Slashdot Mirror
Apple Still Says No To Aqua-Like Themes
JoFo writes: "Eric Yang, creator of several Aqua-like themes and skins for GTK+, KDE, Mozilla, gkrellm, and others, was forced by Apple to take down all Aqua-related projects on his web site. It appears they went to his employer as a way to strong-arm him. He writes on his web site 'I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?'" Apple seems at least to be consistent in objecting to nearly any non-Apple project that reminds the company of Aqua, so maybe this was just a matter of time.
Let me spell this out: Apple owns the copyright on the design. Apple has the right to enforce this. Anyone who thinks they can get away with it is kidding themselves.
Aqua is not the only thing they have going for them in Mac OS X(.1), but it's a big thing; it's what differentiaates them from MS in screenshots, etc. If any system can look like theirs, they lose out. I know it's nice, I'd like it on my Linux desktop as well, but it's Apple's property and this is their right, so let's not act too surprised that they try and stop it.
Let us, however, ignore that Be never cared, QNX doesn't care, and MS really, really doesn't care (it probably even makes them laugh when a Linux WM has a Windows theme). Apple is 'special' in that they have to keep their lawyers fed or they start to go ambulance chasing when they get bored.
In all honesty...
:)
the aesthetic aspects of MacOS are it's best attributes.
Seriously, a lot of work goes into the UI design at apple, and it's a shame that it's constantly ripped off. Not just by free software people, and not just by Microsoft.
I think that free software people should spend time coming up with their own cool-looking interfaces (like a lot of the stuff on themes.org) and not just copy other UI's.
. . . didn't Apple try this 'look and feel' legal action crap against M$ regarding Windows? If it didn't apply to M$ (as it obviously didn't), why can't we just tell them to get bent? Other than the fact that The Rich Make the Rules in the US, that is.
I found a bug in NSImage that makes deallocating objects across the Objc-Java bridge fail, and I doubt I'll get a t-shirt. When he filed a bug report, apple make no cliam of repaying people for their free services. I don't think Linus sends people cash or free Tux Dolls when they make fixes to the kernel.
.rsrc file and split it into two, for instance).
I am kind of peeved at apple not allowing themes. Maybe they're just holding back on their own theming system for sometime before Macrh 23rd of next year. I guess they're philosophy makes sense: they want people to look at a Mac OS X machine and know for sure that it's a Mac OS X machine. Plus, if it's a theming system not from apple, future updates could hose the system over (The move from 10.0.4 to 10.1 to one
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
The law is designed such that if companies want to stop a few people from taking advantage of their work, they have to stop everyone.
For example, if a collection of friends decide to create an Aqua-like theme and distribute it, what's that to prevent Microsoft from doing the same?
Clearly Apple is in competition with Microsoft, and it doesn't have any particular desire to permit Microsoft to make use of it's so-called user interface innovations.
Apple clearly built the Aqua theme, and spent a lot of time and money developing it into something that Apple hopes to be a brand-identifier. For a 3rd party to create a very similar branding, and then release it in such a way that Microsoft could use it flys in the face of why Apple developed the interface to begin with: To outpace Microsoft in interface design.
So although I feel for the individuals who have spent so much effort to clone the Aqua interface, it is also easy to appreciate Apple's stance on this issue.
I guess Apple has not learned the lesson which resulted in their nearly single digit share of the computer market- namely that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The more people who are familar with the Aqua theme the more people will admire it and the more people who will purchase OSX or an Apple product to run it on. The more people who see Aqua, the more people will realize how truly lame Microsoft Windows has become.
We users of Linux are not the enemy. It's our nature as evolutionists to adapt what is superior and advantageous and disgard what is not. We spread the word, we improve the breed. We also turn vicously and persistently against those who oppose this natural way. Their legal actions can't change nature, they can only create ill will.
I hope someone outside the US will take up the Aqua bandwagon and propagate the theme. It's beautiful.
Boring subject. But let me tell you: I've switch a while ago from proprietary OS (Windows and OS X) to a more open-minded one, LInux. Even if at first it wasn't perfect and a little painful, all I can say when I read this, is that I am really glad to have made the move. Thinking I could have given my money to such an arrogant and stupid company brings me chills in my backspin. Apple may be thinking they are after a golden goose with Aqua and their OS X, but they apparently don't even listen to their own users who are all bitching and complaining at their unusable semi-transparent windows and unproductive dock.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Personally, I am not upset about anybody "wanting" anything. (It's a free country, you can want whatever you feel like wanting.) I am upset about archaic intellectual property laws and the level of corporate control over our society.
How different is this from the lawsuit with Microsoft oh so many years ago over look and feel? Apple lost that battle, right? If so, then what possible claim can they have over a theme, which is essentially just look and feel?
If people are ripping off the actual icon files then that's one thing. But making something very similar, though not identical, seems like another look and feel issue.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
I dont think he was expecting to get paid.
I think what he was poining out was that literally, for his help he should have expected gratitude (perhaps in the form of an email?) however in actuality his bug fix made apple more aware of his "activities" and they shut him down
This is a form of irony as the literal meaning is the opposite of the actual meaning
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this lousy T-shirt
Yeah yeah You're SO RIGHT. And it's also a shame that Apple rips off the hard work of the BSD coders. Without the resource of *BSD and its legacy of openness Apple Computer would be dead and rotting without a prayer of resurrection.
Apple has been given LIFE itself by people who share their work --work that is let's be honest, a shitlaod harder than the noodlings of Apple human interface designers-- and yet they turn around and send LAWYERS to E. Yangs employer to squash his homage to the Mac interface?
In all HONESTY, to hell with these fucking parasites.
1. Apple's look and feel is pretty general, and there is tons of prior art for it. (pick your favorite shiny, transluscent, pretty image/skin)
2.
3.
4.
so that no one else can make a shiny transluscent pretty skin.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
If you people had any idea what people like me go through to create successful interfaces I don't think you would take this so lightly. Just because we do our work in Illustrator instead of emacs doesn't mean we're sitting there doing a paintjob. I used to code, I once wrote a device driver for Solaris [for a Gretag SPM-50 spectrophotometer if you're interested] but real UI design is the same amount of work.
Developers in general don't have to deal with criticism from VPs or C*Os about the validity of how their stored procedures are set up. You don't have to sit behind a one-way mirror and watch a user rip the result of the last 3 months of your life to shreds.
As far as Apple and Aqua goes, you have to realize what it is that Apple really sells. They provide a whole experience that spans hardware, software and everyhting else. They invested millions upon millions of dollars in developing Aqua so I don't think it's a big suprise when they see someone mucking with their stuff. I think they are less worried about "competition" than they are about their work being "diluted" and offered on a system that doesn't work as elegantly.
What is everyone's great desire to rip off Apple's look anyway? Make something better if you're the expert.
i use sawmill on one puter, and macos on the other. i can't change the button bindings in macos, so i set up sawmill to use the same bindings and button positions.
... thanks apple!
:)
this works well, and stops me hitting the window menu every time i try to close an app (or worse). they don't have to look identical, just so long as they work the same on the subconcious level we use switches on (what stops you having to think "which is the indicator switch" in your car).
ironically, now that i'm using the (unthemable) macos x, i am confused as all hell again because i'm used to macos 8.6. shite
apple should realise that user interface should be more flexible (and easy to restore, if you want to enforce consistency), and that there are legitimate reasons for using an aqua or macos workalike on a non-mac platform.
what's the best way to report improvements to apple for bugs and the like? i've got a call sheet here
Yeah, and the mozilla project has a reason to too.
I hope mozilla looks the same on most operating systems instead of taking "UI Feel" from where its working on. Less User Retraining for another God Damn GUI Toy.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Apple is always on the brink of disaster.
:) I'm always surprised to hear people really do believe people buy Macs just because they look cool. That's just icing. And the bit about a "dream to work with," you sure make that sound easy to implement. It's not a one time thing. It's a design philoshopy, one that costs substantial time and money to develop, maintain and enforce. Apple spends a considerable amount on continually evolving the concept of a personal computer. Those 30% margins? A lot of it goes right back into the products.
Apple's the one with $4.2 billion in the bank, who has laid off a total of 50 people since the PC industry downturn, and (with one exception) has profitable every quarter since Q1 1998. Contrast this to all the mass layoffs throughout the industry. There is tremendous value in the company.
PC makers, along with motherboard designers integrate more cutting edge features that ever, and do so with great stability and success
Stability? Which industry are you talking about? Certainly not the one with Gateway, Compaq, VA and HP in it.
Apple has some of the best hardware overall in the industry. The were the first to ship DVD-R, first with built-in wireless antennas, first (and only, as far as I can tell) with gigabit ethernet standard on desktop hardware, and the legacy-free aspect of the iMac certainly drove USB acceptance. Their machines are quite energy efficient, and in some cases, fanless. Their towers are the easiest to manipulate of any manufacturer I've seen. There are weak spots, like the bus speed, but there is plenty to appreciate as well.
Software makers, especially Microsoft, cater to both the newbie while still offering powerful professional features (much like FontSync and ColorSync) all while maintaining tight integration with said PC makers
Tight intergration with PC makers? Is that intergration as in "include Netscape and we'll revoke your license" or as in "this driver keeps giving me error messages?"
Build some cool enclosures that both look nice and are a dream to work with. Boom. No more need for Apple.
It's just that simple, eh?
It should be no surprise that Apple wants to defend one of the very things that differentiates itself from the commodity Wintel PC market.
You're right, it's not. The legal system says Apple has to virgiously defend its ideas at every point along the way, or loses the right to do so later. I don't think Apple's really all that concerned about people buying a machine to run Linux instead of a Mac just because E has an Aqua theme.
But here's something else I'm wondering about -- why are people still creating Aqua themes? Apple has asked repeatedly for people to stop. Why does this continue? Surely theme creators can come up with something new. Why not just respect Apple's wishes? It's not like OpenSSH, where you need replication for compatibility reasons.
You don't even have to look at it from a legal perspective since they haven't actually sued anyone. What if somebody asked you to remove a desktop picture they created from your theme package? Wouldn't you do it? Is this all that different?
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
I didn't think so. I'm formally trained in niether psychology nor psychiatry, nor have I met Eric Yang; but I am a member of MENSA and a student of human behavior. I think I know a sociopath [slashdot.org] when I see one.
And DAMN you know how to pound your dick on the table to try and convince everyone you are right!
Being a student of behavior doesn't really make you any more qualified than anyone else to make the observation of if someone is a sociopath or not. And a MENSA membership doesn't qualify you either - which kinda makes me question your wisdom of posting that you are a MENSA member. Plus, anyway - 2% of the world can be a MENSA member. If you would have said you were a IQuadrivium member, I might have been more impressed ;-) (only .1% of the world can qualify for that one. And there's ones with even more stringent restrictions on IQ - of course, there's certain problems with quantifying extremely high IQ's in the first place!)
In other words - please, if you are going to try and use something to prove your point, how about I dunno... use the wonderful ability to hyperlink to relavant information instead of trying to turn this into an "I'm smarter than you" style contest. More people listen when relevant information is presented, while attempting to make people believe you have a bigger dick really doesn't do anything but make people scoff at you, and totally disreguard your statements completely.
What's really IRONIC (damned if I'm not havin' some fun now!) about this is that you've claimed Eric Yang to be a sociopath. However, you've already exhibited at least one sign of a sociopath - excessive boasting. More likely than not based on your MENSA comment, you could also potentially have a second problem that's commonly exhibited: Grandiose sense of self-worth.
So quit callin' people names and flingin' terms when you think the ignorant masses don't really follow what you are saying. You might be surprised - a really large number of us are actually somewhat intellectual ourselves, and do know the definition and meaning of large words.
(Ok, I SWEAR - that's the only time I've ever used the term 'intellectual' attached to a group of people that includes myself. Sheesh.)
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
Yes, it does. The fact of the matter is that changing the background color alone can make a big difference in whether a copyright or trademark has been violated or not.
There is also the fact that Ferrari's logo has always been considered a bit on the weak side legally, at least with regards to the horse.
You see, that horse isn't Ferrari's invention, he took it from an insignia of an Italian fighter squadron in the first place.
Again, nicely illustrating my point that the ablility to trademark themes has its limits.
KFG
Legal basis is 10%, from art, photos, etc in the real world - per a art major working in commercial industry (not me)
Now defining 10% of a software interface... thats a horse of a different, er, color.
If you look on TV, you'll notice that everything about an Apple computer is easily recognizable. Apple's computer designs are one big marketing ploy, turning the owner him/herself into an advertisement. Much like Abercrombie&Fitch t-shirts.
If you see a PC across the room, you barely notice it. If you see a Mac across a room, you notice. Nothing else looks like an iMac, a G3/G4 tower, an iBook, etc. Apple wants to be visible, and that makes sense.
The same goes for Aqua. Aqua looks like nothing else - and Apple wants to keep it that way. If Aqua themes became popular, then screenshots from Apple computers would not stand out as much - and therefore, Apple would not burn itself into peoples heads nearly as clearly.
Then they'd get a pretty nasty surprise when they found out that chicken sandwiches aren't copyrightable. The recipe, however, might be protectable as a trade secret, but you would have to prove that A) you had used reasonable means to protect your trade secret and B) Jack in the Box still stole it.
Folks, PLEASE HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF IP LAW before acting like you know what you're talking about. This is a copyright issue, plain and simple. If Apple wants to defend the work of its artists, it's damn well able to do that.
I shudder to think of a world in which everybody can just copy anything they like without regard to the rights of the original author. I make a living writing software, and I'm pretty happy that nobody can just appropriate it and sell it as their own.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
I was denied to use this interface unless I used their library.
I don't know exactly what he was denied to use, but it sounds to me like he tried to implement his OWN version of the interface rather than just using the available library, which Apple provides in thier development kit.
So he has to buy the SDK and use the actual Apple library so that Mac OS X (under development for YEARS) doesn't have a bunch of half-assed imitation interfaces lurking around. They've been doing this since the beginning: enforcing a UI standard.
Use the Apple library. It's there. It damn near ensures UI compatibility, and it's probably more flexible than anything you can easily concoct.
I'll back Apple on this one. Knowing how hard they've worked, they're going to make sure that anything you develop for for OS X (or to look like Aqua) is going to use Apple's libs.
What's the problem?
Is he suprised he didn't get paid?
As I understood his comments, he was only pointing it out that Apple is all to happy to take input from the community, but doesn't allow the same community the freedom of artistic expression.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
What is everyone's great desire to rip off Apple's look anyway? Make something better if you're the expert.
I chose that quote for the subject, and for a reason. Did you consider the fact that people have looked at Aqua and liked it very much? Apple has a history of making usable UIs, so Aqua may not be an exception.
Yet, quite a few of us are not willing to switch the platform we're currently on. Not to mention buying a completely new set of hardware, should we want to have an Aquaish UI. I think you could call it the freedom of choice. Personally, I think Aqua is a bit too bleak for my taste but I do understand why some folks would want to use it.
As to why ripping off a good design? You pointed out why professional UI design can manage such wonderful results: there are several professionals who get paid to shred the unfinished work to pieces. If they have high enough standards, they won't allow their work to be left unfinished and a half-baked UI to leave the door. Add a good number of designers, working in unison to get results that will withstand such brutal approach and in time, something worthwhile WILL come of all of it.
Such resources are just not available to OS folks. At least, not a good majority. These folks have to rely on user feedback and bug reports. And who do you think writes them? Geek users, not professional usability experts.
So please forgive us for wanting to use our platform of choice, probably with a very attracting UI. Apple has managed to create a UI that draws mimics like a pot of honey would flies. They should be very, very flattered. For all I know, they very well may be - they just have chosen to limit Aqua's availability to only those running their operating system.
You make your own decision whether this is a good or bad choice. I am not competent enough to decide it for someone else.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
If not for BSD, then Apple would probably have purchased a proprietary Unix as its core OS. It would not be as compatible with BSD as Mac OS X is, though, and all those BSD coders wouldn't be as overjoyed with their new iBooks or whatever. (The Mac is now an even better second computer to go with a BSD or other Unix desktop or network.)
... is it really too much for Apple to ask theme designers not to rip off their stuff for a little while? Microsoft is going around cutting off air supplies and promising a complete IIS "re-write" by a year from now (yeah, right), and Apple is asking people to give them a break on Aqua while they try to lift a few more of us out of this Microsoft Morass(TM) 2001 that we're all in, with Code Red and Windows Media and C fucking backslash all over the place. Can't we give Apple a break and let them be the first one to introduce Aqua to Windows users?
... damn! Mac OS 10.1 is really good. Check it out! Everybody can find at least one feature in there that will make their jaw drop when they try it. For me, it was burning data DVD-R's like they were floppy disks (4.7GB floppies that cost $6 each and take 20 minutes to burn in the background). QuickTime performance is also really something, and DVD playback looks so real that you want to touch it. A sad note is that the rubber ducky icon from Mac OS 9's multiple login panel which somehow appeared in Windows XP's new multiple login feature is not in Mac OS X's multiple login ... it has pictures of big cats such as pumas and cheetahs instead (Mac OS X internal code names). Sad to see the duck go from Mac OS 9 to Windows XP instead of to Mac OS X.
Sharing digital stuff is not a zero-sum game. BSD is the Compatibility Fairy, spreading compatibility around by providing core stuff that you can build anything around and it will still be able to talk to other stuff. BSD licensed stuff is meant to be used by everyone, that's the point.
The most compatible part of Windows is its BSD TCP/IP stack. Is it good that Microsoft "stole" that code? Imagine how much better the Web would be if IE for Windows used Gecko. Then we would really have a compatible Web, and the Internet Appliance market would probably have a chance because they could put Gecko on top of a BSD TCP/IP stack and the Web would still "look like the Web" to a Windows user, with the same rendering that they see on Windows. You'd be able to run a Gecko-based browser on BSD and a page would look the same as on Windows. In these kinds of common areas, code that everyone can share without restriction really benefits everybody.
Now, when it comes to the distinctive graphical look of a software product that is the only competitor to Microsoft Windows in many, many markets and is just about to have its mainstream coming-out
I'm not defending lawyers or anything, and I know the guy in this article is skinning X-Windows, not Windows, but a guy who skins Windows XP to look like Mac OS X is not helping the free software community. Compare the proprietary components in Windows XP to their open Mac OS X counterparts and tell me which one you want your local artists and musicians running, which one you want your Grandma running. Even the BIOS-equivalent on the Mac is an IEEE standard, called OpenFirmware, which is also used by Sun and which has the cutest little Penguin icon that it uses to show bootable Linux volumes.
By the way
some good points
The most compatible part of Windows is its BSD TCP/IP stack. Is it good that Microsoft "stole" that code? Imagine how much better the Web would be if IE for Windows used Gecko. Then we would really have a compatible Web, and the Internet Appliance market would probably have a chance because they could put Gecko on top of a BSD TCP/IP stack and the Web would still "look like the Web" to a Windows user, with the same rendering that they see on Windows. You'd be able to run a Gecko-based browser on BSD and a page would look the same as on Windows. In these kinds of common areas, code that everyone can share without restriction really benefits everybody.
i really dont think this will ever happen, m$ could quite eaisily make things easier for everyone including themselves by abiding by standards but look at the cool/c# thing, they wont except that an established well developed laguage (java) is worth its salt, they weren allowed to bend java, so they made their own. grow up bill
in a world where standards were open, eg. all the web servers apache, all clients gecko all communication with bsd based stacks, where would we go then? Too much would be laid bare, prgorammers would be doing exactly the same things and competing to see who has done what best, it would realyl show the bad coders up!
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You - ONLY HARDER!
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I really don't have the time or interest to compare soundcards, and I know I'm not alone in that. Most people don't need anything very special.
I bring up the audio card thing, because there is this idea that floats around that Macintoshes are the top platform for Audio Production. Now aside from ProTools which is both a hardware and software solution that'll cost you big bucks, there is not the same range of pro quality card for the music sub-pro available at a cheap cost. Now this might not matter to you, and whoever else you are including in the "people who dont need anything special", but maybe its because of this that people are going over to the windows platform so they can make music. Not many people making music? I beg to differ. I would have to reckon that due to the availability of high quality soundcards, soft synths, and amazing software studios for cheap, more and more people are doing it everyday, if only as a hobby.
The on board sound components of a Macintosh are limited in this respect.