Slashdot Mirror
The Apple Two
theodp writes "Over at Slate, Tim Wu argues that the iPad is Steve Jobs' final victory over Steve Wozniak. Apple's origins were pure Woz, but the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad are the products of the company's other Steve. Jobs' ideas have always been in tension with Woz's brand of idealism and openness. Crazy as it seems, Apple Inc. — the creator of the personal computer — is leading the effort to exterminate it. And somewhere, deep inside, Woz must realize what the release of the iPad signifies: The company he once built now, officially, no longer exists."
I'm pretty sure Woz came to terms with that realization decades ago. He hasn't had a say in any of Apple's higher level decisions since his plane crash in 1981, and he hasn't worked for them at all since 1987. He probably doesn't even think of it as "his" company anymore (if he ever really did). The guy has done a lot of cool stuff since then, and is probably way more interested in talking about his more recent engineering diversions (like his attempts to get Toyota's attention about their accelerator problems) than discussing the philosophy of a company he left behind when The Bangles were still Walking Like an Egyptian.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Aside from that, they still sell regular old personal computers. I guess that's a conveniently forgotten fact here?
Woz actually DESIGNED all of those products, and IIRC he did actually work on the mac as well while Jobs couldn't design his way out of a wet paper bag.
That's not to say that Jobs isn't an EXCELLENT CEO though. Probably one of two or three that are actually worth their compensation and relevant to their companies.
Really? The first PC was the Altair 8800 (shipped in 1975 and ran Microsoft Software no less), the first fully assembled PC you could buy ready to run was the Commodore PET in 1977 (shipped in January - Apple ]['s shipped the same year in June).
But neither were made by a couple of hip guys from silicon valley named Steve - so it doesn't count right?
It worked for Max Powers
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...can we get some more histrionics?
Apple Inc. -- the creator of the personal computer -- is leading the effort to exterminate it.
WTF are you talking about? "Exterminate?" Apple is somehow preventing me from going to amazon and ordering the parts for a new gaming PC? Are they run by Daleks now? Or I could go to Xilinx and get a demo board with an FPGA containing PPC processors and Ethernet cores. Now *that's* hardcore, baby. ;-)
This all makes me want to buy an iPad to help the product line have a long life because the reactions it is causing amongst the self appointed Guardians Of Us All are absolutely hilarious.
While a computer you can modify might not sound so profound, Wozniak contemplated a nearly spiritual relationship between man and his machine.
I owned an Apple II. It was neat. There was, however, nothing religious or spiritual about the experience. It played games and I did some word processing and my first programming. It was a device. Period. Anything else is self important wankery by people seeking to fill a void in their lives by walking some imaginary One True Path of computer knowledge. Computers are handy state machines, not a relationship.
Seriously, the reactions of many guys like this is very religious. Oh no, our private club has been invaded by heretics and icky girls who break away from our precious canon and prayer books! Do they not tinker? Do they not want to spend their entire weekend setting jumpers and modifying power cables? What is this "life" of which they speak? Blasphemy!
... revolutionary... establishment... anti-establishment... counterculturals...
And on and on and on. Get out your buzzword bingo cards, Cartman- long haired hippy edition!
The company he once built now, officially, no longer exists.
Oh noes! You mean things change and evolve? Damn! And here I was hoping my fancy new HDTV has tubes I could take down to the corner soda shoppe and run through the tester. 2^5 Skidoo!
"...make it run OS X..."
Putting aside the debate over the closed/open nature of the iPad, I suspect this would be extremely popular with a small niche of users, and overall would be a colossal mistake on Apple's part.
Pretty much all previous tablet attempts that actually shipped have used desktop operating systems for the platform. Pretty much all previous attempts have failed. As someone who had the misfortune of using a Windows tablet for a while, I can tell you that desktop operating systems are clearly NOT MEANT for tablet use. Sure, you can cram touch or handwriting into them, just like someone can put on shoes that don't fit quite right. But the reality is that the experience will always feel sub-par; your feet will hurt with the ill-fitting shoes, and your computing experience will suffer using a desktop environment on a tablet machine. (This applies to OS X, too, if you look at the Axiom Modbook machines.) And I suspect Apple isn't interested in offering a sub-par experience, as previous tablets have. The iPad may be more limited than a 'full featured computer,' but (as someone who's tried this both ways) also feels MUCH more natural to use than a desktop operating system when you're dealing with touch on a tablet.
But moreover, you rightly make the point that 'the Xbox didn't need to act like a PC,' and (whether we like it or not) the iPad is not trying to be the same thing as a desktop PC either. The iPad is trying to be an appliance, like a television or a microwave; something you just use, and don't have to worry about all the things average folks don't want to have to worry about. The simple truth is that techies want their devices open, but average folks don't care. They just want it to work. Even Microsoft's realized this now, which is why the Windows Phone 7 platform is apparently not allowing native code to run (witness the cancellation of Fennec for Windows Mobile), and has an Apple-like app storefront you submit to through Microsoft so they can better control the experience and stability. And while we hacker sorts lament the loss of ability to muck freely with our devices (without having to 'root' or 'jailbreak' or whatever the terminology for your platform of choice is), the less technical sorts are going, "Oh! Now /I/ can use these shiny gadgets, too!"
Most people I handed my old Tablet PC to went "WTF?" and got frustrated. My aunt, who had given up entirely on computers after the hassles she had with her old PC, toyed with an iPad the other day and remarked in surprise, "I could use this and have e-mail again!" The difference is fairly dramatic. The Tablet PC was trying to be a desktop PC stuffed into a tablet, and gave a lot of power to the user but did not work optimally. The iPad is /not/ trying to be a desktop PC at all... and that gives Apple the freedom to throw out the existing usage paradigm entirely, rather than shoehorning the desktop into a touch device.
We can hope they extend the platform and make it more flexible and powerful, but I think we're more likely to see the mobile branch of OS X (iPhone, iPad) expanded out to get new capabilities than we are to see them "make it run OS X" as you suggest. Simply because the mobile branch's usage model is better suited to phone and tablet use than the desktop model is.
--Rachel
posting this again, since something went wrong the first time:
this is a false dichotomy forged by suggesting that this Steve is good, ergo this steve is bad, then amplifying those traits by mapping them on to perceived standards of today.
I built and sold homebrew computers in the era when the apple II hit the market. At the time we all laughed at the apple as a "toy" because it was so locked down and not built from components. Back then, sonny, you built a computer like an Imsai, altair, cromenco, by starting with a metal box, putting in a non-switiching power supply, choosing the largest capacitors you could fit in the box, then an s-100 (altair) buss. then you picked a cpu board from one manufacturer, some memory cards from another, a keyboard uart decoder from another, a keybaord from another, a video card, and a TV screen modded with an RF converter on channel 4.
These apples were hideously locked down. Switching powersupplies with just wires coming out of a metal box, no way to ugrade the capacity and very little excess capacity. the keyboard was integrated into the case ! and wholly shit a mother board with soldered in chips, video, meomery, and CPU.
Even the address space of the cards you plugged in was decoded on the motherboad not the cards (which allowed the cards to be smaller than the ones for the S-100 bus). THe cards even got regulated voltages not raw rectified AC.
they sucked all the flexibility out of it.
the software was essential to the operation of the hardware not separate from it: a lot of the video management was done in software. the timing one the disk drives they put out used soft sectors not hardware determined sectors (only one hole punched in the floppy instead of 20, one for each sector). Even the memory refresh was handeled on the video updates which in turn were backsided on last half of the 6502's instruction cycle (when it would not be fetching). It was one of the very first systems to successfully use dynamic memory. (Only a fool would not use static memory in an altair, since you had to do all the refresh handling on the memory card).
You had to buy apple floppy disks, and apple plug-in cards for many things cause they were not standard cards or drives.
And of course the apple II in hind sight was one of the most geniuous machines ever built. it's lock downs let hobbiest's soar in other directions. plug in cards were small and the pre-decoded addresses and regulated voltages let you put all your effort into what they did rather than barely getting them to work. the dynamic memory allowed cheaper larger address spaces and the standardization of the video (all apples had to have the same video card) meant all games written would work on all apples. the same was not true of the others' since every s-100 bus machine had some different video card standard.
the use oif software decoding of keyboards and disks and so forth introiduced an era that eventually led to the apple desk top bus in the macintosh. What a brilliant simplication. Now we of course have USB instead of different ports for keyboards, parallel printers, scsi drives, tablets, mice.... But the only reasons we went down that track was Woz's apple paved the way. by making so much of the hardware immutable, the software could rely on standard configurations in every machine and thus software timing of other events became reliable for the very first time.
so this is BS revisionism to say that Woz was all about openness and Jobs all about lock down.
What it was both. lock downs of previously unlocked down things created growth to build on. you were not constantly re-inventing the wheel from scratch. In case you have not noticed it before the thing that makes apples great is they always are expensive: this is because they spec them out at high levels using fewer but a complete set of advanced components even on base models. This means software can always count on a feature being there and thus not shoot for the lowest common denominator. think back to pre-w
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.