4 ms·

Modern conventional wisdom would tell them to "focus".

visakanv 12y ago
I don't know the details very much, but maybe things were different back in their time when the market wasn't yet saturated? (My tech business history is pretty sketchy, so I'd welcome any clarification!)
- api 12y ago
  There were many hobbyist computers on the market when the Apple II launched.
- phkahler 12y ago
  Visicalc played a large roll. The father of a friend of mine bought an Apple II in large part to do spreadsheets. While we're at it, I remember reading the inventor of the spreadsheet went to the computer clubs as showed his work. They all said "well yeah it can do that, so what" and he showed it to accountants and they all ran out to get Apple computers to run it. I think a lot of hackers focus on neat hacks that interest themselves, but overlook relatively easy solutions that could be a big deal to others.
  - joezydeco 12y ago
    I owned an Apple ][ before VisiCalc was released. The transition was amazing. The home PCs were really just a curiosity before that. Look at Apple's early magazine ads. A mom filing recipes. A dad balancing his checkbook. Looked amazing in photos, but when you sat back and realized they wanted $1,200 for a tabletop calculator it really deflated the motivation to buy one. VisiCalc showed people that these machines were programmable in a way they could understand. That was a major breakthrough.
solve 12y ago
How is that buzzword so huge now? Does no one using it realize that the word "focus" by itself... conveys nothing! At least 20 different ways that I could see "focus" being interpreted, most of those conflicting with each other. I suppose that the advice giver is allowed to retroactively choose which definition of "focus" that they actually meant at the time they gave that advice.
api 12y ago
It would also tell them to develop minimum viable products -- which as commonly interpreted means slap together crap to test the market. Had they done this they would have been forgotten in short order.
- Xixi 12y ago
  I would argue that the Apple I was exactly an MVP (as I understand it): not crap, limited in functionality, and impossible to mass-produce.
  - visakanv 12y ago
    +1 to that. It didn't even have a monitor, keyboard or casing: http://andrewchen.co/apples-minimum-viable-product/ http://andrewchen.co/apples-minimum-viable-product/
    - api 12y ago
      That was typical of computer kits of the day. MVP of the sort I was imagining would have been something that barely worked if at all and was tossed together in two weeks. Of course what I'm really arguing against is the fake cutout interpretation of MVP, not the concept as a whole.

I don't know the details very much, but maybe things were different back in their time when the market wasn't yet saturated? (My tech business history is pretty sketchy, so I'd welcome any clarification!)

api 12y ago
There were many hobbyist computers on the market when the Apple II launched.
phkahler 12y ago
Visicalc played a large roll. The father of a friend of mine bought an Apple II in large part to do spreadsheets. While we're at it, I remember reading the inventor of the spreadsheet went to the computer clubs as showed his work. They all said "well yeah it can do that, so what" and he showed it to accountants and they all ran out to get Apple computers to run it. I think a lot of hackers focus on neat hacks that interest themselves, but overlook relatively easy solutions that could be a big deal to others.
- joezydeco 12y ago
  I owned an Apple ][ before VisiCalc was released. The transition was amazing. The home PCs were really just a curiosity before that. Look at Apple's early magazine ads. A mom filing recipes. A dad balancing his checkbook. Looked amazing in photos, but when you sat back and realized they wanted $1,200 for a tabletop calculator it really deflated the motivation to buy one. VisiCalc showed people that these machines were programmable in a way they could understand. That was a major breakthrough.

solve 12y ago

How is that buzzword so huge now? Does no one using it realize that the word "focus" by itself... conveys nothing! At least 20 different ways that I could see "focus" being interpreted, most of those conflicting with each other. I suppose that the advice giver is allowed to retroactively choose which definition of "focus" that they actually meant at the time they gave that advice.

api 12y ago

It would also tell them to develop minimum viable products -- which as commonly interpreted means slap together crap to test the market. Had they done this they would have been forgotten in short order.

Xixi 12y ago
I would argue that the Apple I was exactly an MVP (as I understand it): not crap, limited in functionality, and impossible to mass-produce.
- visakanv 12y ago
  +1 to that. It didn't even have a monitor, keyboard or casing: http://andrewchen.co/apples-minimum-viable-product/ http://andrewchen.co/apples-minimum-viable-product/
  - api 12y ago
    That was typical of computer kits of the day. MVP of the sort I was imagining would have been something that barely worked if at all and was tossed together in two weeks. Of course what I'm really arguing against is the fake cutout interpretation of MVP, not the concept as a whole.