Slashdot Mirror
Dashboard Not a Konfabulator Rip-off
MacNN writes "John Gruber says the origins of Apple's Dashboard technology, announced as part of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger earlier this week, are not with Arlo Rose's Konfabulator, but with Apple's original Desk Accessories and that Apple's Webcore-based implementation will allow many more developers/designers to create 'gadgets' much more easily and that Dashboard's 'gadgets' will offer much better performance: 'Dashboard is not a rip-off of Konfabulator. Yes, they are doing very much the same thing. But what it is that they're doing was not an original idea to Konfabulator. The scope of a 'widget' is very much the modern-day equivalent of a desk accessory.'"
Clearly it's a cowdog.
That's dogcow, not cowdog. :)
Arlo, is that you?
The article is a good response I think, though not official from Apple. It points out how they are different, why they didn't buy Konfabulator, and why they didn't steal anything. The idea for these widgets is ancient, think 1984 and the first Mac OS.
I do wonder about Watson though. It was the app like Sherlock 3. Apple awarded the developer best application of WWDC 2002, then went on to show off the clone at WWDC 2003 with no acknowledgment. Sure, it made logical sense for Sherlock to move in that direction, but to not even give credit after recognizing the developer one year past always seemed odd.
On the flip side, you have the KHTML group loging life since Apple swooped in and helped their project. Is this a lesson Apple is trying to teach, in that if you create a good open source project, they may help it along and use it. Create a closed source app, and they simply duplicate it if they want it in the OS?
I've seen a lot of arguments about the bits that apple 'copied' from konfabulator, and some are valid in that there's a lot of similarity between Konfabulator and Dashboard. Similar end function, similar look, similar workings underneath.
But it's all moot when you consider almost none of Konfabulator's implementation of the original desktop accessories concept was an original creation in itself. It might look like a big step to go from the 1984 desktop accessories to Konfabulator... and it is. but even THAT was done before It came after MS's built-in-to-windows Active Desktop, and after DesktopX, both Windows implementations of the same concept.
Good for Konfabulator for being a succesful product, but if Apple were to never use a concept that an external developer had previously used, then we'd have no desktop pictures, sticky menus, stickies, no glassy gui, no terminal, no dock, no onscreen clock, no login system, no web browser, no address book, no email application, no ichat, no full colour icons, no column view, no UI sounds, no font smoothing, no solid window dragging, no fontbook, no developer tools, no disk utility, no iphoto, itunes, sherlock, etc etc etc.
One fine day there was a woof and a moo.
A baby was born from Mac System 2.
No blue paper clip, a resource hog,
Just a bovine/canine little CowDog.
Cow Dog!, Cow Dog!
In the print preview is the little CowDog!
Out on the Serial bus or here on the screen,
All kind of DOS-heads hate CowDog sight unseen.
Gotta rise above it, gotta try to get along.
Gotta walk together, gotta sing this song.
CowDog! CowDog!
In the print preview is the little CowDog!
First, look at the Apple Developer Connection Inside Macintosh: Devices Device Manager chapter on Writing a Desk Accessory. Next, read Netscape's Sidebar Developer's Guide. Then, read the Konfabulator Widget XML and Javascript Reference documentation. Finally, read Apple's own marketing description of the Dashboard technology. Now, do Dashboard and Konfabulator sound to you like two unrelated descendants of Desk Accessories (on parallel branches), or does it sound to you like there's a progression in development technologies from Desk Accessories to Sidebars to Konfabulator to Dashboard?
Next, ask yourself this question: if Konfabulator were made by Real Technologies, and Dashboard were part of Windows, would the DoJ be investigating? Even if Apple isn't copying the technology of Konfabulator, they are clearly poaching on Konfabulator's market. Now, there's nothing either illegal or immoral about this - that's the way business is done, sometimes - unless you happen to be a monopoly trying to drive competitors out of business.
Apple's position is not as a monopoly trying to fend off potential competitors, but as a platform champion which SHOULD be trying to expand its market share by expanding the capabilities and the desirability of its platform. By embracing Open Source and UNIX-based technologies, Apple seemed to be moving to expand its developer base and thus the capabilities and desirability of its platform. Apple could choose to be offer a wide-ranging alternative, or it could choose to marginalize itself in the pursuit of total control over its niche.
So it was depressingly stupid marketing of Apple to introduce Dashboard at WWDC. The audience of the WWDC isn't an audience of potential dashboard widget developers - they aren't HTML/JavaScript folks. The audience of the WWDC are independent developers - and they were treated with a wonderful object lesson of how Apple treats independent developers who try to improve the platform and introduce new technologies with the potential to increase the adaptability and desirability of the platform: Apple crushes them in a Keynote. Adobe dropped Premiere because of Final Cut Pro - and we all thought it was OK (I thought it was OK; I have a copy myself) because Final Cut Pro is a better product and is focused purely on the Apple Platform. MS is dropping IE, probably because of Safari - and we thought it was OK (certainly I thought it was OK) because Safari was based upon an Open Source framework (KHTML) and was giving back to the community, and IE is IE - it controls the market, it's Goliath, and it was good to see Apple give us a David to root for. What are we going to do when Apple goes after Alias, or BareBones, or Intuit? Probably root for Apple. But when Apple crushes all the Arlo Roses of the world, who's going to be left to write software for our precious Macs?
When Tiger comes out, I plan on using both. Konfabulator will be used for widgets that display weather/stats and Dashboard for interactive Gadgets.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Surfin' Safari
He makes the excellent point that Dashboard/Konfabulator-type of widgets have been done in browsers, too.
My comment about Watson/Sherlock stills seems applicable: don't whine, give us a better product.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
Indeed, the dogcow appeared in the Cairo font, and subsequently the LaserWriter dialog. It's been part of Machintosh Developer lore for some time.
Here is a copy of the original technote providing some explanation:
here
And a more current one:
here
It's been quite some time since I've seen it discussed anywhere!
I don't know, but it works for me.
A good example was the LabelsX software for 10.2, giving the 10.2 finder labels support, however it was obvious labels would be added in eventually, and hence the labelsX software was made redundant by 10.3. Apple simply reimplementing something they already had.
Application switching, same story, OSX already had it, giving it a gui was an obvious direction, an utter no-brainer, every other OS has a very similar looking app swapper. Apple's implementation is not a copy of the 3rd party app as it's the same design theme apple use for all their instant menus (50% transparent black square with rounded edges, containing an item at 128x128 pixels with a drop shadow) same as eject, volume & brightness. You can't accuse apple of copying the look of a piece of software when this software was immitating the look of Apple's own OS X. Many other applications also implement these design cues, such as Synergy an iTunes addition. (Rating popups etc are all in this theme.)
Now come konfabulator, which found it's way into my trash can due to the widgets filling the screen with info that doesn't need to be cluttering my desktop 24/7, the programmer has confused quick access with desktop persistance. It was natural for apple to take some more of their older technology, in this case Desk Accessories and reimplement it (down to using the same accessories as seen in screenshots from builds from 1984). While some might find this convenient that apple chose to implement something that is known to be popular, I point you to apple's introduction of handwriting recognition from the newton into 10.2. This wasn't a popular 3rd party app, and no 3rd party application was trampled by this feature which would be used significantly less than dashboard. Yet apple introduced it anyway, why, because they have the technology and might as well use it. I can't make it clear enough that apple has a trend of reimplementing all their older features into new versions of OS X. It gives users no reason to stay on any older Mac OS, and we all know that the transition to X was a big deal for Jobs. Dashboard's implementation, specifically the use of making it one-button accessible is apple's understanding that accessibility is not the result of placing things on the desktop, they had learnt this earlier on(alot of windows on the desktop, and they can still be difficult to access) and from this knowledge came exposé, naturally dashboard is an extension of exposé.
Arlo has basically duplicated the original desktop accessories, with no innovation(only modernisation), they behaved the same way as the originals, they just sat there on the desktop. As a minimum, apple have added some innovation by giving the user control of their appearance and disappearance through exposé
I feel Arlo gives himself too much credit with konfabulator, not only was the idea not new, but neither was the concept of using Javascript to power small simple desktop features. This was also completed on numerous platforms long before the release of konfabulator, to insinuate that his idea was original is flattery, and an explaination of how the patent system gives out tech patents despite endless streams of prior art.
The visual resemblence is the result of what happens when you duplicate the look and feel of OS X in your applications. He did after all work for Apple in the UI dept.
So now take Apple, reimplementing yet another older feature into OS X, why shouldn't they license it, simply, because they already made this feature long before konfabulator, albeit OS X even existed. How insulting to the original inventor, to pay money for an idea he had implemented some 20 years ago. If anyone should be paying royalties, it's Arlo. If he had a case for a patent, then he'd already have it, but due to the loads of prior art, he doesn't. (plenty of patent sponsors out there wanting only a %.)
So what we see in the end, is not a corporate giant mugging the little guy, closer inspection shows that it's actually just a case of arlo taking something old making it shiny(literally, that's all he did), then pretending he owned the concept+idea all along.
But when Apple crushes all the Arlo Roses of the world, who's going to be left to write software for our precious Macs?
I think you are confusing utility and app developers. Utility developers by definition are filling in minor holes in the operating system which they should expect to be filled soon by the actual OS. Quaterdeck made a killing on memory management when DOS & Windows needed it but didn't have it (or only had a bad version). Norton made a killing when disk defraging wasn't included with Dos, etc... So things like Watson and Konfabulator are to be expected.
Conversely things like Final Cut Pro and IE was just Adobe / Microsoft chickening out. Apple was just bringing out an app. Omni for example is OK with competing with Apple (and they've got 2 of their apps actually bundled in with the professional lines). In any case Apple writes great software and more dependency on Unix apps (Linux) would be great for both sides. Apple is the expect at exactly those areas where Linux developers tend to be lacking and vice versa.
I tried using Konfabulator. At first I thought it was great, then I realized that the mini digital clock was using 60% of my CPU! It made my computer run like crap. Now, there were other widgets that ran without problems and used tiny fractions of the CPU cycles. So I turned of the resource hogs. Then I started thinking about security and decided that since these things could be written by anyone, what might be happening? So, maybe in a paranoid, naive, uninformed decision, I quit using Konfabulator. I also didn't want to pay the fee.
I'm thinking that Apple's architecture for thier widgets would incorporate the security measures already in web based media (for whatever that is worth) The author doesn't really bring up security, so I'm still wondering if it's possible to create a naughty Konfabulator widget that looks like some innocuous tool, but is actually doing bad things. Or could it be done in Apple's new model?
I'm looking forward to it, though.
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
I have been singularly unimpressed with Konfabulator. These are the reasons why:
1. It has no development tools. Great. If I wanted to fall back to 1980's and position every freaking element by X-Y coords, well... you get the picture.
2. No suggestions for development tools. Like "Hey, you FIRST need to buy MORE stuff to make cool stuff like this". Yeah, right. Like I need this kind of pain.
3. "Easy to write Javascript" - if you are a web designer. But anyone else better just pack up their bags and call it a night.
4. Sucks system resources. For something that is supposed to be out of the way and non-obtrusive, it is #2 or #3 (right below the window manager) in terms of processor usage. OW!
Apple can only do better much better. After all, they don't have much to compete with.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV