5 ms·

Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the

by cnlwsu 17y ago

Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox.

tewks 17y ago
They, Xerox management, gave him a license to do so. People at PARC weren't so enthusiastic, I think.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  The Xerox management thought all of those things were just toys and that computers would never be anything but what they were at that moment. Reminds me of a lot of people who look at the iPad and say "meh."
  - catfish 17y ago
    Fools rush in... FOR DRM.
  - axod 17y ago
    Come on now. Please explain to me what is revolutionary about the iPad. It is 'meh'. It's just a big iPod touch. It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful. There's nothing revolutionary about it at all. It's a slightly slicker version of all the tablet PCs that have failed to capture significant market share for the last 10-20 years. It'd be easy to say "sure but you're a geek, you just don't see how easy to use and useful the iPad is for normal people". But I don't think it is. The form factor is just bad. Watch the video on the Apple store, and you'll see actor after actor carefully pretending that it's comfortable to sit/stand/hold this device without getting an aching hand/sore neck etc. Yes, there are applications, just like there have been for previous tablet PCs, but they're niche. Is it really that much more than the Apple Newton was 20 odd years ago? Did the Apple Newton seem revolutionary at the time? If so, why did it fail? I'd love to hear a concrete reason why the iPad is 'revolutionary'. Like a genuine reason, not just people pointing to the lone person on slashdot who called the iPod 'meh'. That doesn't count. So, please explain to me clearly, why having a laptop without a keyboard/trackpad is revolutionary.
    - aresant 17y ago
      "It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful." To us less useful means less depth. To the general market less useful means less confusing. Less confusing in consumer devices = win.
      - axod 17y ago
        As I say, I disagree. It's less useful for consumers, because you can't type on it properly, you can't rest it on your lap, you can't view any flash websites, etc etc. It's the geeks that are hailing it as useful. I can't see how my kids would use an iPad, and I can't see how my mum would use an iPad.
        anigbrowl 17y ago
        No offense axod, but you have a big anti-tablet bias, and I think it undermines your objectivity, the point that you keep repeating your anecdotal evaluation of your immediate family members not being likely adopters as if they were the median. You seem to be reasoning from an n of 3 or 4 people. I find it easy to see why Apple expects it to be popular. I may be wrong, but the (apparent) fact that lots of people are interested in buying an iPad suggests they can think of ways to use it, and seriously doubt that Apple would be investing lots of money in launching one without assuring themselves of likely demand first. Me, I would rather not buy an iPad - even though it looks like a very good product, technically - because I am increasingly put off by Apple's aggressive vertical integration and business tactics (like this patent lawsuit). But however I feel about that, I can't deny their expertise in engineering and marketing. Even if I buy a competitor's product, the price and specifications will have been influenced by Apple's offering. I feel like we (computer users) have already gone through this 'utility' barrier many times - did average consumers 'need' the mouse, the GUI, videogame consoles, color graphics, dedicated monitors (vs a TV adapter) etc.. etc.? Well, no, not as such, but it seems that people's desire for a technology often forms prior to the availability of tools that properly exploit it, even though their use cases may be inchoate. I'll give you two examples of non-computer geeks who nevertheless have use cases for a tablet, with the understanding that these too are anecdotal. One is down the street from me: the people who work at the 7-11 use an oldish Panasonic tablet computer for inventory management. they probably don't need multitouch and the software looks a bit primitive, but they seem well comfortable treating it as a digital clipboard that they can hold with one hand and operate with the other. Now, you don't need a degree to work at 7-11 or even to get your own store, just a willingness to work at a small 24-hour retail outlet. 7-11 is a mature franchise business so I don't imagine that they rolled out the use of tablets to their employees on a whim - more likely, such devices hit a sweet spot between usability and capability which proved beneficial for limiting the cost of inventory control. Another area is for creatives in a studio. I work with audio and video for a living, and for some tasks using a mouse is royal pain in the ass. There is a thriving industry in hardware control surfaces for musicians, and many of them are repurposed by 3d animators, compositors, and other video professionals because the cost of dedicated hardware for the latter is stratospheric. A general purpose device with multitouch is already a winner in this market. Cheaper ones will sell like hotcakes. Add enough of these market segments together, and you're looking at some real money.

by cnlwsu 17y ago

tewks 17y ago

They, Xerox management, gave him a license to do so. People at PARC weren't so enthusiastic, I think.

stcredzero 17y ago
The Xerox management thought all of those things were just toys and that computers would never be anything but what they were at that moment. Reminds me of a lot of people who look at the iPad and say "meh."
- catfish 17y ago
  Fools rush in... FOR DRM.
- axod 17y ago
  Come on now. Please explain to me what is revolutionary about the iPad. It is 'meh'. It's just a big iPod touch. It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful. There's nothing revolutionary about it at all. It's a slightly slicker version of all the tablet PCs that have failed to capture significant market share for the last 10-20 years. It'd be easy to say "sure but you're a geek, you just don't see how easy to use and useful the iPad is for normal people". But I don't think it is. The form factor is just bad. Watch the video on the Apple store, and you'll see actor after actor carefully pretending that it's comfortable to sit/stand/hold this device without getting an aching hand/sore neck etc. Yes, there are applications, just like there have been for previous tablet PCs, but they're niche. Is it really that much more than the Apple Newton was 20 odd years ago? Did the Apple Newton seem revolutionary at the time? If so, why did it fail? I'd love to hear a concrete reason why the iPad is 'revolutionary'. Like a genuine reason, not just people pointing to the lone person on slashdot who called the iPod 'meh'. That doesn't count. So, please explain to me clearly, why having a laptop without a keyboard/trackpad is revolutionary.
  - aresant 17y ago
    "It's like a netbook or laptop but less useful." To us less useful means less depth. To the general market less useful means less confusing. Less confusing in consumer devices = win.
    - axod 17y ago
      As I say, I disagree. It's less useful for consumers, because you can't type on it properly, you can't rest it on your lap, you can't view any flash websites, etc etc. It's the geeks that are hailing it as useful. I can't see how my kids would use an iPad, and I can't see how my mum would use an iPad.
      - anigbrowl 17y ago
        No offense axod, but you have a big anti-tablet bias, and I think it undermines your objectivity, the point that you keep repeating your anecdotal evaluation of your immediate family members not being likely adopters as if they were the median. You seem to be reasoning from an n of 3 or 4 people. I find it easy to see why Apple expects it to be popular. I may be wrong, but the (apparent) fact that lots of people are interested in buying an iPad suggests they can think of ways to use it, and seriously doubt that Apple would be investing lots of money in launching one without assuring themselves of likely demand first. Me, I would rather not buy an iPad - even though it looks like a very good product, technically - because I am increasingly put off by Apple's aggressive vertical integration and business tactics (like this patent lawsuit). But however I feel about that, I can't deny their expertise in engineering and marketing. Even if I buy a competitor's product, the price and specifications will have been influenced by Apple's offering. I feel like we (computer users) have already gone through this 'utility' barrier many times - did average consumers 'need' the mouse, the GUI, videogame consoles, color graphics, dedicated monitors (vs a TV adapter) etc.. etc.? Well, no, not as such, but it seems that people's desire for a technology often forms prior to the availability of tools that properly exploit it, even though their use cases may be inchoate. I'll give you two examples of non-computer geeks who nevertheless have use cases for a tablet, with the understanding that these too are anecdotal. One is down the street from me: the people who work at the 7-11 use an oldish Panasonic tablet computer for inventory management. they probably don't need multitouch and the software looks a bit primitive, but they seem well comfortable treating it as a digital clipboard that they can hold with one hand and operate with the other. Now, you don't need a degree to work at 7-11 or even to get your own store, just a willingness to work at a small 24-hour retail outlet. 7-11 is a mature franchise business so I don't imagine that they rolled out the use of tablets to their employees on a whim - more likely, such devices hit a sweet spot between usability and capability which proved beneficial for limiting the cost of inventory control. Another area is for creatives in a studio. I work with audio and video for a living, and for some tasks using a mouse is royal pain in the ass. There is a thriving industry in hardware control surfaces for musicians, and many of them are repurposed by 3d animators, compositors, and other video professionals because the cost of dedicated hardware for the latter is stratospheric. A general purpose device with multitouch is already a winner in this market. Cheaper ones will sell like hotcakes. Add enough of these market segments together, and you're looking at some real money.