Why Apple Failed in the 90s

they've turned things around since then by macadamia_harold · 2006-10-21 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why Apple Failed in the 90s

Because they had no clear corporate direction and their price/performance sucked an ass?

(just a guess)

--
Push Button, Receive Bacon

Re:they've turned things around since then by Bing+Tsher+E · 2006-10-22 00:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because the company slowly filled up with the kind of smug elitists who represented their userbase, replacing the 'skunkworks hackers' who started the Mac. Slowly, everything became 'process' and the company became steeped in political correctness. It became a matter of pride that employees were allowed to bring their dogs to work with them, rather than just common sense. The staff slowly was filled with people for whom fad practices (i.e. "Object Oriented Everything" took precedence over the old 'Get er' Done' mentality that made the Mac great.
Re:they've turned things around since then by cluckshot · 2006-10-22 01:28 · Score: 4, Informative

There were reasons Apple went rotten to the core. I know because I have owned and operated many of their computers throughout the years. I would say the most important reason for my exit from using Apple was the concept they had regards software. I had bought the machines to program them for business applications unique to the industry I was in. The shop was small. We didn't have multi-million dollar budgets.

When we tried to program we ran up against limitations associated with the programming languages available. They were good programming languages but they lacked the adequate documentation for us to make them really effective and useful. We contacted Apple. They bluntly told us that information was proprietary and we should hire Claris Works to write the software. That was it. We were out in the cold. No more Apples for me.

Microsoft started with the IBM PC. The PC had a fortunate spy incident in which IBM OS basics were stolen before the PC came out. This opened up and allowed thousands of programmers entry into the business. It was this farm of people that Microsoft drew from. Apple had no such farm because it herbacided the crop every time they could. They viewed programmers as weeds.

Apple is succeding now with IPod etc largely because many many people can play. If they wanted to take out Microsoft, it would be easy. All they have to do is take their basic superiority in graphics and etc and lock the doors open to developers. It will be a short time indeed before MS is on the ropes.

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:they've turned things around since then by MushMouth · 2006-10-22 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't know what you guys are talking about shitty development support. In 96 I was writing software for the Mac OS 7/8 on a DFA (PPC 6100) using Metrowerks CodeWarrior (I have forgotten what their C++ class library was, but I thought it was nice work with). We had all of the Mac API books (there were about 20 of them priced between $15 to $60, written for the Pascal Programmer but if you knew what you were doing it all worked in C) where all of the internal structures were defined. If you wanted protected memory you put Steve Jasik's "The Debugger" on your machine. Also at this time I was writing stuff for Win32 using MSVC 6, MFC and std API, and writing software for Kodak on Sparcs using GCC with no IDE. At this point I still think CW was the best of the IDE's that I have worked with. This is mostly due to the project leaders doing a fantastic job with class/component design.

Apple didn't fail... by bartron · 2006-10-21 23:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

...it lost direction. Had it continued on that path then yes, the company would have failed.

The comuting landscame might well have been different in Apple had made better decisions in the past, but that's life and mistakes are made

As I type this on my MacBook Pro though I can say for sure that Apple isn't going anywhere soon (I say that becasue this is the first Mac I've owned that has given me no reason to move back to Windows

Re:Apple didn't fail... by bartron · 2006-10-21 23:44 · Score: 2, Informative

sigh....that will teach me to preview my post first. My Mac is good but somehow didn't fix my bad typing skills....same as it is under Windows.
Re:Apple didn't fail... by bartron · 2006-10-21 23:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Had Apple failed (in the 90's or otherwise) they wouldn't be here now would they?
Had the title been "Why Apple Almost Failed in the 90s", then it would be a truer reflection of the events
Re:Apple didn't fail... by WoLpH · 2006-10-22 01:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Failing isn't always fatal, imho Microsoft failed with Windows too, but that didn't bring them down. Apple failed with bringing there computers to the common people.

Mac OS Classic and price by DrXym · 2006-10-21 23:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apples failed in the 90s because Mac OS "Classic" was a polished turd and the cost of Apples was expensive compared to PCs. It's no wonder Apple almost sunk without a trace.

With OS X and hardware which is merely moderately expensive, they might stand a better chance, but it's hard to see how they'll ever really compete with MS Windows. I guess from Apple's perspective, even if their share rises from 2% to 4%, that is still a 100% increase for them even if it's still insignificant to to a market from a whole.

Re:Mac OS Classic and price by jbolden · 2006-10-22 00:38 · Score: 4, Informative

ven if their share rises from 2% to 4%,

Their share has moved from 2% to 6% already gartner You'll need a new line now.
Re:Mac OS Classic and price by mgv · 2006-10-22 00:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Their share has moved from 2% to 6% already gartner You'll need a new line now.

More importantly, their share of laptop sales is 12%, and growing rapidly.

It will be 18% in 3 months timen (Based on surveys of planned purchases within 3 months, which are alot less likely to change than the 1+ year buyer self assessments of 37%, many of which will actually not buy an apple computer).

They are rapidly moving to becoming a, if not the, serious choice for the home user. (Lots of those PC sales are to big corporations, for desktops - and Apple is going to struggle to sell corporations that they need iMovie, iTunes or iPhoto, no matter how good they are as apps).

Combine visible laptops with visible iPods, and alot of consumers are going to be viewing an apple computer as a normal purchase, rather than something obscure and unusual. In fact, if you haven't seen lots of apple laptops around the place, you probably aren't looking around much in the last year or so.

Anyway, my 2c worth, and its an easy bet because I'm not really saying anything other than extrapolating current market growth.

Michael

--
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Re:Mac OS Classic and price by fermion · 2006-10-22 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

It would be my assertion that people would rather buy polished turds than unpolished ones, and would in fact pay a premium. The reality is that in the 90's, just like now, the Mac worked. It worked without EMM hell, without printer hell, and without driver hell. You could hook up a external mass storage drive without hacking the BIOS. You could, and still can, hook up a keyboard to any available port that the cord will fit in, and the keyboard will work.
What the article, and most analysis, misses, is the profound change in the market. A firm should have a plan to compete with other firms, and should try to anticipate future market trends, but cannot predict, and in fact should not build, massive unpredictable trends into the business. So, when the Lisa was in development, the competition was mostly the IBM PC, which was very expensive. Compaq came in around 82, and shifted the market. However, the compaq was still a very expensive machine, but cheaper than and IBM PC. The Mac was created to compete with the new reality.
To give some perspective on the time, let's look at a third player: ATT. ATT created a wonderful not unreasonable priced PC. It had the advantage of running Unix, the only really workable OS we had at the time. I used one. It was great. It failed because it did not anticipate the market as well as Apple, and becuase it did not have as polished a GUI as Apple.
So we are talking hardware here. What about the OS. Well, for most the OS did not matter. People bought computers to run an application or two. The Apple had Excel, just like the Apple had Visicalc. This was one of three things that caused great trouble for Apple. First, when MS Hacked together MS Windows, there was a cheap alternative to Apple. Second, when MS ported Office to MS Windows, the cheap alternative to Apple. Third, the price of the PC went into a sharp decline, and though Apple was still competitive with name brand PCs, the were no longer competitive with the off brand boxes. As a result, significant vertical market began to appear for the PC, often ported from Unix, and the PC became a single vendor solution, despite the fact the major MS FUD was don't buy Apple because it was a single vendor solution.
So how did the Computer industry respond to this. Well, Compaq began using commodity parts, but because it had to rely on MS for the OS, and because it was a serious company with serious research, it is now gone. The ATT machine was never able to compete, even when prices were high. The general quality of the whole industry declined, and we found ourselves in a situation where nothing worked. Except for the Apple which was an expensive machine.
This was until MS Windows 95 when most of the MS hacks were fixed. You could hook up a printer without selling your sole. You still have to do color coded keyboard and mouse. But after 10 years, the PC genuinely worked, and the shift to MS dominance was complete. As all articles state, the fact that the Mac had no serious OS through most of the 90's was also a major factor.
But I would like to state that all the major pricing changed occurred on the hardware side. MS never matched the changes in the price of the OS. This is the problem of the monopoly. Apple has competed hard in quality and price. Intel has competed hard in quality and price. This has given us the wonderful machines we have, and the wonderful OS to run them. OTOH, MS just gathers money, and only occasionally competes. The most annoying thing of all this is that for the most part, outside of few applications, MS Windows does not work well. The major improvements they have made in on the developer side, which is admittedly a good thing to do. But simple things, like account encryption, which would make everyone life easy, is still at least months away.
And there is still a major problem with the myth of the cheap PC. In almost every establishment, there has been a profound lack of support, which results in the PC not being used effeciently.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Mac OS Classic and price by mgv · 2006-10-22 04:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sadly, that's US market share. Their worldwide market share barely moved. Which I can understand, cost isn't as important here, go to India or China, cost is everything. Even with the reputed higher maintenance effort needed for Windows systems, labor is definitely cheap enough to cover that.

I would agree with this (I haven't seen figures for Australia but I'm sure its similar to the US - you see those glowing apple logo's everwhere there are laptops now). In the emerging markets, cost is everything. Of course, Linux is cheap, and is a real threat to Microsoft there where people actually look at the true cost. (Thus the very stripped down cheap version of windows for the asian markets).

That software isn't a problem. That software can be removed. What might be considered a problem is a webcam in every computer. Some companies don't like that.

There is also application availability, many corporations need some obscure or custom app that's not available on OS X, and the cost of Parallels and the maintenance hassle of supporting something like that might not be worth it, that sort of arrangement would more than offset the ease of OS X maintenance.

I wouldn't argue with your analysis. There are lots of reasons why corporations may not be that interested in an apple computer, even if it is equal cost wise. Of course, when you consider the camera a negative, ignore the apps and have to add in a WinXP licence to each apple laptop, its not surprising that you see business passing over apple computers.

Likewise Apple hasn't put nearly the effort into enterprise that Microsoft has. Which is not to say that they have done nothing, but really apple is just starting to turn its attention there, and probably not that seriously yet.

What they have done so very well is aim for the home user. All those apps that many companies would delete (iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, etc) are the very reason that people buy a Mac. I know people who bought an apple simply to use the video editing alone (home use, not professional).

There is an obvious connection with the iPod here - very few corporate buyers, pretty good sales.

That is not to say that apple couldn't or shouldn't compete in the corporate world. But if they had chosen to do this directly, they would have gone against the M$ juggernaut, and lost badly.

The flip side is that M$ is producing an operating system that is primarily designed to be sold to enterprise. The home user sales flowed on from this because people didn't see a better alternative. And M$ wasn't that interested in producing it. The burden of antivirus software, for example, is alot lower in the enterprise when you have a team of IT people who manage all the machines anyway. They are going to enforce corporate policy, restrict individual users, and so on. In this fashion you can make a windows machine relatively secure. Few home users can do this properly for themeslves. Few ever will.

Look at where Apple is pusing things. Take automated data backup - aka - "Time Machine" in the lepoard release of OS X (10.5). This is something that home users should do, and that M$ have never bothered to do properly. Does this matter in the enterprise? Does anyone see corporations supplying individual users with a USB HDD and telling them to do daily backups?

So to expand on my original statement. The future for Apple is the home user market. There was a time when only a company would fork out the money (>$4000) to buy one of those expensive compter things. Back then the company that made an OS for that purpose was always going to win the day. Lots fought for this title. Microsoft won.

Today, that market still exists, and is huge. Its also commodity hell for the manufacturers. Today a $1000+ system starts to look expensive to the enterprise, but lots of home users will spend that sort of money, or more, on a variety of consumer electronics. This is a whole new market, but nobody really noticed its potential until a couple o

--
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Re:Mac OS Classic and price by dfghjk · 2006-10-22 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

"You could hook up a external mass storage drive without hacking the BIOS."

So could the PC. That one makes no sense. No doubt macs were easier to set up. There were closed systems after all.

"The general quality of the whole industry declined, and we found ourselves in a situation where nothing worked. Except for the Apple which was an expensive machine."

That's complete bullshit. PC compatibility was spotty in the early years but it steadily improved. There was no idustry-wide decline in quality as you say. Exactly the opposite.

"You still have to do color coded keyboard and mouse."

You seem a little fixated on this as though it matters. If this were an actual problem then the PC world would have switched to USB by now. They haven't because it doesn't in spite of the fact that the PC industry developed the solution.

"This is the problem of the monopoly."

Microsoft didn't have a monopoly at this time. It competed with OS/2 for the desktop and many alternatives on the server side. Pricing for Windows at the time was modest compared to the hardware costs.

"MS just gathers money, and only occasionally competes."

So this explanation of Apple's failure is degenerating into a rag on Microsoft? What a surprise.

"In almost every establishment, there has been a profound lack of support, which results in the PC not being used effeciently."

That's also bullshit. There are reasons why PCs are in business and Macs aren't. One is multiple source, Another is the availability of business apps and compatability. Another is support. Vendors don't get into large accounts without being able to provide support. That's where IBM made its money, and vendors learned to compete by offering similar levels of support. There's a reason Dell is dominant and Gateway isn't. Dell learned how to sell to big business.

"And, with XP, with the admin lockout, the deficiency in support is even more evident..."

You're going crazy here.

"And these machines are not cheap. If support personnel was adequate, we would be looking at an additional $100 per years per machine, and that is just at the local level."

Sounds like your company doesn't know how to support its employees. The myth is that somehow that would be different with Apple. None of that matters because it isn't central to Apple's decline.

The fact is that PCs were an open documented standard that fostered a clone business that operated effectively under the umbrella of IBM's (and later Compaq's) high margins. The multiple source nature of the platform encouraged adoption as well as hardware and software development by 3rd parties. PCs ran multiple operating systems, came in all shapes and sizes, and could be used for a variety of applications. Meanwhile, Apple chose to keep their platform closed until their market share slipped away from them, and once they opened it they found themselves getting beaten by their clones because they didn't have the market position that IBM had when they were in a similar situation. Of course, IBM was eventually forced out of the market as well.

Microsoft was a ferocious and merciless competitor, but by the time they established Windows as a monopoly Apple's dominance was long gone. It was the ubiquity of the PC that did Apple in, not Microsoft. Large accounts are what made the PC and Apple was foolishly never a player there. Arguably they could not be since they weren't established in business like IBM and they were the sole champion of their platform, unlike the hundreds selling the PC.
Re:Mac OS Classic and price by fyngyrz · 2006-10-22 05:26 · Score: 2, Funny

You could hook up a printer without selling your sole.

Eh? [looks at shoe... looks at fishtank...]

Oh. Soul. Never mind.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Mac OS Classic and price by gnasher719 · 2006-10-22 07:56 · Score: 3, Informative

'' Geez, the whole Apple is more expensive still perpetuates even though it is not as true as it once was. By using the same basic components, there is now more of a direct comparisons between PCs and Macs, yet people automatically dismiss Macs as more expensive without really comparing the machines. You can get a Dell desktop for under $400 which is $200 less than the cheapest Mac. Remember though that Dell is selling you a cheaper computer because it does not have as many features. Instead of a Core 2, you'll get a Celeron D. Instead of XP Pro, you get XP Home. There is no wireless Bluetooth option. You don't get a remote. You don't get any software like iLife or FrontRow, etc. It's like complaining that a Toyota Camry is more expensive than a Toyota Corolla. ''

A few months ago I had to help someone on an extremely limited budget to buy a computer. Sadly the budget was too limited for any new Macintosh, and used Macs are horrendously expensive. So I visited about half a dozen computer stores to get the absolute best value for money. (Interestingly, the local supermarket turned out the best value). There are quite a few machines out there that are cheaper than any Macintosh - they are not as nice as a Mac, but they are cheaper, so you get what you pay for. However, if you start looking at the more expensive PCs, like £800 to £1000, and compare to an iMac at the same price, then suddenly the iMacs are extremely good value.

This article does shed some light on why apple is by antifoidulus · 2006-10-21 23:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

reticent to license OS X to other PC vendors or sell it to run on beige boxes now that it is Intel. They tried something along those lines with the clones, and as the article states it was a complete disaster. Ultimately besides a few loud people, most of the people who would buy OS X for generic PCs are the ones who would buy a mac anyhow, so Apple loses profit while barely increasing market share. Not a good tradeoff from the corporate perspective I would think.

--
Monstar L

Re:I must be blind... by God+of+Lemmings · 2006-10-21 23:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Me too!

The wikipedia page is more informative than this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer

Which after reading it, provides better insight than the article....

--
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.

The article is not complete by suv4x4 · 2006-10-21 23:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The company now only had an improved platform that nobody had any reason to buy. The real solution to Apple's problem was stumbled onto by a fortunate accident." ... and this is where it ends, to be complete later. What a waste of time.

Re:The article is not complete by Admin_Jason · 2006-10-22 00:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

The article does leave you wanting more with that teaser at the end, but that doesn't mean the article is not complete, nor does it mean it was a waste of time. If this is an ongoing series, that will span several articles, then it is definitely not a waste of time. As mentioned upthread, I found it quite interesting and enlightening on the subject of why Mac doesn't license its OS to 3rd parties - it tried and the effort was a disaster.

The other interesting component of the article I found was the distinction in market share. While it makes perfect sense to segregate Apple from Dell and HP as not in the same market, (just as BMW doesn't share the same market as Ford and Chevy) the comparison had not crossed my mind until the author mentioned it specifically. Thus, the article (for me) was both informative and thought provoking.

I actually am looking forward to the next article to read more on the perception of their take on what turned things around for Apple. And fwiw, my take on what turned things around was the change in marketing strategies and the return of Jobs.

--
Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
Re:The article is not complete by Bing+Tsher+E · 2006-10-22 01:00 · Score: 2, Funny

I am thinking that the 'fortunate incident' must have been an airplane crash that killed the entire senior software development staff, taking with it all the lead programmers for 'Copeland.' But I know it probabaly wasn't that.... (that they still sell single-button mice is enough indication)

Simple answer by bytesex · 2006-10-22 00:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

No Steve Jobs.

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.

Re:The real solution by LordNightwalker · 2006-10-22 00:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Any bets on what the fortunate accident was?

Exactly what I was thinking... After reading the quote from the article, I read the actual article in its long winded and boring entirety to find out what the answer to the question is (my guess is the iPod), turns out anonymous fuckface quoted the very fucking last paragraph of the article, getting us all curious for nothing...

Thanks a bundle, asshat, I just wasted 5 minutes of my life thanks to you!

--
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?

Performa line by Sultin · 2006-10-22 00:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

The performa line from the mid 90s was probably their worste move. I know a number of mac fans that went out and purchased one of these machines not knowing how gimped they really were. Tons of the "good" mac software couldn't run on those machines as they had much lower quality components. The bigest problem was that they had no math co-processor.

Virtually none of the documentation for these systems mentioned that they were less than a real mac, so most of the people that purchased them just ended up thinking that the whole platform was a joke.

This is when I went from a strictly mac guy to a *nix fan, eventually being forced to move to the PC. I must say OSX has got me saving my pennies to get back into the mac world.

Can anyone say iPod? by sushibot · 2006-10-22 00:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

I personally loved the Mac's back in the 90's. I built a very successful commercial retouching business where our primary software/hardware was Photoshop on OS9 Mac's. OS9 performed well as you could lock down memory and dedicate it to Photoshop (no OS swapping). This is something that is sorely missing from OS/X and Windows.

Yes, there were/are WIN32 calls to ask Windows to not swap, however, there is really no guarantee. (Maybe there is now?) Photoshop has a more efficient swapping mechanism based on image tiles rather than the OS with small pages.

For the general business or home computer user, I agree, the 90's Dell's years. Apple fell short of expectations.

I think Apple's success with the iPod and iTunes really boosted their overall marketing effort. Had it not been for those products, we probably would not be having this discussion.

-G

Profits by massysett · 2006-10-22 00:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

hard to see how they'll ever really compete with MS Windows. I guess from Apple's perspective, even if their share rises from 2% to 4%,

One CEO once said "US Steel is not in the business of making steel. We're in the business of making profits."

Mac's market share is not the most important number. Mac's profitability is much more important.

GM's got huge market share but is losing money. You don't see people saying "BMW will never really compete with GM."

Just because MS' self-imposed measure of success is dominating every market with 90% share doesn't mean that this is the only metric of success.

--
Penny - plain text accounting

Article ends before the conclusion, sheesh by mattr · 2006-10-22 00:15 · Score: 2, Informative

The article does not in fact give the answer! Presumably it will be unveiled in the sequel ("Coming up next...") advertised at the end of the page.

They mention the analysts were wrong that Apple needed more Apple market not more PC market, and that some execution (Performa) was done badly. That at least is true, and why Mom had to use a PC for a while until she got back to Macs.

Of course I was a Mac person in the 90s even though Apple had screwed me a number of times. Now Macs are better but PCs (with XP) are better too. If they can come out with Leopard this year instead of next year they will do much better at Christmastime I bet.

Re:I must be blind... by ccarson · 2006-10-22 00:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Ok, I have to say this and I don't care how I get modded. Sometimes you just need to say what's obvious to you.

I've been reading Slashdot for years and years. No one really talks about it but this site has an obvious agenda which is anti-Micro$oft. Do I care? No. Is it a big deal? No. I'll continue to read this site like I have for years because they cover great things in the technology industry but don't even tell me that this isn't true. It's so blatant to me.

"Why Apple Failed in the 90s"
"Microsoft's new beta software reviewed as 'terrible'"
"The Ugandan government is adopting Linunx"

Let the flaming begin!

I abandoned ship... by FuryG3 · 2006-10-22 00:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

when it was clear Apple was going to take forever to deliver a next-generation OS.

Copland gave me hope, but then they scrapped it. At that point I was a little disappointed, but was in no big hurry to switch.

By the time Rhapsody was in the works, it was really time that Apple got a new OS. The poor multitaking and bad memory management were a pain to deal with, and I was exited that maybe there was hope. I installed a beta version of it and was quite impressed (even though there weren't many apps available).

But then (in 1998) it, too was scraped (or transformed into OS X), and it was clear it was going to be quite a while before X came out. At that point I jumped ship over to Slackware Linux, which fulfilled pretty much all of my expectations.

I patiently waited until recently, when I picked up a MBP and am again enjoying the Apple experience.

Re:I abandoned ship... by suv4x4 · 2006-10-22 01:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

The poor multitaking and bad memory management were a pain to deal with, and I was exited that maybe there was hope. I installed a beta version of it and was quite impressed (even though there weren't many apps available).

You know, only NOW are avid Apple users talking openly about the flaws of Mac OS Classic. I clearly remember Mac users excitedly touting the advantages of Mac OS in terms of multitasking and stability, although it was clear as a plain day Mac was falling way behind Windows.

I also remember Windows/Unix/Linux users joking at the "always around the corner" OSX vaporware that was always getting delayed. Steve kept showing QuickTime movies of the DockBar animating, telling us "isn't it cool" and delivering nothing else.

This is not mysteriously forgotten as Mac users now take a shot at Microsoft for their Vista delays, as if a major OS upgrade/rewrite delays are something that would never happen with Apple.

Just a few notes on selective memory and history rewriting, I wanted to point out.

Re:I must be blind... by WiFiBro · 2006-10-22 00:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh no! I'm shocked! Nobody every mentioned that ever in all the years Slashdot exists in any article.
Do the admins know? Somebody should tell them!

Apple didn't fail. by krell · 2006-10-22 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

At the beginning of the 1990s, there was an Apple Computer. At the end of the 1990s, there was still an Apple Computer. Count it as a success, considering all the companies that did not make it.

--
Where were you when the voynix came?

Re:Apple didn't fail. by unitron · 2006-10-22 02:41 · Score: 4, Funny

"...Apple was dyeing..."
And that's what saved it, it dyed all those iMacs all those different colors.
Speaking of different, with regard to your sig...
Show your support for free speech by moding down people who believe differently then you. Hypocrite Hippies!

...That should be different than, except that it shouldn't be, because when things (including people) differ, they differ from one another.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

cloning by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-10-22 00:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Something to mention about why the clones failed--Apple paid for all of the R&D costs while the clone-makers were the ones benefitting. In the x86/Windows world, R&D costs are generally spread out amongst the chip and board manufacturers. With Apple in the mid-90s, almost all of the R&D costs were squarely shouldered by Apple. The clones all used the reference board designs, even down to the add-in HPV video cards used in the 1st gen PPC machines. Now that they've moved to the x86 architecture, a lot of the costs are spread back out to other manufacturers. This time around, cloning might be possible, although they'd lose a bit of money from their very respectable hardware margins.

--
This guy's the limit!

Re:Behold the power of the journalist by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-22 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

>After Columbus discovered America, everyone and his dog can give 1001
> reasons why columbus has succeeded. Where were these expects before then?

Actually he failed.
His goal was to reach India (to establish trade os spices/etc through sea).
He end up in Caribbean islands with no spices to trade (he found some gold there
tho it was not much).

King John II of Portugal refused to sponsor him based in the advise from a council of astronomers and seamen (they said Colombo's calculations of longitude were wrong).
So I guess the experts were in King's John II court.

Re:The real solution by Gregory+Cox · 2006-10-22 00:41 · Score: 5, Funny

One day while sending an e-mail, Steve Jobs accidentally hit the "i" key before typing Mac.

--
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?

Commodity Hardware by Locarius · 2006-10-22 00:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

The 90s and early 00s were a time of commodity hardware. In these new days of proprietary form factors and integrated sound/video/everything people have resigned themselves to the fact that they will not be upgrading specific hardware components during the life of their machine and are getting a Mac.

Re:The real solution by jellomizer · 2006-10-22 00:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

My best guess would be the iMac. With Colored Cases, and it all in one design, the G3 Processor (which at the time had good performance). What it did was offered something that was missing in the market. It made a computer that looked presentable in peoples homes. Before Computers Were limited to bedrooms, the basement or the spare room. the iMac made them cute enough as well smell enough to fit in the kitchen, living room, or different locations. As well its all in one design allowed it to be easily moved from room to room. So it could be in all these rooms, when it was handy. Secondly they were Cute, Which attracted the Female market, before the iMac the Female market Computer (Sexist or not, I have heard from most Woman when they see the iMac they called them cute and wanted one). So it really opened the market.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:I must be blind... by commodoresloat · 2006-10-22 00:53 · Score: 3, Funny

yes, but that's easily fixed with a few changes to the wikipedia page!

You are blind by Per+Abrahamsen · 2006-10-22 01:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because it is not really a technology news site, it started as a blog (before the word was coined), and developed into a community site. There are plenty of technology news sites that pretend to be objective. They are boring. Why should /. immitate them, when it has been pretty successful doing what it does?

It wasn't just Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-22 01:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

It wasn't just Apple. Nearly all of the integrated PC manufacturers, meaning those who developed integrated systems, from the hardware (in some cases including the CPU) through to the OS, either collapsed or nearly collapsed in the 90s. The reasons, of course, were first that Intel continued to increase the price/performance of its x86 architecture, leaving most RISC systems offering either worse performance, or only marginally better performance (at much higher prices), and second that Microsoft continued to improve Windows 3.x, in particular taking advantage of the revolutionary (for x86) improvements provided by the i386. Microsoft also released Windows NT, an OS architecturally comparable to Unix, but with a much lower price (than commercial Unix systems).

One notable exception to the shakeout of the early 90s was Sun Microsystems, largely because of its OS, but when Linux eventually caught on, Sun started to implode too.

On the whole, I think Apple supporters are far too harsh in their criticism of Sculley. In most ways, the original Mac was no match for its competitors, not only the Intel/Microsoft PC, but also other 68k-based competitors like the Amiga. The first Mac that really did outshine the competition was the Mac II in 1987. It was expensive, but unlike the original Mac, it offered state-of-the-art hardware. The core OS was still rather poor, but the GUI was amongst the better ones in the market.

Sculley's big mistake was joining forces with IBM and Motorola in the PowerPC debacle, but almost everyone at the time (apart from Intel) thought Risc was the future, and that the x86 would die, so it's hard to criticise him for that. If Apple had gone with x86, it could have continued to offer premium PCs (much as it did in the late 80s, and dies today), and channelled all of the money wasted on the PowerPC into developing a modern OS, as Microsoft had done with NT.

Apple's real problems came under Spindler, who tried to turn Apple into a producer of low-cost, high-volume systems (something Steve Jobs supposedly wanted to do with the original Mac as well), which is a business model that can't sustain the high R&D costs associated with developing a custom OS (and hardware, although Apple has gradually moved out of that market in most respects). All that happened was that Apple was reduced to offering inferior hardware at higher prices than competitors. With the switch to x86, Apple has finally caught up with Intel PCs (Macs are basically Intel PCs with stylish enclosures and a trendy OS), but is unlikely to ever be able to offer superior hardware again, as it did in the late 80s. That's simply the reality of a market where specialisation has made it impracticable to build integrated systems.

Definition of PC by StormReaver · 2006-10-22 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They couldn't run DOS or Windows, which was the definition of PC ever since IBM applied the letters to its first home computer."

This is where I stopped reading, and knew that the author was talking out of his ass. There was never a hard and fast (and agreed upon) definition of a PC, with the sole exception of what that first letter means: Personal.

The notion that a PC wasn't a PC unless it ran MS-DOS is ludicrous to say the least. PC was an attempt at a brand name rather than a generic description, but that isn't how it actually worked. The term PC instantly came to describe a class of computer that could be purchased by individual consumers. I had personal computers from Radio Shack (CoCo 2 and 3) which didn't run MS-DOS long before I had a personal computer from an IBM compatible reseller.

Several years ago, I booted up my old CoCo 3 and found that the BASIC ROM had a Microsoft copyright. So it's easy to argue that RS-DOS (Radio Shack DOS) was really MS-DOS in disguise. The RS-DOS BASIC syntax was remarkably similar to GW-BASIC. But I hardly ever ran from RS-DOS after getting Microware's OS/9. If you want to see just how pathetic MSDOS+IBM were for the time, fire up an IBM clone running MS-DOS and the CoCo 3 running OS/9 Level 2. The latter cleanly blow the doors (and Windows) off the former.

Re:The real solution by suv4x4 · 2006-10-22 01:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Any bets on what the fortunate accident was?

That's just a lame cliffhanger so you go back and click his ads some more.

the fortunate accidents were:

- Steve Jobs coming back
- them hiring Johnathan Ive (iPod, iMac designer)

Them conspiring to make Apple a more branded, more complete experience, and hype it up, using their assets (OSX with a shiny interface, loyal designer crowd following them, the MS/Adobe/Macromedia software packs).

Re:Marketing style over substance? by MightyYar · 2006-10-22 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

When you watch Star Trek, you root for the Borg, don't you? Admit it, you admire their efficiency and lack of self-importance.

Since you made some generalizations about me as a Mac owner, I'll make some about you: You think that public art is a "waste of money" and you usually "don't get it". You can't imagine why someone would spend extra money for a prettier car. There should only be two types of cars on the market: Dodge Caravans (for folks with kids) and Honda Civics. You don't understand fashion and wouldn't ever just buy a shirt that you saw because you liked it - you would only buy it if you had some pre-existing need for a shirt. You hate people in business suits, but you also hate people who dress "differently" from societal norms: punks, goths, artists, etc.

That's fine - diversity is what makes humanity so interesting. Some of us like to enjoy our pointless existence for the short time that we're here, and others of us are border-line autistic.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:The real solution by MojoStan · 2006-10-22 02:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

My best guess would be the iMac. With Colored Cases, and it all in one design...

I also think it's the iMac, but why was it an "accident?" Was it because it was initially designed to be Apple's version of Larry Ellison's lamebrain "$500 network computer" idea? I'm not sure if that rumor is true.

For you youngsters, that kook Ellison tried to convince everyone that cheap diskless computers (which couldn't boot without a network connection) would outsell desktop PCs with actual hard disks. Who really needs local storage and applications, anyway?

The iMac looked like it could have been a "network computer." Did the 'i' in iMac stand for "internet" Mac?

--
TO START PRESS ANY KEY

Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

Re:The real solution by Anne+Honime · 2006-10-22 02:28 · Score: 5, Funny

One day while sending an e-mail, Steve Jobs accidentally hit the "i" key before typing Mac.

OMG, this demonstrates Jobs is a closet vi fanboy !

Re:I must be blind... by daviddennis · 2006-10-22 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

People who hate Microsoft founded the site, and still control it.

I would say that a very high percentage of people who love computers, as opposed to simply making a living off them, hate Microsoft.

For many of us, Microsoft's invasion of pretty much everything we held dear made computing a gray, unlovable world whose primary feature was continuous crashes.

Windows 2000 came close to fixing the crashes, and Windows XP was less gray and grim than previous versions. Just as Microsoft started to look almost tolerable, an explosion of malware came, creating waves of horrible problems that required you to become a security expert just to run a PC.

At the same time, open source software, whether free as in liberty or beer, gave us new hope for an alternative that wasn't priced out of the market by the soulless commodity PC. It co-opted the commodity pricing but added an interface we're familiar with and like.

At the same time, it was still a commodity PC, a product that was slapped together by the cheaper-is-better brigade. It's great to save money, not so great to be saddled with hardware that scrapes our knuckles every time we added RAM.

So Apple came on the scene. Want a system that works at base like Linux, but has style and flair and beautiful fonts? Want something more modern than that awful X-Windows, that wasn't even that great when it was founded 30 years ago? Want some cool ways to get reative with photos, music and video?

Well, then, Apple's stuff was made for you.

Apple has created an interesting split among us. Those of us who like using our computers instead of tinkering with them, and who have some disposable income, love Apple. Those who think the principle of open source is better than having things work out of the box, or who don't have the extra bucks, love Linux. Sometimes we'll have fights, sometimes bitter ones, but in the end we're really cut out of the same cloth.

(Have you ever noticed the bitterest fights often come from people who are almost the same? But that's a question for another day.)

I hope that has explained something of the reason for Microsoft hatred, and why Slashdot covers the stories it does, the way it does.

D

How did this get on Slashdot? by mmeister · 2006-10-22 03:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

As someone who has been an Apple developer since 1989, the assertions made in this article are ludicrous at best. They show signs of someone that has perhaps read about the company's history, but not been involved with them in any significant way (nor was it researched with any depth).

That this meaningless trash makes it onto Slashdot and Digg simply amazes me.

Re:I must be blind... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-22 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

(Sorry, have to respond anonymously since I moded you insightful; just a couple comments):

Want something more modern than that awful X-Windows, that wasn't even that great when it was founded 30 years ago?

Apart from the fact that X11 is not quite 30 years old (From the appropriate Wikipedia article: X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, appeared in September 1987., I think this comment is slightly unfair. Even if XWindows is clumsy in some aspects and can be a hog on a network, you really need to consider the context. It isn't an architecture, which is totally owned and controlled by a single manufacturer. It needed to serve a diverse variety of platforms, which weren't owned and controlled by a single vendor. And I'd wager that it does that pretty well.

Those of us who like using our computers instead of tinkering with them, and who have some disposable income, love Apple.

For those that love a rock solid foundation, without spending 6 month to get everything right on a laptop (and yes, I know the pain) there's Ubuntu. Granted, the Gnome interface isn't quite as slick as OSX on my sweeties Powerbook (which you have to claw from her cold, dead fingers; if you ever want to supply her with a different computer), but in essence it does exactly what you expect: It is an OS, which essentially just bloody works. Sure, you may have to apt-get an ATI package, to get the screen to resolve appropriately and it's probably not your first choice if you don't know and don't want to know anything about operating systems. Else then that and in terms of usabilty (save for the really slick design of the OSX UI) it does exactly that.

Re:Cold truth by perlchild · 2006-10-22 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

If my computer help days are any indication, J Random User expects YOU to tell him about Macs, no matter how unsatisfied he is, he will NOT try to learn about the alternatives. He will just bitch and moan about how expensive it gets to maintain this computer, while trying not to spend a cent more than he has to, and hoping he could just junk it. When non-techies have a bad experience buying technology, they don't assign blame to themselves(for making the wrong choice) or to the maker of the technology(since for them it's all the same). They blame technology in general. As a better educated user, you can(if you are so inclined) let them know the experience can vary with the provider, and not despair. You can also share stories, either of what worked for you, or what didn't. Some of it may even be good business for you(they might pay you to install them a Mac). Then again, Macs tend to be lower-support than PCs, especially on AppleCare YMMV.

Re:I must be blind... by daviddennis · 2006-10-22 04:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I sort of speak from a mid-90s perspective here, when I was using SGI computers because I just couldn't take how ugly X-Windows on Linux looked. SGI's sense of aesthetics was class-leading until Steve Jobs unveiled MacOS X. No matter what else you may say about Steve, his mastery of computing aesthetics has been absolutely unsurpassed in our largely beauty-deprived industry.

The mid-90s were where I founded a lot of my deepest views about computing, and this is an intersting problem for Microsoft. I would never buy an American car beause I hate the way US automakers made inferior junk in the 70s, and don't trust them. I can say the same thing about Microsoft; however much their OS may have improved, I still remember how horrible it was back then, and fear that if I use it it will once again leave me bitterly disappointed as it has in the past. (Even the machine I use to test my work on Windows makes me think this is still all too true).

I have a comparable problem with Linux; I love my MacOS X products, they serve me exceptionally well, so there is little point in trying something new, especially if it's still at least somewhat inferior. (Having to apt-get display drivers is a bit of a clue that this is still the case.)

In the 90s, where SGI was too expensive, Windows too crashy and Linux too raw, I was ready for something new. That opening seems to have pretty much closed for me today since I'm so happy with where I am, and - amazingly enough! - my chosen side has even been gaining considerable market momentum..

D

Re:Marketing style over substance? by fyngyrz · 2006-10-22 05:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

I still think that you have no soul

Maybe it isn't that he has no soul; maybe he just thinks it is more important to solve little problems like people starving in the streets and not being able to buy their medications before resources are expended on statues of politicians, "Piss Christ", and other random works of publicly supported art. I guess I can't really speak for him, but that is certainly how I feel. Every time I see public art, Christmas decorations, government-participation in parades, I grinch about it. I just can't see the government holding any legitimate position costing even one dollar in any non-critical activity, no matter if it is supposedly for the benefit of the citizens or not, until it has well and truly addressed all of the critical activities that it has been tasked with with regard to its base responsibilities.

I bought my first Mac (a PPC Mini) because a knowledgeable friend took the time to show me that her Mac worked better (a lot better!) than the two OS's I was running at the time: Windows XP and Red Hat linux. I was losing time screwing with things I didn't really have time to screw with just trying to get mundane business tasks accomplished. I'm buying my second Mac (an Intel MacBook) this week to replace my Windows laptop, which finally went nipples north. One reason I'm buying it is because the Mini lived up to the manufacturer's claims both in reliability and in functionality. I am looking forward to the MacBook and I expect to have a similar experience, despite being a pretty cynical person when you get right down to it.

Certainly it has nothing to do with "art." Do I appreciate how pretty the Mac interface is? Sure. But that wasn't a factor in going Mac. I was won over by the smooth integration of multiple languages in applications like OmniOutliner and 100% support for that by the OS; by the complete lack of need to mess with low level Unix issues; by the speed and fluidity and consistency of the interface; by the continual experience of having things "just work" (it may sound hackneyed and fanboyish, but that is the nature of the experience — OSX is as far from running windows as flying a plane on autopilot compares to hand-flying it.) It beats Windows in resistance to malware by orders of magnitude, and it beats Linux by never requiring me to screw with compiling some package or watching Gnome screw up repeatedly, losing my network connections.

There are lots of good reasons to go Mac, I could go on all day about things that I feel have worked out better for me with the Mac, no doubt boring some and annoying the rest. The bottom line hasn't anything to do with art, no matter how long I were to go on. It's simply (or maybe not so simply) a better product, and it won me over based on that. The applications I need are there, and that pretty much closes the case.

And as for your lauding tourism in Philadelphia... If you want to draw tourists, that's a task that it is primarily aimed at benefiting businesses. Therefore, those businesses that will benefit (and not all will) should be paying for it. Not the poor homeowners on the outskirts.

This is very similar to small town sports. The schools (hence, including the kid's parents and the old people in town) spend huge sums of money on everything from custom busses to playing fields. The kids play the same games they could have played in a field of grass, in jeans or shorts. The games begin, the visitors from the next town show up, and the local businesses see an upswing in sales. Those specific businesses ought to be paying for that, not the poor schlep of a homeowner.

These are areas where the government has been co-opted by interests that are not legitimate areas for it to focus, IMHO. Private support is the way to go for both art and sports above the level of casual social interaction or for exercise; and to that you can add parks, monuments, and any state-sponsored museums that might creep in here

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:The real solution by johnpaul191 · 2006-10-22 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

the CRT iMac made big the impact though. 1) LCDs were still very expensive and not as common 2) the iMac was relatively cheap for a Mac. it was not the high performance machine, it was great for schoolwork and internet. the things that most people do on their computers.
think of all the translucent colored things that came out following the original CRT iMac. it was "cute" as opposed to beige and ugly. i realize the power of that may be lost on people reading /., but to a lot of people it became a piece of art/decoration as much as a tool to to schoolwork. there is definitely a segment of people that feel that "if i HAVE to own a computer, it might as well look nice".
obviously nice is subjective, but Apple hit it with a lot of people where other companies failed. when the original iMac shipped it was considered a disaster in the making, by techie people, because it lacked a floppy drive. i heard nrrdly fathers argue that exact point to their college bound daughters in computer stores. dropping that dinosaur thinking is what allowed Apple to break out from the 90s slump, while the rest of the industry scrambled to catch up. take that as opinion, but a lot of them came out with "iMac killers". they cared enough to design something specifically to compete with those little gumdrops.

A revisionist view by Animats · 2006-10-22 06:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

The move to PowerPC was Apple's big mistake. That was the point at which Apple market share dropped, and it never came back. Even today, Apple has much lower market share than it did the day the PowerPC machines were announced. The argument for going with the PowerPC was that IBM was going to make Macs. Yes, that was the whole point of the deal. Didn't happen, but that was Apple's big plan. And that bad move happened under Jobs.

In fact, when the PowerPC 601 came out, Motorola was shipping the 68060, which outperformed the early PowerPC chips. The 68000 line could have been developed further; there was nothing in the architecture that limited it. But when Apple dropped it, that was the end of the demand for high-end 68000 parts.

The PowerPC transition killed many existing apps. The engineering community dumped the Mac at the PowerPC transition; existing CAD applications like AutoCAD were not ported to PowerPC, and most of the printed circuit board design applications were dropped at that point, too. So Apple lost a whole market segment, and one willing to pay for big screens and good graphics.

Copeland was actually a good operating system. The problem was that applications had to be revised for it, and Microsoft didn't want to bother. Apple no longer had the clout with developers it had had back at the System 7 transition, where all apps had to be revised. But Apple hadn't realized internally that it could no longer order developers around; the developers had the option of going to Windows. So backwards compatibility had become more important.

Copeland (the original "MacOS 8") actually shipped to some developers. It was almost ready to go. Acquiring NeXT delayed the release of a new OS by several years; it took much longer to get NeXT code onto the Apple platform than Jobs said it would. But it saved Jobs' ass financially; he was heavily invested in NeXT, which was headed for bankruptcy.

As for design, one of the coolest Macs ever was the 20th Anniversary Mac, the first Mac with an LCD panel. In 1997, way ahead of everyone else. That was before Jobs took over and "Steved" the product, because it wasn't his.

The iMac clamshell looked like the Lear-Seigler ADM 3A from 1977, which was a very popular low-end terminal in its day. It wasn't an original concept.

Jobs' big contribution was to suck up to Gates and thus keep Microsoft Office on the Mac That's what saved Apple.

So that's what it looks like with the Reality Distortion Field turned off.

Re:A revisionist view by phillymjs · 2006-10-22 06:46 · Score: 3, Informative

The argument for going with the PowerPC was that IBM was going to make Macs. Yes, that was the whole point of the deal. Didn't happen, but that was Apple's big plan. And that bad move happened under Jobs.

Wrong. The first PowerPC-based Macs were released on March 14, 1994, during Michael Spindler's tenure as Apple CEO. The alliance to create the PowerPC was formed before that, during John Sculley's tenure. Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with Apple switching to the PPC architecture. Apple announced their intention to purchase NeXT on December 20, 1996 and finalized the deal on February 4, 1997. During that timeframe is when Jobs and his influence returned.

But hey, don't let little things like easily-verifiable facts get in the way of you spouting your drivel.

~Philly

Went from bad decisions to good decisions by bigtrike · 2006-10-22 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I couldn't agree more about the classic Mac OS. Not only was it unstable (I typically experienced a total system lockup about once a day), but it also offered absolutely nothing for power users. And not only was that hardware to run it very expensive, it was also slow.

Apple's turnaround has come because they got a number of things right for a change. After about 10 years of of PC use with mixed windows and linux operating systems, I've come back to being a Mac owner. There are a number of reasons. The OS is very usable for all levels of user. They also managed to make USB a standard and switch to other standards (such as DVI and VGA), which makes owning a Mac more affordable because you can use peripherals which are cheaply available. They realized that people wanted computers which are pretty on the outside. OSX also allows the user base to port just about any standard unix application to run on a Mac. The Intel switch was another great move, now Macs are actually fast computers as well (unless you're running under Rosetta, and even then it's not terrible.

Microsoft is currently repeating a lot of Apple's failures in the 90s. They're trying to create products for markets which don't exist. They've let Windows become stagnant, the last revolutionary upgrade which brought vast improvements was Windows 2000. XP and Vista are nice updates, but just baby steps.

Re:I must be blind... by jbolden · 2006-10-22 07:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Your sentence isn't written using a latin alphabet it was written in English.

The above is essentially what you said.
X is a windowing protocol
TWM, Enlightenment... are Window Managers

Gnone, KDE are GUIS.

KDE for example used KWin as a window manager on top of X.
Wikipedia entry for more details .

Re:I must be blind... by morgan_greywolf · 2006-10-22 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I sort of speak from a mid-90s perspective here, when I was using SGI computers because I just couldn't take how ugly X-Windows on Linux looked.

You weren't using X, you were most likely using CDE, which I also consider to be ugly.

No, he wasn't. He was using IRIX's proprietary desktop, which had nothing to do with CDE. The IRIX desktop was lightyears ahead of anything else coming out of the *nix camp at the time. Nice object-oriented file manager, excellent support for audio, video and 3D graphics and even its own widget toolkit.

And to say that you weren't using X, you were using CDE, is as silly as saying that you aren't using X, you're using GNOME.

--
My blog

The 'i' in "iMac" by Old+Man+Kensey · 2006-10-22 07:32 · Score: 3, Informative

The iMac looked like it could have been a "network computer." Did the 'i' in iMac stand for "internet" Mac?

Why yes, yes it did. It was even considered "edgy" because the Internet (capital I) was abbreviated with a lowercase letter!

The degree of the industry's plagiarism of Apple's style decisions can be measured by the fact that prior to the iMac introduction, anything vaguely Internet-related was tagged "e-" (for "electronic) -- e-commerce, e-mail, e-this, e-that. Almost immediately after the iMac exploded on the scene, the e- was quietly dropped and new Internet things were tagged "i" or "i-".

--
-- Old Man Kensey

Re:The real solution by Graymalkin · 2006-10-22 08:46 · Score: 2, Informative

While the early CRT-based iMacs did help Apple, in my opinion it wasn't until the arrival of the second-generation LCD-based iMac that that sales really took off.

You would be wrong about that. The G3 iMac sold extremely well during its lifetime. In the four years after its introduction about six million were sold. At the time selling an AiO computer was pretty novel, configuring it out of the box to easily connect to the internet even moreso.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Re:I must be blind... by DECS · 2006-10-22 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thanks for calling me a young kid. I've been feeling like an old man for a while now, so that makes me smile.

I've used Macs since 1984 (although I was just drawing pictures then), and before that I played on the Vic20, Apple II's, the ST, the Amiga, an Apple IIGS.

I've managed million dolllar IT budgets for Microsoft enraptured dotcoms as they went under, and I followed NeXT while they whimpered out into irrelevance.

I was a developer through the move to Rhapsody and Mac OS X, and I'm a bit happy to see somebody with vision and a pulse injecting a challenge into the waters of IT.

Apple has also pushed POSIX (the same Linux/UNIX platform) into the mainstream, and helped Linux to challenge the NT monoculture.

So fogive me if I bubble enthusiastically about seeing a product I like be popularized by a fascinating company with interesting personalities and class and charm.

Also, if you are going to blow stink about my "inaccuracies," please lay them out instead of just making unfounded bullshit claims. I think you really are just bitter because you have nothing really interesting to say.

And for what its worth, I've written well over a hundred articles this year, and three have been posted to Slashdot in my lifetime. EVER. THREE EVER. So don't rain on my parade just because you have nothing to contribute to the world but your worthless trolling.

Re:I must be blind... by linguae · 2006-10-22 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is much more to a nice interface than eye candy. Aqua is more about usability than it is about eye candy. All of the features of OS X, from the dialog sheets for opening and saving files, to Expose, to fast user switching, to Spaces and Time Machine in the Leopard demo, have a wonderful way of integrating eye candy with usability to create the ultimate user interface.

I was a longtime KDE user on FreeBSD before buying a Mac a few months ago. KDE is a very great desktop environment. However, I feel that its default themes and artwork are created by programmers who want eye candy for the sake of having eye candy instead of seasoned graphics artists and designers who know all of the theories and practices behind graphic communication with user interfaces. Look at the fonts and icon sizes of a typical KDE desktop, for example. Look at that of a OS X desktop, and compare. I'm not saying that KDE is a bad desktop (it's a very great desktop); I'm just saying that some more polish is needed for their themes. Eye candy for the sake of having eye candy hurts my eyes. Eye candy with a regard for graphic communication and UI makes for a very pleasing computing experience.

The accident: enter stage R by ElitistWhiner · 2006-10-22 11:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Bill Gates $150M and committment to Office on the Mac.

Microsoft needed Apple not to fail because 5% marketshare was all the evidence Bill Gates needed as proof that Windows was not a monopoly. For $150M, Bill got the room he needed to breathe out from under Anti-Trust and seeded further MS product, even if he lost a window sale or two. It was his cost of staying in business, without the US Gov't breaking Microsoft into separate operating units.

Steve Jobs got serious credibility on the Street, with businesses really nervous about being stuck with Mac's going out of business. Bill G. stopped all that bleed, angst and hesitation in the sales pipeline for Apple Computer Inc.

AUX worked... by meburke · 2006-10-22 11:07 · Score: 3, Informative

During the early '90's, when OS 7 and OS 8 were crashing every 15 minutes, I had a couple of customers with 500+ Mac II's and III's that almost never crashed; they were running AUX. AUX was UNIX, and it still ran the Mac OS on top. At that time, a Mac III with a Radius monitor was the fastest AutoCAD system around.

IMO, the article (incomplete as it is) is right on about the weaknesses in Apple's strategy to gain market share. IMO, if they had contiued to expand in the UNIX area and done a better job of marketing AUX, they wouldn't have had to re-develop the idea for OSX. The Microsoft platform, with it's huge base of applications, is a great example of Kevin Kelly's proposition that "Value flows from Abundance" (Kevin Kelly, "New Rules for the New Economy", 1998). In short, Kelly claims that in the networked world, the more people you have using your product, the more valuable it becomes. His first examples are the telephone and fax machine: Both devices were in short demand until enough people had them so that owning one was a convenience rather than a curiosity. IMO, if Apple had done with AUX what they've done with OSX, the sheer utility of owning an Apple computer would have been enough to avoid some of the problms they had in the '90's.

--
"The mind works quicker than you think!"

Large business relationships by zoftie · 2006-10-22 16:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have looked over, what was posted and couldn't make out if someone seen, few glossed over the idea, and I would like to emphasize it.
Apple does not have capacity to maintain large clients. They are big on promises, small on delivery. They key word here, is company to company relationships. Now you can order a swath of Dell PC's and most likely you'll get preferrential treatment from them. No so with apple. They make a point of that as well. Most recently they had gall to come to university here and sell computers, telling how wonderful their OS is. Well it is. What university students stand to gain from learning Carbon and Cocoa. Pretty much nothing. Most UI design jobs are nowadays with .NET and derivatives. (look at your favorite job board). So fine, their platform is superrior(i have a powerbook). However my professor and some other businesses had terrible dealings with apple, on business level. Professor worked at other university where apple had installed 2 large classrooms with early power pc computers and promptly proceeded to ignore the customers that suppose to become future developers and/or businessmen/leaders at large corporations, that possibly will order superrior apple hardware. Not so. No extra support beyond repairing hardware under warranty terms and having sales people calling about "more hardware", at a standard educational 15% discount.

So, it is small they like, iPod is selling at least for a while. But that would take you only so far. When you fall on hard times, you fall onto your relationship net that you had built up over number of years.

So during their presentation at the university, they have ignored questions about the relationship and his experience at previous university, only ignored the questions and continued their sales pitch. Needless to say, there are no orders of powerbooks, iMacs or MacPros.
The feeling you get is that they eager to extract money from you and run. Questions like, "will there be deeper discounts if we fully commit to apple platform?" , was no, just standard discount. Write us a check please. I don't know much about business, but unless they alter the way they handle business clients, in the end apple will end up in the same ditch.

Re:The real solution was SELL DIRECT. by phillymjs · 2006-10-22 16:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know if it was so much the selling direct as it was simply having a place where display-model Macs were prominently displayed and well taken-care of, with staff who could answer questions about them correctly-- as opposed to dirty, broken/sabotaged, disparaged by the sales staff, and shoved in the farthest corner of the store from the entrance (CompUSA, I'm looking at you!-- even after the 'store within a store' deal you made with Apple).

~Philly

is it hard programming for Macs? by falconwolf · 2006-10-22 17:09 · Score: 2, Informative

When we tried to program we ran up against limitations associated with the programming languages available. They were good programming languages but they lacked the adequate documentation for us to make them really effective and useful. We contacted Apple. They bluntly told us that information was proprietary and we should hire Claris Works to write the software. That was it. We were out in the cold. No more Apples for me.
...
Apple is succeding now with IPod etc largely because many many people can play. If they wanted to take out Microsoft, it would be easy. All they have to do is take their basic superiority in graphics and etc and lock the doors open to developers. It will be a short time indeed before MS is on the ropes.

Have you ever used ADC, Apple Developer Connection? Though I haven't I've met some who have and they swear by it. I'm using now and have been using Windows almost exclusively for 8 years but when I get a new laptop hopefully within a few weeks I'll be getting a MacBook Pro. I'm just waiting for Apple to release one with the Merom Core 2 Duo cpu. When I do I'll be joining ADC as well.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

67 of 369 comments (clear)