How ironic. Sounds a lot like those product videos with various apple executives and engineers that apple now releases anytime there's a launch. Doesn't seem so self congratulatory now?
Different world, different rules
And those videos are for the keynote and website. They aren't created to be used as public commercial as this video was.
I feel bad for George Crow since he obviously designed the Analog board for the original Mac. It had a such high failure rate they redesign the board so many times it was at revision P before they finally fix the diode on the video flyback circuit from blowing up. Which was in the Mac Se model years later.
He obviously failed at making a lower cost product that just worked.
A 60-second television spot created in the months leading up to the early 1984 launch of Apple's original Macintosh was shelved and never aired publicly due to concerns that it would be seen as "too self-congratulatory."
While I'm very glad the "1984" commercial came out first when it did, IMHO I think this would have made a great follow-up commercial. Certainly is better than the "Lemmings" disaster. As for being too self-congratulatory, I think a good dose of chutzpah is needed when introducing a radically new product.
"I can't really describe it to you in words, but if I could get you to sit down in front of it and play with it, you won't let go of it,"
How can I possibly criticize this? This is exactly how I was introduced to my first Mac - an original 128k model.
I have several, make me an offer /.. true .. but kidding
Thought the same thing - I don't have my 128k (that I made into 512k) but do have my Plus and an SE 30 as well as several others I kept along the way. Hard to believe my first Mac 128K was $2499 + $499 for ImageWriter and $499 again for an external 400K drive (the coffee grinder) when it became available a couple months later. The only software I had for the longest was MacPaint/MacWrite which it came with and MS Multiplan and Chart which I purchased separately while I waited for a very long time with others for Thinks PASCAL for the Mac. I still did incredible stuff with it at the time and could blow people out of their socks with the Paint/Write combo and of course Multiplan (VisiCalc or SuperCalc were the predominate spreadsheets of the time).
Pretty ironic he would be the one to say this, even though it was the directive for the entire group.
I don't blame him of course ... It was the corporate guys, namely Sculley who were ultimately responsible for the Macimtosh not being the affordable "Volkswagen" of personal computers. Obviously his choice to maximize profit ultimately led to the decisions to use the absolute minimum components specified by the engineers. The fact that the analogue board has two sets of holes to accommodate a larger more robust flyback transformer than the smaller, notoriously unreliable one that originally shipped, says it all about the internal battles between management and the engineers ...
That said, it would seem Steve Jobs learned well from Sculley and continued to keep the profit margins of his products high, though it seems not at the expense of the quality the second time around. The smart business move of course this time around was leveraging volume over quality. Despite his efforts to portray the contrary, I'm pretty sure Jobs liked having a lot of money, otherwise he could have easily charged less for Apple products and been more competitive. The fact Apple was sitting on such a huge pile of capital that it took their shareholders ire to provoke a dividend payout speaks volumes about how inflated their profit margins were. It would be a different matter if Apple was actually investing that money in R&D, or buying new technologies, but they weren't. They just sat on it year after year watching it get exponentially bigger at the expense of the consumer.
I don't know how you can look at a inspirational, historical gem like that and only thing all these pissy thoughts. Glass half empty much?
Because I've seen much better inspirational stuff from the same time period about the same product. Yes, it's interesting as a "hey look it's the guys actually involved in the creation" glimpse into history. I was just reacting to headline of the article saying "was shelved and never aired publicly due to concerns that it would be seen as "too self-congratulatory." No, it was shelved because it was a bad ad. I actually don't think it was too self-congratulatory, especially the line about having to try it to understand it. That's not "gloating" at all.
An analogous ad today would feature some young Facebook developers rambling about how they coded the newest way to poke someone. That's just rarely the right way to advertise a product.
Thought the same thing - I don't have my 128k (that I made into 512k) but do have my Plus and an SE 30 as well as several others I kept along the way. Hard to believe my first Mac 128K was $2499 + $499 for ImageWriter and $499 again for an external 400K drive (the coffee grinder) when it became available a couple months later. The only software I had for the longest was MacPaint/MacWrite which it came with and MS Multiplan and Chart which I purchased separately while I waited for a very long time with others for Thinks PASCAL for the Mac. I still did incredible stuff with it at the time and could blow people out of their socks with the Paint/Write combo and of course Multiplan (VisiCalc or SuperCalc were the predominate spreadsheets of the time).
Awesome. I maybe one of the few but I also loved my Apple /// with VisiCalc.
The fact Apple was sitting on such a huge pile of capital that it took their shareholders ire to provoke a dividend payout speaks volumes about how inflated their profit margins were. It would be a different matter if Apple was actually investing that money in R&D, or buying new technologies, but they weren't. They just sat on it year after year watching it get exponentially bigger at the expense of the consumer.
The amount of cash Apple with spend in the dividend is trivial. It was seen as a cheap way to placate shareholders without depleting the cash pile by any significant measure.
No… it's an internal video in much the same vein as Apple's now released product videos for newly designed hardware.
once again it's point less
Except it isn't, as it highlights and gives insight into various aspects of the hardware in question, just like its modern equivalent.
mybye u have no idea what this site is about
I ask again, why do you think this site is here? What do you think our purpose is? This is an honest question, because I genuinely believe you do not know.
Comments
It actually kind of reminds me of an intro to a 30 Minute infomercial.
Different world, different rules
And those videos are for the keynote and website. They aren't created to be used as public commercial as this video was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I want a NEW one. Mine is now almost 8 years old....
Me too. My Fat Mac upgraded to a Mac plus is 26 years old and sitting in the basement... Wait, I already got MBA last month... How time changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
I want one
You will be disappointed once you try to install mountain lion.
deleted
Originally Posted by Ryuk
…who cares really
Still not sure what this site's about, are you?
I feel bad for George Crow since he obviously designed the Analog board for the original Mac. It had a such high failure rate they redesign the board so many times it was at revision P before they finally fix the diode on the video flyback circuit from blowing up. Which was in the Mac Se model years later.
He obviously failed at making a lower cost product that just worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A 60-second television spot created in the months leading up to the early 1984 launch of Apple's original Macintosh was shelved and never aired publicly due to concerns that it would be seen as "too self-congratulatory."
While I'm very glad the "1984" commercial came out first when it did, IMHO I think this would have made a great follow-up commercial. Certainly is better than the "Lemmings" disaster. As for being too self-congratulatory, I think a good dose of chutzpah is needed when introducing a radically new product.
"I can't really describe it to you in words, but if I could get you to sit down in front of it and play with it, you won't let go of it,"
How can I possibly criticize this? This is exactly how I was introduced to my first Mac - an original 128k model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I have several, make me an offer /.. true .. but kidding
Thought the same thing - I don't have my 128k (that I made into 512k) but do have my Plus and an SE 30 as well as several others I kept along the way. Hard to believe my first Mac 128K was $2499 + $499 for ImageWriter and $499 again for an external 400K drive (the coffee grinder) when it became available a couple months later. The only software I had for the longest was MacPaint/MacWrite which it came with and MS Multiplan and Chart which I purchased separately while I waited for a very long time with others for Thinks PASCAL for the Mac. I still did incredible stuff with it at the time and could blow people out of their socks with the Paint/Write combo and of course Multiplan (VisiCalc or SuperCalc were the predominate spreadsheets of the time).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach
You will be disappointed once you try to install mountain lion.
LMAO!
Pretty ironic he would be the one to say this, even though it was the directive for the entire group.
I don't blame him of course ... It was the corporate guys, namely Sculley who were ultimately responsible for the Macimtosh not being the affordable "Volkswagen" of personal computers. Obviously his choice to maximize profit ultimately led to the decisions to use the absolute minimum components specified by the engineers. The fact that the analogue board has two sets of holes to accommodate a larger more robust flyback transformer than the smaller, notoriously unreliable one that originally shipped, says it all about the internal battles between management and the engineers ...
That said, it would seem Steve Jobs learned well from Sculley and continued to keep the profit margins of his products high, though it seems not at the expense of the quality the second time around. The smart business move of course this time around was leveraging volume over quality. Despite his efforts to portray the contrary, I'm pretty sure Jobs liked having a lot of money, otherwise he could have easily charged less for Apple products and been more competitive. The fact Apple was sitting on such a huge pile of capital that it took their shareholders ire to provoke a dividend payout speaks volumes about how inflated their profit margins were. It would be a different matter if Apple was actually investing that money in R&D, or buying new technologies, but they weren't. They just sat on it year after year watching it get exponentially bigger at the expense of the consumer.
Just turn it on and ML will download and install automatically from the Mac App Store -- over WiFi.... It's "magical"!
...the entire OS on a 400K micro floppy... running in 128K RAM... with apps in there too!
They should have put them on a white background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I don't know how you can look at a inspirational, historical gem like that and only thing all these pissy thoughts. Glass half empty much?
Because I've seen much better inspirational stuff from the same time period about the same product. Yes, it's interesting as a "hey look it's the guys actually involved in the creation" glimpse into history. I was just reacting to headline of the article saying "was shelved and never aired publicly due to concerns that it would be seen as "too self-congratulatory." No, it was shelved because it was a bad ad. I actually don't think it was too self-congratulatory, especially the line about having to try it to understand it. That's not "gloating" at all.
An analogous ad today would feature some young Facebook developers rambling about how they coded the newest way to poke someone. That's just rarely the right way to advertise a product.
Awesome. I maybe one of the few but I also loved my Apple /// with VisiCalc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
The fact Apple was sitting on such a huge pile of capital that it took their shareholders ire to provoke a dividend payout speaks volumes about how inflated their profit margins were. It would be a different matter if Apple was actually investing that money in R&D, or buying new technologies, but they weren't. They just sat on it year after year watching it get exponentially bigger at the expense of the consumer.
The amount of cash Apple with spend in the dividend is trivial. It was seen as a cheap way to placate shareholders without depleting the cash pile by any significant measure.
Originally Posted by Ryuk
It's a comerical from 1980
No… it's an internal video in much the same vein as Apple's now released product videos for newly designed hardware.
once again it's point less
Except it isn't, as it highlights and gives insight into various aspects of the hardware in question, just like its modern equivalent.
mybye u have no idea what this site is about
I ask again, why do you think this site is here? What do you think our purpose is? This is an honest question, because I genuinely believe you do not know.