Slashdot Mirror
An 'Open Letter to Apple'
ndpatel writes "It looks like Apple has a a success in Panther, but it also seems like they've ruffled a few feathers over at Proteron by incorporating a new Windows-esque task switcher that mimics (most of) the functionality of Proteron's LiteSwitch X utility for Jaguar. Proteron has written an "Open Memo" to Apple, but it doesn't seem like Apple really cares. Shades of Karelia, Watson, and Sherlock 3? Is Apple screwing its smaller developers, or just refining their software with relatively obvious improvements?"
I am using OS 10.1 right now, and pressing Apple-Tab switches applications. A little black arrow moves between apps on the launcher bar, without any extra software installed. We're getting 10.3 soon, so I can compare, but it seems like this has to be a refinement, not a new feature.
I recall that this was available natively in MacOS 9 but then was dropped for X. So Proteron was more accurately copying a dropped MacOS 9 feature (which may have been copied from Windows) and now Apple's re-including it. I doubt that Apple looked at Proteron but do believe that Apple looked at Microsoft. I don't really see anything to get up in arms about here. Watson v.s. Sherlock was much more obviously a rip off of a 3rd party piece of sofware.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Are you telling me that Apple (and everybody else) aren't allowed to add new features to their products? If everybody had to think twice before adding a new feature because it might step on somebody elses toes then we'd still be using commandline interfaces.
StarDock made themeable windows way before Microsoft added it to XP. They're still around, they just made sure their product was much versatile and better than the built in theme engine.
Let's start a petition against Apple because of their iPod. I'm sure it's really harming the sales of the other HD based MP3 players. We'll ask Creative to do an open memo as well.
Apple is just smarter than MS. Windows is simply missing hundreds of obvious features. Tabbed browsing in IE. The ability to put stuff in the system tray. Virtual Desktops. Etc. These are basic functionalities that should be part of the os. Since MS to this day still does not include any of these tons of necessary features in its os, it is possible to make a business writing software that adds them to windows. As a result you get many incompatible implementations of many things.
Apple is much smarter. They realize that there is a feature that many people want added to the os. They realized the feature is a good thing and a lot of people use it. So they add it in. You can only make money developing applications for OSX. Which is the way it should be. You can't profit by making a piece of software that just adds some missing functionality to the os. This way everyone gets all the features necessary in an implementation that is compatible with the rest of the os. Not like Windows where you have 20 seperate little programs to add in all the missing stuff that should be there in the first place. And not like linux where you add it in yourself.
This is a plus for OSX in my book. I think I'm going to start saving now for the eventual arrival of the 12" G5 powerbook.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I can sympathize with Proteron, but LiteSwitch X isn't the most complicated app in town - it's simple as a concept and a common sense improvement over the old dock-based app switcher. It was a matter of time, and time's what they got.
Proteron made their money for a year and a half, and by the time Apple finally caught up with the functionality they should have moved on. They can't sit around on their thumb and milk a simple idea forever.
Blue skies, Barthy Burgers, girls...
My first reaction to the memo is to question why it's being brought up now if it is to be taken seriously. Mac Developers were the first to legitimately try out Panther and the copy passed out at WWDC had the feature in question. Did they lobby behind the scenes and only now have decided to bring it to the public after being ignored or is this simply a publicity stunt??
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
If they were really serious, you would think they might present a few links to real solid evidence from that open letter. You know, comparisons of screens or whatever. Perhaps they are planning on litigation? I doubt it. Plus, as some have already pointed out, window switching has been around in older Apple OS's and was then dropped.
I wonder how many people have run across this story now and fall into the following category:
1.) Panther is a bit steep right now at $129 and Jaguar is doing just great for now.
2.) They've never heard of LiteSwitchX until now.
3.) They've now downloaded LiteSwitchX and are considering shelling out $15 for it.
I'm not saying the fellow doesn't think his idea's been ripped and burned to the Panther CD, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think about it being a great marketing ploy for free advertising before he wrote it as well.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
To whom it may concern:
Open letters are both extremely obnoxious and grossly ineffective.
If you feel the need to write an open letter, please seek professional medical help. If your initials are "ESR", or if you are a party to the SCO lawsuit, please unplug your computer and hang yourself with the cord.
Thank you,
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Um, no.
As a former LiteSwitch user, I can say with some confidence that the window is not a "near-pixel" duplication. There are similar concepts in both cases, to be sure. The background of the switcher is transparent with rounded corners, but this can hardly be called a ripoff; the style is consistent with Apple's brightness and volume indicators, which have been a part of OSX since 10.0. Apple can't be blamed for UI consistency on that score.
The app titles are in Lucida Grande Bold in both LSX and OSX, colored white with a black drop shadow. Again, this is just a matter of UI consistency; Apple uses this very same font on desktops, and has since 10.0. In fact, this appears to be intended as Apple's standard font for text on top of any dark-colored UI element; the white text is controlled by a hidden preference "com.apple.Finder.hasDarkDesktop" (this was true in 10.0 at least).
The application icons are arranged in a horizontal row in LSX and OSX. Frankly, no other layout would make sense; Apple can hardly be blamed for this one.
Both LSX and OSX highlight the active app's icon by surrounding it with a differently-colored box. Aside from there being no other sensible way to highlight the icon in such an environment, it is worth noting that the boxes look different; LSX uses a dark box solid white border, while OSX uses a light box with no border but rounded corners, again more consistent with the style. Note that Proteron's implementation is closer to the look of the Windows application switcher, which predates both LSX and OSX.
Both OSX and LSX print the title of the currently selected application. LSX prints it centered at the bottom of the window, while OSX prints it under the application's icon. It's arguable which of these is better UI -points can be made both ways- but again, OSX is more consistent with Aqua, LSX is more consistent with Windows.
Panther's application switcher is not a duplication of LSX's functionality. For one thing, LSX actually goes significantly beyond what Panther's switcher does; if it's a copy, then it is a poor one except in terms of aesthetics. For another, although they look similar -more a testament to LSX's attempts to remain consistent with Aqua than Apple's attempts to rip them off- they are not the same. Some of the differences had to have taken some real effort to write, above and beyond any sort of cut/paste job.
Finally, I suppose, we should take a quick look at the history of LSX. LSX began life as a part of GoMac, which was nothing more or less than a Start Menu implementation for Mac OS 8. Not a bad implementation, either; they even added in support for control strip modules to replace Windows' system tray modules. However, this app copied the Win9X Start menu almost down to the pixel; they used Apple's system font and a Mac OS logo in place of the Windows logo, but other than this the resemblance was more than just uncanny. Later on, Proteron would develop an application switcher as part of the shareware GoMac, which they later duplicated in the freeware LiteSwitch as a kind of teaser for GoMac.
Either way, this kind of application switcher is not a new concept, and Proteron should know that better than anyone. If Apple is to credit the original developers, then they should credit the original developers. I'm sure Microsoft ripped the concept off from somewhere, but whoever it was, it wasn't Proteron. Apple and Proteron have both ripped this one off.
The comparison to Karelia's Watson is, frankly, borderline disgusting. At least Watson could legitimately claim to have come up with a new concept and interface; Proteron -at least as far as common features between LSX and OSX goes- just Aquafied a longtime feature of Windows. LSX did other things, but these don't seem to have been duplicated. I don't agree with everything Karelia has said about the Watson situation either, but they had a much better claim than Proteron does.
If you look on Proteron's site here stated in really large type is "Dear Apple: You forgot some important features" and showing in particular the "switch and hide others" feature. This is pretty funny unto itself, but you see the entire design of the Proteron site is completely ripped off from Apple!
Was this just a brilliant last minute stroke of inspiration, or planned publicity stunt? Either way it's well earned and well deserved. Bless you Proteron and I hope everyone buys a copy of their MaxMenu's.
So, "switch and hide others"? I'd love to see this as part of Apple's Switch Advertising Campaign? I'd love to make Windows disappear!
I am a monkey. This is slashdot.
A better comparison might be with Netscape vs IE-in-Windows, except that a web browser isn't really an operating system function (that is, most users see it as an application), whereas task switching is very much what the OS is supposed to be providing interfaces for.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
that SuperClock got rolled into system 7.1 or something, but Apple purchased the rights to it.
It is a lot like a automotive products after market seller finding a something they sell is going to be part of next years stadard in the car: Halogen lights, electonic ignition, automatic oilers, turbo chargers. It your market is the aftermarket you are always going to be vulnerable but that does not mean the major mareter is a bully.
Where it gets illegal is when a major marketer uses their leverage to enter a new market. GM cars requiring GM tires and GM gas. The distinctions are fine sometimes since it requires the definition of what is a distict market. In this case there is no fine distinction. LiteSwitch was only useful on macs and it was not a commodity market.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Stac vs Microsoft was a patent case. First, Stac sued Microsoft claiming Doublespace infringed on some of the compression patents Stac held. Microsoft were found to have unintentionally infringed on Stac's patents.
Then Microsoft sued back because Stac reverse-engineered some undocumented MS-DOS 6.x trickery that allowed the drivers for compressed drives to be loaded automagically and into HMA. Stac were found to have "misappropriated trade secrets".
Basically, it's a textbook example of why Software Patents Are Bad.
A better comparison might be with Netscape vs IE-in-Windows, except that a web browser isn't really an operating system function (that is, most users see it as an application) [...]
This might have been true before the mid 90s. Today a web browser is basically considered core functionality - and even by the late 90s when Win98 came out it was expected by most.
"Everyone" was bundling browser apps with their OS in the 95 - 98 timeframe. Plonking a browser component into the OS, as Microsoft eventually did with Win98, was a pretty logical step to take once they realised MSN had bombed and the WWW was the future. Even without Netscape's foolish grandstanding and goading they would have done it.
Dude, Microsoft leads the field in innovation. Why, pop-up blocking will be available built into Windows in a mere 2.5 years.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Seems like adding those features just responds to that message.
Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
They should have read Don't be a Sharecropper.
Apple builds in lightweight versions of a lot of things, which people would be screaming about if they didn't.
For example:
DiscBurner
The Command-tab thing
Safari
TextEdit
DiscUtility
And so on. For each of these, there are commercial variations which are, should you need the features, better. You can always buy Toast, LightSwitch, OmniWeb, BBEdit, DiscWarrior and so on.
Is this really a big deal? LightSwitch is *better* than the built-in. I paid for it. Toast is better in some ways than DiscBurner -- I paid for it.
As far as I can tell, Apple's doing us a service. Basic versions of useful ustilities *come* with the system. Should you decide you need better, *pay* for something better from a third party.
Nobody screams when an OS comes with a text editor. We just buy a batter one, or download a good freeware.
Move along now, nothing to see here.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
I don't remember how fast Command-Tab switching goes back in classic Mac OS -- at least Mac OS 9, and maybe the intermediate releases of Mac OS 8 (maybe 8.5?). Sure, no on-screen feedback like now, but the applications switched. The visual feedback is something I definitely liked from Windows, so I'd always installed and used Action Go! Mac (http://www.poweronsoftware.com/products/actionGom ac/), which did exactly what I wanted it to. I'd never, ever heard of Proteron in those days. So, maybe PowerOn Software ought to be griping to Proteron that they got ripped off.
I did, though, hear of Proteron in the Mac OS X 10.1 or so days. And I used their free version of LiteSwitch. In fact, I used it until Friday when I installed Panther. Of course 10.2 made Cmd-Tab not work, trying to force you to upgrade to the paid version of LiteSwitch. But a nice, little, free Haxie took care of that -- free versions kept on chugging along.
I prefer to have the built in version. I wish no ill will toward Proteron, but I do hope they grow up.
--Jim (me)
Maybe Proteron should drop the folks at Microsoft an email and thank them for the inspiration for LiteSwitch X in the first place.
Not that I'm pro-Microsoft, or anti-Proteron. I used LiteSwitch back in my OS 9 days, but Fried Christ on a Stick, don't demand credit for something that you copied from another OS in the first place.
blog |
I've been bitching in feedback to Apple about their poor app-switching interface since the initial beta of OS X, and am thrilled to see they are finally addressing the problem. The old dock-switcher was terrible and unfriendly, and my least-favorite thing about using OS X. As soon as LiteSwitch X was released I bought a copy, and have been happily wearing down my apple-tab keys ever since.
I think the pattern here with Watson and then LiteSwitch X has some interesting parallels to Linux vs. Unix, except w.r.t. which party has more clout. Rewriting costly unix apps workalikes and charging less for them in Linux is seen as perfectly acceptable, because Linux is the underdog. Apple is the overdog, and is catching flak for imitating some other company's well-designed ideas and charging less for it (by bundling it in with the OS).
That said, I'll continue to use LiteSwitch X (of course, I've already paid for it) because it has some nice improvements over the OS X version. Same with Watson, I much prefer it over Sherlock. It seems that the apple versions are the "lite" version of the commercial apps. If you want more, the 3rd-party developer is there to provide you with more powerful, feature-laden versions of the apps. But buying OS X shouldn't necessitate the purchase of several 3rd party apps to be as usable as possible.
You drank my drink, you drunk!
Jean-Louis Gassee addressed Apple developers at their World Wide Developers Conference several years ago (after he had left Apple, IIRC), and he touched on this topic then.
To summarize his points, the platform is made richer by creative people writing system enhancements, but don't be surprised if Apple (or any other system vendor) provides those enhancements in a future version of the OS; just move on to another good idea.
No, not morally. Legally.
If Apple says publicly at the launch of Mac OS X 10.3, "We've got this excellent new switcher behavior, coopted entirely from the hard work of Proteron's LiteSwitchX utility," That might make Proteron feel good. It might even be a fair gesture. However... if Proteron then took Apple to court, they'd have a great big leg to stand on when they said Apple ripped them off.
I don't know if that kind of rip off is illegal or not, but Apple would have handed them at least a part of the court case. So they can't make that little gesture.
Too bad. Whatever. Move on, whiny Proteron dude.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I can't wait until all the unreleased MECCA (Openstep 5 codenamed project we @ NeXT never released) and all its innovative UI paradigms slowly re-emerge into OS X, then we'll see even more whining.
Folks, very few "features" that are being added by third parties are new in concept. Operating Systems companies like Microsoft and Apple have years ahead of the third parties in testing and design theory allowing them to pick and choose when the right time to introduce such features or not presents itself.
Compound this on the purchase of companies which innovation back into companies like Microsoft and Apple and you'll begin to see how is it that they have such deep technological pools that seem to just appear when they need them to appear.
Third Parties that seize upon basic alternative action paradigms to sell shareware should rethink what they need to be in order to be viewed as "visionary."
It's not as if the industry is done with innovation, just done with copying.
I can't wait to read about UNIX utilities now being wrapped in intelligent GUIs as being grounds for a lawsuit.
Please read John Gruber's take on this on his Daring Fireball weblog.
-jjh o|