Paint demo is around 42 minute. At one point when Paint was demonstrated I heard a background noise "that's incredible". That's how incredible and how shocking people found when computer was no longer a terminal, but with a mouse and a control menu.

The Mac Writer (around 51 minute) was also very simple yet efficient. For example, once the writer entered the format mode, the options for line space is right on the top and easy to click. Then I thought "geesh, we can't even fit anything on the screen with all the buttons in Word unless we hide them into a drop-down list." I always have trouble locating the line space option in OpenOffice or Word. Having used Word 2003, I rather go back to 2003 and stay that way.

What have we done to our software? The tools we use are becoming so complex.

History note: being the first Macintosh, this is an expensive equipment. The sale didn't go very well because it was very expensive...

Here is the teardown of the 128K Mac; http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Macintosh+128K+Teardown/21422

He first asked if it is possible to center only part of the document instead of the whole document as demoed and then he asked whether select-and-replace worked only for replacing equally lengthy text. Both of those questions were followed by laughter at – what I assume – was the demo that both of that was no problem on the screen.

You'd like GNOME. They remove a feature every release.

It's interesting how the future played out: users have rejected the notion that freedom is valuable. Perhaps something else was meant by "freedom" in those days, but it's hard to imagine something less free than the app store.

I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free.

The vast majority of App Store users are non-technical and therefore open to scams, viruses and malware. The walled garden may take some freedoms away from the highly-technical but it pays back freedom in spades to 'normal' people. (plus the highly technical can always choose to leave the walled garden if the want to either by jailbreaking or by buying an open device).

We geeks have only ourselves to blame — if we won't police ourselves someone else will have to police us. We gave these freedoms away by using our talents to cheat and scam our customers.

We're not the first to need it of course, if it wan't for Victorian scammers using suspect weights & measures and adulterating flour with dust and the like there's be no need for Trading Standards Officers.

Trading Standards Officers give us all the freedom to buy food & drink safely and I don't believe anyone would truly see us return to a world without them.

That would make great sense, if there was a way for technical users to opt out of the walled garden. But it's the very opposite -- Apple spends a lot of time and money making it harder to jailbreak the phone, in ways that have nothing to do with defending against malware. If they do their best to make it impossible to opt out, then it's not about protecting your safety. It's about protecting the business model.

There's an argument for protecting the business model, of course -- making jailbreaking more difficult also makes piracy more difficult. The App Store has funneled a ton of money to developers, which in turn makes for better apps for everyone. But the notion that Apple has gone to absurd lengths to prevent jailbreaking because ... "We [developers] gave these freedoms away by using our talents to cheat and scam our customers"? No. That's not how freedom works. This is about money, plain and simple.

Apple has other motivations to maintain their walled garden, but their goals of controlling the whole experience also extend to things like that. They want there to be no question that any Apple device is "safe", regardless of legitimate user configuration.

And as long as users at large aren't demanding general purpose computers who can really blame them?

And if that would have been the case, remember the Antennagate? First they told their customers to hold the phone differently, then they said it was a software problem, and finally they said the problem was the antenna, but that all smartphones had a similar problem (which was a lie). So, in that case I would have expected Steve Jobs' reality distortion field in full power blaming everyone except Apple.

    > they usually blame themselves more than Microsoft.

    > remember the Antennagate

In any case, it's not Apple's responsibility to make open hardware, since there already are open alternatives. It's not economically viable for a company to support non-inteded purposes of use.

I doubt the point matters much, but for the specific case of preventing iOS jailbreaking (as opposed to, say, the iPodhash crap), Apple seems to be pretty lax when malware isn't being enabled. For example, after a jailbreak is released, Apple often doesn't patch the vulnerabilities until an update is rolled out for some separate reason - with the exception of the jailbreaks that remotely exploited the device via Safari (as opposed to requiring physical access to the device), which were patched quickly.

Of course, I would prefer if it were not necessary to use a vulnerability in the first place.

Sounds like every politician who tries to justify the current methods of the wars against terrorism, against drugs, against pedophilia and the general move towards censorship and surveillance.

Look, safety is good, but if you believe in freedom, you should leave the choice. Just like the root user in Linux and Android, I should be able to unlock superuser abilities in iOS.

The same applies in real life. There should indeed be certifications for food and drinks, but it's not a reason to remove rat poison or bleach and ammonia from supermarkets. Just put the proper notices and safeties.

Choice is key.

They are not a monopoly. Other than patents they haven't been given any special privlidges to get where they are today. As long as YOU as a consumer do in fact have a choice, and you DO, you don't get to tell Apple how to build their products.

I think Apple is keenly aware of this, and they don't want to be a monopoly more than anyone, because having a minority market share gives them the freedom to bundle and integrate software which they otherwise would be prohibited from doing.

Consider these examples:

1. Your web browser. 2. Java and .NET programs can be run in different trust-modes only allowing certain functions from the standard library, and obviously disallowing external libraries then. This is mostly used on servers to isolate websites on the same server today but if given a better user interface could have been used to secure desktop programs. 3. User permission levels in operating systems

Nor did Benjamin Franklin for a large part of his life, too :)

I won't ask how you know…

  "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.
  As nations become corrupt and vicious,
  they have more need of masters."

EDIT: Not Franklin's!

Steve got the story right, but the characters and timeline wrong. It wasn't IBM in the 80s, but Microsoft in the late 90s that threatened to dominate personal computing.

I remember these as rather dark times. Microsoft engaged in shady practices like per-processor licensing, which required OEMs to pay Microsoft for every machine sold, even if it didn't have Windows installed. Upstarts like Be couldn't get any traction, even with their technically superior OS. It all culminated in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust trial (which ended up going nowhere).

During this period, Apple was very much on the ropes ("beleaguered", they said), but Mac OS nevertheless remained a viable option for the average consumer - the only real alternative to Windows. In this way, Apple provided users with a mote of freedom.

We also had some desktops with KDE and most students had no trouble doing their usual work (web browsing, text processing, e-mailing, etc.).

I wonder if things improved that much. Yes, we now have Android and iOS, which have a limited scope (portable devices). But, on the desktop and laptop it's still Windows. Mac is only an option for the rich contingent of Western countries. Meanwhile, the Linux desktop has splintered into a market where there are no clear market leaders anymore - Red Hat abandoned the desktop, SUSE is not really visible anymore, and Canonical is working hard to get rid of its user community. That, plus a half a dozen desktops (GNOME, Unity, Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, Xfce). Frankly, it's a mess! However, what's perhaps more damaging is that 'the hope' is gone. There was a time where many people believed that the Linux desktop would eventually take over. Now nobody believes that there will ever be the year of Linux on the desktop and a large number of developers has left to OS X.

The only spark of hope are web applications, since they are platform independent and there is usually some competition. However, you never purchase or own an actual license. So, the vendor could go bankrupt, cancel development, remove features that are crucial, etc. You can never make the decision to stick with an older version, since you don't own a license. Moreover, usually you get a backup of your data in any easy way, let alone convert your data to a web app of a competitor.

tl;dr: mobile devices are not good computers yet, on general purpose machines one of the best competitors fragmented itself into oblivion, in platform-independent web apps you are dependent on the whims of the vendor and locked-in.

To end on a positive note: at least Android is mostly open and captured most of the smartphone market and will do the same on tablets. It's really good to see the work of the Cyanogenmod community, etc.

Edit: Downvoters: Is it because you believe that the Linux desktop hasn't fragmented? Do you disagree on the downsides of web applications?

I strongly disagree with this.

In 1998 Linux was not easy to use. Sure, KDE, etc, was nice, but to get to a minimally workable system it was hard.

I know, I did that, coincidentally in 1998 as well.

Getting the video drivers to work, very difficult. Find the right driver, install, etc

Configuring Dialup, hard. Using dialup, hard as well.

After that, sure, it was nice to startup KDE and browse the web.

Linux, as a "unix clone" was good if you had standard hardware and a permanent configuration. Then you can justify setting up wvdial like it was (and probably is today)

True, it took me 5 days to download MKLinux correctly via dial-up. But it worked, went back to OS9 but soon I had build a phalanx of PCs as servers and for friends, and while I used a Mac as my main computer (still to this day) I fell in love with Linux. That's a pretty powerful experience for a girl growing up on the edge of civilization. It's thanks to Linux that I consider myself a child akin to Stephenson's Diamond Age, but thanks to the Mac's friendly introduction to computing that I get could started.

And for servers it worked great, the problem was the "user friendly" part of it.

I had looked at taking a few CS classes at university but the overwhelming perceived hostility towards women, or anyone not clearly 'belonging' at my science department at the time kept me away. So you can imagine just how much I love the Internet, and the Mac, and Linux. Times have changed and that's cool - I've run some coding classes since then primarily for women and everything they need is at their fingertips and my university's CS and Science department is far modernized and getting a healthy balance of women and minorities. I'm very aware that my jump into CS was made possible by a very special convergence, freedom, and surge of information.

So yes on paper Linux had/has everything Windows does but in practice it was another story. It arguably still remains the case even today which is shocking considering how longs it's been.

Most of it is related to drivers and hardware industry support which will never happen until the other dominant players (Windows, OSX) stumble.

In the early days, I did fine with VESA support. Then, I actively chose hardware that I knew it would work basically out of the box. I had minor problems, never a showstopper. It could be a bit cumbersome at times, that's true.

Nowadays it's a lot easier to install Linux in most computers than Windows. If you want to install a version of Windows that isn't specifically supported by the hardware, you're SOL.

Right now, the biggest problem is GPU support from AMD/ATI and nVidia, which happen to be the leaders when it comes to high-end graphics. You're either left with a partially-working Open Source solution, or with an often glitchy proprietary solution. Intel works fine but it's just for the lower end.

Please substantiate this. Aside from the Macintosh EFI mess, Windows will install on pretty much anything and has fallback drivers for just about everything. Its backwards support is impressive, too; my one single-boot machine is a Win7 Thinkpad A22m with a Pentium III in it.

There simply was no support. The solution HP, Dell and MS would give is to "get on with the times and migrate" which wasn't possible at the time. Alternatively, buy another computer with specific XP support. Complaints were met with a "RTF EULA" where it stated that no support was guaranteed for other OS than the preinstalled one.

The solution was to buy new laptops with WinXP support (ended up costing more, since the company specifically needed serial ports and not many machines had them + WinXP support, limiting choice).

Ubuntu installed flawlessly with absolutely every feature the hardware supported.(This happened when we basically had to either find some new usage for the machines or throw them away). Much quicker than XP too, and objectively simpler as it would choose reasonable defaults instead of asking esoteric questions, making us call phone numbers or insisting in us registering anything. The single thing XP has on Ubuntu or Mint regarding installation, is that you often don't have to do it yourself. In some respects it's worse with newer MS systems as their DRM has "intensified" and OEMs ship more resilient bloatware/rootkits.

Small division within biggish company, so the process was followed by some of us, including me although I wasn't in IT.

But that's not a really fair comparison. Windows Vista was GA in 2007. You wanted to install a 2001 operating system on >= 2007 hardware. If you used a 2001 Linux distribution on 2007 hardware, it wouldn't work either. Quite possibly even worse than Windows XP.

Your parent was arguing in the other direction. E.g. Windows 7 will install fine on most pre-Windows 7 hardware. In fact, on my last to non-Macs I didn't have to fetch any drivers to install Windows 7 or Windows 8. It all worked out of the box.

Of course, Linux is even better with respect to backwards compatibility. A light distribution, such as Slackware, will probably work fine on a 1998-era Pentium II. Both in that most of the hardware will still be supported and that it will run with an acceptable speed. The same won't be true for Windows 7 or 8.

Unless you're talking CAD/CAM, game dev, 3D modelling, movie/music editing, sci computing, people are simply not buying laptops proving mobile devices are great computers for 99% of the world. Oh yeah; they don't care about the OS either; they care about what 'others' in their situation have; they buy what their friends have or what looks good when sitting at the hairdresser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-DIN_connector

Even the 128k Mac had mostly standards-based connectors.

Mouse port, 1 eight-bit keyboard bus, 300 baud, RJ11 connector for the Macintosh Keyboard. Two RS-232/RS-422 serial ports, 230.4K baud maximum, DB-9 connector, and sound port for external audio amplifier or headphones.

http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/computers/mac.html

By the way it's a DE-9 connector (a DB-9 would be huge with lots of empty space). I know many people say "DB-9" when they mean the smaller connector, but then again many people say "narrowband"as the opposite of "broadband" when they really mean "baseband" -- just trying to make up words to sound sophisticated. Yes, even Apple marketing...

In my little social circle - any discussion that becomes overly detail oriented (focusing on details over the core argument) has been dubbed a 'DE-9' discussion.

That's what API design is so important, and so difficult. By analogy the DIN connector is simply calling convention and ADB the actual function calls.

Now, if you just wanted to hack peripheral hardware at the time, you would have invested in a lot cheaper (expendable) computer with a standard serial / parallel port, so I don't really understand what you are saying.

For example, the online shop on the PS3 or any game console is a similar environment, even Steam on the PC is similar. These types of curated software services for specific devices have been around for a long time. No one seemed to take issue with them until the App Store. Why is that?

It is a huge step backward. Before I could borrow games from friends or sell them. But I think there won't be a big outcry as long as most games are still available on a disk.

For years those who supported the developers were subsidizing those who weren't. This is happening less now, and it's a more efficient market.

For the iphone the appstore is the only way to add applications. No one would care if they allowed competing marketplaces.

Why do we not express the same discontent over a PS3? Or any other closed environment? I don't think it's because smartphones were "open" before the iPhone.

Two reasons:

1. The device that plays games is a lot less important than the ubiquitous pocket computer (and for some only general purpose computer).

2. Games, more-so than other software, benefit from the walled garden / curated approach. Nintendo more or less proved this out decades ago when they entered the console market.

2. I would argue that your point also applies to the best apps on the App Store. The super-polished, simple and focused experiences that people love. They are hardly complex software, they are just well-thought-out design wise. By taking a curated approach you prevent the crud from building up.

I see it as similar to a fashionable clothing store — they buy all their clothes for cheap just like everyone else. The value they offer is in their curation and taste.

(In my mind Apple is not strict enough with their curation, which dilutes the value of their store. But I realise I am in the minority with this opinion.)

I don't think I've ever met anyone over the age of 40, from a non-technical background, that has ever checked for service updates to a piece of non-Microsoft software, downloaded it, and then installed it. To this day most people don't bother beyond Windows Updates (and only install those because Windows screams at them about it).

I've met plenty of Windows 8 users who haven't noticed 8.1 is out.

I have mostly found the rejections I encountered from Apple to be good things (I've had about 8 - 10 app rejections over the years). They have always led to me improving the app for the customer (e.g., include battery warnings, make text more visible, ensure app complies with child privacy laws, don't include placeholder artwork, and so on).

The App Store's curation is one of the things that increases its value. Even though developers hate it (and perhaps feel slightly disrespected by it?). I'd argue that its been a good thing.

By the time most people find what I find practically unfree (inability to access sandboxed data) they ignore it as just one of those things or try looking for another app. By the time a mass of people find this ethically unfree I suspect the App Store will simply have vanished in commercial swamps.

Yes it did. This 30 year old quote has nothing to do with the App Store policies. IBM had a significant presence in every single piece of information technology in those days. Mainframes, typewriters, satellite communication, telecom equipment, etc. When they failed to move quickly on micro-computers / personal computers there was a lot of hope that at least one other major player could rise up and challenge IBM's ability to totally dominate every part of information technology systems. After they finally released the IBM PC they started to attack companies like Compaq who were making IBM compatible computers. For a period in the early 80s it looked as though IBM was going to totally dominate everything For this quote to apply to Apple we have to invent an alternative reality. A reality where about 85-90% of all information technology in use today has some direct dependency on Apple software/technologies/hardware/services. They don't even have that type of dominance in mobile today much less the entire industry.

I used this site:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com

$2495 in 1984 inflates to a hard to swallow $5,594.11, an increase of 124.2%.

Being a limey this this is hard for me to comprehend. So I looked at this page:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EXUSUK.txt

There were $1.4076 per £1 in January 1984, which roughly equates as £0.71 per $1. So if I wanted to buy a brand new Mac 30 years ago, I would have had to cough up around £3974 in today's money.

A quick browse for IMac prices, around £1300 (~$2135, the dollar had a higher value compared to the pound in 1984 than today).

My father's IMac boasts a 2Ghz processor. How many of your vital organs would you have to sell on Ebay to buy 2Ghz of kick in 1984?

Here is a picture of a Cray X-MP:

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/8c4/74c/8c474c54-...

A Cray X-MP in 1984 would cost about $15,000,000 for 105Mhz, so I would require 19 Crays, costing a total of $285,000,000. Taking into account inflation, today that would be a bank-breaking $639,006,208.

I'm trying to remember the source, but I think the CDC 7600 packed 512Kb of memory back in 1969. The Mac had a comparable amount but cost about a 1000 times less.

Any guesses?

I'm guessing a small proportion of the Earth's population will be cyborgs, but I am a Ghost In The Shell fan.

Thought I'd work out how much mass in UK copper coins would be required to buy 19 Crays ...

just over 72,000 tons, you'd need about 10 class 37 freight trains to haul that.

In the box:

* Mac Pro * Power cord

Can not afford.

Fascinating to see the Mac heritage in NeXTSTEP carry through the acquisition and transformation into OSX.

It's hard to remember, but in 1992 Microsoft had just released Windows 3.1 - NeXT was light-years ahead of Microsoft.

In the NeXT video, for example, he's very good at tying everything together into a cohesive whole, and speaking to his audience in terms they'll understand. He uses practically no filler words ("uh", "um", "basically", etc.).

Here's another presentation he did in 1980 that shows he had these skills almost from the very beginning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvMgMrNDlg

Unfortunately we don't have the chance to do 35 minutes presentations anymore. Now everyone has to squeeze their pitch into 30 seconds information-free commercials :)

How do you get meaningful ideas across if no one has the time to listen? Only the most superficial ideas can be put across in an elevator pitch.

- Is there a version of BASIC?

- Is there a version of SmallTalk?

- After you become an expert, would the mouse became a feature or a handicap.

I really take the ability to write in almost any mainstream programming language on my Mac for granted.

Thank Stallman

The first 15min more or less are what (most of us) know. Skip that

After that, they will show the real stuff. The manufacture of the Macintosh, and a lot of other things.

The deeper stuff. The laughable (now) things. A successful company yes, but still very vulnerable. A less experienced Steve Jobs.