Open Response to Proteron
Posted on Saturday, October 25th, 2003 at 15:00.
This is a response to Open Memo to Apple Computer posted on software developer Proteron’s web site on October 24, 2003.
Disclaimer: The opinion represented here does not officially reflect that of Apple Computer, Inc., nor is Jeremiah Cohick a representative of Apple Computer, Inc.
Dear Samuel Caughron et. al. at Proteron LLC,
Stop whining to Apple because the company implemented a productivity feature into Mac OS X Panther that eliminates the need for your application.
Your first request for Apple to "officially recognize that LiteSwitch X played a role in the formation of Panther’s switcher" is laughable because the functionality of LiteSwitch X was already present in Mac OS X pre-Panther but with a different visual cue.
LiteSwitch X is a one-feature application that is essentially a rip-off of Windows’s ALT+TAB. In Jaguar, COMMAND+TAB switched applications but used the Dock as the visual cue. Panther simply updated the visual cue to be more familiar to Windows users.
Because you chose to “publicly highlight” your concern for Apple absorbing “third-party innovation”, I will respond to your request for "more of an explanation".
Apple adds features to the user interface of the operating system in order to give users the best out-of-box experience as possible. If Apple can implement a $15 shareware application feature that enhances this experience, it betters all Mac-users.
(LiteSwitch X is not an example of this because the functionality already existed in Mac OS X. Sherlock 3‘s similarities to Karelia Software‘s Watson is a legitimate example. Sherlock 3 gave end users the same abilities of Watson with a similar user interface and these features were not previously available elsewhere. However, the methodology in which Apple achieves this functionality is much different and superior, in my opinion, because developing content channels is easier.
It may not be fair, but the nature of the game is delivering the best overall product at the best price point, regardless of who thought of the concept first. Macromedia Central will soon be released and will be the third product to repackage web-based information services into a unified, rich-UI front. Central is cross-platform, faster, and easier to develop for than Sherlock or Watson. You will not hear Apple cry foul to Macromedia because Apple understands that a concept’s implementation can be improved upon and users are willing to pay for a better product if the price is right.
Instead of being like Dan Wood and whining an unnecessary amount to the Mac web scene and causing a flurry of unbalanced reporting courtesy of a fanatical mob-like attitude among Mac-oriented news site editorials, improve your product or lower the licensing cost to match market demand and help your "bottom-line during hard times".)
Apple would not lose anything to "recognize that someone’s ideas are so good they belong in the Mac’s core feature set", nor would that someone gain anything if Apple did. Your rhetorical question is invalid anyway because improvements to existing concepts are self-evident and as long as the methodology to achieve the concept is not patented, Apple has no responsibility to credit anyone.
Apple’s actions are not disappointing or dishonest. I have no sympathy for you regarding this issue. While I often defend intellectual property rights and ownership, your argument against Apple is only made in an attempt for attention — even when that attention gains you nothing.
Regards,
Jeremiah Cohick
