samuraipanda.com

Apple applications has a little red button on each app (unless disabled) that closes a window, but not necessarily the app. Some apps close, others don’t. The inconsistency can be confusing. iPhoto closes, whereas iTunes does not. Further, it causes usability with some applicaitons, both Apple built as well as independent developers. Here are two examples of problems you can encounter:

1. You start download something Firefox, then close the main browser window, leaving just the download window. Now, according to the dock, Firefox is still running. Clicking the Firefox icon brings up the download window, but not a browser window. You can open a new browser window by going to download window and clicking “Command-N”. This window problem doesn’t exist in Safari, so in part it’s a Firefox problem, but …
2. You set iTunes to open videos in an external window and play a podcast/tv show/movie and then close the main iTunes window. Now clicking on the iTunes icon will bring the video window, but not a new main window. As far as I can tell, there is no way to open open the main iTunes window without closing the video window first.

Basically Apple should enforce one idea or the other. They can easily change the functionality to what it sometimes is, which is “hide” and require that users use Cmd-Q to close an app. I mean this is Apple, things should “just work”!

Finally got around to watching the Macworld Keynote with the introduction of the Apple iPhone. One of the things that disturbed me was Steve’s mention of patenting. In general, I don’t have a problem with patents (own a couple myself). The problem I have is patenting obvious ideas. Take Visual Voice Mail.

The basic idea is that the iPhone will offer the user the ability to discretely access voice mail. Instead of having to go through all the new voice mails, a user can directly access a voice mail based on the caller. Seems like a good idea, but it’s been done. Vonage has a similar concept with it’s web based voice mail interface. It doesn’t match a phone number to an address book entry, but you can listen to voice mail in any order you want via a UI.

Further, Vonage offers email notification of new voice mail with attached WAV versions of the voice mail. The simple extension is to download this email into an email app and match the phone number to a local address book. It could be done as an Apple widget, which can access the local address book. It could be done using gmails address book. Anyway you look at it, visual voice mail has been done and shouldn’t be patentable.

Software patents are difficult. They patent ideas, not inventions. Patenting discrete access voice mail is bad. Patenting a way of doing discrete access voice mail is good. The former says that discrete access is a unique technology when it’s an idea, it covers ever implementation of discrete access. The latter is a mechanism for doing it, providing a way of performing an idea. The difference is the equivalent of patenting the idea of a light emitting device (i.e. anything that emits light), whereas the latter patents a mechanism for emitting light (i.e. the incandescent light bulb). Unfortunately the patent office is allowing the patenting of ideas/concepts. This is leading to a feeding frenzy of applications where ideas like Instant Messaging and One-Click purchasing are patented. It’s bad law and bad patenting.