The Apple Two 643
theodp writes "Over at Slate, Tim Wu argues that the iPad is Steve Jobs' final victory over Steve Wozniak. Apple's origins were pure Woz, but the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad are the products of the company's other Steve. Jobs' ideas have always been in tension with Woz's brand of idealism and openness. Crazy as it seems, Apple Inc. — the creator of the personal computer — is leading the effort to exterminate it. And somewhere, deep inside, Woz must realize what the release of the iPad signifies: The company he once built now, officially, no longer exists."
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs wants to make appliances. Woz wants to make computers. I think there's a real difference here; I enjoy tinkering with a lot of devices, but I'm not about to start taking apart my toaster or TV. That's what the iPad and iPhone are to me, appliances that are meant to be as reliable as possible as my toaster, and this is where Jobs' mantra of "It just works" is so key; you don't want your toaster to have problems, and more importantly, you don't want to need to get into the guts of a toaster just to make toast.
On the other hand, I love working on computers, both software and hardware. I've fried two Arduinos teaching myself how to make neat projects involving stepper motors, LEDs, etc. I accept that I may break this equipment, as I accept that I may lock my computer up because I'm overtaxing it. I accept this and try to not fry or crash the next time. A learning experience to be sure, and one that I enjoy having.
One aspect that always seems to be overlooked in all this discussion about "the future of Apple" is that Apple still makes a lot of other hardware and software; you still need to have a Mac with the developer tools installed to write anything for the iPhone/iPad. Apple gives away a lot of software for content creation as well as software creation.I don't see how they can let their other software and hardware fade away...they need people to create the apps and the content that is so readily consumed by the iPhone and iPad.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago? (Score:5, Interesting)
Though, I can't imagine using it as my only computer as a student, blech.
What about a T-shirt with "I wanted a Dynabook and all I got was this lousy toy"?
Annual Report 2009 (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's 2009 Annual Report [corporate-ir.net] shows that it sold $13B in Macs, $8B in iPods, $~7B in software, music and accessories, and $13B in iPhones and related services. I think they get a nice commission from AT&T for the 2 year contract. So, yes, they do indeed sell more peripherals and phones and "other stuff" than they do "computers". Not surprising since the iPhone is significantly lower priced than a Macbook, and the iPod as well. Both have mass market appeal. But computers are their core business--this is a nice bump but if you average it over many years you'll see that the computers are what's kept the company alive. They have $6B in annual expense around their retail stores. I think they need to be real careful about those because that could eat up their $33B in cash pretty quickly in the event of a downturn. "Looking" better than ever and that's why I'm short on Apple. Their share price is based on continued growth like they have had, possibly on a global basis, and I just don't see that's possible with what products they have. It's a classic bubble, get off the titanic, it won't get over $275...
The road to commoditization (Score:4, Interesting)
The iPad isn't just the end of homebrew; it's the first step into the true commoditization of the PC. Until the PC is a true appliance, it won't truly be usable by everyone in society.
I do tech support for my aging father and his PC. What he needs is a PC appliance: a device that just works. PCs based on Windows and MacOS need constant care and feeding. He needs a PC that works like a TV: plug it in, turn it on, and use it. Sure, it needs to know some basic information about who's using it (email address, etc.), but beyond that it should just work.
Steve Jobs has introduced something very close to this in the iPad. The only barrier at the moment is that the iPad is intended to be a secondary computing device tethered to your primary device. But, it will only take a few tweaks of the software and hardware to turn it into a low-end priamry computing device --- something that is suitable for 80% of users.
Propellor heads like myself will never be satisfied with such a device; but, I (and the rest of the /. fanboys) don't represent the majority of users.
The iPad is a vision of the future.
Re:Officially? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it really is amazing how the party line turned on a dime from "Macs are easy to use" to "Macs, like all non-touchscreen computers, are utterly unusable for anyone who isn't a loser geek". Also, while Microsoft was correctly slammed by the courts for making it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers, there's no problem at all with Apple banning any apps that might possibly interfere with their business models.
Re:The iPad is original Apple Redux (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if it has an IR port but if so it would make a particularly attractive universal remote as well, particularly as an alternative to something like a harmony.
honestly though, the current price is a bit steep to use it for those tasks.
I could also see it used in industry for doctors to carry around instead of clipboard and have access to more advanced lists of information, or a mechanic to keep one in the garage to lookup specs and diagrams, or a hair stylist to quickly show clients different styles as opposed to a bulky catalog.
with the right bundled software the price is fair for industrial uses, unfortunately I don't think it could stand up to the abuse those scenarios would put it though.
Re:Officially? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are way too many MBAs out there who think suits trump techs. It's not true. A great company needs both great leaders and great workers.
Jack Welch at GE figured out that the way to ensure he had great people working for him was to reward the top tier workers to keep them and fire the bottom tier on an annual basis. The tiers weren't static - a person who was getting feedback that they were near the firing tier could start working harder or start looking for another job if they weren't motivated. A person who was near the top tier and wanted the top tier perks could bust their ass and displace someone in the top tier. People in the middle tier were sure their jobs were secure as long as they stayed productive.
It was harsh but the result was that while Welch led GE, the company did very, very well. Welch defined the fitness function and let evolution build GE for him. It was hard for a manager who had a good staff to have to fire his least productive workers on a regular basis but since everyone knew that was how the company was run, the people who didn't like it moved on.
Re:Officially? (Score:4, Interesting)
It was harsh but the result was that while Welch led GE, the company did very, very well. Welch defined the fitness function and let evolution build GE for him. It was hard for a manager who had a good staff to have to fire his least productive workers on a regular basis but since everyone knew that was how the company was run, the people who didn't like it moved on.
And that works great so long as the bell curve for employee quality is nice and evenly distributed around "average" in every group. But like you say, the minute you have a group of people who are all above average or exceptional, blindly sticking to a system like that simply ensures that you cut loose great employees while actively eliminating experience from the group. Wow, what a brilliant system!
Re:Apple has made Microsoft look "open". (Score:5, Interesting)
"...make it run OS X..."
Putting aside the debate over the closed/open nature of the iPad, I suspect this would be extremely popular with a small niche of users, and overall would be a colossal mistake on Apple's part.
Pretty much all previous tablet attempts that actually shipped have used desktop operating systems for the platform. Pretty much all previous attempts have failed. As someone who had the misfortune of using a Windows tablet for a while, I can tell you that desktop operating systems are clearly NOT MEANT for tablet use. Sure, you can cram touch or handwriting into them, just like someone can put on shoes that don't fit quite right. But the reality is that the experience will always feel sub-par; your feet will hurt with the ill-fitting shoes, and your computing experience will suffer using a desktop environment on a tablet machine. (This applies to OS X, too, if you look at the Axiom Modbook machines.) And I suspect Apple isn't interested in offering a sub-par experience, as previous tablets have. The iPad may be more limited than a 'full featured computer,' but (as someone who's tried this both ways) also feels MUCH more natural to use than a desktop operating system when you're dealing with touch on a tablet.
But moreover, you rightly make the point that 'the Xbox didn't need to act like a PC,' and (whether we like it or not) the iPad is not trying to be the same thing as a desktop PC either. The iPad is trying to be an appliance, like a television or a microwave; something you just use, and don't have to worry about all the things average folks don't want to have to worry about. The simple truth is that techies want their devices open, but average folks don't care. They just want it to work. Even Microsoft's realized this now, which is why the Windows Phone 7 platform is apparently not allowing native code to run (witness the cancellation of Fennec for Windows Mobile), and has an Apple-like app storefront you submit to through Microsoft so they can better control the experience and stability. And while we hacker sorts lament the loss of ability to muck freely with our devices (without having to 'root' or 'jailbreak' or whatever the terminology for your platform of choice is), the less technical sorts are going, "Oh! Now /I/ can use these shiny gadgets, too!"
Most people I handed my old Tablet PC to went "WTF?" and got frustrated. My aunt, who had given up entirely on computers after the hassles she had with her old PC, toyed with an iPad the other day and remarked in surprise, "I could use this and have e-mail again!" The difference is fairly dramatic. The Tablet PC was trying to be a desktop PC stuffed into a tablet, and gave a lot of power to the user but did not work optimally. The iPad is /not/ trying to be a desktop PC at all... and that gives Apple the freedom to throw out the existing usage paradigm entirely, rather than shoehorning the desktop into a touch device.
We can hope they extend the platform and make it more flexible and powerful, but I think we're more likely to see the mobile branch of OS X (iPhone, iPad) expanded out to get new capabilities than we are to see them "make it run OS X" as you suggest. Simply because the mobile branch's usage model is better suited to phone and tablet use than the desktop model is.
Re:The iPad is original Apple Redux (Score:4, Interesting)
The killer apps are yet to come, for those of us who see the potential in this thing to implement
Since you see the potential of this thing, what will the "killer app" be? If you can't answer that question, you don't "see the potential", you merely think the thing is really neat and hope someone else will see the potential and come up with the killer app that will make it a useful device.
Re:Sure, it's official (Score:4, Interesting)
Woz still technically works for Apple. Even still gets a paycheck.
http://www.woz.org/letters/general/53.html [woz.org]
Re:Creator of the personal computer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Crazy foreign revisionist history. Everyone seems to forget the humble Kenbak-1 [wikipedia.org]. Play with it here. [neocomputer.org]
Yes, it predates the Micral 8008. It's also American made.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want easy access to a web browser, movies, and text from your couch or bed, go with an iPad
Really?
There's a web browser on the netbook. Plus, you can tilt it up easier.
Movies? Seems they'll all play on the netbook.
Text? Actually some of us consider the lack of a keyboard a major detriment of the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad line. Sacrificing screen space for a "keyboard" setup that has no tactile feedback isn't exactly a pleasant design choice. Plus, if you don't constantly put talcum powder on your hands, you just smudged the hell out of the space you're expecting to watch the aforementioned movies on.
The touchscreen netbooks I've seen are "flippable", turn around to be usable with a stylus like a miniature tablet PC. That's damn useful.
Commentary from others about the battery life being pretty similar, and the fact that you can replace/augment the battery in your netbook yourself rather than having to go through Apple's "highway robbery" level customer disservice department when the built-in battery dies two years down the road...
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's products are pretty much unique in being completely locked down.
...except for the part where you can actually add RAM, hard drives, batteries, etc. to Apple computers yourself. That is a far cry from being "completely locked down", since it isn't true.
For the life of me, I can't understand your logic. Are you honestly posturing that Apple devices are shipped in hermetically sealed cases that nobody can get into, or are you just trying to (wrongfully) paint Apple products as being not-upgradable?
Re:Revisionist history (Score:1, Interesting)
Get your history straight. You didn't have to buy an original Apple ][ with case, keyboard, or power supply. You could simply purchase the motherboard (board on stick) and provide your own keyboard, case, and huge, hot, inefficient non-switching power supply. Such setups were never common because most people didn't want them.
All the chips in the Apple ][ were socketed, for better or worse (120+ socketed chips hurt reliability).
The video management was all done in hardware. You're probably thinking of the Sinclair zx80/81 or maybe one of Don Lancaster's TV typewriter designs.
The Apple ][ used an ASCII keyboard. No interesting software decoding here.
You didn't have to use Disk ][ compatible floppy drives if you didn't want to. You could use 8" hard sectored ones if you wanted, but good luck getting non-CP/M software (ala M$ Softcard or clones) to use it.
I find it hard to believe you call the Apple ][ locked down when the schematics and firmware listings were in the back of every single user manual! Further, it was entirely comprised of off the shelf chips! Don't have enough money to purchase an Apple 2? Well, that's okay, buy the manual and build your own (I'm sure at least 10 people did that ;) ).
The Apple ][ is nothing like a Mac. If anything, the personal computer that most resembles it is the IBM PC clone family. ;p
Re:Revisionist history (Score:3, Interesting)
Get your history straight. You didn't have to buy an original Apple ][ with case, keyboard, or power supply. You could simply purchase the motherboard (board on stick) and provide your own keyboard, case, and huge, hot, inefficient non-switching power supply. Such setups were never common because most people didn't want them.
Which I think is the point I was making, no?
The video management was all done in hardware. You're probably thinking of the Sinclair zx80/81 or maybe one of Don Lancaster's TV typewriter designs.
While Don lancaster's design took things to extreme, lots of the video management was done in software on the apple. for example, sprites. and at a more basic level, the colors were interleaved so you did not actually have the full resolution in color that you had in black and white. That translation of pixel position offset with color was handled in the device drivers as I recall.
The Apple ][ used an ASCII keyboard. No interesting software decoding here.
sure there was. how do you think the key presses were captured? they did not have any buffering.
I find it hard to believe you call the Apple ][ locked down when the schematics and firmware listings were in the back of every single user manual!
I think you missed my point. I was being ironic. the apple ][ was being heralded as being open. And by modern standards it is. but for the standards of it's time it was highly integrated and less flexible.
But my larger point is, to move forward we have to periodically draw a black box around some bit of technology and not worry about home brewing that part. You would not I expect want to build your own SATA replacement from scratch in algorithms and hardware (resitors and capacitors). You might want access at different levels of balck boxing. 1) a mac mini, where you don't even care if it's SATA or IDE 2) mutherboard with integrated SATA from Frys. 3) a sata controller card to plug in to a motherboard. but none of those dives very deep. it's closed at the SATA layer and that's a good thing if you want to get something done.
the Ipad is closed at the hardware layer. basically all you can do is write software or build something for it's two connector ports.
but anyhow the point was the exact same complaint was made about the apple ][ in it's day. It's only later we appreciated how freeing us from the details extended our capabilities to modify more complex aspects of the device.