Time saving app, new tools, better interface ... but check out its new icon; does it mean it will soon be acquired by Apple and add it to iTools? Or at least make it a standard part of MacOS X 10.2?
I use it regularly and keep recommending it to all my X friends.
:cool:
Comments
Best damn tool for OS X.
If I Were Apple (tm), I'd buy that puppy -- and hire its creators -- in a snap.
I'd really like to see Watson become part of OS X. I bought the multiuser license as soon as I saw the presentation via Quicktime and use it daily... needless to say, my PC buddies at work wish they had it for windows.
There is a trial download available, give it a shot, you have nothing to loose and you will probably realize it's a really good and useful application.
Watson is a great program, but you have to realize a couple of things: First, much of what Watson is doing is illegal. Watson is flying under the radar right now by ripping the content directly off of the websites.
For example, I guarantee AOL would not be very happy if it knew there was a program out there performing queries on its showtimes, stripping out synopses and reading the trailers off of its site. The same goes for a few other of the channels. Watson does not have permission from AOL or licenses from any of its channels.
Secondly and mos importantly, Watson can be broken VERY easily. If one of those websites makes any major changes to their websites, that channel becomes broken. Watson would have to continually keep up with updates to every one of those websites from which it is stripping data, which is a very difficult task.
On a final note, I do think the two hurdles I mentioned above can be overcome, but it would require a lot of $$$ and a lot of work. While Watson looks great on the outside and is making great improvements, I think it lives best as a 3rd party app, IMHO.
---------------
RosettaStoned
<strong>Watson is a great program, but you have to realize a couple of things: First, much of what Watson is doing is illegal. Watson is flying under the radar right now by ripping the content directly off of the websites. </strong><hr></blockquote>Illegal?
Where is there a law saying you can't pull content off the internet? Sure, it's getting around any ads and such, but browsers can do that sort of thing by turning off graphics - certainly nothing illegal about it, AFAIK.
I'd just like to see the law that makes it illegal to access content from the internet with a specialized browser. That's all Watson is - a browser that formats content in its own way.
How are Sherlock's internet search features any different? It pulls content directly from other search engines on the internet.
OTOH, I agree with you that it should NOT be bought by Apple. Good stuff like this should stay with their third-party originators.
[edit] [quote]Secondly and mos importantly, Watson can be broken VERY easily. If one of those websites makes any major changes to their websites, that channel becomes broken. Watson would have to continually keep up with updates to every one of those websites from which it is stripping data, which is a very difficult task.<hr></blockquote>Again, same with Sherlock.
And the plug-in architecture makes this fairly easy to maintain - at least easier than downloading a new app every time there is a change.
[ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>Where is there a law saying you can't pull content off the internet? Sure, it's getting around any ads and such, but browsers can do that sort of thing by turning off graphics - certainly nothing illegal about it, AFAIK.
I'd just like to see the law that makes it illegal to access content from the internet with a specialized browser. That's all Watson is - a browser that formats content in its own way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, there is no law, however what Watson is doing is depriving these companies of a lot of revenue. Ad, revenue, sales and sponsorships constitute a great deal of revenue for many of these services.
[quote]<strong>How are Sherlock's internet search features any different? It pulls content directly from other search engines on the internet.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The big difference is that Apple pays to license that service from those sites. Watson does no such thing. Think of it from a business perspective: If a large percentage of internet users used Watson, many of those companies would be out of business.
Let's take Moviefone for example. Only about 60% of Moviefone's revenue comes from ticket sales. The rest comes from ad sales, sponsorships and syndication. Even in that 60%, the profit margin on the sale of a movie ticket is extremely small, usually less than $0.40 per ticket.
If users started migrating towards Watson as a source for their showtimes, Moviefone's revenue would sharply decrease. SO, although there may not be a law against it, I'm sure Moviefone wouldn't be too happy about this application unless they were being paid a hefty licensing fee.
The other major difference between Watson and Sherlock is that Watson is actually displaying the content, while Sherlock is only providing a list of links TO the content. Big difference from a business standpoint.
It's very much like Napster. Why go to the music store when I can get it online for free? With Watson's content, why go to the actual site (where that company makes money from your visit) when I can get it just as easy on Watson?
Just a thought. Don't get me wrong, Watson is a great app that hasn't even started showing its potential yet.
------------
RosettaStoned
[ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: RosettaStoned ]</p>