4 ms·

Gassée is just full of shit here. I was a die-hard BeOS fan even before R5. It really was a remarkable operating system, way, way ahead of its day. But Gassée

Gassée is just full of shit here. I was a die-hard BeOS fan even before R5. It really was a remarkable operating system, way, way ahead of its day. But Gassée fumbled it when courting Apple [1], and then sold it to Palm, who promptly killed it. It has taken years for a dedicated group of followers to rebuild it from scratch, and by the time they finished doing that, computer hardware had advanced so much that there was very little demand for a high-performance operating system in the desktop market. So, I guess he can claim to be glad that his baby died a lonely and ultimately unremarkable death thanks largely to his own mishandling of it, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. [1]: I remember reading an article a while back about the meeting between Amelio, Gassée, and Jobs. Reportedly, Gassée thought BeOS was a shoe-in, despite asking an astronomical figure for the sale, so he showed up to the meeting completely unprepared. Steve, in typical Steve fashion, showed up fully prepared and blew Gassée right out of the water. I've spent fifteen minutes searching for that article, and I can't find it [2] -- and it might be apocryphal anyway, according to a post on Slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129504&cid=10804161 http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129504&cid=108...). Still, Gassée and Jobs have had an uneasy relationship in the past (http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Handicapped.txt http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...). [2]: Woo, found it! http://macspeedzone.com/archive/art/con/be.shtml http://macspeedzone.com/archive/art/con/be.shtml edit: aside from that, it was great to see and hear Bill Atkinson, and Gassée had some funny quotes.

gvb 15y ago
The headline only quotes half of the money quote. The half they don't quote puts the "thank god it didn't happen" in a pretty different light: "because I hated Apple’s management." This is either sour grapes because the deal fell through or else the deal fell through because he let personal issues get in the way of business. I lean strongly towards the latter, given Gassée history and the unreasonable price tag he put on BeOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e#1980s:_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e#1980s:_A...
- drumdance 15y ago
  In fairness, Jobs hated Apple's management too. In the biography he refers to them as bozos.
- msbarnett 15y ago
  It's probably not sour grapes. At the time, Apple's management was widely considered to be an incoherent mess. They'd run the company damn near into the ground, and Jobs threw most of the people Gassée would have had to deal with out when he was brought in, in favor of NeXT personnel.
Tloewald 15y ago
I was an early BeOS convert, but it couldn't even print (pretty important for a potential Mac audience). The point Gassee is making obliquely is that if BeOS had been acquired by Apple, Apple's management would have stayed in charge. by acquiring NeXT, which was also a better OS than BeOS all things considered, Apple got Steve Jobs who fired the board and shortly afterwards got rid of Amelio. During the BeOS negotiations rumor had it that the sticking points were - aside from money -largely cultural and managerial. None of the former Apple people at BeOS wanted anything to do with Apple management and they were negotiating for things like not having to be in Apple's org chart. This was NOT a recipe for success.
- gcb 15y ago
  Your 2nd paragraph is an excellent insight on nerd negotiation skills. Too many times i was also fooled bymyself in thinking negotiations, be it companies or even buying a car, followed a logical progression.
RexRollman 15y ago
I have to admit to still having a strong dislike for Gassée because of the way Be and BeOS played out. I've been trying to let go of those feeling, however, because they won't change anything.
pvg 15y ago
It really was a remarkable operating system, way, way ahead of its day. As was NeXTSTEP. The difference being it was, by that point, a mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling. BeOS, in comparison, was a clever and incomplete tech demo. And Apple had no shortage of those (Copland, Taligent, SOM, OpenDoc, PowerTalk, etc, etc, etc). Buying another one would have been catastrophic.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  " mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling." And had been used in important roles in industry, particularly the financial industry.
flomo 15y ago
> computer hardware had advanced so much that there was very little demand for a high-performance operating system in the desktop market. That was kinda the problem. BeOS was built around the 1990s mentality that PC hardware was quite limited, and a light fast OS was more important than security, robustness, etc. It ran like greased lightning, but really wasn't a whole lot more advanced than other contemporary consumer OSes. Next, on the other hand, was always intended to be a workstation OS (with 'enterprise frameworks') and was a much better fit for the hardware of the 2000s. With MS moving to the NT line, it would have been a huge mistake for Apple to adopt a single-user OS like Be.
- bodyfour 15y ago
  Well said. Back in the day, I actually used both the NeXTcube and a BeBox (although neither as a primary environment) The NeXT environment enamored everybody who was introduced to it... for a day or two. Them almost everybody moved away from it because it was so... damn.. slow. The base cube only had 8MB of RAM (a decent amount in those days!) which wasn't nearly enough for the big heavy frameworks it used. NeXT had to retrofit all of the cubes with 40MB SCSI drives just for swap. The display postscript system was elegant (it provided a common display engine for both the screen and the NeXT-brand laser printer, for instance) but ate up precious cycles of the 68030. The magnetic-optical drive that supposedly was the future of personal storage had horrible performance (although the drives mercifully gave out after a few years anyway) In short, the NeXTcube's we had were the machines everybody loved but few wanted to actually use. The BeBox by contrast was nothing if not zippy! There were too many missing bits for it to really be my main environment, but you really felt that you were using the future of operating systems. After years of using UIs that always had at least some lag the BeBox's instantaneous response was almost a shocking experience. When Apple was quite publicly looking for an OS to buy I was certainly rooting for Be. It seemed to fit their needs perfectly: it already ran on PowerPC and its responsiveness would have been great for the multimedia creators that were Apple's bread-and-butter. When they went with NeXT instead I thought it was just another of Apple's classic missteps. I couldn't see why they were hitching their wagon to an OS that was last decade's news. Clearly I was wrong, even if you ignore the Steve Jobs factor. The hardware advances underway quickly made the amazing responsiveness of BeOS moot; now every OS feels like the snappy BeBox did in 1995. As memory sizes grew the NeXTstep frameworks came into their own (probably if the NeXTcube could have had 1GB of RAM it would have been fine!) To put it simply, Be built an OS in 1996 that was perfect for 1996. NeXT build an OS in 1989 that was suited for the 2000s. I don't mean that last bit as a pure complement, by the way. The "too far ahead of its time" is a cliche about failed tech products. Building something that only works with hardware 10+ years in the future is hardly a recipe for success. It's only through the accidents of history that NeXTstep got its chance to shine years after its original failure. 99% of products in that position only get to be footnotes.

gvb 15y ago

The headline only quotes half of the money quote. The half they don't quote puts the "thank god it didn't happen" in a pretty different light: "because I hated Apple’s management." This is either sour grapes because the deal fell through or else the deal fell through because he let personal issues get in the way of business. I lean strongly towards the latter, given Gassée history and the unreasonable price tag he put on BeOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e#1980s:_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e#1980s:_A...

drumdance 15y ago
In fairness, Jobs hated Apple's management too. In the biography he refers to them as bozos.
msbarnett 15y ago
It's probably not sour grapes. At the time, Apple's management was widely considered to be an incoherent mess. They'd run the company damn near into the ground, and Jobs threw most of the people Gassée would have had to deal with out when he was brought in, in favor of NeXT personnel.

Tloewald 15y ago

I was an early BeOS convert, but it couldn't even print (pretty important for a potential Mac audience). The point Gassee is making obliquely is that if BeOS had been acquired by Apple, Apple's management would have stayed in charge. by acquiring NeXT, which was also a better OS than BeOS all things considered, Apple got Steve Jobs who fired the board and shortly afterwards got rid of Amelio. During the BeOS negotiations rumor had it that the sticking points were - aside from money -largely cultural and managerial. None of the former Apple people at BeOS wanted anything to do with Apple management and they were negotiating for things like not having to be in Apple's org chart. This was NOT a recipe for success.

gcb 15y ago
Your 2nd paragraph is an excellent insight on nerd negotiation skills. Too many times i was also fooled bymyself in thinking negotiations, be it companies or even buying a car, followed a logical progression.

RexRollman 15y ago

I have to admit to still having a strong dislike for Gassée because of the way Be and BeOS played out. I've been trying to let go of those feeling, however, because they won't change anything.

pvg 15y ago

It really was a remarkable operating system, way, way ahead of its day. As was NeXTSTEP. The difference being it was, by that point, a mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling. BeOS, in comparison, was a clever and incomplete tech demo. And Apple had no shortage of those (Copland, Taligent, SOM, OpenDoc, PowerTalk, etc, etc, etc). Buying another one would have been catastrophic.

jonhendry 15y ago
" mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling." And had been used in important roles in industry, particularly the financial industry.

flomo 15y ago

> computer hardware had advanced so much that there was very little demand for a high-performance operating system in the desktop market. That was kinda the problem. BeOS was built around the 1990s mentality that PC hardware was quite limited, and a light fast OS was more important than security, robustness, etc. It ran like greased lightning, but really wasn't a whole lot more advanced than other contemporary consumer OSes. Next, on the other hand, was always intended to be a workstation OS (with 'enterprise frameworks') and was a much better fit for the hardware of the 2000s. With MS moving to the NT line, it would have been a huge mistake for Apple to adopt a single-user OS like Be.

bodyfour 15y ago
Well said. Back in the day, I actually used both the NeXTcube and a BeBox (although neither as a primary environment) The NeXT environment enamored everybody who was introduced to it... for a day or two. Them almost everybody moved away from it because it was so... damn.. slow. The base cube only had 8MB of RAM (a decent amount in those days!) which wasn't nearly enough for the big heavy frameworks it used. NeXT had to retrofit all of the cubes with 40MB SCSI drives just for swap. The display postscript system was elegant (it provided a common display engine for both the screen and the NeXT-brand laser printer, for instance) but ate up precious cycles of the 68030. The magnetic-optical drive that supposedly was the future of personal storage had horrible performance (although the drives mercifully gave out after a few years anyway) In short, the NeXTcube's we had were the machines everybody loved but few wanted to actually use. The BeBox by contrast was nothing if not zippy! There were too many missing bits for it to really be my main environment, but you really felt that you were using the future of operating systems. After years of using UIs that always had at least some lag the BeBox's instantaneous response was almost a shocking experience. When Apple was quite publicly looking for an OS to buy I was certainly rooting for Be. It seemed to fit their needs perfectly: it already ran on PowerPC and its responsiveness would have been great for the multimedia creators that were Apple's bread-and-butter. When they went with NeXT instead I thought it was just another of Apple's classic missteps. I couldn't see why they were hitching their wagon to an OS that was last decade's news. Clearly I was wrong, even if you ignore the Steve Jobs factor. The hardware advances underway quickly made the amazing responsiveness of BeOS moot; now every OS feels like the snappy BeBox did in 1995. As memory sizes grew the NeXTstep frameworks came into their own (probably if the NeXTcube could have had 1GB of RAM it would have been fine!) To put it simply, Be built an OS in 1996 that was perfect for 1996. NeXT build an OS in 1989 that was suited for the 2000s. I don't mean that last bit as a pure complement, by the way. The "too far ahead of its time" is a cliche about failed tech products. Building something that only works with hardware 10+ years in the future is hardly a recipe for success. It's only through the accidents of history that NeXTstep got its chance to shine years after its original failure. 99% of products in that position only get to be footnotes.