News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 7/15/97 | |
From: muiter@Dartmouth.EDU (James Muiter);
Sent at 7/15/97; 7:03:30 PM;
Re:Choices> "Instead, a new [company], 250 people, could own the Mac OS and
> license it to Apple and the growing community of clone vendors.This is a keen observation. Apple shot itself in the foot just this spring by trying to give itself leverage vs. the rest of the Mac-OS industry -- instead, it should have put the Mac Platform first and treated its own hardware division as just another l icensee/customer.
Still, though, the Mac needs to survive. A young, hungry startup could generate a lot of interest in the valley. Like Netscape in '95, Be in '96, or Apple a long time ago.
I'm still keeping the faith. Windows doesn't have anything I want that a more modern Macintosh wouldn't give me. Microsoft wants to be the only software company we need. That's a bad thing! It's bad for new ideas, it's bad for developers, it's bad for consumers.
(While we're at it, let's split up Microsoft too. An OS company and an applications company. Somebody should compile a list of all the developers that Microsoft has plowed over, or is trying to. Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect; even Intuit is on the rocks ; Netscape and Apple are next. That's bad!)
Your Choices piece is right on. The two-company strategy is probably the only way to save Apple as a company and the Mac as a viable platform. The economics and timeframes of the Mac and Rhapsody businesses are so out of synch not to mention the cultures that a two-company strategy is probably the best answer. It's true that IBM survived their near-death experience by not breaking up into separate companies, but Apple's situation is completely different. They don't have the size or the cash, nor do they have the credibility or strength in the enterprise market.
From: ushijima@asiatech.com (david ushijima);
Sent at 7/15/97; 5:59:08 PM;
Asia buyer for apple?It makes perfect sense to create a new, small company to license the Mac OS and grow the clone base. It would make perfect sense to have this business working with the economics that an Asian or other low-cost clone manufacturing base could bring. And it would get Apple out of hardware manufacturing, a business which it clearly can't sustain. It would however be a shocker to the shareholders to see the core company shrink so drastically. The transition would be a wild ride to be sure.
On the other hand, creating a new company dedicated to Rhapsody with the Internet in its blood just might build enough of a following to attract the promising new developers it desparately needs. Interestingly enough, the recent Japan Mac Developers Conference just held in Tokyo, drew a larger audience than last year despite the last minute cancellation of Avi Tevanian as the keynote speaker. So in Apple's largest market outside of the U.S. there still is support amongst developers. But how long can this last?
Like another reader, I respectfully disagree. And the comparison I would use is not to Windows95 and NT but to Apple's nearly singular achievement in the past decade: the dual processor strategy. Not only has it demonstrated Apple's ability to pull something like this off, and to pull it off successfully, it also showed that developers were very receptive to moving to the new platform given enough benefits. It was even quite surprising how many developers gave up the majority of the Mac market to gain minor speed improvements by writing PowerPC-only apps (hey, my 33 mhz 68040 is still chugging away without PointCast, FrontPage, Fusion, BackWeb, etc.).
From: Patrick.Breitenbach@aexp.com (Patrick Breitenbach);
Sent at 7/15/97; 4:23:17 PM;
Re:ChoicesFree technical advice to the next Apple CEO from an old OS and systems guy.
From: dpreed@reed.com (David P. Reed);
Sent at 7/15/97; 5:55:03 PM;
Re:ChoicesIt's not a totally original idea with me, but the real opportunity for a new CEO may be to ask the more difficult question, "why does the Mac customer need an OS at all?"
OS's are a legacy concept. What Apple needs is a great UI for the '90's. The 'net needs a great UI. The great GUI Multitasking OS in the sky does nothing to make the 'net be everything it can be.
The UI is not just a pretty picture built with a toolbox API - it's everything the user looks at and touches and feels.
Make the experience of communicating and collaborating fun and powerful for the user. Ship great hardware experience and great software experience. Leave to Gates and Grove the pain of managing an herd of third party vendors to deliver a 'platform', and play a different and potentially better game by your own rules.
To do this on the cheap you need an architect/artist, not a management guru. But I'm convinced that it _can_ be done, and the loyal Mac customers would stay the course. If you buy into MS's game, you confirm that you've tossed in the towel.
What makes people think that the existing MacOS will be so easy to update to "modern" architectural standards such as protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking and real SMP? Why is everyone so down on Rhapsody? To make a modern OS, it seems the history of the industry has clearly indicated that it is easier to start fresh and incorporate some level of backwards compatibility than it is to tweak an existing OS. Microsoft did this with NT, rather than keep upgrading Windows3.1, and Win16 compatibility is only through VDM's or WOW, which are slow virtual machines. Rhapsody (as currently described) will provide a much better (performance-wise, and likely application-level-wise also) compatibility environment with its hosted System7/8 environment. Windows programmers had to switch from Win16 to Win32 API's, note that Win16 API's are not supported natively anymore. How is this different that a switch from the System7 API to the OpenStep API?
From: ted.oliver@asu.edu> (Ted Oliver);
Sent at 7/15/97; 2:15:50 PM;
Re:ChoicesAt least by all accounts the OpenStep/Yellow Box API is developer-friendly, supposedly offering rapid and easy development. If the argument is that with the Mac's minimal market share and highly uncertain future, Apple shouldn't expect developers to learn a new API, then I think people have already decided to go to Win32, since (IMHO) the System7/8 API is not a realistic option for a modern OS. In what way would Apple pushing a System7/8 only solution address the performance and stability limitations of the existing OS? It seems to me the last attempt to modernize the core features without breaking the System 7/8 API was an ill-fated little project known as Copland - and we all know what happened to that.
I do agree, however, that Apple needs to split up, at least into hardware and software divisions. But Rhapsody is their best shot at future growth - and if it does run MacOS 7/8 in its "blue box", what difference does it make to us users, who can upgrade to a modern OS at our own speed? Rhapsody is the short route to modern OS features, with a number of perks (development time, unix roots, cross-platform, API-layer-over-other-OS's) that wouldn't be present even _if_ the technological hurdles to modernizing System 7/8 without breaking old apps could somehow be overcome.
I read the Mackido piece. And I've been reading DaveNet for quite awhile now. (Like so many others, scripting.com has become my browser's home page.) He doesn't like your attitude, I guess. Whatever.
From: mmcavoy@ix.netcom.com (Michael McAvoy);
Sent at 7/15/97; 4:54:14 PM;
Re:Response to MackidoIt would have been great for you to have made a lot of money from Frontier, but it didn't work out that way. Instead, you chose to give it away; now it's more popular than ever, with a whole growing community who use Frontier as their own Mac's command post. There is nothing like it.
You have dissed Apple a few times along the way, but this doesn't come across as an attitude problem. No, it comes across as tough love. The company that got me excited about computers--because they seemed to get it--lost their way. The company (as an institution) seems to have gone from Insanely Great to merely insane.
What the author of that article said about expecting Apple to consult with you before making decisions: I like that idea. You consistently spread the message of "Loosen up. Open it up. Let's have fun!" and meanwhile Apple has been crawling further into its own navel. It's not the specifics of your advice that really matters... it's the direction you're pointing. (Have you ever tried to point out something to a dog? Usually they just sit there with their foolish grins and stare at your finger.)
I use to really worry that Apple would fail, and that all the life and light would go out of the use of computers. But I don't really seem to care about that anymore (except for a touch of sentimentality). If Apple goes belly-up, maybe we will one day have to use Wintel or nothing. It doesn't matter. If you guys move over to that platform, I'm coming along too. It will be okay.
Cooool.
I think it'd be stupid for Apple to let the MacOS go and embrace NeXtStep (Rhapsody), but they may be that stupid. If so, your idea of a separate MacOS, Inc. may be able to save the MacOS from the Jobsocrats.
From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore);
Sent at 7/15/97; 12:10:27 PM;
Re:ChoicesThe MacOS clearly needs a focused development effort. It's been stagnant WAY too long, and Apple's internal developement process for the latest never-shipped MacOS was chaos (I hear they never bothered with unit testing, so when they put all the pieces together, nothing worked). There's way too much 1970's technology in there -- hand-coded 68k assember! Pascal interfaces! Segmentation! System traps that aren't just function calls! -- and not enough commonplace 1990's technology like memory protection, multiprocessor support, and working virtual memory. A new company -- whose survival depended on doing this quickly and right, and whose engineers were vesting real stock whose value depends on doing it right -- would have the best chance to do it. Nobody's getting rich at Apple any more. If you offered some senior Mac-savvy engineers a few million each if they fix the MacOS, or a lot of work for nothing if they fail, what would they do?
Mix in a few senior engineers who never heard of the Mac and haven't drunk any of the Kool-Aid. The MacOS needs some critical eyes run over it to ferret out the underlying bad and obsolete assumptions.
I respectfully disagree re: "freeing" MacOS from Apple.
From: cpr@emsoftware.com (Chris Ryland);
Sent at 7/15/97; 2:23:59 PM;
splitting up AppleMicrosoft can handle Win 95 and Win NT development in parallel (though the 95 team has been "assimilated" into the NT team, which is the cause of much stress, I'm sure, as they used to be strident competitors internally).
Why can't Apple handle MacOS and Rhapsody development in parallel? MacOS shouldn't require hundreds of engineers--just enough to keep improving it slowly and making it work well in the Rhapsody environment as well as on its own. Maybe dozens of people (or even 100) are required, but if Apple can't afford that size of group for an important part of its near-term future, then it can't survive anyway.
I agree that focus is important for companies, but a large-ish company like Apple can afford several different product foci, even in R&D. Look at the imaging folks, as some pointed out--they're a successful, profitable business unit within Apple that's pretty much left alone to do good things.
Perhaps what Apple needs to do is to let the MacOS group work independently of the hardware group, in terms of licensing, etc. That's one of MS's keys to success: all their business units are independent fiefdoms that compete like little ventures in the larger maelstrom of MS as a whole--if they fail, they're shut down or subsumed; if they succeed, they add to the overall picture.
The person pulling the strings at Apple is the person who's been pulling the strings for the last twenty years, ever since he became the "designated adult" for the venture capital -- Mike Markkula.
From: argyll@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien);
Sent at 7/15/97; 10:05:23 AM;
Re:ChoicesJobs has as much power as Markkula is willing to give him -- and will snatch it away from him when his whim decides to.
This is the way it's *always* been at Apple, although it rarely gets covered. But it's always been Markkula's stock, and Markkula's Board. Which is how Jobs got exiled to the at-the-time low priority/low status Mac team, and how Jobs got booted from the company the first time, and how Sculley, Spindler, and Amelio each got hired and fired... etc.
Great change usually arrives at Apple when Jobs decides to come back and tell Markkula, "See? I *told* you you were wrong..." Which is how the Mac got developed in the first place, and why the NeXT deal went through.
Your mileage may vary... But I really think this is the great untold story of Apple.
Jobs will make this a Hobson's choice yet. It's his destiny.
From: ccline@sbforums.com (Craig Cline);
Sent at 7/15/97; 9:35:10 AM;
Re:ChoicesSomeone or something's got to die. I picture him as Kenneth Brannaugh's Hamlet, plotting and schemeing revenge against the ursurpers of his rightful destiny.
Good question you ask Dave...
From: dwiner@well.com (Dave Winer);
Sent at 9:21:50 AM;
Re:"I just wondered...."DaveNet is iherently modal. Lots of other things are important. But right now, for the moment, the focus is on what to do about the mess of the Mac.
The reason it's important is because a lot of people use Macs. I am one of them. I'm struggling with using Windows NT 4.0. I have applications that are important to me that only run on Macs.
As always, I enjoy your rants, and look forward to them.
From: carlick@poweragent.com (David Scott Carlick);
Sent at 7/15/97; 9:13:39 AM;
I just wondered....But as I was reflecting on today's, I began to wonder why you are so worried about the fate of Apple.
Is it nostalgia? (In this business, nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.) Is it because Apple's visual innovation helped you turn outlining into the entire presentation business, and become wealthy? Is it because you want an underdog, like rooting for the Chicago Cubs?
I was certainly a huge Apple fan way back when, in the 80s, but it seemed to me that the company quit paying attention, and I migrated to a company that did not.
As a user, (and not a technologist) I am delighted with Microsoft products, Netscape products, and applications from Act, Quicken, Eudora, and others. I point, I click, I use keyboard shortcuts, things happen. My computer (a Toshiba) is a marvel, and the software on it is, to me, magnificent.
What real role can Apple play moving forward, now that their first vision (personal computing) and second interpretation (wysiwyg, desktop lasers) have become industry standards, absent some new innovation? Chrysler had the minivan, not just Iacocca. (I bought one when it first came out. I thought it was so cute and friendly, I called it my Mac Truck.)
Aside from a lot of cleaning up and streamlining and marketing, where is Apple's big product or contribution?
It seems to me that underpinnings, like objects, etc. are just not big enough to get Apple back in the hunt.
Once again, you hit it right on the head.
From: me@telalink.net (Scott Weiss);
Sent at 7/15/97; 10:54:59 AM;
Choices (in Dying)Reading Choices today, and thinking back to Programmers (and Hendricks' "Conscious Loving") in May, I couldn't help but want to share with you the latest book I'm reading. "A Year to Live - How to Live This Year As If It Were Your Last", by Stephen Levine. Incidentally, I met Stephen recently - need I say it? He's a Mac person.
I believe that this process which all of us are writing about, suffering thru, and denying or accepting is,in so many different ways, so clearly like the experience of death each of us has (or resists) each day in our lives.
Like many of us, I've been consuming a ton of info about the situation in Cupertino. As usual, scripting.com is the starting point. No doubt, it's all very interesting. And yet, I've been pleasantly surprised at how little attachment I have to the outcome. Let's get on with it. Let's go. Let Go.
Sure seems like if there'd be a greater collective letting go, into the death(?) of Apple or the Mac, we could all go on living more fully. Easy to say, huh? There'll be so much more on the other side of this abyss we're all sucking ourselves into right now in this whole drama. Let's get to the other side together, and really allow this thing to open up.
And yeah, as always, let's have fun. Death doesn't have to be such a heavy load. Especially in this metaphorical computer-biz we tend to call life.