25 Years of Apple

[crokett]

The first Mac's 25th anniversary was yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/23/apple.macintosh.anniversary/index.html

The first time I saw one I remember thinking it looked like a toy. When I was in college as a fund raiser we played a computer golf game with sledge hammers and old non-working PCs. Most of them were Macs, which shows where our sensibilities were.

My view on Macs is for all the ranting people do about Microsoft ramming their vision of computing down our throats, Apple is worse. They control the code and hardware even more than MS does (and yes I know this has changed some on the newest hardware).

[twistsol]

I'm not sure, but in many circles this could be considered religion.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft can be summed up pretty succinctly in their philosophies.

Microsoft attempts to remain backward compatible to the stone age, and suffers from all the baggage that entails.

Apple has no problems abandoning technology they have deemed unsuccessful and throw out the applications and developers along with it.

I'm a Mac guy ... Happy Birthday Macintosh.

[gsmittle]

I'm a Mac guy ... Happy Birthday Macintosh.

+1 on that!

g.

[crokett]

Microsoft attempts to remain backward compatible to the stone age, and suffers from all the baggage that entails.

I would argue that MS caused a lot of headaches when Vista dropped support for older hardware and software and had fairly robust minimum specs. I haven't upgraded from XP to Vista because I had a printer and a piece of SW that didn't run on Vista.

Does Apple have anything similar to MSDN where it supplies developers with copies of the OS, all the API info, etc? This is a serious question because I really have no idea.

[JR]

... Apple is worse. They control the code and hardware even more than MS does

How is IBM's PC business doing?

JR

[crokett]

How is IBM's PC business doing?

JR

Just fine, only it is not IBM's anymore. IBM couldn't produce them cheaply enough to make it profitable. Higher built-in costs, kinda like US autos. Remember when PCs used to be advertised as IBM-compatible? IBM licensed it's PC hardware so more or less anybody could use it. I'd say since 95% of the PCs in the world run Windows, then IBM's PC business is doing quite well.

[Bruce Cohen]

Ah,

Once again I find myself disagreeing with you, David.

If you were in the Graphic Design industry, I KNOW you'd be singing a completly different song.

But then again, this is America and we all have a right to our opinions, even if their totally wrong.


Bruce

[twistsol]

I would argue that MS caused a lot of headaches when Vista dropped support for older hardware and software and had fairly robust minimum specs. I haven't upgraded from XP to Vista because I had a printer and a piece of SW that didn't run on Vista.

Does Apple have anything similar to MSDN where it supplies developers with copies of the OS, all the API info, etc? This is a serious question because I really have no idea.

Your point about Vista is exactly what Apple does. The first time MS tried to cast off its baggage, they were crucified in the press. I have Vista Ultimate on one of my laptops and there's nothing wrong with it except that I can't use it with my large format printer or my industrial scanner. It would cost me $5,000 to replace them and they work perfectly with XP.

In its twenty five years, the Mac has had three processor architectures. The Mac OS made major changes that broke software between version 1 and 2, 2 and 4 (3 never existed), 6 and 7, minor between 7 and 8 but still problematic and again whoppingly major between 9 and 10. The strategy has lead to a cleaner, more nimble OS, but ticked off alot of people along the way.

Yes, the Apple Developer's network is pretty comparable to MSDN. Apple is more tight lipped and hobbyist, education, and corporate developers don't get pre release versions of the OS. Only if you're a major developer, or attend the annual developer's conference do you get to see it before the rest of the world.

[crokett]

In its twenty five years, the Mac has had three processor architectures. The Mac OS made major changes that broke software between version 1 and 2, 2 and 4 (3 never existed), 6 and 7, minor between 7 and 8 but still problematic and again whoppingly major between 9 and 10. The strategy has lead to a cleaner, more nimble OS, but ticked off alot of people along the way.

So this begs the question, why doesn't/didn't Apple get the roasting that Microsoft does when they (Apple) toss folks by the wayside?

[JR]

Just fine, only it is not IBM's anymore. IBM couldn't produce them cheaply enough to make it profitable.

My point exactly. Apple, using a more comprehensive approach, is still in the PC industry, and doing very nicely at it. By protecting the system, hadware and software, they have managed to carve out a space for themselves in which they are still making money.

IBM chose an open architecture similar to the other hobbyist systems available at the time. IBM's endorsement surely brought the PC out of the hobby shop and into the corporate world, but that choice sealed their fate from the moment it was made.

Of course all of this is extemely ironic, given that IBM in the '80s was still the proponent of closed system architectures at the minicomputer and mainframe levels. Apple was the darling of the anti-blue world, having made their fame with the much more open Apple II machines. They swapped roles at roughly the same time with interesting results.

FWIW, I was hug MAC bigot in the '80s, but have since been absorbed by the borg.

JR

[twistsol]

So this begs the question, why doesn't/didn't Apple get the roasting that Microsoft does when they (Apple) toss folks by the wayside?

They do, they just get roasted in market share rather than in the press (sometimes in the press too, but now it is just expected). They can't sell into the corporate market because IT departments won't stand for entire architectures in the OS disappearing, or their development tools or in house applications ceasing to function. It adds too much cost to redevelop applications when your only benefit is continued operation.

If you're a developer selling upgrades, you build it into the pricing and grumble about it. Consumers never see it. They just buy the upgrade, get a new driver and go along their merry way. The Macintosh market share has finally started to increase because even in a corporate environment, most PC's are used for Word, Excel, PowerPoint, eMail, and web based applications. Now that they're on an intel architecture, you can run Windows on a Mac simultaneously with the MacOS with a very slight performance hit. I do that so I can run Visio and MS-Money. (I don't like Quicken)

[twistsol]

IBM chose an open architecture similar to the other hobbyist systems available at the time. IBM's endorsement surely brought the PC out of the hobby shop and into the corporate world, but that choice sealed their fate from the moment it was made.
JR

We need to remember our history. It is true their choice to manufacture the PC legitimized the market, but IBM did not choose an open architecture.

Phoenix Technologies and Compaq independently reverse engineered the IBM BIOS and that is what made PC Clones possible. IBM sued, lost, and was completely miffed by the fact that these two nothing companies beat them in court.

IBM responded with the PS/2 and the micro channel bus that they had all kinds of patents on and couldn't be legally cloned and thought they could dominate the market. It was pretty much a failure. OS/2 was their next attempt to dominate and it was also a failure. Both good products, but couldn't change the market momentum.

[crokett]

IBM chose an open architecture similar to the other hobbyist systems available at the time. IBM's endorsement surely brought the PC out of the hobby shop and into the corporate world, but that choice sealed their fate from the moment it was made.

Not exactly. The open architecture made IBM's early success in the PC world possible. Closed architecture probably would not have worked. The mainframe/mini market is different from the PC market. Companies are not as price sensitive when they are buying a million dollar machine as when they are buying a thousand dollar one. Besides which, back in the 80s IBM was stilll 'it' form large systems. An IBM closed-architecture machine (remember microchannel?) would not fly because the machine would be more expensive - economies of scale - and options would be harder to find and more expensive. Apple succeeded then and still does with closed architecture because the company is perceived as anti-establishment and their machines are very easy to use. Linux at least has the first attribute. The second is debatable although with the newer distros a relative newbie could get an up and running system without too much trouble.

[leehljp]

So this begs the question, why doesn't/didn't Apple get the roasting that Microsoft does when they (Apple) toss folks by the wayside?

Why doesn't Apple get roasted by their users? Several reasons -

6. Users have come to expect backward compatibility only to a certain level;

5. Forward looking attitude/philosophy or tech world view: In line with # 1, the larger base of Macintosh users "as a base group" were more forward thinking and ready for newer technology. Moving forward was not that huge of a deal. New users coming in were quickly indoctrinated on the same.

In the Windows world, this "group" could be seen as the equivelent to tech minded IT people, but IT people usually do NOT look forward to new technology for the masses under them - because "Change" to them means new problems and headaches. Change is good unless you are the one having to cope with the multitudes of minions under you who are trying to circumvent the system. The forward looking versus "slow change" alone creates an attitude how you look at change.

If you don't look forward to change, then when major change comes, so does the roasting. If you expect change and look forward to it, then those things left behind is no big deal.

This "attitude" passes downward to new users! Subconsciously Windows people are indoctrinated one way and Mac users are indoctrinated with another by those that train them.


4. As a whole, Apple (arguably) machines lasted longer and as Apple moved into the future with new hardware/software or OS that was not backward compatible beyond 3 to 4 years, the old machines continued to work just as well and function well with the older software/OS.
. . corporate PC machines were routinely replaced every 2 to 3 years in the mid 90s for different reasons, incompatibility of parts, malfuntions, dying. Mac machines had roughly twice the usable life span. As Apple moved forward, old machines and programs continued to be productive and work just fine.
(Remember, Apple machines were the first to have networking built in as standard, and as a machines were left behind with new OS intros, they still continued to function as well and network in a way that allowed productivity to be shared easily.)

[Rabbit Chasing]: One reason Apple got a bum rap and had poor sales was not because of the inferiority, but because of its durability. Apple sold a new machine to a returning user once every 4 to 6 years; Window/PC sales were based on new machine once every 2 to 3 years, doubling the sales to stay working. (Yes this was documented. LOML had a hissy fit when she/we heard Gates/Grove discuss this very issue in a recorded TV interview in the mid-90s. And so did the interviewer. . i.e. his reaction was - you really expect me to buy a new computer every two years?" Gates and Grove's response: "Yes. Technology is moving that fast.")

3. A misconception: Macs are not "left behind" to the same extent with new OS changes as Vista did. Apple generally supports (officially) backward compatibility for two OS upgrades. Beyond that, when they quit supporting a system, they leave it working well.

2. Third party support in general is easier for old Macs left behind. Mac DOES control the Mac OS and have what is considered a "CLOSED" system. BUT, this allows for third party support to be much easier. MS does not control, meaning that a driver for a card must match different mother boards, other mfg boards etc, therefore a driver becomes a headache to support all of the combinations of other third party boards that it must interact with. A Royal Pain, a huge headache, therefore less support.

In Other Words: CLOSED Systems allow for easier support by third party hardware / software companies of discontinued OS support by Apple.

CLOSED system mentality is Apple's equivalent of "IT over a networked system". Functions the same. Windows is more open, but IT personnel MUST control it like a "closed system" to make things compatible and work well. Sooo, in this sense, the "closed" system allows for third party support of discontinued services much easier, only it is built into the architecture and is therefore "predictable - easier". No problems when Apple moves on.

Attitude/philosophy/tech world view.

1. (Edited in) Probably the most relevant reason MS gets roasted: With Windows having roughly 85/90% of installed base users, and Apple with roughly 10% installed base users (this is not sales, but installed base users) 85 /90 people sure make more noise about it than 10 do!

[Kristofor]

Okay, here's the deal, I like and support Macs for personal use, and in some functions in a business. I don't want my comments below to be interperted as ripping on Macs (I own one, but as a gamer my heart belongs to the PC {don't tell the wife}). I'm do have some explainations for why Macs are often not favored by IT folks.

Why doesn't Apple get roasted by their users? Several reasons -

In the Windows world, this "group" could be seen as the equivelent to tech minded IT people, but IT people usually do NOT look forward to new technology for the masses under them - because "Change" to them means new problems and headaches. Change is good unless you are the one having to cope with the multitudes of minions under you who are trying to circumvent the system. The forward looking versus "slow change" alone creates an attitude how you look at change.

If you don't look forward to change, then when major change comes, so does the roasting. If you expect change and look forward to it, then those things left behind is no big deal.

In a business environment change is never an inherrently good thing as there is always at least some cost associated with that change (maybe licensing, redevelopment, user training, or just labor to evaluate the change and determine there is no functional impact). Now, there is usually some level of benefit associated with a change (new whiz-bang features, more robust, regulatory compliance, etc.). When the benefit sufficiently outweighs the cost and the potential benefits of all of the other things you could be doing then it's worthwhile to make the change.

I have users running an internally developed app that's 12 years old. Sure, it's not built with the same tools we'd use today but it still runs 4-6 OS versions later (depending how you count 95, 98, ME (never used) Win2K, XP, Vista). There are a few minor benefits that could be gained by redeveloping the application, but nothing near the developer hours and user validation/regulatory hours, user retraining, and lost productivity hours that would be involved.

If Microsoft made a change which broke that application it would hit my bottom line for about $350K and delay work that would enhance our products or otherwise allow us to do business better. That's one small application at one company, if that happened across the board I think we'd be talking about numbers in the hundreds of billions (self inflating costs as all available developer talent is snapped up).

4. As a whole, Apple (arguably) machines lasted longer and as Apple moved into the future with new hardware/software or OS that was not backward compatible beyond 3 to 4 years, the old machines continued to work just as well and function well with the older software/OS.
. . corporate PC machines were routinely replaced every 2 to 3 years in the mid 90s for different reasons, incompatibility of parts, malfuntions, dying. <snip>
- you really expect me to buy a new computer every two years?" Gates and Grove's response: "Yes. Technology is moving that fast.")

In the 90's it really was worth it to upgrade every 2-3 years for functional reasons. Lower (and dropping) costs for PCs allowed that to happen more easily.

The 90's started with 386's still the predominant processor (the 486 was released in 1989), then 486's, Pentiums, Pentium Pro (for some servers, CAD machines or other specialty PCs), competitive Cyrix/AMD processors i686/K5/K6, Athalon, Pentium 2, Pentium 3.

While we were moving from 33MHz to 1000MHz+ processors (*not exactly a 1:1 comparison with the architecture changes, but still hugh increases) the prices were also falling. I bought a 486-33MHz for just under $3500 early in the decade, by the end (technically early 2000) I built an Athalon 1GHz box for under $1100.

Compare that with the 2000's where we've gone from 1GHz to 3.3GHz+ (*again not 1:1 with architecture changes, multi-core, etc.) and prices for a midrange corporate PC are in the $700-800 range. The 90's offered a 30x* speed increase and a cost savings of $2400/PC, the 2000's offered a 3x* speed increas and a savings of $400.

Of course drives, RAM, network speed, video capabilty, etc. were also progressing in both decades and software adoption had impacts in both time periods, but in general the need to frequently replace hardware for mainline corporate PCs was much greater in the 90's than it is right now.

Attitude/philosophy/tech world view.

1. (Edited in) Probably the most relevant reason MS gets roasted: With Windows having roughly 85/90% of installed base users, and Apple with roughly 10% installed base users (this is not sales, but installed base users) 85 /90 people sure make more noise about it than 10 do!

Yep, that's very true. There's also an "all stick together" factor in the Mac user community. As a persecuted minority (yeah, I have heard Macinites refer to themselves this way) there tends to be a lot of promotion of the positives of their alternative lifestyle and a willingness by many (not all) to gloss over certain issues or frustrations they have. As the Mac marketshare increases I suspect this effect will weaken.