That is a surprisingly open and frank assessment of oneself from Sculley. Kudos to him. I'd be extremely curious to see someone interview Steve and ask him about this article
i don't know. what if they had won the lawsuit? then they would have had their asses handed to them by xerox.
Not really.
They had a deal with Xerox in exchange for Apple stock. Plus, by then, Apple had transformed the GUI ideas greatly in ways Xerox did not create and most of the relevant researchers from Xerox PARC were working at Apple.
But that brings up an interesting conundrum. If you have a great idea ahead of its time, is it really such a good idea business-wise? I wonder too, what if Sculley had brought out a decently designed tablet computer based on the technology available at the time? Would it have been the kind of success the iPad is? One could ponder the Newton (I had one) the same way. Was it a good idea that was ahead of the development of some of the key technologies that made the iPhone such a hit?
What I am suggesting is that being a visionary involves more than just ideas, it also involves timing.
Well I don't know about you, but if we ever have flying cars, I'm giving credit to Robert Zemeckis for coming up with the idea in BTTF2
Wow. I had forgotten that Scully was already CEO by the time the "1984" ad was aired.
No. Sculley didn't take the job until April. The ad ran on January 22nd. It went on sale on January 24th; I ordered mine the same day, however, if I remember correctly, they weren't shipped until April.
No. Sculley didn't take the job until April. The ad ran on January 22nd. It went on sale on January 24th; I ordered mine the same day, however, if I remember correctly, they weren't shipped until April.
They had a deal with Xerox in exchange for Apple stock. Plus, by then, Apple had transformed the GUI ideas greatly in ways Xerox did not create and most of the relevant researchers from Xerox PARC were working at Apple.
From what I have read, Xerox received no quid-pro-quo from Apple, not for a one-day tour of PARC, nor did Apple license any technology from Xerox. The Mac project was already underway when Jobs & Co. visited PARC. According to the accounts of Jef Raskin (original head of the Mac project at Apple), he arranged the visit to convince Steve that a GUI was the way to go.
From what I have read, Xerox received no quid-pro-quo from Apple, not for a one-day tour of PARC, nor did Apple license any technology from Xerox. The Mac project was already underway when Jobs & Co. visited PARC. According to the accounts of Jef Raskin (original head of the Mac project at Apple), he arranged the visit to convince Steve that a GUI was the way to go.
I know a guy who worked at PARC at the time, and he didn't know about it until 2 or 3 years ago. It was pretty spontaneous and high level deal, but legally formalized and purchased. Also it was three days plus some additional consulting with PARC researchers.
Don't be so hard on yourself John. If things had worked out differently, NeXT and the foundations of Apple's current product line never would've happened.
Anyway, if you want to see what BIG mistakes are about, study Microsoft.
Chemically they are the same, just manufactured from different stock: corn, cane, beets, if it ends in -ose (fructose, glucoase, sucrose, maltose, lactose etc), then it's sugar. Even now the HFCS lobby is undergoing a transformation in names: It's soon going to be "corn sugar."
No, chemically different, albeit similar.
That's why they have different chemical names and structures.
Hindsight is 20/20. I worked at Apple from '87 to '92. John Scully was generally well liked for his marketing skills and calm temperament. He lacked technical vision, and relied on John Luis Gasse' who turned out to be quite an ego-maniac.
OMG, can you imagine if Apple had bought Be and Gassee instead of NeXT and Jobs? Apple would be dead by now and the few Apple fanatics left would be like the nearly extinct Amiga fanatics mumbling about what might have been...
It wasn't artistic license. Until 1984, both Coke and Pepsi were still using sugar in the US. Sugar water was dead on
Peace. But even had it not been the case, I'm debating the guy with his OWN argument... he was being insanely pedantic. ( Like the "Annoying Orange" from YouTube or something.) High fructose corn syrup IS a form of sugar, and he is using a very specific narrow view to bash a profound statement.
I know a guy who worked at PARC at the time, and he didn't know about it until 2 or 3 years ago. It was pretty spontaneous and high level deal, but legally formalized and purchased. Also it was three days plus some additional consulting with PARC researchers.
I've read varying stories about whether the pre-IPO offering was in direct exchange for the peek at PARC but have been left with the general impression that the two were not formally linked. AFIAK, nobody with direct access to the behind-the-scenes dealing has ever spoken of it on the record, probably because they still can't. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the visit was for inspirational purposes (aimed at getting the buy-in from Steve), and that Apple did not acquire any rights to Xerox technology as a result.
I've read varying stories about whether the pre-IPO offering was in direct exchange for the peek at PARC but have been left with the general impression that the two were not formally linked. AFIAK, nobody with direct access to the behind-the-scenes dealing has ever spoken of it on the record, probably because they still can't. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the visit was for inspirational purposes (aimed at getting the buy-in from Steve), and that Apple did not acquire any rights to Xerox technology as a result.
Do you think Apple just gave them an option on 100,000 shares of Apple stock options for nothing?
In any case, as I have said, Apple created their own IP that really went beyond what Xerox did anyway. For instance the desktop metaphor and the notion of "drag and drop" are Apple innovations, not to mention the whole visual language of the Lisa UI. The Mac looked and worked differently and for more elegantly then did the projects at PARC. Two years later when the Alto saw daylight, it still didn't match up to the original Mac's interface.
Comments
That is a surprisingly open and frank assessment of oneself from Sculley. Kudos to him. I'd be extremely curious to see someone interview Steve and ask him about this article
Agreed.
i don't know. what if they had won the lawsuit? then they would have had their asses handed to them by xerox.
Not really.
They had a deal with Xerox in exchange for Apple stock. Plus, by then, Apple had transformed the GUI ideas greatly in ways Xerox did not create and most of the relevant researchers from Xerox PARC were working at Apple.
Yeah he was a moron then and still is one. Even Pepsi did badly under him.
You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.
The article is correct.
So Jobs did recruit him.
and regarding Scully:
"As a child, he had created a color screen only weeks after Sony patented the Trinitron display."
Wha . . . ?!
What does that mean?
Funny. Good point.
But that brings up an interesting conundrum. If you have a great idea ahead of its time, is it really such a good idea business-wise? I wonder too, what if Sculley had brought out a decently designed tablet computer based on the technology available at the time? Would it have been the kind of success the iPad is? One could ponder the Newton (I had one) the same way. Was it a good idea that was ahead of the development of some of the key technologies that made the iPhone such a hit?
What I am suggesting is that being a visionary involves more than just ideas, it also involves timing.
Well I don't know about you, but if we ever have flying cars, I'm giving credit to Robert Zemeckis for coming up with the idea in BTTF2
Wow. I had forgotten that Scully was already CEO by the time the "1984" ad was aired.
No. Sculley didn't take the job until April. The ad ran on January 22nd. It went on sale on January 24th; I ordered mine the same day, however, if I remember correctly, they weren't shipped until April.
So Jobs did recruit him.
Did I say differently?
No. Sculley didn't take the job until April. The ad ran on January 22nd. It went on sale on January 24th; I ordered mine the same day, however, if I remember correctly, they weren't shipped until April.
Do you still have it?
Did I say differently?
Did I say you did say differently? (did I say you did say I said . . . )
It appeared to me you were rebutting the poster's claim that Jobs recruited Scully.
Did I misunderstand you?
But more importantly, whats with that thing about Sculley and color TV? !
Not really.
They had a deal with Xerox in exchange for Apple stock. Plus, by then, Apple had transformed the GUI ideas greatly in ways Xerox did not create and most of the relevant researchers from Xerox PARC were working at Apple.
From what I have read, Xerox received no quid-pro-quo from Apple, not for a one-day tour of PARC, nor did Apple license any technology from Xerox. The Mac project was already underway when Jobs & Co. visited PARC. According to the accounts of Jef Raskin (original head of the Mac project at Apple), he arranged the visit to convince Steve that a GUI was the way to go.
From what I have read, Xerox received no quid-pro-quo from Apple, not for a one-day tour of PARC, nor did Apple license any technology from Xerox. The Mac project was already underway when Jobs & Co. visited PARC. According to the accounts of Jef Raskin (original head of the Mac project at Apple), he arranged the visit to convince Steve that a GUI was the way to go.
I know a guy who worked at PARC at the time, and he didn't know about it until 2 or 3 years ago. It was pretty spontaneous and high level deal, but legally formalized and purchased. Also it was three days plus some additional consulting with PARC researchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...C_and_the_Lisa
Steve was WRONG. Pepsi is made with high fructose corn syrup, not sugar.
Back then it was real sugar...
Anyway, if you want to see what BIG mistakes are about, study Microsoft.
Chemically they are the same, just manufactured from different stock: corn, cane, beets, if it ends in -ose (fructose, glucoase, sucrose, maltose, lactose etc), then it's sugar. Even now the HFCS lobby is undergoing a transformation in names: It's soon going to be "corn sugar."
No, chemically different, albeit similar.
That's why they have different chemical names and structures.
Try not to post nonfactual disinformation.
Hindsight is 20/20. I worked at Apple from '87 to '92. John Scully was generally well liked for his marketing skills and calm temperament. He lacked technical vision, and relied on John Luis Gasse' who turned out to be quite an ego-maniac.
OMG, can you imagine if Apple had bought Be and Gassee instead of NeXT and Jobs? Apple would be dead by now and the few Apple fanatics left would be like the nearly extinct Amiga fanatics mumbling about what might have been...
It wasn't artistic license. Until 1984, both Coke and Pepsi were still using sugar in the US. Sugar water was dead on
Peace. But even had it not been the case, I'm debating the guy with his OWN argument... he was being insanely pedantic. ( Like the "Annoying Orange" from YouTube or something.) High fructose corn syrup IS a form of sugar, and he is using a very specific narrow view to bash a profound statement.
Thompson
No, chemically different, albeit similar.
That's why they have different chemical names and structures.
Try not to post nonfactual disinformation.
You are right; I was posting based on my recollection of discussions of over 50 years ago. I have since deleted the substance of my post.
Others, including "Cpsro" said it better than I did.
Incidentally, this ad was inserted in my AI feed:
I know a guy who worked at PARC at the time, and he didn't know about it until 2 or 3 years ago. It was pretty spontaneous and high level deal, but legally formalized and purchased. Also it was three days plus some additional consulting with PARC researchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...C_and_the_Lisa
I've read varying stories about whether the pre-IPO offering was in direct exchange for the peek at PARC but have been left with the general impression that the two were not formally linked. AFIAK, nobody with direct access to the behind-the-scenes dealing has ever spoken of it on the record, probably because they still can't. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the visit was for inspirational purposes (aimed at getting the buy-in from Steve), and that Apple did not acquire any rights to Xerox technology as a result.
I've read varying stories about whether the pre-IPO offering was in direct exchange for the peek at PARC but have been left with the general impression that the two were not formally linked. AFIAK, nobody with direct access to the behind-the-scenes dealing has ever spoken of it on the record, probably because they still can't. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the visit was for inspirational purposes (aimed at getting the buy-in from Steve), and that Apple did not acquire any rights to Xerox technology as a result.
Do you think Apple just gave them an option on 100,000 shares of Apple stock options for nothing?
In any case, as I have said, Apple created their own IP that really went beyond what Xerox did anyway. For instance the desktop metaphor and the notion of "drag and drop" are Apple innovations, not to mention the whole visual language of the Lisa UI. The Mac looked and worked differently and for more elegantly then did the projects at PARC. Two years later when the Alto saw daylight, it still didn't match up to the original Mac's interface.