Re: Apple and the Holy War

["John King" <joki@eskimo.com>]

This is an interesting topic.

I agree that Jobs and Apple are "funny". I have a TON of respect for Jobs
though. I don't think I'd like to work for him but he gets it done. He makes
enemies but he does things. He has a *remarkable* track record.

> Apple Computers and especially Steve Jobs is funny.  The
> intial success of the Apple II was based on a practical
> machine that Wozniak designed and the early Apple
> manufactured to exacting standards.  So good was the
> Apple II and so expandable that original units are still
> running.  It was a good computer, period.
>
> But when the IBM PC came out, it was also a practical
> computer although, in my opinion, not nearly as well
> designed as the Apple II.  Jobs, in a fit of delusional rage,
> started to label IBM as an evil entity.  He and the Apple
> he remade in his image lost sight of everything and went
> on a holy war to destroy "Big Brother."  I think that is the
> main reason why he hated the Apple II so much because
> in his eyes, the Apple II was the same type of machine
> as the PC.  What he did not realize was that a practical

I'm no expert here, but I see events a little different. IMO Jobs is an
emotional guy. He runs with a lot of emotional fire. Apple II wounded his
heart so he hates Apple Inc. & Apple 2 like a jilted lover. He runs the Mac
group in an emotional way, e.g. the pirate_flag_of_rebellion, or them vs us.
Once he saw the Xerox GUI it flipped the switch on. That, and his wounded
heart, were powerful motivators.

> Instead, Jobs forced the design of several impractical
> machines (Lisa, Apple III, and the original Macintosh)
> and tried to bend the public to his vision.

I didn't know he was involved with the A3, too bad.

>
> The Macintosh itself only became successful AFTER
> Jobs was kicked out AND the Mac itself was partially
> TRANSFORMED in the Apple II/PC image (slots and
> distinct peripherals rather than black and white, non-
> expandable, all-in-one) into a practically computer.

I'm not a GUI or Mac fan, but the Mac was an extrondinary revolution, but
underpowered. All this GUI stuff needed more horsepower than what was
affordable, hence a whimpy machine. It would not be the only time Apple had
done that, the Newton was similar (slow early, fast and usable right before
it's death), & Lisa (you mentioned them before). I remember seeing Lisa at a
trade show and thinking how cool it was.

But you also right in that Jobs has a hankering for Appliance Machines - no
expansion stuff. Slots are key for a versitle practical machine.


> So when Mac users were jumping around about how
> the G4 500Mhz could beat the 750Mhz Pentium II,
> AMD comes out with the 1Ghz Athlon that could beat
> them all and cost less that both.  ;-)

Competition is good. (BTW, I am a PC guy, I have a couple of old Macs, but I
got 'em later.) The current crop of Macs are so good, who cares about a
little speed difference? I don't. Most machines have more power than what we
need.

One thing Macs have is that emotional appeal. This new crop is even more
focused on that. You gotta give Jobs credit for recognizing and developing
that, even if you don't care for it. The new OS should be a winner also.

Another thing ... that stupid board they had which kept hiring all those
CEOs .. those people should have been gone long ago, they weren't qualified
to guide Apple. Among other blunders, that stupid board basically did little
to the Apple 68xxx line, it just plodded along as other caught up. The
transition to the PPC was pretty neat though.

Anyway, fun stuff to discuss.  Apple is an interesting company. We are
fortunate to have them around.