It took me a few minutes to realize this article is four years old which is why there are so many comments from banned users. The ghosts of April fools past
Had my original 1984 Macintosh computer until a few years ago. It was an incredible machine back in the day (pricey too at $2495), but it made me appreciate computers in a way no other brand could.
"The Apple of 1976 is unrecognizable compared to today's gigantic corporation."
I take issue with that word "unrecognizable" in the above quite because it makes the reader think that applies ONLY to the Apple of 2024. But since you are comparing with "1976 Apple," then arguably, even Apple in the late 1980's would have been a vastly different and vastly bigger corporation in comparison to their 1976 founding.
In other words, Apple has technically been "quite different" (I dislike "unrecognizable") in terms of their size and product line and buildings and wealth AS COMPARED TO their founding in 1976. But through it all, Apple has indeed been RECOGNIZABLE as Apple. I would say the human body goes through far more changes. Can you take a baby photo and match it to an adult? No you cannot. But one look at Woz and Jobs, and you recognize the duo as not only having founded Apple in 1976, but having built it up through the years. Yes, even when Steve was exiled and working at NeXT, his work there ultimately led to the macOS we have today in that Apple bought NeXT Step and it became Mac OS X. And even though Woz hasn't actively worked at Apple in decades, one look at his face tells you he's one of the Apple founders, without whom Apple would not exist.
Apple is recognizable despite size and new products. It's the founders and the logo and the core philosophy of the company that helps us to recognize it quite easily.
It is Merrick Garland and his chronies who want the public to believe the benevolent and ever-caring US government is watching out for The People in trying to legally harm one of America's greatest corporate success stories. In light of that, I am not sorry to take issue with the AppleInsider article author about his use of the term "unrecognizable." Garland is lapping that word up and expanding on it. Garland wants everyone to believe Apple is no longer recognizable compare to its roots and is therefore, in his opinion, worthy of being taken to court as a Monopoly that needs to be punished. Apple is still the Apple we older folks have loved since the earliest days. Change doesn't make all things unrecognizable. Indeed, age makes some things, like a fine wine, even better. Apple is no exception.
“Back in the 1970s, it had its exciting first act, then it went through turmoil in the 1990s for its second,”
No kidding. I worked for Apple from 1990-1999 and it had to be literally the worst decade for the company. The products were gray, bulky, expensive and boring. Leadership was all over the map with a string of CEOs coming and going. Almost went out of business. Even so, it remains one of the best work experiences I’ve had simply because the people working there were so amazing. I remain a loyal Apple fanatic and if cut, will bleed six colors.
During that time nearly every single news article about Apple would refer to it as “beleaguered Apple Computer…” It was so common I would not be surprise young cadet journalists thought “beleaguered” was part of its name.
Nice to see Tim Cook remember the past for once. The 40 years of Mac earlier this year didn't result in any special deals or products. Why not?
However... he should stop spending billions chasing Musk and Zuckerberg, add more memory to all devices, do less penny-pinching, get moving on AI, simplify the product range, stop his continuous political meltdown in EU+US, and deliver - simply deliver. Not like Car or Mac Pro or reintroducing HomePod or doing iPad Air with all-2022 tech in mid-2024.
What sort of utter nonsense is this? Cook is one of the most successful CEOs of the century. Sounds like your soul is bored and you need to find fulfillment, but it won’t come from consumers products. Have you taken up reading? I find science-fiction a wonderful outlet for creative inspiration.
I can sorta understand what they are getting at: in this very article it mentions Jobs’ philosophy of making money by building the best computers. After rejoining the company Jobs’ elucidated further:
What happened at Apple, to be honest, over the years was the goal used to be to make the best computers in the world. And that was goal one. Goal two, we got from Hewlett-Packard actually which was "we have to make a profit". Because if we don't make a profit we can't do goal one. So, yeah, I mean we enjoyed making a profit, but the purpose of making a profit was so we can make the best computers in the world. Along the way somewhere those two got reversed. The goal is to make a lot of money and well, if we have to make some good computers well ok we'll do that... 'cause we can make a lot of money doing that. And, it's very subtle. It's very subtle at first, but it turns out it's everything. That one little subtle flip... takes 5 years to see it, but that one little subtle flip in 5 years means everything.
……,
Lastly, we're really big on making computers our friends can afford, and not all our friends are Larry Ellison. So, we've got to make computers that are really affordable and I think that's another place that Apple got really off-track and we are just driving that really hard.
It was Apple Computer Inc. until iPod and music became popular, then, sometime before the iPhone it became Apple corporation and they changed the logo from rainbow to solid, they dropped Computer from the name when marketing focus moved off computers. ...the article refers to Apple corporation when it was Apple Computer Inc.
Very few young people today even own what they would refer to as a “computer,” i.e. a traditional desktop PC with a monitor and a tower. Of course they have a computer in their pocket and perhaps on their wrist, and they may carry a notebook or tablet around as I do, but that’s not how those devices are generally referred to except by older people.
To them, these devices are as natural as shoes, and their flexibility in adapting to what the user wants them to do is a far cry from the early days of home computing, where the limitations of the machine and the sophistication required to control it defined what you could do with it.
The internet becoming a mainstream concept changed all of that. If Apple had stuck to strictly producing “computers,” they’d be gone by now.
Comments
I take issue with that word "unrecognizable" in the above quite because it makes the reader think that applies ONLY to the Apple of 2024. But since you are comparing with "1976 Apple," then arguably, even Apple in the late 1980's would have been a vastly different and vastly bigger corporation in comparison to their 1976 founding.
In other words, Apple has technically been "quite different" (I dislike "unrecognizable") in terms of their size and product line and buildings and wealth AS COMPARED TO their founding in 1976. But through it all, Apple has indeed been RECOGNIZABLE as Apple. I would say the human body goes through far more changes. Can you take a baby photo and match it to an adult? No you cannot. But one look at Woz and Jobs, and you recognize the duo as not only having founded Apple in 1976, but having built it up through the years. Yes, even when Steve was exiled and working at NeXT, his work there ultimately led to the macOS we have today in that Apple bought NeXT Step and it became Mac OS X. And even though Woz hasn't actively worked at Apple in decades, one look at his face tells you he's one of the Apple founders, without whom Apple would not exist.
Apple is recognizable despite size and new products. It's the founders and the logo and the core philosophy of the company that helps us to recognize it quite easily.
It is Merrick Garland and his chronies who want the public to believe the benevolent and ever-caring US government is watching out for The People in trying to legally harm one of America's greatest corporate success stories. In light of that, I am not sorry to take issue with the AppleInsider article author about his use of the term "unrecognizable." Garland is lapping that word up and expanding on it. Garland wants everyone to believe Apple is no longer recognizable compare to its roots and is therefore, in his opinion, worthy of being taken to court as a Monopoly that needs to be punished. Apple is still the Apple we older folks have loved since the earliest days. Change doesn't make all things unrecognizable. Indeed, age makes some things, like a fine wine, even better. Apple is no exception.
……,