Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

An 'Open Letter to Apple' 159

Posted by Hemos from the proteron-complains dept.
ndpatel writes "It looks like Apple has a a success in Panther, but it also seems like they've ruffled a few feathers over at Proteron by incorporating a new Windows-esque task switcher that mimics (most of) the functionality of Proteron's LiteSwitch X utility for Jaguar. Proteron has written an "Open Memo" to Apple, but it doesn't seem like Apple really cares. Shades of Karelia, Watson, and Sherlock 3? Is Apple screwing its smaller developers, or just refining their software with relatively obvious improvements?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An 'Open Letter to Apple' More

An 'Open Letter to Apple'

Comments Filter:

  • Wasn't this in OS 10.1? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BusterB ( 10791 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @07:29AM (#7318006)
    I am using OS 10.1 right now, and pressing Apple-Tab switches applications. A little black arrow moves between apps on the launcher bar, without any extra software installed. We're getting 10.3 soon, so I can compare, but it seems like this has to be a refinement, not a new feature.

    • Re:Wasn't this in OS 10.1? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {noraaver}> on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:49AM (#7318321) Homepage
      Cmd-tabbing in general has been around for a long time. OS 9, and in older Mac OSes with add-ons. What is being questioned here isn't Apple's addition of Cmd-tab to switch apps, but that it shows a little bar in the middle of the screen with the icons of the apps you're running, the selected one highlighted. This is what Windows does, rather than select items in the dock (or analog, the taskbar; though, Win-Tab does that). Proteron sells a product that shows the icons in the middle of the screen, just like windows- rather than relying on the Dock.

      But meh. Whether the "bar with icons" is my dock (makes sense) or a new, redundant graphic in the middle of my screen is pretty irrelevant to me.
      • There's actually a difference in functionality, not just appearance. In the new version the order of the applications is preserved. Press TAB n times and you get the nth most recently used application. In previous versions it just cycled through the applications in Dock order after the first one, which was a lot less useful.
        • I'm using 10.2 right now and when I alt-tab through my open apps, I can alt-tab back and forth between the two I have been most recently using. I don't know why you think it only cycles through the apps in the dock without any intelligence; it does exhibit the behavior you describe in 10.2, from what I can tell.
      • I believe light switch does some other cool tricks that 10.3 current does.

        ie, While holding 'command' one can mouse over the application switcher and select, quit, and hide applications.
        • While holding 'command' one can mouse over the application switcher and select, quit, and hide applications.

          Huh? Not sure I follow what you meant to say. Do you mean you can do a cmd-mouse over, and you're given a menu- select, quit and hide? What would this have over, say, right-clicking an icon in the dock and picking one of these actions?
          • Hit command-tab and then release the tab key while still holding command down.

            Now, move your mouse over the application switcher, and try hitting "q" or "h" while your mousing over these apps.

      • It's also what a Microsoft system extension bundled with Mac Office 6. What was that, 7.6 era?

    • It appears that you have not actually looked at Proteron's liteswitch and application switching in 10.3. If you did, you would see the resemblance.

      The article specifically refers to liteswitch and app switching in 10.3, not 10.1.

    • Does anyone remember the issue with the Extension Manager. If I remember right, that was a third party tool before OS 7 point something when they made it part of the OS, and I believe they actually paid licensing to to that.

      However I do think that the originality of function being integrated was much more defendable.

      -Jacob

  • Reintroduced copied Windows feature? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @07:31AM (#7318016) Homepage
    I recall that this was available natively in MacOS 9 but then was dropped for X. So Proteron was more accurately copying a dropped MacOS 9 feature (which may have been copied from Windows) and now Apple's re-including it. I doubt that Apple looked at Proteron but do believe that Apple looked at Microsoft. I don't really see anything to get up in arms about here. Watson v.s. Sherlock was much more obviously a rip off of a 3rd party piece of sofware.
    • I recall that this was available natively in MacOS 9 but then was dropped for X.

      Funny thing is that I recall using Liteswitch on Classic before it was introduced as an OS feature. I don't remember the company "Proteron" being behind it. I think it was just a shareware utility. I don't recall any hubbub when it was rolled into the OS then.

    • Re:Reintroduced copied Windows feature? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gabe ( 6734 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:44AM (#7318299) Homepage Journal
      To make things a bit clearer, no features were "dropped" when Mac OS X. They simply didn't exist because it's an entirely different OS than Mac OS 9. Apple has come a long way since the public beta, in terms of reimplementing the features we used to have (simple file searching, labels, app switcher, etc.)

      Products like Unsanity's Labels X, Windowshade X, and Xounds [unsanity.com] and ASM [vercruesse.de] also bring back missing functionality. I gladly paid for those enhancements. Labels were reimplemented in Jaguar though, and I don't recall ever seeing an open memo from the Unsanity folks bitching about it.
      • To make things a bit clearer, no features were "dropped" when Mac OS X. They simply didn't exist because it's an entirely different OS than Mac OS 9.

        This is hair-splitting. To the end user, the "Mac OS" is the operating system that ships with a Macintosh, and the details of its internal architecture are (and ought to be) irrelevant.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:58AM (#7318695)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • i second this.

      As OS X was slowly rebuilt to include previous OS 9 features. It was obvious that this was going to be reintroduced. It would be as unfortunate to suggest that LabelsX a 3rd party application to reintroduce labels to 10.2 systems. Was being -squashed- by apple with 10.3 bringing labels from OS 9.

      Unlike the sherlock/watson affair which was an obvious extension at the time, but in retrospect seems a little contrived. Writing software that you know will be cannon balled is heroic, but don't whine

  • And? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, 2003 @07:32AM (#7318020)
    Are you telling me that Apple (and everybody else) aren't allowed to add new features to their products? If everybody had to think twice before adding a new feature because it might step on somebody elses toes then we'd still be using commandline interfaces.

    StarDock made themeable windows way before Microsoft added it to XP. They're still around, they just made sure their product was much versatile and better than the built in theme engine.

    Let's start a petition against Apple because of their iPod. I'm sure it's really harming the sales of the other HD based MP3 players. We'll ask Creative to do an open memo as well.

    • Are you telling me that Apple (and everybody else) aren't allowed to add new features to their products? If everybody had to think twice before adding a new feature because it might step on somebody elses toes then we'd still be using commandline interfaces.

      I do feel some sympathy for the guys, but this request is likely to have sprung forth from user requests as opposed to anything else.

      Unless they had it patented (and even if they did... remember the "look and feel" lawsuits) it's all ripe to be plucke

    • aftermarkets are always vulnerable. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:09AM (#7318422)
      Its not like apple just stole the technology (ala windows and stacker). Nor is it a case of some sort of standard being embraced and extended.

      It is a lot like a automotive products after market seller finding a something they sell is going to be part of next years stadard in the car: Halogen lights, electonic ignition, automatic oilers, turbo chargers. It your market is the aftermarket you are always going to be vulnerable but that does not mean the major mareter is a bully.

      Where it gets illegal is when a major marketer uses their leverage to enter a new market. GM cars requiring GM tires and GM gas. The distinctions are fine sometimes since it requires the definition of what is a distict market. In this case there is no fine distinction. LiteSwitch was only useful on macs and it was not a commodity market.

    • Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stripes ( 3681 )

      Are you telling me that Apple (and everybody else) aren't allowed to add new features to their products?

      Did we read the same letter? I don't recall it telling Apple they shouldn't have added the feature, it in fact was positave about that. All it said was "give us credit! tell people we did it first!"

      If the letter is to be beleved all they want is on the page that lists "150+ new features in panther" where they say "command tab now shows icons across the middle of the screen because we found out pe

      • Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by shotfeel ( 235240 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @02:25PM (#7321013)
        Should it say "just like Proteron's Lite Switch X...", or "just like Microsoft Windows."?

        I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the reason the Proteron and Apple implementations look so much alike is due more to using the same APIs for drawing windows and text and following Apple's interface guidelines, than any deliberate "copying" on Apple's part.
        • Should it say "just like Proteron's Lite Switch X...", or "just like Microsoft Windows."?

          Well they gave MS credit for beign the first to do "Fast User Switching" (of corse they improved it enough to bash them a little at the same time, and I don't see 10.3's Cmd-Tab as any better then MS's Alt-Tab...then agian I dont' really find it better then 10.2's Cmd-Tab)...so sure, credit where credit is do due and all.

  • They're doing what MS don't (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @07:33AM (#7318023) Homepage Journal
    Apple is just smarter than MS. Windows is simply missing hundreds of obvious features. Tabbed browsing in IE. The ability to put stuff in the system tray. Virtual Desktops. Etc. These are basic functionalities that should be part of the os. Since MS to this day still does not include any of these tons of necessary features in its os, it is possible to make a business writing software that adds them to windows. As a result you get many incompatible implementations of many things.

    Apple is much smarter. They realize that there is a feature that many people want added to the os. They realized the feature is a good thing and a lot of people use it. So they add it in. You can only make money developing applications for OSX. Which is the way it should be. You can't profit by making a piece of software that just adds some missing functionality to the os. This way everyone gets all the features necessary in an implementation that is compatible with the rest of the os. Not like Windows where you have 20 seperate little programs to add in all the missing stuff that should be there in the first place. And not like linux where you add it in yourself.

    This is a plus for OSX in my book. I think I'm going to start saving now for the eventual arrival of the 12" G5 powerbook.
    • Not to be nitpicky but I believe in XP you can use vitrual desktops via a Power Toy [microsoft.com]... quote from the site: "Virtual Desktop Manager... Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this Power Toy." Power Toys are unsupported however. If anyone has experience with this util, please lemme know how well it works ( I only use 98Se thru Win4Lin :-) )
      • I have it installed on XP at work, and I can confirm that's actually alright.

        It's not quite as slick as virtual desktops are on XF86, but it does let you view all desktops at once, which is kinda neat.

        It can be quite slow though.
    • Anything that starts out claiming that one corporation is stupid and another smart should be reason for ending a post. How did this get modded up? Microsoft is hella' not stupid. They, having a monopoly, just don't need to worry about useability. It has been obvious from their refuseal to impliment features like tabs that they don't care for their clients, are out of touch, and it has been further demonstrated clearly by their refuseal to put in a basic pop-up ad blocking feature in IE that they are not eve
      • Nah they are just forcing upgrades by not putting new features in the standalone IE. Longhorn already has popup blocking in IE.

        • Nah they are just forcing upgrades by not putting new features in the standalone IE. Longhorn already has popup blocking in IE.

          I know this is off topic and I appologize, but that's an interesting point, very interesting. I can't believe I overlooked it. Obviously MS's biggest competition is Win 95/98/2000. If they don't leave some obvious oppotunities for improvement to encourage upgrades then they're just perpetuating the proplem. Of course by not implimenting these important features now they're o

          • Linux and alternatives have until 2006 to gain a significant share of the desktop market, if linux is sitting at about 25-35% by then, microsoft's new lockin DRM scheme probably won't be effective. If not, the DRM scheme will be implemented in hardware effectively elminating all competition from there on in.

    • Don't worry... (Score:5, Funny)

      by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:30AM (#7318541)
      Apple is just smarter than MS. Windows is simply missing hundreds of obvious features.

      Dude, Microsoft leads the field in innovation. Why, pop-up blocking will be available built into Windows in a mere 2.5 years.

      :)

    • I'm not bashing Apple (I really want a 17" powerbook and a G5), just making a correction. Windows has a quick launch bar on the taskbar that you can add applications to by dragging them. This is roughly equivalent to the taskbar in OS X. Also, the Windows XP Power Tools are a free download from Microsoft, and they include the Virtual Desktop Manager app.

      I would love to see tabbed browsing in IE, though. Of course, while I'm wishing, I'd like a job where I don't have to use Windows at all...

      • Re:They're doing what MS don't (Score:4, Interesting)

        by babbage ( 61057 ) <cdeversNO@SPAMcis.usouthal.edu> on Monday October 27, 2003 @11:18AM (#7319368) Homepage Journal

        I'm not bashing Apple (I really want a 17" powerbook and a G5), just making a correction. Windows has a quick launch bar on the taskbar that you can add applications to by dragging them. This is roughly equivalent to the taskbar in OS X. Also, the Windows XP Power Tools are a free download from Microsoft, and they include the Virtual Desktop Manager app.

        The Windows Power Toys [microsoft.com] [sic -- "toys", not "tools"] kit is really the key thing here. Microsoft has provided it in some form since at least Win98 or Win95, and some of the apps that they've been providing, such as TweakUI [microsoft.com], are really fantastic if you want to "fix" the interface on a Windows machine. Why the Power Toys are only available as a separate download instead of bundling with the OS, I have no idea, but they're free, they're "official", and they can be absolutely essential for making Windows just a little bit less insane to use.

        The XP edition of Power Toys includes, as you note, a virtual desktop management tool, but more to the point at hand, it offers an enhanced alt-tab switcher. If Apple ripped off anybody, the Microsoft tool is a more prominent candidate than the Proteon one, by a wide margin.

        The one feature that the Proteon switcher seems to be unique in -- if the XP one supports this, I've forgotten & can't check at the moment -- is that it allows switcher functionality other than just putting the selected app in the foreground: you can hide, quit, minimize, etc. That seems to be a new insight, but a minor one: once you've got the hook to put additional functionality into the switcher, it's not so interesting which particular functionality does or does not make it in.

        I think another precedent was the BeOS switcher ("twitcher"? I forget what they called it at this point...). Like Proteon, they also allowed functionality in the switcher -- in particular, I seem to remember that you could drag icons around in the window that popped up, so that you could control the order in which applications would be called next by repeated alt-tab presses. This isn't as evolved as what Proteon or Panther do, but it demonstrates the basic idea of "switching doesn't just have to be a bridge -- you can do things along the way". While not many consumers used BeOS, it seems to me that a lot of OS designers did -- Microsoft is ripping off ideas from the Be File System in their uberfilesystem project Yukon, while the guy that designed that file system is now an Apple employee. Various aspects of the Aqua & XP interfaces feel to me like echoes of the BeOS, and the new Panther switcher could well be one too.

        So functionally, I'm willing to accept that Apple may have borrrowed the "functionality hooks" idea from Proteon's LiteSwitch, but as for the specifics of the visual implementation, I just don't see it. The Panther implementation's appearance borrows as much from XP and the XP Power Toy switcher (and before that, the switcher dialog that goes back at least as far as Win95 or Win3.1) as any other implementation, and there's only so many ways that this idea could be implemented in OSX that it would be harmonious with similar aspects of the Aqua interface -- in particular, the dim grey overlay icons that you get when you hit eject or the volume control keys.

        I would love to see tabbed browsing in IE, though. Of course, while I'm wishing, I'd like a job where I don't have to use Windows at all...

        I can't help you with the job, but for the other point you're in luck, sort of. Just as Mozilla is a thin XUL layer wrapped around a crunchy Gecko core, Internet Explorer is a thin .EXE program that calls on a crunchy handful of .DLL libraries. Ergo, it should be easy to replace iexplore.exe with an program that offer

        • The one feature that the Proteon switcher seems to be unique in -- if the XP one supports this, I've forgotten & can't check at the moment -- is that it allows switcher functionality other than just putting the selected app in the foreground: you can hide, quit, minimize, etc.

          But it's functionality that was already in 10.2 in that if you held down the command key while cmd-tabbing, press 'Q' to quit an app. I haven't tried it myself, but apparently the show/hide commands from the application menu work

        • I have power toys, but I don't care for how the desktop vm works. You have 4 virtual desktops, but windows aren't confined to their desktop. If you open mozilla in desktop 2, switch to desktop 1, then alt-tab to mozilla, mozilla will appear in desktop 1.

          In beos, switching to a window switched to that window's desktop. (the programmer could also set the window to appear in all desktops). You could send a window to a desktop by switching desktops while clicked in the window title bar.

          Also, each BeOS de

    • Windows is simply missing hundreds of obvious features. Tabbed browsing in IE. ... These are basic functionalities that should be part of the os.

      Tabbed browsing isn't a basic functionality that should belong to the OS. In fact, it doesn't in Mac OS X. It belongs to Safari only. Expose is the type of functionality that should belong to the OS and thank goodness it does in 10.3.

      I do agree that this is basically Apple moving their app-switching visualization from the Dock to a temporary location in the middle

    • Windows is simply missing hundreds of obvious features. Tabbed browsing in IE. The ability to put stuff in the system tray. Virtual Desktops. Etc. These are basic functionalities that should be part of the os.

      One man's features is another man's bloatware. I don't want any of the stuff you listed and I don't want a 3-DVD Windows installation just because they try to include every little feature that someone, somewhere might want. They already do that with Office and they take constant flack for Office bein


    • The ability to put stuff in the system tray.

      btw, there is no such thing as the Windows "system tray". The correct term is "notification area". Raymond Chen, a Microsoft dev from the Windows 95 team, describes the original Win95 taskbar design: Why do some people call the taskbar the "tray"? Because they're wrong. [gotdotnet.com]

  • When the going gets tough.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by haunebu ( 16326 ) * on Monday October 27, 2003 @07:33AM (#7318024) Homepage
    I can sympathize with Proteron, but LiteSwitch X isn't the most complicated app in town - it's simple as a concept and a common sense improvement over the old dock-based app switcher. It was a matter of time, and time's what they got.

    Proteron made their money for a year and a half, and by the time Apple finally caught up with the functionality they should have moved on. They can't sit around on their thumb and milk a simple idea forever.

    • Re:When the going gets tough.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:23AM (#7318503)
      Mod parent up - that's exactly right.

      You can honestly point to Microsoft for the first mainstream implementation of this kind of task-switching, that's for certain. They probably got the idea from somewhere else, in a slightly different form, like many such things.

      The salient points, I think, are:

      - This feature was in Windows before.
      - This feature was in Classic Mac OS before.
      - This feature is blindingly obvious to most half-skilled computer users.
      - Proteron made their money for a good period; LiteSwitch has not improved appreciably.

      The tone of the 'open letter' is that of a whiny brat. Personally I don't sympathize with the guy at all.. and I am a huge advocate, and owner, of shareware. But the idea that Apple just lifeted his groundbreaking concept wholesale is just stupid.

      This is much more cut-and-dried than the Sherlock situation (which frankly I also thought was an obvious idea). Apple cannot just 'stay away' from utility functions like this that turn out to be tremendously popular.

      • I agree with the whiny brat paradigm. Funny, their slogan Dear Apple: You forgot some important features worked for them once, and now it won't?

        Sounds to me like their just pissed off that they finally have to be innovative to justify their existence. And what, they didn't know this was coming? Surely they had the Panther seeds.


    • They can't sit around on their thumb and milk a simple idea forever.

      Yep, that's what patents, copyrights, trademarks, contracts, licensing agreements, EULAs, and lawsuits are for. Sorry, Proteron, too slow!

    • The funniest part of this is a comment over on Proteon's web site:

      Proteron today also released a public memo to Apple Computer regarding Apple's assimilation of third party software into the Mac OS. Visit the LiteSwitch X Home Page for more information.

      Porteon is claming even more than "inspired by." What a load of bunk! Samuel Caughron seems to have a slender grip on reality at best.

    • I would just like to point out that I think that $15 is waaaay too much for such a simple application. One thing that I've noticed is that a lot of little add on applications like this one are charging a lot for their minuscule amount of functionality. Since it's so easy to program in X I guess a lot of people want to make a little side cash.

  • why now? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TomSawyer ( 100674 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @07:35AM (#7318030) Homepage
    My first reaction to the memo is to question why it's being brought up now if it is to be taken seriously. Mac Developers were the first to legitimately try out Panther and the copy passed out at WWDC had the feature in question. Did they lobby behind the scenes and only now have decided to bring it to the public after being ignored or is this simply a publicity stunt??
    • Now this is a good point. I agree with some of the things others have said:

      - It seems that this is such a simple an obvious feature
      - Go take a look at Windows, this has been there since at least 95
      - Get a copy of 10.0, or even 9 and basic apple+tab switching is there

      Exactly how is LiteSwitchX like Watson? Watson was a pretty new and innovative idea, and it was more than a single handy little utility.

      Really, I think it would be nice for Apple to recognize Proteron, but I don't see how they can justif

  • If they were really serious, you would think they might present a few links to real solid evidence from that open letter. You know, comparisons of screens or whatever. Perhaps they are planning on litigation? I doubt it. Plus, as some have already pointed out, window switching has been around in older Apple OS's and was then dropped.

  • From Proteron to Apple (Score:5, Informative)

    by jadriaen ( 560723 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:14AM (#7318169) Homepage
    Read on this site [macosxhints.com]:
    FWIW, the guy who wrote Lite Switch X for Proteron was a student at BYU. He was hired after graduation this past year by Apple. He would never say exactly what he has been working on there, but I'm sure that this was his contribution.
    This puts the entire discussion a bit into perspective, doesn't it? As a side note, wasn't this switcher a Windows-first interface addition? Then, shouldn't credit be given to Microsoft (yesss, my spine shivers as much as yours at this thought). Anyway.

    • No!!! Credit should never be given to Microsoft! What, are you crazy?

      Not on Slashdot buddy...

    • Re:From Proteron to Apple (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've recently heard a story that Dan Wood (the man behind Karelia Software and Watson) was also offered a job on the Sherlock team (managing it) and turned it down... I'm not sure what to think about this whole issue. On the one hand, I would like to see more free applications (as a consumer). As a developer, I want Apple to be a good citizen about licensing and giving credit where credit is due. Of course, I think Sherlock was already heading where Watson was, so...
    • First off, where is the proof of this?

      At macosxhints, somone says this and doesn't back it up. I'm not saying it isn't true, but who knows, really?

      Good point on the Windows thing. I said this before, I think it's been in since at least 95.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Absolutely, the pop-up window displaying an icon for all the apps is a MicroSoft invention.

      Using Alt+Tab to change windows existed earlier, but in all versions I ever saw it just changed between opened windows, you had to use the mouse to get at iconized windows. So I think even the idea of having a keystroke that selects a possibly iconized window is a MicroSoft invention, this is vastly more important than just a pop-up window of large icons (personally I don't understand why they did not copy the taskba
    • So what if the guy who wrote it was hired by Apple? If they didn't use Proteron's source code, it's similar enough to other software products (i.e. Windows functionality), they're well within their legal and moral rights to use it. I'm sorry, but if a small software company is that dependent upon a niche product, they need to seriously re-examine their business plan. As rapidly as software changes, it's financial suicide for a developer to rest on their laurels.

  • Great marketing ploy by LiteSwitch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mactari ( 220786 ) <{rufwork} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:14AM (#7318176) Homepage
    I wonder how many people have run across this story now and fall into the following category:

    1.) Panther is a bit steep right now at $129 and Jaguar is doing just great for now.
    2.) They've never heard of LiteSwitchX until now.
    3.) They've now downloaded LiteSwitchX and are considering shelling out $15 for it.

    I'm not saying the fellow doesn't think his idea's been ripped and burned to the Panther CD, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think about it being a great marketing ploy for free advertising before he wrote it as well.

  • Open Letter to /. (Score:5, Funny)

    by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:28AM (#7318232)
    To whom it may concern:

    Open letters are both extremely obnoxious and grossly ineffective.

    If you feel the need to write an open letter, please seek professional medical help. If your initials are "ESR", or if you are a party to the SCO lawsuit, please unplug your computer and hang yourself with the cord.

    Thank you,

  • Near-pixel duplication? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:31AM (#7318252)
    Um, no.

    As a former LiteSwitch user, I can say with some confidence that the window is not a "near-pixel" duplication. There are similar concepts in both cases, to be sure. The background of the switcher is transparent with rounded corners, but this can hardly be called a ripoff; the style is consistent with Apple's brightness and volume indicators, which have been a part of OSX since 10.0. Apple can't be blamed for UI consistency on that score.

    The app titles are in Lucida Grande Bold in both LSX and OSX, colored white with a black drop shadow. Again, this is just a matter of UI consistency; Apple uses this very same font on desktops, and has since 10.0. In fact, this appears to be intended as Apple's standard font for text on top of any dark-colored UI element; the white text is controlled by a hidden preference "com.apple.Finder.hasDarkDesktop" (this was true in 10.0 at least).

    The application icons are arranged in a horizontal row in LSX and OSX. Frankly, no other layout would make sense; Apple can hardly be blamed for this one.

    Both LSX and OSX highlight the active app's icon by surrounding it with a differently-colored box. Aside from there being no other sensible way to highlight the icon in such an environment, it is worth noting that the boxes look different; LSX uses a dark box solid white border, while OSX uses a light box with no border but rounded corners, again more consistent with the style. Note that Proteron's implementation is closer to the look of the Windows application switcher, which predates both LSX and OSX.

    Both OSX and LSX print the title of the currently selected application. LSX prints it centered at the bottom of the window, while OSX prints it under the application's icon. It's arguable which of these is better UI -points can be made both ways- but again, OSX is more consistent with Aqua, LSX is more consistent with Windows.

    Panther's application switcher is not a duplication of LSX's functionality. For one thing, LSX actually goes significantly beyond what Panther's switcher does; if it's a copy, then it is a poor one except in terms of aesthetics. For another, although they look similar -more a testament to LSX's attempts to remain consistent with Aqua than Apple's attempts to rip them off- they are not the same. Some of the differences had to have taken some real effort to write, above and beyond any sort of cut/paste job.

    Finally, I suppose, we should take a quick look at the history of LSX. LSX began life as a part of GoMac, which was nothing more or less than a Start Menu implementation for Mac OS 8. Not a bad implementation, either; they even added in support for control strip modules to replace Windows' system tray modules. However, this app copied the Win9X Start menu almost down to the pixel; they used Apple's system font and a Mac OS logo in place of the Windows logo, but other than this the resemblance was more than just uncanny. Later on, Proteron would develop an application switcher as part of the shareware GoMac, which they later duplicated in the freeware LiteSwitch as a kind of teaser for GoMac.

    Either way, this kind of application switcher is not a new concept, and Proteron should know that better than anyone. If Apple is to credit the original developers, then they should credit the original developers. I'm sure Microsoft ripped the concept off from somewhere, but whoever it was, it wasn't Proteron. Apple and Proteron have both ripped this one off.

    The comparison to Karelia's Watson is, frankly, borderline disgusting. At least Watson could legitimately claim to have come up with a new concept and interface; Proteron -at least as far as common features between LSX and OSX goes- just Aquafied a longtime feature of Windows. LSX did other things, but these don't seem to have been duplicated. I don't agree with everything Karelia has said about the Watson situation either, but they had a much better claim than Proteron does.

    • Re:Near-pixel duplication? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nexum ( 516661 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:44AM (#7318301)
      the style is consistent with Apple's brightness and volume indicators, which have been a part of OSX since 10.0

      The brightness and volume indicators were introduced in 10.1, other than that... well said.
    • At least Proteron's program actually LOOKS LIKE Apple's version. I don't think Sherlock and Watson even look the same, except for the common UI elements that Mac OS X apps all share. I am a user of both Watson and LiteSwitch X and recommend both (though I guess not so much the latter for Panther users), but I think most of this baseless complaining on both parts. I'd be bitter too, but being bitter doesn't make you roght.

  • The pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KrazzeeKooter ( 593834 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @08:45AM (#7318306)
    Is this suppose to be a joke? Because I'm laughing my butt off.

    If you look on Proteron's site here [proteron.com] stated in really large type is "Dear Apple: You forgot some important features" and showing in particular the "switch and hide others" feature. This is pretty funny unto itself, but you see the entire design of the Proteron site is completely ripped off from Apple!

    Was this just a brilliant last minute stroke of inspiration, or planned publicity stunt? Either way it's well earned and well deserved. Bless you Proteron and I hope everyone buys a copy of their MaxMenu's.

    So, "switch and hide others"? I'd love to see this as part of Apple's Switch Advertising Campaign? I'd love to make Windows disappear!

  • that SuperClock got rolled into system 7.1 or something, but Apple purchased the rights to it.

  • The front page (Score:3, Funny)

    by ScriptGuru ( 574838 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:48AM (#7318647)
    LiteSwitch X's front page says:
    Dear Apple:

    You forgot some important features.

    Seems like adding those features just responds to that message.
    • Damn. Wish I had mod points.

      Yeah, kinda funny how proteron wants it both ways, hmm?

      Oh and I see they still have "Mpegger" for sale. Yeah, just in case anyone's still using System 7. Sheesh.

  • Serves the Sharecropper right. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _iris ( 92554 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:55AM (#7318676) Homepage
    They should have read Don't be a Sharecropper [slashdot.org].

  • Not certain what the big deal is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @09:56AM (#7318683)
    Apple builds in lightweight versions of a lot of things, which people would be screaming about if they didn't.

    For example:
    DiscBurner
    The Command-tab thing
    Safari
    TextEdit
    DiscUtility

    And so on. For each of these, there are commercial variations which are, should you need the features, better. You can always buy Toast, LightSwitch, OmniWeb, BBEdit, DiscWarrior and so on.

    Is this really a big deal? LightSwitch is *better* than the built-in. I paid for it. Toast is better in some ways than DiscBurner -- I paid for it.

    As far as I can tell, Apple's doing us a service. Basic versions of useful ustilities *come* with the system. Should you decide you need better, *pay* for something better from a third party.

    Nobody screams when an OS comes with a text editor. We just buy a batter one, or download a good freeware.

    Move along now, nothing to see here.
    • Pecisely. MacSlash already beat this topic to death, but I have no sympathy for a company who has/had such a short-sided business model.

      OS X has much better built-in media burning than an alot of other OSes (i.e. Windows), but I too purchased Toast since I wanted more (and the latest version kicks some serious butt!). No one is going to pay money for an OS without getting some decent built-in features.

      All this ruckus over Cmd-Tab. The previous functionality (moving to apps in the doc) did pretty much the

  • Action GoMac? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Balthisar ( 649688 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @10:20AM (#7318832) Homepage
    I don't remember how fast Command-Tab switching goes back in classic Mac OS -- at least Mac OS 9, and maybe the intermediate releases of Mac OS 8 (maybe 8.5?). Sure, no on-screen feedback like now, but the applications switched. The visual feedback is something I definitely liked from Windows, so I'd always installed and used Action Go! Mac (http://www.poweronsoftware.com/products/actionGom ac/), which did exactly what I wanted it to. I'd never, ever heard of Proteron in those days. So, maybe PowerOn Software ought to be griping to Proteron that they got ripped off.

    I did, though, hear of Proteron in the Mac OS X 10.1 or so days. And I used their free version of LiteSwitch. In fact, I used it until Friday when I installed Panther. Of course 10.2 made Cmd-Tab not work, trying to force you to upgrade to the paid version of LiteSwitch. But a nice, little, free Haxie took care of that -- free versions kept on chugging along.

    I prefer to have the built in version. I wish no ill will toward Proteron, but I do hope they grow up.

  • We, Proteron, shall be "pot"... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @10:31AM (#7318933) Homepage Journal
    Maybe Proteron should drop the folks at Microsoft an email and thank them for the inspiration for LiteSwitch X in the first place.

    Not that I'm pro-Microsoft, or anti-Proteron. I used LiteSwitch back in my OS 9 days, but Fried Christ on a Stick, don't demand credit for something that you copied from another OS in the first place.
    • This feature was in Windows 3.1. Then it was supplied to Mac users by Microsoft as part of Microsoft Office Manager (remember that? Damn useful utility, worked great for OS 7-8 and then didn't work well for at least my last versions of OS 9).

      To suggest that these guys came up with something unique makes no sense at all. (Unless you're so anti-Microsoft that you never used Office for Mac, which not too many Mac fans were in the OS 7-8-9 days.)

  • Wah. (Score:1)

    by base3 ( 539820 )
    Crippleware author whines because integration of obvious feature into a new version of an OS dried up the market for a $15 single purpose utility. NEXT!
  • One of the most blatent ripoffs that has been overlooked is Cocoatech's Path Finder. [cocoatech.com] It's a slick app and I wonder why Apple didn't do a better job of copying it. Aside from speed - Path Finder just seems better than the new 10.3 Finder.

  • In the business world, one fundamental risk is that as soon as the public is aware of your product, one test of the worth of your efforts is if people still come to you or end up adopting the idea for themselves. If the idea is simple and easily re-implemented elsewhere, then basing a business model on it is nearly suicidal (i.e., it is a natural commodity!). At this point, if you can't compete on price, then, well, your only profit is experience.

    Using software patents to defend such a business model is
  • I've been bitching in feedback to Apple about their poor app-switching interface since the initial beta of OS X, and am thrilled to see they are finally addressing the problem. The old dock-switcher was terrible and unfriendly, and my least-favorite thing about using OS X. As soon as LiteSwitch X was released I bought a copy, and have been happily wearing down my apple-tab keys ever since.

    I think the pattern here with Watson and then LiteSwitch X has some interesting parallels to Linux vs. Unix, except w

  • To quote Jean-Louis: Get over it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RetiredMidn ( 441788 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @11:56AM (#7319686) Homepage
    Jean-Louis Gassee addressed Apple developers at their World Wide Developers Conference several years ago (after he had left Apple, IIRC), and he touched on this topic then.

    To summarize his points, the platform is made richer by creative people writing system enhancements, but don't be surprised if Apple (or any other system vendor) provides those enhancements in a future version of the OS; just move on to another good idea.
  • If this is just a matter of hurt feelings, then too bad. Apple has no obligation to credit people for things that are public domain.

  • Eh? (Score:1)

    by Matty_ ( 74368 )
    I am using Panther at home and it resembles a feature which has been in Windows since Windows 95 was released? So what if it looks like a third-party product -- it wasn't their idea from the beginning anyway.
  • I'd be a little more concerned about Apple not helping out the little guy if the little guy weren't embedding spyware into their application. That's the widespread rumor -- and the reason I decided not to register LiteSwitch X and to drag it to my trash.
  • Use command-tab to pull up the floating switcher...tab (or arrow either way) over to the app you want and while still holding down the command key, release the tab;
    Hit the "H" key to hide the selected app
    or the "Q" key to quit it and still keep the palette open (as long as the command key is held).

  • Why Apple Shouldn't Give Credit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:51PM (#7320146) Journal
    No, not morally. Legally.

    If Apple says publicly at the launch of Mac OS X 10.3, "We've got this excellent new switcher behavior, coopted entirely from the hard work of Proteron's LiteSwitchX utility," That might make Proteron feel good. It might even be a fair gesture. However... if Proteron then took Apple to court, they'd have a great big leg to stand on when they said Apple ripped them off.

    I don't know if that kind of rip off is illegal or not, but Apple would have handed them at least a part of the court case. So they can't make that little gesture.

    Too bad. Whatever. Move on, whiny Proteron dude.

  • Nice classic whining (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tyrione ( 134248 )
    I can't wait until all the unreleased MECCA (Openstep 5 codenamed project we @ NeXT never released) and all its innovative UI paradigms slowly re-emerge into OS X, then we'll see even more whining.

    Folks, very few "features" that are being added by third parties are new in concept. Operating Systems companies like Microsoft and Apple have years ahead of the third parties in testing and design theory allowing them to pick and choose when the right time to introduce such features or not presents itself.

    Comp
    • Apple _could_ have included the admittedly simple app switching mechanism of LiteSwitch when they first showed us OS X, but they didn't. They decided to pile everything onto the dock. What comedy.

      Trying to include the following two UI functions in the dock was a screw-up by Apple from the start.
      1. (primary) App-switching
      2. (primary) "Easy-access app & file repository"

      This is a fact, proven by Apple's _replacements_ for both implementations: (1: the new Panther app-swx, and 2: the new Panther (finder
  • First time I saw this feature (yes, on Windows) I was frankly blown away, even if it was such a little thing. It was obvious, easy and it wasn't on the Mac.

    It was nice to make an app that mimicked this behaviour for the mac, but if one company can share concepts, then why not Apple?

    And credits? The fact that Apple hired the actual programmer of the feature isn't credit enough?

    If this open letter is a marketing stunt, I'd do a slight rewrite, a bit more upbeat, a bit less beaten up. Would still get the sa
  • The feature's been in Windows since 3.1 or even earlier, so Microsoft has prior art EVEN IF PROTERON HAD EVEN TRIED TO PATENT IT, which they haven't. Evidently in OS9, though I am too lazy to check. That is to say, you copy, you get copied back.

  • Daring Fireball (Score:2, Interesting)

    by theMacDude ( 132844 )
    Please read John Gruber's [daringfireball.net] take on this on his Daring Fireball weblog.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Yes, and I feel bad about rendering their useless carci into dogfood..." -- Badger comics

Close