22 ms·

> killing the entire company by throwing all their software engineering resources at a Second System Effect technical quagmire like Copland They bought themsel

by ken 8y ago

> killing the entire company by throwing all their software engineering resources at a Second System Effect technical quagmire like Copland They bought themselves out of this, of course, by buying NeXT (managed by SJ). But NeXTstep itself could have easily fallen prey to the second system effect. Was it luck or skill that saved it? Back in 2000, SJ said that Mac OS X would set up Apple "for the next 20 years". It's 18 years later. What's next? I'm an avid Mac user but these days it pretty much just looks like a good implementation of a 1980's Unix workstation. The ways I wish it were improved are not easy to add to the current architecture. When Apple decides that it has run its course, who's going to lead the team to make its successor? There isn't another SJ startup to buy. Then again, I don't see Microsoft or the various Linux-based groups or even DARPA taking the lead on next-generation operating system design, either. I don't think it's fair to single out Apple. The whole industry has put all its eggs in the basket of "basically a Unix workstation". That was a great design for its day but I wouldn't use it if I were starting from scratch today. Are we going to just keep adding new syscalls and userspace layers for every new idea we have? Is this the endgame for computer science?

krrrh 8y ago
The GUI and WIMP interfaces were born out of experiments by a small team doing independent research, and future interface innovation is just as likely to come from places like that. Even Apple's multi-touch gestures were largely already thought out by the small company Fingerworks before they acquired them. Though I also don't doubt that there is interesting stuff happening in secret rooms at Apple that we aren't privy to. I'd still look at projects like Dynamicland [1], or to scifi: the form factor for the iPad appeared in ST:TNG 20 years before it did on shelves[2], many AR researchers reference Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End. [1] http://dynamicland.org/ http://dynamicland.org/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVqHoGKQXLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVqHoGKQXLI
philwelch 8y ago
> Back in 2000, SJ said that Mac OS X would set up Apple "for the next 20 years". In the 1990's, he also said that if he ran Apple, he would milk the Mac for all its worth and move on to the next big thing. That was the iPhone, and now Apple is milking that for all its worth, too. It's not a historical necessity that we ever do invent something bigger and better than "basically a Unix workstation", any more than we need to fundamentally reinvent any of the other foundational technologies of our civilization. A Mac today is a good implementation of a 1980's Unix workstation the same way an airliner today is a good implementation of a 1960's Boeing. Invent a better operating system? Sure, you could also invent a better jet engine or make concrete obsolete if you wanted to, and maybe someone will, but it's been a long time since anybody did.

by ken 8y ago

krrrh 8y ago

The GUI and WIMP interfaces were born out of experiments by a small team doing independent research, and future interface innovation is just as likely to come from places like that. Even Apple's multi-touch gestures were largely already thought out by the small company Fingerworks before they acquired them. Though I also don't doubt that there is interesting stuff happening in secret rooms at Apple that we aren't privy to. I'd still look at projects like Dynamicland [1], or to scifi: the form factor for the iPad appeared in ST:TNG 20 years before it did on shelves[2], many AR researchers reference Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End. [1] http://dynamicland.org/ http://dynamicland.org/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVqHoGKQXLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVqHoGKQXLI

philwelch 8y ago

> Back in 2000, SJ said that Mac OS X would set up Apple "for the next 20 years". In the 1990's, he also said that if he ran Apple, he would milk the Mac for all its worth and move on to the next big thing. That was the iPhone, and now Apple is milking that for all its worth, too. It's not a historical necessity that we ever do invent something bigger and better than "basically a Unix workstation", any more than we need to fundamentally reinvent any of the other foundational technologies of our civilization. A Mac today is a good implementation of a 1980's Unix workstation the same way an airliner today is a good implementation of a 1960's Boeing. Invent a better operating system? Sure, you could also invent a better jet engine or make concrete obsolete if you wanted to, and maybe someone will, but it's been a long time since anybody did.