iChat
As announced this morning at the WWDC, the next major revision of OS X (10.2 - due late summer) will include a new instant messaging application named iChat – a collaboration between AOL and Apple. With iChat, OS X will have a native, Apple designed interface that is fully compatible with AOL's existing AIM network of users, all 150 million of them (including me). Existing registered users can use iChat, or new users can sign up for a free Mac.com membership to receive a user name compatibile with AIM. Screenshots are yet to appear, but according the press release iChat functions in a "non-inrusive way" (*cough* hear that Microsoft? *cough*) using pleasant transparency and subtle animation. iChat will also fully integrate with Mail and Address Book as well.
UPDATE: Apple has posted a preview page of OSX 10.2 showing iChat, and brand new features not mentioned in the above press release, including handwriting recognition and a new IP tool named Rendezvous. In all, it's looking really, really good.
Comments
Is it just me, or does Sherlock 3 look a lot like Watson--even down to the icons on the toolbar?
Posted by: kirkaracha at May 6, 2002 8:47 PM
You're absolutely right. I actually sent an email to the author of Watson to see if Apple paid him, or "borrowed" features from the app. Problem is, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple did borrow ideas, for Watson really wasn't using anything all that proprietary. I love Watson, but outside of the interface there isn't anything unique or original about it that he could stand on. Well, one thing is for sure, Watson was what Sherlock should have been all along, and it took a third party app to make Apple realize it.
Posted by: Todd at May 6, 2002 9:30 PM
Does anyone besides me wish they would incorporate FAXING into the OS already? Man, that would make my life easier.
Posted by: Corey at May 7, 2002 10:44 AM
iChat looks promising. If they really want it to be successful, they'd fold in Yahoo! Messenger, MSN Messenger, ICQ, and Jabber, too, while they're at it. What better way for Apple to continue the "simpler is better" ideology they've always exhibited by helping us get rid of all these different messenger apps floating around on our desktops?
Posted by: Bob at May 7, 2002 12:51 PM
iChat is promising from a tech/marketing point of view, but i hope that isn't what the app is actually going to look like. The little heads and speech bubbles? Hopefully it's just a non-functioning mockup...
Posted by: Scott M. at May 7, 2002 2:07 PM
As for faxing, i couldn't agree with you more. I work for a company that makes fax server software for networks (plug, plug) and while we are focused on Windows for market reasons, I think if the company realized how much demand there was for a decent Mac-native fax suite, they'd port it.We have versions for AIX and Solaris so it can't be that hard....just requires time and money, and with OS X dev tools it might even go quicker. I think until now, the big stumbling block was the fact that there were no Mac drivers for commercial telephony/fax boards like Dialogic's or Brooktrout's (the industry standards). Now, however, we have a product that doesn't require boards at all - it faxes via Cisco VoIP gateways. It could be ported faster, but certain key IP telephony stacks need to be ported to OS X - namely, H.323, SIP, T.38 etc. For the time being, Mac users can use our products to receive faxes via their SMTP email, and they can send faxes via email too (including attached documents) - you have to compose a special address with the fax info, which is a bit clunky, but it works. Write to sales@interstarinc.com and let your voice be heard - if you want a Mac OS X native client or even a complete native fax server product, let us know!!
Posted by: AJ Kandy at May 7, 2002 2:20 PM
I'll write to the fax company. Even a fax sofware that worked with a modem would be great.
As for iChat, I'm sure Apple looked at AOL as the widest, and biggest name, and in order to trumpet "we're on board with AOL" they had to limit the interaction to AIM service only. Hopefully it's extensible and people can write plugins for other services.
Posted by: Corey at May 7, 2002 3:07 PM
Yea...the Watson/Sherlock 3 similiarities worry me too. I felt the same way with Apple purchased that company to make iTunes while the guys at Panic had spent so much time and effort on an arguably better product (Audion).
I'm all for apple improving the out-of-the-box experience, but they shouldn't do so without at least rewarding the 3rd party developers.
Posted by: Darrel at May 7, 2002 3:16 PM
I guess this answers my question:
Posted by: Scott M. at May 8, 2002 5:03 PM
oops link didn't come through -- let's try again:
www.spymac.com/cgi-bin/pictures/index.pl?photo=734
Posted by: Scott M> at May 8, 2002 5:03 PM
>they shouldn't do so without at least rewarding the 3rd party developers.
Name another company that releases new features and compensates third-parties just because they released something vaguely similar first?
No company in the world does this, why should Apple? Apple absorbed the entire iTunes team (C&G was just the publisher, not the writers). When Apple bought the whole team, the source code behind SoundJam became theirs to do with as they wish. There's no reason whatsoever for them to compensate Panic.
If Panic make a better product, that's the differentiation that they can offer to entice people to buy Audion rather than just sticking with the free iTunes.
Panic and Audion were already well regarded, and SoundJam becoming iTunes doesn't really affect Audion's market. People will still buy Audion for the same reasons they always have. And unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't subvert the user's ability to run Audion; in fact Audion is a featured product on Apple's Mac OS X Software site (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx)
Posted by: Deejemon at May 11, 2002 7:23 PM
