OSNews

I think that story of Opera and Apple was inflated by the blogs and media, if i remember correctly Opera didn't submit the app to the app store. However even if they did, apple doesn't like products that compete with their existing apps on the iPhone.

Seadragon doesn't compete with any apple products so it was allowed on.

The actual app is really good, although the explanation doesn't make it sound that way. To be able to view images in terms of Gigapixels is amazing, amazing still that you can do it on a portable device.

It works alittle like google earth but for pictures, it's a very impressive technology.

Microsoft Office, strangely enough, was on Apple computers before it was running on Windows. Apple may be alive today because of the pact, but if memory serves, it was a ten year long pact that started in 1997.

I'm honestly more surprised they didn't can this because it reproduces existing iPhone functionality. I don't have an iPhone, so I can't compare this feature list to the in built photo viewer's, but I'd think Microsoft's app packing more features would be an even better reason to not allow it.

Office, as a suite, was indeed released for Mac before it was released for Windows but it wasn't in 1997. Office 1 for Mac was released in 1990.
It's important to note though that all the individual components (Word, Excel etc) was all available on Windows before Mac.

"It's important to note though that all the individual components (Word, Excel etc) was all available on Windows before Mac." -> "were" available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_excel
"Redmond released the first version of Excel for the *Mac in 1985*, and the first *Windows version* (numbered 2.05 to line up with the Mac and bundled with a run-time Windows environment) in *November 1987.*"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_word
"It was first released in 1983 under the name Multi-Tool Word for Xenix systems. Versions were later written for several other platforms including IBM PCs running DOS (1983), the *Apple Macintosh (1984)*, SCO UNIX, OS/2 and *Microsoft Windows(1989)*."

Both were available first on the Mac, then on Windows. It's true that Word was at first released on Xenix, a Microsoft OS, though.

Cool. It makes sense though, DOS wasnt much to hang in the xmas tree in 1983-85.

I didn't mean that Office was part of the pact. I thought when I said that Office was on the Mac before it was on Windows, and that the pact started in 97 people might add two and two and actually get four for a change, since there were numerous Office versions for Windows prior to 1997.

blah, even I got it wrong.

Edited 2008-12-16 12:28 UTC

Safari? iTunes? Quicktime? TrueType?

Or how about their non-windows software that runs in "normal" x86 computers (CUPS for example)?

And that's just off the top of my head.

Edited 2008-12-16 11:13 UTC

I'm sorry, I don't like Apple either, but that comment's just idiotic.

Are you retarded?

It's a standard. Not a particular font. Wikipedia even says it on the first line. Part of it is patented by Apple, hence the FreeType implementation, but it's not a font.

When several people tell you the same thing, maybe they're right and you are wrong. Ever considered that possibility?

TrueType is indeed a technology, not a font.

Oh, and stop calling people, please.

It's hard to decide which line makes the least sense

KHTML is a rendering engine. Webkit was based on khtml, but hasn't been that similar for years (read the khtml lists, the apple patches are useless do to how different the projects are now). Safari is a browser with the webkit rendering engine.

There is a relationship between khtml and safari, but it is pretty tenuous at this point.



Where does HP, Dell, and others factor into anything? Apple wanted to sell their software to more then 10% of people with computers, its that simple.



So apple porting something to windows in order to increase its adoption makes it not apples anymore? how does that work?



TrueType is a technology, not a font



Apple owns CUPS http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475

If you buy something, it is yours.



Who cares? You were responding to someone questioning the statement Apple doesn't allow their software to run on normal x86 computer

I think I have you figured out. You aren't a dumb guy or anything, you just have these blinding hatreds of various technology groups. As long as your comment is not touching on any of them, it tends to be well reasoned (sometimes even insightful) As soon as it touches on one of these groups you cant stand (BSD/Apple/Microsoft), all reason and rationality go out the window.

You really hate Apple don't you?

I stated that Apple software is available for Windows and x86 *nix and then followed to back that up with examples.

So what if Safari uses webkit. So does Google Crome and Konqurer - all of which are massively different from each other and from Safari.

And so what if Apple only reluctantly ported iTunes and quicktime player. They still ported it (or licenced 3rd party developers to port Apple's software)

And so what if my examples were free products, they're still owned by Apple.

All of your replies have been nothing more than dancing around the fact I stated earlier that Apple software does run on "normal" x86 platforms.
Whether they ported it themselves, programmed the original technology or whatever is completely irrelevent to the point I made.

Apple forked KHTML for their Safari browser so WebKit was born. They are responsible for the port, they are sharing the code, and they own WebKit. Even OS X's core is open source, you can go and build your own Darwin distribution if you want.

And Apple doesn't owe other platform users anything. Just like Microsoft has the right to keep their software on their own OS (e.g. Media Player, Media Center, Windows Live Essentials), so does Apple.
Of course they will port their software if that gets them money. They are a company, not a charity and they follow their own interests.


He's not:
Apple purchased NeXT => NeXTStep is owned by Apple => OS X is born, and surprise, it's Apple's property
Apple purchased touch company => IP owned by Apple
Apple purchased CUPS => CUPS is owned by Apple. License doesn't matter.
[and so on...]

Edited 2008-12-16 19:16 UTC

Exactly. You have figured him out. It's best to ignore him now.

But keep in mind the Achilles Heel is Microsoft Office. If Microsoft drops Office for Mac, Apple dies in the enterprise. The existence of Office for Mac is the ONLY reason we even allow Macs as an option on our enterprise network. Without Office for Mac, compatibility would just be too much of a problem. No shared Exchange calendars, no appointment and meeting scheduling, etc.

So yes, in many ways Apple is very dependent on Microsoft for survival at least when they want to play in the big leagues.

Edited 2008-12-16 17:55 UTC

First Safari, then iWork, now Exchange.

Don't forget that they are implementing Exchange support in Snow Leopard. I think in 3 years from now, Apple will become independent of MS.

Wow, and they modded you up too. First of all Opera was never submitted to the app store and for good reason as the developers knew that they have had issues getting the app accepted in the first place, not because they duplicate Apples efforts but because they used a runtime like environment in their app to support certain type of functionality.

There are plenty of image viewers and camera apps in the appstore so what makes you think Apple wouldn't accept this one? The app is really good but no because its MS and and its Apple, here is no merit to the technology, it must be a pact. It can't be that the app is actually good. The fact of the matter is that despite what chair-throwing Steve says about Apple, MS has always had a presence on Apple's platform. This is no different.

Actually, a pact was made. A loooong time ago when the Steves & Bill were 'friends.'

Otherwise, I'm actually aware of the Java VM method decided to use, though I was not aware that they didn't actually submit the app.

In all seriousness, though, I don't see the appeal of 'smart' phones - period. E-mail & the internet are things I do when I have time to waste, otherwise I do real things most of the time.

Heh, I spend about four hours a month on my phone - a simple basic Nokia - no camera, no games, but I do have color!

Oh well.. I'm going back to my DVD project...

--The loon

You do realize that smart phones are an absolute GODSEND for businesses, right? You may not see the appeal, but the rest of the world does which is why they exist.

I thought that would be a conversation starter :-)

because someone assed up the description... it allows you to basically zoom into an image of giant size while not loosing fidelity its amazing.

s/direction/directly/

hadn't had my coffee yet ;-)

That's "Haven't had any coffe yet".

Get to that brew immediatly!

Well I have that problem.

Using BeOS and virtual screens, I have captured 4K by 3K screen shots from Google maps (no borders - BeOS is great that way) of the area around my cabin.

Ther is no standard map showing the wilderness trail, swamps and smaller lakes in the area. Even government survey maps miss many details that show up in Google's satellites pictures.

The long term plan is to sew them together (the pics) into a 64K by 64K map, but no tool I have seen makes it *EASY* to scroll around, zoom in and zoom out on said image.

This is a direction Microsoft have been pushing since the Windows 95 days.

After all, he who controls the internet controls the world.