The end of Premiere for Mac

Posted by Jim Andrews | Wed Jul 9th 2003 4:55 p.m.

In the latest case of an outside developer abandoning the Macintosh
platform, Adobe Systems Inc. announced Monday that the
newest overhaul of its flagship video editing program Premiere would
no longer work on Macs."

"Intentionally or not, "Apple is pursuing a strategy that locks out their third-party software
vendors," said Avi Greengart, an analyst with Jupiter Research."

http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708

ja
  • MTAA | Wed Jul 9th 2003 5:56 p.m.
    I don't think this is a very big deal really. (there is a thread on
    macslash regarding this:
    http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid/07/08/0045214)

    With Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express, and iMovie being available
    there really wasn't a place for Adobe's Premiere which simply isn't
    as good from what I've heard. There will still be competition with
    Apple on the high-end from Avid and if Apple starts to gouge the low
    to mid-end I'm sure there will be plenty of developers willing to
    step into the void.

    almost everyone who work's with video on the Mac these days uses FCP.

    and people are going to simply have to get used to the idea that
    Apple is a now not only a hardware co., but a major software vendor
    that is catering to high-end video, audio, and film production now
    that they are selling Shake, FCP, DVD studio pro, and now creating
    this new high-end quicktime format, Pixlet (hmm, the next pixar film
    rendered on Mac G5s? i know, i doubt it too.)

    of course, if Apple pissed Adobe off to the point where they killed
    mac/photoshop lots of us would be in big trouble. (and no, i'm not
    going to use the gimp.)

    At 12:54 -0700 7/9/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >"In the latest case of an outside developer abandoning the Macintosh
    >platform, Adobe Systems Inc. announced Monday that the
    >newest overhaul of its flagship video editing program Premiere would
    >no longer work on Macs."
    >
    >"Intentionally or not, "Apple is pursuing a strategy that locks out
    >their third-party software
    >vendors," said Avi Greengart, an analyst with Jupiter Research."
    >
    >http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
    >
    >ja

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Jack Stenner | Wed Jul 9th 2003 8:23 p.m.
    > and people are going to simply have to get used to the idea that Apple
    > is a now not only a hardware co., but a major software vendor that is
    > catering to high-end video, audio, and film production now that they
    > are selling Shake, FCP, DVD studio pro,

    and of course, Logic

    Adobe has also announced they won't be developing Encore (new DVD
    creation software) for the Mac as well, since iDVD and DVDSP exist
    already.

    > and now creating this new high-end quicktime format, Pixlet (hmm, the
    > next pixar film rendered on Mac G5s? i know, i doubt it too.)

    Pixar just recently updated their render farm to Xeons running Linux,
    so it will probably be a while before they make another change.
    <http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983898.html>

    I think what will happen though, is that many of the workstations used
    daily by animators, lighting, special effects, etc. will begin to use
    the G5's with the Pixlet codec. They'll be able to create and preview
    their work at full frame sizes and in realtime (without hardware
    assist). Once the work is done/approved it's dumped to the render
    farm. Evidently, Pixar requested Apple develop this codec specifically
    for this purpose.

    Also of interest was the video promo with Ed Catmull (Pixar
    founder/guru):
    <http://www.apple.com/powermac/video/>

    It looks like they will release an OSX version of Renderman soon:
    <https://renderman.pixar.com/index.htm>

    Jack
  • Jim Andrews | Wed Jul 9th 2003 11:42 p.m.
    http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708

    The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly into the OS than a third
    party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties can do the same. OS
    integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there are protocol layers
    between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third party software and sometimes
    bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app waits in line more.

    One can see why this would be a type of application that could be much improved by OS
    integration: video+audio is computationally intensive in ways that, say, word processing is not
    (unless it's Word for Weirdos or whatever).

    In tough times Apple is reaching for its 'inner resources'. They're going for quality in certain
    areas like video and browser, fostering competition be damned; they need that video/browser
    ground to stand on.

    The browser is another app that would profit from OS integration. And that will help things that
    run in browsers too--except other browsers. Which will either be dead or will be turned into
    niche things probably for certain types of business, like Java became the ecommerce engine.

    There may not be any browsers in a few years. Just the desktop and apps that run like desktop
    apps though they may be .dcr or .fla or whatever, and will draw on files from the net. Both
    Apple and Microsoft are integrating the browsers into the OS's.

    .dcr and .fla? Or, in a computing environment basically without browsers, or browsers integrated
    deeply into the OS, will those multimedia apps be in languages developed that take full
    advantage of the OS integration with the machine and the net?

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Jack Stenner | Thu Jul 10th 2003 2:14 a.m.
    On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 09:42 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    > http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-
    > 189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
    >
    > The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly
    > into the OS than a third
    > party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties
    > can do the same. OS
    > integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there
    > are protocol layers
    > between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third
    > party software and sometimes
    > bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app
    > waits in line more.

    You might notice that in the article, the only place where there is a
    claim that tighter OS/application integration is a benefit, is in the
    quote from Microsoft. I think they are secretly glad that Apple has
    made Safari because it gives them the justification to "integrate" IE.

    I don't think Apple is creating these apps because they believe OS/app
    integration is important. Because Apple has a small market share,
    major developers create applications for Windows, and then port them to
    the Mac. This "Windows first" mentality results in apps that give
    little consideration to the Mac interface, or worse, perform poorly
    (think Premiere). FCP was developed because Premiere stank and Adobe
    didn't seem to care as long as Windows buyers didn't. DVD Studio Pro
    was created because there was nothing else happening and Apple needed a
    companion for the new Super Drives. Emagic Logic was purchased to
    guarantee that Apple's new Audio Units plugin standard would take root
    in the audio community. Safari is a response to Microsoft's lack of
    development on the Mac. None of these apps are more closely tied to
    the OS than any other Cocoa/Carbon application (the APIs any third
    party developer writing specifically for the Mac would use). I wonder
    if this whole OS/app integration issue is bogus; you still have to
    create an application that accesses the lower level system...it's all
    modular. Sure, the OS manufacturer can hide portions of the OS from
    other developers (as MS has been accused of repeatedly), thereby
    placing competitors at a deficit, but removing this barrier does not
    really result in "integration." I suspect that "integration" is simply
    a marketing term to justify an OS manufacturer grabbing a larger piece
    of the pie and maintaining control.

    > .dcr and .fla? Or, in a computing environment basically without
    > browsers, or browsers integrated
    > deeply into the OS, will those multimedia apps be in languages
    > developed that take full
    > advantage of the OS integration with the machine and the net?

    I think your right. It's probably inevitable that Microsoft will have
    it's way and "integrate" the browser into the OS. Because they will
    have exclusive control over their application, they will have the power
    to determine file types they support, multimedia capabilities, os
    specific "features", etc. Safari, and other browsers will struggle to
    maintain compatibility with websites that increasingly integrate
    features only available on Windows. Eventually (barring unforeseen
    events), not only will the browser become an extension of Windows, but
    the network itself will become a mere extension of the Redmond
    monopoly. Fortunately, I think there will always be margins or pockets
    of "alternative" environments that are happy to remain
    independent....subbacultcha :-)

    Jack
  • Jim Andrews | Thu Jul 10th 2003 6:51 a.m.
    > > http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
    > >
    > > The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly
    > > into the OS than a third
    > > party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties
    > > can do the same. OS
    > > integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there
    > > are protocol layers
    > > between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third
    > > party software and sometimes
    > > bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app
    > > waits in line more.
    >
    > You might notice that in the article, the only place where there is a
    > claim that tighter OS/application integration is a benefit, is in the
    > quote from Microsoft. I think they are secretly glad that Apple has
    > made Safari because it gives them the justification to "integrate" IE.

    I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs about the value of OS
    integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have against OS integration if
    Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?

    T.whid argued earlier on the list that Apple's Safari is not pursuing OS integration. They are
    pursuing OS integration concerning the video editing software and for reasons that are similar
    to why Microsoft is pursuing OS integration for the browser: toward a vastly superior OS/browser
    that would, not altogether coincidentally, slit the throats of all competing browsers once and
    for all. Or at least once more. And the word seems to be that, contrary to what T.whid argues,
    Apple's 'roadmap to Safari development' does indeed include OS-integration.

    Should we distinguish between types of apps that do require OS integration and types of apps
    that don't? Once an OS company develops a product with OS integration, unless they are dullards
    and develop a piece of crap, the product must eventually rise above all its competition on that
    OS owing to processing advantages. Unless the third parties can capitalize on the OS
    capabilities as much as the OS-integrated app. That would mean that both apps would be parts of
    an installation of the OS. Both would be necessary parts of the installation. OS-integration
    means the app becomes part of the services offered by the OS. Like for instance if the browser
    becomes part of the OS (which it already is in Windows), then any app running the OS can embed a
    browser in the app (which is currently the case with IE). You can see that any app that runs on
    the OS should be able to embed an OS-integrated browser in the app.

    The question is whether it should have to be the Microsoft browser. Is it technically feasible
    to have multiple OS-integrated browsers on the same OS? In such case, the third parties are no
    longer simply working on a browser (or whatever) but are working on the OS. They are partners in
    the operating system itself. Now we understand all those previously somewhat inexplicable
    arguments that popped up a few years ago about Microsoft being scared of Netscape 'because
    Netscape was poised to become a competing OS'. Remember those 'crazy' arguments? It isn't that
    Netscape had developed an OS. Rather, the browser and its ability to communicate over the Net is
    poised to become a big part of OS's.

    So OS-integration is a real issue. At least in the case of the browser app. Being savvy
    netizens, we all see that the Internet is far beyond the isolated desktop computing environment
    in its significance. Computing environments that integrate the processing power of the desktop
    OS with the computing possibilities of the Internet are, well, where we are headed.

    > I don't think Apple is creating these apps because they believe OS/app
    > integration is important. Because Apple has a small market share,
    > major developers create applications for Windows, and then port them to
    > the Mac. This "Windows first" mentality results in apps that give
    > little consideration to the Mac interface, or worse, perform poorly
    > (think Premiere). FCP was developed because Premiere stank and Adobe
    > didn't seem to care as long as Windows buyers didn't. DVD Studio Pro
    > was created because there was nothing else happening and Apple needed a
    > companion for the new Super Drives. Emagic Logic was purchased to
    > guarantee that Apple's new Audio Units plugin standard would take root
    > in the audio community. Safari is a response to Microsoft's lack of
    > development on the Mac. None of these apps are more closely tied to
    > the OS than any other Cocoa/Carbon application (the APIs any third
    > party developer writing specifically for the Mac would use). I wonder
    > if this whole OS/app integration issue is bogus; you still have to
    > create an application that accesses the lower level system...it's all
    > modular. Sure, the OS manufacturer can hide portions of the OS from
    > other developers (as MS has been accused of repeatedly), thereby
    > placing competitors at a deficit, but removing this barrier does not
    > really result in "integration." I suspect that "integration" is simply
    > a marketing term to justify an OS manufacturer grabbing a larger piece
    > of the pie and maintaining control.

    That's well-considered, Jack. I think what I've written, above, addresses some of your points in
    a larger context, concerning the browser OS-integration issue, at least. The video editing app
    issue interests me less. But, yes, it is going to be up to Apple and friends to offer
    alternatives to Microsoft's strong pursuit of a computing environment in which the OS and the
    Internet are very strongly linked. Or to do it better. Of course, video capabilities over the
    Net are currently somewhat limited by bandwidth considerations. And that isn't going to change
    soon, but unless we kill ourselves off, like we might, it will eventually be an issue.

    > > .dcr and .fla? Or, in a computing environment basically without
    > > browsers, or browsers integrated
    > > deeply into the OS, will those multimedia apps be in languages
    > > developed that take full
    > > advantage of the OS integration with the machine and the net?
    >
    > I think your right. It's probably inevitable that Microsoft will have
    > it's way and "integrate" the browser into the OS. Because they will
    > have exclusive control over their application, they will have the power
    > to determine file types they support, multimedia capabilities, os
    > specific "features", etc. Safari, and other browsers will struggle to
    > maintain compatibility with websites that increasingly integrate
    > features only available on Windows. Eventually (barring unforeseen
    > events), not only will the browser become an extension of Windows, but
    > the network itself will become a mere extension of the Redmond
    > monopoly. Fortunately, I think there will always be margins or pockets
    > of "alternative" environments that are happy to remain
    > independent....subbacultcha :-)
    >
    > Jack

    Again, well-considered.

    If we look at W3C standards, well, it seems that by the time they're written, they are less
    relevant than they were when the spec writing began. For instance, I am not aware of any
    standards being written that consider what would make it possible to have multiple OS-integrated
    browsers. Private companies with computing vision innovate in advance of standards. DHTML was,
    for instance, a Microsoft initiative from the start.

    But, you know, like back in the sand box, it's no fun if people don't want to play in yer
    sandbox.

    And I agree that "there will always be margins or pockets of "alternative" environments". How
    independent they will be is another matter; we are already of each other more and less than we
    would like, more of microsoft and apple than we would like...hopefully artists will not just
    'fill in the forms' created by these behemoths but will strongly shape the computing
    environments of the future.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • MTAA | Thu Jul 10th 2003 11:14 a.m.
    >> >
    >>http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
    >> >
    >> > The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly
    >> > into the OS than a third
    >> > party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties
    >> > can do the same. OS
    >> > integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there
    >> > are protocol layers
    >> > between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third
    >> > party software and sometimes
    >> > bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app
    >> > waits in line more.
    >>
    >> You might notice that in the article, the only place where there is a
    >> claim that tighter OS/application integration is a benefit, is in the
    >> quote from Microsoft. I think they are secretly glad that Apple has
    >> made Safari because it gives them the justification to "integrate" IE.
    >
    >I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs
    >about the value of OS
    >integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
    >against OS integration if
    >Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?

    the actions of a monopolist can be illegal where those exact actions
    by a non-monopolist are not. that seems pretty obvious to me.
    Regardless of that, since MS was already integrating the browser
    (which does provide benefits to the OS developer as well as 3rd-party
    developers) Apple really had no choice if they wanted to compete, ie
    offer the same sophisticated HTML rendering as a service of the OS
    like Windows is capable of (whether or not you think MSIE6 is
    sophisticated is another argument).

    Hope you're happy that you'll have to upgrade your entire OS to
    klondike to get new browsing tech on Windows and you won't have the
    privilege of doing that to '05.

    >
    >T.whid argued earlier on the list that Apple's Safari is not
    >pursuing OS integration. They are
    >pursuing OS integration concerning the video editing software and
    >for reasons that are similar
    >to why Microsoft is pursuing OS integration for the browser: toward
    >a vastly superior OS/browser
    >that would, not altogether coincidentally, slit the throats of all
    >competing browsers once and
    >for all. Or at least once more. And the word seems to be that,
    >contrary to what T.whid argues,
    >Apple's 'roadmap to Safari development' does indeed include OS-integration.

    It's really easy for you to have me say whatever you want but I don't
    think I said what you're saying I said. Since that little
    conversation of ours Safari 1.0 has been released and I simply don't
    know if it's doing anything that a 3rd-party couldn't do (i would
    define unfair OS integration as the app using hidden APIs, or
    changing code in the underlying OS so as to help a certain app (and
    not considering changing code for 3rd-parties). I would like to know.
    In that last conversation, I also outlined how Apple's Safari is
    different than MSIE in that's it's rendering engine, Webcore, is
    open-source under a LGPL license
    (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/) this actually
    leads to more competition, not less: Developers can build on top of
    Webcore using Apple's webkit SDK, take the code and change it to
    their liking (can't do that with MSIE's rendering engine), or take
    the code and use what they like on an app on another platform (even
    Windows). I think it's fairly obvious how Apple's actions are not
    like those of MS.

    MS let Mac IE rot. Apple had no choice, they needed a better browser.
    It was a technical decision to go with KHTML and not Gecko (I'm
    fairly sure i read this on Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog, but I
    can't find it right now.)

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Jack Stenner | Thu Jul 10th 2003 12:33 p.m.
    On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 04:51 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    >>> http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-
    >>> 189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
    >>>
    >>> The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly
    >>> into the OS than a third
    >>> party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties
    >>> can do the same. OS
    >>> integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there
    >>> are protocol layers
    >>> between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third
    >>> party software and sometimes
    >>> bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app
    >>> waits in line more.
    >>
    >> You might notice that in the article, the only place where there is a
    >> claim that tighter OS/application integration is a benefit, is in the
    >> quote from Microsoft. I think they are secretly glad that Apple has
    >> made Safari because it gives them the justification to "integrate" IE.
    >
    > I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs about
    > the value of OS
    > integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
    > against OS integration if
    > Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?

    Just to be clear, I didn't mean to communicate to you that "Apple
    concurs about the value of OS integration." Indeed, I don't believe
    Safari is a response to a desire for OS integration on Apple's part
    (whatever that really is). As twhid recently stated, and as I have
    said as well, Safari is a traditional application programmed in the
    same way a 3rd party would program an application. It was simply
    required that Apple do it because no one else was, and IE was
    languishing. The only "new" thing is that the html rendering engine is
    abstracted into a framework/library called "WebCore" which can be
    accessed by any other application. Simplified, Safari is conceptually
    nothing more than a GUI that uses WebCore to draw html and interpret
    javascript. An example of this is the "Help" system. Any application
    written for the Mac can now plug into the WebCore framework and use
    it's routines to render "Help" documents specific to their application.
    Nothing is hidden, it's all there accessible to any application that
    might need to draw html. WebCore is Apple's API into the KHTML library
    which is used to draw html on Linux (Konquerer) and even Windows. This
    is all very different, from a programming point of view, than making a
    proprietary browser (which is what it appears Microsoft is naming
    "integrated")

    Jack
  • Jim Andrews | Thu Jul 10th 2003 4:43 p.m.
    > >I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs
    > >about the value of OS
    > >integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
    > >against OS integration if
    > >Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?
    >
    > the actions of a monopolist can be illegal where those exact actions
    > by a non-monopolist are not. that seems pretty obvious to me.
    > Regardless of that, since MS was already integrating the browser
    > (which does provide benefits to the OS developer as well as 3rd-party
    > developers) Apple really had no choice if they wanted to compete, ie
    > offer the same sophisticated HTML rendering as a service of the OS
    > like Windows is capable of (whether or not you think MSIE6 is
    > sophisticated is another argument).

    I think your hatred of Microsoft is fogging your brain, t.whid. Apple does and did have a
    choice. If it is technically feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, they could
    develop specs to support it, to support multiple OS-integrated browsers.

    If it is feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, and Apple doesn't do this, then they
    too are a monopolist.

    If it isn't feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, then we have the question of
    whether it is desirable to have *any* OS-integrated browsers.

    If it is desirable, then Apple and Microsoft are doing what one would expect of them.

    If it isn't desirable, then both Apple and Microsoft should be taken to court.

    But it is desirable to have at least one OS-integrated browser per operating system, as i argued
    in my last post.

    > Hope you're happy that you'll have to upgrade your entire OS to
    > klondike to get new browsing tech on Windows and you won't have the
    > privilege of doing that to '05.

    One eventually has to upgrade one's system, whether it is Mac or Windows or whatever, when one
    cannot do or access what one wants to do or access. I am running Windows 98 and have been since
    about 1999. I probably won't upgrade before 2005. And I certainly wouldn't upgrade to a brand
    new operating system, would let it go a year or so and let them work it out before upgrading.

    > >T.whid argued earlier on the list that Apple's Safari is not
    > >pursuing OS integration. They are
    > >pursuing OS integration concerning the video editing software and
    > >for reasons that are similar
    > >to why Microsoft is pursuing OS integration for the browser: toward
    > >a vastly superior OS/browser
    > >that would, not altogether coincidentally, slit the throats of all
    > >competing browsers once and
    > >for all. Or at least once more. And the word seems to be that,
    > >contrary to what T.whid argues,
    > >Apple's 'roadmap to Safari development' does indeed include OS-integration.
    >
    > It's really easy for you to have me say whatever you want but I don't
    > think I said what you're saying I said.

    Is Apple pursuing OS-integration of Safari or not?

    If it is a necessary part of the OS-installation, then it is. Otherwise, it isn't. But if they
    are allowing developers to embed Safari in Mac apps, and other browsers cannot be embedded, then
    it soon will be, if it isn't.

    Further, any browser that developers can embed in their Mac apps needs to be distributed with
    the operating system.

    Developers cannot tolerate their applications requiring software, simply to run at all, that is
    not shipped with the operating system.

    That is the situation currently for Director developers of Shockwave. People have to download a
    (I checked) 5mb app, the Shockwave plugin. It poses very real commercial problems for Director
    developers that this is the case.

    A possible alternative is that developers be allowed to freely redistribute the browser they
    embed via CD and so on. Though it isn't an ideal solution, by any means, since the purchase of
    software is so strongly involved in download over the Net, these days.

    If apps are heading toward browser embedding--and they are--as a typical component of apps, then
    the embedded browser needs to be as immediately available to the systems running the app as is a
    tree control or whatever.

    There are different types of tree controls that one can embed in an app, of course. But the
    non-OS ones are something one purchases for special needs and redistributes with the app.

    One can see that it is desirable and necessary to allow developers to embed browsers in apps.
    Why? Because contemporary apps need to be able to do everything you can do in a browser and also
    integrate that with everything you can do in a desktop app. Apps are no longer just standalone
    desktop applications that don't connect to the net and to client-server applications on the Net.
    The Net is part of ambitious contemporary applications in a necessary way. Both for business
    purposes and non-business purposes.

    > Since that little
    > conversation of ours Safari 1.0 has been released and I simply don't
    > know if it's doing anything that a 3rd-party couldn't do (i would
    > define unfair OS integration as the app using hidden APIs, or
    > changing code in the underlying OS so as to help a certain app (and
    > not considering changing code for 3rd-parties). I would like to know.
    > In that last conversation, I also outlined how Apple's Safari is
    > different than MSIE in that's it's rendering engine, Webcore, is
    > open-source under a LGPL license
    > (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/) this actually
    > leads to more competition, not less: Developers can build on top of
    > Webcore using Apple's webkit SDK, take the code and change it to
    > their liking (can't do that with MSIE's rendering engine), or take
    > the code and use what they like on an app on another platform (even
    > Windows). I think it's fairly obvious how Apple's actions are not
    > like those of MS.

    T.whid, if Safari becomes a necessary part of the OS installation, as it probably will, then
    unless specs are developed to allow third party OS-integration of browsers, Safari has an unfair
    advantage over other browsers that run on the Mac OS. That Safari, as you point out, is
    customizable does not bear on this question. Safari may be customizable, but that does not bear
    on the question of whether Netscape or Opera or whatever can be embedded in apps like Safari can
    be in the Mac OS.

    > MS let Mac IE rot. Apple had no choice, they needed a better browser.
    > It was a technical decision to go with KHTML and not Gecko (I'm
    > fairly sure i read this on Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog, but I
    > can't find it right now.)

    Mac IE was rotten from the start compared with PC IE 4, as far as I'm concerned. The DOM in Mac
    IE sucks. The Java support in the Mac browser is also pretty flaky even still.

    Apple needs to take the browser by the reins and go with it like Microsoft is. They are doing
    that now, and that's good. It is/will be too important a part of the OS to let it be developed
    as a secondary concern, as was the case with Microsoft's dev of the Mac browser.

    ja
  • MTAA | Thu Jul 10th 2003 5:33 p.m.
    i guess i just like arguing with everybody about everything ;-)

    below:

    At 12:42 -0700 7/10/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >> >I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs
    >> >about the value of OS
    >> >integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
    >> >against OS integration if
    >> >Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?
    >>
    >> the actions of a monopolist can be illegal where those exact actions
    >> by a non-monopolist are not. that seems pretty obvious to me.
    >> Regardless of that, since MS was already integrating the browser
    >> (which does provide benefits to the OS developer as well as 3rd-party
    >> developers) Apple really had no choice if they wanted to compete, ie
    >> offer the same sophisticated HTML rendering as a service of the OS
    >> like Windows is capable of (whether or not you think MSIE6 is
    >> sophisticated is another argument).
    >
    >I think your hatred of Microsoft is fogging your brain, t.whid.
    >Apple does and did have a
    >choice. If it is technically feasible to have multiple OS-integrated
    >browsers, they could
    >develop specs to support it, to support multiple OS-integrated browsers.
    >
    >If it is feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, and Apple
    >doesn't do this, then they
    >too are a monopolist.

    ++
    twhid:

    i don't want to go to far with this, but it's obvious to me that
    since the Mac OS is under 5% of the market it's impossible for them
    to act as a monopolist.

    >
    >If it isn't feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, then
    >we have the question of
    >whether it is desirable to have *any* OS-integrated browsers.
    >
    >If it is desirable, then Apple and Microsoft are doing what one
    >would expect of them.
    >

    ++
    twhid:

    your logic is the broken one. MS had a company that was aggressively
    developing a browser for their OS and killed it thru their monopoly
    position. Apple had one major contemporary, standards-supporting
    browser on it's OS: Mac IE, and MS was slowly letting it rust away.
    They looked at the other alternatives and chose KHTML over Gecko
    (netscape) for technical reasons only, not because of marketing.

    >If it isn't desirable, then both Apple and Microsoft should be taken to court.
    >

    it's not a flat field and you ignore that fact.

    your logic doesn't seem to take in the fact the MS has a monopoly
    position with it's proprietary software. that Apple, since it owns
    under 5% of the market, isn't accountable to federal anti-trust laws.
    if MS had created software as good as FCP, FCX, and iMovie it would
    have effectively killed Premiere totally, not just on Windows. MS
    could kill Adobe outright if they wanted too simply because of their
    market position. Apple can't and that's the difference that you like
    to ignore.

    >But it is desirable to have at least one OS-integrated browser per
    >operating system, as i argued
    >in my last post.

    ++
    twhid:

    there is an upside to it, i'm not arguing that. MS won't allow any
    competition on their closed software so I guess the majority of
    people will be stuck with the sloppy software that ships with the OS.

    At 12:42 -0700 7/10/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >T.whid, if Safari becomes a necessary part of the OS installation,
    >as it probably will, then
    >unless specs are developed to allow third party OS-integration of
    >browsers, Safari has an unfair
    >advantage over other browsers that run on the Mac OS. That Safari,
    >as you point out, is
    >customizable does not bear on this question. Safari may be
    >customizable, but that does not bear
    >on the question of whether Netscape or Opera or whatever can be
    >embedded in apps like Safari can
    >be in the Mac OS.

    ++
    twhid:

    probably, schmobably. i'm sure Safari will come with the OS, but so
    did Mac IE and NS4.x. I don't know if it's 'integrated' into the OS
    as MS claims MSIE is. there is a different program to browse the file
    system (the finder) so the only thing Safari will be there for is to
    render HTML and Javascript (using the open source code).

    what 'unfair' advantage does Safari have? it's rendering engine is
    open source (unlike MSIE) and is sticking with standards compliance
    (unlike MSIE). Webcore's rendering is decided by the standards
    bodies, not by bill gates. It's code can be tweaked by any browser
    developer and built on. that is a HUGE difference from MSIE where
    you're stuck with the way MS wants to do it whether you like it or
    not.

    MS won the browser war, Apple is simply trying to keep up and make it
    as easy as they can for their other developers. it's obvious that
    Apple is cutting the cord btw them and MS.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • MTAA | Thu Jul 10th 2003 5:50 p.m.
  • Jim Andrews | Thu Jul 10th 2003 7:58 p.m.
    > i guess i just like arguing with everybody about everything ;-)

    O come on, you're a smoothy.

    > MS had a company that was aggressively
    > developing a browser for their OS and killed it thru their monopoly
    > position. Apple had one major contemporary, standards-supporting
    > browser on it's OS: Mac IE, and MS was slowly letting it rust away.
    > They looked at the other alternatives and chose KHTML over Gecko
    > (netscape) for technical reasons only, not because of marketing.

    So it's OK for Apple to pursue browser OS-integration but not Microsoft because Microsoft has
    95% of the market and Apple only has 5%? I believe the issue is independent of market share,
    t.whid, as I've tried to argue. OS-integration of the browser implies eventual monopoly on that
    OS concerning browsers, unless the landscape changes in that regard.

    > >If it isn't desirable, then both Apple and Microsoft should be taken to court.
    >
    > it's not a flat field and you ignore that fact.
    >
    > your logic doesn't seem to take in the fact the MS has a monopoly
    > position with it's proprietary software. that Apple, since it owns
    > under 5% of the market, isn't accountable to federal anti-trust laws.

    Didn't know that.

    So it's OK for Apple to pursue browser OS-integration but not Microsoft because Microsoft has
    95% of the market and Apple only has 5%? I believe the issue is independent of market share,
    t.whid, as I've tried to argue. OS-integration of the browser implies eventual monopoly on that
    OS concerning browsers, unless the landscape changes in that regard.

    > if MS had created software as good as FCP, FCX, and iMovie it would
    > have effectively killed Premiere totally, not just on Windows. MS
    > could kill Adobe outright if they wanted too simply because of their
    > market position. Apple can't and that's the difference that you like
    > to ignore.

    Microsoft is an OS/system level company. They don't have the culture to support something like
    Premier or Director or Flash or anything particularly creative. If a product isn't geared
    primarily toward big business, they don't know what to make of it. But they are often the best
    at system design/architecture. It's that fresh Pacific, Seattle air, T.whid.

    > >But it is desirable to have at least one OS-integrated browser per
    > >operating system, as i argued
    > >in my last post.
    >
    >
    > ++
    > twhid:
    >
    > there is an upside to it, i'm not arguing that. MS won't allow any
    > competition on their closed software so I guess the majority of
    > people will be stuck with the sloppy software that ships with the OS.

    O come on. The PC IE4+ is a superior browser. I've suffered several Mac browsers and the ones
    I've had experience of stink concerning DHTML and Java.

    > At 12:42 -0700 7/10/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
    > >T.whid, if Safari becomes a necessary part of the OS installation,
    > >as it probably will, then
    > >unless specs are developed to allow third party OS-integration of
    > >browsers, Safari has an unfair
    > >advantage over other browsers that run on the Mac OS. That Safari,
    > >as you point out, is
    > >customizable does not bear on this question. Safari may be
    > >customizable, but that does not bear
    > >on the question of whether Netscape or Opera or whatever can be
    > >embedded in apps like Safari can
    > >be in the Mac OS.
    >
    > ++
    > twhid:
    >
    > probably, schmobably. i'm sure Safari will come with the OS, but so
    > did Mac IE and NS4.x. I don't know if it's 'integrated' into the OS
    > as MS claims MSIE is.

    As soon as it is shipped with the OS and any app can embed a browser in an app, that would seem
    to be the minimal requirement for a meaningful notion of 'OS-integrated browser'. And MSIE is
    that way now on the PC.

    But that would just be the start.

    Don't know if you've used any tools such as Visual Basic or Delphi or Director or Visual Studio
    and so on, t.whid? Interestingly similar, they are, actually. Even similar to Dreamweaver, say.
    And one can see something like Dreamweaver becoming seamlessly part of something like Flash
    and/or Director, or see a new tool that combines a desktop/server app maker like Delphi with the
    capabilities of something like Dreamweaver. Probably the .NET Microsoft stuff does precisely
    this, but I haven't looked at it.

    > there is a different program to browse the file
    > system (the finder) so the only thing Safari will be there for is to
    > render HTML and Javascript (using the open source code).
    >
    > what 'unfair' advantage does Safari have? it's rendering engine is
    > open source (unlike MSIE) and is sticking with standards compliance
    > (unlike MSIE). Webcore's rendering is decided by the standards
    > bodies, not by bill gates. It's code can be tweaked by any browser
    > developer and built on. that is a HUGE difference from MSIE where
    > you're stuck with the way MS wants to do it whether you like it or
    > not.

    The first, and more or less decisive advantage *over other browsers of the same OS* is when
    developers can embed the browser in their apps, but not other browsers.

    And other advantages will follow as the OS companies develop services and resources associated
    with the browser component that are unavailable when using other browsers.

    > MS won the browser war, Apple is simply trying to keep up and make it
    > as easy as they can for their other developers. it's obvious that
    > Apple is cutting the cord btw them and MS.

    Well yes, they have to cut the cord sooner or later. Might as well be now.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Jack Stenner | Fri Jul 11th 2003 11:48 a.m.
    Re: RHIZOME_RAW: The end of Premiere for Mac (or what happens when OS
    vendors get in the applications business)

    On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 05:57 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    > Microsoft is an OS/system level company. They don't have the culture
    > to support something like
    > Premier or Director or Flash or anything particularly creative. If a
    > product isn't geared
    > primarily toward big business, they don't know what to make of it. But
    > they are often the best
    > at system design/architecture. It's that fresh Pacific, Seattle air,
    > T.whid.

    This is an important issue. If Microsoft (or anyone for that matter,
    but by virtue of their 90% market share, it appears to be MS), controls
    the gateway to the net, don't we all become reliant on their "corporate
    culture" as a filter for our experience? If they aren't particularly
    creative, and competition has vanished, won't the speed of innovation
    diminish? Why does this seem to be a desirable condition for so many?

    We keep talking about "OS-integration" as if it is some magical
    relationship between the OS and the browser. I believe this is a false
    notion, invented by Microsoft, as a means to justify the absorption of
    the browser into their portfolio of applications. If you recall, this
    notion first came up when the Netscape anti-trust case began. No
    matter how you color it, the browser will still be an application that
    runs on top of the OS. Because Microsoft controls the source to the
    underlying OS, it is true that they can create barriers that would
    hamper access, or otherwise limit the functionality of competing
    developers (browser makers, here). This is a matter of choice by
    Microsoft, however. Other than the removal of this artificially
    created barrier to development, there is no intrinsic advantage
    (performance, features, etc.) to Microsoft controlling the browser or
    someone else.

    It's too easy to divert this discussion into a "platform war." It's
    not about whether you like this flavor or that, or this browser is
    better than that one was. As an artist I am concerned about the
    environment within which we will operate in the future. I realize that
    artists are like cockroaches ;-) and will adapt and thrive in whatever
    the world presents, but as a person who is interested in creativity I
    would like an environment that maximizes that potential. Will an
    environment (the net) whose features are determined by a single
    corporation be more, or less, flexible? Will it be conducive to
    activities that may not support the corporation's agenda? Will
    innovation slow to the pace of corporate upgrade schedules? What
    happens when the corporation decides to filter everyone through their
    own portal (ala AOL) or begin a subscription upgrade service? For me
    it comes down to this: do we want the net to become an extension of
    one corporation, or a somewhat ad hoc collection of individuals
    functioning as a community? I believe that access to the net is a
    social function that is too important to allow a single entity to have
    control. Ideally, OS vendors should not be allowed to produce
    browsers, but in the least, they should be open source and standards
    based. I don't believe the nebulous promise of "additional features"
    is worth the price of limited freedom.

    I'll shut-up now,
    Jack
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Jul 11th 2003 9:35 p.m.
    > > Microsoft is an OS/system level company. They don't have the culture
    > > to support something like
    > > Premier or Director or Flash or anything particularly creative. If a
    > > product isn't geared
    > > primarily toward big business, they don't know what to make of it. But
    > > they are often the best
    > > at system design/architecture. It's that fresh Pacific, Seattle air,
    > > T.whid.
    >
    > This is an important issue. If Microsoft (or anyone for that matter,
    > but by virtue of their 90% market share, it appears to be MS), controls
    > the gateway to the net, don't we all become reliant on their "corporate
    > culture" as a filter for our experience? If they aren't particularly
    > creative, and competition has vanished, won't the speed of innovation
    > diminish? Why does this seem to be a desirable condition for so many?
    >
    > We keep talking about "OS-integration" as if it is some magical
    > relationship between the OS and the browser. I believe this is a false
    > notion, invented by Microsoft, as a means to justify the absorption of
    > the browser into their portfolio of applications. If you recall, this
    > notion first came up when the Netscape anti-trust case began. No
    > matter how you color it, the browser will still be an application that
    > runs on top of the OS. Because Microsoft controls the source to the
    > underlying OS, it is true that they can create barriers that would
    > hamper access, or otherwise limit the functionality of competing
    > developers (browser makers, here). This is a matter of choice by
    > Microsoft, however. Other than the removal of this artificially
    > created barrier to development, there is no intrinsic advantage
    > (performance, features, etc.) to Microsoft controlling the browser or
    > someone else.
    >
    > It's too easy to divert this discussion into a "platform war." It's
    > not about whether you like this flavor or that, or this browser is
    > better than that one was. As an artist I am concerned about the
    > environment within which we will operate in the future. I realize that
    > artists are like cockroaches ;-) and will adapt and thrive in whatever
    > the world presents, but as a person who is interested in creativity I
    > would like an environment that maximizes that potential. Will an
    > environment (the net) whose features are determined by a single
    > corporation be more, or less, flexible? Will it be conducive to
    > activities that may not support the corporation's agenda? Will
    > innovation slow to the pace of corporate upgrade schedules? What
    > happens when the corporation decides to filter everyone through their
    > own portal (ala AOL) or begin a subscription upgrade service? For me
    > it comes down to this: do we want the net to become an extension of
    > one corporation, or a somewhat ad hoc collection of individuals
    > functioning as a community? I believe that access to the net is a
    > social function that is too important to allow a single entity to have
    > control. Ideally, OS vendors should not be allowed to produce
    > browsers, but in the least, they should be open source and standards
    > based. I don't believe the nebulous promise of "additional features"
    > is worth the price of limited freedom.

    That's a pretty good argument, Jack. I agree with most of it. I suspect all the dangers you
    outline are real ones.

    I don't agree that OS-integration "is a false notion, invented by Microsoft, as a means to
    justify the absorption of the browser into their portfolio of applications."

    As net.artists, most of us *would* like to see the net more integrated with the desktop
    computing environment. A lot of the more interesting pieces of net.art recently are projectors
    (exe's) that you download, install, and then they can access the computer's file system and
    system resources better while also accessing the Net and its resources.

    Some of these embed IE, some of them don't.

    Also, I disagree with "No matter how you color it, the browser will still be an application that
    runs on top of the OS."

    The OS browser would *eventually* be chopped into its constituent parts and one would be able to
    access the parts. But this could as well be done by others, not Microsoft.

    But you've convinced me that yes, there are real dangers.

    What is your solution? Take IE away from Microsoft and give it to a different company? Make it
    open source?

    Microsoft could still develop OS accessible functionality that could, if the developers chose,
    be accessed through a Microsoft API accessible to registered browsers. The 'registered' part
    could deal with security issues.

    What was the DOJ's proposed solution? Wasn't it just this, to take IE away from Microsoft? Was
    it IE or was it some other partition?

    ja
  • Jack Stenner | Fri Jul 11th 2003 11:08 p.m.
    On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 07:33 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    > What is your solution? Take IE away from Microsoft and give it to a
    > different company? Make it
    > open source?

    It seems to me that OS manufacturers should not be allowed to develop
    browsers (in which case IE could be taken by another company) or at
    least the portion that interacts with the rest of the network should be
    required to be open AND standards based. In Apples case, the GUI and
    interface functions are proprietary, but the portion that integrates
    with the network (the rendering engine) is open source and standards
    based. That model could work for MS as well, in lieu of selling/giving
    up IE.

    >
    > Microsoft could still develop OS accessible functionality that could,
    > if the developers chose,
    > be accessed through a Microsoft API accessible to registered browsers.
    > The 'registered' part
    > could deal with security issues.

    Whatever OS functionality MS wanted to open to browser developers would
    be fine, as long as the features did not create a situation that limits
    the network access of non-MS browsers to portions of the net. In
    simplified form, we don't need a telephone network that only speaks
    English.

    >
    > What was the DOJ's proposed solution? Wasn't it just this, to take IE
    > away from Microsoft? Was
    > it IE or was it some other partition?

    At one point, the goal was to break MS into a number of smaller
    companies. The idea was to separate OS operations from applications,
    etc. The intention was to encourage competition and remove the
    inherent conflicts presented by an OS manufacturer also producing the
    browser. Despite MS's claims to the contrary this would encourage
    innovation rather than stifle it.

    I agree it's desirable to bring the net closer to the desktop, in
    reality I think this is more likely with competition than without it.
    After all, browser development has practically stalled (in terms of
    real innovation) in the last 3-4 years since MS gained the majority of
    the market. Here's a semi-related interview with Marc Andreessen
    discussing the lack of innovation.
    <http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID020749>

    Jack
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Jul 11th 2003 11:45 p.m.
    > > What is your solution? Take IE away from Microsoft and give it to a
    > > different company? Make it
    > > open source?
    >
    > It seems to me that OS manufacturers should not be allowed to develop
    > browsers (in which case IE could be taken by another company) or at
    > least the portion that interacts with the rest of the network should be
    > required to be open AND standards based. In Apples case, the GUI and
    > interface functions are proprietary, but the portion that integrates
    > with the network (the rendering engine) is open source and standards
    > based. That model could work for MS as well, in lieu of selling/giving
    > up IE.

    So you're saying Apple has implemented a responsible solution to this situation? Is that your
    position also, T.whid?

    I don't understand some of the distinctions you make. You say "the GUI and interface functions
    are proprietary, but the portion that integrates with the network (the rendering engine) is open
    source and standards based."

    So, I take it, for instance, that the DOM (Document Object Model) is in some sense open source
    and standards based. The standards would be W3C standards, but are you saying the implementation
    of the DOM is open source so that, for instance, one could inspect the code implementation of,
    say, the window.open method? What do you mean by the GUI and interface functions?

    Any sense of why the DOJ is not making any noise?

    And thanks to T.whid and you for arguing forcefully and clearly on this question. It is
    important.

    ja

    > > Microsoft could still develop OS accessible functionality that could,
    > > if the developers chose,
    > > be accessed through a Microsoft API accessible to registered browsers.
    > > The 'registered' part
    > > could deal with security issues.
    >
    > Whatever OS functionality MS wanted to open to browser developers would
    > be fine, as long as the features did not create a situation that limits
    > the network access of non-MS browsers to portions of the net. In
    > simplified form, we don't need a telephone network that only speaks
    > English.
    >
    > >
    > > What was the DOJ's proposed solution? Wasn't it just this, to take IE
    > > away from Microsoft? Was
    > > it IE or was it some other partition?
    >
    > At one point, the goal was to break MS into a number of smaller
    > companies. The idea was to separate OS operations from applications,
    > etc. The intention was to encourage competition and remove the
    > inherent conflicts presented by an OS manufacturer also producing the
    > browser. Despite MS's claims to the contrary this would encourage
    > innovation rather than stifle it.
    >
    > I agree it's desirable to bring the net closer to the desktop, in
    > reality I think this is more likely with competition than without it.
    > After all, browser development has practically stalled (in terms of
    > real innovation) in the last 3-4 years since MS gained the majority of
    > the market. Here's a semi-related interview with Marc Andreessen
    > discussing the lack of innovation.
    > <http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID020749>
    >
    >
    > Jack
  • Jack Stenner | Sat Jul 12th 2003 2:22 a.m.
    On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 09:44 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    > So you're saying Apple has implemented a responsible solution to this
    > situation? Is that your
    > position also, T.whid?

    I wouldn't commit to that yet, but it looks like it's headed in the
    right direction. It's very new (Safari just came out of beta a week or
    so ago). Access to the rendering engine via WebCore, is open source
    under LGPL. I believe twhid posted this link already, but here it is
    again <http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/>

    >
    > I don't understand some of the distinctions you make. You say "the GUI
    > and interface functions
    > are proprietary, but the portion that integrates with the network (the
    > rendering engine) is open
    > source and standards based."
    >
    > So, I take it, for instance, that the DOM (Document Object Model) is
    > in some sense open source
    > and standards based. The standards would be W3C standards, but are you
    > saying the implementation
    > of the DOM is open source so that, for instance, one could inspect the
    > code implementation of,
    > say, the window.open method? What do you mean by the GUI and interface
    > functions?

    A browser, like most applications are composed of many parts. One part
    might present an interface (GUI, buttons, tabs, etc.) to the user,
    another part might save preferences/state, another will handle html
    page rendering, yet another part will interpret javascript statements.
    What Apple has done is create an Objective-C (the preferred language of
    OSX) interface to the KHTML parts that interpret html, css, javascript,
    etc. (the parts that typically rely on cross-platform communication via
    the network). This interface (WebCore) is open source so any
    programmer on OSX has access to it. The look and feel of Safari, and
    any platform specific features that don't affect page rendering are
    part of the Safari application itself, and are not open source. If you
    look at the WebCore framework, you will see a bunch of header files
    that provide access to the underlying KHTML library. It's really just
    a translation from OSX to KHTML. If MS were to desire to do this, they
    would have to design a complement to WebCore that runs on their
    platform. These are basically the "hooks" between the OS and the
    underlying cross-platform KHTML library.
    <http://developer.kde.org/documentation/library/kdeqt/kde3arch/khtml/>
    The beauty of this is that KHTML is standards based, supporting W3C
    DOM, Java, JavaScript, and CSS. In other words, you don't have an OS
    manufacturer modifying or ignoring standards for their own benefit (at
    the cost of compatibility). At least that's the way it SHOULD
    work...time will tell. The Konquerer browser, commonly used on Linux,
    is similar to Safari in that it uses KHTML to render pages.

    >
    >
    > Any sense of why the DOJ is not making any noise?

    Ha, that's another can of worms that's probably off-topic for this
    list......the short answer might have something to do with a
    big-business friendly administration, deep pockets, and a sour economy.

    >
    > And thanks to T.whid and you for arguing forcefully and clearly on
    > this question. It is
    > important.

    Sure, glad to spew ;-)

    Jack
  • MTAA | Sat Jul 12th 2003 10:49 a.m.
    On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 10:44 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    >>> What is your solution? Take IE away from Microsoft and give it to a
    >>> different company? Make it
    >>> open source?
    >>
    >> It seems to me that OS manufacturers should not be allowed to develop
    >> browsers (in which case IE could be taken by another company) or at
    >> least the portion that interacts with the rest of the network should
    >> be
    >> required to be open AND standards based. In Apples case, the GUI and
    >> interface functions are proprietary, but the portion that integrates
    >> with the network (the rendering engine) is open source and standards
    >> based. That model could work for MS as well, in lieu of
    >> selling/giving
    >> up IE.
    >
    > So you're saying Apple has implemented a responsible solution to this
    > situation? Is that your
    > position also, T.whid?

    well, the least MS could do is follow the W3C standards (to be fair
    their standards support is ok) and drop their proprietary tags and
    behaviors. If they were to open source their rendering engine I think
    it would be very helpful for the OS and it's developers yes. I'm sure
    developers would take IE's rendering engine and run with it. Windows
    users wouldn't be waiting until 2005 for new browser tech if they did
    that, that's for sure.

    the MS monopoly case used the browser wars as an example is my
    understanding. they DOJ wasn't trying to 'fix' the browser problem,
    they were trying to fix the MS problem which was illustrated by the
    browser problem. if MS had been broken up into a few separate companies
    or been forced to allow other companies to review their source code
    (which is sort of happening
    http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59534,00.html ) then we might
    not be headed towards a two browser world: MSIE and Safari/KHTML.

    >
    > I don't understand some of the distinctions you make. You say "the GUI
    > and interface functions
    > are proprietary, but the portion that integrates with the network (the
    > rendering engine) is open
    > source and standards based."
    >
    > So, I take it, for instance, that the DOM (Document Object Model) is
    > in some sense open source
    > and standards based. The standards would be W3C standards, but are you
    > saying the implementation
    > of the DOM is open source so that, for instance, one could inspect the
    > code implementation of,
    > say, the window.open method? What do you mean by the GUI and interface
    > functions?

    btw:
    this is the model that OSX is built on too. the kernel of the OS,
    Darwin, is open source and based on a version of unix called BSD. It
    even runs on intel machines. the graphics layer (the software that
    draws the windows and stuff) called Quartz, is proprietary. You can
    even run another windowing system on OSX called X11 (using this you can
    run apps built for unix/x11, like openoffice.org). So, you can see that
    Apple is providing a level of openness that MS would never even
    contemplate.
    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
  • Liza Sabater | Sat Jul 12th 2003 2:02 p.m.
    On Saturday, Jul 12, 2003, at 09:46 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:
    > btw:
    > this is the model that OSX is built on too. the kernel of the OS,
    > Darwin, is open source and based on a version of unix called BSD. It
    > even runs on intel machines. the graphics layer (the software that
    > draws the windows and stuff) called Quartz, is proprietary. You can
    > even run another windowing system on OSX called X11 (using this you
    > can run apps built for unix/x11, like openoffice.org). So, you can see
    > that Apple is providing a level of openness that MS would never even
    > contemplate.
    >

    I am having a helluva great time following this thread (and the
    previous one too, the one about flash, but it's too late to add to
    that). anyway, I just wanted to add to this : the DOJ is not all over
    Apple's ass thanks to how the company has chose to define open source.
    Apple has bent over backwards to stick to every form of standard
    compliance that it can, from W3 to JAVA and it shows in OSX. MS wanted
    to create its own proprietary version of JAVA and call it JAVA. And we
    know the mess that we are in when MS was not stopped from mucking up
    HTML. At MS, they want to call the shots on every single aspect of the
    computer environment because their business model is based on not a
    monopoly but on creating a hegemony through proprietary information. MS
    wants to be THE standard and have complete control over it.

    At any Bus101 class we are told that proprietary information is what
    separates the haves from the have nots. The problem is that the level
    of complexity of the technologies developed and the velocity at which
    they are happening is creating a stress in not just technology
    companies but almost every single aspect of our economy. Case in point
    : If you are a company and you buy your computer hardware, the
    depreciation of this capital investment is almost nil compared to
    acquiring the hardware through a lease. This means that you have to
    basically re-invent your system every two or three years AT THE MOST.
    Given that tech changes occur every 18 to 22 months, you can see how
    keeping up with capital investment-depreciation can become a nightmare.
    So to go back to the whole idea of proprietary information : MS by
    going on the defensive has basically split the playing field on the
    importance of the proprietary model. It is not that businesses do not
    think it is necessary; on the contrary, it is still vital as a way of
    differentiating one company from another (RedHat comes to mind); but
    after the JAVA RoundTable, you can see that there is a reckoning if not
    a push by everybody but MS to evaluate the COST of the proprietary
    model.

    http://www.ftponline.com/reports/javaone/2003/roundtable/default.asp

    The way I see it, MS is suffering from what Wired has called the "first
    out syndrome". Their obsession with reigning supreme is just pushing
    multibillion dollar companies into the "bazaar economy" that many of
    these same people dismissed as for small players just a couple of years
    ago. I find all of this fascinating. I believe it mirrors what is
    happening on other parts of the culture. Will get into that later
    --gotta go the supermarket and relieve the geek from his parenting
    duties.

    / l i z a
  • Jack Stenner | Sat Jul 12th 2003 4:25 p.m.
    Related to the discussion of browser development and WebCore, here are
    a couple of links that show some things people are playing with:

    The following use WebKit which is a higher level implementation of
    WebCore (ie. the SDK)

    Create a browser with 1 line of code:
    <http://cocoadevcentral.com/articles/000077.php>

    A guy who has taken WebKit and created a browser that "becomes" the
    desktop:
    <http://stevenf.com/index.php?node=WebDesktop>

    ...to muck with the "rendering" of course, you'd have to dig into the
    lower levels, but it's all there. Anyway, the point is there are
    advantages when sources are open and available. You never know what
    idea someone will have.

    Jack
Your Reply