Even the title of this AppleInsider article misses Alan Kay's point entirely. To restate his point clearly: "iPad sucks because kids can't share their programs." Nothing to do with UI.
Kay strongly believes that kids should be able to write programs, and that writing programs is a way to become more intelligent, like Algebra, only more so. Algebra might or might not be handy everyday, but it teaches thinking.
Turns out that if kids can share programs, they learn a LOT faster. Look at http://scratch.mit.edu
But Apple's iOS security policies will not allow programming systems like Scratch, or Kay's "eToys," into the iOS App Store, because Scratch and eToys have as fundamental features the ability to share programs.
I know from personal communication that Kay and his assistants talked to high-level Apple officials, but their request was rejected. So, no Scratch, or eToys, on iOS. HUGE SIGH.
Even the title of this AppleInsider article misses Alan Kay's point entirely. To restate his point clearly: "iPad sucks because kids can't share their programs." Nothing to do with UI.
Kay strongly believes that kids should be able to write programs, and that writing programs is a way to become more intelligent, like Algebra, only more so. Algebra might or might not be handy everyday, but it teaches thinking.
Turns out that if kids can share programs, they learn a LOT faster. Look at http://scratch.mit.edu
But Apple's iOS security policies will not allow programming systems like Scratch, or Kay's "eToys," into the iOS App Store, because Scratch and eToys have as fundamental features the ability to share programs.
I know from personal communication that Kay and his assistants talked to high-level Apple officials, but their request was rejected. So, no Scratch, or eToys, on iOS. HUGE SIGH.
I assume you are one of the ones "in a relation ship . . . "
I'm on planet earth, not planet Kay.
I never said he didn't "lead the team" that designed the Alto (which never went into production.) That is one of my points. All credit doesn't go just to the leader. Ideas are bigger than that. I think I gave him his props and when I said, "Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days." This and calling him a "pioneer" isn't sufficient praise for your religion? ;-)
Everyone like[s] to pretend that the Mac was a clone of the Alto. It wasn't. The Apple team took ideas an[d] even simple notions that were glimmered at PARC and ran with them. The original Mac GUI was miles ahead of the Alto and the OS X and iOS and all the Apple hardware now are lightyears ahead of both of them.
The world moves ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
What planet are you from? Kay designed the Xerox Alto (the direct predecessor of the Mac), and Smalltalk -- an extremely influential, and still very widely used programming language, so he did NOT just philosophize.
I assume you are one of the ones "in a relation ship . . . "
I'm on planet earth, not planet Kay.
I never said he didn't "lead the team" that designed the Alto (which never went into production.) That is one of my points. All credit doesn't go just to the leader. Ideas are bigger than that. I think I gave him his props and when I said, "Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days." This and calling him a "pioneer" isn't sufficient praise for your religion? ;-)
Everyone like to pretend that the Mac was a clone of the Alto. It wasn't. The Apple team took ideas an even simple notions that were glimmered at PARC and ran with them. The original Mac GUI was miles ahead of the Alto and the OS X and iOS and all the Apple hardware now are lightyears ahead of both of them.
The world moves ahead.
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
Oh please, another KDarling who's used and done everything. I've also played with an Alto. I want you to list (detailed, please) why you can claim the Alto is WAY WAY WAY ahead of the Mac.
Or should we just take your word, like Kay who says there are lots of faults with the iPad but doesn't list any.
So I dont't know what I'm talking about because you were there?
So when I said the Alto never went into production, I lied?
"WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac." Of course, the hardware was. That's why I specifically spoke of the Mac GUI. The Mac GUI was optimized for for ease of use far beyond the Alto's. Why wouldn't it be? It was made to be sold and used by actual people. What did those D-machines run once they put them into production? $30-50k apiece? That might just be a reason they didn't exactly fly as personal computers. Was that the PARC vision for personal computers? That they cost many multiples of the average users annual salary and that only institutions could afford to buy them? That's the catch with those utopian visions.
You seem to be prisoner of your own notion of computing and what is should/must be, all at the expense of what real people actually want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
I am afraid that YOU are the moron. Kay is a million times smarter than you have ever been or ever will be. The paper you give is from '72, when computers were (by coincidencce) roughly a million times slower than your phone.
Which happens to be close to the last time that Kay was involved in computer design.
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
I too used the Alto. "Played" may be more appropriate. But man, being a teenager at the time, I felt the closest ever to discovering religion, although I wouldn't agree that it was that far ahead of the Mac. (I also disagree that Alan Kay designed the Alto, but that's another discussion).
Bottom line, comparison isn't fair. The Alto was a reference machine. Make no mistake, however, it was a mere prototype. Thought not commercialized, thousands were made. After all, there was nothing special about me as a teenager to have gotten my hands on one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh please, another KDarling who's used and done everything. I've also played with an Alto. I want you to list (detailed, please) why you can claim the Alto is WAY WAY WAY ahead of the Mac.
Or should we just take your word, like Kay who says there are lots of faults with the iPad but doesn't list any.
I repeat - why is everyone jumping on Kay for not providing a detailed list? Was he asked to provide one? Was he given a blank sheet of paper to write a thorough treatise? How much time was he given? Do you attack every interviewee for not providing complete answers within the 10 minutes given?
Arguing that because he didn't provide details then he must be wrong is not only an exemplar of false dichotomy, it is a sleight of hand disguising the fact that most here are not qualified to provide a cogent, learned opposing opinion.
Alan Kay may well be proven wrong if a detailed debate was held with qualified peers (of his). He is certainly biased. But to attack his legacy, to continue claiming he has done nothing in recent decades and to keep claiming that his status is reduced because he didn't ship only shows that the caliber of people here is lower than previously estimated.
Finally, repeating myself, the notion of attacking Kay while fondling your Apple products is beyond absurd. Imagine, 5 years from now, there might be those who look at Cook and/or Ive as the men who made Apple, and think of Jobs as some jerk who abandoned his child, a drug addict and couldn't write a single line of code. How would you feel then?
It's incredible, no respect or understanding and say things like: "this guy sounds really butthurt". Sad. Read a little bit about Alan Kay and then see how stupid you feel for completely missing the point of what he is saying here.
So I dont't know what I'm talking about because you were there?
So when I said the Alto never went into production, I lied?
"WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac." Of course, the hardware was. That's why I specifically spoke of the Mac GUI. The Mac GUI was optimized for for ease of use far beyond the Alto's. Why wouldn't it be? It was made to be sold and used by actual people. What did those D-machines run once they put them into production? $30-50k apiece? That might just be a reason they didn't exactly fly as personal computers. Was that the PARC vision for personal computers? That they cost many multiples of the average users annual salary and that only institutions could afford to buy them? That's the catch with those utopian visions.
You seem to be prisoner of your own notion of computing and what is should/must be, all at the expense of what real people actually want or need.
You are assuming that real people actually know what they want or need and that the greater good is to simply facilitate those wants and needs. Farmville for President, right? The people have spoken.
O'Reilly told us to stop throwing sheep and I felt inclined to listen.
Oh please, another KDarling who's used and done everything. I've also played with an Alto. I want you to list (detailed, please) why you can claim the Alto is WAY WAY WAY ahead of the Mac.
Or should we just take your word, like Kay who says there are lots of faults with the iPad but doesn't list any.
1. The original poster claimed that the Alto was a never manufactured prototype. This is false.
2. If I do, will you go out and buy an Alto? There is a huge literature on the subject, go google it.
No. Bad example. The Wright brothers actually researched, experimented, built, tested, flew, and commercialized the airplane.
How many planes did the Wright brothers build and sell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Kay's relationship to computing is more like Leonardo's relationship to the airplane. Leonardo was an idea guy who conceptualized about flying and built mockups etc. Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days.
No. Bad example. Kay did more than conceptualize. There is significant space and life between conceptualization and mass production. It is not an either or proposition.
So I dont't know what I'm talking about because you were there?
So when I said the Alto never went into production, I lied?
"WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac." Of course, the hardware was. That's why I specifically spoke of the Mac GUI. The Mac GUI was optimized for for ease of use far beyond the Alto's. Why wouldn't it be? It was made to be sold and used by actual people. What did those D-machines run once they put them into production? $30-50k apiece? That might just be a reason they didn't exactly fly as personal computers. Was that the PARC vision for personal computers? That they cost many multiples of the average users annual salary and that only institutions could afford to buy them? That's the catch with those utopian visions.
You seem to be prisoner of your own notion of computing and what is should/must be, all at the expense of what real people actually want or need.
This is a debate that has been going on for a long time, and I suspect that neither of us is the best advocate for either side. The basic reason why I said what I said has been summarized by someone close to thirty years ago: The mac made easy things easy, but the hard things impossible, while the lisp machines made easy things hard but the hard things not much harder. In computing circles back in the day, the Mac was thought of as a secretary's machine (yes, we were sexist back then), although the secretaries at PARC used Altos, and seemed quite happy.
As for the cost, we are not discussing marketing but usability. The Mac was a toy until Adobe (another PARC spinoff) made PostScript, and Apple made the LaserWriter, which was the Mac killer app. Normal humans could NOT afford the laserwriter, since it cost (if memory serves) around $3K, which at the time was a hell of a lot of money, but INSTITUTIONS (such as universities) could, and within a couple of years the world was changed.
You just make yourself look out of date and irrelevant if all you can do is disparage other people's ideas. If yours are so great, why don't you go make something yourself instead of spouting this garbage?
How many of you who've criticized Kay know who he is?
I know Kay and he's a has been who once was at the top of his game and now is out of the loop so completely he is spouting nonsense. He looks at an iPad and its simplicity confuses him. Where's the command line? How do I boot it up? It doesn't let me defrag the memory.
He feels the iPad lacks the capacity to enable "symmetric authoring and consuming." What the hell does that mean...? He can't program it in Basic or Cobol???
Life goes on. A person no longer has to open the box and flip DIP-switches or move jumper wires.
I know Kay and he's a has been who once was at the top of his game and now is out of the loop so completely he is spouting nonsense. He looks at an iPad and its simplicity confuses him. Where's the command line? How do I boot it up? It doesn't let me defrag the memory.
He feels the iPad lacks the capacity to enable "symmetric authoring and consuming." What the hell does that mean...? He can't program it in Basic or Cobol???
Life goes on. A person no longer has to open the box and flip DIP-switches or move jumper wires.
These are gratuitous insults, which indicate that the first line is a lie -- you may be confusing him with Mary Kay, who seems closer to your intellectual level.
I repeat - why is everyone jumping on Kay for not providing a detailed list? Was he asked to provide one? Was he given a blank sheet of paper to write a thorough treatise? How much time was he given? Do you attack every interviewee for not providing complete answers within the 10 minutes given?
Actually I do attack people for making broad generalizations that lack details. See below....
2. If I do, will you go out and buy an Alto? There is a huge literature on the subject, go google it.
Burden of proof. Do you know what it means? If you make a claim you're the one who has to prove it, it's not up to us to. Asking me to "Google it" is basically saying you can't back up your statements.
Which also fits with Alan Kay saying the UI of the iPad is "poor". If he's going to make such a broad and harsh statement in an interview he knows will be published then he should have followed it up with some examples.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineux
Even the title of this AppleInsider article misses Alan Kay's point entirely. To restate his point clearly: "iPad sucks because kids can't share their programs." Nothing to do with UI.
Kay strongly believes that kids should be able to write programs, and that writing programs is a way to become more intelligent, like Algebra, only more so. Algebra might or might not be handy everyday, but it teaches thinking.
Turns out that if kids can share programs, they learn a LOT faster. Look at http://scratch.mit.edu
But Apple's iOS security policies will not allow programming systems like Scratch, or Kay's "eToys," into the iOS App Store, because Scratch and eToys have as fundamental features the ability to share programs.
I know from personal communication that Kay and his assistants talked to high-level Apple officials, but their request was rejected. So, no Scratch, or eToys, on iOS. HUGE SIGH.
Is their system available on Android devices?
Kay strongly believes that kids should be able to write programs, and that writing programs is a way to become more intelligent, like Algebra, only more so. Algebra might or might not be handy everyday, but it teaches thinking.
Turns out that if kids can share programs, they learn a LOT faster. Look at http://scratch.mit.edu
But Apple's iOS security policies will not allow programming systems like Scratch, or Kay's "eToys," into the iOS App Store, because Scratch and eToys have as fundamental features the ability to share programs.
I know from personal communication that Kay and his assistants talked to high-level Apple officials, but their request was rejected. So, no Scratch, or eToys, on iOS. HUGE SIGH.
I assume you are one of the ones "in a relation ship . . . "
I'm on planet earth, not planet Kay.
I never said he didn't "lead the team" that designed the Alto (which never went into production.) That is one of my points. All credit doesn't go just to the leader. Ideas are bigger than that. I think I gave him his props and when I said, "Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days." This and calling him a "pioneer" isn't sufficient praise for your religion? ;-)
Everyone like[s] to pretend that the Mac was a clone of the Alto. It wasn't. The Apple team took ideas an[d] even simple notions that were glimmered at PARC and ran with them. The original Mac GUI was miles ahead of the Alto and the OS X and iOS and all the Apple hardware now are lightyears ahead of both of them.
The world moves ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
What planet are you from? Kay designed the Xerox Alto (the direct predecessor of the Mac), and Smalltalk -- an extremely influential, and still very widely used programming language, so he did NOT just philosophize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
I assume you are one of the ones "in a relation ship . . . "
I'm on planet earth, not planet Kay.
I never said he didn't "lead the team" that designed the Alto (which never went into production.) That is one of my points. All credit doesn't go just to the leader. Ideas are bigger than that. I think I gave him his props and when I said, "Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days." This and calling him a "pioneer" isn't sufficient praise for your religion? ;-)
Everyone like to pretend that the Mac was a clone of the Alto. It wasn't. The Apple team took ideas an even simple notions that were glimmered at PARC and ran with them. The original Mac GUI was miles ahead of the Alto and the OS X and iOS and all the Apple hardware now are lightyears ahead of both of them.
The world moves ahead.
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
Or should we just take your word, like Kay who says there are lots of faults with the iPad but doesn't list any.
So I dont't know what I'm talking about because you were there?
So when I said the Alto never went into production, I lied?
"WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac." Of course, the hardware was. That's why I specifically spoke of the Mac GUI. The Mac GUI was optimized for for ease of use far beyond the Alto's. Why wouldn't it be? It was made to be sold and used by actual people. What did those D-machines run once they put them into production? $30-50k apiece? That might just be a reason they didn't exactly fly as personal computers. Was that the PARC vision for personal computers? That they cost many multiples of the average users annual salary and that only institutions could afford to buy them? That's the catch with those utopian visions.
You seem to be prisoner of your own notion of computing and what is should/must be, all at the expense of what real people actually want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
Which happens to be close to the last time that Kay was involved in computer design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
You don't know what you are talking about. I used the Alto, it was in common use as a smart terminal at Xerox PARC. It was superceded by the D-machines (the Xerox flavor of lisp machines [as opposed to the MIT flavor, made by Symbolics and LMI, after having been developed at the MIT AI lab]. The Xerox machines were WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac, which was a dumbed down device, to which the same criticism Kay is applying to the iPad now could (and was applied): it was a toaster, and not really Turing-complete, unless you were a very good programmer, so it was a device to CONSUME (code, not documents), and not to produce. This was due to Jef Raskin's philosophy that a computer should be an appliance, like a toaster, with one red button. This dream is embodied in the iPad (it actually has exactly one button), but this is not a programmer's dream, but a consumer goods maker's [Raskin himself was (and presumably still is) a master programmer, but his vision was different).
I too used the Alto. "Played" may be more appropriate. But man, being a teenager at the time, I felt the closest ever to discovering religion, although I wouldn't agree that it was that far ahead of the Mac. (I also disagree that Alan Kay designed the Alto, but that's another discussion).
Bottom line, comparison isn't fair. The Alto was a reference machine. Make no mistake, however, it was a mere prototype. Thought not commercialized, thousands were made. After all, there was nothing special about me as a teenager to have gotten my hands on one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh please, another KDarling who's used and done everything. I've also played with an Alto. I want you to list (detailed, please) why you can claim the Alto is WAY WAY WAY ahead of the Mac.
Or should we just take your word, like Kay who says there are lots of faults with the iPad but doesn't list any.
I repeat - why is everyone jumping on Kay for not providing a detailed list? Was he asked to provide one? Was he given a blank sheet of paper to write a thorough treatise? How much time was he given? Do you attack every interviewee for not providing complete answers within the 10 minutes given?
Arguing that because he didn't provide details then he must be wrong is not only an exemplar of false dichotomy, it is a sleight of hand disguising the fact that most here are not qualified to provide a cogent, learned opposing opinion.
Alan Kay may well be proven wrong if a detailed debate was held with qualified peers (of his). He is certainly biased. But to attack his legacy, to continue claiming he has done nothing in recent decades and to keep claiming that his status is reduced because he didn't ship only shows that the caliber of people here is lower than previously estimated.
Finally, repeating myself, the notion of attacking Kay while fondling your Apple products is beyond absurd. Imagine, 5 years from now, there might be those who look at Cook and/or Ive as the men who made Apple, and think of Jobs as some jerk who abandoned his child, a drug addict and couldn't write a single line of code. How would you feel then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
So I dont't know what I'm talking about because you were there?
So when I said the Alto never went into production, I lied?
"WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac." Of course, the hardware was. That's why I specifically spoke of the Mac GUI. The Mac GUI was optimized for for ease of use far beyond the Alto's. Why wouldn't it be? It was made to be sold and used by actual people. What did those D-machines run once they put them into production? $30-50k apiece? That might just be a reason they didn't exactly fly as personal computers. Was that the PARC vision for personal computers? That they cost many multiples of the average users annual salary and that only institutions could afford to buy them? That's the catch with those utopian visions.
You seem to be prisoner of your own notion of computing and what is should/must be, all at the expense of what real people actually want or need.
You are assuming that real people actually know what they want or need and that the greater good is to simply facilitate those wants and needs. Farmville for President, right? The people have spoken.
O'Reilly told us to stop throwing sheep and I felt inclined to listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh please, another KDarling who's used and done everything. I've also played with an Alto. I want you to list (detailed, please) why you can claim the Alto is WAY WAY WAY ahead of the Mac.
Or should we just take your word, like Kay who says there are lots of faults with the iPad but doesn't list any.
1. The original poster claimed that the Alto was a never manufactured prototype. This is false.
2. If I do, will you go out and buy an Alto? There is a huge literature on the subject, go google it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
No. Bad example.
How many planes did the Wright brothers build and sell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Kay's relationship to computing is more like Leonardo's relationship to the airplane. Leonardo was an idea guy who conceptualized about flying and built mockups etc. Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days.
No. Bad example. Kay did more than conceptualize. There is significant space and life between conceptualization and mass production. It is not an either or proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
So I dont't know what I'm talking about because you were there?
So when I said the Alto never went into production, I lied?
"WAY, WAY, WAY ahead of the Mac." Of course, the hardware was. That's why I specifically spoke of the Mac GUI. The Mac GUI was optimized for for ease of use far beyond the Alto's. Why wouldn't it be? It was made to be sold and used by actual people. What did those D-machines run once they put them into production? $30-50k apiece? That might just be a reason they didn't exactly fly as personal computers. Was that the PARC vision for personal computers? That they cost many multiples of the average users annual salary and that only institutions could afford to buy them? That's the catch with those utopian visions.
You seem to be prisoner of your own notion of computing and what is should/must be, all at the expense of what real people actually want or need.
This is a debate that has been going on for a long time, and I suspect that neither of us is the best advocate for either side. The basic reason why I said what I said has been summarized by someone close to thirty years ago: The mac made easy things easy, but the hard things impossible, while the lisp machines made easy things hard but the hard things not much harder. In computing circles back in the day, the Mac was thought of as a secretary's machine (yes, we were sexist back then), although the secretaries at PARC used Altos, and seemed quite happy.
As for the cost, we are not discussing marketing but usability. The Mac was a toy until Adobe (another PARC spinoff) made PostScript, and Apple made the LaserWriter, which was the Mac killer app. Normal humans could NOT afford the laserwriter, since it cost (if memory serves) around $3K, which at the time was a hell of a lot of money, but INSTITUTIONS (such as universities) could, and within a couple of years the world was changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which happens to be close to the last time that Kay was involved in computer design.
That's absolutely untrue. Why do you continue to say stuff that has no basis in fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Wow. Lots of vitriol of AI's enemy du jour.
How many of you who've criticized Kay know who he is?
I know Kay and he's a has been who once was at the top of his game and now is out of the loop so completely he is spouting nonsense. He looks at an iPad and its simplicity confuses him. Where's the command line? How do I boot it up? It doesn't let me defrag the memory.
He feels the iPad lacks the capacity to enable "symmetric authoring and consuming." What the hell does that mean...? He can't program it in Basic or Cobol???
Life goes on. A person no longer has to open the box and flip DIP-switches or move jumper wires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I know Kay and he's a has been who once was at the top of his game and now is out of the loop so completely he is spouting nonsense. He looks at an iPad and its simplicity confuses him. Where's the command line? How do I boot it up? It doesn't let me defrag the memory.
He feels the iPad lacks the capacity to enable "symmetric authoring and consuming." What the hell does that mean...? He can't program it in Basic or Cobol???
Life goes on. A person no longer has to open the box and flip DIP-switches or move jumper wires.
These are gratuitous insults, which indicate that the first line is a lie -- you may be confusing him with Mary Kay, who seems closer to your intellectual level.
Burden of proof. Do you know what it means? If you make a claim you're the one who has to prove it, it's not up to us to. Asking me to "Google it" is basically saying you can't back up your statements.
Which also fits with Alan Kay saying the UI of the iPad is "poor". If he's going to make such a broad and harsh statement in an interview he knows will be published then he should have followed it up with some examples.
deleted
deleted