The end of Premiere for Mac

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>

> 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

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

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

> > 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

>> >
>>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>

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

> >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

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>

btw

there's a thread on slashdot too:

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/07/07/1636214.shtml?tid7&tid7
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

> 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

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

> > 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

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

> > 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

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

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>

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

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