5 ms·

I found the forum thread really hard to follow... I'm not sure it matters if Sun buys Apple. Jobs probably ends up taking NeXT in the direction he took Apple u

I found the forum thread really hard to follow... I'm not sure it matters if Sun buys Apple. Jobs probably ends up taking NeXT in the direction he took Apple upon return. Steve Jobs is the key to a lot of stuff and the revolution in personal and consumer computing in the 2000's. I don't think it matters what company he does that under.

gumby 4y ago
Jobs was leading NeXT nowhere. He needed the infrastructure of an Apple to make it viable.
- flomo 4y ago
  Besides NeXT being largely unsuccessful, it was also entirely enterprise-oriented. In an alternate history, perhaps Jobs leverages his fortune and hollywood connections to start "iPod Inc." He always envied Sony's expertise at consumer gadgets.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Thinking about it Apple is really just an iPod Inc: looking at the iPhone and airpods as evolutions of iPod (iPod touch is the missing link)
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Looks like that's what happens in this timeline in page 2, when NeXT merges with Pixar in 1999.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Mac never has grown beyond a small slice of the overall personal computer market. iPod, iPad, iPhone, etc. were absolutely revolutions that created and dominated entire markets, even today. However IMHO Apple still never got beyond a niche of the market for desktop/laptop computers. They build beautiful desktop/laptop hardware but the market seems happy with cheap devices that run Windows.
- lost_soul 4y ago
  You're not wrong but there is a cachet with Macs that is undeniable. It's not unusual for the executives or creatives to use Macs in an otherwise fully Windows based organization.
- travisgriggs 4y ago
  I don’t know. Obviously windows machines outsell macs. But when I go to (programming) conferences, I always count the machines in the room. 40-60% are macs, the remainder a mix of windows and Linux. When I visit any of my 3 kids on their respect campuses. I see the same. Some times even stronger. I spent time in Boston 2 weeks ago and rode the tubes a lot. I saw a LOT of MacBooks. Way more than all other laptops combined.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Try to go to developer conferences on developing countries, or those unlucky ones not part of Gsomething, and those numbers will surely be others.
- necovek 4y ago
  I would venture to say that it was iPod + iTunes that brought Apple back, and then iPhone was just the icing at exactly the right time (Nokia was also prototyping "internet tablets", albeit with resistive touch screens). They did make the most of it, and they are definitely the show-off market leader (when you want to show off your laptop, that's what you get ;). My company recently got me a MacBook Pro 14, and while it's fast, I don't enjoy using it for the same reasons I hated my old XPS13: I hate the keyboard and glossiness of the screen (and sharp edges too). I am a Thinkpad X1 guy, those are machines I happily go back to.
- tsunamifury 4y ago
  The Mac laptop has gone back and forth being the top laptop manufacturer in the world. It’s currently third but has been 2nd and first. It’s always been the most profitable. I don’t even like apple but you are so incredibly wrong it’s laughable. This might have been true 20 years ago but dude. Apple is huge and it’s personal computing is huge too.
legalcorrection 4y ago
I don't think that's necessarily true. There were many millions of people using Macs and many of them were intensely, religiously loyal to Apple, regardless of the technically (de)merits of the system. Launching a new OS as an upgrade to that massive install base is very different than trying to take a high-end workstation and turn it into a mass market product. And it's an interesting question how much that pre-existing Apple user base was instrumental to the success of the iPod.
jshier 4y ago
Of course it matters, as NeXT was nearly out of business by the time Apple bought it. All of their hardware products had failed and their attempt as a cross platform SDK, OpenStep, was barely holding on. Their only successful product was WebObjects (which Apple quickly destroyed) and even that was fairly limited. Without being part of a billion dollar corporation it's unlikely Jobs could've funded his ideas from his personal fortune. I also think it's unlikely he could've done what he did at a Apple at a company where he had fewer checks on his impulses, as his time at NeXT proves.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  WebObjects port to Java was still done under NeXT's umbrella, and it was initially used for the store (no idea what powers it nowadays), and even then its fate was sealed under Steve's management.
firecall 4y ago
Jobs candidly admitted in an interview around the time that NeXT just didnt have the scale to make a difference. I forget his exact words :-)
panick21_ 4y ago
> Jobs probably ends up taking NeXT in the direction he took Apple upon return. NeXT was a pure software company and not a successful one either. The idea that they could start doing things like iPod is pretty out there.
- TickleSteve 4y ago
  "NeXT was a pure software company" The iconic NeXT cube (and NeXTStations) would disagree with you there.
  - walrus01 4y ago
    By the time apple acquired them, their board had long abandoned the idea of being a hardware manufacturer due to collosal financial losses. The next hardware is cool to look at in retrospect but was very expensive and sold poorly. After 1995 or so next was in no financial state to design and ship any new hardware.
    - TickleSteve 4y ago
      Ignoring the quality of the business, NeXT is quite well known for their hardware.
      - walrus01 4y ago
        historically and in the bigger picture of things, yes, but in the late 1990s by the time that it came to NeXT getting acquired by apple, their hardware was long since irrelevant.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    You should look up the history. At that time they basically were a software company and not very successful either. Without being bought by Apple its likely they would have died. Its actually kind of crazy how high NEXT got valued.
    - 4y ago
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
I don't think Jobs could have done much with Sun, or much more with NeXT, which had pretty much run out of road by then. Sun was professional, Jobs was consumer. Jobs needed to be top dog and in charge of concept, and he couldn't have done that at Sun. He also needed some constraints and consumer focus, which Apple provided. NeXT was basically a vanity project. It was poorly run from a business POV, but developed some decent tech. The real primary motivation wasn't to make money, it was to keep some attention on Jobs and maintain his profile as an Important Innovative Person. Sun was engineering-led not image-led and wedded to workstation/server. That market turned out to be a relatively short-lived spasm - a legacy of the mini market pioneered by DEC - in a much longer consumer-oriented tech history. So there was an impossible tension there. It might have worked if Apple had remained a completely independent division and Jobs had been given a free hand to run it. But that was never really remotely likely. It might also have worked if Jobs had any interest in the server/business market. But he really didn't - possibly because it was "boring" and not mass market, which meant less attention and praise for him.

gumby 4y ago

Jobs was leading NeXT nowhere. He needed the infrastructure of an Apple to make it viable.

flomo 4y ago
Besides NeXT being largely unsuccessful, it was also entirely enterprise-oriented. In an alternate history, perhaps Jobs leverages his fortune and hollywood connections to start "iPod Inc." He always envied Sony's expertise at consumer gadgets.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Thinking about it Apple is really just an iPod Inc: looking at the iPhone and airpods as evolutions of iPod (iPod touch is the missing link)
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Looks like that's what happens in this timeline in page 2, when NeXT merges with Pixar in 1999.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

Mac never has grown beyond a small slice of the overall personal computer market. iPod, iPad, iPhone, etc. were absolutely revolutions that created and dominated entire markets, even today. However IMHO Apple still never got beyond a niche of the market for desktop/laptop computers. They build beautiful desktop/laptop hardware but the market seems happy with cheap devices that run Windows.

lost_soul 4y ago
You're not wrong but there is a cachet with Macs that is undeniable. It's not unusual for the executives or creatives to use Macs in an otherwise fully Windows based organization.
travisgriggs 4y ago
I don’t know. Obviously windows machines outsell macs. But when I go to (programming) conferences, I always count the machines in the room. 40-60% are macs, the remainder a mix of windows and Linux. When I visit any of my 3 kids on their respect campuses. I see the same. Some times even stronger. I spent time in Boston 2 weeks ago and rode the tubes a lot. I saw a LOT of MacBooks. Way more than all other laptops combined.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Try to go to developer conferences on developing countries, or those unlucky ones not part of Gsomething, and those numbers will surely be others.
necovek 4y ago
I would venture to say that it was iPod + iTunes that brought Apple back, and then iPhone was just the icing at exactly the right time (Nokia was also prototyping "internet tablets", albeit with resistive touch screens). They did make the most of it, and they are definitely the show-off market leader (when you want to show off your laptop, that's what you get ;). My company recently got me a MacBook Pro 14, and while it's fast, I don't enjoy using it for the same reasons I hated my old XPS13: I hate the keyboard and glossiness of the screen (and sharp edges too). I am a Thinkpad X1 guy, those are machines I happily go back to.
tsunamifury 4y ago
The Mac laptop has gone back and forth being the top laptop manufacturer in the world. It’s currently third but has been 2nd and first. It’s always been the most profitable. I don’t even like apple but you are so incredibly wrong it’s laughable. This might have been true 20 years ago but dude. Apple is huge and it’s personal computing is huge too.

legalcorrection 4y ago

I don't think that's necessarily true. There were many millions of people using Macs and many of them were intensely, religiously loyal to Apple, regardless of the technically (de)merits of the system. Launching a new OS as an upgrade to that massive install base is very different than trying to take a high-end workstation and turn it into a mass market product. And it's an interesting question how much that pre-existing Apple user base was instrumental to the success of the iPod.

jshier 4y ago

Of course it matters, as NeXT was nearly out of business by the time Apple bought it. All of their hardware products had failed and their attempt as a cross platform SDK, OpenStep, was barely holding on. Their only successful product was WebObjects (which Apple quickly destroyed) and even that was fairly limited. Without being part of a billion dollar corporation it's unlikely Jobs could've funded his ideas from his personal fortune. I also think it's unlikely he could've done what he did at a Apple at a company where he had fewer checks on his impulses, as his time at NeXT proves.

pjmlp 4y ago
WebObjects port to Java was still done under NeXT's umbrella, and it was initially used for the store (no idea what powers it nowadays), and even then its fate was sealed under Steve's management.

firecall 4y ago

Jobs candidly admitted in an interview around the time that NeXT just didnt have the scale to make a difference. I forget his exact words :-)

panick21_ 4y ago

> Jobs probably ends up taking NeXT in the direction he took Apple upon return. NeXT was a pure software company and not a successful one either. The idea that they could start doing things like iPod is pretty out there.

TickleSteve 4y ago
"NeXT was a pure software company" The iconic NeXT cube (and NeXTStations) would disagree with you there.
- walrus01 4y ago
  By the time apple acquired them, their board had long abandoned the idea of being a hardware manufacturer due to collosal financial losses. The next hardware is cool to look at in retrospect but was very expensive and sold poorly. After 1995 or so next was in no financial state to design and ship any new hardware.
  - TickleSteve 4y ago
    Ignoring the quality of the business, NeXT is quite well known for their hardware.
    - walrus01 4y ago
      historically and in the bigger picture of things, yes, but in the late 1990s by the time that it came to NeXT getting acquired by apple, their hardware was long since irrelevant.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  You should look up the history. At that time they basically were a software company and not very successful either. Without being bought by Apple its likely they would have died. Its actually kind of crazy how high NEXT got valued.
  - 4y ago

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

I don't think Jobs could have done much with Sun, or much more with NeXT, which had pretty much run out of road by then. Sun was professional, Jobs was consumer. Jobs needed to be top dog and in charge of concept, and he couldn't have done that at Sun. He also needed some constraints and consumer focus, which Apple provided. NeXT was basically a vanity project. It was poorly run from a business POV, but developed some decent tech. The real primary motivation wasn't to make money, it was to keep some attention on Jobs and maintain his profile as an Important Innovative Person. Sun was engineering-led not image-led and wedded to workstation/server. That market turned out to be a relatively short-lived spasm - a legacy of the mini market pioneered by DEC - in a much longer consumer-oriented tech history. So there was an impossible tension there. It might have worked if Apple had remained a completely independent division and Jobs had been given a free hand to run it. But that was never really remotely likely. It might also have worked if Jobs had any interest in the server/business market. But he really didn't - possibly because it was "boring" and not mass market, which meant less attention and praise for him.