4 ms·

If Parc had failed at dissemination we'd all still be using the command line. The windows/icons/mouse/menus paradigm disseminated just fine. It wasn't necessar

If Parc had failed at dissemination we'd all still be using the command line. The windows/icons/mouse/menus paradigm disseminated just fine. It wasn't necessarily completely original - see also, Mother of All Demos - but they showed it could be implemented in real systems with real usability benefits. Laser printers and networking also disseminated just fine. What didn't disseminate was the development environment. That's not necessarily a surprise, because an environment that delights creative people with PhDs isn't going to translate well to the general public. Ultimately Smalltalk, MESA, etc were like concept cars. You could admire them and learn from them, but they were never going to be viable as mainstream products. Windows and Mac filled the gap by producing dumbed-down and overcomplicated versions of the original vision, which - most importantly - happened to be much cheaper. Xerox get a lot of criticism for missing the potential, but it's easy to forget that in the 70s word processors typically cost five figures, and minicomputers equivalent to the Dorado cost six figures. Maybe the future would have been different if someone had said "We need to take these ideas and work out how to build them as cheaply as possible." But realistically commodified computing in the 70s ran on Z80s and still cost five figures for a business system with a hard drive. The technology to make a cheaper version didn't exist until the 80s. The problem since Parc is more that there has been no equivalent concentration of smart, creative, playful people. Technology culture changed from playful exploration to hustle and "engagement", there's less greenfield space to explore, and - IMO - there are very few people in the industry who have the raw IQ and the creativity to create a modern equivalent. It's pretty much the opposite problem. Instead of exploring tech without obvious business goals, business goals are so tightly enforced it's very hard to imagine what would happen if completely open exploration was allowed again.

Daub 4y ago
> If Parc had failed at dissemination we'd all still be using the command line. Yes, it was disseminated, but not by Xerox. It was the startups of the time that took the baton. > The problem since Parc is more that there has been no equivalent concentration of smart, creative, playful people. Could not agree more. Play is a very underestimated component of productive thought. But what is play? I would say that it is production without responsibility. It is notable that children use play in order to explore their potential and their place in the world. Which is to say, they use it to grow. Need I say more?
- igouy 4y ago
  "Starting a Spin-out Company: ParcPlace Systems" ? https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Adele_Goldberg#Starting_a_Spin-out_Company:_ParcPlace_Systems https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Adele_Goldberg#Starting_a_Spin...
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
The thing is that Xerox mgmt themselves refused to consider downsizing the ideas developed internally towards commodity hardware that people could afford. They were interested only in high margin office systems. So other people did it. Not a bad thing for the industry, but bad for Xerox. Most famously, the team @ Apple around the Lisa and the Mac. But also Lee Lorenzen was an employee at Xerox in Texas. In 1982 he tried to pitch management on a port of their Star concepts to 8080 CP/M class hardware, to get it into people's hands. Demo footage here, remember this is before the Mac came out [0]. He was rebuffed, and left Xerox to join Gary Kildall @ Digital Research, where they created the GEM GUI (which became the OS for the Atari ST and the basis of Lorenzen's next venture, the successful DTP program, Ventura Publisher) [1]. Xerox was never able to penetrate the consumer level DTP market, but this was a big emerging business in the 80s which Xerox would have been a natural fit for. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBGRZftS30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBGRZftS30 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EeOanSInjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EeOanSInjo
- baby 4y ago
  This is what I'm scared of with Meta. They have a ton of research going in lots of directions, but will they manage to capitalize on it? At least they've got the Quest that iterates and implements these ideas in a consumer device, but after all these years where are the AR glasses, the watch, the phone, etc.? To me Meta is either going to fail in the same way, or going to boom a la Apple in the next decade.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Scared of? I sincerely hope they suffer from this. a) Because Meta is frankly a malevolent entity b) Because VR in the form of the "metaverse" they're proposing is equally malevolent. Especially in the hands of a company who has demonstrated a desire to distract and exploit people's attentions.
    - baby 4y ago
      That sounds like an extreme opinion. I have nothing against Meta, and I hope VR and AR keeps on getting bigger thanks to them.
igouy 4y ago
> Ultimately Smalltalk … You could admire them and learn from them, but they were never going to be viable as mainstream products. "Ubiquitous Applications: Embedded Systems to Mainframe" https://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf https://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf
yourapostasy 4y ago
> Instead of exploring tech without obvious business goals, business goals are so tightly enforced it's very hard to imagine what would happen if completely open exploration was allowed again. Similar could be said of science research and innovation in general. See this [1] HN submission on "When do ideas get easier to find? (freaktakes.substack.com)". Two concurrent current trends are taking place that militate against this kind of open exploration, James Burke-ian Connections-style "branching". The mania for revenue optimization, and the siren song of walled garden lock-in. Messy, "wasteful", "dangerous" open ecosystems deeply offend both of those sensibilities, but I think those sensibilities are flawed in not recognizing the intrinsic value of human cognition. It is the same kind of oversight I see when modern people assume their time distant ancestors were also cognitively distant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31635962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31635962
kwatsonafter 4y ago
I don't know how productive this comment will be but thank you for, "getting it." The real, "golden egg" at PARC was the research group itself. It might still be possible to build groups like this again; it's also possible that the cultural moment has passed. I think sans Bret Victor and a few outliers there isn't really anyone to replace people like Bill English, Alan Kay, or the great Dan Ingalls. Hopefully I'm wrong about that. I think part of what makes it, "very hard to imagine" is that in some sense we would need another, "post-war economic miracle" to get another bright, well educated generation ready to be the next Kay/Sutherland/Engelbart/ect and that seems really far off if that's something that's going to come out of the United States again considering the dismal culture of research here. I think the next Xerox PARC metaphorically will come out of a progressive country in Western/Northern Europe, India, or somewhere connected to the ascending Global South. Imagine Xerox Amsterdam Research Center or the like. Smart people and legal pot shops sounds might be a viable way forward. Time will tell. ...and remember the computer revolution hasn't happened yet!

Daub 4y ago

> If Parc had failed at dissemination we'd all still be using the command line. Yes, it was disseminated, but not by Xerox. It was the startups of the time that took the baton. > The problem since Parc is more that there has been no equivalent concentration of smart, creative, playful people. Could not agree more. Play is a very underestimated component of productive thought. But what is play? I would say that it is production without responsibility. It is notable that children use play in order to explore their potential and their place in the world. Which is to say, they use it to grow. Need I say more?

igouy 4y ago
"Starting a Spin-out Company: ParcPlace Systems" ? https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Adele_Goldberg#Starting_a_Spin-out_Company:_ParcPlace_Systems https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Adele_Goldberg#Starting_a_Spin...

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

The thing is that Xerox mgmt themselves refused to consider downsizing the ideas developed internally towards commodity hardware that people could afford. They were interested only in high margin office systems. So other people did it. Not a bad thing for the industry, but bad for Xerox. Most famously, the team @ Apple around the Lisa and the Mac. But also Lee Lorenzen was an employee at Xerox in Texas. In 1982 he tried to pitch management on a port of their Star concepts to 8080 CP/M class hardware, to get it into people's hands. Demo footage here, remember this is before the Mac came out [0]. He was rebuffed, and left Xerox to join Gary Kildall @ Digital Research, where they created the GEM GUI (which became the OS for the Atari ST and the basis of Lorenzen's next venture, the successful DTP program, Ventura Publisher) [1]. Xerox was never able to penetrate the consumer level DTP market, but this was a big emerging business in the 80s which Xerox would have been a natural fit for. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBGRZftS30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBGRZftS30 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EeOanSInjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EeOanSInjo

baby 4y ago
This is what I'm scared of with Meta. They have a ton of research going in lots of directions, but will they manage to capitalize on it? At least they've got the Quest that iterates and implements these ideas in a consumer device, but after all these years where are the AR glasses, the watch, the phone, etc.? To me Meta is either going to fail in the same way, or going to boom a la Apple in the next decade.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Scared of? I sincerely hope they suffer from this. a) Because Meta is frankly a malevolent entity b) Because VR in the form of the "metaverse" they're proposing is equally malevolent. Especially in the hands of a company who has demonstrated a desire to distract and exploit people's attentions.
  - baby 4y ago
    That sounds like an extreme opinion. I have nothing against Meta, and I hope VR and AR keeps on getting bigger thanks to them.

igouy 4y ago

> Ultimately Smalltalk … You could admire them and learn from them, but they were never going to be viable as mainstream products. "Ubiquitous Applications: Embedded Systems to Mainframe" https://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf https://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf

yourapostasy 4y ago

> Instead of exploring tech without obvious business goals, business goals are so tightly enforced it's very hard to imagine what would happen if completely open exploration was allowed again. Similar could be said of science research and innovation in general. See this [1] HN submission on "When do ideas get easier to find? (freaktakes.substack.com)". Two concurrent current trends are taking place that militate against this kind of open exploration, James Burke-ian Connections-style "branching". The mania for revenue optimization, and the siren song of walled garden lock-in. Messy, "wasteful", "dangerous" open ecosystems deeply offend both of those sensibilities, but I think those sensibilities are flawed in not recognizing the intrinsic value of human cognition. It is the same kind of oversight I see when modern people assume their time distant ancestors were also cognitively distant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31635962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31635962

kwatsonafter 4y ago

I don't know how productive this comment will be but thank you for, "getting it." The real, "golden egg" at PARC was the research group itself. It might still be possible to build groups like this again; it's also possible that the cultural moment has passed. I think sans Bret Victor and a few outliers there isn't really anyone to replace people like Bill English, Alan Kay, or the great Dan Ingalls. Hopefully I'm wrong about that. I think part of what makes it, "very hard to imagine" is that in some sense we would need another, "post-war economic miracle" to get another bright, well educated generation ready to be the next Kay/Sutherland/Engelbart/ect and that seems really far off if that's something that's going to come out of the United States again considering the dismal culture of research here. I think the next Xerox PARC metaphorically will come out of a progressive country in Western/Northern Europe, India, or somewhere connected to the ascending Global South. Imagine Xerox Amsterdam Research Center or the like. Smart people and legal pot shops sounds might be a viable way forward. Time will tell. ...and remember the computer revolution hasn't happened yet!