cat >/dev/null

…and boy have we patented it!

…we filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them.

Steve Jobs about the new iPhone™, @Macworld 2007

UPDATE 20070119

Well, everybody and their little sisters are blabbering about the iPhone, so I feel obliged to take my turn to say something at least as earth-shattering.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of things have been said about the little that’s been shown. Of course I drool over the technical side of it, as much as the next geek, and maybe a little more. But I couldn’t help but find the patent reference at least worrisome.

I won’t say Apple doesn’t look like they’ve come up with yet another revolutionary piece of tech, or that they don’t deserve credit and reward for doing that. It’s a shame they think they have to rely on patents to get them, but I won’t say this is their fault, rather than a fault in the System (well… let’s put it this way). But what I think is their fault, and incredibly lame, is that they’re stressing on the patents issue like that.

Anyway, I’ve already been asked if I intend to buy the phone. The full answer is probably quite complex, for a change, and I think I’ll elaborate here sooner or later. For now, suffice to say that I’m stuck between desperately wanting a device like that and hoping that they choke themselves to oblivion with their two hundred patents shoved down their throat (and yes, I had to resist the temptation to rephrase).

Moreover, anybody remember this? Now, who’s claiming what again?

All in all, I think I can live without this ultra-cool device, playing music and videos on its (almost) widescreen display, surfing the web on WiFi, running OS X widgets, all through a touch screen interface, that also happens to be a phone…

…or can I?

By the way, iPhone™ is a trademark of… your guess is as good as mine

UPDATE 20070119:

Looks like I’m not the only one to notice: here’s some juice and Jeff’s (very bland) remarks.

External links:

• Jeff Han @TEDTalks demoes mindblowing multi-touch interface
• Engadget - MacWorld 2007 live coverage
• Geek and Poke - Holy Steve
• Geek and Poke - We Want This Phone

There are times when you read something so well laid out and to the point that it’s difficult to add something to it.

In my opinion, this article about the X86 OS X kernel source code closing is one of those cases.

Short story shorter, Apple objected that opening the kernel sources is going to affect the interest of only a fraction of a fraction of their users.

Sad as it is, it may be true; nonetheless, as the title of the article clearly states, it miserably fails getting to the core of the open source issue.

The article is just a reply to an objection rather than a full coverage, yet it says a lot, and it raises interesting questions. At least it did for me.

So read it if you care.

UPDATE:

The kernel source was opened in the end. Apple is engaged in a number of twists which look friendly towards the Free/Open Source Software movement. Kudos to them. I will buy my copy of Leopard when it comes out.

I was reading John Siracusa’s comments on the recent speculations about a possible kernel change in Apple OS X’s next upgrade release, codenamed Leopard.

John specifically rules out the possibility of adopting Linux as a kernel, primarily for license reasons. I am very aware of these objections, as I was before these rumours: after all, that’s why BSD was chosen in the first place. Moreover, even if it was possible, I’m not that convinced that it would be a good move for Apple.

Anyway, I can’t help asking myself what if.

What would it take technically to wrap around the GPL (without breaking its terms, that’s understood), how could it possibly work? Would it be good for users, for Apple in the long run? And ultimately, would it be good for me?

I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to these questions, except to the last one.

Links:

• A kernel of truth
• A kernel of truth: the plot thickens