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.
Thread beginning with comment 340501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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!?!?"
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

No , If I hated Apple I would stay away from OSnews ...
Just no point in wasting my precious time on things I don't like , millions of other sites to look at , that don't mean I am gonna agree or disagree with 100% of the content made here.

I stated that Apple software is available for Windows and x86 *nix


Yes and I disagree with that and stated why.

then followed to back that up with examples.


Yes and said why they are bad examples.

So what if Safari uses webkit.


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.

You also seem to think that only Apple and Windows exist that they are the only normal platform. Your the one who is dancing around facts to make a false point. They don't even have 100% full catalog sharing in the first place.

they're still owned by Apple.


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

Reply Parent Score: -2

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 Parent Score: 3

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

You missed reality :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit

License doesn't matter.


That's not what Apple is saying to Psystar ...

Reply Parent Score: -1