Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Apr 2012 17:19 UTC
Windows I wish more people who work or have worked for large technology companies were as open, honest, and excited as Steve Wozniak still gets over new technology and gadgets. He recently bought a Nokia Lumia 900 - and he's loving it. So much so, in fact, that he claims it's better than Android and iOS in many respects.
Thread beginning with comment 516244
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Doesn't matter
by henderson101 on Sun 29th Apr 2012 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Doesn't matter"
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

But Apple was not a Software company. They were a hardware company with software. Plus, most of the clones were based on a reference board that Appe provided. Apple wrongly assumed that the clones would fill the niche, where as what really happened was something more like an all out assault. The problem was that many manufacturers tried to innovate and create USP's. So, while some threw put plain clones on the Tanzania logic board in grey boxes, others, like the Motorola Starmax had a standard VGA port (back when Macs used a Mac specific one) and a PS/2 port. You also have the quad processor from Daystar, which was a little insane. Some tricked out their processors and logic board speeds/timings. There were a lot of issues caused by the specs not being adhered to. it was a total mess and Apple handled the whole fiasco badly. That jobs canned the programme wasa blessing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Doesn't matter
by Neolander on Mon 30th Apr 2012 07:32 in reply to "RE[5]: Doesn't matter"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

But Apple was not a Software company. They were a hardware company with software.

You make it sound as if software development at Apple was a secondary extra, with hardware design as the main task.

But as far as I can tell, Apple's computers had pretty mainstream designs (well, minus the unusual component standards) until they started to get a bit more fancy with the first-gen iMac. It's clearly the software that received the most effort and made people want to buy Apple's stuff.

Which is why the OEM licensing deal made sense at all. You don't leave hardware design to others if you want to distinguish yourself through it.

Plus, most of the clones were based on a reference board that Appe provided. Apple wrongly assumed that the clones would fill the niche, where as what really happened was something more like an all out assault.

If I get it right, they really expected OEMs to stay in the low-end and take the thin margins and blame for the cost compromises, while they continued to sell the products which had the most prestigious image and brought the most profit ?

If so, that was kind of stupid. If you want a slave that will blindly follow your orders, what you need is a "pure" manufacturing company like Foxconn, not an OEM.

The problem was that many manufacturers tried to innovate and create USP's. So, while some threw put plain clones on the Tanzania logic board in grey boxes, others, like the Motorola Starmax had a standard VGA port (back when Macs used a Mac specific one) and a PS/2 port.

Which meant, if the OS dealt with those right (I don't know), that Mac users and OEMs could use cheaper PC hardware instead of paying the Apple tax on everything, kind of like we do today. Seems like a decision that would be full of win, except for Apple of course.

You also have the quad processor from Daystar, which was a little insane.

Quad cores in the 80-90s ? Now that was cool. If some software was developed for it, I guess media people were quite happy to see this kind of high-power hardware around.

Some tricked out their processors and logic board speeds/timings. There were a lot of issues caused by the specs not being adhered to.

Now, that is a more serious problem. But when you deal with OEMs, you will always get Acers that try to cut costs so hard that they release crappy products in the end. I guess that like today, you had ways to document yourself on which model was best for each use though (magazines, reliable vendors, etc...).

it was a total mess and Apple handled the whole fiasco badly. That jobs canned the programme wasa blessing.

Most of what you've written on your post rather sounded like good news, except for Apple. Cheaper PC hardware, more power for those who needs it, experiments to bring prices down... Looked like a rather healthy OEMs ecosystem to me, except for the spec adherence problems.

I'm sure that Apple could have done something with it, if they were ready to sink their hardware division. What they did instead (make more original hardware in order to justify their prices and lock-in) was another good option though, and the one that was most beneficial to Apple as a company (though not necessarily to their customers).

Edited 2012-04-30 07:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2