Dashboard Not a Konfabulator Rip-off 83
MacNN writes "John Gruber says the origins of Apple's Dashboard technology, announced as part of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger earlier this week, are not with Arlo Rose's Konfabulator, but with Apple's original Desk Accessories and that Apple's Webcore-based implementation will allow many more developers/designers to create 'gadgets' much more easily and that Dashboard's 'gadgets' will offer much better performance: 'Dashboard is not a rip-off of Konfabulator. Yes, they are doing very much the same thing. But what it is that they're doing was not an original idea to Konfabulator. The scope of a 'widget' is very much the modern-day equivalent of a desk accessory.'"
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:1)
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:2, Funny)
A baby was born from Mac System 2.
No blue paper clip, a resource hog,
Just a bovine/canine little CowDog.
Cow Dog!, Cow Dog!
In the print preview is the little CowDog!
Out on the Serial bus or here on the screen,
All kind of DOS-heads hate CowDog sight unseen.
Gotta rise above it, gotta try to get along.
Gotta walk together, gotta sing this song.
CowDog! CowDog!
In the print preview is the little CowDog!
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:4, Informative)
Here is a copy of the original technote providing some explanation:
here [macfreek.nl]
And a more current one:
here [apple.com]
It's been quite some time since I've seen it discussed anywhere!
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:1)
Re:If it walks like a duck, (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Who cares what this guy thinks? (Score:3, Funny)
But first... (Score:2)
...get an extra 1GB stick of RAM, you'll need it. That dripping is the sound of your memory leaking away.
CSS3 & more! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2)
The workaround is to put a z-index:100 or whatever on the floated div, which is also technically a CSS spec violation (z-index only applies to absolutely-positioned elements), but at least that
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2)
In Mozilla, the content of the second div still wraps around the first div's box correctly, but the background paints over the first div. This also only happens if the background-attach is set to fixed.
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2)
Um... no. z-index applies to any "positioned box" per the spec. All boxes could be considered positioned as soon as you supply a "z-index" that applies to them.
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:5, Informative)
You are completely and utterly wrong in claiming that any version of Internet Explorer has better CSS support than Safari.
That's not even counting the bizarre bugs that cause entire sections of the page to disappear in Internet Explorer, and then reappear when you switch to another window and back again. Google for the "guillotine" or "peekaboo" CSS bugs, for example.
That's wrong too. "CSS 3" is a group of specifications. Over half a dozen are at "Candidate Recommendation" stage, which means that the W3C recommend that they be implemented. A few more are at "last call" stage, which is the stage before Candidate Recommendation, and only major showstoppers can make major changes to the specifications at that stage. In other words, large parts of CSS 3 are stable and ready to be implemented. It's not just Apple that are doing this, Mozilla are as well.
I can't address your DHTML complaint as you were far too vague. Can you come up with specific examples?
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:5, Insightful)
Moz & Firefox may have better implementations than Safari, but I totally disagree about IE. Its box model is so completely borked (width includes padding & content, which is in explicit violation of the spec) I don't know where to begin, and just from personal experience I've often found that sites I develop primarily using Safari tend to translate to Gecko painlessly, yet require much more tweaking to get right in IE. I think there's a significant difference between having a standard partially implemented, and a standard incorrectly implemented.
Can you elaborate on the 'height' part?
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:3, Interesting)
Internet Explorer 6 only gets the box model wrong if you kick it into "quirks mode".
Ditto, except I use Gecko as my reference rendering, and that usually translates almost seamlessly to KHTML and Opera, with large amounts of mes
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure this is correct - looking at sites in IE 5/5.5/6.0, they all seem to implement the box model identically even when I provide them with a complete DOCTYPE, which *should* ensure non-quirks mode.
And, I do still have to support IE back to 5+. it would have been nice for them to have gotten it right the first time around. It's actually not that much of a problem now that I can anticipate it, but still a hassle to have to build in multiple-nested divs and not be able to rely on a given behavior.
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:5, Interesting)
I can even name areas where Safari's DOM handling surpasses Mozilla (although I can name more where it doesn't), and a few CSS instances where Safari beats Mozilla too (although again, more where Mozilla wins).
Opera is up there in CSS, but falls down in some DOM areas, and IE isn't in the race at all. To claim that *any* browser is "far more CSS compliant than Safari" is stretching the truth well beyond breaking point, and the only one you can probably honestly claim that does beat it is Mozilla.
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:1)
http://www.peterre.com/shadow.html
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:3, Informative)
As it became apparent that CSS 2 was never going to be fully implemented, the W3C decided to specify a subset of CSS that would more closely represent browser behaviour (in a similar way to HTML 3.2). This will soon be CSS 2.1.
Amongst other things, the text-shadow property has been removed from CSS because not enough browsers implemented it. So, whilst text-shadow is part of CSS 2, it is not part of CSS 2.1.
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:CSS3 & more! (Score:3, Funny)
Good response, but what about others? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do wonder about Watson though. It was the app like Sherlock 3. Apple awarded the developer best application of WWDC 2002, then went on to show off the clone at WWDC 2003 with no acknowledgment. Sure, it made logical sense for Sherlock to move in that direction, but to not even give credit after recognizing the developer one year past always seemed odd.
On the flip side, you have the KHTML group loging life since Apple swooped in and helped their project. Is this a lesson Apple is trying to teach, in that if you create a good open source project, they may help it along and use it. Create a closed source app, and they simply duplicate it if they want it in the OS?
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:3, Insightful)
pot - meet mr kettle..
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:5, Insightful)
They *did* offer him a job, repeatedly, to work on Sherlock. He declined, repeatedly, seeking compensation for the work he'd *already* done. That's pretty shady if you ask me.
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on people, if you leverage technology of another first, especially as an enhancement to their application, you cannot expect to sell your product forever. Two things will happen, either your product will loose relevance due to a shift in focus or the larger company will reproduce your work in their product.
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems he got something else now anyhow, Watson users who helped support him after Sherlock 3 are going to be left out in the cold by October.
I'm not buying a license to Konfabulator because I fear similar will happen. My main holdoff was always the resource issues in Konfabulator. Now I have a second. The widgets were nice when I had a second monitor on my
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the most interesting point is that he knows about the 6-month head-start he has before Dashboard is available to the public.
What can be done in the mean time? Making more useful widgets. Porting to other platforms (the Windows port was announced in December). More importantly, enhance the application (maybe adding the same appear-only-with-key-pressed), and reduce the CPU load (using WebKit, it might also be possible to make Konfabulator Dashboard-compatible).
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:3, Funny)
So it will take
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:2, Interesting)
To quote from the site:
Re:Good response, but what about others? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Even the terminology is not unique (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's all moot when you consider almost none of Konfabulator's implementation of the original desktop accessories concept was an original creation in itself. It might look like a big step to go from the 1984 desktop accessories to Konfabulator... and it is. but even THAT was done before It came after MS's built-in-to-windows Active Desktop, and after DesktopX, both Windows implementations of the same concept.
Good for Konfabulator for being a succesful product, but if Apple were to never use a concept that an external developer had previously used, then we'd have no desktop pictures, sticky menus, stickies, no glassy gui, no terminal, no dock, no onscreen clock, no login system, no web browser, no address book, no email application, no ichat, no full colour icons, no column view, no UI sounds, no font smoothing, no solid window dragging, no fontbook, no developer tools, no disk utility, no iphoto, itunes, sherlock, etc etc etc.
Re:From a friends weblog entry (Score:5, Insightful)
When Tiger comes out, I plan on using both. Konfabulator will be used for widgets that display weather/stats and Dashboard for interactive Gadgets.
Re:From a friends weblog entry (Score:1)
Re:From a friends weblog entry (Score:2)
Re:From a friends weblog entry (Score:2)
Having just come back from Colorado (Manitau Springs) I can testify that knowing if in 20 minutes time that it's going to be 30C sunshine or completly overcast with torrential downpour with thunder and lightning is quite useful too.
Re:From a friends weblog entry (Score:2)
That weather widget is easily one of the most useful out of the Konfabulator collection!
Decide for Yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
First, look at the Apple Developer Connection Inside Macintosh: Devices Device Manager chapter on Writing a Desk Accessory [apple.com]. Next, read Netscape's Sidebar Developer's Guide [netscape.com]. Then, read the Konfabulator Widget XML and Javascript Reference [konfabulator.com] documentation. Finally, read Apple's own marketing description [apple.com] of the Dashboard technology. Now, do Dashboard and Konfabulator sound to you like two unrelated descendants of Desk Accessories (on parallel branches), or does it sound to you like there's a progression in development technologies from Desk Accessories to Sidebars to Konfabulator to Dashboard?
Next, ask yourself this question: if Konfabulator were made by Real Technologies, and Dashboard were part of Windows, would the DoJ be investigating? Even if Apple isn't copying the technology of Konfabulator, they are clearly poaching on Konfabulator's market. Now, there's nothing either illegal or immoral about this - that's the way business is done, sometimes - unless you happen to be a monopoly trying to drive competitors out of business.
Apple's position is not as a monopoly trying to fend off potential competitors, but as a platform champion which SHOULD be trying to expand its market share by expanding the capabilities and the desirability of its platform. By embracing Open Source and UNIX-based technologies, Apple seemed to be moving to expand its developer base and thus the capabilities and desirability of its platform. Apple could choose to be offer a wide-ranging alternative, or it could choose to marginalize itself in the pursuit of total control over its niche.
So it was depressingly stupid marketing of Apple to introduce Dashboard at WWDC. The audience of the WWDC isn't an audience of potential dashboard widget developers - they aren't HTML/JavaScript folks. The audience of the WWDC are independent developers - and they were treated with a wonderful object lesson of how Apple treats independent developers who try to improve the platform and introduce new technologies with the potential to increase the adaptability and desirability of the platform: Apple crushes them in a Keynote. Adobe dropped Premiere because of Final Cut Pro - and we all thought it was OK (I thought it was OK; I have a copy myself) because Final Cut Pro is a better product and is focused purely on the Apple Platform. MS is dropping IE, probably because of Safari - and we thought it was OK (certainly I thought it was OK) because Safari was based upon an Open Source framework (KHTML) and was giving back to the community, and IE is IE - it controls the market, it's Goliath, and it was good to see Apple give us a David to root for. What are we going to do when Apple goes after Alias, or BareBones, or Intuit? Probably root for Apple. But when Apple crushes all the Arlo Roses of the world, who's going to be left to write software for our precious Macs?
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:3, Informative)
Don't worry, they are not in license violation apparently. It seems that they perform all customizations of the engine and add the system object through inheritance.
Having said that, their project seems to be inspired by work from the Mozilla project and specifically the XML based skins for mozilla.
Now if the engine is largely from the Mozilla project and the concept is t
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:2)
That's very surprising, considering Safari and WebCore use the Javascript engine from the KDE project. Do you have a reference for the Mozilla link?
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:1)
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:2)
The Market Landscape is wide-open. Apple continues to develop and provide re-usable new Frameworks, specifically in Cocoa and Core Technologies for small to corporate development houses to leverage.
A culmination of desire, vision, creativity and technical knowledge of these Frameworks will allow one plenty of business case opportunities to become successful. Those that don't become successful either fail and one or more of these criteria and/or make poor business decisions that include partnerships and
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast forward to today, Konfabulator is successful because it was original in a very narrow sense and market. There were nothing like it for Mac OS X. However, if you look at a bigger picture, it wasn't that original. Various implementations of the idea have been around. Add to this the fact that Apple had widgets before, albeit in different forms, for example, Control Strip widgets. Thus, Apple can't be accused of poaching Konfabulator market just because it was absent for a while in Mac OS X.
IIRC, no controversy stemmed from re-implementation of labels, even though it effectively killed apps that provide work around when labels were missing from OS X. Bottom line is, when you make system enhancement apps to further an idea or to replace a temporarily missing feature, be prepared of getting out the market abruptly. Either that or add amazingly original features to defend yourself.
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Decide for Yourself (Score:1, Interesting)
Utilities and apps (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are confusing utility and app developers. Utility developers by definition are filling in minor holes in the operating system which they should expect to be filled soon by the actual OS. Quaterdeck made a killing on memory management when DOS & Windows needed it but didn't have it (or only had a bad version). Norton made a killing when disk defraging wasn't included w
David Hyatt's comments on Dashboard (Score:4, Interesting)
Surfin' Safari [mozillazine.org]
He makes the excellent point that Dashboard/Konfabulator-type of widgets have been done in browsers, too.
My comment about Watson/Sherlock [slashdot.org] stills seems applicable: don't whine, give us a better product.
Software Patents (Score:1, Offtopic)
I think this is a classic example of why software patents are evil. Maybe they are not in play in this instance. This is an example of one of the big boys getting a taste of their own medicine. Lets see if they get a patent for dashboard now heh!
Same old story. (Score:5, Insightful)
A good example was the LabelsX software for 10.2, giving the 10.2 finder labels support, however it was obvious labels would be added in eventually, and hence the labelsX software was made redundant by 10.3. Apple simply reimplementing something they already had.
Application switching, same story, OSX already had it, giving it a gui was an obvious direction, an utter no-brainer, every other OS has a very similar looking app swapper. Apple's implementation is not a copy of the 3rd party app as it's the same design theme apple use for all their instant menus (50% transparent black square with rounded edges, containing an item at 128x128 pixels with a drop shadow) same as eject, volume & brightness. You can't accuse apple of copying the look of a piece of software when this software was immitating the look of Apple's own OS X. Many other applications also implement these design cues, such as Synergy an iTunes addition. (Rating popups etc are all in this theme.)
Now come konfabulator, which found it's way into my trash can due to the widgets filling the screen with info that doesn't need to be cluttering my desktop 24/7, the programmer has confused quick access with desktop persistance. It was natural for apple to take some more of their older technology, in this case Desk Accessories and reimplement it (down to using the same accessories as seen in screenshots from builds from 1984). While some might find this convenient that apple chose to implement something that is known to be popular, I point you to apple's introduction of handwriting recognition from the newton into 10.2. This wasn't a popular 3rd party app, and no 3rd party application was trampled by this feature which would be used significantly less than dashboard. Yet apple introduced it anyway, why, because they have the technology and might as well use it. I can't make it clear enough that apple has a trend of reimplementing all their older features into new versions of OS X. It gives users no reason to stay on any older Mac OS, and we all know that the transition to X was a big deal for Jobs. Dashboard's implementation, specifically the use of making it one-button accessible is apple's understanding that accessibility is not the result of placing things on the desktop, they had learnt this earlier on(alot of windows on the desktop, and they can still be difficult to access) and from this knowledge came exposé, naturally dashboard is an extension of exposé.
Arlo has basically duplicated the original desktop accessories, with no innovation(only modernisation), they behaved the same way as the originals, they just sat there on the desktop. As a minimum, apple have added some innovation by giving the user control of their appearance and disappearance through exposé
I feel Arlo gives himself too much credit with konfabulator, not only was the idea not new, but neither was the concept of using Javascript to power small simple desktop features. This was also completed on numerous platforms long before the release of konfabulator, to insinuate that his idea was original is flattery, and an explaination of how the patent system gives out tech patents despite endless streams of prior art.
The visual resemblence is the result of what happens when you duplicate the look and feel of OS X in your applications. He did after all work for Apple in the UI dept.
So now take Apple, reimplementing yet another older feature into OS X, why shouldn't they license it, simply, because they already made this feature long before konfabulator, albeit OS X even existed. How insulting to the original inventor, to pay money for an idea he had implemented some 20 years ago. If anyone should be paying royalties, it's Arlo. If he had a case for a patent, then he'd already have it, but due to the loads of prior art, he doesn't. (plenty of patent sponsors out there wanting only a %.)
So what we see in the end, is not a corporate giant mugging the little guy, closer inspection shows that it's actually just a case of arlo taking something old making it shiny(literally, that's all he did), then pretending he owned the concept+idea all along.
Re:Same old story. (Score:2, Interesting)
So when I heard about Dashboard, my first thought was "Another Konfabulator. Cool idea, but not that useful in the long run." It wasn't until I saw the Exposé-like disappearing act that I realized how much it was really needed.
I missed Desk Accessories. I use Stickies and Calculator alot.
the other dashboard (Score:2)
It had the name first.
The author of the article is correct. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm thinking that Apple's architecture for thier widgets would incorporate the security measures already in web based media (for whatever that is worth) The author doesn't really bring up security, so I'm still wondering if it's possible to create a naughty Konfabulator widget that looks like some innocuous tool, but is actually doing bad things. Or could it be done in Apple's new model?
I'm looking forward to it, though.
Re:The author of the article is correct. (Score:1, Interesting)
It is possible to write widgets with actual native code in them, and those, I believe, need an admin password to install/run the first time (just like any other app).
For further reading, see Dave Hyatt's webpage [mozillazine.org]. Specifically, his latest post [mozillazine.org] on Dashboard.
I'm with you on the problems with Konfab. I'm not used to pro
Does it matter? (Score:2)
What does matter is that some people will continue to see it as a rip-off, and that's bad publicity and PR Apple should have understood would come.
Konfabulator - Much Hype, little result... (Score:3, Informative)
1. It has no development tools. Great. If I wanted to fall back to 1980's and position every freaking element by X-Y coords, well... you get the picture.
2. No suggestions for development tools. Like "Hey, you FIRST need to buy MORE stuff to make cool stuff like this". Yeah, right. Like I need this kind of pain.
3. "Easy to write Javascript" - if you are a web designer. But anyone else better just pack up their bags and call it a night.
4. Sucks system resources. For something that is supposed to be out of the way and non-obtrusive, it is #2 or #3 (right below the window manager) in terms of processor usage. OW!
Apple can only do better much better. After all, they don't have much to compete with.