Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes:

> If you read this group,

Which I did, back when all this was actually happening, and we did not have
the "benefit" of 20/20 hindsight, which so much of the recent discussion
here has utilized without for a minute considering how much it distorts our
vision.

>Even Apple learned a lesson from this fiasco.  When the PPC
>based PowerMacs came out, they could run 68k Mac software.

Ah yes, but they dropped support for NuBus and went to PCI very quickly --
why? Because people didn't care quite so much about hardware compatibility
for its own sake anymore. Plus PCI kicked NuBus' ASS. Intel really did get
a lot right when they came up with PCI. About the only thing better about
NuBus was that it used Euro connectors (also used by industrial strength
computer chassis in many servers and telco switches) instead of high-density
card-edge connectors. But in the desktop world where price means a lot, it
is forgivable.

>Apple stumbled in business because the A3 was used to try
>to break into business instead of a new A2.  You have to realize
>that the A3 had A2 emulation, but a deliberately crippled one.
>You could not access the A3's features from A2 emulation.

Apple called it 100% compatible, you call it deliberately crippled. If you
wanted to use A3 features, you rebooted into SOS and ran it in native mode.
Do not dismiss the support cost of allowing people to use the A3 features
from A2 emulation -- Apple goes out of their way to support a lot of stuff
they probably could get away with not supporting, and yet no one ever cuts
them some slack when they _do_ decide to ditch something that is simply not
necessary.

The ability to use A3 features from A2 emulation had little to do with the
failure of the Apple III. It was Apple's second major design, and the first
one not done primarily by Woz. They bet on 64Kbit DRAM prices coming down,
and when that didn't happen, they got royally screwed by the emergency
introduction of the memory daughterboard, whose unanticipated heat output
was directly responsible for much of the reliability problems. Had Apple
supported A3 features in A2 mode, the A3 would simply have been an even
more expensive failure.

>Apple kept wanting to REPLACE the II and start anew from
>scratch rather than build on its existing user base.

Of COURSE!! While Wintel had no shame, and kept kludging crap on top of crap,
Apple was taking a stand and bringing out a new, clean architecture. They
paid DEARLY for this, but it was a major reason for the Mac's incredible
staying power in spite of all the other mistakes they made.

You appear to be forgetting all the Apple users who laughed at the PC's
kludge-o-rama. Early IIgs detractors tried the same line until GS/OS came
into its own, and even now the Apple II bus standard is a stifling factor
for new hardware development. Had Apple done what you so confidently say
they should have done, they would have faced an immediate backlash of
disillusioned followers and defections, especially within Apple. Perhaps
it would really have worked out for the best, but no one had the guts to
risk pissing off _everyone_ -- engineers, users, and 3rd parties.

It is far easier to inspire engineers with a clean slate, and Apple is
heavily engineering driven. But even they cannot hold out for long against
the raw reality of running a large operation. Their failure to realize
this is the _root_ of all their problems. Thankfully Jobs himself has
finally started to get a clue about it -- probably after having no one
else to blame for what happened at NeXT.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu