Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R.I.P. Steve Jobs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Opinions vary of course, but I dont think fat clients would have been anything like they turned out to be if apple hadnt gotten the market penetration that they did. The ONLY reason IBM released the XT was because of the apple ii.

    IBM had made it obviously clear that they intended to make home based mini computers. They just didnt get to in time to make their ideology pervasive. Apple did. There were other contenders, but they were almost exclusively toys. It wasnt until the apple ii that fat clients started showing up in schools and businesses.Prior to that computing was almost exclusively the domain of very expensive mini computers. Due to the cost IBM had made it a stated goal to bring the cost of mini computers down low enough that they could be affordable enough to put in a home to interface with other home electronics.

    EDIT: Apple didnt have any other products of the time, the apple ii was the first viable product that they released. Based based on the success of that product apple started marketing the lisa which was by all accounts a failure. It wasnt until the macintosh was released that apple really dropped support for the apple ii, and even then it could be argued that xerox had more control over apple then IBM did.
    Last edited by duby229; 10-06-2011, 08:23 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      If IBM had there way home computers would be something more like what your furnace or water heater is. A centrally located computer that controls all the electronics in your home. Fat clients would never have even happend if apple hadnt released the apple ii.

      In many ways IBMs ideology may have been better, but upgradeability would have suffered. The cost of these central home computers would have made the pace of innovation slower.

      EDIT: lets give the other steve some credit too. woz was the brains that made it possible.
      Absolutely Woz deserves credit, never said he didn't, as do many other pioneers of the industry. IBM however had zero interest at the time at the home market. Even the first IBM PC was aimed at business and it wasn't really until the IBM PC jr that they started targeting the home market for anything. Steve Jobs however saw the potential of a computer being marketed to the average man, not a techie, not a home brew hacker, not a science major, etc. Just the average person. Ya there was the Tandy Trash 80's at the time targeted at small business (anybody remember the Tandy Computer stores?) and the Vic/C64/PET but those were seen more as gaming platforms then anything else. Steve however did something none of them did, he marketed to the educational systems (and in the Jobs 80's years they dominated that market) as well at the same times as businesses (VisiCalc) and the home market. I don't think IBM would have would have even remotely thought of catering to a central home based system. At the time it the technology just wasn't there to be had yet, even p2p networking didn't really catch on until the 90's.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Absolutely Woz deserves credit, never said he didn't, as do many other pioneers of the industry. IBM however had zero interest at the time at the home market. Even the first IBM PC was aimed at business and it wasn't really until the IBM PC jr that they started targeting the home market for anything. Steve Jobs however saw the potential of a computer being marketed to the average man, not a techie, not a home brew hacker, not a science major, etc. Just the average person. Ya there was the Tandy Trash 80's at the time targeted at small business (anybody remember the Tandy Computer stores?) and the Vic/C64/PET but those were seen more as gaming platforms then anything else. Steve however did something none of them did, he marketed to the educational systems (and in the Jobs 80's years they dominated that market) as well at the same times as businesses (VisiCalc) and the home market. I don't think IBM would have would have even remotely thought of catering to a central home based system. At the time it the technology just wasn't there to be had yet, even p2p networking didn't really catch on until the 90's.
        C64 May have been seen as a gaming platform but it's also one of, if not the most popular personal computers of all time(and of course it still has a large following today via emulation), later on of course having Commodore buy out Amiga (which was THE gaming and multimedia creation computer)

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
          And Actually I'm pretty sure that the Apple II was a product of IBM given that IBM controlled Apple during that time period and the Apple II was vastly different from any of Apple's other products of the time, and was killed on Job's request.
          Where do you get the idea that IBM controlled Apple or that Apple was a product of it?
          Last edited by deanjo; 10-06-2011, 08:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            Where do you get the idea that IBM controlled Apple or that Apple was a product of it?
            An ex-IBM employee told me about IBM having owned apple during this time period even though they kept it quiet. I inferred based upon this and the fact that the Apple II is so different from everything else that apple was pushing during that time period that this was most likely IBM's doing. The thing is the Apple II is a business machine whereas the Lisa and Macintosh were largely designed as a discussion piece and for manager types who couldn't be bothered to learn how to use the command line.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
              An ex-IBM employee told me about IBM having owned apple during this time period even though they kept it quiet.
              So in other words, bullshit. IBM being a publicly traded company would have had to disclose such investment.

              I inferred based upon this and the fact that the Apple II is so different from everything else that apple was pushing during that time period that this was most likely IBM's doing.
              Other product? During the Apple II it was Apples ONLY product which was a upgraded model of their previous product, the Apple I.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                So in other words, bullshit. IBM being a publicly traded company would have had to disclose such investment.
                I don't see any reason for the guy to have lied. I may have yet to find supporting documentation for what he said, but I have no reason to doubt his word.


                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Other product? During the Apple II it was Apples ONLY product which was a upgraded model of their previous product, the Apple I.
                Well that depends upon if you're just counting the Apple II or if you're willing to consider the whole lifespan up to the Apple IIc Plus which came out in 1988. Note that while the original Apple II may have launched in 1977 the Lisa was being worked on starting in 1978, and then the Macintosh was introduced in 1984, which was within the lifespan of the series. The Lisa and Macintosh being Job's Personal Pet Project if you'll remember..

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                  I don't see any reason for the guy to have lied.
                  Because there is one born every minute.

                  I may have yet to find supporting documentation for what he said, but I have no reason to doubt his word.
                  OK so you are really going to believe someone that more then likely had absolutely no reason to doubt an "ex-IBM employee". Guess what being an "ex-IBM employee" means sweet squat. Unless he was an ex board member / executive / legal at the time there is next to zero chance that he would have access to such information. And again any such acquirement would have had to be shown in the financial statements not to mention would have been under ftc scrutiny. Sorry but your "source" was bullshitting and you fell for it.

                  Well that depends upon if you're just counting the Apple II or if you're willing to consider the whole lifespan up to the Apple IIc Plus which came out in 1988. Note that while the original Apple II may have launched in 1977 the Lisa was being worked on starting in 1978, and then the Macintosh was introduced in 1984, which was within the lifespan of the series. The Lisa and Macintosh being Job's Personal Pet Project if you'll remember..
                  It's no secret that the inspiration for the Lisa/Mac came from the close relationship Apple had with Xerox, not IBM, who later asked MS to develop their GUI OS, OS/2.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    OK so you are really going to believe someone that more then likely had absolutely no reason to doubt an "ex-IBM employee". Guess what being an "ex-IBM employee" means sweet squat. Unless he was an ex board member / executive / legal at the time there is next to zero chance that he would have access to such information. And again any such acquirement would have had to be shown in the financial statements not to mention would have been under ftc scrutiny. Sorry but your "source" was bullshitting and you fell for it.
                    Perhaps, however I again find it very doubtful that he'd be lying, and there is some suspect stuff such as Apple going with PPC as opposed to other RISC architectures of the time. Plus it doesn't necessarily have to be buy out in terms of actually buying out Apple as potentially gaining a majority share, the same way that Blizzard took over Sierra and killed them without there being that much in the way of news about it back then.

                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    It's no secret that the inspiration for the Lisa/Mac came from the close relationship Apple had with Xerox, not IBM, who later asked MS to develop their GUI OS, OS/2.
                    It was not my intention to imply IBM having Apple develop the GUI, it is however meant to imply the hand of IBM being in the Apple II pie, while Jobs was steering in the other direction.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      basic

                      The dark secret nobody wanted to admit to.,
                      Microsoft Basic:
                      Vic 20, C64
                      Apple
                      Tandy
                      Atari
                      ...

                      I think Steve should have focused on IOrgans rather than IGadgets.
                      Seriously. Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs could jive out a better life for us all; at a price.

                      I found it funny Apple never admitted to offering premium products.
                      Truth is they did, IPOD 8GB 16GB 32GB. Mac Mini.

                      Nothings changed.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X