1976 Polaroids of an Apple-1 Resurface

harrymcc writes "In 1976, Paul Terrell, owner of the Byte Shop in Mountain View, California, placed an order for 50 Apple-1 computers, becoming Apple's first dealer. Over at TIME.com, I've published three Polaroid snapshots of the Apple-1 which Terrell shot at the time. They're fascinating history, and it's possible they're the oldest surviving photos of Apple products."

Comments

Re:And this is news?

[girlinatrainingbra]

Dude, stackexchange is NOT stackoverflow. Stackexchange evens hosts a forum on bicycles, so why not a forum on Judaism? With questions of key values in times like these (!):
-- http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/22315/kashrus-status-of-turkeys : Are turkeys kosher?
-- http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10358/may-one-use-a-computer-script-to-do-something-specifically-on-shabbos-yom-tov : Can you use computer scripts to automate actions to allow certain [forbidden?] activities on the Sabbath? The point in this one seems to be that the only ones who can earn Enthusiast or Fanatic badges on judaism.stackexchange.com would be those who use a computer on the sabbath and thus show themselves to be non-observant jews. Or perhaps I misread this. Either way, it sure seems like a valid forum.
.;>)
As to "is this [posting about polaroids] news", I have a memory of a very interesting thing that happened a while ago. I typed three letters as I had this memory. The thing that happened was tech related. Perhaps I ought to write a /. article and submit it. So as to the original point, I agree that the concept of a polaroid photograph of a techy object from the prior century has dubious standing to be an article on the "one true /." (reference to the "true scotsman" fallacy), but boy it fits with the stinking pile of non-tech articles that /. has become. So I agree with that your first point. (also see five to ten of my previous posts that agree with the drab-ness, non-tech-ness, non-news-for-nerdness of this site). I was tempted to not even answer this Q so as not to give this particular topic/posting any more validity. In fact, your questioning of the usefulness of this posting of a polaroid is more relevant to /. than the posting of the polaroid itself is.
.
But I believe you are mistaking the narrow scope of stackoverflow for the wide berth of stackexchange's multiple topics and stacks.

Re:Just a marketing scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd swap these for pictures of the first Amiga wirewraps!