5 ms·

I'd argue that Apple is a hardware design company that knows how to contract things correctly (from Mac era to today). Apple has always been focused on a compl

by mey 16y ago

I'd argue that Apple is a hardware design company that knows how to contract things correctly (from Mac era to today). Apple has always been focused on a complete packaged form, from Lisa to the iPad. They demand perfection, secrecy, and obsession from their people. Some of their worst years are because the business talent of Steve Jobs was not at the helm. How long did their core OS not have protected memory, or pre-emptive multitasking? Apple still see's their OS as a package with the hardware. I would think this is part of their attachment to iOS (that and the massive markup and market penetration they've had so far). The iPod gen 1 through gen 4 was not a hacker platform. " Apple did not develop the iPod software entirely in-house, instead using PortalPlayer's reference platform based on two ARM cores. The platform had rudimentary software running on a commercial microkernel embedded operating system. PortalPlayer had previously been working on an IBM-branded MP3 player with Bluetooth headphones.[4] Apple contracted another company, Pixo, to help design and implement the user interface under the direct supervision of Steve Jobs.[4] As development progressed, Apple continued to refine the software's look and feel. " -- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1986.E2.80.931993:_Rise_and_fall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#1986.E2.80.931993:_R... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod Edit: I could go on longer, for example, OSX coming from BSD and NextStep etc but I'm done. :)

philwelch 16y ago
How long did their core OS not have protected memory, or pre-emptive multitasking? About until Steve Jobs came back. But the Apple of 1985 to 1997 was not the Apple of today. That Apple is long dead. The Apple of today is basically NeXT, plus the branding and whatever other assets NeXT could salvage from Apple. As far as that company is concerned, their core OS had protected memory and preemptive multitasking since 1989.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Let’s make some other statements about as reasonable as yours (absent further supporting explanation): The Mughal India of the 16th–19th centuries was not the India of today. That India is long dead. The India of today is basically the British Raj, plus the branding, mix of religions and whatever else the British could salvage. The Republican party of 1860–1970 was not the Republican party of today. That GOP is long dead. The GOP of today is basically the unholy mix of Kristol & Podhoretz foreign & economic policy with Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson social policy, plus the branding and whatever panders to fiscal conservative constituents they could salvage from the party’s historic base of support. The field of economics of 1780–1950 was not the economics of today. That economics is long dead. The economics of today is basically the Friedmanite Chicago school, plus the branding and whatever other assets they could salvage from economics. Now, in all three of these cases, there’s some little bit of truth behind the wholly oversimplified (to the point of wrongness) analysis. But taking these statements at face value obscures more than it reveals, and reflects a poor understanding of how cultural assimilation works in any institution or society. (And denies evolutionary change, as well; Apple today is not exactly the same as Apple of ca. 2000) * * * In short: you’d better have some better analysis to back yourself up here, because as it stands I think your claim is, to the first approximation, false, even if there is a tiny bit of truth to it.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    In the second Jobs era, Apple's CEO, central technology, and (in the early years) the bulk of their executive team were directly installed from NeXT. Dogs and smoking were banned from the campus, the icon garden was taken down, Apple's entire industrial design was dropped in favor of new directions, and almost all of their software technology was eventually abandoned along with the Newton and the traditional Old World ROM hardware design. It's certainly true that Apple is now more NeXT than it is what it was. Perhaps it's something different enough from both of those--but it followed NeXT's evolutionary path more than Apple's.
    - jacobolus 16y ago
      I agree with you that the emphasis changed dramatically from the Apple of before Jobs’ return, which had a (relatively to now) large basic R&D arm, and a vision for the future alternating between wheel-spinning and incoherence. But I don’t think the Apple of today is especially like NeXT either, probably mostly because the markets it aims for are so completely different. For example, the first iMacs and iBooks don’t seem remotely related to the NeXT design aesthetic, and IMO neither do modern iPhones or PowerBooks. Something like the iPod doesn’t seem to me to have anything to do with NeXT, in user base, in problem space, in software style, in product vision, etc. You’re right that early versions of OS X looked much more like NeXTStep than they did like previous versions of Mac OS (being built on NeXT’s codebase), and still today is in many small details a regression. But as OS X has matured, it has felt ever more like "classic" Mac OS, not less. I think if NeXT had been independently successful and turned NeXTStep into a consumer OS, it would have evolved in a dramatically different direction (though of course that’s counterfactual). I don’t really know what it was or is like to work inside these companies, but I doubt that the feel of NeXT could be quite like the feel of the modern Apple, if only because modern Apple is so much bigger.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        A lot of good thoughts, but... But as OS X has matured, it has felt ever more like "classic" Mac OS, not less. Past the transition from public beta to release and maybe a couple small points after that, I don't see how this is true at all, and I've extensively used both. What similarities do you notice?
- jimbokun 16y ago
  "The Apple of today is basically NeXT, plus the branding and whatever other assets NeXT could salvage from Apple." Basically, they merged the branch back into the trunk.

by mey 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago

How long did their core OS not have protected memory, or pre-emptive multitasking? About until Steve Jobs came back. But the Apple of 1985 to 1997 was not the Apple of today. That Apple is long dead. The Apple of today is basically NeXT, plus the branding and whatever other assets NeXT could salvage from Apple. As far as that company is concerned, their core OS had protected memory and preemptive multitasking since 1989.

jacobolus 16y ago
Let’s make some other statements about as reasonable as yours (absent further supporting explanation): The Mughal India of the 16th–19th centuries was not the India of today. That India is long dead. The India of today is basically the British Raj, plus the branding, mix of religions and whatever else the British could salvage. The Republican party of 1860–1970 was not the Republican party of today. That GOP is long dead. The GOP of today is basically the unholy mix of Kristol & Podhoretz foreign & economic policy with Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson social policy, plus the branding and whatever panders to fiscal conservative constituents they could salvage from the party’s historic base of support. The field of economics of 1780–1950 was not the economics of today. That economics is long dead. The economics of today is basically the Friedmanite Chicago school, plus the branding and whatever other assets they could salvage from economics. Now, in all three of these cases, there’s some little bit of truth behind the wholly oversimplified (to the point of wrongness) analysis. But taking these statements at face value obscures more than it reveals, and reflects a poor understanding of how cultural assimilation works in any institution or society. (And denies evolutionary change, as well; Apple today is not exactly the same as Apple of ca. 2000) * * * In short: you’d better have some better analysis to back yourself up here, because as it stands I think your claim is, to the first approximation, false, even if there is a tiny bit of truth to it.
- philwelch 16y ago
  In the second Jobs era, Apple's CEO, central technology, and (in the early years) the bulk of their executive team were directly installed from NeXT. Dogs and smoking were banned from the campus, the icon garden was taken down, Apple's entire industrial design was dropped in favor of new directions, and almost all of their software technology was eventually abandoned along with the Newton and the traditional Old World ROM hardware design. It's certainly true that Apple is now more NeXT than it is what it was. Perhaps it's something different enough from both of those--but it followed NeXT's evolutionary path more than Apple's.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    I agree with you that the emphasis changed dramatically from the Apple of before Jobs’ return, which had a (relatively to now) large basic R&D arm, and a vision for the future alternating between wheel-spinning and incoherence. But I don’t think the Apple of today is especially like NeXT either, probably mostly because the markets it aims for are so completely different. For example, the first iMacs and iBooks don’t seem remotely related to the NeXT design aesthetic, and IMO neither do modern iPhones or PowerBooks. Something like the iPod doesn’t seem to me to have anything to do with NeXT, in user base, in problem space, in software style, in product vision, etc. You’re right that early versions of OS X looked much more like NeXTStep than they did like previous versions of Mac OS (being built on NeXT’s codebase), and still today is in many small details a regression. But as OS X has matured, it has felt ever more like "classic" Mac OS, not less. I think if NeXT had been independently successful and turned NeXTStep into a consumer OS, it would have evolved in a dramatically different direction (though of course that’s counterfactual). I don’t really know what it was or is like to work inside these companies, but I doubt that the feel of NeXT could be quite like the feel of the modern Apple, if only because modern Apple is so much bigger.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      A lot of good thoughts, but... But as OS X has matured, it has felt ever more like "classic" Mac OS, not less. Past the transition from public beta to release and maybe a couple small points after that, I don't see how this is true at all, and I've extensively used both. What similarities do you notice?
jimbokun 16y ago
"The Apple of today is basically NeXT, plus the branding and whatever other assets NeXT could salvage from Apple." Basically, they merged the branch back into the trunk.