Apple vs Microsoft Both Copycats

jdbartlett writes "Yesterday, we read Paul Thurrott's response to Apple's Leopard preview. In his TechBlog, Jim Thompson trims Thurrott's bloated opinion piece and presents an alternative take on four major new features, admitting that each may have been inspired but certainly not by Microsoft. Thompson ignores 6 features; some (Core Animation, Accessibility improvements) needed no defense, but perhaps not all Thurrott's points were invalid."

Comprimise

[scolen2]

Windows copied the Mac OS, no one will dispute this, not even Bill. Mac is not duplicating windows at all, they are only makeing it easier for a PC user to switch. This comes directly from Steve. There is no benifit of the windows OS except its memory schemes, the new Mac OS is just a comprimise.

Both of them suck

[wheatking]

Both companies suck at caring for their customers. I wish Google will start making and selling consumer PC terminal thin clients that do not have any 'state' and do not require any local software to be loaded at all. the geekboys can battle out the oh so 90s choices. all i want are my applications and i really do not want to give a damn about the OS anymore.

TechBlog is missing the point

[kjart]

It's not so much that Thurrott is claiming that Microsoft invented all of these features, it's merely a rebuttal against all of the Vista bashing that Apple indulged in. Thurrott is not claiming that Microsoft invented the 64bit OS (contrary to what TechBlog seems to think) - he's just saying they beat Apple to it.

Also, for those that seem to think this is all pro-Microsoft hogwash, the following came up within the first few paragraphs:

As Serlet effectively demonstrated, Windows Calendar is almost identical looking to iCal, right down to the candy-colored appointment blobs. That's just embarrassing.

He said that Vista's IE 7 stole the friendly RSS view from Safari, Apple's Web browser. And sure enough, he's got a point. I said so in my own reviews of IE 7 betas. It's a great feature, and Apple did it first.

Re:Comprimise

[Ruff_ilb]

Actually, BOTH companies copied a GUI design that Xerox implemented a full NINE years before the Mac was even concieved.

"Xerox PARC was the incubator of many elements of modern computing. Most were included in the Alto, which introduced and unified most aspects of now-standard personal computer usage model: the mouse1, computer generated color graphics, a graphical user interface featuring windows and icons, the WYSIWYG text editor, InterPress (a resolution-independent graphical page description language and the precursor to PostScript), Ethernet, and fully formed object-oriented programming in the Smalltalk programming language and integrated development environment. The laser printer was developed at the same time, as an integral part of the overall environment."

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[rolfwind]

I believe that Thurrot advanced that Apple copies MS too (and not just the other way around), which implies that MS invented those features originally - otherwise Apple would be copying Unix as there is no way to know if they were copying a feature just because it was on Windows.

For instance, he said that MS had something like "Spaces" originally in some obscure version of NT which was never officially released, however anybody with any familiarity with Unix will have recognized that Apple probably got the idea for multiple desktops there rather than from MS. It's an insincere point.

The OS X/Windows/UNIX feature cycle

[mblase]

1. Windows (or UNIX) implements a useful feature. It is kludgy, difficult to use, and powerful in the right hands.
2. OS X (or Windows) borrows the feature, puts a GUI on top of it, and trumpets it with the next release.
3. UNIX (or OS X) copies the feature, customizes the GUI, tweaks it a bit to make it more powerful, and mentions it in the next release.
4. Windows (or UNIX) copies the feature, integrates it into the OS completely, tweaks it a bit to make it less useful, and fails to mention it at all.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The $150Mil settlement

[Shawn Parr]

Conveniently most people don't remember, or never realized at the time that there was a patent dispute. Part of the $150 million deal was a patent cross licensing deal.

So let's look at facts:

1. Microsoft buys $150 million in non-voting stock
2. Apple had way more money in cash at the time (thus rumors of their demise were...)
3. Apple gets access to Microsoft Patents and Microsoft gets access to Apple patents (which is one reason why Microsoft can make their new apps look a lot like Apple's I would guess)

This is what I think most people would refer to as an out of court settlement, politically twisted to look like a political gesture.

Re:Comprimise

[GaryPatterson]

Apple *licenced* the UI elements from Xerox, who made quite a bit of money on the Apple stock they received.

Microsoft had no such agreement.

Apple also extended the UI from what Xerox had (have you ever seen a PARC in action? Clunky, horrible UI but with the germ of a good UI hidden within).

All the talk about copying ignores innovation

[DECS]

Rather than trying to establish who came up with an idea, I'd like to see more attention given to new, innovative ideas. I'd like to see Microsoft, Apple, and open source groups copy each other's good ideas as much as possible. Good ideas deserved to be copied!

RoughlyDrafted Magazine has articles on what's really new in Time Machine in The Time Machine Rip-off Myth [roughlydrafted.com],

explained what new stuff Thurrott overlooked in WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss [roughlydrafted.com],

and gave Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can) [roughlydrafted.com].

The RDM Paul Thurrott story was dugg 1300+ times today!

the debate itself is stupid

[m874t232]

But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.

Why the hell would anybody care whether Microsoft or Apple puts a feature into their OS a few months earlier?

The two things that matter are:

(1) Who invented the feature in the first place, because those are the people we want to give our money to so that they can come up with more good stuff.

(2) If it's a useful feature, how can we make sure that everybody copies it as quickly as possible? Yes, it is beneficial to users if Windows, OS X, Gnome, KDE, and all other desktops quickly converge on the most useful features and UI standards so that people can switch between them easily, competition drives down cost, and companies are forced to come up with something new again.

Note that (1) is usually neither Microsoft nor Apple; so, if you think you're doing something for innovation and the betterment of the world by buying Apple products, think again. Buy Apple because they make well-designed products. But when it comes to innovation, Apple has been pretty much thriving for the past two decades on being a cheapskate and a copycat.

Re:iChat

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding desktop sharing is indeed a major feature.

Yes it is... and Windows XP shipped with it. It's called the "Remote Assistance" feature and it's part of Windows Messenger. It's designed so that people can "chat with you, view your screen, and with your permission, work on your computer".

Here is a Microsoft tutorial [microsoft.com], which dates from 2001.

Congratulations for catching up, Apple.

Re:who cares?

[larry bagina]

Copland. Pink. Taligent. Hell, the entire 90s. They're still delaying/cancelling features with OS X. The difference is, they're not pre-announcing them, and they're releasing minor updates.

Useless Argument

[BrainRam]

Even CoreAnimation is not beyond the "copying" argument. Microsoft shipped DirectAnimation years ago. Here's a link to the press release. [microsoft.com]

But this entire argument is completely useless. There are a number of skills at play when it comes to building and shipping any techology. First, a company needs to see an opportunity. Then, they need to design the right product for the market. Then they need to implement the product so that it can be easily used and make sure it's flexible enough that users can mould it into their products. Finally, the technology must be correclty marketed.

Fail at any of these, and you'll end up with a technological dead end. But that doesn't mean that somebody else didn't see the need as well, or that somebody else might not implement a better framework. That's supposed to be the beauty of our industry. There is room for competition and innovation, and no two products will hit the exact same sweet spot with a user base.

It doesn't matter who did it first. It matters who does it best for you. If I'm forced to code only on Linux, then I can tell you that CoreAnimation is not the technology for me. So I'll be looking for some competition. If I get to use OS X, I'm sure CoreAnimaiton will be useful. And if I'm on Windows, welll, DirectAnimation is dead. So I guess I'm screwed.

I don't care who was first, or who copied who. I need techology, and the capabilites of any library or feature I can use are highly dependent on the capabilities of the platform itself. If my OS provider can keep rolling out new features that help me write better software, I'm all for it. Even if they are copying somebody else. Where would any art form we have today be without the copying of features? Music, painting, storytelling; all art relies on a shared context. Great art works from there and pushes the boundaries. And I believe that coding can be an artistic expression. So I expect great programmers to borrow from each other, and then push those ideas in new directions.

We can argue which company's new direction we like best. But who is copying who? I don't care. I only care who is making the technology that I can use to write my software.