6 ms·

Was this used to effectively silo developers from each other? Ie, don’t let the hardware team see the real software UI, and don’t let the software team see the

Was this used to effectively silo developers from each other? Ie, don’t let the hardware team see the real software UI, and don’t let the software team see the real hardware UI. It looks too ridiculous to be real, I suspect it was ugly by design. Apple did this on the iPhone design, the ugly software UI was called “skankphone”.

siva7 5y ago
But why? Why silo
- clint 5y ago
  No leaks
- marcellus23 5y ago
  So the hardware guys can't leak the software, and the software guys can't leak the hardware.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Funny thing is, Apple claims that they need to integrate everything from hardware to software in order to obtain the best possible user experience. This shows that this is complete nonsense. We could break up Apple into a hardware and software company and little would change in this respect.
    - marcellus23 5y ago
      > This shows that this is complete nonsense. Uh, what? This makes no sense. It's not like the entire hardware and software teams were totally firewalled. Obviously higher ups and managers were in both circles and coordinated the development of both.
      - amelius 5y ago
        Yes, so if Apple were divided into separate hardware and software companies, then a third company X could order both these companies to come up with hardware and software solutions, and reach the same result. In this case, what you call management would be performed by the third company. This is imho a better way of building things than having everything completely integrated in a single company. A fourth company could do the same thing as X and build an alternative iPod. And so could a fifth, etc.
        _jal 5y ago
        > This is imho a better way of building things than having everything completely integrated in a single company. Sounds like you should run your firm that way, then.
        amelius 5y ago
        How would you feel if (hypothetically speaking) Samsung bought TSMC and thereby pushed Apple and other smartphone/laptop vendors out of the market? Wouldn't you agree that it is better if all companies have equal access to TSMC's services?
        _jal 5y ago
        Why don't we remove all firm advantages completely and have a fully open playing field? Ban companies entirely, everyone is a free agent! Everything shall be an arms-length transaction with lawyers at every step.
        jolux 5y ago
        > Wouldn't you agree that it is better if all companies have equal access to TSMC's services? It’s certainly debatable, which is why we have antitrust regulations. In the specific case you suggest of separate software and hardware companies, the reason that Apple has succeeded where others have failed (in large part) is because of their vertical integration. To wit: the equivalent of Apple (ignoring communication overhead, which is also huge) would be software and hardware companies that Apple has an exclusive contract with, who spend all of their time working on what Apple asks them to. When they start serving other customers, their operational overhead increases, because they have to figure out how to schedule production schedules fairly across multiple contracts, and probably start to divide up their production functions by product area and customer. They also typically end up having to make concessions to multiple customers, and risk ending up at a lowest-common-denominator product that fits the limitations of other customers more than it fits Apple’s specific set of capabilities and limitations. This is the market effect that drives standardization: agreeing on the lowest-common-denominator for everyone before production and product development starts. In sum: they become less good at delivering specifically what Apple needs, whenever Apple needs it.
    - jolux 5y ago
      > This shows that this is complete nonsense. That is…not at all what this shows. Just because software engineers writing a file system don’t know what the final industrial design is going to be like doesn’t mean there aren’t people fully responsible for end user experience.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Giving out information on a need to know basis does not mean integration is impossible. It just means people that don’t need to don’t get to see the full picture. Keep in mind that this kind of decide would be under development for many years, if you can keep the idea a secret until launch you’ll be years ahead of your competitors. But if it leaks your advantage is gone.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
jetrink 5y ago
My guess is that they used that case from early on in the project and then just stuck with it even as the electronics inside shrunk. It's not like the software people would be fooled by the enormous size; they knew they were making a pocketable music player. Interestingly, the holes for the screen and the buttons look like they were molded, but the holes for the jacks and wheel look like they were milled. I wonder if the boxes were custom-made or something off-the-shelf that happened to have the right screen size and number of buttons.
- samwillis 5y ago
  It looks like a SLA 3d print to me. They go that distinctive yellow over time.
  - ghostly_s 5y ago
    In 2001?
    - samwillis 5y ago
      Absolutely, was already quite common back then. It was invented in the 80s after all.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Yeah, SLA printing was totes used in prototyping back then. It was just really expensive because the patents hadn't expired yet. I'd expect that Apple's R&D lab would have had access to them.
adamgordonbell 5y ago
It's so cool to see these pictures. It does seem to match David Shayer's description: So they make what Apple calls a stealth case, which is just a big plastic box. So our stealth case was so ugly. It looked like they went into an old Russian medical equipment leftover warehouse and just took some plastic boxes, and stuck it in. It was horrible. They said basically, “ You’re writing the file system for this thing. You don’t need to know what’s on the disc. Just make it work.” They weren't supposed to know what they were working on. To the extent that that was possible. https://corecursive.com/063-apple-2001/#the-first-day https://corecursive.com/063-apple-2001/#the-first-day
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  I wonder if they thought it was a boombox or a personal stereo?
- robocat 5y ago
  Later down the article is another story: David: So, my guess is they were making some sort of secret Geiger counter and they wanted to be able to take it around and look for, I don’t know, people making dirty bombs maybe? But not have it looked like a Geiger counter. David: if you wanted to go and check if there’s any signs of radiation in some place where you’re not officially supposed to be checking, you’re on a tourist visa in Tehran or something, this would be a very useful device. If you’re arrested with a Geiger counter you’re in trouble, but if someone looks at your iPod and the iPod works and it plays music and it’s totally normal, you’d be much safer, right? Adam:Yeah, totally. So, they built this and then?
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  I get why this is done when something is top secret. But I think there’s no better way to be reduced to a fungible coding cog than “you don’t actually need to understand the big picture. Here’s a spec. Implement it.”

siva7 5y ago

But why? Why silo

clint 5y ago
No leaks
marcellus23 5y ago
So the hardware guys can't leak the software, and the software guys can't leak the hardware.
- amelius 5y ago
  Funny thing is, Apple claims that they need to integrate everything from hardware to software in order to obtain the best possible user experience. This shows that this is complete nonsense. We could break up Apple into a hardware and software company and little would change in this respect.
  - marcellus23 5y ago
    > This shows that this is complete nonsense. Uh, what? This makes no sense. It's not like the entire hardware and software teams were totally firewalled. Obviously higher ups and managers were in both circles and coordinated the development of both.
    - amelius 5y ago
      Yes, so if Apple were divided into separate hardware and software companies, then a third company X could order both these companies to come up with hardware and software solutions, and reach the same result. In this case, what you call management would be performed by the third company. This is imho a better way of building things than having everything completely integrated in a single company. A fourth company could do the same thing as X and build an alternative iPod. And so could a fifth, etc.
      - _jal 5y ago
        > This is imho a better way of building things than having everything completely integrated in a single company. Sounds like you should run your firm that way, then.
        amelius 5y ago
        How would you feel if (hypothetically speaking) Samsung bought TSMC and thereby pushed Apple and other smartphone/laptop vendors out of the market? Wouldn't you agree that it is better if all companies have equal access to TSMC's services?
        _jal 5y ago
        Why don't we remove all firm advantages completely and have a fully open playing field? Ban companies entirely, everyone is a free agent! Everything shall be an arms-length transaction with lawyers at every step.
        jolux 5y ago
        > Wouldn't you agree that it is better if all companies have equal access to TSMC's services? It’s certainly debatable, which is why we have antitrust regulations. In the specific case you suggest of separate software and hardware companies, the reason that Apple has succeeded where others have failed (in large part) is because of their vertical integration. To wit: the equivalent of Apple (ignoring communication overhead, which is also huge) would be software and hardware companies that Apple has an exclusive contract with, who spend all of their time working on what Apple asks them to. When they start serving other customers, their operational overhead increases, because they have to figure out how to schedule production schedules fairly across multiple contracts, and probably start to divide up their production functions by product area and customer. They also typically end up having to make concessions to multiple customers, and risk ending up at a lowest-common-denominator product that fits the limitations of other customers more than it fits Apple’s specific set of capabilities and limitations. This is the market effect that drives standardization: agreeing on the lowest-common-denominator for everyone before production and product development starts. In sum: they become less good at delivering specifically what Apple needs, whenever Apple needs it.
  - jolux 5y ago
    > This shows that this is complete nonsense. That is…not at all what this shows. Just because software engineers writing a file system don’t know what the final industrial design is going to be like doesn’t mean there aren’t people fully responsible for end user experience.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Giving out information on a need to know basis does not mean integration is impossible. It just means people that don’t need to don’t get to see the full picture. Keep in mind that this kind of decide would be under development for many years, if you can keep the idea a secret until launch you’ll be years ahead of your competitors. But if it leaks your advantage is gone.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

jetrink 5y ago

My guess is that they used that case from early on in the project and then just stuck with it even as the electronics inside shrunk. It's not like the software people would be fooled by the enormous size; they knew they were making a pocketable music player. Interestingly, the holes for the screen and the buttons look like they were molded, but the holes for the jacks and wheel look like they were milled. I wonder if the boxes were custom-made or something off-the-shelf that happened to have the right screen size and number of buttons.

samwillis 5y ago
It looks like a SLA 3d print to me. They go that distinctive yellow over time.
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  In 2001?
  - samwillis 5y ago
    Absolutely, was already quite common back then. It was invented in the 80s after all.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Yeah, SLA printing was totes used in prototyping back then. It was just really expensive because the patents hadn't expired yet. I'd expect that Apple's R&D lab would have had access to them.

adamgordonbell 5y ago

It's so cool to see these pictures. It does seem to match David Shayer's description: So they make what Apple calls a stealth case, which is just a big plastic box. So our stealth case was so ugly. It looked like they went into an old Russian medical equipment leftover warehouse and just took some plastic boxes, and stuck it in. It was horrible. They said basically, “ You’re writing the file system for this thing. You don’t need to know what’s on the disc. Just make it work.” They weren't supposed to know what they were working on. To the extent that that was possible. https://corecursive.com/063-apple-2001/#the-first-day https://corecursive.com/063-apple-2001/#the-first-day

gwbas1c 5y ago
I wonder if they thought it was a boombox or a personal stereo?
robocat 5y ago
Later down the article is another story: David: So, my guess is they were making some sort of secret Geiger counter and they wanted to be able to take it around and look for, I don’t know, people making dirty bombs maybe? But not have it looked like a Geiger counter. David: if you wanted to go and check if there’s any signs of radiation in some place where you’re not officially supposed to be checking, you’re on a tourist visa in Tehran or something, this would be a very useful device. If you’re arrested with a Geiger counter you’re in trouble, but if someone looks at your iPod and the iPod works and it plays music and it’s totally normal, you’d be much safer, right? Adam:Yeah, totally. So, they built this and then?
Waterluvian 5y ago
I get why this is done when something is top secret. But I think there’s no better way to be reduced to a fungible coding cog than “you don’t actually need to understand the big picture. Here’s a spec. Implement it.”