Rare Working Apple 1 Computer Headed to Auction

[IJ Reilly]

And you are of course invited to give an example of "Planned Obsolescence" and how that is Apple's business model. I am curious.

In a way, this is every manufacturer's business plan. Nobody makes products that they expect to last forever, or are so perfect that they can never be improved upon. But the term "planned obsolescence" is overworked, as it was originally coined to describe products that were deliberately designed to break, and create a need for them to be replaced. People often confuse their desire to own a newer, better product with the one they already own being broken. In this case, the "obsolescence" is in their own mind.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

How difficult could it possibly be to make a fake one? Didn't the Steve's employ some non-technical relatives to help manufacture the original Apple I's?

 

[thehustleman]

Time to make a copy and sell it for a high price.

No shame in stealing!

 

[mabhatter]

No shame in stealing!

WOZ sits around and makes one of these up every few years for spending money. Technically those wouldn't be "fakes" either as Woz built most of them?

Wonder if Woz runs a repair service? Would it be "factory authorized" if he did?

 

[rdlink]

I'd like to buy it just to take it to a Genius Bar and see how they react.

That would be a kick. "Excuse me, but I can't get Facetime to work on this thing."

 

[Anonymous Freak]

How difficult could it possibly be to make a fake one? Didn't the Steve's employ some non-technical relatives to help manufacture the original Apple I's?

See http://www.willegal.net/appleii/apple1-kit.htm for a 100%-authentic reproduction. (Made with Woz's blessing.) Only available as unassembled parts ($150 for the board, have to go to other sources to get the chips.)

As I said in an earlier comment: see also replica 1. Fully assembled for $200. Includes modern connectors for ease of use, but it is a fully functional Apple 1 clone.

It's ridiculously easy to make a clone, because the original was made with 100% "off the shelf" parts.

 

[vpro]

thank you!

Well, back in the 1970s, Apple hadn't yet adopted the Planned Obsolescence business model...

you speak the voices of reason
what is going on with apple today?
they are making non sense as of late


planned obsolescence indeed

thank you

 

[Trius]

So what is it - six or 50 ...

Uh... six working and 50 intact..like it says...

 

[RolyPolyBird]

I imagine most genius bar employees wouldn't even know what it was. I'm willing to bet that there are probably 20 more undiscovered Apple I computers sitting in an attic or basement somewhere waiting to get thrown out by someone who just thinks its some old random circuit board.

I fear you might be right.

 

[hallam]

How difficult could it possibly be to make a fake one? Didn't the Steve's employ some non-technical relatives to help manufacture the original Apple I's?

Not difficult enough for me to spend $40K on one when I had the chance a few years back. At that price I thought I had to be sure I could get the money back if I sold it.

I passed on an Enigma at $20K as well.

If only I had had the sense to sell my dotcom stock and put it in stupid but cool stuff I really wanted.

 

[janil]

But the term "planned obsolescence" is overworked, as it was originally coined to describe products that were deliberately designed to break, and create a need for them to be replaced. People often confuse their desire to own a newer, better product with the one they already own being broken. In this case, the "obsolescence" is in their own mind.

It's a difficult question to answer.

Apple is sometimes great about upgrades (some iOS devices) and sometimes awful about upgrades-- there is hardware that is completely capable of running a version of OS X but Apple drops support for it for arbitrary reasons.

Apple makes it difficult to target older operating systems from xcode, making it difficult to support more than one or two older versions of OS X.

It also drops security patches for older versions of OS X fairly quickly-- even Ubuntu supports LTS releases for five years.

Do these limitations mean that four year old Mac hardware is forced into becoming obsolete -- or vulnerable to attack -- long before it should be retired?

In some cases, I would say yes.

Back on topic, though.. I love hearing about old computer hardware and like seeing articles like this.

 

[Toltepeceno]

Who in the world would want this thing? It's probably been deemed obsolete by Apple, and thus you can't get any Genius Bar support for it. ;-)

Someone who will put it in a glass case to look until they die and then their children will auction it off.

 

[zachlegomaniac]

The closest thing I have to this is my original NES. Maybe I could get 5 bucks for it.

 

[rdlink]

Someone who will put it in a glass case to look until they die and then their children will auction it off.

Um, I was being sarcastic.

 

[Toltepeceno]

Um, I was being sarcastic.

I know, but I am not.

 

[Goftrey]

The computer is also bundled with a letter from Steve Jobs to Hatfield in which Jobs offers to exchange Hatfield's Apple 1 for an Apple II 4K motherboard if Hatfield is willing to pay an extra $400.

Classic Jobs.

 

[thekev]

So what is it - six or 50 ...

Intact just means they're together. They don't have to turn on or function to be considered intact.

 

[ctdonath]

How difficult could it possibly be to make a fake one?

If you mean "fake" as in a functional duplicate, see the aforementioned Replica 1 at http://www.brielcomputers.com/wordpress/?cat=17
If you mean "fake" as in pretty much indistinguishable from an original, that's doable (stuff wasn't that hard to do and there's still parts floating around) but the hard part is making non-functional aging, mistakes, and stylistic nuances look identical. Possible, but fast gets to the "why bother?" stage (albeit the market for historical fakes is robust).

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's a difficult question to answer.

Apple is sometimes great about upgrades (some iOS devices) and sometimes awful about upgrades-- there is hardware that is completely capable of running a version of OS X but Apple drops support for it for arbitrary reasons.

Not so difficult, I think. Again the confusion comes from customers who believe their hardware should be infinitely upgradable to the very newest version of something for as long as they choose to own it. But if the product continues to work at least as well as it did when they originally bought it, then it is not planned for obsolescence, by any useful definition of the terms.

Examples: We have a first generation iPad. It has been upgraded twice since we've owned it but some would call it obsolete because it can't be upgraded to iOS 6.x. I don't. I own an iPhone 4. Some were ticked off because it didn't support Siri when the 4S came out. But the phone still works just as well if not better (with other upgraded features) than it did when I bought it. It has hardly stopped working. I am by no means being forced to buy a new one.

We are still running Snow Leopard on our Macs. We are continue to receive security and other updates, maybe not forever, but for years now since Lion came out. I don't feel forced or compelled to upgrade either our hardware or OS. If I want the latest and greatest, I will -- but that does not have any impact on my existing hardware.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

If you mean "fake" as in a functional duplicate, see the aforementioned Replica 1 at http://www.brielcomputers.com/wordpress/?cat=17
If you mean "fake" as in pretty much indistinguishable from an original, that's doable (stuff wasn't that hard to do and there's still parts floating around) but the hard part is making non-functional aging, mistakes, and stylistic nuances look identical. Possible, but fast gets to the "why bother?" stage (albeit the market for historical fakes is robust).

Obviously you fake it to make thousand$. The replica I you linked to only costs $200. So I assume for about that you can make an exact Apple I yourself. Give it 70 years or so and you can sell it at an auction like this - people won't know it's not 100 years old.

 

[ctdonath]

Obviously you fake it to make thousand$.

People paying 6 or more digits for what is otherwise a 3 digit or less artifact are going to spend some nontrivial sums for verifying the claim of historical value. A high-dollar fake has to pay attention to minute/obscure details few will think of when creating it but verification will check. IIRC, the metallic composition of solder changed significantly late in the 20th century; socketed chips may exhibit scrape marks which could be a dead giveaway of caniballistic reassembly; PCB layout and etching can exhibit giveaways few would think of matching. How things were done then can be overlooked, leaving hints of fakery.

These issues can also cut both ways: a verifier of authenticity must be aware of obscurities which scream "fake" to modern audiences yet are in fact indications of authenticity. I'm aware of some facts involving the production of birth certificates which are near incomprehensible to modern audiences, things which many are in hysterics over as "proof of forgery" yet I know are in fact proof of legitimacy.

All boils down to whether making the fake will really be worth it. Making passable fakes can cost as much or more than the real thing; there is in fact quite a market for high-quality fakes as such, with people paying very high sums for what they know is a sophisticated forgery. Quite the subject if you want to get into it.

 

[TyPod]

Anybody bidding?

 

[Solomani]

If this had been a Legendary with at least 1 socket(s), I'd bid a million gold for it!

Doesn't look like it has any sockets tho.

 

[terroralpha]

Well, back in the 1970s, Apple hadn't yet adopted the Planned Obsolescence business model...

that business model belongs strictly to android manufacturers. here is an example for you. i bought a Galaxy Tab 10.1 the day it was released (exactly 2 months after the iPad 2 was released). i should mention that this was a $500 tablet, on par with the ipad's prices. the tablet was ok at first, until its first and last update was released a few months later that made it unusable. running 3 tabs in the browser caused it to freeze. leaving apps open in the background caused it to freeze. running it for 1 hour without restarting slowed it down to a crawl. the task manager that came preloaded in that update was unable to snap it out of its mini coma. the task managers in the app store didn't help either because the problem was the UI Samsung added, not any specific app. the damn thing just became unusable.

and the iPad 2? still getting updates to this day, 2+ years later. and still operates smooth as silk. now, how does your foot taste?

 

[GermanyChris]

that business model belongs strictly to android manufacturers. here is an example for you. i bought a Galaxy Tab 10.1 the day it was released (exactly 2 months after the iPad 2 was released). i should mention that this was a $500 tablet, on par with the ipad's prices. the tablet was ok at first, until its first and last update was released a few months later that made it unusable. running 3 tabs in the browser caused it to freeze. leaving apps open in the background caused it to freeze. running it for 1 hour without restarting slowed it down to a crawl. the task manager that came preloaded in that update was unable to snap it out of its mini coma. the task managers in the app store didn't help either because the problem was the UI Samsung added, not any specific app. the damn thing just became unusable.

and the iPad 2? still getting updates to this day, 2+ years later. and still operates smooth as silk. now, how does your foot taste?

I have a feeling he's not talking about iStuff.