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?"

Comments

Wasn't this in OS 10.1?

[BusterB]

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.

Re:Wasn't this in OS 10.1?

[RevAaron]

Cmd-tabbing in general has been around for a long time. OS 9, and in older Mac OSes with add-ons. What is being questioned here isn't Apple's addition of Cmd-tab to switch apps, but that it shows a little bar in the middle of the screen with the icons of the apps you're running, the selected one highlighted. This is what Windows does, rather than select items in the dock (or analog, the taskbar; though, Win-Tab does that). Proteron sells a product that shows the icons in the middle of the screen, just like windows- rather than relying on the Dock.

But meh. Whether the "bar with icons" is my dock (makes sense) or a new, redundant graphic in the middle of my screen is pretty irrelevant to me.

Re:Wasn't this in OS 10.1?

[incandenza]

There's actually a difference in functionality, not just appearance. In the new version the order of the applications is preserved. Press TAB n times and you get the nth most recently used application. In previous versions it just cycled through the applications in Dock order after the first one, which was a lot less useful.

Reintroduced copied Windows feature?

[eXtro]

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.

Re:Reintroduced copied Windows feature?

[gabe]

To make things a bit clearer, no features were "dropped" when Mac OS X. They simply didn't exist because it's an entirely different OS than Mac OS 9. Apple has come a long way since the public beta, in terms of reimplementing the features we used to have (simple file searching, labels, app switcher, etc.)

Products like Unsanity's Labels X, Windowshade X, and Xounds and ASM also bring back missing functionality. I gladly paid for those enhancements. Labels were reimplemented in Jaguar though, and I don't recall ever seeing an open memo from the Unsanity folks bitching about it.

Re:Reintroduced copied Windows feature?

[clifyt]

"Watson v.s. Sherlock was much more obviously a rip off of a 3rd party piece of sofware."

From what I understand, the functionality of Watson was something Apple had been developing and had given betas out to select individuals for a few years BEFORE Watson had come out.

I don't know the entire story behind it except what my friends at Apple have said, but doesn't that sound possible that the third party developer heard about it and decided that either Apple wasn't going to bring it to market (long time to develop something this small) for one reason or another and decided to make the implementation herself.

Apple IS a little more open with new technologies than they should be and they are a little too picky about how and when these should be introduced. I've heard of a few new features that I thought were supposed to have been in Panther, but for some reason never even made it to the betas, but you can still find plist entries for them if you look (even if they make no sense in their current context).

I don't know who to believe with any of this...Apple is very good about admitting they like others technologies and paying folks that they do aquire them from -- to the point of buying developers out of their companies and paying both well. Its definately not microsoftian in nature, nor is it the former NIH (Not Invented Here) that use to be prevalent in the company.

Again, I don't know...just pointing out something I see referenced time and time again with the Watson when I had heard of such features as being possible and probably far before I heard of Watson...

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And?

[shotfeel]

Should it say "just like Proteron's Lite Switch X...", or "just like Microsoft Windows."?

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the reason the Proteron and Apple implementations look so much alike is due more to using the same APIs for drawing windows and text and following Apple's interface guidelines, than any deliberate "copying" on Apple's part.

They're doing what MS don't

[Apreche]

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.

Re:They're doing what MS don't

[babbage]

I'm not bashing Apple (I really want a 17" powerbook and a G5), just making a correction. Windows has a quick launch bar on the taskbar that you can add applications to by dragging them. This is roughly equivalent to the taskbar in OS X. Also, the Windows XP Power Tools are a free download from Microsoft, and they include the Virtual Desktop Manager app.

The Windows Power Toys [sic -- "toys", not "tools"] kit is really the key thing here. Microsoft has provided it in some form since at least Win98 or Win95, and some of the apps that they've been providing, such as TweakUI, are really fantastic if you want to "fix" the interface on a Windows machine. Why the Power Toys are only available as a separate download instead of bundling with the OS, I have no idea, but they're free, they're "official", and they can be absolutely essential for making Windows just a little bit less insane to use.

The XP edition of Power Toys includes, as you note, a virtual desktop management tool, but more to the point at hand, it offers an enhanced alt-tab switcher. If Apple ripped off anybody, the Microsoft tool is a more prominent candidate than the Proteon one, by a wide margin.

The one feature that the Proteon switcher seems to be unique in -- if the XP one supports this, I've forgotten & can't check at the moment -- is that it allows switcher functionality other than just putting the selected app in the foreground: you can hide, quit, minimize, etc. That seems to be a new insight, but a minor one: once you've got the hook to put additional functionality into the switcher, it's not so interesting which particular functionality does or does not make it in.

I think another precedent was the BeOS switcher ("twitcher"? I forget what they called it at this point...). Like Proteon, they also allowed functionality in the switcher -- in particular, I seem to remember that you could drag icons around in the window that popped up, so that you could control the order in which applications would be called next by repeated alt-tab presses. This isn't as evolved as what Proteon or Panther do, but it demonstrates the basic idea of "switching doesn't just have to be a bridge -- you can do things along the way". While not many consumers used BeOS, it seems to me that a lot of OS designers did -- Microsoft is ripping off ideas from the Be File System in their uberfilesystem project Yukon, while the guy that designed that file system is now an Apple employee. Various aspects of the Aqua & XP interfaces feel to me like echoes of the BeOS, and the new Panther switcher could well be one too.

So functionally, I'm willing to accept that Apple may have borrrowed the "functionality hooks" idea from Proteon's LiteSwitch, but as for the specifics of the visual implementation, I just don't see it. The Panther implementation's appearance borrows as much from XP and the XP Power Toy switcher (and before that, the switcher dialog that goes back at least as far as Win95 or Win3.1) as any other implementation, and there's only so many ways that this idea could be implemented in OSX that it would be harmonious with similar aspects of the Aqua interface -- in particular, the dim grey overlay icons that you get when you hit eject or the volume control keys.

I would love to see tabbed browsing in IE, though. Of course, while I'm wishing, I'd like a job where I don't have to use Windows at all...

I can't help you with the job, but for the other point you're in luck, sort of. Just as Mozilla is a thin XUL layer wrapped around a crunchy Gecko core, Internet Explorer is a thin .EXE program that calls on a crunchy handful of .DLL libraries. Ergo, it should be easy to replace iexplore.exe with an program that offer

When the going gets tough....

[haunebu]

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.

Re:When the going gets tough....

[thatguywhoiam]

Mod parent up - that's exactly right.

You can honestly point to Microsoft for the first mainstream implementation of this kind of task-switching, that's for certain. They probably got the idea from somewhere else, in a slightly different form, like many such things.

The salient points, I think, are:

- This feature was in Windows before.
- This feature was in Classic Mac OS before.
- This feature is blindingly obvious to most half-skilled computer users.
- Proteron made their money for a good period; LiteSwitch has not improved appreciably.

The tone of the 'open letter' is that of a whiny brat. Personally I don't sympathize with the guy at all.. and I am a huge advocate, and owner, of shareware. But the idea that Apple just lifeted his groundbreaking concept wholesale is just stupid.

This is much more cut-and-dried than the Sherlock situation (which frankly I also thought was an obvious idea). Apple cannot just 'stay away' from utility functions like this that turn out to be tremendously popular.

why now?

[TomSawyer]

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??

From Proteron to Apple

[jadriaen]

Read on this site:

FWIW, the guy who wrote Lite Switch X for Proteron was a student at BYU. He was hired after graduation this past year by Apple. He would never say exactly what he has been working on there, but I'm sure that this was his contribution.

This puts the entire discussion a bit into perspective, doesn't it? As a side note, wasn't this switcher a Windows-first interface addition? Then, shouldn't credit be given to Microsoft (yesss, my spine shivers as much as yours at this thought). Anyway.

Great marketing ploy by LiteSwitch

[mactari]

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.

Open Letter to /.

[duffbeer703]

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,

Near-pixel duplication?

[Millennium]

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.

Re:Near-pixel duplication?

[Nexum]

the style is consistent with Apple's brightness and volume indicators, which have been a part of OSX since 10.0

The brightness and volume indicators were introduced in 10.1, other than that... well said.

The pot calling the kettle black

[KrazzeeKooter]

Is this suppose to be a joke? Because I'm laughing my butt off.

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!

Re:The pot calling the kettle black

[milenko11]

I like how the lite switch icon is the system preferences icon without the apple logo.

aftermarkets are always vulnerable.

[goombah99]

Its not like apple just stole the technology (ala windows and stacker). Nor is it a case of some sort of standard being embraced and extended.

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.

Re:Sounds like Microsoft's 'Stacker' problem.

[drsmithy]

IIRC, the Stacker issue started out as a licensing issue, not a "They put something we sell into the OS!".

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.

Don't worry...

[thatguywhoiam]

Apple is just smarter than MS. Windows is simply missing hundreds of obvious features.

Dude, Microsoft leads the field in innovation. Why, pop-up blocking will be available built into Windows in a mere 2.5 years.

:)

The front page

[ScriptGuru]

LiteSwitch X's front page says:

Dear Apple:
You forgot some important features.

Seems like adding those features just responds to that message.

Serves the Sharecropper right.

[_iris]

They should have read Don't be a Sharecropper.

Not certain what the big deal is

[TomorrowPlusX]

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.

Action GoMac?

[Balthisar]

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.

To quote Jean-Louis: Get over it.

[RetiredMidn]

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.

Why Apple Shouldn't Give Credit

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.