Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 16th Dec 2008 07:02 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Apple Microsoft's first-ever iPhone application is a slick photo viewer with a browsing capability that handles a large number of photos on a mobile device screen. The Seadragon mobile application is free through Apple's application store. It a product of Microsoft's Live Labs division, which focuses on developing Web-based technology and applications. Seadragon incorporates the Deep Zoom feature, which is also integrated into Silverlight 2, Microsoft's multimedia tool. It allows a user to quickly magnify a particular area of a photo, regardless of its size.
Order by: Score:
And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by looncraz on Tue 16th Dec 2008 07:42 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

Considering Apple didn't allow Opera in their store, one would expect to be surprised Apple allowed Microsoft products at all...

BUT of course they would! Apple is alive today because of a pact with Microsoft - Apple doesn't allow their software to run on normal x86 computers, and Microsoft allows them to live - and ported Office to MacOS, thereby throwing Apple a bone.

Of course, these days, Apple could get smart and prepare to battle the giant - virtually any action on Microsoft's part could be turned into a valid anti-trust case. Not to mention that the current economic environment would certainly play a positive role...

Oh well, it is still very nice to see competitors working together - now only if Apple would allow directly competing apps ( such as the browser ) it might become rather interesting.

Still, though, I only see a cell-phone as a portable phone w/ a simple calculator, calendar, address book, & alarm clock :-) I guess I'm just old school now, at the ripe old age of 27, heh.

--The loon

Reply Score: 0

RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by REM2000 on Tue 16th Dec 2008 08:37 UTC in reply to "And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moredhas on Tue 16th Dec 2008 09:16 UTC in reply to "And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Dec 2008 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Apple may be alive today because of the pact, but if memory serves, it was a ten year long pact that started in 1997.


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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by -oblio- on Tue 16th Dec 2008 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

"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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Soulbender on Tue 16th Dec 2008 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moredhas on Tue 16th Dec 2008 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by gfolkert on Tue 16th Dec 2008 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

blah, even I got it wrong.

Edited 2008-12-16 12:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Laurence on Tue 16th Dec 2008 11:10 UTC in reply to "And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple is alive today because of a pact with Microsoft - Apple doesn't allow their software to run on normal x86 computers, and Microsoft allows them to live


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

Reply Score: 6

v RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 16th Dec 2008 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

TrueType is a font , not software.


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

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 16th Dec 2008 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

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.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 16th Dec 2008 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
RE[7]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by dragossh on Wed 17th Dec 2008 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

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.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

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

Safari was not made by Apple. It's there rebranding and derivative of khtml.


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.

iTune was ported to windows only and this in a deal with HP , Dell , and others to push the iPod's , they would not take them if they did not made the iTune available.


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.

Quicktime is also not from Apple. It was made available to windows to push adoption of the quicktime format by camera makers.


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

TrueType is a font , not software.


TrueType is a technology, not a font

CUPS was not made by Apple either and is a UNIX printing protocol under the GPL.


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

If you buy something, it is yours.

How many of those Apple derivative run on BSD ? How Many on GNU/Linux ? How many on BEos ? How many on OS/2 ? How many on OpenSolaris ? etc ...


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.

Reply Score: 11

v RE[4]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 16th Dec 2008 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
RE[5]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Laurence on Tue 16th Dec 2008 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[6]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by Moulinneuf on Tue 16th Dec 2008 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
RE[7]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by dragossh on Tue 16th Dec 2008 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

It shows that they are not the one who are responsible for the port. Meaningless for you , surely , but not for me and others. it also show that Apple is not really sharing it's own software but improving those made by others , unless they are forced to do so. If they did port there entire catalog and allowed other to work on it , nobody would have anything to say about that point. You also tried to use the minority to show as a majority and made a false point.

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.

That's where your the most wrong. Apple Branding is not equal to full ownership.

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

Reply Score: 3

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21


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.


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

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by pantheraleo on Tue 16th Dec 2008 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by dragossh on Tue 16th Dec 2008 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by apoclypse on Tue 16th Dec 2008 13:41 UTC in reply to "And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by looncraz on Wed 17th Dec 2008 05:53 UTC in reply to "RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

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

Reply Score: 3

jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: And Apple Allowed it!?!?
by looncraz on Wed 17th Dec 2008 05:48 UTC in reply to "And Apple Allowed it!?!?"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I thought that would be a conversation starter :-)

Reply Score: 2

Wow
by charlieb on Tue 16th Dec 2008 08:02 UTC
charlieb
Member since:
2008-12-16

It allows a user to quickly magnify a particular area of a photo, regardless of its size.

I am the only one underwhelmed by this statement?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Wow
by cchance on Tue 16th Dec 2008 12:42 UTC in reply to "Wow"
cchance Member since:
2006-02-24

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

Reply Score: 3

An example of deep zoom
by google_ninja on Tue 16th Dec 2008 13:10 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

For those of you with silverlight http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/

Basically, it takes a very high rez image and breaks it down into thousands of images of varying resolutions, and then streams it to you on demand. The whole thing is executed really well.

Its one of those things that was productized direction out of microsoft research, and as such is pretty cool, but also a fairly complex solution to a problem noone really has.

Reply Score: 4

RE: An example of deep zoom
by google_ninja on Tue 16th Dec 2008 13:39 UTC in reply to "An example of deep zoom"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

s/direction/directly/

hadn't had my coffee yet ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: An example of deep zoom
by coolvibe on Tue 16th Dec 2008 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE: An example of deep zoom"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

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

Get to that brew immediatly! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: An example of deep zoom
by Earl Colby pottinger on Tue 16th Dec 2008 20:26 UTC in reply to "An example of deep zoom"
Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 2

Nex6
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft, microsoft is a software company. they write software, thats what they do.

and, microsft makes tons of money selling mac osx software. office, and licensing all there font and cleartype tech.

why does it surprise anyone?


-Nex6

Reply Score: 2

Apple and Microsoft are ev...
by hibridmatthias on Tue 16th Dec 2008 16:53 UTC
hibridmatthias
Member since:
2007-04-11

er the innovaters (Bet you thought this was gonna say something else, didnt you all)..

All joking aside, it is interesting to see Microsoft going laterally into web-based content/management rathher than full-blown-kill-all monoploy tactics. Also to see them integrating with Linux and Apple.

It seems like Microsoft is making a strategic move like Novell did with its Netware during the DOS days? Instead of just hammering with their OS monopoly, they seem to be going in a new direction as an add-on shop with a more humble and competitive attitude. I cite Silver/Moonlight, acknowledgeing ODF formats, and iPhone apps as examples). With the rise of OSX and Linux and the Vista debacle, it would seem they actually might want to innovate to stay relevant.

I'm not saying they aren't still an unethical behemoth only to be rivaled by Apple's unethical questionably open platform, but it would seem that the rise of libre software has truly altered the traditional computing landscape paradigm...

It's a neat time to be interested in computing, that's for certain

Edited 2008-12-16 16:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple and Microsoft are ev...
by Laurence on Tue 16th Dec 2008 17:29 UTC in reply to "Apple and Microsoft are ev..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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

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

Reply Score: 2