Top 10 Apple Flops 993
Kelly McNeill writes "Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history."
Apple ///, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
The first models were plagued by quality control problems - a clock chip from National Semiconductor that wouldn't work, inadequate ventilation resulting in the unseating of chips (which was rectified by lifting the computer a few inches and dropping it), too-short keyboard cables, and very little software.
The Apple
Pathetic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Powered by "PostNuke" (Score:4, Informative)
"Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history."
--
Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed.
Apple Pippin
Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.
Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.
The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.
OpenDoc
The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.
OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".
In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.
Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to include OpenDoc, and it was quietly killed at the hands of Gil Amelio.
Mac TV
Apple was the first major personal computer manufacturer to release a machine with a bundled TV tun
Here is a picture of the Apple ///. (Score:3, Informative)
You have to admit that it is cool looking. Weird-ass keyboard (why make a numerical keyboard with just subtraction?!), but cool looking.
Article text, links & images intact (Score:5, Informative)
Posted anonymously to avoid whoring karma!!
--
Top 10 Apple Flops
Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history.
[Image] [osviews.com] Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed.
Apple Pippin
[Image] [osviews.com] Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.
Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.
The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.
OpenDoc
[Image] [osviews.com] The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.
OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as Live Objects.
In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.
Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had
Link to other version of article (Score:5, Informative)
This one is probably the original that osviews.com is referencing.
Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up (Score:5, Informative)
"Thomas Hormby is a high school student in Nashville, Tennessee. He maintains two Mac history websites, http://www.mlagazine.com and http://www.macreate.net."
So, it's not so much Apple bashing (although the editorial by-line does make it appear that way) as much as it is a look at some of the ideas that flopped: some were very good ideas not well implemented, others were just ahead of their time, and some were jsut bad ideas (e.g. Word 6.0 for Mac from Microsoft). Oh yeah, not every comment in there is against Apple - some of them are about Apple-related products.
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
This may be
Re:Dundant (Score:2, Informative)
Posted Jan 31, 2005 - 01:31 AM
Printer friendly page Print this story Send this story to a friend Email this to a friend
Apple
Contributed by: Thomas Hormby
"Though Apple computer is known for some of the computing and technology industry's most notable innovations, its not as if the company hasn't also taken its lumps. Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial contribution to osOpinion/osViews, which supplies us with his top ten list of Apple's (and some of associated partners) most significant flops throughout the company's history."
--
Apple and its compatriots have been highly innovative. These companies have proven that even if their ideas are well implemented, they cannot always promote them correctly. Other times, a good idea is implemented poorly, and despite their best marketing effort, the product fails. I have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that have failed.
Apple Pippin
Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin should have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.
Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit only 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.
The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS and with a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs at that time. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizable portion of the market.
OpenDoc
The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wished to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor. Instead, they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full-blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.
OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".
In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated Video Conferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.
Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commercial products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicked the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to incl
That myth is cracking me up! (Score:3, Informative)
For those who don't remember, the Cubes would occasionally develop these "cracks," for lack of a better term. IIRC, owners started to see hairline fissures slowly appear underneath the ploycarbonate surface.
I don't know whether you're serious or not?! You've used "IIRC" (which you don't) so I actually think you are being serious!
As a cube owner, I've described what the cracks actually were in a post above [slashdot.org].
I have to say, it's very funny what some people can be made to believe.
Re:Apple ///, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
(And the long lifespan wasn't that strange. www.ibm.com had PCjr parts listed well into the late 90s.)
Re:Apple ///, no. Apple SOS, yes. (Score:5, Informative)
But, yeah. SOS was kinda weird.
Re:An overlooked flop (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Talk about backwards compatibility (Score:1, Informative)
PC hardware is depressingly backwards-compatible (with their fantastic BIOS firmware). Buy a new Mac and it's only the latest and greatest OS X for you. Buy a new PC and still can run DOS 3.3, OS/2 1.3 and Netware 2.2 if you need to.
Re:Apple ///, anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I Thought You Were Talking About OS News! (Score:4, Informative)
Word 6 (Score:4, Informative)
The new manager decided to just use WinWord 2.0's code-base on the Mac.
Not quite correct. I worked there around that time.
The decision was to use the same source code to build both Windows and Mac versions.
With Pyramid, the goal was to make a word processor that would be carefully designed: back end universal, front end specific to each supported OS (which would be Windows, MacOS, and possibly OS/2 PM). When Pyramid didn't work out as well as they hoped, they decided to take the Windows source code and build it for MacOS.
Rather than running wild with #ifdef statements and trying to make a native Mac interface, they used a compatibility library. IIRC this was called WLM (Windows Layer for Macintosh). It was not unlike the "winelib" library.
Because both Windows Word and Mac Word were compiled from the same source code, the two products became fully compatible. This was a major leap in features for the Mac Word product. Previous versions of Mac Word had been much smaller and faster, but they were also missing features compared to Windows Word, which meant that file compatibility was not 100%. (You can't import a file, and then export that file with edits, if your word processor does not support all the features that file uses!)
Business users were much happier with Mac Word 6 because of the file compatibility. Home users, students, and magazine reporters tended to be annoyed about the slower speed of Word 6 compared to the older versions. There was a bug that made the "word count" feature particularly slow, and Microsoft caught a lot of heat from the press because magazine reporters tend to care a lot about word counts.
As for it being a top 10 flop, I disagree. I don't think you can reasonably call it a failure. From Mac Word 6 onward, every version of Word for the Mac has had good feature compatibility with Windows Word, and of course Macs got faster and got more RAM. And Microsoft wasn't making enough money on the Mac version to continue to support a complete extra development team with its own code base.
And by the way, the Mac developers I knew at Microsoft all really loved the Mac and wanted to make good software for it. You can accuse Microsoft of not caring about the Mac, or grudgingly writing code for it, but it's not true.
steveha
Re:Flops at Apple are predictable (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, you need help with reality.
The Apple II had an incredible run
Now I'm a pretty huge Apple II fan ("call -151" and "PR#6" always come to mind...) but I completely understand why Apple gave up the Apple II after so many years.
It was a great machine. But it was an evaporating market after 1985, and the fact that Apple kept it up until 1993 is nothing short of incredible.
And remember: By 1990 all of the other non-Intel PC architectures had failed. C64, Amiga, TRS-80, Rainbow, anything CP/M, AT&T, Atari, and all the others were dead. The fact that Apple kept it going until '93 is nothing short of amazing.
Hell, even the old Mac LC came with an Apple II compatability card.
Re:Flops at Apple are predictable (Score:2, Informative)
Well, he was young. Whaddya want?
He went on to run both NeXT and Pixar. Pixar's doing fantastic, and he kept NeXT going long enough that it outlived Apple's own OS development projects and was acquired.
Now, he's got BOTH Apple and Pixar going like gangbusters.
Most companies would be lucky to be afflicted with such management.
Re:My Top...err, Bottom Ten List. (Score:3, Informative)
ADB devices can daisy-chain up to 20 devices, though usually after 6 power can become an issue. ADB actually provides a usable amount of power, like USB does only not as much. It's usable for input devices other than keyboards and mice (such as graphic tablets) because it communicates faster than PS/2.
This page has more information on ADB and its capabilities [apple.com].
Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Limits of Innovation (Score:3, Informative)
Free or cracked/hacked software is just as available for the Mac platform as it is for the PC.. What I found in the Mac community was that the process was more...organized. Neat. Tidy.
For example, finding a serial for QT on the PC, while easy, necessitates me navigating through up to a dozen poorly layed-out webpages crawling with pop-ups, exploits and viruses,
On the Mac, however, I just needed to make sure I had downloaded the latest list for an elegant and easy to use "serial directory" program that had been around for years and was well-trusted and well-updated.
Basically, as with everything else, the Mac can do whatever the PC can, just with more style :)
Re:PDP line? (Score:4, Informative)
PDP-10 rules! [wpi.edu]
Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Limits of Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
Mac game typically come out one year after their PC equivalent, cost the same as the PC version when it was first shipped, and don't come down in price very fast.
It's almost impossible to find games for Macs on shelves even at Apple stores (they usually have a few token ones). You need to buy them online.
However a few publishers do have Mac-PC games in the same box like for the Myst series.
As for Linux the situation is not very good. Of recent memory only the Neverwinter and the ID games series have been good on Linux. The rest must be run through Cedega/WineX, and this is *hard*.
Neither Linux or Mac games are a patch on the Windows scene, and that one is being overtaken by consoles at the moment.
Workgroup Server 95 ran A/UX (Score:3, Informative)
The server was rock-solid, we never had a single problem with it, whereas our old file servers (running System 7.something I think) would crash all the time. I do wonder what I would have done had it broken, because I sure didn't know much about UNIX in those days (1993-1994).
Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia (Score:4, Informative)
I think what really killed A/UX was MAE, the Mac Application Environment for Unix, which was how you got Mac apps running on A/UX. I think I recall it ran on other platforms like SUN. There was a lot of pressure to release it on more platforms, which Apple definitely did NOT want to do. The last thing Apple ever wanted was to see a Mac GUI running on Intel hardware, and that's where they saw it going.
Now if you want a REALLY obscure Apple Unix, here's one: SCO Xenix for Lisa. I actually configured and delivered one to a client. He had a custom written accounting package, he got a serial I/O board and hung 4 dumb terminals off the Lisa, and had 5 working terminals (including the Lisa) to do data entry. I just couldn't believe it when I saw the Lisa boot up to a command line and run Unix. After seeing the Lisa's distinctive white screen with black type for so long, seeing white text on a dark Lisa screen was like staring into a black hole.
Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up (Score:4, Informative)
ANS (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure they didn't sell many of them, but a couple years later people figured out how to install linux and netbsd on them, so I imagine there are a few of them still humming along somewhere. Probably not too many of them still running AIX though :)
One technical Apple failure (Score:5, Informative)
http://assembler.roarvgm.com/Apple_Bandai_pippi
Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia (Score:1, Informative)
Ah, A/UX. We had an A/UX machine at Taligent. Mark, err, um, Mark Somethingorother (I'm embarrased I can't think he of his name -- he was a really sharp guy) had it in his office. It was the only viable way we could figure out to get the IBM AIX machines to print to the Macintosh printers. It was basically just an extra machine he had in his office, yet the entire company's print queues eventually ended up going through the thing! And it handled it just fine, although, annoyingly, he had to edit some access file every time we added a new machine that wanted to talk to the A/UX machine's lpd. (Nobody could figure out an easy way around that.)
The funny thing about A/UX was that it was a Unix machine and a Macintosh. If I recall correctly, it could even run Mac apps while in Unix mode. Which was a weird idea for a product, considering that most Mac people hated Unix (antithetical to the ease-of-use ideal) and many Unix people hated Macs (oversimplified and so much not-invented-here syndrome that it was totally not interoperable with anyone else). So, if you have this machine with dual personalities and everyone who likes one hates the other, who are you going to sell it to? It's about as viable as a pro-life porn star running for political office.
Interesting side note: Commodore pulled a similar move with the Amiga. They ported AT&T SVR4 Unix to the Amiga. They called it Amiga Unix or AMIX. I believe there were rumors in the Amiga community that they did for the exact reason you say Apple did A/UX for: some US government rule about computers not being eligible for certain bids unless the hardware was capable of running Unix. (And, of course, Apple and Amiga being as different as they were, Apple chose BSD while Amiga chose System V...)
Re:Good correction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One word, Jagubox (Score:2, Informative)
Apple bought an amazing flavor of Unix. The actual work was done by Unisoft, a Unix porting house way back in the day (I was the engineer in charge). FWIW, the project was code named "Pigs in Space".
Sadly, they never told us (or anyone else) that the project was just for a checkbox item. Lots of third parties wanted the system to succeed.
the gravity thing (Score:4, Informative)
hawk
Re:Good correction (Score:3, Informative)
Now, under heavy use, it does start getting VERY loud. I've had Microsoft RDC crash twice on me, and each time I didn't realize it until I heard the fan spin up to a jet engine pace and volume. When that happened, each time I looked in Activity Monitor and saw that RDC, that I had just closed, was taking up every spare CPU cycle I had. Force quitting the processes brought my CPU use down to normal levels, and within 10 seconds, the fan was silent again.
Leave it to Microsoft to produce the only software that'll crash on my mac. =P
Re:II GS (Score:3, Informative)
Let's remember what Apple "Lost" in the 1980s.
Under John Sculley's leadership, Apple went from annual revenues of $1 Billion (1985) all the way down to $10 Billion (1993). At that point in time, Apple was still the largest personal computer company. The Mac was 8 to 10% of the market, and PC clones were all of the rest.
Whole text mirrored here (Score:4, Informative)
Apple Pippin
Introduced under Spindler's rule as CEO, the Pippin sould have won Apple a position in the console market, one Apple had yet to penetrate. Apple's goal was to make the Pippin a multimedia machine, capable of reading CD ROMs, surfing the internet and to play games.
Apple had decided to share the Pippin's source code with developers for a licensing fee. The developers had a lot more flexibility, and would be able to redesign the Pippin's software to make it attractive for any number of markets. However, Apple was able to recruit on 4500 developers willing to pay the licensing fee.
The operating system of the Pippin was based on the MacOS. With a PowerPC 603 running at 66 MHZ, the Pippin used a similar processor to desktop macs. Being a multimedia machine, the Pippin was capable of producing CD quality sound, and displaying up to thousands of colors. With the powerful Power PC processor, Apple thrashed Nintendo and Sega consoles performance wise, but never won a sizeable portion of the market.
OpenDoc
The concept behind OpenDoc is an intuitive one. Many elements of applications are redundant (calculators, multimedia players, spreadsheets). Why not 'cut them up' and use different modules interchangeably. Each file would then make calls on these different modules as needed. With OpenDoc, if a user wishes to create a word processor document that includes a spreadsheet, the user would not have to copy it over as a table, or use a gimped up version included with the word processor, instead they could call up the ClarisWorks for OpenDoc Spreadsheet module and have a full blown spreadsheet in the middle of a word processing document.
OpenDoc development started in 1995 in collaboration with Novell, IBM and Apple. In 1997, Apple integrated OpenDoc into its core strategy, releasing several OpenDoc apps, and including the technology in Mac OS 7.6. At the same time, the technology was being developed for Windows and UNIX. The companies created the Ci Labs which would authorize OpenDoc components that proved to be compatible as "Live Objects".
In accordance to Apple's vision, it became possible with the OpenDoc compatible version of ClarisWorks to create a document that integrated various OpenDoc modules. The example below has an integrated VideoConferencing session with QuickTime, a browser frame from CyberDog and a graph from another OpenDoc module.
Since 1996, Novell has ceased Windows development of OpenDoc, forcing IBM to take on responsibilities for the platform at the same time they continued development on their AIX (UNIX from IBM). The two versions both evolved and were mature commerical products in 1997. There were problems for OpenDoc, however. At the same time, Microsoft released ann updated version of OLE, and released ActiveX, that closely mimicced the OpenDoc principles. OpenDoc was embraced by major OS developers, but it had failed to attract third party developers. Mac OS 8 was the last release from Apple to include OpenDoc, and it was quietly killed at the hands of Gil Amelio.
Mac TV
Apple was the first major personal computer manufacturer to release a machine with a bundled TV tuner to the public. The Macintosh TV was Apple's first effort in merging the home theater and personal computer. The machine was also one of the only two black Macs ever made (the second being a special edition 5400 sold only in Europe)..
The Macintosh TV was first envisioned as a tenth anniversary Mac, but it was eventually cancelled. After the unexpected success of the Color Classic, John Sculley requested that a machine comparable to the Color Classic be made with a CD ROM drive and a 14" Trinitron CRT. The logic card was a slightly modified IIvx, Apple's midrange 68030 machine. The Macintosh TV was released on October 23, 1993, shortly after being resurrected.
The new machine was designed to be low cost and have a small footprint. Its most notable features were its TV tuner card and remote control. The TV tuner code had RCA and coaxial inputs, allowing us
Re:OS - flop? (Score:3, Informative)
Mach 3.0 was developed around 1991. XNU, the Mac OS X kernel which evolved from Mach, was created over a period of several years in the late 1990s.
Quartz is a "PDF engine"
That's marketing-speak, and it's not really accurate. Quartz 2D is a 2D display-list rendering engine that just happens to be conceptually similar to PDF. PDF is a native file type, and Quartz 2D display lists can be converted to PDF trivially.
which replaces DisplayPostscript in NeXTStep
Not really. To the extent that both Display PostScript and Quartz 2D have to do with drawing shapes on the screen, yes. But that's where the similarity ends.
it has many of the same problems.
Problems? What problems?
Programs you write in 2005 for Cocoa look almost identical to the programs you would have written in the 80's for NeXT.
Um. Yes, to the extent that they use the same syntax: interfaces, implementations, protocols and so on. But other than that, no, completely wrong. In particular, Mac OS X includes something called bindings, which obviate the need for a separate controller object. Model objects are directly bound to view objects, and the runtime itself is responsible for updating one when the other changes. This is fundamentally different from the NeXT programming model, which included three separate objects: a model, a view and an autonomous controller.
That ignores basic things like NSNetService, advanced text rendering, Web Kit, Search Kit (and soon, Spotlight), Address Book and, as mentioned, Quartz 2D. These and other important core technologies are entirely new in Mac OS X, not legacy tech from NeXT.
Basically, any Mac OS X program more sophisticated than "Hello, World" is going to be fundamentally different from the same program written for NEXTSTEP.
GNUStep, which followed the NeXTStep/OpenStep programming model closely, is also very close to Cocoa.
Completely false. Gnustep makes a decent attempt at creating a copycat implementation of App Kit and Foundation Kit, but that's all. That's only the tiniest part of Cocoa.
Mac OS X is basically NeXTStep with a few tweaks and theming.
Analogy time again: "A car is basically a wagon with a few tweaks." (You're completely wrong in every way about themes. Copland was going to include support for themes. Mac OS X doesn't support themes. There are third-party hacks that replace system bitmaps with custom bitmaps, but that's hardly the same thing.)
For you to imply that OS X is brand new technology is just ridiculous.
Do us both a favor and educate yourself [apple.com], okay? Let's run down the list, in the order that they popped into my head.
Message Framework
Apple Help
Address Book
AppleScript
Key-Value Coding and data binding
Serialization (XML hadn't even been invented when NeXT was in business, remember)
Search Kit (and Spotlight)
Property Lists
NSUserDefaults
the Undo architecture
Cocoa Drag and Drop
Quartz 2D
Distributed Objects
Cocoa XML-RPC and SOAP APIs
the various NSURL interfaces
Web Kit
Core Audio (soon Core Image, Core Video, Core Data)
Rendezvous
CFNetwork
the printing API
QuickTime
Keychain
Certificate services
Authorization services
the entire massive text subsystem
Every single one of these things is brand new technology developed for Mac OS X (except QuickTime and AppleScript, which are Mac OS X implementations of existing Apple technologies). Even the ones that might seem familiar to you -- like drag and drop --are completely new implementations. Compare implementing drag-and-drop in X11 to "implementing" drag-and-drop in Cocoa. I put "implementing" in quotes because compared to X11, you don't have to do hardly anything at all. While new Apple technologies like Rendezvous and Search Kit and Core Audio are huge, the real power of Cocoa is the ability to do things that are possible under old systems with little or no effort at all. That's where it really shines.