Pretty hilarious to see how a Steve Jobs' keynote in the early 80's is so similar to one today. I also had no idea Noah Wyle played him in the movie. That's boss.
- Xerox invented the GUI'd OS which utilized a mouse and curser.
- Apple stole their idea, but created their own OS and also created their own version of the mouse.
- Microsoft stole Apple's OS and rebranded it as Windows, and sold it to NEC for their computers, which included Apple's mouse design.
That's Apple fanboy talk. Microsoft copied Apple in the same sense that Apple copied Xerox. Windows was built from scratch using Microsoft's own code. The only thing they "stole" from MacOS was the GUI concept and features, which Apple copied from Xerox.
This is how Andy Hertzfeld, one of the primary software programmers on the original Mac team, described the situation:
In November 1983, we heard that Microsoft made a surprising announcement at Comdex, the industry's premier trade show, held twice a year in Las Vegas. Microsoft announced a new, mouse-based system graphical user interface environment called Windows, competing directly with an earlier environment announced by Personal Software called "Vision". They also announced a mouse-based option for Microsoft Word. When Steve Jobs found out about Windows, he went ballistic.
"Get Gates down here immediately", he fumed to Mike Boich, Mac's original evangelist who was in charge of our relationships with third party developers. "He needs to explain this, and it better be good. I want him in this room by tomorrow afternoon, or else!"
And, to my surprise, I was invited to a meeting in that conference room the next afternoon, where Bill Gates had somehow manifested, alone, surrounded by ten Apple employees. I think Steve wanted me there because I had evidence of Neil asking about the internals, but that never came up, so I was just a fascinated observer as Steve started yelling at Bill, asking him why he violated their agreement.
"You're ripping us off!", Steve shouted, raising his voice even higher. "I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!"
But Bill Gates just stood there coolly, looking Steve directly in the eye, before starting to speak in his squeaky voice.
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
That's Apple fanboy talk. Microsoft copied Apple in the same sense that Apple copied Xerox. Windows was built from scratch using Microsoft's own code. The only thing they "stole" from MacOS was the GUI concept and features, which Apple copied from Xerox.
This is how Andy Hertzfeld, one of the primary software programmers on the original Mac team, described the situation:
- Apple got the idea of a GUI from Xerox, and built their own OS with their own GUI implementation.
- Microsoft conned Apple into signing them to a software development contract (MS was going to, essentially, provide the "iWork" part of the Mac), which included 3 working Mac prototypes.
- Microsoft fed Apple lines about how they were working on this app or that app, but in reality, they were reverse-engineering the Apple OS and building Windows from the ground up, based on the principles they saw.
- Unfortunately, they couldn't figure everything out, so they had to fill in their own bits and pieces along the way, which is what led to the glorious bit of innovation known as the Windows Registry.
There's no need for calling anyone a "fanboy" just for laying out the facts. I didn't say Apple was innocent, I'm quite aware they stole the idea of a GUI from Xerox... but there's a big difference between stealing an idea, and stealing an entire project.
The Xerox thing wasn't even a fully functioning OS. It was just a working demo of a graphical user interface that some techies in Palo Alto created. Yes, they invented the GUI, but they never had an OS to steal. It was only an idea.
Edit: Also, the bit from the end of the article that you copied and pasted, was already posted by me in the youtube clip from the Pirates of Silicon Valley movie. It says nothing of what actually happened, only how the two parties reacted to it. The beginning and middle of that article has the actual relevant information to this discussion.
Edit: Cleaned up this post a bit. I'm trying to find ways of not sounding as argumentative as I normally might.
Microsoft fed Apple lines about how they were working on this app or that app, but in reality, they were reverse-engineering the Apple OS and building Windows from the ground up, based on the principles they saw.
That's not really an accurate statement at all. In the mid-late 80s, Microsoft and IBM were jointly working on a project which later forked and became Windows NT and OS/2. It had many features in common with Apple's MacOS, but none of the source code was directly ripped off or reverse-engineered from Apple. It also had several key features that weren't present in Apple's product, most notably preemptive multitasking (the first version of MacOS to support this was OS 10.0, released in 2001).
Microsoft's main systems programmer assigned to the Mac project was Neil Konzen, a brilliant young Apple II hacker who grew up in their backyard in the suburbs of Seattle. Neil started working at Microsoft while he was still a high school student, and single-handedly implemented the system software for their hit Z80 card that allowed the Apple II to run CP/M software.
Neil loved Apple, so it was natural for Microsoft to assign him to their new, top-secret Macintosh project. He was responsible for integrating Microsoft's byte-code based interpreted environment (which actually was a copy of a system used at Xerox that favored memory efficiency over execution speed, which was appropriate for the Mac's limited memory) with the rapidly evolving Macintosh OS, so he quickly became Microsoft's expert in the technical details of the Mac system.
I gradually began to notice that Neil would often ask questions about implementation details that he didn't really need to know about. In particular, he was really curious about how regions were represented and implemented, and would often detail his theories about them to me, hoping for confirmation.
Aside from intellectual curiosity, there was no reason to care about the system internals unless you were trying to implement your own version of it. I told Steve that I suspected that Microsoft was going to clone the Mac, but he wasn't that worried because he didn't think they were capable of doing a decent implementation, even with the Mac as an example.
Admittedly, I haven't read as much as other people on this... but I have read quite a bit. Everything I've read has left me with the impression that MS reverse-engineered the Apple OS in order to build Windows.
Keep in mind, when I say "reverse-engineering" I'm not necessarily referring to code level, I'm just talking about the internals of the OS, like was mentioned in the article.
Edit: Again, this is my interpretation of the things I have read. If I'm wrong, or if there's a fact-checked document somewhere that says that MS did not copy Windows from Apple, please let me know. It's all a pretty confusing story, so there's certainly room for error on my part.
Admittedly, I haven't read as much as other people on this...
I have. I have a degree in Computer Science and wrote an undergrad research paper about the history of the personal computer. I'm as much an expert in this field as anyone else on this forum.
Quote:
Keep in mind, when I say "reverse-engineering" I'm not necessarily referring to code level, I'm just talking about the internals of the OS, like was mentioned in the article.
And that's the problem right there. "Reverse-engineering" has a very specific meaning in technology. It means making an exact clone of something, like Compaq did with the IBM PC. Windows and OS/2 were not reverse-engineered from the Macintosh's OS, or else applications written for the Mac would also run on those other systems. They certainly had features in common, some of which were no doubt inspired by (or "stolen from") the Mac, but there most certainly was not any reverse-engineering going on. Microsoft and IBM also added features to their products that were not present on the Mac.
And that's the problem right there. "Reverse-engineering" has a very specific meaning in technology. It means making an exact clone of something, like Compaq did with the IBM PC. Windows and OS/2 were not reverse-engineered from the Macintosh's OS, or else applications written for the Mac would also run on those other systems. They certainly had features in common, some of which were no doubt inspired by (or "stolen from") the Mac, but there most certainly was not any reverse-engineering going on. Microsoft and IBM also added features to their products that were not present on the Mac.
Ah, there's the confusion. Sorry, I'm sometimes pretty loose with terms that otherwise have very specific definitions. I guess that's an unfortunate side-effect of being self-taught.
All I meant to say was that they looked at System Preferences, and then created the Control Panel (for example).
As PreCentral points out, the move is a bold statement by Palm given the company's apparent misuse of Apple's USB Vendor ID in order to permit iTunes media syncing.
I just plugged my 1.1 Pre into my Mac in Media Sync mode and sure enough, it's identifying itself with an Apple USB Vendor ID:
Such use of another manufacturer's Vendor ID is "strictly prohibited" by the USB Implementers Forum:
When you apply for a USB Vendor ID, you sign a form that explicitly states that:
"Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited."
Based on Palm's actions, it appears that the company believes that Apple's refusal to allow open access to iTunes via USB is a severe enough violation of the relatively open nature of the USB standards that it is willing to violate standards itself in order to work around Apple's restrictions.
I see your on-topic post and raise you a very inflammatory off topic post.
Apple employee who lost iPhone 4G prototype commits "apparent" suicide after being interrogated and tortured for losing phone. Apple fanboys allege Microsoft behind it all.
I see your on-topic post and raise you a very inflammatory off topic post.
Apple employee who lost iPhone 4G prototype commits "apparent" suicide after being interrogated and tortured for losing phone. Apple fanboys allege Microsoft behind it all.
This story (while not this exact article) was already posted somewhere. As I understand things, an employee at a Chinese company (Foxcon) lost an iPhone prototype and committed suicide out of "shame."
Everything else is pure speculation. We won't know any of the factual details until the investigation is finished. The only publicly available facts right now are that he reported the lost prototype to his superiors at Foxcon, and that there is security video footage of him jumping out of his window on his own accord.
As for the bit about "fanboys blaming MS" ... I think we can all agree that's just garbage.
(btw, I am not familiar with the site this article is from... is it a satirical site, because this sounds like even "looser" journalism than found on some blogs out there)
I see your on-topic post and raise you a very inflammatory off topic post.
Apple employee who lost iPhone 4G prototype commits "apparent" suicide after being interrogated and tortured for losing phone. Apple fanboys allege Microsoft behind it all.
You should work for Fox News. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article.
Apple Fanboys excited about 4g iPhone.
NEW PARAGRAPH
Other's dismiss the report saying Microsoft is behind it...
Yeah, I picked up on that too... I just wasn't sure if this site was some kind of tech version of The Onion or whatever. I didn't want to get caught tearing apart some article without realizing it was just a satirical piece.
Whatever the reasons, it sucks, and as Jason Kincaid says, what's really troubling about this rejection is that it appears that "Apple is now actively stifling innovation." And the whole black box app approval process doesn't exactly alleviate that sinking feeling either. After all, if Google doesn't stand a chance, how does anybody else?
Apple resembling that other company more and more.
Interesting. I don't buy the whole "AT&T blocked it because of free SMS and cheaper long distance" argument. If they were truly concerned about that, they would have blocked Skype long ago.
Nah, I think this has more to do with Google's history of using unsupported 3rd party APIs in their iPhone apps, which is a violation of App Store policies.
Apple took a bit of a hit for approving the Google Mobile App when it was later discovered to use a 3rd party API for the voice-based search. If this new Google Voice uses that same illegal API, then it should be blocked. Every other developer has to follow the rules.
Again, if AT&T was really worried about long distance rates, they would have blocked the Skype app, which is far more established and far more dangerous than a brand new Google app that nobody knows about.
Edit: Looks like the official reason for denial is because the Google Voice app mimics native OS functionality, which is also against the app-store TOS.
Well, Apple and AT&T seem to have some interesting agreements.
Like if you have a Slingbox, the iPhone will only play it over Wi-Fi, not 3G
Quote:
We really think this app is one of the best reasons to own a Slingbox – a seamless, high quality experience that shows off the magic of Sling technology and the iPhone. This app is restricted to Wi-Fi only at this time.
The reason for this is that Apple refused to approve an earlier version of the app that allows users to stream video over the Edge and 3G networks, because its partner AT&T worried that SlingBox owners would overload the company’s 3G wireless network by streaming video to their iPhones.
Quote:
However, this policy is obviously inconsistent. Owners of the Samsung Blackjack, Motorola Q, Blackberry, and other smartphones are able to stream Slingbox content over AT&T’s 3G network. Only Sling’s iPhone app is crippled in this way.
So there are some strange things going on between Apple and AT&T (why does it always seem like AT&T is involved in issues lately?)
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Yeah that is pretty messed up. The only plausible thing I can come up with is that the number of iPhones on AT&T's network probably dwarfs all the other consumer smart phones combined. With the screen and app advantages of the iPhone, the whole slingbox thing actually becomes a valid idea, which would make for an awful lot of 3G bandwidth.
I'm just guessing tho. I mean, I can't really see Apple willingly crippling an app on their phones for nothing.
Actually it really sucks when I had a blackberry I would use the slingbox app on it all the time and it was great on 3G, no way am I paying the $20+ for the iphone app of it that will only use the edge and wifi.
It should be noted, too, that AT&T wouldn't even enable tethering for the 3.0 iPhone OS. Really, as much as people complain about Rogers (rightfully so, a lot of times), they come out looking pretty good when compared to AT&T.
