[Spliff]

Dashboard vs. Konfabulator (vs. DesktopX) redux
Boiling down the controversy to its basic points...

By Draginol
Posted Sunday, July 25, 2004 on Opinionated Techie

Most people don't care about the whole Dashboard vs. Konfabulator controversy. I care. I mean, I don't care care. It doesn't really affect me. What happens on the Mac doesn't really affect most of us. But the Dashboard vs. Konfabulator issue does interest me a lot because some of the arguments Apple's defenders use against Konfabulator could just as easily be applied to DesktopX. And once one recognizes that, the absurdity of the pro-Apple people's position becomes more clear.

Here are the three big issues I see with regards to the Konfabulator vs. Dashboard situation.
1) The issue isn't whether Konfabulator is wholly original in all ways. The question is whether the market for user-created mini-applets on the desktop was already being supplied. I submit that Konfabulator was serving this market well.

Konfabulator had come up with a way to allow non-developers to be able to create little applets on the desktop. When I see someone try to argue that Konfabulator is like "Desktop accessories" they might as well wear a big sign that says "mindless Apple zealot" because that's an incredibly absurd comparison. A comparion that misses the whole point of Konfabulator. And if they're going to make that claim, why stop there? Was the concept of DesktopX ripped off from some 20 year old set of applets? Come on. The idea of making it possible for users to create their own personalized applets isn't new. But it took a lot of thought and work to come up with a way to actually do this.

DesktopX and Konfabulator approach the concept in very different ways. DesktopX is mostly GUI based in its widget creation (which is ironic since it's the PC program). Konfabulator does from text editors and directories and such. But both introduce key innovations:

* The programs handle all the tedious visual portions. You supply an alpha blended PNG image and the program will take care of drawing it. This is huge because as most developers know, writing code for handling the drawing is very time consuming. Especially if you want something that is irregularly shaped.
* The programs use common (as opposed to proprietary) scripting languages such as Javascript. DesktopX also supports VBScript or any other language supported by Windows.

You combine these two things together and you have a pretty potent way to creating interesting, useful things on the desktop.

DesktopX goes a bit further:

* It allows developers to create plugins in C++ that can extend functionality even further so that if there is functionality the DesktopX developers haven't thought of, they can add it themselves.
* DesktopX supports animations natively.
* DesktopX objects can be web pages. This is something it has in common with Dashboard. Here's a good example of one that's useful.
* DesktopX is GUI driven You could do it all via a text editor but it's much quicker to do it by using the GUI. Example.
* DesktopX can also build desktops.

The point being, Konfabulator on the Mac delivered a realistic way for people to create and share mini-applications that didn't require serious software development knowledge.

Users who wanted to have mini-applets on their desktop were already being served by a MacOS ISV. Dashboard IS going to hurt Konfabulator. No matter how you spin it, it's going to be very difficult for Konfabulator to adjust.

Bottom line: Apple's Dashboard hurts its own ISVs seemingly unnecessarily and discourage potential ISVs from coming into the market. Not a good situation for long term viability. Combine that with the insulting claim that Konfabulator (and therefore DesktopX) somehow owes Apple's desktop accessories (from 1984) and you have a perfect storm of ISV alienation possibilities.

2) Hypocrisy. Apple makes an incredible amount of noise about how everyone is stealing from them. For them to have banners saying "Redmond, start your photocopiers" even as they're ripping off Konfabulator is the height of hypocrisy.

PC users can watch with some amusement as Apple zealots lamely try to argue that Apple somehow, magically, came up with Dashboard without any influence from Konfabulator. For those of us in the other camp, it just confirms the irrationality of some of the Apple supporters.

Apple is the company that SUED eMachines for having a computer CASE that looked remotely similar to the iMac. They are incredibly proprietary about THEIR stuff. But they have a history of pilfering other people. Which is what many big companies do. But Apple and its zealots try to claim that Apple is somehow fundamentally different in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

3) Denials. Steve Jobs has publicly commented on this issue and make it sound like it was Konfabulator who had ripped off Apple's work. Very offensive. What an utter lack of respect. No show of appreciation at all for a developer who gave MacOS X a considerable amount of media attention. You don't hear very much about what third party ISVs are doing on the Mac. But Konfabulator was an exception. And rather than being appreciative for all the attention Konfabulator got the Mac, Jobs pisses on him.

Desktop accessories: Very difficult to write, visuals all handled by the programmer, in other words, NOTHING like Konfabulator.

But for me, I don't care that much about this issue. I find it interesting but it doesn't affect me. The only thing that does get on my nerves is the pathetic "It's like desktop accessories" comparison. I realize that many Mac users are non-technical but holy cow, it takes a real fundamental misunderstanding not to recognize the difference between desktop accessories and Konfabulator from a concept point of view.

[Adam Betts]

Very poorly done article. Seriously.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Very poorly done article. Seriously.

Which is really sad since the author of the article, Draginol (aka. Brad Wardell) is the CEO of Stardock software, the makers of DesktopX

[Developer]

What I said already on the matter. I agree with him.

I don't see what's poorly done in that article.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Developer:
What I said already on the matter. I agree with him.

I don't see what's poorly done in that article.

It makes a moderately decent argument...

It's not as if, though, Konfab and Dashboard are the exact same thing, I can see
people using both (maybe more would use konfab if it wasn't such a ridiculous resource hog).

A webcam widget, maybe more of a konfab thing, while a calculator or whatever is more suited to dashboard. Which reminds me, I hope apple adds the ability to put gadgets on the desktop

[chris_h]

doub-diddle post-shizzle

[eevyl]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH NO MORE FUD PLS

I will make a short-resume so we don't have to hear all the same stuff again:

-> Dashboard is based upon Desk Accesories as the One and Only reliable source says so (a blog ??!!)

-> Konfabulator users are all dumbasses that should all switch to Windoze and let the Apple Zealots alone

-> Konfabulator makes your single CPU Mac use 250% of CPU time, and your dual G5 use 1300% CPU time, as well as 2TB of memory.

-> Whatever Apple does, it's coolz, period.

Move along, really nothing to see here.

[Graymalkin]

Summary:

I don't like Apple because a Mac SE killed my kitty cat when I was little. I use features in OSX as inspiration for fifty percent of my company's products. I'm going to call anyone who doesn't agree with me a zealot because it is easier than coming up with logical arguments. PCs rulz0rs and Macs sux0rs!

[Earth Mk. II]

I think it's interesting that the articles that claim Dashboard is a rip off view it from a development frame of reference. For example, "The point being, Konfabulator on the Mac delivered a realistic way for people to create and share mini-applications that didn't require serious software development knowledge."

While the articles that claim that the basic idea for Dashboard/Knofabulator has existed for a while (and some even go so dar to say that the two applications seek to augment that core user experience in two totally different ways) view the argument from a user experience frame of reference. For example, we have the arguments referencing DA's, and modality vs. non-modality (aka. always on the desktop or not), etc.

So we have the "make development easy" camp and the "user experience" camp. I think that's a fair generalization and analysis of where the battle lines are drawn. What is happening, I believe, is that the two "camps" are arguing right past each other, neither one addressing the other's points. And, if you look at the basic assumptions of both camps, this makes perfect sense.

• Could it be that Apple is copying from Konfabulator in some basic ways and yet, not others?
• What ideas were copied from Konfabulator? Did Apple improve upon these ideas? Of the ideas Apple copied, is Apple being overtly hostile to 3rd party development? Regardless of any improvements or changes?
• Are the two different enough to justify their coexistence in the market (or even on the same computer)?

We really need to reduce this discussion down to much clearer and more objective questions if we're ever going to resolve this.

[Amorya]

OK, Dashboard is like desktop accessories, and here's why.


Way back in the early 80s, the Mac was being designed by a group at Apple Computer. They were making up the rules that GUIs would follow for years to come. (They may not have invented the GUI themselves, but things like dragging the corner of a window to resize it, and the idea of finder windows which you could position files anywhere on an infinite 2D plane, all came from the Mac team).

Apple also had a team making the Lisa, another computer with a GUI. The Lisa did multitasking, and was designed for business use. The Mac was, in Apple's words, teh Computer for the Rest of Us. It did not do multitasking, because that was thought to be too demanding on memory. It had things like a persistent clipboard, to make working with multiple applications possible, but you still couldn't use more than one at once.

But the programmers got tired of quitting their apps if they wanted to have a look at the clock or do a calculation. They said "Maybe we should have a separate class of applications, that can be run at the same time as a main program." This they did, and they called them Ornaments. It later got renamed to Desk Accessories because Ornaments sounded kinda unprofessional.

So the difference between an app and a desk accessory is that you interact with an accessory without leaving your current app. In the days of multitasking, this concept has all but vanished... until Dashboard arrived.

The thing that makes Dashboard unique is it's part of expose... in other words, you interact with the Dashboard gadgets without leaving your current app. That's how it's different to Konfabulator... Konfab's purpose is not workflow-related, but to make programming little apps easier. When actually running them, they don't behave very differently to normal apps - they don't have any workflow advantages.

Desk accessories were originally invented to ease workflow... and now Dashboard steps up to take the concept a step further. It may look similar to Konfab, and it may have the same ease-of-programming advantages, but the difference is in primary purpose.



Amorya

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by eevyl:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH NO MORE FUD PLS

I will make a short-resume so we don't have to hear all the same stuff again:

-> Dashboard is based upon Desk Accesories as the One and Only reliable source says so (a blog ??!!)

-> Konfabulator users are all dumbasses that should all switch to Windoze and let the Apple Zealots alone

-> Konfabulator makes your single CPU Mac use 250% of CPU time, and your dual G5 use 1300% CPU time, as well as 2TB of memory.

-> Whatever Apple does, it's coolz, period.

Move along, really nothing to see here.

[Arkham_c]

Who really cares? I tried Konfabulator and gave up on it within a day. It was not useful at all. With Watson, I'd never heard of it before Sherlock 2, but I could probably count the number of times I've used Sherlock in OSX one one hand. No value there for me either.

Will Dashboard prove to be useful? I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Probably just a lot more little widgets/gadgets that I don't need.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by Developer:
What I said already on the matter. I agree with him.

I don't see what's poorly done in that article.

Why is that not suprising to me.


I'm still waiting for a Konfabulator vs Dashboard article that compares to John Grubers. This crap wasn't worth the 2 minutes to read it. I could give a damn that this guy developed DesktopX. Konfabulator is NOT everything to all people. I don't like embedded widgets. Apple's use of Expose functionality for widgets is superior to "my desires", yours may be wholly different.

You know if you put a mic in front of some ISV all you will hear is whining and complaining. "Grow up", competition is not only natural but it is essential to platform evolution. Arlo Rose created the runtime environment to be easily portable. I say bring Konfabulator to whatever platform success can be found.

[threestain]

having played around with konfabulator recently I feel I can say that all it does is done better elsewhere. I prefer things that are nice and unobtrusive. That's why all the widgets I would use with konfabulator are actually already made as menu bar programs - they are true desktop accessories and more like the dashboard I envisage. Konfabulator is pretty unusable really, unless you have a ridiculous amount of screen space.

[Developer]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
"Grow up", competition is not only natural but it is essential to platform evolution.

Yeah, competition is good, but competition is not fair if something is bundled with the operating system. And it doesn't have to bee 100% identical. If there is a 80% feature overlap, you're not selling any more.

I say bring Konfabulator to whatever platform success can be found.

So you want ISVs to leave the Macintosh platform. I don't.

[clarkgoble]

The arguments underneath it all is that what counts isn't the product or precedent but market. The market for desktop widgets was being filled therefore Apple shouldn't enter in.

Yet this seems incorrect because for many of us Konfabulator didn't do a good job. Further, what is the basis for saying that Apple can only enter into empty markets?

I just don't get it.

This isn't some pro-Apple zealotry. Personally the Apple dashboard seems like it will fill *my* needs better than Konfabulator. I tried Konfabulator again when the controversy broke out. Even with its new Expose support it didn't do what *I* wanted. I ended up with a cluttered desktop and programs running even when I didn't need them. This was a market crying out for competition.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eevyl:
-> Konfabulator makes your single CPU Mac use 250% of CPU time, and your dual G5 use 1300% CPU time, as well as 2TB of memory.

One of the reason I never used Konfab was it's shoddiness. CPU hog, crashed too much, And just took up space.

Apple's idea is much better. Lets hope it's not a memory/cpu hog like Konfab is.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
[B]The market for desktop widgets was being filled therefore Apple shouldn't enter in.

In that note, since there was IE for the Mac, Apple shouldn't have made Safari.

Konfab was a horrible implementation of a good idea that wasn't their own.

The only thing "original" was the way they were made. And that wasn't even original either.

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by Developer:
What I said already on the matter. I agree with him.

I don't see what's poorly done in that article.


Why is that not suprising to me.

Ditto.

[osxisfun]

Yeah, competition is good, but competition is not fair if something is bundled with the operating system. And it doesn't have to bee 100% identical. If there is a 80% feature overlap, you're not selling any more.

>you're not selling any more

Bull puckey. See our previous discussion thread as to why this is a major oppurtunity for the konfab developers. But given the fact that they have been spent so much time crying over spilled milk, i doubt they will. But that's of no fault of apple's...

...and then Sherlock turned to his crime solving partner and said, "Elementary my dear Watson" for you see, such "Konfabulations" are nothing more then those accessories we found on the desk next to the dead horse that was beaten too much.

[hmurchison2001]

So you want ISVs to leave the Macintosh platform. I don't.

Unfortunately Arlo and Perry are small potatoes. If they leave there are 10 new developers to jump in their spot. I really hope that most ISVs don't really think they can't be replaced. Developers are going to have to really up their game. Not Apple is tossing in features to the OS but because OSX is attracting Unix, Linux and BSD programmers who bring in a different philosophical approach. I just recently read an article where a developer said something like "Mac shareware guys expect to develop a product and sit back and rake in $20". Those days are going bye-bye for a lot of people. Linux and BSD foster a "give back to the community" mentality that is going to change the way software is marketed. I also heard comments from developers at WWDC about how there is a perceived "arrogance" with many programmers. My suggestion is to lose that arrogance. Programming is not for everyone and it's not extremely difficult using today's IDE. Competiton is tough now and only getting tougher. You think Sanjay Patel from India can't do what you do for half the cost?

[Graymalkin]

Let's say I develop the world's best Konfab widget that tens of thousands of people want to use. I charge $5 a pop for it because I'm a cool guy. Yay the world's best Konfab widget is only $30! Wait a second, $30? I thought I was a cool guy and only charging $5. For the privilage to run my widget people have to shell out $25 to Arlo and Perry. Now my potentially lucrative business is being ruined by the fact people don't want to pay $25 for the privilage of running my widget.

Konfabulator has zero value without useful widgets. Many useful widgets are created by third parties with no connection to Arlo and Perry. In fact these two absolutely rely on these independent developers to give Konfabulator some real value.

What A&P should have done is made Konfabulator's engine free if not open source and built themselves a nice IDE to sell. That way people could write their Konfab widgets the hard way in BBEdit or shell out a few bucks for the Official Konfabulator IDE. The people adding value to Konfabulator would then be able to have a viable business, as would A&P because they could not only produce their own widgets of some value but also sell an IDE to let people build their own and make the Konfab environment extra useful. Had they done that Dashboard's appearance in Tiger wouldn't have so much as caused a hiccough in the community.

A&P would have been able to extend their IDE to support the development of Dashboard widgets and possibly port their Konfab widgets to it and continue to sell them. They'd be able to make oodles of cash even though Apple released a technology built into the OS that in some limited way resembles their own program. Panic and Stairways continue to do business despite the fact FTP access is laughably supported in Finder and OSX ships with curl and ftp command line programs. Allume/Aladdin continues to exist despite Apple adding archiving capabilities to Finder and shipping OSX with gzip and bzip2.

[eevyl]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
What A&P should have done is made Konfabulator's engine free if not open source and built themselves a nice IDE to sell. That way people could write their Konfab widgets the hard way in BBEdit or shell out a few bucks for the Official Konfabulator IDE.

You know, there is no need for a Konfabulator IDE, you only need a text editor to write Konfabulator Widgets. And Konfabulator itself is free for this purpose, it's "nagware" in its shareware form, so it won't stop working after the trial period, just put a reminder window.

So, at practice effects, it's "free" for development desires.

[sushiism]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Which is really sad since the author of the article, Draginol (aka. Brad Wardell) is the CEO of Stardock software, the makers of DesktopX

and a dock ripoff, hypocrite

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by eevyl:
You know, there is no need for a Konfabulator IDE, you only need a text editor to write Konfabulator Widgets. And Konfabulator itself is free for this purpose, it's "nagware" in its shareware form, so it won't stop working after the trial period, just put a reminder window.

So, at practice effects, it's "free" for development desires.

Yeah, but to develop Java you don't need an IDE, and yet Borland is selling millions of dollars in IDE licenses every year for JBuilder.