PDA

View Full Version : Sculley: Newton Laid the Groundwork for Today's Mobile Industry




MacRumors
Jan 13, 2012, 02:24 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/13/sculley-newton-laid-the-groundwork-for-the-todays-mobile-industry/)


In a wide-ranging interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16538745) with the BBC, former Apple CEO John Sculley was asked about Jobs killing off the Newton, and what he thought of the product in retrospect. Sculley admitted that the Newton was "clearly too ambitious" but nailed "many of the concepts."

Perhaps most importantly, Sculley points out that Apple had to develop a new type of microprocessor to power the Newton, co-founding a company called ARM Holdings. Processors based on those developed for the Newton now power most of the smartphones and tablets in the world.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/01/newtonipad.jpg

Well the facts are that we had to create a new microprocessor for the Newton as there was no low-powered microprocessor that could handle object orientated programming.

So when we were creating Newton we also co-founded a company called Arm.

Apple owned 47% of it, Olivetti owned 47% and the founder Hermann Hauser owned the rest.

Arm not only was the key technology behind the Newton but it eventually became the key technology behind every mobile device in the world today including the iPhone and the iPad.Sculley is clearly proud of the fact that even though the Newton failed, the technology behind it succeeded.

In the interview, Sculley also discusses (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16538745) Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, which he says he hasn't read; his and Jobs' relationship; what he's up to these days, including a large investment in social health company Audax Health (http://audaxhealth.com/); and what he thinks of a possible Apple television.

(Image courtesy Flickr/Ivan Bandura (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mac_ivan/4679802421/))

Article Link: Sculley: Newton Laid the Groundwork for Today's Mobile Industry (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/13/sculley-newton-laid-the-groundwork-for-the-todays-mobile-industry/)



Torrijos
Jan 13, 2012, 02:31 PM
Had Sculley let Jobs push Apple towards a mainstream consumer market, instead of the business crowd he favored, only god knows what world we would be living in right now.

Newton was great for its time (it even managed to read my horrible scribbles) but the state of the company was so dire that Apple had to renounce the project and worst still sell its huge shares of ARM. (imagine if Apple still possessed 47% of ARM for the iPod revolution and the subsequent iPhone one!)

Lesser Evets
Jan 13, 2012, 02:34 PM
ABSOLUTELY.

I'm not sure how much of the Newton and its business plan was taken by Jobs, but the Newton was clearly a very advanced device. It just never had a chance because of the tech at the time. Similar to the Mac: it was an idea a decade or more before its time.

Jobs' and Sculley's eras at Apple were both fantastic, but they lacked a more sensational approach to froth a consumer base the way Jobs did after he returned. Newton would have succeeded if it was as touted as the iPod was in 2001/2.

cohibadad
Jan 13, 2012, 02:37 PM
Sculley was a horrible choice by Steve and it nearly killed Apple but in the end it taught Apple and Steve an invaluable lesson. As for whatever Sculley has to say today, /yawn. He should've stuck with selling sugar water.

soco
Jan 13, 2012, 02:45 PM
Sculley was a horrible choice by Steve and it nearly killed Apple but in the end it taught Apple and Steve an invaluable lesson. As for whatever Sculley has to say today, /yawn. He should've stuck with selling sugar water.
I was confused after the first 12 words of what you said, then I got to the "but" and was relieved. And that's the whole point. A lot of what Steve did was terrible. He was riddled with fault and poor choices, but it's one of those patterns that wound up ending on a positive.

Perfectly imperfect.

glutenenvy
Jan 13, 2012, 02:48 PM
If the Newton had apps like iPhone/iPad/iPod has apps it would have had a chance to survive. Any tech is too quickly seen as junk if nothing new is available to update it.

nagromme
Jan 13, 2012, 02:54 PM
Certainly: there are many stepping stones on the road to iOS (and other companies’ answers to iOS) and the Newton was a big one! It wasn’t the first tablet computer, but I believe it wad the first mainstream one, and certainly the first “good one.” Ahead of its time, and too much money for me, but it was neat.

johncrab
Jan 13, 2012, 03:03 PM
The Newton may very well have been ahead of its time and may be the forbear of iPhone and iPad but this is just a cheap ploy by Sculley to make himself look like not so big of a jerk. He is responsible for transforming Apple into an expensive toy company and nearly sinking it and I really don't want to hear anything he has to say.

RodThePlod
Jan 13, 2012, 03:40 PM
If the Newton had apps like iPhone/iPad/iPod has apps it would have had a chance to survive. Any tech is too quickly seen as junk if nothing new is available to update it.

Newton did have apps like the iPhone/iPad/iPod! Granted, the whole end-to-end ecosystem wasn't there, or the ease of getting everything from an App Store, but there was a burgeoning developer community that supported Newton as well as the other PDAs of the 90s. (I fondly remember the many long hours I spent struggling with NewtonScript at the time :D)

In fact some of those Newton devs have grown-up into iOS devs...

RTP.

baloo1986
Jan 13, 2012, 03:56 PM
Had Sculley let Jobs push Apple towards a mainstream consumer market, instead of the business crowd he favored, only god knows what world we would be living in right now.

Newton was great for its time (it even managed to read my horrible scribbles) but the state of the company was so dire that Apple had to renounce the project and worst still sell its huge shares of ARM. (imagine if Apple still possessed 47% of ARM for the iPod revolution and the subsequent iPhone one!)

Android would be dead.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 13, 2012, 04:21 PM
Had Sculley let Jobs push Apple towards a mainstream consumer market, instead of the business crowd he favored, only god knows what world we would be living in right now.

Newton was great for its time (it even managed to read my horrible scribbles) but the state of the company was so dire that Apple had to renounce the project and worst still sell its huge shares of ARM. (imagine if Apple still possessed 47% of ARM for the iPod revolution and the subsequent iPhone one!)

I think it would be no were close to where it is today. Part of the reason ARM is so great is the fact that everyone can use it. Remember Apple does not have share very well with others and would not of let ARM get out in the open for others to improve on it.
Sculley was a horrible choice by Steve and it nearly killed Apple but in the end it taught Apple and Steve an invaluable lesson. As for whatever Sculley has to say today, /yawn. He should've stuck with selling sugar water.

In many ways Sculley saved Apple from Steve Jobs. If it was not for Sculley Apple would of died a long time again. Remember even Steve Jobs said if he was not fired from Apple he (Steve Jobs) would of caused it to go under. It forced Jobs to grow up and become better.

Sculley in many ways saved Apple by firing Steve Jobs and forcing Jobs to grow up.

george-brooks
Jan 13, 2012, 04:30 PM
I think Sculley is trying to take credit where credit isn't due.

Kaibelf
Jan 13, 2012, 05:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Sculley.

IzzyJG99
Jan 13, 2012, 05:02 PM
I viewed the Newton as too ahead for it's time. It was a proof of concept, though. That it could be done and could have the potential to work.

coder12
Jan 13, 2012, 05:14 PM
The Newton had a beautiful logo, I love it! The iPad doesn't have an emblem really; not that it needs one.

http://www.goodlogo.com/images/logos/apple_newton_logo_2576.gif

tyche
Jan 13, 2012, 05:19 PM
Sculley was a horrible choice by Steve and it nearly killed Apple but in the end it taught Apple and Steve an invaluable lesson. As for whatever Sculley has to say today, /yawn. He should've stuck with selling sugar water.

Think on this. Jobs wanted the Apple ][ line dead and immediately. He was fully prepared to kill it off and only wanted to focus on the Mac line. You know Jobs, out with the old and in with the new and damn the consequences.

It was Sculley who paid attention to what was keeping Apple afloat (Apple ][ sales) and supprted that cash cow until it finally wasn't viable. By then, 5-6 years later the Mac line was finally bringing in the money. If Jobs would have stayed it's quite possible Apple would have died. Sculley kept things running quite well it was the other CEO's that nearly ruined them.

I kow everyone wants to think Jobs was perfect but he failed at Apple, at NeXt, and at Pixar (selling hardware / software) - he got saved when their shorts and movies became huge hits. It wasnt until his return to Apple where he stuck lightning.

Anyway Sculley get too much of a bad rap. He's not histories greatest monster.

NutsNGum
Jan 13, 2012, 05:46 PM
<snip>

nylonsteel
Jan 13, 2012, 08:23 PM
re original article

funny & interesting about fate

steve "hired the wrong guy"

he then reinvents himself at next

then its the second coming of steve back ay aapl

and now look at where aapl stands

cubist
Jan 13, 2012, 08:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

I loved my 2100, but it couldn't sync with anything reliably. Yes, I tried newtsync.

Bob555
Jan 13, 2012, 11:16 PM
I sensed when Steve cancelled the Newton, or else it was expressed in circles, was that apple had a strategy, and it passed right through Newton.
In essense, continuing with Newton would have made a shambles of their mobile computing strategy of getting 15 years ahead of the competition and making a mobile computing hardware strategy that no one could follow.
They are at the cutting edge now, I think that with the patent lawsuit and what they have in the wings, the competition will always be behind the curve, and fall further and further back.
If apple had tried to ride forward with the Newton, competition would have eaten their lunch every time.
Instead apple has built a strategy and did not come out with it, which they would have had to if they had continued to innovate with the Newton.

That's why they had to cut from the Newton. If they had Newtons law of what goes up has to come down would have been seen in spades.
Now what apple puts up, keeps going up and up and up.
That's what Steve wanted. For apple to never come out with something others will copy without having a strategy that puts them above whatever the competition does to copy them.
I think we will all see this in spades more and more, with a family of devices and electronics interconnected in ways the competition cannot match, and always being way ahead of the competition as they innovate.

Benjamins
Jan 13, 2012, 11:31 PM
Newton was years ahead of it's time.

I'll always treasure my Newton 2100.

----------

I think Sculley is trying to take credit where credit isn't due.

say what you like about Sculley, but he did lead Apple to spearhead the PDA/Tablet market.

Macman45
Jan 13, 2012, 11:36 PM
Boy does this article take me back. I remember the Newton, it's now on my list of collectable Apple products to obtain. The ARM technology is the key here, but as posted above I suspect that had Apple been more organised, the Newton may well have continued and evolved.

It's legacy is still here for us all to enjoy in other products.

Bob555
Jan 13, 2012, 11:44 PM
Newton was years ahead of it's time.

I'll always treasure my Newton 2100.

----------



say what you like about Sculley, but he did lead Apple to spearhead the PDA/Tablet market.

I think your right. It was a little like apples team on the macintosh before steve jobs discovered it.
It showed that this was clearly the way apple should innovate and the quality of the newton was the 'apple way'.
It was a bit of genius like the macintosh idea and team had and Steve knew it was the way to go.
It only got cancelled because Apples strategy was to come out with things the competition could compete with in very short order and at a cheaper price, with quality close enough.
The lack of that vision and foresight by Scully lead to products that were beginning to be inferior to the competition to meet them on price.
Apple can't get by like that and Steve knew it.

Feel good about that nothing the newton ever could have been will equal the pdas apple will produce now, thanks to waiting and setting it up right.
Scully saw what the future was, but did not know how to successfully bring it about, Steve Jobs saw it to with Scullys input, but he knew how to pull it off.
And apple will be forever and in spades.
They will simply innovate, making the competition jealous and try to copy, and never let it out unless their is a strategy that makes the competition inferior regardless of what they try having several moves, to unlimited moves, of the chess board down

mrsir2009
Jan 14, 2012, 02:54 AM
Man, I never realized how big the Newton is :eek:

http://www.gadgetspage.com/wp-content/uploads/newton-iphone.jpg

thewitt
Jan 14, 2012, 03:23 AM
Newton was very interesting at the time, though it had significant challenges. I still have one, with every accessory made...

Sculley was a cancer at Apple. He was a horrible CEO at that semiconductor company he ran as well...

iMacC2D
Jan 14, 2012, 03:53 AM
Sculley was a cancer at Apple. He was a horrible CEO at that semiconductor company he ran as well...

Unless there's something I don't know about John Sculley, I don't believe we was the CEO of any semiconductor company. Unless of course you mean Gil Amelio, who was the CEO of National Semiconductor prior to taking over at Apple, however I don't honestly believe Gil Amelio did a bad job considering the position Apple was in as the time.

John Sculley (1983) --> Michael Spindler (1993) --> Gil Amelio (1996) --> Steve Jobs (1997) --> Tim Cook (2011)

thewitt
Jan 14, 2012, 04:41 AM
Sorry you are correct, I was thinking of Amelio...

archipellago
Jan 14, 2012, 08:04 AM
Scully didn't fire jobs...

He got him demoted and then jobs resigned.

Kaibelf
Jan 14, 2012, 10:02 AM
Scully didn't fire jobs...

He got him demoted and then jobs resigned.

They forced him out, plain and simple. Put all the lipstick you want on that one, but it's still a pig.

q64ceo
Jan 14, 2012, 10:14 AM
Sorry Sculley, but Al Gore's claims that he invented the Internet has more factual basis in reality

OJB
Jan 14, 2012, 03:17 PM
I still have a working Newton (a least it worked last time I checked). They really were so far ahead of their time when they were introduced: not just the hardware but the object oriented OS as well. They were just becoming useful (better handwriting recognition, better speed, etc) when Steve Jobs killed the project. A pity in some ways, although today's technology (iPhone, iPad) is, of course, so much better.

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 14, 2012, 03:33 PM
Sculley: Newton Laid the Groundwork for the Today's Mobile Industry

Short version:
Sculley thinks he and/or Apple represents and/or represented the PDA-industry.

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 14, 2012, 03:43 PM
say what you like about Sculley, but he did lead Apple to spearhead the PDA/Tablet market.

Palm, HP & others produced many successful PDAs, before Apple created the iPhone, iPod touch and the iPad.

The Newton was like the Lisa-a failure. Apple learned a lot, and replaced other interfaces with the touchscreen.

darkplanets
Jan 14, 2012, 05:52 PM
The most important thing about the Newton wasn't the product itself-- it was the creation of ARM holdings.

I don't think people give Apple credit for ARM-- without their stake, however, it's likely that today's mobile landscape could be quite different.

MacAddict1978
Jan 15, 2012, 01:40 AM
ABSOLUTELY.

I'm not sure how much of the Newton and its business plan was taken by Jobs, but the Newton was clearly a very advanced device. It just never had a chance because of the tech at the time. Similar to the Mac: it was an idea a decade or more before its time.

Jobs' and Sculley's eras at Apple were both fantastic, but they lacked a more sensational approach to froth a consumer base the way Jobs did after he returned. Newton would have succeeded if it was as touted as the iPod was in 2001/2.

The Newton was exactly a decade too soon. It was just months after it was put to death that Palm came out with the Palm Pilot. They often get the credit for the concept, but it totally wasn't Palm.

The Newton's biggest obstacle was how expensive it was, and in those days there was no such thing as cross compatibility like there is today. Any syncing of data was platform dependent... and that you can blame on Scully with ease. He totally took Apple in the wrong direction.

I don't think the Newton would have succeeded the way the iPod did with any amount of hype though. Again, things were different then. The iPod was also a device the had mass appeal... the Newton was seen as an Apple device with people relating it to Apple computers they didn't own or use. Don't forget, Apple's marketshare went down the crapper in the Newton years. When Jobs came back to Apple, they were literally fighting for their lives. They couldn't afford to invest a dollar in anything that wouldn't show some kind of return. If the iMac hadn't been a hit, there would most likely not be an Apple Inc. today.

If the Newton had apps like iPhone/iPad/iPod has apps it would have had a chance to survive. Any tech is too quickly seen as junk if nothing new is available to update it.

You must be young, because this "I just got it yesterday, but now I want something new" mentality is a recent concept. The Newton was in a time when platforms and OS-es could go years without anything "new." If you didn't grow up with saturday morning cartoons, then you're definitely that new generation, which makes me feel old to say.

There weren't even game boys in this time (they came years later). Hand held games were huge and played....1 very bad game. Totally different world.

----------

Scully didn't fire jobs...

He got him demoted and then jobs resigned.

No, they fired Jobs. Don't sugar coat it. It would be like telling the founder of a company you're going to work in the mail room now. You're not doing anything of what you did, and they know you're not going to stand for it.

It's done every day. Welcome to how corporate america fires people in cowardice.

tbrinkma
Jan 15, 2012, 01:58 AM
Newton was years ahead of it's time.

QFT.

Back when the PalmPilot, with it's 16MHz processor, was brand new the Newton had a processor on par with what we saw later with the first generation of Microsoft PocketPC PDAs with color displays. It's almost scary just how much processing power the Newton had in comparison with anything else it competed with. Unfortunately, all the really great hardware features the Newton had, which made them so powerful and flexible, also made them *very* expensive. That's why the Newton 'failed'. Up against a PDA which inexpensive enough to be an impulse purchase for business people, it cost almost as much as an entry-level laptop.

It didn't help that Palm (at the time) was still doing things right with regard to PalmOS. They kept things bare-bones and minimalist in order to run on that 16MHz processor, and focused on providing a clean interface (minimizing 'taps' to get anything done).

The Man
Jan 15, 2012, 06:24 AM
Why is everyone forgetting Spindler? Scully? Yeah, he just wanted to sell lots of the same, like Pepsi. He was too focussed on the moneymaker Apple II. Scully was no visionary. But Spindler did not change anything right in the 3 years he was there. No, he let Apple slip further and further.

Ca$hflow
Jan 15, 2012, 08:03 AM
I think it would be no were close to where it is today. Part of the reason ARM is so great is the fact that everyone can use it. Remember Apple does not have share very well with others and would not of let ARM get out in the open for others to improve on it.


In many ways Sculley saved Apple from Steve Jobs. If it was not for Sculley Apple would of died a long time again. Remember even Steve Jobs said if he was not fired from Apple he (Steve Jobs) would of caused it to go under. It forced Jobs to grow up and become better.

Sculley in many ways saved Apple by firing Steve Jobs and forcing Jobs to grow up.

I think this is can't be any closer to the truth. Steve has mentioned that he needed the medicine of getting fired.

*LTD*
Jan 15, 2012, 10:55 AM
In many ways Sculley saved Apple from Steve Jobs. If it was not for Sculley Apple would of died a long time again. Remember even Steve Jobs said if he was not fired from Apple he (Steve Jobs) would of caused it to go under. It forced Jobs to grow up and become better.

Sculley in many ways saved Apple by firing Steve Jobs and forcing Jobs to grow up.

This is quite true.

rdowns
Jan 15, 2012, 11:01 AM
In many ways Sculley saved Apple from Steve Jobs. If it was not for Sculley Apple would of died a long time again. Remember even Steve Jobs said if he was not fired from Apple he (Steve Jobs) would of caused it to go under. It forced Jobs to grow up and become better.

Sculley in many ways saved Apple by firing Steve Jobs and forcing Jobs to grow up.

This is quite true.


Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

tyche
Jan 15, 2012, 11:38 AM
The Newton's biggest obstacle was how expensive it was, and in those days there was no such thing as cross compatibility like there is today. Any syncing of data was platform dependent... and that you can blame on Scully with ease. He totally took Apple in the wrong direction.

Keep in mind back in the 70-90s the big players all did this. It was the style at the time. Lock in the customer from end to end. IBM (microchannel hardware, OS/2), Digitial (VAX, vms, PathWorks), MS (DOS, Windows), Apple (hardware, OS). No one wanted to open up except maybe Novell since they didn't sell hardware. It took customers screaming for it to happen. Sculley was doing what everyone was so you can say he screwed up but so did everyone.

Even when Jobs was back and iTunes came out, it was a vehicle to lock in Mac sales. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow a Windows version. Only then, when the dump trucks full of money started arriving, did he and others see the benefit of cross platform. That and the web explosion which made the desktop mostly irrelevant.

Sadly, we're going right back to lock in once again. Phones locked down, 'App stores' lock in (Even MS is going hardball with Windows ARM), basically controlled ecosystems. This time though, people are embracing it and see it's a good thing that device A only talks to software A all controlled by the vendors.

Setmose
Jan 15, 2012, 11:40 AM
Newton got it's handwriting recognition concept from PenPoint OS, from GO Corporation. GO and Apple failed, Palm learned the lessons and constrained the handwriting recognition to 1-letter at a time. Both EO 880 and Newton were harware constrained -- the object-oriented classes just had too much overhead. GO Corporation invented its own class manager on top of C, as C++ hadn't yet taken off. Newton and EO 880 had great technology -- definately ahead of their time. :apple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EO_Personal_Communicator

pullfocus
Jan 15, 2012, 11:45 AM
Sculley did a lot of things wrong with Apple at the time, but then again, so did Steve. Would Apple be the company it is now had things not turned out the way they did? Who can say? Probably not, but hindsight is always 20/20.

iSee
Jan 15, 2012, 04:40 PM
ABSOLUTELY.

I'm not sure how much of the Newton and its business plan was taken by Jobs, but the Newton was clearly a very advanced device. It just never had a chance because of the tech at the time. Similar to the Mac: it was an idea a decade or more before its time. ...


I disagree strongly that that Mac was ahead of its time in the same sense as the newton.

The newton was ahead of its time in the sense that even the bleeding edge of technology of the time did not well support the goals of the device

The original Mac worked very well. The graphical UI was a revelation. WYSIWYG word processor was a revelation. And it all worked well -- much better than anything that had come before. The Newton was great when it worked but it didn't work nearly often enough.

----------

Short version:
Sculley thinks he and/or Apple represents and/or represented the PDA-industry.

Too bad you didn't bother to read the article. You would have seen that he was referring to the creation of the ARM platform.

I agree that Scully can't claim responsibility for the success of ARM, but certainly his support was necessary for the birth of it. He helped lead the create of a great technology. (It happened not to be the Newton, but instead a real-world RISC processor.)

MattInOz
Jan 15, 2012, 05:48 PM
QFT.

Back when the PalmPilot, with it's 16MHz processor, was brand new the Newton had a processor on par with what we saw later with the first generation of Microsoft PocketPC PDAs with color displays. It's almost scary just how much processing power the Newton had in comparison with anything else it competed with. Unfortunately, all the really great hardware features the Newton had, which made them so powerful and flexible, also made them *very* expensive. That's why the Newton 'failed'. Up against a PDA which inexpensive enough to be an impulse purchase for business people, it cost almost as much as an entry-level laptop.

It didn't help that Palm (at the time) was still doing things right with regard to PalmOS. They kept things bare-bones and minimalist in order to run on that 16MHz processor, and focused on providing a clean interface (minimizing 'taps' to get anything done).

In many ways Newton vs Palm was a replay of the Lisa vs Mac. On one hand you target business which is generally highly conservative. On the other you go barebones keep the price down and general market appeal high. Enough people are progressive and about to use tech to help them get their work done that you can slide in the backdoor of the business via pockets and brief cases.

Then with NeXT Steve took a punt at the LISA/Newton Business model of targeting the organisation more than the people. Mac OS X basically the same system except targetted with it's design ethos at the general people, including getting itself in to the back packs of the college kids.

With iOS Apple's business plan has been clear from Day One. It's a system for People, if the People make it useful in business then that is a good thing but the business demand comes from the staff up.

AppleHater
Jan 15, 2012, 07:33 PM
In many ways Sculley saved Apple from Steve Jobs. If it was not for Sculley Apple would of died a long time again. Remember even Steve Jobs said if he was not fired from Apple he (Steve Jobs) would of caused it to go under. It forced Jobs to grow up and become better.

Sculley in many ways saved Apple by firing Steve Jobs and forcing Jobs to grow up.

I'm willing to give him more credit if he planed all these himself. As far as I know, he didn't. It's just a by product of how things turned out to be. I don't see any intend there.

jaw04005
Jan 15, 2012, 10:29 PM
Remember even Steve Jobs said if he was not fired from Apple he (Steve Jobs) would of caused it to go under.

He never said he would have caused Apple to go under.

"I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life."

Big difference.

rmwebs
Jan 16, 2012, 03:55 AM
Android would be dead.

How the heck did you get to that conclusion :confused:

Even if Apple owned 40 odd percent of AMD, you dont seriously thing that would stop other companies using the ARM architecture do you? Learn basic business sense for your own good buddy. Android would still have existed, as would Blackberry, WP7 and every single other ARM based device.

Apple still co-own a lot of rights on the PowerPC architecture, did that stop Microsoft using it for the XBox 360? No.

goosnarrggh
Jan 16, 2012, 08:41 AM
How the heck did you get to that conclusion :confused:

Even if Apple owned 40 odd percent of AMD, you dont seriously thing that would stop other companies using the ARM architecture do you? Learn basic business sense for your own good buddy. Android would still have existed, as would Blackberry, WP7 and every single other ARM based device.

Apple still co-own a lot of rights on the PowerPC architecture, did that stop Microsoft using it for the XBox 360? No.
Heck... back in 1994/1995 when Apple was still heavily invested in PowerPC for its own in-house purposes, Apple's partial ownership of the PowerPC architecture didn't stop Microsoft from targeting PowerPC in Windows NT 3.51.

baloo1986
Jan 16, 2012, 08:42 AM
How the heck did you get to that conclusion :confused:

Even if Apple owned 40 odd percent of AMD, you dont seriously thing that would stop other companies using the ARM architecture do you? Learn basic business sense for your own good buddy. Android would still have existed, as would Blackberry, WP7 and every single other ARM based device.

Apple still co-own a lot of rights on the PowerPC architecture, did that stop Microsoft using it for the XBox 360? No.

Because if Apple still owned 47% they would have had a lot of influence on how ARM licensed their technology. Back when XBox 360 came out Apple wasn't concerned with console gaming (still isn't) that in tern was just more money in the pocket of the company they helped start. As for Android most of their phones if not all run on ARM processors as do most mobile phones now and as Steve was ready to "go thermonuclear war" on Google he would have used his influence with ARM as a weapon against Android. I think that's pretty good business sense.

ctdonath
Jan 16, 2012, 10:33 AM
Newton was years ahead of it's time.

Upon introduction, everyone knew instantly what it should have been - and it made a laudable attempt to fulfill that expectation. Everyone looked at it and expected the iPad with breathless enthusiasm (hey, I bought two Newtons). Alas, the coarse B&W LCD was an inadequate display, the computing power while awesome for the time wasn't enough for the obvious usage demands, it lacked wireless connectivity to a then-inadequate Internet, the user input suffered too great a delay and error rate, and the total mass was just too big/heavy. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts - and the parts insufficiently served that whole. Like a child aching to run races but unable to coordinate his feet, the concept was captured but a decade of growth was required.

Egg freckles!

Consultant
Jan 16, 2012, 11:34 AM
Sculley did a lot of things wrong with Apple at the time, but then again, so did Steve. Would Apple be the company it is now had things not turned out the way they did? Who can say? Probably not, but hindsight is always 20/20.

without Steve's Pixar experience and NeXT technology, Apple would not be the same

rmwebs
Jan 16, 2012, 01:03 PM
Because if Apple still owned 47% they would have had a lot of influence on how ARM licensed their technology. Back when XBox 360 came out Apple wasn't concerned with console gaming (still isn't) that in tern was just more money in the pocket of the company they helped start. As for Android most of their phones if not all run on ARM processors as do most mobile phones now and as Steve was ready to "go thermonuclear war" on Google he would have used his influence with ARM as a weapon against Android. I think that's pretty good business sense.

You dont get it. Even if Apple owned 47% of ARM, they wouldn't be able to stop its usage.

McGiord
Jan 16, 2012, 05:27 PM
Everything is connected:
- Xerox PARC Alto OS -> Lisa OS -> Mac OS -> NeXT -> Mac OS X -> iPhone OS -> iOS
- Microsoft contract with Apple to develop software for the Mac ->Word, Excel and PowerPoint -> Office -> Windows success for businesses
- Graffiti -> Solved Apple Newton handwritten recognition difficulties
- Graffiti -> Palm OS main key feature -> Handspring -> Treo -> Smartphones
- ARM processor -> Many of today's mobile devices and smartphones

Palm OS devices were the best out there in the late 90s, Apple took their time to make it way better, at the end they hit not one but many Home Runs!

I am grateful for all the great technology that is out there and how good and accessible it is nowadays.

Anyway, if this guy was the real man behind of some of the things he claims, well let him enjoy a few minutes of showtime, if he is full of BS, then let's just say that he gives us a discussion topic.

kdarling
Jan 16, 2012, 09:15 PM
There have been plenty of microprocessors in the past; there will be plenty more in the future.

If the ARM had not become popular, then everyone would be using Motorola or some other brand.

Especially in the case where all the apps are written in Java, the CPU can be almost anything.

WickedMessenger
Jan 17, 2012, 08:25 AM
The Newton had a beautiful logo.

Image (http://www.goodlogo.com/images/logos/apple_newton_logo_2576.gif)

"Keep a clear head and always carry a light bulb" - Bob Dylan, 1966

hchung
Jan 17, 2012, 02:42 PM
Newton got it's handwriting recognition concept from PenPoint OS, from GO Corporation. GO and Apple failed, Palm learned the lessons and constrained the handwriting recognition to 1-letter at a time. Both EO 880 and Newton were harware constrained -- the object-oriented classes just had too much overhead. GO Corporation invented its own class manager on top of C, as C++ hadn't yet taken off. Newton and EO 880 had great technology -- definately ahead of their time. :apple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EO_Personal_Communicator

The EO was one of the first tablets released with handwriting recognition, but the recognizer wasn't developed by GO. (IBM for printed if I recall correctly and Lexicus)
Likewise, the Newton's recognizer (for NI1) wasn't developed by Apple either. (Paragraph)
Both recognizers were licensed from other companies, so seems hard to say "Newton got it's handwriting recognition concept from PenPoint OS, from GO Corporation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwriting_recognition

But yeah, these two devices were definitely ahead of their time.