or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Good article. Maybe the Fandroids and Microsoftees can learn some history. But in actuality, they just stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and scream "nah nah nah"
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today.  That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe.  1smile.gif

That man was born old (in both mind and body).

He's like Benjamin Ballmer Buttons
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


Because it was such a long time ago, and because it was followed up by essentially nothing at all, a lot of folks (especially those who weren't alive at the time) find it easier to believe that we never landed on the moon.  The moon landing is the singular proof of the realities of outer space and the fact that we are all living on a tiny ball, so to deny it, means that we can go on believing in God and our uniqueness here in the same way as we always have before.  Similarly, because a lot of Americans find it hard to believe that they were so weak as to allow the 911 attacks to happen (which goes against the American myth of ultimate strength), it's easier to believe it was an inside job.  That way the US wasn't defeated by a stronger enemy, the stronger enemy was the US.  

Don't loop God in with the "fake" moon landing crowd. It's patronizing and false.
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I don't think that will ever change.

People believe what they want to believe, and they're not going to hear otherwise.

People don't want to believe that they chose the bad guy, and while it may never change in the minds of the old Windows heads we can educate the younger generation and diminish the spreading of lies.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Don't loop God in with the "fake" moon landing crowd. It's patronizing and false.

 

I meant to contrast the traditional, religious view of the Earth versus the scientific one, so putting God in there is valid. 

post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I meant to contrast the traditional, religious view of the Earth versus the scientific one, so putting God in there is valid. 

Please don't start that. Let's stick to Apple related topics.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post

Good article, I enjoyed it.

 

We do, however, all rewrite history. Apple did enter a "late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad". The alliance didn't create the ARM architecture though, that already existed within Acorn and was used in the Archimedes desktop computer. Indeed, ARM - Advanced RISC Machine - was the new meaning of the acronym originally created as Acorn RISC Machine.

 

Amusingly, when Apple first advertised PowerPC Macs in UK as the most powerful RISC desktops, Acorn was urged to appeal to the UK's Advertising Standards body because of their own supposedly more powerful ARM powered desktop. ARM's management proved visionary though, perhaps through Apple's help, leading to today's dominant low power, high performance chips in almost all smart phones and much else. Acorn, meanwhile, lost its way despite its excellent technology in an echo of 1990s Apple. However, without a visionary leader to return to rescue it, it withered and died. Only ARM now remains :-)

 

The name ARM did exist at Acorn prior to the creation of the jointly-owned Apple/Olvetti ARM partnership, at which point "Acorn RISC Machine" morphed into "Advanced RISC Machine."

 

However ARM at Acorn was a desktop processor, inspired by RISC work at Berkeley and sort of a middle road between the 6502 chip powering the Apple II line and the Motorola 68000 chip that powered the original Macintosh, a combination of power and simplicity. Olvetti also bought the struggling Acorn in 1985, unaware that its target was even working on ARM because it was kept secret throughout the acquisition negotiations.

 

ARM caught the attention of Apple in 1985, at a point where there was interest in developing a "new" Apple II in parallel with the higher-end Mac, or potentially a third platform known as "Möbius."

 

But while the ARM project that Olvetti acquired had some value, it was essentially just another chip architecture, which like MIPS, DEC Alpha, Intel i960 and PowerPC, was only valuable if somebody actually began using it. Acorn was using its own desktop ARM chips, but even a UK government subsidy couldn't keep that business alive in the face of WinTel competition.

 

It wasn't until Newton got started that Apple realized it needed a new chip architecture for mobile devices, and neither x86 nor PowerPC nor AT&T's Hobbit nor anything else that existed could really meet those necessary objectives yet, in terms of power, cost and efficiency. 

 

Acorn ARM came pretty close, but it lacked, for example, an integrated MMU (memory management unit), and the nearly dead Acorn didn't have the funds to develop its desktop chip into the type of device Apple was looking for. While Acorn's ARM formed the starting point for developing a new ARM mobile architecture, the fact that Acorn/Olvetti and Apple took equal partnership shares in the new ARM Ltd (formed in 1990) makes it clear that Acorn desperately needed help to make a mobile new ARM chip possible.

 

Acorn kept working on its ARM chips for desktop systems, which were similar to the Mac, but the Newton mobile chips jointly designed by ARM are what took off.

 

Acorn didn't make mobile devices. It essentially turned into a parallel universe / doppleganger of Apple, depicting an alternate reality of what would have happened to the Macintosh if Steve Jobs hadn't returned, which is to say: another PowerPC-like workstation vendor that simply frittered away its resources struggling to compete against WinTel, dying before 2000 even arrived.

 

Apple spent the rest of 1990s sort of ineffectually, half-assedly working on Newton while focusing on PPC Macs, but the rest of the world began licensing ARM chip technologies (including DEC, TI, Samsung, Nvidia & Qualcomm) and using them to build their own mobile devices, somewhat similar to the role Windows played on PCs. By 2001, Apple didn't even have much of choice but to use ARM chips in the iPod, because there was nothing else that could touch ARM in terms of power/watt.

 

Owning nearly half the shares of ARM enabled Jobs to sell off shares in the late 1990s, and if you look at Apple's earning statements from that period, dumping ARM stock was the only thing keeping Apple from reporting quarterly losses. 

post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

 

Somehow I don't think anti-Apple posters are going to be persuaded by a brief, unsourced piece that a case presided over by numerous judges, attorneys, etc., for a period of years was wrongly decided. 

 

I think the real villain of the piece is Sculley, whose memoir suggests that he didn't defend Apple's interests competently. If Apple didn't put on the right case, it's not the courts' fault the company lost.

 

The contention of the article isn't that the "look and feel" lawsuit was "wrongly decided" in legal terms. You can read the linked findings of the judges. The case was quite clearly decided based entirely on the fact that Sculley had granted Microsoft a 1985 license to Mac IP in exchange for Excel continuing as an exclusive on the Mac (ie, not porting it to Windows or OS/2) for just two years.

 

Given that Microsoft had written Excel around 1993-1995, what Sculley should have done in obvious hindsight was to scramble to develop Apple's own Mac spreadsheet. However, Apple was afraid that if it made its own Mac software, everyone else would be afraid to write Mac apps.

 

Incidentally, Apple's own AppleWorks on the Apple II were a huge cash cow, and Claris' later version for the Mac outsold Microsoft's Works (integrated Office). Other developers Apple courted on the Mac either never managed to deliver their own apps, or did so so late and poorly that they were unsuccessful (Lotus Jazz, the 1-2-3 customized for Mac, was a flop).

 

Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.

 

Note that today, the top selling office apps for iOS are from Apple. As well perhaps the most impressive mobile apps on any platform: iMovie & GarageBand.

post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.

Now THAT is a very interesting what-if. I think Apple had an opportunity there. I remember when Microsoft Office wasn't even a thing, but separate productivity apps that were lagging IBM/Lotus in the productivity race. And this was in the 1990s. I don't know why Apple never ported the Lisa's productivity suite over to Mac (I assume it had more to do with internal animosity between the Mac and Lisa divisions than some deal Sculley made with Microsoft). And frankly, there was strife between the Apple II division and Mac, and the Apple II had AppleWorks. Hmm... Food for speculation 1smile.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #50 of 100
Wow, what an article.

But, this is atrocious.

Do you know what atrocious mean? Yeah, why? Because People should be free to WORK on pretty much any product they need to, to make money, to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.

Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft", anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.

Trademark, Patent, Copyright... everyday of my life, as "The walls of the room seem to alter angles Elongating and shrinking alternately"
Read more: Bauhaus - Departure Lyrics | MetroLyrics

MAC Guy for 25 , WIN Guy for 10 , GNU Guy for 5

To me as long as you say, "This" by "Your Name Here"
You can make it as Art! cause it all comes down to what is Art.

Laters...
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #51 of 100

Originally Posted by rezwits View Post
Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft"

 

Why? Why do they have the right to steal someone else's name?

 

So you're Bob. And you have a repair shop. You call it "Bob's Autos". Then Frank comes along and puts his store up right next to yours. "Bob's Autos: By Frank". You're fine with that?


anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.

 

I think you're confusing the name of Apple Inc. with something else.


Trademark, Patent, Copyright... everyday of my life, as "The walls of the room seem to alter angles Elongating and shrinking alternately"
Read more: Bauhaus - Departure Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

What in the world are you talking about?


MAC Guy for 25 , WIN Guy for 10 , GNU Guy for 5

 

Doesn't matter.


To me as long as you say, "This" by "Your Name Here" You can make it as Art!

 

Well, you aren't the law.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #52 of 100
"Tabs, pads, and boards." The phrase may sound like a piece of techno-buzzy cud coughed up at a TEDx or SXSW talk, but it's actually a precise description of current hardware trends made 22 years ago by a chief scientist at Xerox PARC. That scientist, the late Mark Weiser, was talking about his then-new concept of "ubiquitous computing": the idea that cheap connectivity and networked devices would liberate "computing" from mainframes and desktop boxes and integrate it into people's everyday lives. But how? What would that actually look like? Weiser sketched out three basic tiers of ubiquitous computing devices based on interactive display technology: tabs (small, wearable); pads (handheld, mobile); boards (large, fixed)...

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512616/how-smart-watches-and-phablets-fulfill-a-20-year-old-prophecy-about-ubiquitous-computing/"

I actually made this prediction in the early 80's.
post #53 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I don't think that will ever change.

People believe what they want to believe, and they're not going to hear otherwise.

Never give up trying. There are a a few that can be saved… 1biggrin.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Couple things---

 

1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it. 

That is a common refrain but simply not true. It is a remarkable accomplishment to successfully produce and sell a product. But that happens often. Clearly, some companies do it better than others.

 

Coming up with a truly original and society-changing idea, however, is something that simply happens rarely and is orders of magnitude more significant than production.

post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

The contention of the article isn't that the "look and feel" lawsuit was "wrongly decided" in legal terms. You can read the linked findings of the judges. The case was quite clearly decided based entirely on the fact that Sculley had granted Microsoft a 1985 license to Mac IP in exchange for Excel continuing as an exclusive on the Mac (ie, not porting it to Windows or OS/2) for just two years.

Given that Microsoft had written Excel around 1993-1995, what Sculley should have done in obvious hindsight was to scramble to develop Apple's own Mac spreadsheet. However, Apple was afraid that if it made its own Mac software, everyone else would be afraid to write Mac apps.

Incidentally, Apple's own AppleWorks on the Apple II were a huge cash cow, and Claris' later version for the Mac outsold Microsoft's Works (integrated Office). Other developers Apple courted on the Mac either never managed to deliver their own apps, or did so so late and poorly that they were unsuccessful (Lotus Jazz, the 1-2-3 customized for Mac, was a flop).

Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.

Note that today, the top selling office apps for iOS are from Apple. As well perhaps the most impressive mobile apps on any platform: iMovie & GarageBand.

I am guessing you were around and involved at the time, I enjoy and appreciate your input immensely.

BTW, I am hoping Apple sucks Claris back in and delivers a 'PFS' for iWorks.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #56 of 100
Thank You AI! Another priceless and so informative article. Brought back so much memories .... well done.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #57 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, you aren't the law.

 

Definition of Law?

 

An invisible force created by SOME men, enforced by OTHER men, to allow SOME men to get what (anything) they want.

 

Pathetic

 

Cause see this is the problem.  If something is yours protect it yourself... CREATE a Technology if you must, to protect it, copy protection etc.

 

Don't ask others to enforce your will.  So yeah weak...

 

oh and take your 25,000 post and go ahead...

Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #58 of 100
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post
Definition of Law?

 

You don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.


An invisible force created by SOME men, enforced by OTHER men, to allow SOME men to get what (anything) they want. Pathetic. Cause see this is the problem.  If something is yours protect it yourself... CREATE a Technology if you must, to protect it, copy protection etc. Don't ask others to enforce your will.  So yeah weak oh and take your 25,000 post and go ahead...

 

This reads like Time Cube. A lot like Time Cube. And if you had any manner of actual argument, you would have left off that last line.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #59 of 100

While a lot of what Microsoft did was clearly unethical, and very destructive to Apple at the time, Apple wouldn't be where it is now without the knocks it was dealt in the past. If Microsoft hadn't caused so much damage there would never have been an opportunity for Steve Jobs to return. Even a sugar water salesman could sell the Mac in a world with no serious competitors. No Steve, no OSX, iPod, iPhone, iPad etc. Arguably we have Microsoft to thank for the great technologies we use now. They just didn't write any of them :)

post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.

 

This reads like Time Cube. A lot like Time Cube. And if you had any manner of actual argument, you would have left off that last line.

 

Ok, here's the overall idea here

 

We don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.

 

And the last line is because unless it is the Year 2,500+  talking to someone with 25,000+ post is a WASTE of my time.  I am not going to go back and forth with you for 10 post each.

 

EOL

Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #61 of 100
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post
Ok, here's the overall idea here

 

We don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.

 

… Except no, that's not how it works.


And the last line is because unless it is the Year 2,500+  talking to someone with 25,000+ post is a WASTE of my time.  I am not going to go back and forth with you for 10 post each.

 

What part of "leave it off" was confusing to you?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #62 of 100
This has to be one of the best articles detailing Apple & Microsoft's OS battles from the early development of the PC operating system to the present that I have read in a long time. Nice job with the research work!

I would often tell my much younger Microsoft fanboy colleagues this story and they would think I didn't know what I was talking about even though I was about 22 years old and working in the tech industry when the PC revolution got started in the late 70's. There is one fact that probably needs to be double checked however and that is the one concerning Microsoft's investment in Apple. I believe the actual amount invested by Microsoft to Apple in 1997 was 150 million dollars. And yes, this had conditions attached as Job's laid out regarding the purchase of Non-voting shares and the cross licensing of items they had been suing each other over. I had developer friends at the Apple developer conference in which Jobs laid out a portion of the hardware and developer roadmap for Apple going forward. I certainly was a game changer on Job's part that took Apple to the very top of the technology world. Bill Gates may have won the battle but in Steve Jobs lifetime he ended up winning the war.
post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

EOL

In my next life I'll list up with that as my username.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode1Bravo View Post

This has to be one of the best articles detailing Apple & Microsoft's OS battles from the early development of the PC operating system to the present that I have read in a long time. Nice job with the research work!

I would often tell my much younger Microsoft fanboy colleagues this story and they would think I didn't know what I was talking about even though I was about 22 years old and working in the tech industry when the PC revolution got started in the late 70's. There is one fact that probably needs to be double checked however and that is the one concerning Microsoft's investment in Apple. I believe the actual amount invested by Microsoft to Apple in 1997 was 150 million dollars. And yes, this had conditions attached as Job's laid out regarding the purchase of Non-voting shares and the cross licensing of items they had been suing each other over. I had developer friends at the Apple developer conference in which Jobs laid out a portion of the hardware and developer roadmap for Apple going forward. I certainly was a game changer on Job's part that took Apple to the very top of the technology world. Bill Gates may have won the battle but in Steve Jobs lifetime he ended up winning the war.

 

Yes you're right: $150 million.

post #65 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

Wow, what an article.

But, this is atrocious.

Do you know what atrocious mean? Yeah, why? Because People should be free to WORK on pretty much any product they need to, to make money, to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.

Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft", anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.
 

 

Anyone can make a dollhouse, but if you copy the Mattel Barbie dollhouse instead of developing your own, you will be sued, won't you?

 

Not every copyright/patent issue is quite so simple, which is why the articles are providing concrete examples of what was actually happening and outlining what copyright/patent claims were being argued. Because every case is not the same.

 

"Patent infringement" can mean anything from an effort to stop the blatant theft of your own work, or it can mean a blatant grab to steal your significant accomplishments with a worthless piece of paper. Generalizing is pointless.

 

And if you don't care about intellectual property rights, you can throw away the GPL, too. The entire point of the GPL/FOSS movement is to require companies to preserve usage rights of GPL-ed software as open and accessible to everyone. If there are no rights and no enforcement, that "license" is worthless too. 

post #66 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it. Xerox PARC (and many others) had great ideas but couldn't produce anything of value from them. Hollywood has tons of visionary ideas (especially Star Trek) but claiming them as prior art negates all the real effort that goes into producing them. I don't care how many ideas Xerox PARC came up with, I only care about the products Xerox and other companies actually were able to produce from those ideas. These are the real inventors and the ones who should have the patents. The other guys are like everyone else in the world who have ideas but can't figure out how to apply them. 

 

 

Xerox PARC wasn't a bunch of entertainers writing about fictional ideas or made fake mockups of them, Steve Jobs said he saw 3 important things at PARC, the Graphical User Interface, Networking and Object Oriented Programming, these were real working stuff.

post #67 of 100

Well, this is an interesting garbage revisionism:

 

"While popular legend says that Apple simply got its Macintosh ideas from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center after seeing the group's advanced technology in 1979, this isn't the case."

 

The author of this write up seems to forget that it was Jeff Raskin who not only brainstormed the project from the very beginning, but also arranged the two visits to PARC.  Jobs was on the second visit -- Raskin brought him along only because Jobs was slow to catch up to Raskin's ideas.  According to the link the author cited:

 

"PREVIOUS TIES    But a number of Apple engineers were already familiar with PARC, its work, or technologies like the mouse. Bill Atkinson had read about Smalltalk as an undergraduate. Some had worked at PARC: Jef Raskin spent time there during a sabbatical year at Stanford, and had a number of friends who were researchers there. Finally, there were even some Apple employees whose had learned about the mouse while working for Douglas Engelbart at SRI in the 1960s and early 1970s, or Tymshare in the later 1970s."

 

"Jef Raskin, who helped arranged both visits, explained that he wanted Jobs to visit PARC to understand work that was already going on at Apple. "

 

In another word, Raskin was a PARC insider -- spent some time at PARC as a visiting scientist and familiar with all the computing innovation Apple later copied.  He even tried to convince the two Steve's to look at PARC's innovation much earlier, but they were too busy making Apple IIs.

 

I just don't understand how that contradicts the view that "Apple simply got its Macintosh ideas from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center."

 

I won't even bother wasting my time reading the rest.   Nice try, but won't change the fact that everyone stands on the shoulders of giants or buy into this crazy idea that Apple somehow created everything in isolation or they engineered something technically difficult or impossible.

post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by murman View Post

Xerox PARC wasn't a bunch of entertainers writing about fictional ideas or made fake mockups of them, Steve Jobs said he saw 3 important things at PARC, the Graphical User Interface, Networking and Object Oriented Programming, these were real working stuff.

When Steve talks about his experience at Xerox PARC, he says he was so blinded by the GUI that he didn't both to see the rest. He jokingly says in public, "if I'd only stayed another 20 minutes..." Obviously, when it came time to do NeXT, Steve recreated the Xerox Star: an overpriced, way-ahead-of-its-time machine with GUI, Ethernet networking, and object oriented programming. The NeXT suffered a similar fate as the Star and Lisa, despite it's technical advantages and impressive high end specs.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #69 of 100

Great article. For a longer version from a different author, a great read is Insanely Great, by Steven Levy. Lots of pictures and descriptions of the various interface innovations that separated Apple from Xerox.

 

One comment on predictions: I find it amusing to attribute ideas to particular people. Who hasn't thought of a tablet computer or time machine or Starship Enterprises or robots or...... you get the point.

 

Interesting thing about the tablet....it's simultaneously one of man's oldest and newest creations. Heard that on Adam Carolla podcast.

post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Blah blah blah...I won't even bother wasting my time reading the rest.

So you formed an opinion without the facts. No surprise.

Fact is Apple traded stock for access and improved on PARC tech. No one said Apple made the OS from scratch and Jobs had the original vision for a mouse. Apple didn't steal anything.
post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

I won't even bother wasting my time reading the rest.
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #72 of 100
One could add to this history by mentioning the development of the iTunes store and its associated App Store and iBook Store. These are really significant advances in the distribution and marketing of electronic goods which, as far as I know, were pioneered by Apple.

And it is interesting to reflect on the current legal battles inspired by Amazon and the DoJ to thwart the use of the 'Agency model' for the distribution of electronic books. Perhaps history will see Amazon and the DoJ in similar way as Dvorak.
post #73 of 100

Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
Well, this is an interesting garbage revisionism:

 

Any psychologists here? What drives the human mind to be purposefully blind and willfully ignorant? Other than money, of course.


This is nothing more than relentless rabid Apple fanboy propaganda. 

 

Shut up and go away. Do you know what website you're on?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #74 of 100
Not just Scully and Gates perpetuated the Xerox PARC myth, but Jobs did himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpMeFh37mCE

I think though what he wanted to do was give Apple legitimacy by saying it came out of Xerox PARC. Apple had already done a lot of the work independently of PARC, especially in the work of Jef Raskin, Father of the Macintosh:

http://mxmora.best.vwh.net/JefRaskin.html
http://mxmora.best.vwh.net/brucehorn.html

It was thus Jef Raskin who had been developing a lot of these ideas since the mid 60s, and Jef who primed Steve to 'get it' when he visited Xerox.
post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I love your Mouse Evolution chart.

it is a tad misleading though. There were several firms already making "low cost" mouses(/mice?), eg Logitech. Indeed even Microsoft had a mouse in 1983.

 

The alternative devices are equally flawed. The Apple Graphics tablet wasn't even made or designed by Apple. It was the KoalaPad, a product that also had variants for Atari, Commodore, TRS80 and IBM. Equally contentious is the scroll wheel, Bang and Olufsen had been using it for years before Apple adopted it as a means of navigating. It is suggested that it was first developed back in 1983 for the Hewlett-Packard 9836 workstation.

 

In the main the article is entertaining and well written but lacks an accurate historical perspective.

post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Well, this is an interesting garbage revisionism:

 

I just don't understand how that contradicts the view that "Apple simply got its Macintosh ideas from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center."

 

I won't even bother wasting my time reading the rest.   Nice try, but won't change the fact that everyone stands on the shoulders of giants or buy into this crazy idea that Apple somehow created everything in isolation or they engineered something technically difficult or impossible.  This is nothing more than relentless rabid Apple fanboy propaganda. 

 

If you didn't read the whole thing, how would you know what the guy wrote?

 

If you can read past the pro-Apple tone of the article, its basically saying: here's what Apple created on top of what they got from Xerox, and it is substantial, contrary to the popularly accepted story that Apple stole EVERYTHING from Xerox. The Jeff Raskin part you added was beside the point. He also wrote that some of the Xerox researchers left Xerox to form what are now giants, 3com, Adobe etc.

 

Although most versions of this story, Microsoft ends up being the slime bags, well to some degree anyway, the revisionist version would be what Microsoft stole from Apple, Steve stole from somewhere else in the first place, which makes Microsoft stealing justified. Now that is the revisionist version. 


Edited by murman - 8/11/13 at 1:32am
post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


So you formed an opinion without the facts. No surprise.

Fact is Apple traded stock for access and improved on PARC tech. No one said Apple made the OS from scratch and Jobs had the original vision for a mouse. Apple didn't steal anything.


Why?  I just explained in detail why the author's claim is flawed -- using his own sources.  Who said anything about "stealing"?  Feeling Guilt much? ;) 

 

The author's claim is that "while popular legend says that Apple simply got its Macintosh ideas from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center after seeing the group's advanced technology in 1979, this isn't the case."  But Dilger's primary source, Making the Macintosh: Technology and Culture in Silicon Valley CONTRADICTS everything he just spewed out.  The folks who started and influenced Apple's Macintosh project were PARC insiders!  So it is necessarily the case that Apple got its Macintosh ideas from PARC -- and Apple improved upon their innovation as some might argue. Raskin's goal from the getgo was to produce a cheap machine with a price tag of $500 based on PARC's innovation. Larry Tesler, the first PARC hire at Apple, also played many significant roles at Apple.

 

It was also Raskin's decision to use the 1-button mouse -- not the 3-button as PARC did -- and made that decision based on his observation with the Xerox Altos. Steve Jobs on the contrary had little role in the 1-button mouse, but according to Dilger,   "... a mouse that cost three hundred dollars to build and it breaks within two weeks," to Jobs' design spec: "our mouse needs to be manufacturable for less than fifteen bucks ..."  Jobs's design spec?  LOL!!  The physical design & manufacturing were done exclusively and entirely by Hovey & Kelley, a small industrial design startup, because Apple was too busy. According to the same source Dilger is so fond of:

 

"Pang: How did your relationship with Apple work? Did you seen them very often when you were working at this stage, did they have to approve things at regular points, or was there was more autonomy?

Yurchenco: There was a lot of autonomy. I can't remember very much review at all from Apple on this. I think what we eventually did was, we delivered prototypes, and if they worked they were happy, but the day-to-day, and the design decisions that were being made-- there was kind of a spec, but I can't remember ever seeing a fully written-out spec at that point. [Pang laughs] Although that's not so-- you laugh, but even today-- Apple was barely more than a startup at that point, and even today we do a lot of projects that don't have any specs, there's just lots of arm-waving and agreements at meetings, and then you argue later what you said, but writing specs takes too long in this industry, you gotta get too many people on board and make too many decisions with not enough data."

 

 

This Dilger guy also claims that Xerox licensed out all their patents in the hope that Apple could commercialize their invention because Xerox was so inept, blah, blah. some more BS, blah, blah.  In the 70's,  Xerox was FORCED to license most of their patents to their direct competitors and curtail their aggressive marketing practice by a DOJ consent decree. You want Xerox's patents? you got them all at almost nothing (not nothing literally, but significantly less than what they were worth).  Sure, the Xerox management at that point wasn't all that keen on developing a new product and pushing it to the market at the time, but Xerox still managed to roll out Star in 1981 -- though it was a commercial flop.  Apple's Lisa which came out a year later wasn't received all that well either. 

 

Now, not saying everything in this article is all wrong, but there are so many thing being hopelessly inaccurate and built on wish-wash historical accounts of things never happened that it really loses all its credibility. It's more accurate describe this article as a PR propaganda peppered with bits of facts here and there. 


Edited by tooltalk - 8/11/13 at 2:29am
post #78 of 100

Good article. I want to add a few historical points.

 

1) Apple was let in, but by business people. The Parc people (largely separate and with a different mindset than the business unit) tried their darndest to keep them out. Nobody in Xerox knew what to do with Parc. That's why nearly all the amazing innovations there were developed into products outside of the company. 

 

2) Based on my discussions with Xerox Parc people at conferences, I think this was slightly pro Apple article regarding the Apple GUI development. The Parc innovated in the development of multiple windows and pointers. The Mother of All Demos showed a mouse and hypertext (among other things) as said above, but didn't have icons and windows as we know it today that Parc innovated. The special hardware for graphics set Parc apart too (and made the Star and Alto quite expensive). Additionally, its focus on WYSIWYG was a key innovation. THEN, Jobs took this and made their GUI which was much improved and the article has a good description of why. According to 'legend', Jobs ignored everything when he saw the GUI and nearly slobbered all over it.

 

3) Direct Manipulation: This is a sliding scale and GUIs are not direct necessarily. Touch interfaces for example, are much more direct than something like a mouse since that is used to the side of something to point on screen. It's for reasons like this that several people have problems with them at first (ex. those on the autism spectrum). 

post #79 of 100
Fantastic article. Amazing that the well paid journalist at publications such as the WSJ/FT/Bloomberg/CNN are incapable of this level of journalistic output.
post #80 of 100
@techtool. The forced licensing was done in 1975, 4 years prior to the Jobs visit. In addition, which xerox patents were used in the development of the Mac. Why was no other company able to create their own gui OS prior to the Mac if said patents were widely available on the cheap? Ape got their ideas from PARC but the portent developments were done at Apple.

Also it's the ongoing story of Fandroids and Microsoftees that the Mac was stolen and MS saved Apple.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
  • iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator