[Adam Betts]

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/07/29.7.shtml

Dan Wood said that he was offered a position in Apple's Sherlock team but he rejected the offer.

I think Dan Wood is one big cry baby for porting it to Windows platform. This is truly silly and immature behavior.

If I were Dan, I'll take Apple's offer anytime.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/07/29.7.shtml

Dan Wood said that he was offered a position in Apple's Sherlock team but he rejected the offer.

I think Dan Wood is one big cry baby for porting it to Windows platform. This is truly silly and immature behavior.

If I were Dan, I'll take Apple's offer anytime.

Dan apparently got offered to join the Apple team...AND REFUSED!!! I don't care what he does with his life from now on. Blowing this lifetime opportunity was pretty silly. I feel sorry for him for wasting this chance and others that will never get this opportunity.

Watson is clearly superior to Sherlock (the plugins in Watson are definately better and the GUI is more responsive and cleaner.) But Danny-boy...if the mothership takes you in and you're not cooperating, too bad for you!

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/07/29.7.shtml

Dan Wood said that he was offered a position in Apple's Sherlock team but he rejected the offer.

I think Dan Wood is one big cry baby for porting it to Windows platform. This is truly silly and immature behavior.

If I were Dan, I'll take Apple's offer anytime.

That article has been out awhile now; however, I hope the Window port doesn't happen.

[spectre]

You would think that he would make more money by working at Apple then porting a shareware application to Windows. By working with Apple he would be able to expand his ideas further, and impliment his plans for future versions of sherlock right into OS X.

It's unfortunate to see his ego get the better of him. I can understand him in a way though... It would be odd working with people that have copied you, and that you despise for doing so. But still, by taking the job at Apple you not only get more money, but you work at apple, directly on the OS itself.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by gorickey:
That article has been out awhile now; however, I hope the Window port doesn't happen.

Dan Wood said that it will happen

[Zimphire]

So let me get this straight, Dan takes Apple idea aka Sherlock, copies it, then improves on it, then gets upset when Apple takes his ideas and puts them into Sherlock?

He can copy Apple, and that is ok, but HOW DARE APPLE take any of HIS ideas!



It's not like Watson was a totally new idea or product.

[MojoRising022]

Dan Wood did not create Watson as a charity project...he created it to make money....there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When Apple introduced Sherlock 3 - a blatant (and poorly executed) copy of Watson - he saw his potential income shrink. Porting it to Windows, as he said in the article, will help recover some of this....and nothing like Watson exists for Windows. I do not consider this decision immature or rash...nor was not accepting Apple's offer....we have no idea what the offer was...it is conceivable he'll make 10x the money by not joining them.

I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for lack of a better word) for Dan Wood. He created a simply phenomenal, revolutionary application and had it ripped off by a large corporate entity who refuses to even acknowledge his contribution or influence on their product.

[Peabo]

I can understand him in a way. Imagine if Microsoft asked Apple to come work for them on Windows...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MojoRising022:

I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for lack of a better word) for Dan Wood. He created a simply phenomenal, revolutionary application and had it ripped off by a large corporate entity who refuses to even acknowledge his contribution or influence on their product.

Er, Watson was a rip-off of Sherlock. How was his product revolutionary?

Wastson = Sherlock 2 with Extra features.

The idea of a all in one serach app was not invented by Dan, but Apple with Sherlock. Dan took Apple's idea and added to it.

That isn't revolutionary, or phenonemal by no means.

[El Pre$idente]

If Watson does well on Windows he will be making a lot more than Apple could pay him and he'll have enough money to make the Mac version better than Sherlock could ever become. He would even be able to employ more people than what work on Sherlock alone.

[CheesePuff]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
If Watson does well on Windows he will be making a lot more than Apple could pay him and he'll have enough money to make the Mac version better than Sherlock could ever become. He would even be able to employ more people than what work on Sherlock alone.

You know how much is sucks supporting the Windows platform after you're used to the Mac? I swear I have never met dumber people in my life. "I downloaded the version that says "for Mac OS X only" and it doesn't work on my ME setup. Help!"

[T u r b o]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
If Watson does well on Windows he will be making a lot more than Apple could pay him and he'll have enough money to make the Mac version better than Sherlock could ever become. He would even be able to employ more people than what work on Sherlock alone.

If Watson DOES do well on windows, how many registrations do you think he'll get before M$ decides to bundle a similar app with their OS?

- Mike

[fulmer]

it's capitalism.

hopefully he hasn't burned bridges at apple, so if his windows port doesn't follow through, he can go work for them.

but if it works out, I think it'll be a great app for windows. who knows--maybe MS will be touting it in their download section!

[tommy]

To those that say he should just work for Apple, why? He creates innovative software on his own, why do it for someone else? Much more satisfying to work for yourself. The only problem I have is he seems to not have the right business sense. If he's going to be in the business on his own, he should at least have a plan to protect his intellectual property. It's ironic that Apple sues MS for stealing the look and feel of Mac OS in Windows, loses in court, and then a decade later, Apple follows MS and steals someone else's idea. I have no experience in software matters, but in the physical world, innovative ideas can be protected by design patents, utility patents, and trade dress. In the virtual world, who knows? Apparently, losing to MS taught Apple that whatever is out there is good for the taking. I also think it's ironic that a few years ago Apple sued the iMac clones that to me look less than the iMac than Sherlock3 looks like Watson.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by T u r b o:


If Watson DOES do well on windows, how many registrations do you think he'll get before M$ decides to bundle a similar app with their OS?

- Mike

They've had it for years without the eye candy. Apple got the idea for Sherlock's People/Internet, etc categories from a Start menu item in Windows 98 introduced with IE 4. It added a categories in the Search menu for People (in the Outlook address book and Hotmail), internet and so on.

What Watson did was take it a step further. Sherlock added an eye candy version fo what Windows had. Watson created a multi-paned application that didnt do just searches but worked as an actual information application for 'managing' data downloaded from the net. Sherlock didn't and wasn't going to do that until it saw what was possible.

Remember they had us using the damn program for searching for files in OSX! They were going to keep it that way if it wasn't for Watson's ideas.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

I'm with Zimphire.

Mr. Wood took Apple's creation, Sherlock, and he improved upon it. Then Apple took Wood's idea and improved upon it. Not only did Wood not contribute to the creation of Sherlock, he also made considerable money off of Sherlock. Let me repeat this: Wood did NOT create Sherlock! He took Apple's ideas and expanded upon them...and I don't think anyone deserves a medal for such plagiarism.

I think Apple should sue him if he makes "Watson" for Windows too much like Sherlock. Smack his ego down to man-size.

Clearly this guy is an idiot if he was offered a job at Apple, refused, and now want's to exact "vengeance" on Apple. Supporting Windows will be a mountain of work, and without Redmond's support, Watson will never work as well on Windows as Sherlock does in OS X.

Really, I think the right thing for Apple to do is to sue the living daylights out of this a$$hole the second he releases his version of "Sherlock" for Windows. Because that's what Watson is, a rip-off of Sherlock.

It's like if someone made a mod for Quake 3, then was offered a position at Id, but turned them down and now is going to make the mod for UT because they're mad that Id used some ideas from the mod in Doom 3. Utter stupidity.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by tommy:
To those that say he should just work for Apple, why? He creates innovative software on his own, why do it for someone else?

That is just it, it wasn't innovative.

[kmkkid]

I still dont understand why some of you insist on putting Windows down, and denying the platform of good products. Don't be so selfish. This guy can certainly port his application to Windows without fear of apple suing him, because guess what.... His app already existed b4 this new version of sherlock, therefore they were his ideas originally. It's too late for apple to do anything about him so called ripping sherlock off, as it's a very different product by now. But I do think he should have taken apples offer. Who knows he may make way more on the port then the mac version simply because of numbers.

[T u r b o]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
If Watson does well on Windows he will be making a lot more than Apple could pay him and he'll have enough money to make the Mac version better than Sherlock could ever become. He would even be able to employ more people than what work on Sherlock alone.

If Watson DOES do well on windows, how many registrations do you think he'll get before M$ decides to bundle a similar app with their OS?

- Mike

[dfiler]

Originally posted by MojoRising022:
Dan Wood did not create Watson as a charity project...he created it to make money....there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When Apple introduced Sherlock 3 - a blatant (and poorly executed) copy of Watson - he saw his potential income shrink.
...
I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for lack of a better word) for Dan Wood. He created a simply phenomenal, revolutionary application and had it ripped off by a large corporate entity who refuses to even acknowledge his contribution or influence on their product.

You really need to brush up on your history a bit more...

Watson, while well implemented, was definately not revolutionary. There are scores of multiple-domain, application-based search engines that predate Watson. In fact, have you ever heard of Sherlock II? You know, the application that Watson's name was a play on.

I feel for developers who get crushed by bigger development houses. I had coded a Cocoa framework that provided the eyeToons look (iTunes), and then apple went and released their own version for free. However, did I complain? No, my framework was a knock off of an existing apple product.

The respect I had for Watson's author completely dissappeared when I read his reaction to Apple taking the next leap in the Search Engine leapfrog game, a game that apple started.

[absmiths]

First of all, this guy wrote Watson in Cocoa/Objective-C, so porting should be real fun. He should just embrace the beast and write it all in .NET and forget about OS X.

Secondly, I wish people would get it into their heads that this is NOT revolutionary - anyone who has been reading tech magazines for the last couple of years would have known that web services are everywhere. It is a neat product, but nothing I would bet the farm on.

This guy should have taken Apple's offer - as a shareware author if I could write an app that would get me a good job at Apple it would be worth the effort (heck, they even let him on stage - talk about credibility)

[CharlesS]

It's like saying that if I make a calculator that can calculate sines and cosines, and then you make a calculator that can calculate tangents, then I can never make my calculator able to calculate tangents without your permission.

The additions in Sherlock 3 are an obvious next step to Sherlock 2...

[curmi]

Hey guys, we have no idea what sort of job Apple offered him. It isn't everyone's dream job to take any old position Apple offers - for all we know they may have wanted him to be a tester on Sherlock, or a junior software engineer. They may have offered him less money than he'd make working at McDonalds. He may have felt his creativity would be limited by the Sherlock team and his lack of power in the management structure there. Maybe he lives nowhere near Cupertino and can't afford to move there, his kids are in school somewhere else and he doesn't want to move them, he doesn't want to leave his family and friends...

We don't know anything about the deal, so think a bit before you have a go at him for not taking up Apple's offer.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by curmi:
Hey guys, we have no idea what sort of job Apple offered him. It isn't everyone's dream job to take any old position Apple offers - for all we know they may have wanted him to be a tester on Sherlock, or a junior software engineer.

Nobody becomes President of the US of A without going through lesser positions. Also, you're speculations are probably wrong about Apple recruiting Dan as a 'tester' or junior sw engineer.

They may have offered him less money than he'd make working at McDonalds. He may have felt his creativity would be limited by the Sherlock team and his lack of power in the management structure there.

Doubtful...the Sherlock team would have probably listened to Dan very closely.

Maybe he lives nowhere near Cupertino and can't afford to move there, his kids are in school somewhere else and he doesn't want to move them, he doesn't want to leave his family and friends...

That's a probable scenario.

We don't know anything about the deal, so think a bit before you have a go at him for not taking up Apple's offer.

Think? You've been speculating...what makes your speculations more valid than ours?

[curmi]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Think? You've been speculating...what makes your speculations more valid than ours?

Because I'm saying we have no idea. I'm not saying he didn't just say no because he is an idiot, or out of spite. I'm saying we have no idea. So don't go around saying he did the wrong thing, and I won't go around saying he did the right thing. Because WE HAVE NO IDEA.

[fmalloy]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/07/29.7.shtml

Dan Wood said that he was offered a position in Apple's Sherlock team but he rejected the offer.

I think Dan Wood is one big cry baby for porting it to Windows platform. This is truly silly and immature behavior.

Um, seeing as how Apple took his business, and the fact that he can make much, much more profit from Windows applications (95% market share?) it seems to me he is doing a very *smart* thing.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by fmalloy:


Um, seeing as how Apple took his business, and the fact that he can make much, much more profit from Windows applications (95% market share?) it seems to me he is doing a very *smart* thing.

Yeah but the question is...is he gonna get mad and sue the next guy(s) that build a program similar to his on Windows? What makes you think he's gonna make a big profit on the Windows side?

[selkirk]

Apple gave Watson a lot of publicity on their downloads page and with the award they gave it. They did not have to do that. Publicity = Money for a software product.

Watson was inspired by Sherlock (The name makes that obvious). It sounds like Dan is bitter because of his own failure to realize that Apple did not stop work on Sherlock with version 2.0.

It sounds like Apple has been very fair, promoting Watson and offering to hire Dan. They did not have to do this.

[dmoore]

I like Watson (I even gave em my $30), but I simply can't understand this debate. Both Sherlock and Watson are interfaces to other people's content. They don't exist without MapQuest, MovieFone, UPS, GemStar, etc. Who possibly has a right to get heady about their "intellectual property" that wouldn't exist if it weren't feed by someone else's intellectual property. I would argue for Dan Wood's "right" to sell me Watson if MovieFone came along and wanted to sue his @ss (after all, he deprives them of banner ad revenue). This is what the Internet is all about as far as I'm concerned.

I'd much rather see us all fighting the RIAA and their ilk over their attempts to stop the free flow of information. Instead, we argue over who had the idea first to create a useful interface on top of someone else's content.

[Amorya]

Has anyone looked into what it takes to create a Watson channel? I've looked at the Sherlock information, and it seems very well designed, and incredibly powerful for what it's designed for. But I've not used Watson so I can't make a comparison. Does it, for example, let you use multiple views per plugin, and separate views for printing information?

Amorya

[mrtew]

Originally posted by selkirk:
It sounds like Apple has been very fair, promoting Watson and offering to hire Dan. They did not have to do this.

No, but I think Apple made a big mistake by tramping on a successful Mac developer. It's another thing like charging for .Mac. It's probably legal, and makes some sense financially, but when a company starts offending their customers and developers they are treading on thin ice. When Apple next starts copying all the features of FruitMenu and WindowShadeX and putting them out of business is it going to be OK just because those started as a replacement for abandoned Mac features, not original ideas?

I think the 'fair' thing to do would be to buy Watson from him... not just walk away with his ideas. He copied the layout of Sherlock I suppose, but none of the tools. They copied all their tools from him and all but abandoned the original function of their own program. It's like they applied their old name to his program.

I refuse to use Sherlock3 for two reasons... because Watson is better and I've paid for it, and because it's a ripoff of Watson. I think everyone that agrees with me should email their copy of Sherlock to Apple and delete it from their computer in protest.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I think that Dan has a point about being mad. But didn't he realize that maybe Sherlock would adapt the same features?

I mean...he named it "Watson".

For us users, i think Apple did the right thing regardless of how it happened. I would have never downloaded Watson. But i forsee myself using the features in Sherlock.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by dmoore:
I like Watson (I even gave em my $30), but I simply can't understand this debate. Both Sherlock and Watson are interfaces to other people's content. They don't exist without MapQuest, MovieFone, UPS, GemStar, etc. Who possibly has a right to get heady about their "intellectual property" that wouldn't exist if it weren't feed by someone else's intellectual property. I would argue for Dan Wood's "right" to sell me Watson if MovieFone came along and wanted to sue his @ss (after all, he deprives them of banner ad revenue). This is what the Internet is all about as far as I'm concerned.

I'd much rather see us all fighting the RIAA and their ilk over their attempts to stop the free flow of information. Instead, we argue over who had the idea first to create a useful interface on top of someone else's content.

Best post yet on this whole subject, IMHO.

As many have pointed out, Watson is not the origination of the whole web services concept -- only the best and most useful implementation of the concept to date. We should expect better implementations down the road. By whom, I don't know. Plus, it's not like the first person to come up with a really good word processor a couple of decades ago could declare the right to a monopoly on that concept. Software has always been about building better mouse traps that incorporated ideas from others' older mouse traps.

What is most surprising about this story is the title of this thread itself. What good and smart business plan has ever been based on some kind of vindication like this one? If porting Watson to Windows is a good idea, then it was a good idea regardless of what Apple did/does with Sherlock 3. Apple's expansion of the Sherlock concept doesn't all of a sudden make porting Watson to Windows a better idea.

And if Sherlock 3 is a threat to Watson, then without a doubt MS's vision of .Net looks like a 10 ton gorilla next to it. I don't need to guess how that would turn out.

[brainchild2b]

Actually Apple was developing Sherlock 3 long before cry baby danny boy was developing Watson. Apple even put together proof in case he tried to bring a lawsuit.

This is just another idiot who is convinced that he had an "original" idea. The interface for watson sucks and it's slow. And there are about 10 applications on windows that do this already. This is not an original application this idea was done in the late 90's as well.

Apple was polite in offering him a job, not because they felt guilty, but because they wanted him to have a chance. Everyone is reading it wrong if they think Apple did it to "ease their concious"

mr. watson developer won't be remembered for very long, idiots are always easily replaced.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally posted by fmalloy:


Um, seeing as how Apple took his business, and the fact that he can make much, much more profit from Windows applications (95% market share?) it seems to me he is doing a very *smart* thing.

Just my opinion, but seeing what Microsoft has done with web browsers (give it away for free), java (extend and break it), and other shenanagins I'd bet that if they liked Watson for Windows, they would develop their own version and give it away for free or even bundle it with the operating system as a .NET service. And it would look and work exactly like Watson.

Or even worse, he'd release Watson to the public, but the following day, Microsoft would announce a Sherlock-like product that was 10x better, Direct-X compatable, and far superior then Watson, of which would cause would be buyers to hold off and wait for the Microsoft product. Hello Vaporware.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mrtew:


No, but I think Apple made a big mistake by tramping on a successful Mac developer. It's another thing like charging for .Mac. It's probably legal, and makes some sense financially, but when a company starts offending their customers and developers they are treading on thin ice. When Apple next starts copying all the features of FruitMenu and WindowShadeX and putting them out of business is it going to be OK just because those started as a replacement for abandoned Mac features, not original ideas?

Absolutely. Apple originally came up with those ideas in the first place. They have every right to put them back in the OS if they please. I can't believe anyone would ever argue otherwise.

[krove]

Why does everyone speak of the release date as if Watson and Sherlock 3 came to be on the very dates they came out?

We have no idea when development of Sherlock 3 or Watson actually began! Hence, arguments of "Apple copied Watson" are just ridiculous! Maybe Watson had a faster development cycle and got the product to market faster, or maybe Apple was sitting on their hands with Sherlock 3, waiting for the next major rev of OS X to pump it as a major feature. It doesn't seem likely at all that Apple would be able to totally reconstruct Sherlock 2 to make Sherlock 3 after Watson was released. There just wasn't enough time, and the thought seems rather ridiculous when you put words to it. The point is, we don't know when any of the ideas actually were conceived and put into code, so the copy arguments are bunk.

It does seem fair to recognize the origins of each as Sherlock 2 (hence the play-on name Watson and the logical follow-up of Sherlock 3).

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by z0ne81:
I can understand him in a way. Imagine if Microsoft asked Apple to come work for them on Windows...

true...

Apple takes away Watson's uniqueness (why would you pay for Watson when you can get it for free with your OS) and cuts down it's ability to make money. They do that by blatantly copying Watson. To argue otherwise is ridiculous (don't tell me that this was an inevitable progression on Sherlock. Sherlock was a search engine, Watson is much, much more).

Now, they take away Watson, and to add insult to injury, they offer the author the "privilege" or stopping development on his app and embrace the program that did all of this.

And you guys want him to be happy? When Microsoft steals something from Apple we all cry fowl. Now that Apple does the same (and realizes that the author is too poor to sue them), we are somehow supposed to shrug it off, and even applaud them?!!?? You guys are unbelievably dishonest and hypocritical....

I applaud his move to port it to Windows. That will castrate Sherlock 3's marketing punch and make it one less thing that Apple has over Winblows.

Long live Watson!!

[krove]

I guess you didn't read my post

[mrtew]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mrtew:
When Apple next starts copying all the features of FruitMenu and WindowShadeX and putting them out of business is it going to be OK just because those started as a replacement for abandoned Mac features, not original ideas?

Originally posted by CharlesS:

Absolutely. Apple originally came up with those ideas in the first place. They have every right to put them back in the OS if they please. I can't believe anyone would ever argue otherwise.

I don't think you read what you quoted... I said, "Apple next starts copying ALL the features of FruitMenu and...WindowshadeX" , meaning the many features of each that has nothing to do with the original inspiration for the idea... much like Watson was inspired by Sherlock, but Sherlock3 ripped off Watson directly.

[krove]

Originally posted by mrtew:
I don't think you read what you quoted... I said, "Apple next starts copying ALL the features of FruitMenu and...WindowshadeX" , meaning the many features of each that has nothing to do with the original inspiration for the idea... much like Watson was inspired by Sherlock, but Sherlock3 ripped off Watson directly.

Yeah...the moment watson came out Apple started development of Sherlock 3. [/sarcasm] Release dates have NOTHING to do with actual idea inception and implementation! For all we know, Sherlock 3 was done and has been done for 6 mo+ waiting for the release of Jaguar. The point is: we don't know and it is ridiculous to assume that Apple copied anyone. It does seem more likely that parallel devlopment caused this. Looking at it from another point of view: should Apple have NOT released Sherlock 3 after developing it just because someone else had the same idea?

[Millennium]

Wood said he wanted compensation for Sherlock 3, allegedly ripped off of Watson. Seems to me that a position at Apple, offered probably in no small part due to the talent he demonstrated by making that program, would have been the ultimate compensation. And he turned it down.

He could have had what he wanted. He chose to reject it. That says a lot about both sides in this debate.

[xenon]

The programming for Sherlock is much more logical and web oriented than Watson was. Much better turn-around and auto updates for the channels--basically a totally different back-end than Watson. If only the general public knew...

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't blame the guy for not wanting to work for Apple.

As sleezy as they've been acting lately, he'd likely get fired before he got his first paycheck.

I wouldn't work for Steve Jobs if you paid me a million dollars.

[Ibson]

Originally posted by xenon:
The programming for Sherlock is much more logical and web oriented than Watson was. Much better turn-around and auto updates for the channels--basically a totally different back-end than Watson. If only the general public knew...

Exactly. I can fully belive that Sherlock 3 was in development far before Watson. Watson's APIs are simple Cocoa bundles--it's quick and easy. Sherlock, on the other hand, interfaces using *JavaScript* and XML, being executed dynamically. Ther are also extensions to Interface Builder. The time it would take to develop this would be rather substantial. IMHO, Sherlock is a true web-services program. If Apple bough Watson, its source would not have been the *least* bit helpful. From a techincal standpoint, Sherlock 3 and Watson are totally diferrent beasts.

[OAW]

Dan Wood stole the idea for Watson from Sherlock because "Sherlock was a wrapper around web services first"? Oh please, those that spout that BS argument must be related to Stretch Armstrong because they are really reaching on that one!

First of all, to suggest that Watson is no different than Sherlock 2 because they have some base, core-level piece of functionality in common is like saying Microsoft Word and Appleworks are basically the same because they both are text editing applications! Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense will see that there is a helluva lot more to AppleWorks and Word than simple text editing ... and they will also see that they are very different from each other in terms of look and feel and approach.

The heretofore uniqueness of Watson can be summed up to two things:

1. Channels (functionality)
2. GUI Design (look and feel)

Certainly, Watson was "inspired" by Sherlock. Hence, the name. But just as Watson was the companion to Sherlock in the books ... so it was with respect to these applications. Watson did not recreate any of the Channels in Sherlock 2, nor did it emulate its GUI design. Watson presented information that Sherlock did not present (e.g. Movies, Package Tracking, Stock tracking, etc) ... and did so in a better, more efficient GUI. In other words, Watson tried to "play nice" and work with Sherlock rather than try to "replace" Sherlock.

Now let's juxtapose that approach from what Apple did with Sherlock 3. 8 out of 10 of the Sherlock 3 channels are duplicates of Watson channels. The only ones that are not are the Internet Channel (a territory that Watson was careful not to tread in) and the AppleCare Channel (something that makes sense to be a Apple provided option). On top of that, the GUI design is nearly identical. The only place where Apple has done something cooler than Watson is in the Yellow Pages channel with the integration of maps and driving directions. Other than that, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... then it's a damn duck!"

Let's be real about this people! Even Stevie Wonder can see that Apple pulled a straight up jack move with Sherlock 3. Now all of a sudden the "functionality" and the "look and feel" of Watson has become the "natural progression of Sherlock". Yeah right! I don't recall any conversations around here along the lines of "You know it would be cool if Sherlock presented Movie, Package Tracking, Stock Tracking, etc. information in something other than a simple summary list that requires me to double-click and open the browser to see the details." before Watson came out. It's funny how some ideas seem so "simple" and "not really innovative" when someone else thinks of them first!

The bottom line is that Watson is not the same kind of application as Sherlock 2. Sherlock 2 was a search utility. It found various types of information and displayed only a summary. It also required you to open up the browser to see the details. Watson, OTOH, found various other types of information and displayed nearly all of it without the need for a browser. Rather than taking the "one size fits all" approach of Sherlock 2 (namely, the summary result lists), it designed a GUI specific to the type of information being retrieved.

Having said all that, I submit that Sherlock 3 is much more similar to Watson than Watson is to Sherlock 2.

Now did Apple do something illegal? It's borderline, but probably not. Did they do something unethical? IMHO, most definitely. They should have compensated Dan Wood for his ideas and work. The very fact that Sherlock 3 has generated so much controversy is evidence in and of itself that the situation could have been handled a lot better by Apple.

Period. Dot. End of sentence.

OAW

[El Pre$idente]

1. Nobody has any evidence to say Sherlock would be like it is today if it were not for Watson's influence. Sherlock could have remained the same forever like iMovie is. Even hard drive searches might not have been in the Finder. There is nothing to support the idea Sherlock would have evolved when it was basically stuck and bug ridden.

2. Sherlock runs off a central server and streams features to the computer. The consequence of this is what I got today, I can't run Sherlock because of a network error.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Seems to me that a position at Apple, offered probably in no small part due to the talent he demonstrated by making that program, would have been the ultimate compensation.

In what way is making somebody subordinate to you considered "the ultimate compensation?" Couldn't it be that Mr. Wood likes working for himself, and Apple's offer was about as appealing as a lifetime supply of tickets to Barry Manilow concerts?

Really, I don't see why a job that you don't necessarily even want is considered better compensation than cold, hard cash.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Chuckit:

In what way is making somebody subordinate to you considered "the ultimate compensation?" Couldn't it be that Mr. Wood likes working for himself, and Apple's offer was about as appealing as a lifetime supply of tickets to Barry Manilow concerts?

Mr. Wood presumeably enjoys writing software for Apple, moreso than going to see Barry Manilow. I would think in that case that an offer to work for Apple would be pretty tempting.

[Mr Heliums]

Those who claim Sherlock 3 is a blatant copy of Watson haven't dealt with one obvious issue: why on earth isn't he suing them?

Given that to outsiders' eyes it's such an open and shut case, you would have thought Karelia Software would win or be offered compensation without much effort. So what's stopping them? Given the fact that the developer is now talking about porting to Windows surely indicates it wasn't some misplaced loyalty to Apple that prevented him suing. And if Watson was such a successful piece of software you'd assume Karelia had the financial wherewithal to scrimp up enough cash to fund the vaguely competent lawyer it would take to win the case on the available facts.
But nothing has happened, and I find that interesting. Could this lack of action indicate that Karelia thought it might not win the case; that Apple wasn't in fact copying Watson, that they had evidence Sherlock 3 was in development before Watson came on the market? And wouldn't Apple, if it thought it might be open to legal action, have gone the extra mile to alter Sherlock's appearance so it didn't look so similar to Watson? The fact that both products are so blatantly similar is ironically evidence that Apple was working on its own product independently. Even Microsoft has enough sense to alter things when it copies them.

The idea that both products were independently in production sounds plausible to me. I've no particular axe to grind against Karelia, but I've never thought the product was particularly innovative: it utilises Web services � something I've done with a basic AppleScript to track share prices � and puts it in a neat interface. When I first used Watson I was genuinely surprised that no-one else was doing this: it's a fairly obvious extension of Web services, and I'd lay big money on Windows offering something like this as part of its OS soon.

On another issue, the griping from Karelia does sound hollow when you remember that he's making money repurposing information, presumably without the agreement of those who are providing it. He's thereby depriving them of revenue.
While I'm sure those information providers hardly noticed Watson on the Mac, if he tries porting this idea to Windows without recompensing them, I'd figure they would squash Watson flat.

I'm also sure it won't be the only Windows application offering those sort of services. As I've said, it isn't particularly innovative and, isn't in programming terms, very hard to do.