Agreed! The trashcan Mac Pro had the same design constraints, which were more egregious in a "pro" machine. The Cube failed because it was too expensive and had some build issues. The cracking lucite was a problem, as was the wonky temperature censor. Both of those issues could have been fixed, though. Unfortunately, it was also just too expensive and most people weren't willing to pay that much more simply for design, especially given some of the trade-offs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Biggest Hardware Flops of All Time
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They were bad ideas that got turned into good ideas years later.
Maybe not flops, but most (all?) of the Mac Classic models where just shadows of the models they replaced, for example SE/30 turned into Classic II that was just worse in almost every aspect.
Apple did a lot of questionable cost cutting in the 90's.
Apple did a lot of questionable cost cutting in the 90's.
Last edited:
I hated the old Macintosh computers. I think the only thing memorable about them was I learned how to play Oregon Trail in Elementary school. I had written off Apple for a long time until Itunes and the Ipod because of what I dealt with in schools.
Hardware wasn't that bad but there were just too many similar models. Mac OS Classic left a lot to be desired, no true multitasking and no memory protection.
I like the cube better than the Mac Studio design, which is simply a Mac Mini Stretch. It's a shame they won't use that design again.
One could also argue that the Mac IIfx was kind of a flop.
I think I have read that Apple shipped it with A/UX and tried to compete with the UNIX workstations from HP, Sun etc.
As a regular Mac it was just way too expensive and contained specialized hardware that Mac OS didn't take advantage of.
Also it was produced for only 2 years before the Quadras came and took over.
But It was a very nice machine and I appreciate the no holds barred approach Apple took and made the fastest computer they could.
I think I have read that Apple shipped it with A/UX and tried to compete with the UNIX workstations from HP, Sun etc.
As a regular Mac it was just way too expensive and contained specialized hardware that Mac OS didn't take advantage of.
Also it was produced for only 2 years before the Quadras came and took over.
But It was a very nice machine and I appreciate the no holds barred approach Apple took and made the fastest computer they could.
Last edited:
I remember trying the then brand new Newton at some Berlin trade show (IFA) back then. I had a super accurate and clear handwriting back then (think about like print) but it could not recognise it. They stopped the demo option at their booth soon after. The handwriting recognition did not work. I had experienced it.
Many people seem to think the round iMac mouse was bad. I liked It and used it all the time including for my only game flight simulator for rather complex flight manoeuvres.
Many people seem to think the round iMac mouse was bad. I liked It and used it all the time including for my only game flight simulator for rather complex flight manoeuvres.
I was going to list the Mac Portable, I had one of those, you forgot the Passive Matrix screen which was hard to see both in dim light and bright light, later versions had an Active Matrix screen. Apple's goal when they announced the Portable was that it had to be a Mac not a handicapped mac and it had to run 8 hours. I remember I took my Portable to Hawaii on vacation and trying to use it in coach on the plane, that did not work out so well and carrying it though the airport sucked I think I still have the divot in my shoulder that the strap left. One feature that was kind of cool though was you could move the trackball to the left side of the keyboard if you were a lefty.How about the Macintosh Portable? Started at $7300 for a 16 Mhz 68000, in 1989. Used a lead-acid battery (yes, like a car). Weighed 16 pounds.
And unlike the Cube, TAM, and MacTV, which at least looked kinda cool, the Portable looked like this:
I never used the hockey puck mouse, but from the way people talk about it, I'm surprised it's missing from this list.
In Apple’s eyes it’s innovation. Yes they could have done another boring tower for the professional market and that is what the MP is geared towards but the Cube was a prosumer machine and even though the TrashCan was marketed as a professional machine with price it was also a prosumer device a redux of the Cube.
These “failures” was related to Apple trying something different and to be compliant with industry while failing as industry did not change due to cost and Apple just lost interest considering the bigger cash cow was iPhone during that decade.
Apple sees the MP market as a hobby similar to AppleTV, it was not always this way it’s just that revenue and profits has a way of demanding attention and redirecting focus. It’s human nature to vest less energy and get a higher return than vest similar if not more energy for less return or loss.
Though ergonomic design was gaining momentum during the release of the OG iMac, Steve Jobs had to do something radical to standout from the crowd. Designing another mouse even though it was ergonomic would have taken away from the curious and unique factor of human nature to say oh that’s different and unusual to see and beautiful let’s purchase it for aesthetics more so than long time use.
You seem to forget Apple is a top rate marketing company first and then a device and computer maker followed by software and services.
In marketing material an ergonomic mouse blends into the background not representative of the radical AIO OG iMac with its friendly appearance and inviting capabilities.
It was translucent bondi blue and white plastic with a wire sticking out. Not sure what urinals with a deodorizing puck has a wire that you have come across.
It was meant to standout from the crowd regardless of ergonomics and it worked in marketing materials.
Want an ergonomic mouse you don’t have to use the included one.
It seems it was the connector that was the weak point and the design could have been unique but I expect nothing much as far as creative design from a budget PC manufacturer. This resembles a single tower though concept was creative without much thought.ACER did something like that and it is an ugly flop and every connection for each module is a potential point of mechanical and software failure.
They had a urinal cake that looked exactly like it when it came out in a few places in London.
You mention the two key problems with the mouse:
1. It was a design piece not a good mouse. If something doesn't fulfil the criteria of being usable for its intended use, which it definitely wasn't, then it's simply a complete failure and a bad design.
2. I expect the mouse that comes with something to be usable.
Whoever signed off the design should have been taken out into the street and whipped with the only good bit: the USB cable until they promised never to design such a hideous turd again. That didn't happen of course so look at the garbage we've had to put up with for years.
Just ffs make a mouse that:
1. Has a larger profile so you don't have to finger grip it only.
2. Doesn't have some stupid magic button system with no buttons leading to absolutely no determinism when there should be some.
3. Can be charged while it's being used.
It's not hard. the $3 mouse guys from China can do it. Apple needs to stop being clever here and produce something that is just boring dependable quality, like the 14" MBP.
The MagicMouse does not necessarily need a notch it could have used a SmartConnector similar to iPad Pro or MagSafe similar to iPhone or Mac laptops located either on the front rim or covering the entire bottom surface like a contoured plate design and still be usable. Think of it similar to a thinner AW puck magnetic charger or in this case a MagSafe Qi charger plate and the mouse is still usable unlike those other dock stand options.
They want you to buy a third party mouse if you don't want theirs 😝
The mouse was small for most hands, was not ergonomic for prolonged use but it looked great in marketing material and it was fine for light usage. I used it to basically rest a couple fingers on it and it was fine, resting the entire palm would have been problematic. I am not sure if it was people who were accustomed to cupping or resting the palm on it and didn’t know or had difficulty adapting it it was designed to rest a couple fingers on top of it with its single button use. The biggest flaw was not having a second button for contextual menus but that was Steve Jobs simplicity to the new user, children and elderly level of interaction.
Nothing stopping anyone from upgrading the mouse to multi button as many people I knew did for graphic design and video editing.
Last edited:
Some people have a hard time with this concept 😝
I always used a Logitech because I like to feel a wheel and like to have real buttons for Mission Control.
Keyboards have not been mentioned yet and the keyboard that came with the first iMac G3 sucked too. The Apple Extended ADB keyboard was probably their best 90s keyboard.
Apple Extended Keyboard - Wikipedia
Yeah I have always used a 3rd party mouse after discarding the crap that came with the Mac. Currently using a Logitech MX Master 3.
Just ship something that isn't horrible please Apple. It's like buying a Rolls Royce and finding the steering wheel is made of some welded together chain links with heat shrink over it.
I'm surprised they went with the puck mouse design. NeXT users liked to complain about the original NeXT "cat butt" mouse, but we longed for its return when NeXT switched to a round mouse. It was universally hated. I was really shocked when Jobs brought that horrible design to the Mac knowing how much the NeXT community despised it.