Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Jackalopes and Computer History
CNET rewrites the past
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2004-01-25
11 KB |
|
|
 |
 can't stand when people write about things they do not understand, and do not do the basic research necessary to be qualified to write about a subject. I don't doubt they are well meaning in their attempts, but that doesn't change the content of their articles, or the misinformation they are spreading. One recent article that really demonstrated this to me was by CNET's John Borland.
http://news.com.com/2009-1041-5144714.html
He writes about the new change in Apple's plans, but he obviously has no clue about Apple or what their plans or actions were of the past. The results are that instead of informing people, he writes an article that misinforms people or tries to rewrite history. This quote exemplifies the point:
The company [Apple Computer] has long held the philosophy that its software and hardware should be tied almost exclusively to the Macintosh computer for both quality and profit. But it is developing and marketing the iPod with uncharacteristic openness to work with Microsoft's Windows software and other technologies.
Obviously this guy is new to the computer industry, or new to paying attention to Apple or Macintosh. So let's give him a little refresher.
       
Apple's was creating cross platform software in the 1980's. They spun off their software division as "Claris", and didn't call it "Apple Software", to allow more PC people to experience the software without their anti-Apple bias. Apparently it was so successful that many technology writers didn't even realize this was Apple. The Claris software division for a decade produced many software products that were completely cross platform; FileMaker, ClarisWorks and others ran on PC's as well as Macs. Many were best selling Applications in their class for PC's and Windows. Claris' products were successful right up until the mid 1990's when Steve Jobs came back, and decided to re-absorb that division and kill most cross platform software. FileMaker, Inc. still exists though, and still creates software for Windows but is owned by Apple.
If you'd like to read more on early ClarisWorks, now called AppleWorks, you can read about it here: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php
        
Now maybe John Borland wasn't referring to Application software and meant system software? Apple's servers for years supported Windows as well as a Mac. Even the first laserwriters (circa 1985) were used on mixed networks; Apple tried to have printer drivers and file sharing drivers that worked on both Macs and PC's. So he couldn't be referring to those. And there are the other software standards that Apple helped bring to the PC, QuickTime, PostScript (which they worked with Adobe to get popularized), TrueType Fonts (which they licensed to Microsoft and made a standard), and so on. Those technologies were often cross platform, at great cost to Apple; so obviously those technologies aren't what was meant.
When it came to Operating Systems; Apple created the cross platform OpenDoc standard and got IBM and Novell involved to bring them to the PC. And there was other open efforts with IBM like Taligent to try to create a cross platform Operating System. And Apple worked with companies to make protocols standard with that software; like CORBA and SOM came from collaborative efforts from Apple and IBM. Apple spun off divisions to make cross platform multimedia like Kalieda. And many other "break aways" from Apple, where Apple often let people go that started projects like WebTV. So none of those could be the mythical "closed" Apple that the author keeps implying. So we'll explore on.
 
Languages is another area that Apple has been involved in; they helped create ObjectPascal with Nicholas Virth (the creator of Pascal), they were involved in many LISP projects, and opened up a derivative of CLOS (Object Lisp) which they called Dylan. Apple worked with C and C++ standards comittees. ObjectiveC was worked with by NeXT (which is now Apple); Microsoft borrowed most concepts, made them more proprietary, and now calls that C# (C-Sharp). Apple has been heavily involved with Java and Sun, and is a much better adopter and contributors than say Microsoft. Even early efforts like HyperTalk (Hypercards language), AppleScript and BASIC's had some Apple support and openness. So the author couldn't have been referring to languages, at least not from an informed basis.
 
Well, maybe the author was only referring to hardware (like iPod) and the software comment was just a slip.
Well in the early 90's the Newton (one of the original PDA's) supported Windows clients and was as popular with Windows users as it was with Mac users. In fact, the Newton came out with support for both Mac and Windows platforms - it took the iPod over a year to get the same thing; so the Newton was more cross platform than the iPod is.
Maybe the author just meant the Mac when he slipped and said, "hardare".
When it came to standard serial, Apple used RS-422, while PC's tended to use an older, less standard standard RS-232 (with many different connectors). Apple tried to help make an open serial bus standard for RS-422 that never caught on, but they tried.
When Apple was designing the Mac hardware they often chose more "open" standards. NuBus (the early Mac slot standard) was created by TI for minicomputers, Apple worked with them to try to create an open standard and go to 32 bits, rather that use the PC's proprietary ISA slots and 16 bits.
When the PC's went to PCI slots, Apple was there. They had their own standard (PCB+) that was better and they were going to try to make a standard, but instead they jumped on PCI to help make it standard. Apple gave the comitee some information and joined and helped try to steer the standard with things like "OpenBoot" and driver standards to allow it to be more cross platform. Sadly, most PC makers never used the standards and made their flavor of PCI "not completely standard", not caring about cross platform support. But Apple was involved in those committees and technologies all along.
When it came to hard drives and high speed protocols, Apple went with the more open SCSI hard drive format early on (1986/87), while PC's were using a more proprietary, closed and inferior non-standard called IDE or even MFM. IDE became the defacto standard, but was not really by intent or design.
Apple created a serial standard for keyboards, mice and other controllers that they tried to share with others called ADB (Apple's Desktop Bus); Sun and NeXT used it. The PC's chose not to use the standard Apple was trying to put in public domain, and opted for nothing, until finally ten years later they borrowed ADB and Apple's 1394/FireWire concept, and combined them to make USB. So Apple jumped in and got involved in USB committees and was one of the earliest and best adopters and helped drive its success. (The Macs went to all USB before the PC's, which helped drive the protocol to critical mass).
And speaking of Apple's 1394/FireWire standard, it is another example of Apple being open and sharing standards that is used in PC's, it is just that many PC users and writers don't realize that it came from Apple.
Then there was the whole cloning fiasco where Apple had licensed their entire platform to Motorola, IBM and others. Macs themselves were an open standard, for a brief amount of time. Some argue it was too little, too late - other say that Apple didn't give it enough of a chance. But the facts are that Apple did try, unsuccessfully, to be the first company to really open up its design to competition. IBM hadn't intended on the widespread cloning that it got with the PC, that being more an accident or incompetence.
Even before that, Apple used to outsource its designs to companies like Sony (PowerBooks, Pippin) or Acer (PowerMac 4400) to make machines for them. Not to mention that most Macs today are outsourced to other companies to make according to Apple specifications. So really Macs are often just Apple labeled products made by many companies.
Even when we look at just parts of the Mac; Apple's processors are more open than the PC's - originally made with three companies (Apple Motorola and IBM) working together, and licensed to others.
Apple has always been involved on many industry cross platform committees for video, audio, connectors, and so on. Wireless has been a strong Apple contribution by being heavily involved and one of the earliest adopters of 802.11b and g (Airport / WiFi). Most of the connectors on a Mac, slots in a Mac (PCI or PCMCIA), hard drives, RAM, CD and DVD drives, and so on, are all standard. Apple was always involved in infrared efforts, networking efforts, and modem efforts. I can't think of a single standard I/O effort that Apple hasn't been involved with.
  
So the whole point of the authors original article is wrong. Just look at these quotes from a more accurate context:
[Apple] must decide whether to follow the historically proprietary approach of the Macintosh computer or the more flexible business strategy of its successful digital music player.
The iPod represents one of the most significant exceptions to the Apple-only mantra..
This author, spun a story that is pure fiction, and supported it with more fiction. Look at this quote:
"The rules of engagement for the iPod market are new. They don't necessarily have to follow the same rules as with their old PC policies," said Roger Kay, an analyst at research firm IDC. "They may relinquish some control in order to gain access or control of a market that could be orders of magnitude larger than their old one."
This is a blatant attempt to rewrite history, supported by an Analyst that is either not very good at his job, or being taken out of context (and should suit for the assault on his character).
The facts are that when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997 he closed things down; slamming the door shut on Apple's openness in many ways. But he brought with him a UNIX mentality that was more open in other ways. And slowly, the door has been creaking open in the original ways Apple was open, so they might be getting slightly more open in hardware like they used to be.
The truth is that Apple's history, and the computer industries history is complex. It didn't fit the format of the authors misperceptions or the articles intent/spin, so he just simplified it, rewrote history, to get what he wanted. The results are something that everyone involved should be embarrassed about, and write a retraction or correction on. The results more misinform than inform. Whether through malice or incompetence is irrelevant. People that care about the truth will respond; and probably be labeled as fanatics for daring to challenge conventional wisdom.
Many authors get mad that "Mac fanatics" as they see them, will rebut their articles. What they miss is that the people who are replying aren't just defending Apple or the Mac, they are defending history and attempts to rewrite it.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
