Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Weblog:   Apple and Developers
Subject:   I agree with the Devleoper
Date:   2003-06-30 00:59:23
From:   anonymous2
It pains me to read dis-information.
When it comes down to bad info about the Mac or Apple, it bugs me, too.
The thing is the innovations which made the Mac truly over the top to me mostly came from Apple cribbing smaller shareware or smaller software developers.
Case in point: Contextual Menus.
When people rant and rave about Apple's lack of a multi-button mouse, invariably the notion of right-clicking to bring up a menu enters the conversation. The thing is Microsoft didn't invent that, and, Apple didn't copy MS when they introduced the feature in OS 8. They both ripped off another software company.
Apple continues to do this practice...and maybe given the recent Supreme Court case where the SC decided not to hear a suit on reverse engineering thus letting the lower court decision stand in effect saying that you can't reverse engineer software without violating end user agreements...well, long story short, perhaps small software developers will have a leg to stand on in the future.
So the makers of Watson, Font utilities tools for X should have the right to innovate and to compete but they shouldn't have to compete with Apple.
The big A should back down and just encourage innovation to continue and aggregate the fruits so that the software is more visible and accesible to the end users.
my two cents.
Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.

  • Tim O'Reilly photo I agree with the Devleoper
    2003-06-30 08:49:30  Tim O'Reilly | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

    I have to disagree here. Apple or Microsoft copying contextual menus from some other developer seems entirely fair to me, and not a rip off. This industry progresses by imitation. If companies couldn't copy each others improvements, progress would come to a standstill. And of course, that's just what's going to happen as more and more software ideas get patented.


    There's a big difference between imitating incremental improvements, though, and going after a complete standalone market that a new company has created. Of course, even that sometimes is necessary for the good of the platform, but in a case like that, I'd say the right approach is for the platform player to try at least to buy the independent developer's idea.


    Some technologies really belong as part of a platform, so that they can be leveraged by more than one application. Especially in the early stages of a market, some companies introduce software that is really only enough to be "a feature", while others introduce software that can succeed as a standalone application or application family, while others introduce offerings that are broad enough to morph into platforms in their own right, with a secondary developer market.


    In addition to the scale of what's being copied, you have to look at the competitive situation. For example, it seems to me that Microsoft has often gone after application vendors whose products threaten them in some way. Apple, on the other hand, has tended to add applications into their platform that open up new markets, and actually lead the way for more powerful equivalents to arise in the third party market.


    There are no hard and fast answers, but there is a desirable attitude. That is, recognize that for a platform to be a success, there have to be opportunities for more than the platform vendor. Work to create those opportunities, knowing that by so doing, you are extending your own work many fold, by encouraging others to invest time, money and creativity building out what you started.

    • I agree with the Devleoper
      2003-07-05 03:34:28  anonymous2 [View]

      Oh, how the times of changed.

      Today, we have patents on "one click" shopping (Amazon), somewhat shifty or ill-defined business models/practices (Priceline, EBay, people suing EBay), obvious applications of existing technology such as translation for instant messaging(Microsoft), etc.

      If you copy any of the silly things that are patented today, you will find yourself in hot water really fast. There is no "progress by imitation" anymore. Witness the spate of "pre-emptive patents" that are going through the patent office right now. And if the US adopts the EU's potential rules on software patents, you will see every little thing patented, copyrighted, and otherwise legally protected. All to get a piece of the pie. Of course, unless you are a big player or have a big patent gun, you get the crust and the lawyers get the custard.

      Back when Borland invented "right click", times were different. Or at least the Silicon Valley attitude was different, more along the lines of what you are talking about. Borland was not a company that believed in patenting user interface. As we know, Lotus, an East Coast company, was. It took a long involved legal process, but finally it was shown that "command sequences" were not protected under existing law.

      Today, if "right click" were still in the process of invention, pretty much any company would rush to get a patent on it. That is simply how the culture of commercial software has changed in the past 10 years (or so).

      I say "commercial software" because things are much different in the open source / free software world. The culture in the open source world is similar to how commercial software was 10 years ago. You can imitate, borrow, copy, etc., as long as you attribute properly and give proper respect.

      So back to Apple.

      Apple is going about copyrighting and patenting the entire "user experience" of the Mac. It is part of their defense against someone copying their work. You can see all of Apple's About boxes have the word "experience" in them with appropriate trademark and copyright symbols. Probably patent numbers are coming next.

      Of course, Apple is also going and copying interesting applications, including interface design, from third party Mac developers. And then Apple goes about and copyrights/protects them as part of the Apple "experience".

      Inescapably, there is a measure of hypocrisy here. Apple did not even acknowledge that they took some other company's ideas. Or give the companies some token of appreciation. Unfortunately, it comes across as simply another arrogant act from a company that has a big rep for being arrogant.

      Just as Microsoft's dominant position and penchant for copying ideas from other good products in the Windows world has had a chilling effect on Windows software, so has Apple's. Why would anyone want to compete with the gorilla?

      The unfortunate effect of having a gorilla in your market is that the basic tools that we use everyday do profit from a wide base of evolution. You get only what the gorilla likes -- i.e. what the gorilla things will be good to keep on being the gorilla.

      Has there been any significant evolution in the Windows word processor market lately? Spreadsheet market? Browser market? Well, there is no word processor market (ask Corel), no spreadsheet market (ask Borland/Corel), or broswer market (ask Netscape). Oops. There are no real markets for those things any more.

      The same lack of evolution that characterizes the Windows platform will soon characterize the Mac platform as well.

      Overall, mean angry gorillas that eat all the mashed potatoes induce people to find somewhere else to eat. Or at least find something else to eat. There is a reason open source is so popular and why open source folks fear Red Hat or another big Linux vendor turning into a gorilla. It's no fun trying to eat dinner with a gorilla at the table.
      • Pernicious influence of patents
        2003-07-07 13:48:51  jmincey [View]

        You make interesting points -- and I just want you to know at least ONE person has read your post, even though it has come late in this thread. Allow me to clarify one point however. Apple actually negotiated a license agreement with Xerox for the UI elements or concepts it took, and later when Xerox saw the market potential of this technology -- thanks to Apple and no thanks to its own vision -- it filed suit and tried to renegotiate. Now I don't know the particulars involved and it may well be true that Apple has some hypocrisy here in any event. But I offer this point nevertheless.

        Incidentally, my understanding is that IBM actually owns the patent for "reverse video," even though it doesn't attempt to enforce this patent in the form of licensing or royalties. Many things which were cutting edge concepts at one time become fundamental years later. Hypertext (or hyperlink) technology is but one example. I think it was invented in the late 1960s -- but could you imagine anyone trying to collect on something so basic as that today?

        Patents were meant originally to protect intellectual property rights and thereby to encourage innovation. Today, more often than not, I think it has the opposite effect.

        Patents are especially destructive in the area of medical technology -- and affect even the work and research done by universities. But, hey, what's a little death from disease compared to the need for a pharmaceutical company's need for more profit?
  • I don't agree
    2003-06-30 02:35:31  anonymous2 [View]

    Well if the best example you can come up with is contextural menus....
    First of all lets look at a couple of facts: iTunes was Apples rebranding of another product/small developer THEY BOUGHT.
    Secondly Watson is still going strong....I mean so what if Apple came out with Sherlock....do you hear Jobs crowing about Sherlock recently? I've used both and still prefer Watson....with any luck Apple will simply buy Watson and maybe market it as "son of Sherlock"
  • All or Nothing?
    2003-06-30 01:15:06  jmincey [View]

    The implication of your post (if I understand you) is disturbing. You seem to be saying that Apple's failure to innovate ALL the technology it uses is proof that it innovates nothing. I don't know anyone -- not even the greatest champion of Apple -- who suggests that Apple has innovated every technology it uses. Indeed, NO company can make that claim; and it's a preposterous standard to hold a company to. So, yes, you rightly point out some examples where Apple took the ideas of others and implemented them on the Mac platform. But what would you have Apple do? Would you have it use ONLY those technologies it creates in house? If it did that, then Apple would again be criticized for the "Not invented here" mentality.

    Can you spell "No win"?

    From my point of view, Apple strikes the right balance between innovation and making the most of existing technology. Apple's innovations include Open Doc, Rendezvous, Firewire (in conjunction with other parties), Truetype font architecture, ColorSync, and many other things. Apple was also a first adopter or one of the first on many other technologies. After all, there is value not only in innovation but also in implementation.

    Does Apple borrow some good ideas from other sources? Yes. Does this preclude any innovation of its own? Does it snuff out third-party development? No -- on both counts. These things are not mutually exclusive. So I'm sorry, but I really don't know what point you are trying to make. If it's that Apple is not innovative -- and if your "proof" consists in such things as contextual menus and Sherlock, I'm afraid your logic escapes me.

    As for encouraging development, I think we need to recalibrate our expectations of what is fundamental to computer operation (and thus rightly within the domain of a computer company) and what in contrast falls outside that domain. Font management is not a luxury to an OS -- especially not to a platform which serves the graphics niche market. The only reason that third parties developed font management utilities is that in the early years of desktop personal computing, such things were slow in coming from the OS developers themselves. (They had their hands full with other things.) But as the technology matures, these things are becoming more integrated, as they should.

    Do you remember the days when third party developers offered file search utilities? Do you think it's realistic that a computer company like Apple should leave this "market" wide open in the name of "encouraging developers"? Do you not think that to search for a file is fundamental to the OS? Well, the same goes for other software that once was a rich source for independent developers -- including disk diag/repair tools, file managers, browsers, batch renamers, archivers and compression tools, and many other things. People have higher expectations today of an OS. I, for one, do not wish to be at the mercy of independent developers for functions as basic as contextual menus or managing my fonts. If developers wish to do Apple one better in these areas -- more power to them. But I don't begrudge Apple one instant for its choice to integrate these things into the OSX package.

    Jeff Mincey

Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.