Apple vs Microsoft Both Copycats

jdbartlett writes "Yesterday, we read Paul Thurrott's response to Apple's Leopard preview. In his TechBlog, Jim Thompson trims Thurrott's bloated opinion piece and presents an alternative take on four major new features, admitting that each may have been inspired but certainly not by Microsoft. Thompson ignores 6 features; some (Core Animation, Accessibility improvements) needed no defense, but perhaps not all Thurrott's points were invalid."

Comments

who cares?

[locnar42]

Does anybody really care if one of them copied the other?
Maybe Apple/Microsoft because they want to fight out patents. Personally, all I care about is which one does a better job of implementing the features I want.

Re:who cares?

[Ethan Allison]

What would you rather use, the product that came first or the one that's better? (Assuming this is after they both are on the market)

Re:who cares?

[krunk4ever]

On /. whenever Microsoft does something similar to OSX, there's never a shortage of response of "seen that on OSX already".

Re:who cares?

[larry bagina]

Copland. Pink. Taligent. Hell, the entire 90s. They're still delaying/cancelling features with OS X. The difference is, they're not pre-announcing them, and they're releasing minor updates.

Apple vs. Microsoft

[nacturation]

The argument that Thurrott advanced was that Microsoft had some of these features first. He doesn't claim that Microsoft was the inventor of those features. So along comes Thompson and outlines how various things in Unix did it first. Well, that's nice. But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[rolfwind]

I believe that Thurrot advanced that Apple copies MS too (and not just the other way around), which implies that MS invented those features originally - otherwise Apple would be copying Unix as there is no way to know if they were copying a feature just because it was on Windows.

For instance, he said that MS had something like "Spaces" originally in some obscure version of NT which was never officially released, however anybody with any familiarity with Unix will have recognized that Apple probably got the idea for multiple desktops there rather than from MS. It's an insincere point.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[ZachPruckowski]

Ok, but here's the catch. You could have an OS that prints money for you, but if the end user can't figure it out, it's pretty useless. I think the real issue here is whether or not people or developrs can use the features, and in all the cases, Apple hit the homerun MS missed. When it's poorly-done version in a server OS, or a user-un-friendly feature in some Linux distros, it doesn't really help much, because no one can use it. The point is, out of the box, a mildy tech-inclined person (anyone smart enough to figure out how to download Firefox or iTunes w/o much help) can use Time Machine or Spaces. 90% of the market aren't gonna use it if they can't find it or can't figure it out. Look at Office 11 (yes, I'm going there, Thurott). One of the things I've heard is people finding "new features" in it, and MS getting credit for adding things when all it did was make them visible (not hidden 8 layers deep).

And spotlight compared to windows search? I'd say Sherlock probably beat Windows Search out, and Spotlight has the slight advantage of being near-instant (YMMV, I search 45-75 GBs on a 1.33 GHz G4).

And the big thing here is this: Apple is accusing MS of direct rip-offs (similar icons, similar UIs, etc) in addition to copying features, whereas Thurott is accusing Apple of having similar features to Windows.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[Senjutsu]

Well, if we're going to be pedantic: Thurrott's "point" was that Apple shipped features that Microsoft had previously announced but not shipped. The implication apparently being that Apple needed zero planning time for their features and can clone Microsoft features out of thin air faster than Microsoft can implement them.

In other words, it was classic Microsoft "our vapour tomorrow will be better than their shipping product today" FUD from the Internet's #1 Microsoft toady.

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[LO0G]

The "obscure version of NT that was never officially released" was actually the very first version of NT, NT 3.1, which had multiple desktops. The problem was that there was no UI that allowed for the user to access them.

But the support has been in NT since the beginning.

Not that it really matters :)

Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps not all Thurrott's points were invalid.

Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Re:Pundits, Copycats, and Asshattery

[mblase]

Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Not anymore. Mine keeps reading "88:88" (and 88 seconds) ever since the LCD display got clobbered.

All Ideas Are Derivative-oreilly take new OS

[acomj]

I posted this before, but thought it was good enough to post again...

Oreillys radar's site take on the new features of the OS (by nat):

A good read actually:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/apple_ea ts_whiners.html

64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[brokeninside]

Digital Unix on Alpha in the early nineties.

Re:64 bit unix "at least" 5 years old

[Tim Browse]

This is the part of all this nonsense I don't understand.

Making a nice interface onto a backup system (Time Machine) - yes, great. Tooltips, even - yes (read Alan Cooper on this - I can't be bothered to argue). Stuff like that is innovative and worth talking about.

Stuff like "Oh, we invented the 64-bit OS" or "We were the first to integrate wifi into our computers" - who gives a toss? Both are stepwise/obvious improvements to any competent practitioner in the field.

Oooh, you thought of using a 64-bit CPU to run your OS? How ever did you think of that? I mean, first we had 4 bit CPUs, then 8-bit, then 16-bit, then 32-bit...but you came out of left field and decided to use a 64-bit CPU? Fantastic!

You thought of putting another peripheral inside the main box?! Awesome!

I'm not having a go at you in particular, brokeninside, - 'you' here means anyone who claims to be first with such improvements and claim they're more amazing than they really are. It always seems a bit "I'll piss on your boots and tell you it's raining" to me.

The whole 'first' thing is kind of dumb. I once pointed out to a tedious Mac fan who had a website detailing just how great and 'first' Apple were with everything, that contrary to his belief, Mac OS was not the first OS to support anti-aliased fonts - Acorn's RISC OS pre-dated it, for one. He then told me that Apple were 'the first to make it mainstream'. Typical fanboy - when you come up against contradictory facts, just change your criteria.

(Apologies if I sound cranky - can't sleep...)

Both of them suck

[wheatking]

Both companies suck at caring for their customers. I wish Google will start making and selling consumer PC terminal thin clients that do not have any 'state' and do not require any local software to be loaded at all. the geekboys can battle out the oh so 90s choices. all i want are my applications and i really do not want to give a damn about the OS anymore.

Re:Paul Thurrot

[hunterx11]

If one wants to be nitpicky about "stealing ideas," then both Windows Search and Spotlight are stolen from BeOS.

Three Skills Come To Mind

[buckhead_buddy]

Seeing the itemized list of who's providing what, made me think about why everyone thinks their "allegiance" is the one to do it right and to do it first. In general I think the trend is:

• Unix needs a bulletproof implementation
• Apple needs a bulletproof interface
• Microsoft needs a bullet point

That probably sounds negative to any of the three groups, but I think it explains more about why users don't "remember" that someone else perhaps did it first. An Apple aficionado who appreciates good user interfaces will never acknowledge anyone else as coming "first" after seeing the demo of Time Machine; there's just never been anything like it. But a Unix user will guffaw at the crash they had during the demo and state that they're the ones with the "first" version since they really see reliability as their cornerstone. As for adamant Microsoft users, it just seems to matter about when something was released rather than the quality. The next version may completely drop the interface or re-engineer the back end. But often these users can quote feature lists and continuity better than most Trekkies or Whovians.

In a lot of ways, I think there's a lot to be improved from all three camps. Make it work. Make it usable. And make it known. I think there are things each developer group can learn from the other, but advocacy will be self-selecting.

The $150Mil settlement

[Shawn Parr]

Conveniently most people don't remember, or never realized at the time that there was a patent dispute. Part of the $150 million deal was a patent cross licensing deal.

So let's look at facts:

1. Microsoft buys $150 million in non-voting stock
2. Apple had way more money in cash at the time (thus rumors of their demise were...)
3. Apple gets access to Microsoft Patents and Microsoft gets access to Apple patents (which is one reason why Microsoft can make their new apps look a lot like Apple's I would guess)

This is what I think most people would refer to as an out of court settlement, politically twisted to look like a political gesture.

Re:The $150Mil settlement

[burns210]

Extra bonus points for mentioning that Microsoft sold the stock not long after the investment for a profit. The deal was entirely symbolic outside the pantent dispute resolution that you mentioned.

Also, the Office and IE applications were part of the same dispute. IE as the default browser, even, was also decided in this whole mess. It was a (I believe) 5 year agreement to keep supporting Office and other applications on the Mac platform which has since ended and been renewed in spirit by the Mac BU publicly at a previous WWDC. It is not often realized that Microsoft is one of Apple's closest, largest and most successful third-party developers, and both benefit greatly from the relationship. The light-hearted jabbing the Steve Jobs does makes it appear otherwise to those not entirely in-the-know.

I'm Visually Impaired

[TheZorch]

Text to Voice support in Windows XP is dismal to say the least. The built-in text-to-speech softrware is a joke. It works yes, but only in Microsoft applications.

There is a 3rd party software package called "JAWS" which costs around $400 - $500, is locked down with DRM so if you have to reinstall your system or upgrade you have to reactivate it. Also, the software is very picky as to what kind of video card and sound card you have, and its prome to crashing. The software had also been none to deactivate itself for no reason, thus requiring you to reinstall it and reactivate it.

I looked at VoiceOver in Mac OS X and I was very impressed. Someone with no vision at all (I have some, I just need an extra large monitor) would have little trouble navigating the system using it. I know a few people with no vision at all and they were also extremely impressed with Voice Over, and I know at least one person who will benefit from Mac OS X Leopard's support for Braille displays. Also, the APIs and tools needed to make Mac OS X apps work with Voice Over are freely available to developers so any Mac app can be made Voice Over compatible with minimal effort. For JAWS its much harder.

Re:Comprimise

[scolen2]

Thanks for that NOVA Ep recap i saw 15 years ago. Apple didn't copy btw, they purchaced it along with the mouse that Xerox didn't feel was viable. The OS has matured a long way, and just like music its all about building upon the shoulders of giants. Apple did it better on the surface, and under the hood while Microsoft did it better in the engine.

Beginning of the Post-Windows Era

[copponex]

Looking on the horizon, it seems to me that early 2007 will determine the next five years of the computing industry. If Leopard is introduced on time in conjunction with an office suite (Microsoft or a truly comparable replacement) and the Adobe Suites as native applications, Microsoft is in serious trouble. Apple will have delivered on all of their promises; the industry will have supported their move in the form of third party applications, and Microsoft is going to look slow and stupid. Vista is going to suck early - there's no doubt about it. They're already talking about things they are "saving" for SP1.

When all of this happens, the other shoe will drop when business owners and business managers begin asking: Why is there no search feature on our corporate network that works like Spotlight on my kid's computer? Why is it so difficult for our marketing department to create a podcast, when my nephew can do it on his laptop in 15 minutes? Why do my wife's e-mails look better than the ones from my office? Why can't I get that spreadsheet back like I can on my computer at home? I can't video conference?! My kids do it all damn night on their computers!

Apple is trying to reach out and grab the teenage and college demographic, because no matter how smart an adult thinks they are, they never want to look stupid or "old" to their kids. If Apple can pull it off, it will be the beginning of the post-Windows era, when Microsoft's marketshare falls below 75%, the competition heats up, and software companies begin to deliver programs that actually save time and money for everyday office work.

Apple is just another Unix vendor

[Foerstner]

the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

OS X is just a peculiar Unix distro.

I find it fascinating that Linux can borrow BSD features, and AIX can mimic Solaris features, but when Apple steals a feature for its particular Unixling, it's a big event.

Re:Paul Thurrot

[Space cowboy]

Yeah, but at least Apple hired the original engineers :-)

Simon

Re:Comprimise

[soft_guy]

I'm so sick of people bringing up Xerox Alto to zing Apple. You have never used a Xerox Alto - and you never will and you never would have even HEARD of the damn thing if Apple hadn't come out of the GUI. First, the interface on the Alto was very primite compared to the Mac. Second, Xerox would never have allowed the Alto - or anything else from PARC such as Ethernet or Smalltalk - to see the light of day left to their own devices. Third, many of the people who worked on the Alto came over to Apple to work on the Lisa and/or Mac. Fourth, many of the ideas that the Alto was based on came from Jef Raskin's PhD. dissertation (Jef Raskin started the Mac project at Apple). Fifth, Apple PAID Xerox 80 million dollars to use ideas from the Alto.

The fact is that there were people shopping some good ideas around Silicon valley at that time. Apple was the only company at the time with the guts to bring these radical ideas to market. Not Microsoft. Not Xerox. Not IBM. Not Digital Research (they made CPM and were a big deal at the time).

All the talk about copying ignores innovation

[DECS]

Rather than trying to establish who came up with an idea, I'd like to see more attention given to new, innovative ideas. I'd like to see Microsoft, Apple, and open source groups copy each other's good ideas as much as possible. Good ideas deserved to be copied!

RoughlyDrafted Magazine has articles on what's really new in Time Machine in The Time Machine Rip-off Myth,

explained what new stuff Thurrott overlooked in WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss,

and gave Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can).

The RDM Paul Thurrott story was dugg 1300+ times today!

Re:but it's all the same

[masklinn]

Last time I checked, service packs were more or less major security patch bundles, every release of OSX introduces new tools, refinements to the core OS itself and new technologies.

Sure they come often, but upgrade W2k from SP3 to SP4 (hell, upgrade W2k from original version to SP4) and you still have Windows 2k, nothing new under the sun, maybe your calculator's been updated if you're lucky.

Update OSX from 10.3 (Panther) to 10.4 (Tiger) and you're in for major changes, upgrade OSX from 10.1 to 10.4 and you've basically got a different OS. Which is why Ars manages to do 15+ pages full text reviews for each new iteration of OSX. There's just no way to do that with service packs.

Well, duh.

[wootest]

Personally, I think that everyone with their head on straight knows at this point that copying is something that everyone does on this level. You may be one of the holdouts to think that this is bad, but if it was bad and nobody would do it, where would we be today? Just taking the Mother of All Demos, nobody except the by Engelbart designated innovators would be given access to the stuff presented there: the mouse ("Bug"), video conferencing, email, hypertext... When people are bitching about "copying" or "stealing", I don't think they consider the alternative and how much more crappy it is.

There's also a thing as overdoing it and not inventing enough on your own, but I don't think any major vendor (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and so on) are doing that as of today. Apple's poking fun at Vista to rally the troops (it's a developer conference!) and to twiddle Microsoft's nose once more while they have the chance - it's marketing, not the universal truth.

I also think that 10.5 is misunderstood at this level. Take Time Machine: even if we discount the smoke-and-mirrors display of the thing or the fact that the OS helps you backup efficiently with a non-boot volume and four UI controls in its preference pane, the big innovation here is really that you can restore not only one file but that there are *built-in hooks* for "here's this old file and here's this new file" which means that you can cherry-pick old items from old database files. This is something very neat and very useful that in 99 cases of 100 couldn't be done before without resorting to poking and prodding the database files themselves; and now that it's built-in to some of Apple's apps, it's not only going to be tremendously useful there but there's going to be an onus on third-party developers to provide support for this, which means a better user experience for everyone.

As a developer, I'm very excited about 10.5. There's all sorts of new APIs, the old APIs have been extended in better ways, and the developer tools have reportedly gotten the biggest facelift since, well, *ever*. Xcode 3.0 may even trump the step from OS X's Project Builder to Xcode 1.0, and the Interface Builder has finally received some much-needed love. Gruber's right: "Complaining that the announcements at WWDC only appealed to 'the geeks' is like going to a rock concert and complaining that all they did was play loud music."

Re:but it's all the same

[samkass]

I'm sorry, but anyone who simply calls Time Machine an "incremental backup" solution has lost all credibility. Yes, it's BASED ON an incremental backup solution, and it certainly offers that. But the real revolutionary concept here is that it provides a way for applications to look into their own past. You can go back in time WITHIN iPhoto, and look around at what your collection looked like a month ago. You can do queries in Address Book, and if you don't find a record you expect, go back in time and have it automatically find the first time the query returned something... WITHIN the Address Book application. And while browsing in the past, the application's UI is functional. Then, you can record just one record of the address book-- you don't need to pull an entire file to the present. And, of course, it'll be built in to every copy of their consumer OS with an auto-configured simple setup.

Thus, both Thurrott and this article appear to have largely missed the point in their attempt to show prior art here.