5 ms·

"The irony is that the ‘second Steve’ of the later Apple made and sold the equivalent of mental sugar water to all via convenient appealing consumer gadgets."

"The irony is that the ‘second Steve’ of the later Apple made and sold the equivalent of mental sugar water to all via convenient appealing consumer gadgets." Ouch.

chillaxtian 10y ago
how was the macintosh different?
- jarmitage 10y ago
  I don't think he was saying that it was, only that at least the 1st time the vision was romantic and idealised by comparison. The second had no bones about ditching that to chase $$$.
  - bitwize 10y ago
    First Steve and Second Steve were the same person. And he was always about the money, for as long as he'd been involved with Apple. Otherwise he wouldn't have had the Macintosh require a special case-cracking tool made only available to authorized dealers and repair shops to open. The Steve who was most passionate about starting a revolution with cheap, accessible computers was named Wozniak.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ktRolster 10y ago
  For one thing, it was open. You could install your own software on it.
  - Gracana 10y ago
    For a while at the beginning, you needed a Lisa to program one. Maybe things will change with iDevices and we won't need the mac anymore?
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      I don't mind needing a Mac, it's the required signing that bothers me.
      - chillaxtian 10y ago
        you can run software on macOS that isn't signed by apple.
        ktRolster 10y ago
        Not on the iPhone, and you know it.
        mercutio2 10y ago
        You can, for zero cost, run arbitrary code, without a paid Apple signature, on your own personal iPhone. You just need a Mac. What you can't do is distribute a binary for general use without paying Apple ($100/year) to sign your code.
        WayneBro 10y ago
        Seriously? Explain that to the 500 person company that I'm writing an app for. We have to pay $299/year to Apple just for the privilege of putting software on our own fucking devices. That's some bullshit right there. The free option is worth exactly shit for such a large organization. The $100/year is to get in the public app store where your app must obey every arbitrary rule that Apple invents. They actually have a clause that says they can kick you out of the store for any reason they want without justification. Why does anyone defend that sort of behavior?
        msane 10y ago
        It's the cleanest mass market app store in existence. Highest quality apps, least malware.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    It was so open that your software which could write all over the memory space of other programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_memory_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_memory_management Then OSX introduced virtual memory. Programs became a little bit safer. Then in later versions, Application Sandboxing, code signing, etc. Every step of the way programs can do less but are safer for the OS.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > Every step of the way programs can do less but are safer for the OS. The important thing here is that it's a tradeoff, not an universal good. And a tradeoff that I personally don't like very much. Doing fun and interesting things keeps getting harder and harder because you have to jump through increasing amount of security hoops. For instance, reading and writing memory of other programs enabled you to do tweaks that are now almost impossible to perform. I understand the need for change, now that a computer is expected to be connected and running untrusted third-party code by default. But we've lost something with that change, and I wish for a way to get it back.
- dunkelheit 10y ago
  Early in the history of computing two camps formed: the 'AI' camp that proclaimed that computers would soon be able to figure everything out on their own and 'mind amplification' camp that held that computers would become an extension to the human mind. The whole personal computing movement and thus early Apple grew out of the second camp. Alan Kay is a great representative of the second camp. Of course, Apple soon figured out that what sells is not mind amplification tools but 'appliances' and under second Steve they became really good at producing those.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Jobs explicitly compares the computer to the bicycle -- a machine which amplifies human action and capability and turns an ungainly biped into the most efficiently locomoting land animal (or any animal) ever. There's much to be said for the concept.
erdevs 10y ago
This stood out to me too. It's harsh, but true. I love that Apple is making computing devices more accessible to people, and I think that's a good thing. But I wish they weren't also making those very same devices more closed and controlled. Imagine if all of the original personal computers were as locked down as the iPhone is, in terms of being able to tweak/customize it, create and distribute software for it, or find other people's software for it. It's definitely a regressive step and I don't see why we can't have beautiful industrial design, slick software interfaces and more easy, open-access under the hood for users that want to get in there.
- rimantas 10y ago
  iPhone has a computer in it, but it is not a general purpose computer. Why is this concept so hard to get? There are tons of things that have CPUs and billions of lines of code to run them, but they are not personal computers.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - erdevs 10y ago
    It's not hard to "get", in that their policy decision is clear and understandable. However, are you saying that the iPhone is incapable of being a general purpose computer? That it would be difficult to have it more open/accessible for tuning? If so, you'd have to explain. The point is that the iPhone / iOS devices could be more open (to user control and modification at the OS level, to third-party peripherals, to third-party software distribution and installation, etc)... but, due to fiat policy rather than any significant technical constraint, it is not. Is that hard to "get"?
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      The part that is hard to "get" is the constant complaining. You could complain once and then let it go, but the favored technique seems to be to beat it to death, accompanied by mock surprise that not every person gives the same priority to things. It's boring, frankly.

"The irony is that the ‘second Steve’ of the later Apple made and sold the equivalent of mental sugar water to all via convenient appealing consumer gadgets." Ouch.

chillaxtian 10y ago

how was the macintosh different?

jarmitage 10y ago
I don't think he was saying that it was, only that at least the 1st time the vision was romantic and idealised by comparison. The second had no bones about ditching that to chase $$$.
- bitwize 10y ago
  First Steve and Second Steve were the same person. And he was always about the money, for as long as he'd been involved with Apple. Otherwise he wouldn't have had the Macintosh require a special case-cracking tool made only available to authorized dealers and repair shops to open. The Steve who was most passionate about starting a revolution with cheap, accessible computers was named Wozniak.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ktRolster 10y ago
For one thing, it was open. You could install your own software on it.
- Gracana 10y ago
  For a while at the beginning, you needed a Lisa to program one. Maybe things will change with iDevices and we won't need the mac anymore?
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    I don't mind needing a Mac, it's the required signing that bothers me.
    - chillaxtian 10y ago
      you can run software on macOS that isn't signed by apple.
      - ktRolster 10y ago
        Not on the iPhone, and you know it.
        mercutio2 10y ago
        You can, for zero cost, run arbitrary code, without a paid Apple signature, on your own personal iPhone. You just need a Mac. What you can't do is distribute a binary for general use without paying Apple ($100/year) to sign your code.
        WayneBro 10y ago
        Seriously? Explain that to the 500 person company that I'm writing an app for. We have to pay $299/year to Apple just for the privilege of putting software on our own fucking devices. That's some bullshit right there. The free option is worth exactly shit for such a large organization. The $100/year is to get in the public app store where your app must obey every arbitrary rule that Apple invents. They actually have a clause that says they can kick you out of the store for any reason they want without justification. Why does anyone defend that sort of behavior?
        msane 10y ago
        It's the cleanest mass market app store in existence. Highest quality apps, least malware.
- chillacy 10y ago
  It was so open that your software which could write all over the memory space of other programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_memory_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_memory_management Then OSX introduced virtual memory. Programs became a little bit safer. Then in later versions, Application Sandboxing, code signing, etc. Every step of the way programs can do less but are safer for the OS.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > Every step of the way programs can do less but are safer for the OS. The important thing here is that it's a tradeoff, not an universal good. And a tradeoff that I personally don't like very much. Doing fun and interesting things keeps getting harder and harder because you have to jump through increasing amount of security hoops. For instance, reading and writing memory of other programs enabled you to do tweaks that are now almost impossible to perform. I understand the need for change, now that a computer is expected to be connected and running untrusted third-party code by default. But we've lost something with that change, and I wish for a way to get it back.
dunkelheit 10y ago
Early in the history of computing two camps formed: the 'AI' camp that proclaimed that computers would soon be able to figure everything out on their own and 'mind amplification' camp that held that computers would become an extension to the human mind. The whole personal computing movement and thus early Apple grew out of the second camp. Alan Kay is a great representative of the second camp. Of course, Apple soon figured out that what sells is not mind amplification tools but 'appliances' and under second Steve they became really good at producing those.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Jobs explicitly compares the computer to the bicycle -- a machine which amplifies human action and capability and turns an ungainly biped into the most efficiently locomoting land animal (or any animal) ever. There's much to be said for the concept.

erdevs 10y ago

This stood out to me too. It's harsh, but true. I love that Apple is making computing devices more accessible to people, and I think that's a good thing. But I wish they weren't also making those very same devices more closed and controlled. Imagine if all of the original personal computers were as locked down as the iPhone is, in terms of being able to tweak/customize it, create and distribute software for it, or find other people's software for it. It's definitely a regressive step and I don't see why we can't have beautiful industrial design, slick software interfaces and more easy, open-access under the hood for users that want to get in there.

rimantas 10y ago
iPhone has a computer in it, but it is not a general purpose computer. Why is this concept so hard to get? There are tons of things that have CPUs and billions of lines of code to run them, but they are not personal computers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erdevs 10y ago
  It's not hard to "get", in that their policy decision is clear and understandable. However, are you saying that the iPhone is incapable of being a general purpose computer? That it would be difficult to have it more open/accessible for tuning? If so, you'd have to explain. The point is that the iPhone / iOS devices could be more open (to user control and modification at the OS level, to third-party peripherals, to third-party software distribution and installation, etc)... but, due to fiat policy rather than any significant technical constraint, it is not. Is that hard to "get"?
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    The part that is hard to "get" is the constant complaining. You could complain once and then let it go, but the favored technique seems to be to beat it to death, accompanied by mock surprise that not every person gives the same priority to things. It's boring, frankly.