watson rip off is like the Mac OS X Finder is > like NetFinder. Obviously, I disagree. SignatureSandman[.net] > > And it is almost exactly like Windows handled application switching. > > 'Almost exactly' != 'exactly'. So you think Apple should make Mac OS X look like Windows? > > What? I think you're confused about what I said. Maybe it's my fault, > > maybe I didn't say it well. Watson was something like Sherlock 2, only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 2 and made something bigger and better. Sherlock 3 did the exact same > thing. I've read this several times, and I don't see why you prefixed this with "no." It sounds like we're in perfect agreement. PS: Watch your quoting, please. :) You put words in my mouth there by snipping an attribution line. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > > > And it is almost exactly like Windows handled application switching. > > > > 'Almost exactly' != 'exactly'. > > So you think Apple should make Mac OS X look like Windows? Eh? "OSX app switching is almost exactly like Windows app switching" vs. "OSX app switching is exactly like Liteswitch app switching" See the difference? > > > What? I think you're confused about what I said. Maybe it's my fault, > > > maybe I didn't say it well. Watson was something like Sherlock 2, only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I've read this several times, and I don't see why you prefixed this with > "no." It sounds like we're in perfect agreement. I do not agree with your claim that "Watson was something like Sherlock 2". SignatureSandman[.net] > I do not agree with your claim that "Watson was something like Sherlock 2". There hasn't been such a claim. Obviously, Watson did a lot more than Sherlock 2. Watson was *based on the idea of* Sherlock 2. It did much more, but it was still based on the basic premise of Sherlock 2. So why is it a surprise that Sherlock 3 was similar to Watson? Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> > > I do not agree with your claim that "Watson was something like Sherlock 2". > > There hasn't been such a claim. Eh? That was a quote from Steven Fisher. You can find it in <sdfisher-4EA40D.04415103072004@news.va.shawcable.net>: "What? I think you're confused about what I said. Maybe it's my fault, maybe I didn't say it well. Watson was something like Sherlock 2, only with more functionality. Sherlock 3 was also like Sherlock 2, only with more functionality." > Obviously, Watson did a lot more than Sherlock 2. Watson was *based > on the idea of* Sherlock 2. It did much more, but it was still based > on the basic premise of Sherlock 2. So why is it a surprise that > Sherlock 3 was similar to Watson? I don't think Sherlock 3 would have looked as it did if it weren't for Watson, much like I don't think Dashboard would look like it does if it weren't for Konfab. SignatureSandman[.net] > > > > And it is almost exactly like Windows handled application switching. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > See the difference? But Panther app switching is NOT "exactly like Liteswitch". There are a number of significant visual differences, such as rounded versus square corners and text style & position. And although Liteswitch may not be *exactly* like Windows, that's undoubtedly where Proteron (and Apple) got the basic idea. Of course Proteron knew that to be accepted by Mac users, they couldn't do an exact copy of Windows' app-switching. They had to make it look like it belonged on a Mac, so they copied visual design elements from other parts of OS X: * The large icons, which are an integral part of OS X. * The transparent grey rectangle with rounded corners, which OS X uses to display a large icon when you press volume up/down, eject, etc. When Apple decided to go with Windows-style app-switching, it was only natural that they would choose those same visual design elements -- after all, it was Apple who had put those elements in previous versions of OS X, and it simply made sense to maintain consistency by reusing those elements for similar purposes. Liteswitch copied those elements from OS X, not vice versa. The only other significant visual similarity between Liteswitch and Panther is the outline & dark background around the selected icon. But it's only *similar*, not identical. And Proteron didn't invent this method of highlighting graphical objects; the same basic method has been used for years in other apps, including desktop publishing, WYSIWYG web editors, DVD menus, etc. Furthermore, it's conceptually similar to the highlight method normally used for text, and Panther now uses it in the Finder icon views. > > > > > And it is almost exactly like Windows handled application switching. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > number of significant visual differences, such as rounded versus square > corners and text style & position. http://www.proteron.com/liteswitchx/ The edges seems to look very similar... > And although Liteswitch may not be > *exactly* like Windows, that's undoubtedly where Proteron (and Apple) got > the basic idea. I'm not arguing with that. > Of course Proteron knew that to be accepted by Mac users, they couldn't do > an exact copy of Windows' app-switching. They had to make it look like it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > * The transparent grey rectangle with rounded corners, which OS X uses to > display a large icon when you press volume up/down, eject, etc. Actually, I can't remember if this was present in 10.1, which is when LiteSwitch was ported to OSSX (as far as I can remember). SignatureSandman[.net] > Apples wrongdoing here is leveraging an idea. That idea was using a common > scripting platform as the base for mini applets. The idea of mini-apps written in JavaScript, or something like it, did not originate with Konfabulator. It was around long before. Further, Dashboard gadgets aren't written in JavaScript, they're written in HTML -- which could potentially use JavaScript, but doesn't have to. Please read: <http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator> Signature-Thomas <http://www.bitjuggler.com/> > > Apples wrongdoing here is leveraging an idea. That idea was using a common > > scripting platform as the base for mini applets. > > The idea of mini-apps written in JavaScript, or something like it, did > not originate with Konfabulator. I didn't mean to imply it did - it's clear it didn't start with Apple. SignatureSandman[.net] > Apples wrongdoing here is leveraging an idea. It's like people claiming Movie X in 2004 ripped off Movie Y from 1998 because Movie Y just happens to be the earliest movie the complainer has seen that has the similar content. Forget about Movie Z that was made in 1970, or the book written in 1955 that Movie X as based on. Yes, I regularly read Ain't It Cool News, much to my shame. Dashboard is the LOTR films. Konfab and other are all the medieval fantasy flicks that came before. Some are might have better stories than LOTR, but they are *decendents* conceptually. They need to remember that Desk Accessories and other things are the LOTR books. I'm sure there's something to be said about PARC and SRI being the original legends that Apple sourced, but I think I've tortured the anology quite enough. :) Ah, who cares... > Okay, time to put this baby to bed. <snip> Except your points are just opinion, not fact. Except for #2. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > There's no gray area here. > Apple simply stole Konfabulator. End of discussion. Typical spoor of the Nothern Spotted Dumbass. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.