Slashdot Mirror


Wozniak Calls For Open Apple

aesoteric writes "Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has voiced a renewed desire to see the company open its architecture to the masses, allowing savvy users to expand and add to their products at will. However, Wozniak qualified his desire for a more open Apple by arguing that openness should not impinge on the quality of the products themselves. He also sees any change of heart on openness as a challenge when Apple continues to rake in huge cash with its current model."

32 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, part of the effect of the Steve Jobs reality distortion field was to basically write Woz out of Apple history almost completely. If you listen to many
    Apple employees and fans, you would think that Jobs created Apple single-handedly, perhaps with divine powers. There is very little respect (or even acknowledgement) at Apple for Woz or his contributions in the early days. In fact, very little respect is afforded there to the engineering of Apple products in general, versus their design and marketing. So, though it would be nice to think that Woz's voice might have some impact on Apple, he's probably even less likely to be listened to at Apple HQ than some random man-on-the-street.

    Woz's story makes a lot of Apple die-hards very uncomfortable (particularly the bits about Jobs screwing him over). And the standard response seems to be just pretending that he doesn't exist, and ignoring him. It's sad and unfair. But that's the way it is.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And without Woz Jobs wouldn't have had anything either. No Woz = No Apple 1

    2. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by rigelglen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without Woz, Jobs would have been nothing and Apple would have been a failure. Jobs isn't a god, of course he was an innovator, maybe a genius, but everyone makes you believe that Jobs came up with EVERYTHING, the User Interface, Design, EVERYTHING. This isn't the case, even Jobs admitted it, he said "It's the talented people at Apple that make the difference" or something like that.

    3. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While Woz was certainly not the recipient of terribly fair treatment, I suspect that there is a second reason why he was removed from the picture comparatively early:

      The success of the early Apple designs (the II particularly) rested in no small part on assorted deep-hack chip count and cost reduction measures, the sort of thing that Woz is reputed to be very good indeed at. It did lead to somewhat arcane and tightly interlinked designs; but this was back when reducing the chip count in your floppy drive was still Serious Savings or having Woz go up the mountain and descend bearing the design for ADB made your peripheral interconnects genuinely better than the other guy's. In Apple's later models, they just kept moving closer and closer to commodity circuits wrapped in nice industrial design and a friendly software layer.

      Obviously, somebody still has to design their logic boards; but that hasn't really been Apple's competitive edge in ages. Jobs occupied a larger-than-life seat on the pantheon; but the members immediately behind him in public awareness and clout were the industrial design guru and the supply chain/manufacturing guy. Board-level engineering elegance appears to have been swamped by volume savings on commodity silicon some time ago.

    4. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, I've read many accounts of Apple's founding and Woz is always prominent, we've all read fanboys but I've never seen one claim Woz didn't contribute, I've never seen anyone minimize his contribution and I've never read any equivocation on his treatment at the hands of Jobs. You sir have erected a straw man; I think you'd be challenged to find a single link or quote from Jobs himself along these lines.

      There is the simple fact that he left, and that he, by his own admission, had no idea how to make money off his inventions, and would have been happy working the day shift at HP and make a little money running Apple as a mail-order schematic business. To say that he was an engineers genius and critical to Apple's first success is true, but it's also true he had no idea of the potential for the business, he was by all accounts an awful salesman, and at the time he really didn't have any ambition beyond building a slightly cooler IMSAI clone.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    5. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by Entropius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jobs wasn't an innovator. He came up with a few UI tricks using engineering advances that other people did the hard physics for.

      What Jobs was was a marketer, and a good one.

    6. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by htnmmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Found some interesting quotes from Wozniak related to apple and jobs.

      He gave up a lot of his wealth, and even potential wealth to spend more time doing things he thought were more rewarding in other ways. So when he asks people to give up their share of the pie it's not a do as I say not as I do thing.

    7. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Steve Jobs ACTIVELY screwed him on a business deal in the VERY early days of Apple. Jobs said they got paid X for a job they were to split the fee on, but really they got X + Y. Steve kept his half of X and all of Y.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jobs' innovation was trying to keep things as simple as possible. Go read up on the dev meetings regarding the Itunes Burn Cd functionality and how Steve came in and simplified the whole thing. Steve was a master at KISS.

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are far fewer people like Jeffery Dahmer out there than there are Steve Wozniak. Therefore, Dahmer > Woz.

    10. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jobs was OUSTED, he didnt leave.

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're talking about the 'Breakout' incident.

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    12. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by Lisias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are misguided.

      Without Jobs, Woz would not had chance to show his invention to the money guys, and Apple would not had ever existed.

      Without Woz, Jobs would not had chance to show a invention to the money guys, and Apple would not had ever existed.

      Make no mistake - Jobs owns Woz as Woz own Jobs.

      Jobs was not a rich guy looking for a clever inventor. He was lucky to be friends with Woz, as probably no other guy would risk his life this way with him, as Woz did.

      We can argue forever about who is the father and who is the mother of Apple Computer.

      But it's just silly trying go argue if Apple would exist without one of them: the answer is a sound "NO".

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    13. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by BackwardPawn · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was when Atari was making a home version of Breakout and Jobs oversold his ability to create the product. Atari offered Jobs $750, plus a bonus for each chip Jobs could eliminate from the cartridge (by efficient programming). Jobs turn to Woz and told him they'd split the fee. Woz stayed up four nights programming breakout and did such an awesome job that Atari ended up paying Jobs $5,000. He paid Woz his $375 and kept the rest.

    14. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      This. While I do think Jobs is overrated, he's had one valuable contribution to the industry. Most other companies were content if their product worked, even if it shipped with a 300 page manual. Jobs was obsessed with making his products simple and easy to use, almost to a fault (e.g. only one button on the mouse).

      IMHO it's this ease of use which is primarily responsible for Apple's success today. Regular people view computers as complicated, and computer geeks (e.g. the Linux community) as obsessed with that complexity. Apple has established a reputation for making computers easy to use, so they're the first (and often only) product people look at when buying a computing device, even if it costs more.

    15. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as you are concerned, and reality, not necessarily the same thing.

      Are any of pylons and struts on the top floor of a skyscraper the same exact ones as on the bottom (not identical, same)? Does that make the bottom irellevant? If Apple hadn't gotten off the ground, it wouldn't be here today. Apple now is NOT next, but a combination of the old Apple, and NeXT, both are extremely important to what it is today.

      I maintain that Apple very likely would not be what it is today, without Woz.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    16. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by garyebickford · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that happens a lot. It happened to me. I co-founded an imaging company back in 1983 based on my idea for connecting a high speed CCD camera to an advanced workstation - bleeding edge stuff at the time. A few months later the company was already doing well, and my associate (a sales guy) and I brought in a new CEO who brought some VC money with him. I left in frustration three years later as the CEO was mismanaging the place horribly, although he did mange to keep bringing new investment money into the company. The history of the company as of a year or two after that was how the CEO had taken an interesting project by a couple of engineers and single-handedly created a company to bring it to fruition - literally our efforts merited part of a single sentence in a ten page history.

      The last laugh was that after I left (I had been VP of R&D), in the next two years they went through seven VPs of R&D (I guess I wasn't doing such a bad job!), and spent most of the 1990s fighting a series of battles against financial types who were trying to force them into bankruptcy - people that the CEO had originally brought in to invest in the company. The financial shenanigans were rather distressing to me. In a short conversation about 1999, the CEO of the then-defunct company agreed that the three major things I had recommended, and he had rejected finally triggering me to quit, were all correct - but as he said, "I hadn't been forceful enough to convince him!" - sigh. And he spent ten years fighting in court instead of doing other fun things.

      I still feel there was a good legacy. My track record in managing the engineering side was that we were technically successful on every project, usually under budget, and had excellent morale. I'm still friends with folks that I originally hired there. And we did some really great work in vectorizing, OCR and entity recognition for large format maps and drawings. We even did some work on constructing 3D models from sets of 2D drawings. We could generate terrain models from USGS maps. I got to tour the Space Shuttle External Tank manufacturing facility, and we built image processors that were two orders of magnitude faster than anything else out there, using chips from the cruise missile program (credit where credit is due - that hardware and a lot of the original code behind the OCR and other recognition capability was done by the Visual Understanding Lab of Bob Thibadeau, research professor at Carnegie Mellon). Of course, all that can now be done by any common desktop in software.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    17. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by tilante · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Interestingly enough, Apple's people came away from their quick tour through PARC thinking that Xerox's interface did things that it didn't actually do. For example, Xerox's interface didn't allow programs to draw into a portion of a window that was obscured, and didn't have self-repairing windows -- when you dragged one window off of another, you had to click the revealed window to get it to repaint. Apple's people didn't realize that Xerox's system didn't allow those things, and thus, designed QuickDraw and the Lisa/Mac Window Manager so they *did* allow those.

      Another example is drag-and-drop file management. It seems like such an obvious thing with icons for files and a mouse, but Xerox's interface didn't have it. Apple's people invented it on their own for the Lisa/Mac interface. Some other things that the Lisa/Mac interface did that Xerox's didn't:

      * "Direct manipulation" of file/folder/etc. names (i.e., click on the name and type to edit it)

      * Pull-down menus

      * Resource forks for files, allowing for easy, clean internationalization of applications

      * Files having type IDs and creator IDs embedded, so you could simply double-click a file and have it open in the appropriate application, no matter what folder it was in

      * The clipboard holding typed data (and holding multiple representations of the same data)

      * Desk accessories and control panels

      So, as you can see, the Lisa/Mac interface was *not* just a copy of Xerox's. Quite a few things were added by Apple's team.

    18. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Besides: does this "ease of use" explain why I had to enter in fucking arcane escape sequences into the configs to make the Home, End, PgUp, and PgDn keys on my keyboard work?

      Since I have no idea what you're referring to as all the keys work out-of-the-box on my MacBook, I'm betting that you hit the "Linux User On A Mac" trap. You try to do something and it doesn't work as expected, so you reflexively Google for a solution and find a forum post for 2005 that kind of half-assed patches around the problem. Almost every time that's happened to me (as a Linux User On A Mac), I've later discovered that 1) there was another "native" way to do it with a couple of mouse clicks that were completely obvious in retrospect, or 2) I was trying to inflict a much more complicated workflow onto something much easier to use once I quit fighting it.

      As far as I know, all Macs come with working movement keys. I hate to say this, but I think you were just using it wrong.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    19. Re:No one at Apple listens to that Steve anymore by motokochan · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issue the parent had is that certain keys on the keyboard behave different from how UNIX and Windows traditionally handle them. For instance, PgUp and PgDown only scroll the viewport. They do not move the cursor. The fun is when you're very used to the cursor moving and then press one of the directional arrows to find you're back in the original position. You have to remember to click the mouse in the document to re-set the cursor position. Likewise, Home and End move the viewport to the very top and bottom of the viewport, not the expected beginning and ending of the line, if you're in a multi-line textbox.

      So, while the keys do work, they are quite different from other OSes out there, leading to some very annoying behavior if you're keyboard-centric.

  2. Yeah, I'm tired of the propeller/command key. by jcburns · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....let's just go back to that Open Apple key instead. That's what Woz said, right?

  3. Re:Apple clones? by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It didn't work out well then because the Mac was Apple's primary source of revenue. Not so anymore.

    Specifically, what happened back then was that the cloners were supposed to take the low end of the market that Apple didn't want. Instead, at least one of them went balls-to-the-wall and made some machines that were faster than Apple's fastest. They began to hit Apple right in the bottom line, which is why almost immediately upon his return Jobs used a contract loophole to kill the clone program.

    Personally, I would love to see Apple open up for at least some things. I can understand to a degree that they don't want consumers running OS X on non-Apple hardware, but since they don't sell enterprise-class servers anymore I think they should officially allow, certify, and fully support installation and virtualization of OS X Server on at least a limited selection of non-Apple hardware.

  4. Re:Never gonna happen by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could imagine an Apple under Woz turning out much the same way as the Bell Labs story: Lots of world-changing technology, very little profit.

    Jobs and Woz needed each other to make Apple a reality. Jobs needed Woz to have really cool products to sell early on - without Woz, he either would have ended up yet another commune-dwelling hippie, or maybe yet another marketing jerk in a suit (like That Guy in Futurama). Woz needed Jobs to go independent and sell his stuff on a mass scale - without Jobs, he'd probably be happily designing stuff for HP or some other big firm and playing with hardware tinkering and open-source software in his spare time.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Re:Jobs is marketing, Woz is engineering by uglyduckling · · Score: 4, Informative

    I disagree. The original iPod was an engineering feat. I know all the technology was already available, but that's the point of engineering - to do something clever and slick that works really, really well, by seeing and understanding what other people have missed. Same for the original iMac - it was a design and engineering triumph, totally iconic. The marketing was there too, but both are needed. See the Commodore Amiga for an example of great engineering and crummy marketing - and also the desire to maintain backwards compatibility holding back what could have been an amazing line of computers.

  6. No one buys Apple because they have to by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jobs treated Apple customers like cattle, to be guided through narrow constricting chutes and confined in little cages, all while milking them of every last ounce.

    I think it's hysterical that you think no one who uses Apple products is bright enough to make an informed decision about them. Do you really think there are no Apple users who aren't acutely aware of the alternative products available to them? Seriously? You think no one has heard of Windows or Linux or Kindle or Android? No one is trapped by Apple.

    People use Apple products because they want to, not because they have to. Almost no one actually requires a Mac and the majority of computers sold are made by other vendors. You can do virtually all the same tasks perfectly well on a Windows and/or Linux machine. There are respectable quality competing products for the iPod, iPhone and iPad, widely available to anyone who wants them, often at lower price points and sometimes with features missing from Apple products or with compelling design features of their own. And yet millions still buy Apple products and have for many years now. This does not happen by accident or by marketing and Apple certainly does not (even today) have the market power to force people into buying their products.

    (And before anyone starts, Apple customers are not mostly status seeking hipsters either. Nobody sells that many units over that many years on image alone. If the products sucked they wouldn't sell for long no matter how good a salesman Steve Jobs was.)

  7. Re:Gillette Razor Model? by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That begs the question that "balance sheets are the best scorecards".

    I understand that is the conventional wisdom; anyone who questions that is generally viewed as some kind of heretic, hippy, or anarchist.

    Question the premise and you allow points of view like Woz's, or Stallman's, or anyone who argues for more social responsibility and ecological awareness. But demand that every answer results in "MAKE MOAR MONEYS" and we wind up with shiny traps, tragically-abused commons, and proprietary ownership of almost anything that was once public domain.

    So, yeah, society definitely needs to outgrow the "Wealth is proof of correctness" mindset.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  8. There is more to engineering than specs. by Brannon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The slashdot crowd doesn't understand that and thus they don't understand why Apple is so successful. The "marketing" crap is your best attempt to rationalize Apple's success without having to expand your tiny little world.

    Meanwhile, Apple is on their way to being the first $1 trillion company because nearly everyone else in the world understands something that you don't: "The ONLY point of technology is to make life easier for humans"--by that definition, Apple cranks out the best technology using the best engineering. Deal with it.

  9. Apple was a different company after the reboot by clay_shooter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The company was rebuilt after Jobs returned. The new team and focus pretty much made the company what it is today.

    1. Re:Apple was a different company after the reboot by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There were obvious issues with the company before Jobs came back. The lack of a decent OS (which Apple bought from Jobs), a bad series of high level executives that didn't know how to focus the company (not that another would not have done so and to say otherwise is to preach Apple's future doom) hurt Apple's future potential. Job's simply refocused on specific efforts, he got Gates to loan some money and continue to commit software development efforts, and brought his OS with him. This didn't happen overnight. It took years while building the right management team. Chrysler had the same resurgence with Lee Iacocca. And if it hadn't been for the rest of the industry turning down the developer of the iPod Apple would not be where they are today. So, hard work, a refocus, a new OS, a loan from Gates, and the serendipity of matching the iPod with a new 1.5" drive gave Apple it's resurgence. Jobs played a big part as a leader and was tremendously successful at redirecting the company focusing on products that were bound to benefit Apple (I'm sure there were many projects that were also of great potential that were killed). He was not a guru and through his ill temper and manipulation did he get people to serve him.

      So, give him credit, but realize that there's a bit of distorted reality in how some here present what Job's did.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  10. The plane crash by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    A third reason is that he had a plane crash in 1981 which caused him to take a leave of absence. From what I read, it left some lasting, bad damage including memory loss. Between all that and being set for life, economically, he didn't have to go back.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  11. Re:Jobs would have found someone else by xmundt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do not down play Woz's contribution to Apple. One of the major reasons for the success of the Macintosh was the IWM chip that was the heart of it This amazing hardware hack coupled complex state machine logic and individual circuits together in one chip to become greater than the sum of its parts. Woz's design used the partial circuits in a dozen or more different ways, reconfiguring itself on the fly to do what needed to be done at that point. Could another engineer have done this design and made it work so well? Perhaps, but, I doubt it. "IWM" stands for "Integrated Woz Machine", and well it should. It remains a pretty spiffy hack,
              pleasant dreams
              bee man dave

    --
    YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
  12. You guys sound like the Army by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The logistics (fuel) guys say "Without us, your tanks wouldn't run."

    The tankers say "Without us, you would have no reason for existing."

    Woz supporters say "Without Woz, Apple would have nothing worth selling."

    Jobs supporters say "Without Jobs, you wouldn't have been able to sell it."

    Everybody needs to remember it takes a team where the members complement each other. Woz and Jobs would have sucked individually, but together they made Apple great. Jobs and Raskin made Apple great in the Mac. In modern days it was Jobs, Ive and Cook. And through most of the early history there was Tog, setting the standard for usability. If you want to talk about an Apple hero most people don't know about, look at the Tog.