[nforcer]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
What about the other 140 features you don't know about?


Launchbar- $20
Automater- What Aladdin utility?
Netnewswire- $40
Xcode 2- How do you know the extra features aren't there.


I'm sorry but your posts smacks of far too little knowledge to actually ascertain what users beyond yourself will get. What you see as a "minor" feature is something totally new to others. I think you have trivialized many of these features to support your weak thesis.

What about the supposed "140" other features I don't know about? Cleary the features not shown Apple does not consider to be significant enough of a selling point. Some of the other features will likely be useful in smaller ways, but if Apple is not making a big deal about them, they must not consider them to have as much appeal or selling power as the main ones listed on their site right now. Also keep in mind that some of the "150" Panther "features" were things like the Action toolbar button in the Finder. And keep in mind that neither Jaguar nor Panther had any other features as critical as the ones listed on the Apple page added (things like Rendezvous or Expose), after they were first announced.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by dj forge:
all this talk of launchbar

IMO, Quicksilver is much better:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22549

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but you would be wrong

[Millennium]

Originally posted by nforcer:
What about the supposed "140" other features I don't know about? Cleary the features not shown Apple does not consider to be significant enough of a selling point.

Either that, or they're not in a demonstratable state at the moment.

This scenario is actually quite likely. With a "first half of 2005" release timeframe -that could be up to a year- they've got a good 6-10 months of development and QA time ahead of them. Good software takes time, but the amount of work you can do in 3-5 months (assuming they allow half of the remaining time for QA, which they probably should if their recent updates are any indication) is still staggering.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by Developer:
The problem is that Apple is stealing ideas from its pool of creative developers, which is legal but "bad karma". And then complains in large posters about Redmond stealing those exact same ideas. That's bold.

Actually, I think Apple was moreso saying, "we copied your features, Redmond. We've already done everything you're trying to do."

Apple is just blatantly copying everyone with this release... yikes.

But I agree... it's bad karma for Apple to do this.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by nforcer:
Spotlight: While it will have an underlying metadata and faster search system to use, the primary use of the feature is already accomplished by Launchbar. So I can't call this a major feature for me.[/b]

OK, that's your loss. I tried Launchbar a while back and didn't care for it. Same goes with Quicksilver. I have to admit, I doubt I'll use the menubar interface to Spotlight either; I'll probably stick to the smart-folder stuff.

Dashboard: Konfab like. And I don't really care about Konfab. Not a major feature for me.

As a fellow Konfab-skeptic, I'm forced to agree with you on this one. Again, does anyone know if Apple actually purchased Konfab or something? The similarities are way too strong to ignore (why would Apple, a company already heavily invested in AppleScript and Python, choose JavaScript to build its widgets?). I doubt the Konfab guys would be allowed to talk about it before Tiger's release anyway if it were true, but something doesn't smell right at all here.

Automator: Looks like that one Aladdin utility that was expensive and didn't do very well. I never used it. I don't plan on using this, but it might come in handy a couple of times. Still not a major feature for me.

Good for you, but be warned: the various Mac tips&tricks sites will be flooded with new uses for this app within a month of Tiger's release.

Expose is a shiny new power drill: nice looking and good at doing what it does. Rendezvous is a table saw: not much to look at, but again great for what it does. Automator, on the other hand, is a roll of duct tape: even less to look at than Rendezvous, but you find new uses for it every day.

Much of the raw power of Unix comes from its philosophy of small tools which do one thing very well and integrate with other tools to do things far greater than each could do alone. Until now, this kind of power has been locked away beneath a command line, because no one could figure out how to do a decent GUI for the various means that existed for tying apps together.

Automator is yet another attempt at a way to knit GUI apps together. I admit that I am skeptical of this, but if anyone can do it then Apple can. And if it works, the results will be nothing short of glorious. I guarantee that if hardcore GUI users can finally get a taste of the kind of power CLI-jockeys have been able to wield for decades, in a format that the GUI users can easily understand, we're not just talking new features. We're talking revo-freaking-lution.

Safari RSS: I already use NetNewsWire. Not a major feature for me.

Good for you; if you're into the more advanced stuff then Safari/RSS is indeed not for you. Myself, I don't use an aggregator yet myself, and this isn't going to be the one to change my mind.

However, many users still don't even know what RSS (and Atom, its up and coming replacement, which Safari/RSS also supports) is. For these people, this is a huge feature, even if they don't know it yet.

.Mac Sync: I don't use .Mac. Not a major feature for me.

Good for you. Say, did you know there's a way to point all your .mac Web stuff at another server so that you can run your own backups and such? It's not something Apple puts a nice shiny interface on, but this is actually more useful than I think you know.

Voiceover: Not a major feature for me.

No, but I don't think you understand what a huge thing this really is. You may not use it. There are a lot of handicapped people, however, who will consider this thing a godsend. Not just them, either, but also accessibility-conscious developers (Carbon/Cocoa and Web alike) who couldn't get screenreader software before, which costs hundreds -sometimes thousands- of dollars on Windows and wasn't available for OSX at all.

And, oh yeah, one more thing. Do you really want to know a killer app for Voiceover? I'll tell you: everyone who has ever retrofit their car with a Mac as an MP3 player should be positively drooling over this. Think about it: before this, there was always the safety issue of having to keep your eyes on the road, which made even a touch-screen interface less than optimal. The solution: aural interfaces, such as Voiceover can provide.

For that matter, let's look at what else this machine sitting in the car could do now. Hook it up with Safari, and suddenly you've got in-car Web browsing. Not so good with Web forums yet (no voice command), but now you've got music and news at will. Sound like a killer app yet? Combine this with any voice-dictation software, and things really open up: Web forums are no longer an obstacle, but let's throw e-mail into the mix just to make it even more interesting.

Mark my words: "iPod your BMW" is only the beginning.

iChat AV: Instead of adding something like tabbed messaging or a log viewer, features that would affect a bigger portion of users, they opted to do something for a smaller group and add multiuser video and audio conferencing. I don't use either. Not a major feature for me.

And something else not mentioned in the keynote: XMPP (nee Jabber) instant messaging. This may not seem like much, but if you look at what Jabber has done with their server product, you'll find something that people have been clamoring for since iChat's early days: multiple IM service support. Install the right gateways, and in one fell swoop iChat supports AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, IRC, and even more. Still sound like something that doesnt "affect a bigger portion of users"?

Xcode 2: It will have some nice things like auto vectorization, G5 optimized compiling, etc. But the improvements aren't nearly as significant as fix and continue or distributed builds or zerolink featured in Xcode 1. So this is only somewhat of a major feature for me.

Oh, really? These things may not be gee-whiz eyecandy, but when people start compiling their apps with this, believe me; you will feel the difference.

This is why Apple should focus more on general OS features that don't already have something similar in place, and why it should develop something that almost all developers and users can leverage. Features like Rendezvous and Quartz Extreme in 10.2, and Expose in 10.3.

OK, wise guy; any ideas? You have absolutely no right to complain about "no general OS features" if you can't even think of one they should add.

Smart folders in the Finder and Mail.app that should have existed in 10.3? Right now, that's all it looks like.

OK, nforcer, now you've made me mad. How dare you get all high-minded about what "should have been" in earlier releases? What the hell do you know about the system software development process? What gives you such awesome cosmic wisdom?

[getoffmacnn]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Re: Apple ripping off Konfabulator.

According to a post over at Slashdot.org, Apple had something called "Desk Accessories" which predated Konfabulator by a long time

And here's the Wikipedia entry:

Kelly Hogan invented widgets way before Konfabulator. He posted a desktop that looked like a wooden table top covered with user defined widgets like a clock and a picture frame all linked to apps. I remember that from ages ago and when Konfab came out I said it was the same concept.

[SomeToast]

Originally posted by Spliff:
According to a post over at Slashdot.org, Apple had something called "Desk Accessories" which predated Konfabulator by a long time.

That's a sad comment on oh, so many levels.

[SkullMacPN]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
... Of course they could simply approach the developer and make them a fair offer to buy the concept and perhaps offer a job. In most cases I'm guessing the Apple offer would far exceed potential future income from Shareware sales, and therefore would likely be accepted.

Been there, done that. Apple hired the developer of a 3rd party menubar clock extension which was then included in System 7(.5??) IIRC.

Apple hired the author of SoundJam (IIRC, he was getting a shitty deal at the time under contract with C&G to write and maintain it) to write iTunes. C&G cried foul (mostly years later when they finally went under), but then again they never made an exclusive deal with this guy, nor did they compensate him fairly for the amount of work he did. Then again, IMO, C&G ran under a flawed business model, but thats a whole other debate.

While developing Sherlock 3, Apple offered to hire the developer of Watson, but he turned it down. Of course, then he went around pitching a fit about it. I hope he's happy with whatever he got for finally selling Watson.

Apple seems to have been more than willing to compensate 3rd party developers (in the form of jobs at Apple) for their ideas when they are unique and innovative.

[JLL]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
isn't anyone alse worried about the lack of fast user switching in the menu bar did they get rid of it or is it located somewhere else in the os sure 150 new features but what is happening to the old ones.

There is no name in the left corner unless you ENABLE fast user switching.

[JLL]

Originally posted by SkullMacPN:
Apple hired the author of SoundJam (IIRC, he was getting a shitty deal at the time under contract with C&G to write and maintain it) to write iTunes.

AFAIK he actually worked at Apple while making SJ in his spare time.

C&G never owned anything - they were publishers.

[smeger]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Much of the raw power of Unix comes from its philosophy of small tools which do one thing very well and integrate with other tools to do things far greater than each could do alone. Until now, this kind of power has been locked away beneath a command line, because no one could figure out how to do a decent GUI for the various means that existed for tying apps together.

Automator is yet another attempt at a way to knit GUI apps together. I admit that I am skeptical of this, but if anyone can do it then Apple can. And if it works, the results will be nothing short of glorious. I guarantee that if hardcore GUI users can finally get a taste of the kind of power CLI-jockeys have been able to wield for decades, in a format that the GUI users can easily understand, we're not just talking new features. We're talking revo-freaking-lution.

You pegged my feelings on Automator exactly. About six months ago, I was brainstorming new app ideas and tried to imagine a way to apply the concept of "small tools linked together in the command line" to GUI apps. What I envisioned was pretty similar to Automator (although nowhere near as nice). Automator is indeed going to be a revolution, and what's more, it's going to quickly become indispensable to the print & video industries. These guys are very concerned with "workflow", and making it easier for them to automate communication between apps is a huge win for Apple.

Tiger seems very much to be focused on providing enabling technologies for developers. Automator is going to be huge, as is extensible metadata (developers can write plugins so that files created with their apps can include metadata). CoreImage and CoreVideo are going to be used everywhere in a few years. Dashboard is a eyecandy, but eyecandy sells.

As a developer, I'm really excited about what I've seen of Tiger. Apple's given me a whole bunch of new tools I can use to supporting myself as a shareware author.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SomeToast:
That's a sad comment on oh, so many levels.

I'm not sure I understand.

It is true that Apple created the Desk Accessory concept long before Konfabulator (or any of the technologies it uses, for that matter) were ever conceived. At the same time, this particular implementation of the concept is rather worrisome:

• Unnecessary use of Konfabulator's own terminology. Apple has usually been careful to avoid going that far, unless they have compensated the developer (a la WindowShade). It doesn't appear that they have done that in this case.
• Widgets are written using JavaScript. Not to knock JavaScript, but Apple is already heavily invested in two other languages (AppleScript and Python); why not one of these? Or better yet, why not language bindings to the API so that apps could be written in many languages? If this were being written from scratch, it would probably be far easier to do it this way than to have to deal with JavaScript bindings.
• The feature is tied to Expose. It seems that most people who haven't found Konfabulator useful haven't found Expose useful either, for similar reasons.

Do these things necessarily mean that Apple has stolen Konfabulator's code? Not at all. But they are uncharacteristic of Apple, and this makes them cause for concern and possibly alarm.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Developer:
It is stealing. That means some seriously bad karma for Steve Jobs. How ironic for someone touting good karma at every iTunes presentation. And are the "Redmond, start your photocopiers" signs really at WWDC? That's sarcasm.

It's really tough to build a livelihood around Macintosh shareware. What's the point to even try if Apple steals the ideas of exactly those people who succeed?

And then this was totally unnecessary. The consensus is Konfabulator that sucks (sorry Arlo). It looks cool, but it doesn't bring any real productivity enhancements. I have a brushed metal calculator and if I'm sick of the colour I dash over to the orange one!? Give me a break. As unnecessary as stealing Watson and then abandoning Sherlock. Or have we seen any new or updated plug-ins? Where are the promised localized plug-ins?

So why not leave those things to these creative shareware developers who are committed to the product?

This is very low of Apple.

Can you possibly complain any more? have you researched any other features that have been included in the OS that may have been addressed by shareware in the past? How about secure delete in the finder? Did you cry about that? Maybe when os x came out and the dock was there you had a problem with gomenu? textedit pushing out ms word? maybe ichat vs. aim? itunes vs other mp3 players? Give me a break - at some point you need to realize that when you develop a shareware app that extends the operating system itself it might get rolled into a future OS update. If I wrote something that helped schedule cron jobs and then got all upset when apple relesed a program that did it, guess what - that's not Apple's problem.

also keep in mind that now that it's being developed by apple it might get more support and be more functional. I don't remember the konfabulator widgets being all that great when I tried them out anyway.

[JKT]

I posted this in another thread in the Software forum and it seems appropriate for here:

"I use Watson every day too, but what most people fail to realise is that it isn't the app that is the important thing*, it is the modules. Sherlock is a good app, but it lacks the modules I use in Watson and that is the only reason I continue to use Watson every day and Sherlock only infrequently. If the developer of Watson had any sense they would have abandoned their app on the release of Sherlock and developed better modules for Sherlock and sold those instead of their app (with current Watson users at the time getting them for free). Likewise Konfabulator - if they have any sense, build better widgets for Dashboard than those on offer/expand what is on offer and sell them instead. Hell, it works for the folks developing plug-ins for iMovie and themes for iDVD..."

My conclusion - the Watson and Konfab developers are fools for not realising the potential of having their ideas implemented by Apple on EVERY SINGLE MAC (running Panther/Tiger). The market for the actual important part(s) of their product has just exploded.

* I'll just edit this part here to add that Watson actually stinks in the way you have to update modules - download then quit then relaunch... Sherlock does this far better. Watson is actually considerably worse in many respects in the way it works than Sherlock.

[iNeusch]

I like your ideas !
Cheap widgets that look good

[Horsepoo!!!]

On one hand people say that Apple steps on developers toes by releasing something like Dashboard (which isn't a new concept by any means...even if Apple chose to use the same terminology and scripting language as Konfabulator) but on the other hand Apple releases SDK for Spotlight, Automator, and CoreImage/Video.

So, yeah, Apple might be scaring or killing off some developers but, at the same, they should be bringing in some new developers with CoreImage.

Yes, it's sad that some devs feel like a target but a good idea is a good idea and the things that could benefit being integrated into the OS (Spotlight for example) should be integrated into the OS. One shouldn't have to go on the internet to look for such a tool.

Spotlight will be amazing. And what developers will be able to do with CoreImage will be extraordinary.

Do you feel like Apple has stepped on your toes? Strike back and build your own iPhoto or Final Cut Pro...you can do it with such things as QuickTime and CoreImage. But don't just sit there whining and contemplate suing.

[Developer]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
Can you possibly complain any more? have you researched any other features that have been included in the OS that may have been addressed by shareware in the past? How about secure delete in the finder? Did you cry about that?

Oh come on. This is totally different than implementing some limited general feature like secure delete. Konfabulator when released was unique in look and implementation. Dashboard is a carbon copy of Konfabulator. Everybody who has ever seen Konfabulator can see it. Don't come with Desk Accessories, unless you can show they were front ends to other applications and implemented in JavaScript.
The new larger title bars with included search field are a carbon copy of the titlebars in Longhorn. Everybody can see it.

It's all right to seek inspiration and build something own and unique on such inspiration. But such blatant copies as Apple does in Tiger are very very low. And then complaining about Redmond's photocopiers...

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Developer:
Oh come on. This is totally different than implementing some limited general feature like secure delete. Konfabulator when released was unique in look and implementation. Dashboard is a carbon copy of Konfabulator. Everybody who has ever seen Konfabulator can see it. Don't come with Desk Accessories, unless you can show they were front ends to other applications and implemented in JavaScript.
The new larger title bars with included search field are a carbon copy of the titlebars in Longhorn. Everybody can see it.

It's all right to seek inspiration and build something own and unique on such inspiration. But such blatant copies as Apple does in Tiger are very very low. And then complaining about Redmond's photocopiers...

[kman42]

My take on konfab vs. dashboard. There are some useful konfab widgets, but the overall implementation of konfab was terrible when I tried it. They weren't unified in any particular way: there was no easy way to get them on and off the screen quickly and easily. That was the biggest drawback; they were just a set of tiny apps that cluttered up my already crowded desktop. I understand the latest version (1.7?), which I have not tried, addresses this in some way. This would probably make konfab much more useful for me.

I know I had the idea of using expose to fly in certain apps. I was thinking of processor monitors and a gui for seti@home (I'm sure those will be made soon enough), but it's just an obvious extension of expose. Whether or not apple had the idea of using expose for this even before konfab came out, I have no doubt that they looked at konfab in their development process. Nevertheless, Apple added the key component to actually make widgets useful--the ability to activate and deactivate them easily.

It's really a moot point. This is an obvious extension of expose that makes perfect sense. There are lots of little accessory apps that SHOULD be accessed in this way and it SHOULD be a part of the system. Apple is going to include it and lots of people will find it useful. I feel a little bad for the konfab developers, but not too bad. In all seriousness, their app didn't deserve all the hype initially piled upon it. I remember reading all sorts of articles about how konfab was the next killer app. People realized that, hey, this is nifty but it should just be a part of the system not something we have to pay for. And Apple complied.

kman

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Do you feel like Apple has stepped on your toes? Strike back and build your own iPhoto or Final Cut Pro...you can do it with such things as QuickTime and CoreImage.

Not really. One of the primary strengths of iPhoto as a product is the fact that it's included with every Mac sold. It would be pretty difficult to persuade Apple to do this for you...except in a Watson/Konfabulator kind of way.

That's the point. Apple isn't just another software company; they're the people who make the operating system. You really can't compete with Apple on their own turf. Even if you build a better product, it will not gain as widespread acceptance. If somebody else ripped off Konfab, I don't think anyone would be complaining. The problem (from the bystander's point of view) is that it looks like Apple is throwing their weight around at people who should be their friends.

[Millennium]

The more I think about the Konfabulator question, the more I have to come down on the side that this is a case of outright stealing, rather than just co-opting a good idea.

Why do I believe this? The fact is that Apple seems to have gone out of its way to copy Konfabulator, right down to the flaws. For example, in many ways it would have been easier to provide a language-independent API and then create bindings to various languages, including JavaScript if they desired. However, that's not what happened. Instead, as with Konfab, they appear to have bound it tightly to a single language.

Next question: does Dashboard even use JSCore, or are we going to find out that it uses the same engine used in Gecko, as Konfab does? My guess is that this will end up being the telltale sign as to how much copying was really done.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Not really. One of the primary strengths of iPhoto as a product is the fact that it's included with every Mac sold. It would be pretty difficult to persuade Apple to do this for you...except in a Watson/Konfabulator kind of way.

That's the point. Apple isn't just another software company; they're the people who make the operating system. You really can't compete with Apple on their own turf. Even if you build a better product, it will not gain as widespread acceptance. If somebody else ripped off Konfab, I don't think anyone would be complaining. The problem (from the bystander's point of view) is that it looks like Apple is throwing their weight around at people who should be their friends.

True, true...but you can't expect to have 100% marketshare all the time or forever. So what if you're competing with Apple.

[MacGorilla]

Its a development pre-release. All these doom and gloom statements are premature.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Why do I believe this? The fact is that Apple seems to have gone out of its way to copy Konfabulator, right down to the flaws. For example, in many ways it would have been easier to provide a language-independent API and then create bindings to various languages, including JavaScript if they desired. However, that's not what happened. Instead, as with Konfab, they appear to have bound it tightly to a single language.

Next question: does Dashboard even use JSCore, or are we going to find out that it uses the same engine used in Gecko, as Konfab does? My guess is that this will end up being the telltale sign as to how much copying was really done.

I think you are going way over the top here. You think Apple actually STOLE this guys source? Maybe they sent Jennifer Garner in in some fleshy disguise. Seriously, it would cost Apple less to code this from scratch then to try and reverse engineer a tiny shareware app.

Why JavaScript? Why not. Perhaps Apple wants to move away from proprietary technologies for little stuff like this and leverage the vast multitude of web and other developers who are very comfortable with JavaScript. There may also be the added motivation for compatibility with Konfab widgets as a convenience to people who have invested a lot of energy in them.

The term "widget" is so old in use by both the business world AND the UI world that to attribute it to Konfab is silly.

My bet is Apple will not use a new JavaScript library if one already exists in the OS frameworks.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Developer:
Don't come with Desk Accessories, unless you can show they were front ends to other applications and implemented in JavaScript.
The new larger title bars with included search field are a carbon copy of the titlebars in Longhorn. Everybody can see it.

Implementation matters not one bit when the topic is UI concepts -JavaScript didn't even exist back when DAs where common so that is obviously a loaded requirement - all that matters is the user perception.

I used to make a fair amount of money on a shareware Java IDE back in the day, then suddenly SUN released Forte, JBuilder came along, and about 100 others - all better and free - mine was only $20 but not free nonetheless. I was a bit annoyed when that happened, but that is life. You can't expect a niche market to remain your niche forever - anything that works will be mainstreamed either by the OS vendor or by the competition.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by nforcer:
This is why Apple should focus more on general OS features that don't already have something similar in place, and why it should develop something that almost all developers and users can leverage.

Let's see... Core Image, the metadata system, a way for developers to add synchronization to their products via .Mac sync, and the Xcode improvements. Sounds to me like there's plenty of new stuff that almost all developers can leverage.

Voiceover is just a fancy way of saying that the user interface can be spoken aloud for people who have seeing difficulties... something that usually requires a $1000 add on product for Windows. Very useful for blind/nearly blind people... not to mention that the federal government won't consider buying something if it can't be made more accessible to people with disabilities.

Many of these features are built-in to Windows or will be built in to Longhorn. Apple needs to put this in so they can say "we released it first" and also so that people won't complain that "OS X doesn't have feature X that Windows does! It's an inferior product!"

If you don't find the upgrade compelling enough for you, then don't buy it.

[osxisfun]

found this comment on the oreilly boards.

snip:




One of Arlo Rose's early claims to fame, long before Konfabulator, was an extension to Mac OS 7.x called "Aaron". What Aaron did was copy the default Copland interface (aka 'Platinum') from the then-planned Mac OS 8. It was a straight up copy.




snip:


wow. i had forgotten about "Aaron"....kinda puts a whole new light on this whole konfab/dashboard back and forth...

[Developer]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
One of Arlo Rose's early claims to fame, long before Konfabulator, was an extension to Mac OS 7.x called "Aaron". What Aaron did was copy the default Copland interface (aka 'Platinum') from the then-planned Mac OS 8. It was a straight up copy.

You forget to mention that Rose was developing the Appearance Manager for Apple at that time. So it's fair to assume that Aaron was released with the consent of his back then employer.

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by Developer:
You forget to mention that Rose was developing the Appearance Manager for Apple at that time. So it's fair to assume that Aaron was released with the consent of his back then employer.

First, i did not say it i was posting another person's comment.

Second, are you sure? its been a while but i thought there was a little wrangling. that being said I do not think its "fair to assume" as he may have had even less of right to make and even less of a right to copy the interface as an employee he would be prohibited from distributed derivative apple works due to nda and other employee contracts.

that is, Unless he had a special agreement with apple...

[smeger]

Originally posted by Developer:
You forget to mention that Rose was developing the Appearance Manager for Apple at that time. So it's fair to assume that Aaron was released with the consent of his back then employer.

I think that Arlo didn't get involved until Aaron had morphed into Kaleidoscope. I think Aaron was purely Greg Landweber's baby. I'm not positive, but that's my recollection. And I think that Arlo was no longer working for Apple when he began working with Landweber.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by absmiths:
I think you are going way over the top here. You think Apple actually STOLE this guys source? Maybe they sent Jennifer Garner in in some fleshy disguise. Seriously, it would cost Apple less to code this from scratch then to try and reverse engineer a tiny shareware app.

I doubt that they stole the code, if that's what you mean. But they've gone out of their way to copy the idea right down to the flaws, rather than improve upon it in any meaningful way. That's the important difference; rather than make substantial improvements (and there was most certainly room to do so), they just lifted the idea wholesale.

Why JavaScript? Why not.

Why any language? Use OSA bindings and let the languages sort themselves out; currently AppleScript, JavaScript, Python, Perl, Ruby, Tcl, and a multitude of other languages can all go through OSA. This would allow developers to program in their language of choice, while being easier for Apple to maintain.

Perhaps Apple wants to move away from proprietary technologies for little stuff like this and leverage the vast multitude of web and other developers who are very comfortable with JavaScript.

OSA is not a proprietary technology. In fact, because of the JavaScript OSA bindings, Apple could have continued to leverage the multitude of developers who are comfortable with JavaScript. This is what's called "doing it right the first time", and it's one of the critical problems with Konfabulator: poor up-front design has locked it into one specific language.

In JavaScript's case, this is particularly problematic. JS is not known for having a good set of class libraries, and although there has been some headway on this, the fact remains that right now you can do much more with Perl (which was originally planned to be Konfabulator's language before they switched to JavaScript), Python, or many of the other languages which come with OSX by default. Even in the Perl days they were sticking to the flawed one-language-only paradigm, but if they had to stick to a single language there were many better choices. Most widget "developers" don't even know JavaScript anyway; they just muck around with existing widgets, so it seems as though the goal of "leveraging the vast number of JavaScript developers" has failed.

There may also be the added motivation for compatibility with Konfab widgets as a convenience to people who have invested a lot of energy in them.

I doubt it, but we'll see. I don't think any compatibility between the two is actually planned, though.

My bet is Apple will not use a new JavaScript library if one already exists in the OS frameworks.

We will see, then, I guess. This is one of those times I really wish I had the Tiger preview DVD, just to get a good look at that.

[Phoenix1701]

Honestly, folks, the reason Apple chose JavaScript for Dashboard ought to be pretty obvious: Dashboard widgets all use WebKit, which means they get free access to JavaScriptCore. A universal API that could support any language would be an extra layer of complexity, and might very well involve more work than the entire rest of the project. I think it's clear that Dashboard and Konfabulator share a lot of ideas, but there are logical reasons that this is so. I think Arlo's only "mistake" was that he got too much of it right; when Apple came along to do their own version, there was much on which they could not significantly improve.

Also, I don't wish to take part in the rumor mill here, but on Konfabulator.com's forums there is a discussion about this with Arlo himself wherein reference is made to an earlier conversation -- at least several weeks earlier -- where Arlo apparently mentioned a new Apple product called Dashboard. I didn't hunt around for the older conversation, but if this is the case then it seems Apple at least had the common decency to let Arlo in on things a little earlier than everyone else so he'd know what was going on and wouldn't be blindsided by it. I'd definitely be interested to hear what he has to say. Karelia's Web site mentions that they're not really upset about Sherlock 3 anymore because it's opened up as many opportunities for them as it closed; maybe the same will be true here.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Phoenix1701:
Honestly, folks, the reason Apple chose JavaScript for Dashboard ought to be pretty obvious: Dashboard widgets all use WebKit, which means they get free access to JavaScriptCore.

Are you sure that they use WebKit? Where'd you get that information?

A universal API that could support any language would be an extra layer of complexity, and might very well involve more work than the entire rest of the project.

Actually, that's incorrect.

Dashboard itself is almost certainly written in Objective-C, or possibly C++. Furthermore, JavaScriptCore alone is not enough for something like this; Apple (as with the Konfabulator guys) has to have exposed an API to JavaScript, which itself would be written in whatever language Dashboard was written in. In effect, the "extra layer of compatibility" has to be written anyway; adding bindings for other languages is not all that much more work.

[hmurchison2001]

Are you sure that they use WebKit? Where'd you get that information?

I believe it may be in the keynote. I distinctly remember reading or hearing that webkit is used for Dashboard widgets.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Are you sure that they use WebKit? Where'd you get that information?

Steve says it's webkit in the keynote.

[morgan]

Originally posted by smeger:
I think that Arlo didn't get involved until Aaron had morphed into Kaleidoscope. I think Aaron was purely Greg Landweber's baby. I'm not positive, but that's my recollection. And I think that Arlo was no longer working for Apple when he began working with Landweber.

Yeah, i think you're right, that's how I remember it as well (or vaguely remember it anyway).

I also don't think dashboard/konfab are anything like DA's. The ability to create your own front ends to different applications goes far beyond DA's. I always though Konfab was a great idea, but the widgets weren't there yet. Maybe now with Dashboard we'll see loads of new functionality.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Steve says it's webkit in the keynote.

Ah. OK, that makes sense. I have not seen the actual keynote speech yet, though I followed along yesterday in #macnn.

However, I would caution that this does not necessarily mean that the widget code runs inside JavaScriptCore. This is certainly a possibility, but JSCore would have to be significantly extended with things that for security reasons cannot be used in a Web browser (working with local files, for example). Apple could certainly have done this, or they could have taken the easy way out and gone with SpiderMonkey (Mozilla's engine). Exactly which one they chose to do remains to be seen.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Developer:
Oh come on. Konfabulator when released was unique in look and implementation. Dashboard is a carbon copy of Konfabulator. Everybody who has ever seen Konfabulator can see it.

And, it could be argued, that Konfabulator is a complete rip-off of DesktopX, a Windows product. And it preceded Konfabulator by three years.

Read about it here: http://draginol.joeuser.com/printer.asp?AID=4472&u=0

So Axl Rose will just have to suck it up and compete the best he can. I'm still pissed at him for breaking up Guns 'n' Roses.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by morgan:
I also don't think dashboard/konfab are anything like DA's. The ability to create your own front ends to different applications goes far beyond DA's.

Yes, and no. Creating your own frontends to different applications actually sounds more like FaceSpan, a kit for building GUIs on top of AppleScript from way back in The Day. The FaceSpan concept, in turn, came largely from Tcl/Tk, a scripting language and simple cross-platform GUI toolkit popular in Unix (Tcl has been available in OSX since the 10.0 days, and with a little luck Tk may be coming in Tiger; you can already compile and install it yourself). You could also look at RealBASIC, which is commonly used to create front-ends nowadays.

In terms of UI, though, the Dashboard/Konfabulator concept is taken directly from DAs. The point of DAs was not that they were accessible via the Apple Menu; the point -from the backend perspective- was that in a single-tasking operating system, they provided a kind of crude multitasking interface. Why would you want to do this? That's the frontend part of the DA concept: small tools -"widgets", if you will- which could integrate well with many different applications.

[JLL]

.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JLL:
Dashboard is using WebKit which is why the widgets are made using JavaScript.

Dashboard only allows access to WebKit. It only allows widgets to use HTML views (which, I might point out, are accessible from many languages, including anything with complete access to Carbon or Cocoa).

WebKit hasn't been extended to actually allow for the creation of widgets. That means that JavaScriptKit access doesn't come "for free" at all; Apple could have quite easily made universal language bindings.

By the way, it is highly unlikely that Apple is insane enough to allow widgets access to JavaScript inside their WebKit views. The security issues would be mind-boggling.

[iluvmypowerbook]

Man I can't believe we're so fired up over this Dashboard thing. Big deal! It looks great and if it's built into the OS then all the better. We're not talking millions of dollars here. Apple has probably always had this idea in mind (Expose) and have now implemented it into Tiger.

If you want to talk about stealing ideas then point the finger at window$.

As for Core Image let's hope companies like Adobe actually take it up and instigate it correctly. Apple have handed them a golden egg, I bet Adobe will hang out for Longhorn before they do and then screw that up too.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by iluvmypowerbook:
Man I can't believe we're so fired up over this Dashboard thing. Big deal! It looks great and if it's built into the OS then all the better.

I would say precisely the opposite. It looks clownish and I would be overjoyed if it were not built into the OS.

We're not talking millions of dollars here. Apple has probably always had this idea in mind (Expose) and have now implemented it into Tiger.

And I'll bet Apple's had Core Image in mind since the Lisa. Somehow, anytime it looks like Apple stole an idea, it's really that they had it first and just hadn't gotten around to putting it in. I told my 12th-grade English teacher the same thing when he said I'd plagiarized my story about two star-crossed lovers.

If you want to talk about stealing ideas then point the finger at window$.

Yes, Microsoft steals ideas (or should I say "secretly has them first?") as well.

[kman42]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
...I would be overjoyed if it were not built into the OS.

Why? Just don't press the F8 key.

Somehow, anytime it looks like Apple stole an idea, it's really that they had it first and just hadn't gotten around to putting it in.

I don't know if they stole it or not. They certainly took some inspiration from it. But we have no way of knowing if Apple had intended to make Dashboard a part of Expose long ago. They only release an OS update every 12-18 months, so we can't say. They could have had it in mind as part of Expose about the time that Jaguar came out and they just couldn't get it done in time for the Panther release of Expose. In the meantime, Konfab came out. Oh yeah, Konfab just stuck it's widgets on the desktop in a totally useless way until the most recent release. You couldn't access them quickly with a single click. Did they steal the quick access idea from Expose? You bet. Theft/inspiration? It's irrelevant. It's a cool idea, made even cooler by its integration with Expose.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by JLL:
There is no name in the left corner unless you ENABLE fast user switching.

yes but wouldn't it make more sense to have the off colored menus on the edge

besides they used fast user switching in the demo.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm not sure I understand.

It is true that Apple created the Desk Accessory concept long before Konfabulator (or any of the technologies it uses, for that matter) were ever conceived. At the same time, this particular implementation of the concept is rather worrisome:

• Unnecessary use of Konfabulator's own terminology. Apple has usually been careful to avoid going that far, unless they have compensated the developer (a la WindowShade). It doesn't appear that they have done that in this case.
• Widgets are written using JavaScript. Not to knock JavaScript, but Apple is already heavily invested in two other languages (AppleScript and Python); why not one of these? Or better yet, why not language bindings to the API so that apps could be written in many languages? If this were being written from scratch, it would probably be far easier to do it this way than to have to deal with JavaScript bindings.
• The feature is tied to Expose. It seems that most people who haven't found Konfabulator useful haven't found Expose useful either, for similar reasons.

Do these things necessarily mean that Apple has stolen Konfabulator's code? Not at all. But they are uncharacteristic of Apple, and this makes them cause for concern and possibly alarm.

I am just guessing but what if widgets start up every time you enable them that would keep them from sucking power and would explain the javascript for startup speed and more people know the language.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
As a fellow Konfab-skeptic, I'm forced to agree with you on this one. Again, does anyone know if Apple actually purchased Konfab or something? The similarities are way too strong to ignore (why would Apple, a company already heavily invested in AppleScript and Python, choose JavaScript to build its widgets?). I doubt the Konfab guys would be allowed to talk about it before Tiger's release anyway if it were true, but something doesn't smell right at all here.

You have a good sense of smell...

After the keynote address introducing Dashboard, rumors swirled around WWDC that Apple had tried to purchase Konfabulator, but Rose and his partner refused the deal -- a point Rose emphatically denies.

"They never contacted us," said Rose. "Whether or not we would have taken them up on anything, the fact that they didn't even bother is appalling to me."

The use of the term "Widgets" in Dashboard led many people to the conclusion that Dashboard was somehow based on Konfabulator. While Rose readily admits that the term has been around for many years to describe a variety of things, he contends that in the Mac market "Widgets" have been closely associated with Konfabulator.

"What surprised me more than anything else is that they've called their things widgets -- talk about a total rip-off," said Rose. "Now when someone talks about widgets in the context of little floating applications they're not going to know if they're talking about Apple's thing or our thing. Given how studious Apple is about trying to make sure their copyrights and names are protected, I find it appalling that they would take that route rather than calling them something even slightly different."

<snip>

"When I saw Apple's banners saying, 'Redmond, start your photocopiers' I thought that was the creepiest thing they could have done knowing that half of the technologies they are tossing into Tiger are things they lifted from other people," said Rose.

Rose and business partner Perry Clarke have been working on a longer term plan for Konfabulator that includes an upcoming release for the Windows platform. While Rose, a longtime Mac developer, said he wasn't ready to leave development of Macintosh (news - web sites) products, he wonders where the incentive is for developers on the Mac platform.

"It makes it next to impossible for me to want to develop anything cool for the Mac platform," said Rose. "If Apple is just going to take the cool ideas and basically kill off the small developers, what incentive is there? I'm not saying we are not going to continue developing Konfabulator, but it's hard to have an upbeat attitude about it after this.

"The fact they don't stop to think that they are ruining the livelihood of third-party developers is insane," said Rose.

That last line says it all.

[Ganesha]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[*]The feature is tied to Expose. It seems that most people who haven't found Konfabulator useful haven't found Expose useful either, for similar reasons.

This isn't true, I use Expos� many many times a day as:

1. An application switcher.
2. Window finder.
3. Clear to desktop thing.

I've tried Konfabulator a few times, most recently in its 1.7 incarnation, to see if the new features would address my needs and I don't think Dashboard will fit my needs either.

[osxisfun]

>haven't found Expose useful either, for similar reasons.


Speak for yourself. i live off the thing.

[clarkgoble]

I have to come down with the people who think this controversy is a tad overblown. Heavens, I'm a small business owner and I remember rumors when Panther came out that they may be duplicating the functionality of one of our upcoming programs. It caused some consternation, but fortunately we're cross platform so not *that* much. But as small business owners we also realize that any gravy train is bound to come to an end when Microsoft, Apple or others include the product in their products or some free open source version comes out killing our market.

It's a fact of life. You always have to assume someone is going to copy you. Further you can't assume your product will sell forever. It's pretty rare to have products that last more than 10 years and you should consider yourself lucky if you have one that lasts 5.

So what do you do? Diversify! We've got a couple of products coming out that are tangentially related to our main business but which are different enough so as to be targeting different markets. That way if one product get usurped we have something else to fall back on. We're also looking at investing profits into real estate so we aren't tied for our livelihood into one industry.

So while I can understand the frustration of having one element of ones business cut out, I really don't feel that much sympathy. Especially when similar products are on other platforms (Windows, Linux), the product is pretty similar to old Apple technologies, and that further in the iteration of the past year, I didn't think the product that fantastic. (i.e. desktop widgets - mainly because windows obscure them)

Apple came up with a fairly great difference - tie them to Expose. Suddenly they become much more useful. Yes Konfabulator did that this week. But that's kind of late in the game. I honestly don't see much use for Konfabulator in its old format except as a "gee whiz" theming tool. It really didn't offer a lot of productivity gains. (Neither did MS' active desktop nor BeOS' ability to drop widgets in the desktop) Allowing a kind of expose based virtual screen tied to a function key or extra mouse button really does make it useful to check on a few things. I'm sure I'll use the iTunes controller, for instance. (Although I bought a keyboard with controls that I use most of the time)

But yelling at Apple over this is about as silly as if the various themers started attacking Apple because Steve decided to including a theming application in Tiger. Come on folks. Let's get real.

(And the widget name? Most implementations of the Konfabulator idea I've seen called them widgets)