Jobs liked the name as a tribute to the Beatles' record label, and both Jobs & Wozniak liked it for how simple and distinctly un-computerish it seemed.
It was because Jobs worked on an Apple orchard. They were able to use the name Apple legally as long as it didn't encroach on the record label's market. Eventually it did and the two Apples went to court.
I find the suggested reasons reasonable. But I do not think they are correct. i think, based on the original price of the first apple, 666.66, that perhaps Jobs and Woz wanted to suggest that perhaps the computer was symbollic of a new apple of eden. A new type of knowledge that we were biting into. And too bite into this knowledge, you needed to bite into the apple, thus the name Apple was born.
<strong>I find the suggested reasons reasonable. But I do not think they are correct. i think, based on the original price of the first apple, 666.66, that perhaps Jobs and Woz wanted to suggest that perhaps the computer was symbollic of a new apple of eden. A new type of knowledge that we were biting into. And too bite into this knowledge, you needed to bite into the apple, thus the name Apple was born.</strong><hr></blockquote>
according to Wozniak neither he or Jobs knew the biblical meaning of 666.66. they just thought it looked cool.
I probably shouldn't be saying this, but back before I actually used a Mac (nine years ago now), and even up 'til my first few months of being a Mac user, I assumed that the Beatles' Apple and the computer Apple were related.
I remember thinking "hey, that's cool...I'm using a computer that Paul McCartney helped start!"
Let's keep that between ourselves, okay? Don't be spreading that around.
But can you blame me? How many corporations out there share the same name? I mean, I can't guy buy Sony sweatshirts or a toaster made by a company called Chevrolet.
The name Apple was indeed because Jobs previoulsy worked part time in an Apple orchard.
The fact that the Beatles had the Apple label was in no way related - though they did eventually go to court. They settled when Apple showed that the Apple (not the Mac) did not do sound processing/recording. Later, however, the Apple/Mac did get sound abilities. That's where the "Sosumi" sound gets its name from.
The original logo did not originally look like it does today. At first it was a picture of a guy under a tree with a scriptish type font saying Apple Computer. Or something like that.
The original 666.66 price was a joke on Woz's part. He has said that he simply likes repeating numbers - it's a pet peeve thing that he finds funny. It has no biblical allusion.
All of this is in the book Apple Confidential by Owen Lindsmayer (I think that's his name). If you are interested in the history of Apple buy this book. It's excellent. Has lots of neat little details, facts etc.
Yep, Apple Confidential is one of THE best Apple books, along with On the Firing Line.
The original logo I believe depicted Isaac Newton, writing under an Apple tree, with a rectangular border. It was nixed though, because it was to hard to reproduce on boxes, etc. So they adopted the 6 color Apple that we still see today on outdated Macs.
I think the two Steves were driving on the Santa Monica highway when they thought up the Apple name...and while other SV companies had technical sounding names (remember that Dilbert comic, where a consultant pulled random words from astrology and computer engineering to make up cool company names and he suggested "Uranus-Hertz"?), Jobs recalled his enjoyable days at the Apple Commune and decided that Apple would be a nice name that wouldn't sound so technically boring. And Woz agreed.
[quote] I probably shouldn't be saying this, but back before I actually used a Mac (nine years ago now), and even up 'til my first few months of being a Mac user, I assumed that the Beatles' Apple and the computer Apple were related.
I remember thinking "hey, that's cool...I'm using a computer that Paul McCartney helped start!" <hr></blockquote>
No, I meant Paul McCartney, who I imagine coming across more savvy and business-oriented than someone like John.
It was Paul who was calling a lot of the shots (for better or worse) during the late-60's period, regarding managment, money, projects, marketing, etc.
I think they ALL had a hand in the "vision" thing, though.
I don't think John would've ever been as good as he was without Paul...and vice versa.
The cliche that always gets me too is when people distill it down to "John was the edgy, raw artist and Paul was the sappy, pop craftsman...".
For every Lennon's "Julia", there's Paul with "Helter Skelter".
I also read in a book.. I forgot what it was, like 700 pages long, black book, gold text? They usually change the colors so that won't help.. the title of the book was based off some zen thing.
Anyways.. it said the orchard reason.. and also he wanted a name that was close to Atari since he worked there. I dunno how true it is though.
Newton was holding an Apple in the original logo, it was too expensive to reproduce, the six color one was made up by a friend of someone at Apple, and Gasse said it was the perfect representation: lust, greed, chaos [all the colors of the rainbow but in the wrong order], and creativity all wrapped up in one, when Jobs came back the logo stayed but the colors are gone, some think it was Jobs symbolically removing the chaos. I'll buy that.
Comments
2.) Jobs worked on an apple orchard one summer.<- real reason
(Both good reasons, I think.)
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: M. ]</p>
--Mike
<strong>I find the suggested reasons reasonable. But I do not think they are correct. i think, based on the original price of the first apple, 666.66, that perhaps Jobs and Woz wanted to suggest that perhaps the computer was symbollic of a new apple of eden. A new type of knowledge that we were biting into. And too bite into this knowledge, you needed to bite into the apple, thus the name Apple was born.</strong><hr></blockquote>
according to Wozniak neither he or Jobs knew the biblical meaning of 666.66. they just thought it looked cool.
I remember thinking "hey, that's cool...I'm using a computer that Paul McCartney helped start!"
Let's keep that between ourselves, okay? Don't be spreading that around.
But can you blame me? How many corporations out there share the same name? I mean, I can't guy buy Sony sweatshirts or a toaster made by a company called Chevrolet.
How the hell was I supposed to know?
The fact that the Beatles had the Apple label was in no way related - though they did eventually go to court. They settled when Apple showed that the Apple (not the Mac) did not do sound processing/recording. Later, however, the Apple/Mac did get sound abilities. That's where the "Sosumi" sound gets its name from.
The original logo did not originally look like it does today. At first it was a picture of a guy under a tree with a scriptish type font saying Apple Computer. Or something like that.
The original 666.66 price was a joke on Woz's part. He has said that he simply likes repeating numbers - it's a pet peeve thing that he finds funny. It has no biblical allusion.
All of this is in the book Apple Confidential by Owen Lindsmayer (I think that's his name). If you are interested in the history of Apple buy this book. It's excellent. Has lots of neat little details, facts etc.
The original logo I believe depicted Isaac Newton, writing under an Apple tree, with a rectangular border. It was nixed though, because it was to hard to reproduce on boxes, etc. So they adopted the 6 color Apple that we still see today on outdated Macs.
I think the two Steves were driving on the Santa Monica highway when they thought up the Apple name...and while other SV companies had technical sounding names (remember that Dilbert comic, where a consultant pulled random words from astrology and computer engineering to make up cool company names and he suggested "Uranus-Hertz"?), Jobs recalled his enjoyable days at the Apple Commune and decided that Apple would be a nice name that wouldn't sound so technically boring. And Woz agreed.
I remember thinking "hey, that's cool...I'm using a computer that Paul McCartney helped start!" <hr></blockquote>
Shame on you, pscates! Don't you mean
John Lennon, truly visionary Beatle?
- Pook <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
It was Paul who was calling a lot of the shots (for better or worse) during the late-60's period, regarding managment, money, projects, marketing, etc.
I think they ALL had a hand in the "vision" thing, though.
I don't think John would've ever been as good as he was without Paul...and vice versa.
The cliche that always gets me too is when people distill it down to "John was the edgy, raw artist and Paul was the sappy, pop craftsman...".
For every Lennon's "Julia", there's Paul with "Helter Skelter".
They both rocked and they both whispered.
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
I don't think John would've ever been as good as he was without Paul...and vice versa.<hr></blockquote>
Lennon solo= great
McCartney Solo= Wings
enough said
Lennon solo = Yoko and getting shot
Anyways.. it said the orchard reason.. and also he wanted a name that was close to Atari since he worked there. I dunno how true it is though.
Funny how the name of an apple transformed into a brand as 'power-mac' or 'imac'
ap