The only way that Apple can ever make a comeback to be used by people that are NOT in the graphics industry is to license their OS to be run on any hardware.
Ignoring for a second the user experience consequences of that, there's a basic question of how they're going to make money. The company generally brings in $6-8 billion a year, the vast majority of which is from the ~5 million hardware units they ship each year. If they're decide to sell software at $129 a pop, what's going to make up from the loss in revenue? Do you actually believe they would selling anything close to 50 million copies of OSX a year?
Remember, what you're suggesting is exactly what NextStep did. Look how well that turned out. One of Apple's core value propositions is that they make the whole package. This creates a seamless user experience for the customer. This is why many people like Macs in the first place.
That's the ONLY reason that Windows took off so many years ago, and Apple withered.
Things have changed a lot since then. How is Apple going to magically crack the grip that Microsoft has on all the hardware manufacturers as well as on itself?
If I could buy OS X to run it on my cheap-o generic Intel-based (actually, AMD based) hardware, I'd use it! In a heartbeat!
Great, but how many would use it as their exclusive OS if it couldn't run on the architecture-dependent Mac apps? You'd mostly get the NextStep apps. You sure as heck wouldn't get Office.
I find this, on top of the lack of DVD support to be hugely funny.
The DVD playback thing is confirmed by Apple. The level of video driver support is pure speculation. Not the "may" and "source said" qualifications on this statement. There is a thread raging on OmniGroup's Mac OS X Talk list about how misleading this article is.
Apple drops the ball again and again and again, then delievers something as dumb as a computer in a colored case and their fans have their own Mardi Gras to celebrate the "innovation."
You've mastered flamebait!
How's this for innovation: incomplete SMP support
This is probably the most ridiculous claim of the article.
Newsflash everyone -- just because major sites carry a story doesn't mean it's accurate.
Mach, which is the core of the Mac OS X (and NextStep) kernel, was not written by Apple employees. Tevanian was one of the developers of Mach, yes, but there were many others. Mach was developed at CMU before Next even existed, and the guy who actually headed the Mach project (Rick Rashid) is a VP at Microsoft.
I was aware of all this (except the bit about Rick), but the fact that Tevanian was one of the key people really makes it seem like he has a right to use the code for projects at Next and Apple without getting too much flak for it. In fact, even if he hadn't worked on Mach, he would still be allowed to use it. Granted, I should have been more specific about the fact that Tevanian was not the only developer.
Do you have URL that describes the development of Mach -- the people involved and the project itself?
I know computers aren't just for guys, but you should realize that I would think a computer with Transformers written on the side would be equally silly and tacky.
That would KICK ASS! Although I'd definitely want one with the Thundercats logo.
Yes - a lot of OS-X is built on open standards but Apple's system is not standard (it doesn't even have X-Windows for god's sake)
A lot of people feel this is a good thing. If you want to run X Windows on OSX, you are free to. Either way, far more of OSX is based on open standards -- or outright open source code -- than Windows*.
and apple did not even create large portions of it
This is incorrect. Apple/Next employees wrote the kernel, the Cocoa frameworks, the Carbon frameworks, the Classic compatibility environment, the window server, the rendering libraries, QuickTime, Quartz, NetInfo, all the application services, the OpenGL implementation, the I/O Kit -- the list goes on.
The only parts that weren't created by Apple or Next employees were the BSD portions. Much of BSD will be an optional install in based Mac OS X, except for the core networking and threading and such. Next/Apple took BSD but has given all kinds of things back (listed in my previous post) that were not previously available to the community. From what I can tell, the BSD community isn't too upset about any of this, and many are actually quite enthused.
Furthmore, they continue to invest in the Mach/BSD environment. This, like everything else in Darwin, is available to the community. Anybody can go and download this stuff. Yes, you have to notify Apple if you change it. Big deal!
How about they actually produce a better product for a reasonable cost to consumers?
Right. History has shown the superior product always wins over the inferior one with superior marketing. Yep. But this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic. Microsoft has patents on theming stuff as well. Big deal.
I just find it constantly amazing how anyone who can even entertain the notion that freedom and computing have ANY relationship to Apple Corp.
Apple sells hardware and software as a single package because it makes the final product far more coherent. For them, the money is in the hardware. This is why they can give away iTunes and all the web-based iTools services for free (with no banner ads). However, it's the integration of the hardware and software that makes the machine easier to manager and provides the value proposition.
Microsoft isn't probably going to open source anything anytime soon, but Apple has open sourced all kinds of stuff. QuickTime Streaming Server, NetInfo, I/O Kit, OpenPlay/NetSprocket, and of course, Darwin. While Darwin it is based on Mach 3.0/BSD, Apple is continually pouring money into Darwin development as the core of OSX, and the community reaps the benefits. Also note that Apple's VP of Software Engineering (Avie Tevanian) was one of the core architects of Mach.
Bash Microsoft all you like, but let's not forget that it was those evil folks that made it possible for the seperation of the hardware from the OS.
Out of the frying pan into the fire...
Microsoft is doing everything in their power to lock you into a single software platform. Long term, the hardware is probably irrelavant. Oh sure, you'll have all sort of hardware to choose from -- handhelds, desktops, laptops, cell phones, appliances. But if Microsoft has its way, they'll all run Windows.
By contrast, a substantial amount of OSX is built on open standards -- TCP/IP, Apache, NetInfo, OpenGL, I/O Kit, Java, BSD, Mach. With Windows, you have to deal with NetBios, WINS, IIS, DirectX, ActiveX, and kernel source that nobody can look at.
It is a good thing that there are open hardware platforms available? Yes. Is Apple evil for having a standardized hardware/software platform? No. It's just a different approach that has distinct benefits for both the developer and the user. Look up some of Carmack's comments on how much more cost effective it is to develop and test for the Mac because of the standardized hardware.
I wouldn't want a world in which Apple sold all computers, nor would I want one where either Windows or Linux is the only only OS.
staunchly 'protecting' their trademark designs (iMac, and now Aqua theming)
This patent was filed well before Aqua existed.
Apple believes that people *have* to copy their design because it is the *best* out there
I don't see what this has to do with patenting, but it really doesn't make any sense anyway. Jobs has said on multiple occassions that designers have an infinite variety of choices when creating the look of somethings. Many choose to just copy Apple's.
so what is people copy off of them?
Well, if there's room for the consumer to be confused when they purchase something (like the iMac knockoffs), then they have every legal right to fight it -- especially since the iMac has such a distinctive look. You'll notice Apple isn't going after the wintel towers that have colored panels on them -- that design is more generic.
I, for one, think that the Aqua interface is far too colorful and overdone.
Heard of Aqua's Graphite mode?
I'd rather not make my political statements by carrying a transparent computer
The iBook has translucent plastics, but the Powerbook does not.
I am curious however where you found info about the patent being transferred
My mistake. The scanned in documents are hard to read. Turns out it was invented by Ed Voas, etc. but it belongs to Apple.
However, the bottom line is the same: the Slashdot version of the story is extremely misleading. It makes it sound like Jobs just marched down to Apple legal the other day and asked them to patent themes.
As evidenced by the Flower Power iMac, Steve Jobs is certifiably insane.
Actually, the flowered iMacs could quite possibly be a huge hit in Japan (where they were introduced), and will probably appeal to women in the US. My mother wasn't the least bit interested in computers until she saw the iMac, and she thinks the Flower Power one is the coolest thing she's ever seen (personally, I would never buy one). My sister decorated her original iMac with a flower emblem.
Bottom line: computers aren't just for guys. People that aren't into floral patterns on computers can always buy an Indigo or Graphite (really cool). Or a Cube, or a G4 tower, etc. Though, I know there are still people out there that truly believe one doesn't deserve a computer unless one knows how to compile source.
My guess is that Kaleidoscope will be updated for OS X. Maybe not... but one can only hope.
It would have to be completely rewritten. Kaliedoscope under Classic Mac OS works by using traps -- which don't exist under OSX (too prone to instability). The interface in OSX can largely be altered by modifying various PDF-format images an other things in the filesystem.
It's time for Apple to drop thier foolish patents. Enlightenment, even fvwm did desktop theming first
Read the article before you comment on it, or at least read some of the other comments.
1) Apple didn't file this patent, Ed Voas and his colleague did. Ed worked on the Kaleidoscope shareware theme-switching software prior to coming to Apple. Though I don't know if the filing or the employment came first.
2) The patent was actually filed nearly three years ago -- in May 1998! It was just recently transferred to Apple, though.
3) As somebody else pointed out, the patent affects more than simple theming, it's about changing UI behavior based on theme (not just where the widgets appear)
The truth is without us hackers Apple's attempt to regain the Education market will fail.
Apple's VP of Software Engineering was one of the key architects of Mach. I think he has some right to use his own code.
They sucked enough information out of us, and Apple has not given anything back.
Ummmm... ever heard of QuickTime Streaming Server? Darwin? NetInfo? I/O Kit? Go to publicsource.apple.com. They've given all sorts of stuff to the community.
Then again, Microsoft's bloc of non-voting shares in Apple (circa 1996?) may still be a strong deterrent against Apple's wielding this particular patent over them.
They were purchased in 1997. At the same time, Apple and Microsoft signed a broad patent cross-licensing agreement. This was possibly due to the whole fiasco with Microsoft allegedly stealing QuickTime code to make Video for Windows.
This patent was filed in May 1998 by Ed Voas and Arnaud Gourdol, at least one of which I believe worked on the third party Kaleidoscope theme-switching apparatus for Clasiic Mac OS. However, it appears (from looking at the documents) that the patent ownership was recently transferred to Apple. I know at least Ed Voas went on to work for Apple, specifically contributing to the Appearance Manager software in Mac OS 8.
rather than those from a company which faces bankrupcy on 2 year intervals
The last two quarters have been slow (like everyone's), but Apple has about $4 billion in cash and short term investments, and grosses $6-8 billion a year.
This is a large step backwards for the mac GUI. Both Classic and X-Windows should not be running side by side in Aqua, but each contained within it's own single window
If X11 compatibility were built into OSX, I would agree with you. But since it's a separate package, I don't think you have to worry. Most developers aren't going to ask the general public to install X11 support first. However, as the other respondee mentioned, this tool should be helpful for scientists and *nix veterans.
but you could get a share of the Mac market which is filled with people that are actually used to paying for software.
Though I'm not entirely convinced that the same group would pay for the typical X11 app. Mac apps that don't feel like Mac apps typically don't sell well. Quality of UI is paramount. However, this stuff may help some Unix people feel at home.
it is questionable whether there will need to be other code to glue together the Mac's print architecture with that of other Unices
I don't care about your midi sound effects.
I don't care about your Java "enhancements".
I don't care about your Flash animation.
I don't care about your animated GIFs.
None of these have anything to do with what the WSP is talking about.
But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.
CSS (one of the standards in question) addresses this exactly.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way that Apple can ever make a comeback to be used by people that are NOT in the graphics industry is to license their OS to be run on any hardware.
Ignoring for a second the user experience consequences of that, there's a basic question of how they're going to make money. The company generally brings in $6-8 billion a year, the vast majority of which is from the ~5 million hardware units they ship each year. If they're decide to sell software at $129 a pop, what's going to make up from the loss in revenue? Do you actually believe they would selling anything close to 50 million copies of OSX a year?
Remember, what you're suggesting is exactly what NextStep did. Look how well that turned out. One of Apple's core value propositions is that they make the whole package. This creates a seamless user experience for the customer. This is why many people like Macs in the first place.
That's the ONLY reason that Windows took off so many years ago, and Apple withered.
Things have changed a lot since then. How is Apple going to magically crack the grip that Microsoft has on all the hardware manufacturers as well as on itself?
If I could buy OS X to run it on my cheap-o generic Intel-based (actually, AMD based) hardware, I'd use it! In a heartbeat!
Great, but how many would use it as their exclusive OS if it couldn't run on the architecture-dependent Mac apps? You'd mostly get the NextStep apps. You sure as heck wouldn't get Office.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I find this, on top of the lack of DVD support to be hugely funny.
The DVD playback thing is confirmed by Apple. The level of video driver support is pure speculation. Not the "may" and "source said" qualifications on this statement. There is a thread raging on OmniGroup's Mac OS X Talk list about how misleading this article is.
Apple drops the ball again and again and again, then delievers something as dumb as a computer in a colored case and their fans have their own Mardi Gras to celebrate the "innovation."
You've mastered flamebait!
How's this for innovation: incomplete SMP support
This is probably the most ridiculous claim of the article.
Newsflash everyone -- just because major sites carry a story doesn't mean it's accurate.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Mach, which is the core of the Mac OS X (and NextStep) kernel, was not written by Apple employees. Tevanian was one of the developers of Mach, yes, but there were many others. Mach was developed at CMU before Next even existed, and the guy who actually headed the Mach project (Rick Rashid) is a VP at Microsoft.
I was aware of all this (except the bit about Rick), but the fact that Tevanian was one of the key people really makes it seem like he has a right to use the code for projects at Next and Apple without getting too much flak for it. In fact, even if he hadn't worked on Mach, he would still be allowed to use it. Granted, I should have been more specific about the fact that Tevanian was not the only developer.
Do you have URL that describes the development of Mach -- the people involved and the project itself?
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I know computers aren't just for guys, but you should realize that I would think a computer with Transformers written on the side would be equally silly and tacky.
That would KICK ASS! Although I'd definitely want one with the Thundercats logo.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
but if May 98 is right, forget that patent... previous art... Remember that 'MS Plus' for win95
Microsoft has their own theme patents. That's what makes this whole thread so absurd.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Here is another idiot that thinks MS is going to take over the computer world.
Thanks for the personal insult.
By a lot of accounts, they already have taken over. It's more a matter of taking it back now.
If you want to compete than build something that average JOE can use.
That's exactly what Apple is doing. In fact, Apple is the teacher in this area, Microsoft is the student.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Yes - a lot of OS-X is built on open standards but Apple's system is not standard (it doesn't even have X-Windows for god's sake)
A lot of people feel this is a good thing. If you want to run X Windows on OSX, you are free to. Either way, far more of OSX is based on open standards -- or outright open source code -- than Windows*.
and apple did not even create large portions of it
This is incorrect. Apple/Next employees wrote the kernel, the Cocoa frameworks, the Carbon frameworks, the Classic compatibility environment, the window server, the rendering libraries, QuickTime, Quartz, NetInfo, all the application services, the OpenGL implementation, the I/O Kit -- the list goes on.
The only parts that weren't created by Apple or Next employees were the BSD portions. Much of BSD will be an optional install in based Mac OS X, except for the core networking and threading and such. Next/Apple took BSD but has given all kinds of things back (listed in my previous post) that were not previously available to the community. From what I can tell, the BSD community isn't too upset about any of this, and many are actually quite enthused.
Furthmore, they continue to invest in the Mach/BSD environment. This, like everything else in Darwin, is available to the community. Anybody can go and download this stuff. Yes, you have to notify Apple if you change it. Big deal!
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
How about they actually produce a better product for a reasonable cost to consumers?
Right. History has shown the superior product always wins over the inferior one with superior marketing. Yep. But this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic. Microsoft has patents on theming stuff as well. Big deal.
I just find it constantly amazing how anyone who can even entertain the notion that freedom and computing have ANY relationship to Apple Corp.
Apple sells hardware and software as a single package because it makes the final product far more coherent. For them, the money is in the hardware. This is why they can give away iTunes and all the web-based iTools services for free (with no banner ads). However, it's the integration of the hardware and software that makes the machine easier to manager and provides the value proposition.
Microsoft isn't probably going to open source anything anytime soon, but Apple has open sourced all kinds of stuff. QuickTime Streaming Server, NetInfo, I/O Kit, OpenPlay/NetSprocket, and of course, Darwin. While Darwin it is based on Mach 3.0/BSD, Apple is continually pouring money into Darwin development as the core of OSX, and the community reaps the benefits. Also note that Apple's VP of Software Engineering (Avie Tevanian) was one of the core architects of Mach.
Bash Microsoft all you like, but let's not forget that it was those evil folks that made it possible for the seperation of the hardware from the OS.
Out of the frying pan into the fire...
Microsoft is doing everything in their power to lock you into a single software platform. Long term, the hardware is probably irrelavant. Oh sure, you'll have all sort of hardware to choose from -- handhelds, desktops, laptops, cell phones, appliances. But if Microsoft has its way, they'll all run Windows.
By contrast, a substantial amount of OSX is built on open standards -- TCP/IP, Apache, NetInfo, OpenGL, I/O Kit, Java, BSD, Mach. With Windows, you have to deal with NetBios, WINS, IIS, DirectX, ActiveX, and kernel source that nobody can look at.
It is a good thing that there are open hardware platforms available? Yes. Is Apple evil for having a standardized hardware/software platform? No. It's just a different approach that has distinct benefits for both the developer and the user. Look up some of Carmack's comments on how much more cost effective it is to develop and test for the Mac because of the standardized hardware.
I wouldn't want a world in which Apple sold all computers, nor would I want one where either Windows or Linux is the only only OS.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
staunchly 'protecting' their trademark designs (iMac, and now Aqua theming)
This patent was filed well before Aqua existed.
Apple believes that people *have* to copy their design because it is the *best* out there
I don't see what this has to do with patenting, but it really doesn't make any sense anyway. Jobs has said on multiple occassions that designers have an infinite variety of choices when creating the look of somethings. Many choose to just copy Apple's.
so what is people copy off of them?
Well, if there's room for the consumer to be confused when they purchase something (like the iMac knockoffs), then they have every legal right to fight it -- especially since the iMac has such a distinctive look. You'll notice Apple isn't going after the wintel towers that have colored panels on them -- that design is more generic.
I, for one, think that the Aqua interface is far too colorful and overdone.
Heard of Aqua's Graphite mode?
I'd rather not make my political statements by carrying a transparent computer
The iBook has translucent plastics, but the Powerbook does not.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I am curious however where you found info about the patent being transferred
My mistake. The scanned in documents are hard to read. Turns out it was invented by Ed Voas, etc. but it belongs to Apple.
However, the bottom line is the same: the Slashdot version of the story is extremely misleading. It makes it sound like Jobs just marched down to Apple legal the other day and asked them to patent themes.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
As evidenced by the Flower Power iMac, Steve Jobs is certifiably insane.
Actually, the flowered iMacs could quite possibly be a huge hit in Japan (where they were introduced), and will probably appeal to women in the US. My mother wasn't the least bit interested in computers until she saw the iMac, and she thinks the Flower Power one is the coolest thing she's ever seen (personally, I would never buy one). My sister decorated her original iMac with a flower emblem.
Bottom line: computers aren't just for guys. People that aren't into floral patterns on computers can always buy an Indigo or Graphite (really cool). Or a Cube, or a G4 tower, etc. Though, I know there are still people out there that truly believe one doesn't deserve a computer unless one knows how to compile source.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
My guess is that Kaleidoscope will be updated for OS X. Maybe not... but one can only hope.
It would have to be completely rewritten. Kaliedoscope under Classic Mac OS works by using traps -- which don't exist under OSX (too prone to instability). The interface in OSX can largely be altered by modifying various PDF-format images an other things in the filesystem.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
It's time for Apple to drop thier foolish patents. Enlightenment, even fvwm did desktop theming first
Read the article before you comment on it, or at least read some of the other comments.
1) Apple didn't file this patent, Ed Voas and his colleague did. Ed worked on the Kaleidoscope shareware theme-switching software prior to coming to Apple. Though I don't know if the filing or the employment came first.
2) The patent was actually filed nearly three years ago -- in May 1998! It was just recently transferred to Apple, though.
3) As somebody else pointed out, the patent affects more than simple theming, it's about changing UI behavior based on theme (not just where the widgets appear)
The truth is without us hackers Apple's attempt to regain the Education market will fail.
Apple's VP of Software Engineering was one of the key architects of Mach. I think he has some right to use his own code.
They sucked enough information out of us, and Apple has not given anything back.
Ummmm... ever heard of QuickTime Streaming Server? Darwin? NetInfo? I/O Kit? Go to publicsource.apple.com. They've given all sorts of stuff to the community.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Then again, Microsoft's bloc of non-voting shares in Apple (circa 1996?) may still be a strong deterrent against Apple's wielding this particular patent over them.
They were purchased in 1997. At the same time, Apple and Microsoft signed a broad patent cross-licensing agreement. This was possibly due to the whole fiasco with Microsoft allegedly stealing QuickTime code to make Video for Windows.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
This patent was filed in May 1998 by Ed Voas and Arnaud Gourdol, at least one of which I believe worked on the third party Kaleidoscope theme-switching apparatus for Clasiic Mac OS. However, it appears (from looking at the documents) that the patent ownership was recently transferred to Apple. I know at least Ed Voas went on to work for Apple, specifically contributing to the Appearance Manager software in Mac OS 8.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Running on... Mac OS X, no less
The Mac version of Doom 3 will be for Mac OS X only. Mac OS 9 and earlier will not be able to run it.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Great, another first person shoot em up that adds nothing innovative to the world of gaming. More blood, more splatter, more gore, nothing new.
You're right, it's really easily to extract gameplay elements from the screenshots.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
rather than those from a company which faces bankrupcy on 2 year intervals
The last two quarters have been slow (like everyone's), but Apple has about $4 billion in cash and short term investments, and grosses $6-8 billion a year.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
At first glance, I thought you were asking what the remote display capabilities of OS X were
Apple's developer documentation specifically mentions the remote display capabilities of Quartz.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I mean, granted, XonX isn't done yet, so it wouldn't be fair, but all the same...
Neither is OSX.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Aren't there any X servers for mac that already exist?
For earlier versions of Mac OS, yes. This is Mac OS X -- brand new architecture.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
This is a large step backwards for the mac GUI. Both Classic and X-Windows should not be running side by side in Aqua, but each contained within it's own single window
If X11 compatibility were built into OSX, I would agree with you. But since it's a separate package, I don't think you have to worry. Most developers aren't going to ask the general public to install X11 support first. However, as the other respondee mentioned, this tool should be helpful for scientists and *nix veterans.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
but you could get a share of the Mac market which is filled with people that are actually used to paying for software.
Though I'm not entirely convinced that the same group would pay for the typical X11 app. Mac apps that don't feel like Mac apps typically don't sell well. Quality of UI is paramount. However, this stuff may help some Unix people feel at home.
it is questionable whether there will need to be other code to glue together the Mac's print architecture with that of other Unices
I'm pretty sure you can just use lpr.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
...I predict MacOS is going to suddenly conquer the "Evil Empire
Over time, Apple could make a serious dent with OSX. But Microsoft has enormous mindshare in big business. That's going to be hard to overcome.
Mac OS X certainly is dangerously cool, though.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
I don't care about your midi sound effects.
I don't care about your Java "enhancements".
I don't care about your Flash animation.
I don't care about your animated GIFs.
None of these have anything to do with what the WSP is talking about.
But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.
CSS (one of the standards in question) addresses this exactly.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu