Is history repeating itself?

[zhtfreak]

I'm a millennial, so was too young when home computers started to get popular in the 80s, but I'm always curious about history and how we got here.

All these threads on MR and Reddit comparing things like the Neo to an iPad, or all the people who want Apple to just put MacOS on the iPad already, make me wonder: Was there similar debate between the Apple II and the early Macintoshes? If MR had been around in the mid 80s, would you have seen a thread title like:

"Apple IIGS, huge slap in the face to macintosh 512k owners!" or vice versa?

I think some of the later Apple II's like the GS could use a mouse, so wouldn't that be similar to early macs and their GUI? I just wonder if that was anything like how now you have MacBooks and iPads, and Apple positions them as two different products for different purposes. Yes, the cynical take is that Apple wants to sell you two devices instead of one for that sweet, sweet profit.

If Apple was like that back then too, computers were a lot more expensive then, so people couldn't just plunk down for both an Apple II and a mac.

I'm just curious if we've been here before.

 

[m1maverick]

In a way we've seen something similar to this when it came to CLI versus GUI, at least in the PC space. Many people, including industry experts, downplayed the GUI for the CLI. Of course there were those who instantly recognized the value of the GUI.

In the old days these kinds of debates occurred in news groups. If you're interested Google archived these groups at groups.google.com Search for the "comp.sys.mac.advocacy" group to find a lot of lively discussion. In the early days (early 90s) there was some good discussion but in the latter days, basically after the web took over and the news groups began to falter, degenerated into essentially name calling.

 

[JaZzMaN251]

I always think back to when Steve Jobs broke down hundreds of Apple products into a simple, easy to understand 2x2 grid.
Everytime I see an extra branch of products gets launched, I wonder if the fragmentation is really necessary.
People get confused in what to buy because some features simply overlap...

You can check out the video of what I talk about here:

 

[maflynn]

"Apple IIGS, huge slap in the face to macintosh 512k owners!" or vice versa?

I don't see the connection with the neo.

The Apple IIGS was a completely different platform then the Macintosh.

The Neo is a budget friendly computer, its no different then a MBA, just less capable.

 

[JMalone]

"Apple IIGS, huge slap in the face to macintosh 512k owners!"

These didn’t run the same apps and used a different system. People who liked the Mac didn’t care for the Apple II no matter what the hardware spec was.

 

[PaulD-UK]

@zhtfreak
Apple users were committed to using the Apple II, which has a huge software range, and the Mac was seen as a different product line.
So Apple (when Steve Jobs left) continued selling Apple II products well into the 1990s.

For Apple Mac users, who wished to continue using Apple II software, there were Apple II add-in cards for the later Macs (that had slots) up to 1993.

 

[bradman83]

I always think back to when Steve Jobs broke down hundreds of Apple products into a simple, easy to understand 2x2 grid.
Everytime I see an extra branch of products gets launched, I wonder if the fragmentation is really necessary.
People get confused in what to buy because some features simply overlap...

You can check out the video of what I talk about here:

To be fair Steve himself broke the grid within a year or two with the Power Mac G4 Cube, and again a few years after that with the MacBook Air.

Apple's product lines follow a fairly straightforward good/better/best tiering ladder (lumping products that come in multiple screen sizes in the same tier). Where Apple stumbles is its inconsistent naming of tiers across its product families. The entry level MacBook is now the Neo, whereas the same tier iPhone is the 17e, Watch is SE, and iPad is just plain iPad. It would definitely be helpful to use consistent branding across its products.

 

[4sallypat]

I'm a millennial, so was too young when home computers started to get popular in the 80s, but I'm always curious about history and how we got here.

All these threads on MR and Reddit comparing things like the Neo to an iPad, or all the people who want Apple to just put MacOS on the iPad already, make me wonder: Was there similar debate between the Apple II and the early Macintoshes? If MR had been around in the mid 80s, would you have seen a thread title like:

"Apple IIGS, huge slap in the face to macintosh 512k owners!" or vice versa?

I think some of the later Apple II's like the GS could use a mouse, so wouldn't that be similar to early macs and their GUI? I just wonder if that was anything like how now you have MacBooks and iPads, and Apple positions them as two different products for different purposes. Yes, the cynical take is that Apple wants to sell you two devices instead of one for that sweet, sweet profit.

If Apple was like that back then too, computers were a lot more expensive then, so people couldn't just plunk down for both an Apple II and a mac.

I'm just curious if we've been here before.

I'm a boomer so I know first hand about Apple's early Macs.

First Apple for school: IIe w/ dual floppy drives and green monochrome CRT.

Learned Apple Basic CLI and loved it - now after over 4 decades I still use CLI (Cisco network, Windows server, Apple Unix, VOIP, etc)....

 

[JPack]

Steve Jobs righted the ship at Apple by emphasizing that the best product experience comes when custom hardware and software are created to work together.

So an iPad will probably never run macOS and vice versa. A spork is neither good for the customer experience nor company sales performance.

 

[andyw715]

now after over 4 decades I still use CLI (Cisco network, Windows server, Apple Unix, VOIP, etc)....

Copilot 🙂 we've come full circle.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Steve Jobs righted the ship at Apple by emphasizing that the best product experience comes when custom hardware and software are created to work together.

So an iPad will probably never run macOS and vice versa. A spork is neither good for the customer experience nor company sales performance.

Steve also righted the ship by focusing on manufacturing deals, lowering Apple's cost, and simplifying their product line. He did a ton of back-end work that few talk about.

 

[hobowankenobi]

Nope. Feels different.

Mac (and GUI) was revolutionary, not just iteration.

The closest analog might be the Apple Vision...but even that seems like evolution (I can't really say, neve used one), with many similar design elements.

iOS was a bigger next step or evolution, compared to desktop computing.

Neo is mostly just hardware refinement. Important, but not revoltuionary. In fact, A series chips and Apple Silicon is the foundational change; Neo is the resulting product.

Old stuff chillin' behind my desk...