[Rodster]

Hey guys can some of you enlighten me on the true function of "Widgets" in Tiger? A friend of mine showed me Windows XP running widgets through a program called "Windowblinds".

I saw widgets on the screen displaying everything from "weather", sports scores, time of day clock in their own separate windows.

So how will Tiger's widgets be any different from this? I thought widgets was an innovation from Apple.

[Nodnarb]

read

[Chuckit]

And calling widgets an "innovation" is extremely kind. I'd go with "a moderately interesting implementation of a really old idea."

[Rodster]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
And calling widgets an "innovation" is extremely kind. I'd go with "a moderately interesting implementation of a really old idea."

Thanks for the info and good read. I agree with your statement because I saw this already on my friends WinXP system running Windowblinds/ObjectX.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Rodster:
Thanks for the info and good read. I agree with your statement because I saw this already on my friends WinXP system running Windowblinds/ObjectX.

Heck, the Desk Accessories that the original Mac OS had back in 1984 fall under the 'widgets' category.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Heck, the Desk Accessories that the original Mac OS had back in 1984 fall under the 'widgets' category.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Dashboard was developed as a Konfabulator clone. Where the idea originated is another matter. It depends on what you believe the idea behind these things is. Many people have problems seeing the idea at all, that's why a lot of people think Konfabulator & Co. are pretty much useless.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's a bit of a stretch.

Is it?

[Big Mac]

I have trouble agreeing with Apple's rationale. Desk accessories were mini-applications, not widgets. Desk accessories were a bonus feature in the original OS conceived to grant some flexibility when the Mac was otherwise a single-tasking machine. They lacked a graphical launching mechanism except for the Apple menu, whereas a graphical launcher resident on screen is central to the widget concept. I wish Apple would have purchased Konfabulator. I'm not stating anything about the quality of Konfabulator, only the concept. Let's all be honest - Apple screwed Arlo Rose (one of its own) over.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Is it?

It is. If you argue like that Apple had the idea for every Macintosh application first, because they had something in a window first. But it's not relevant anyway. If you read Arlo Rose' weblog you'll read that he had heard about Dashboard before announcement from within Apple and he was told that Apple is developing a "Konfabulator-Killer". That's a term that came from within Apple. They didn't develop Dashboard, because they remembered Desk Accessories, they developed it because they saw Konfabulator. The similarities in implementation and looks make that obvious.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It is. If you argue like that Apple had the idea for every Macintosh application first, because they had something in a window first. But it's not relevant anyway. If you read Arlo Rose' weblog you'll read that he had heard about Dashboard before announcement from within Apple and he was told that Apple is developing a "Konfabulator-Killer". That's a term that came from within Apple. They didn't develop Dashboard, because they remembered Desk Accessories, they developed it because they saw Konfabulator. The similarities in implementation and looks make that obvious.

The best line on this issue I've heard is "Apple don't purchase ideas".

It's true. They'll purchase technology, or a product where the implementation of an idea is better than what they can do.

But Konfabulator is not implemented well at all. Dashboard is totally different under the surface. Apple would have gained nothing by purchasing it, except not pissing a few people off.

This weblog put things much better than I could.


Amorya

[wadesworld]

A friend of mine showed me Windows XP running widgets through a program called "Windowblinds".

So how will Tiger's widgets be any different from this? I thought widgets was an innovation from Apple.

Is it affecting your manhood or something?

What is innovative about widgets is how easy they are to develop and how much functionality they can have.

Wade

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Amorya:
Apple would have gained nothing by purchasing it

I'm not arguing that Apple should have bought anything. I was just pointing out that Dashboard was developed in response to Konfabulator, not because they remembered Desk Accessories.

[Big Mac]

We're not saying that Apple should have bought Konfabulator to use it directly as an addition to OS X. They should have bought it for the intellectual property value. I accept the fact that Rose's design choices are incompatible with Apple's design goals for Dashboard. Great. Apple made a superior version. Terrific. But the concept was created by Rose, and nothing anyone can say can change that fact. The right thing would be to pay for the concept and shelve the product. Consider that we all have and will continue to lambaste Microsoft for stealing the look and feel of the Mac's UI, yet so many of us find what Apple did to Rose acceptable. The situations are not exactly analogous, since M$'s violations were more egregious, but there are a number of obvious parallels.

In the blog referenced, John Gruber states, "If you�re still willing to argue that Apple should have bought Konfabulator as the basis for Dashboard, you�re implicitly arguing that Apple should be more concerned about being nice to third-party developers than they are about the quality of the engineering undergirding their platform." I doubt more than a few people ever seriously suggested that Apple should buy Konfabulator to use it instead of Dashboard. We're simply saying that if you're going to take someone else's idea, give credit where it is due. When you're writing a thesis, you use quotations and provide citations to outside work; you don't pass it off as your own, even if you have similar ideas. If Apple were a literary source it would rightfully be accused of plagiarism. Now if Apple can prove that it was working on Dashboard before Konfabulator's debut, circumstances would be different. Apple's never dared assert such a thing, because it's apparent that the direct inspiration for Dashboard came from Konfabulator. It is not as if Apple's cash poor; the company can afford to do the right thing. Why it wishes to needlessly alienate allies is beyond me, unless we're to simply ascribe Apple's stance to arrogance.

Edit: By stating that Apple does not buy ideas, Gruber (who Amorya views as authoritative) concedes that Konfabulator was at least among the original sources for the idea. I am not inclined to do research on widget antecedents over on the Windows side of the fence, particularly because I am not convinced that facet is at all germane to the argument.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
But the concept was created by Rose, and nothing anyone can say can change that fact.

False

They didn't create the concept. There's hundreds of apps that do what Konfabulator does. Not necessarily for Mac, or not necessarily looking so pretty, but that's the point - Konfabulator wasn't really original, it was just well-wrapped enough to appeal to quite a lot of people.

This one has existed for a while too.

Even if you don't buy the idea that Desk Accessories started the whole widget revolution, there are programs that pretty much mimic Konfabulator's functionality and have done so for longer. Given that it's not a unique concept, why do Apple need to buy anyone?


Amorya

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Heck, the Desk Accessories that the original Mac OS had back in 1984 fall under the 'widgets' category.

Agreed. And Tiger takes the concept, updates it, invigorates it and gives it more eye candy.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Dashboard was developed as a Konfabulator clone. Where the idea originated is another matter.

Read what you wrote again, really slow.

[Chuckit]

Even the StarDock people admitted, to my recollection, that what separated Konfabulator from Desk Accessories and every other small-app-in-a-window was that it allowed people to make these small-apps-in-windows through existing Web technologies.

[wadesworld]

But the concept was created by Rose, and nothing anyone can say can change that fact. The right thing would be to pay for the concept and shelve the product.

Absolutely incorrect. As stated, the concept existed LONG before Rose.

You don't pay people for concepts. You pay people for well-designed implementations. Unfortunately for Rose, his product didn't meet that criteria.

Wade

[jasong]

Yawn . . .

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
I have trouble agreeing with Apple's rationale. Desk accessories were mini-applications, not widgets.

But what is a widget other than a mini-application? If the only difference between a Konfabulator widget and a desk accessory is the launching system, then they really are the same idea; such a difference isn't significant.

Desk accessories were obsolete by the days of System 7 (which is why they then became directly-launchable, as any other app). The reason they're seen by many as useless nowadays isn't so much the apps' functionality as the distinction: DAs no longer do anything an app can't do.

Either way, it's not at all innovative. The only thing to really argue about is who had the idea first.

[suthercd]

And then define what 'the idea' is. If it is the user experience, you could go back to Borland's TSR Sidekick in DOS and later Sidekick II for Windows. Mix in some javascript starting in 1995, add a cuppa NEXTSTEP, bake in that environment for a few years, then take the recipes to improve on your own.

Having access to Webkit and Cocoa's extensibility makes Gadgets/Widgets very different from Konfabulator. Because of that you able to create gadgets that use Quicktime, Flash, Perl, etc. = not just javascript or applescript.

Seems to me that the one who is doing the 'ripping off' accusations should be careful to see what he created and what he adapted.

OGO
Craig

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But what is a widget other than a mini-application? If the only difference between a Konfabulator widget and a desk accessory is the launching system, then they really are the same idea; such a difference isn't significant.

Could Joe Web Guy write a Desk Accessory? To my knowledge, not unless he knew 68k assembly.

[Mac Guru]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Could Joe Web Guy write a Desk Accessory? To my knowledge, not unless he knew 68k assembly.

And not unless he was from the future, because judging by that 'desk accessory' shot, I'm guessing that there WAS no internet then and thus no 'Joe Web Guys'.

Mac Guru

[jasong]

I would hardly call javascript accessable by anyone. As far as my mom, sister, and 95% of my friends are concerned, programming a konfabulator widget is no easier than programming a DA back in 1984. Stating that konfabulator is different from DAs simply because you can program a widget with a text editor is meaningless and simply a reflection of the times. Programming HAS gotten easier and cheaper and more accessable to the average person (actually, I don't think that is altogether true since I remember programing my Apple //e without any add on software, but I digress), that doesn't make konfabulator innovative.

But hey, I am just a blind Apple apologist.

-- Jason

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
And not unless he was from the future, because judging by that 'desk accessory' shot, I'm guessing that there WAS no internet then and thus no 'Joe Web Guys'.

You're right that Desk Accessories predate HTML. They were still in use as late as System 7 (maybe later -- I don't recall), but they were much less useful once Multifinder was built into the the system.

Anyway, my point is that this integration with Web technologies is what Konfabulator offered that set it apart from DAs and what Dashboard offers that makes it such direct competition to Konfab.