This, hence why I find it funny that Apple now is endorsing the Right To Repair movement, at least according to some of the TH-camrs I watch, since they were the ones who created this problem to begin with. 😆
@@Jolis_Parsec its a joke of a program, insanely good marketing scheme. this was made to shut the media up and piss off actually supporters of right to repair
What wasn't explained here is WHY the Mac performed so poorly, and why it was so un-upgradeable. The whole reason for this is that the 68000 processor was used to emulate all sorts of hardware, such as sound card, disk controller, video adapter; it had none of these. These pieces of "hardware" were created in software every time the machine was turned on. While this says a lot for the capabilities of the 68000 chip, and the cleverness of Apple's programmers, the real issue was that by the time all this phantom hardware was created, there was little capacity left for the CPU to run programs. Besides that, this approach made the operating system inextricably bound to the hardware, and severely limited any upgrade path. As well as all that, the Mac was way overpriced. Since the interior was mostly air, with only one circuit board, and no expansion path other than the scsi bus, it should have sold for much less than it did. The only expensive component was the 68000 chip itself, but there was no other processor at the time that could have done the job. Having painted themselves into a corner with this approach, Apple paid dearly for this supposedly clever piece of deception. It nearly sank the company. Later on, Atari and Amiga used the same 68000 chip, but did a much better job of exploiting its capabilities to do really useful stuff.
The Macintosh’s motherboard design was the equivalent of a one-man band. As you said, the 68000 had to manage basically everything, which took a toll on the actual processing power. The Atari ST and especially the Amiga used the same 68000 CPU but had other specialized chips for video, sound, memory management, etc. This allowed for these machines to be more capable and allowed the 68000 to run at a higher potential than what the Mac allowed. The Macintosh’s one-man band design had a lasting impact on its successive compact models and even into the Macintosh II series. These machines were usually the first commercial computers to ship with the newer models of 68k processor like the 68020 and 68030, unlike the Atari ST and Amiga. However, because the CPU had to do things without other specialized supporting chips, a better CPU would make up ground lost on performance. That’s why an Atari ST and Amiga can emulate the original Macintosh and beyond through software, even with the exact same processor of that Macintosh they were emulating.
The Mac was un-upgradeable because of the bad experience Steve Jobs had with the Apple 2. You know, people would modify and upgrade their Apple 2 machine - which Steve Jobs thought of as *his* Apple 2s, not *theirs.* They didn'tg even ask him for permission! Bad users! Very bad users! So for the Mac, Steve Jobs explicitly ordered it to be non-upgradeable. In his opinion, the onyl way to get an upgrade would be to dump your old machine into the trash bin and buy the next model. Some Apple engineers disagreed with that, but Steve checked the PCBs to make sure that there was no way to upgrade the Mac. Because the engineers tried to sneak in an option for a RAM upgrade. Bad engineers! Very bad engineers! Luckily, Steve caught them! Good Steve! Okay, by now we all know that one enginieer added a "debug port" to the Mac, which actually was a hidden way to...upgrade the RAM. Oh, these bad, bad engineers! To play such nasty tricks on good Steve! Whatever. And the Mac wasn't overpriced. While Steve had originally envisioned a price tag of $1000 max, that price tag was not high enough to secure Apple's success. The MAc would have to sell for $2000. But John Sculley disagreed. His brilliant idea (no sarcasm here!) was to raise the price to $2500, and spend the extra $500 per Mac on advertising. So yes, the end user paid ore money for the *machine* that it worth it, but a substantial part of the money the user paid was invested into telling the user that he invested his money wisely in the best possible way for the best possible machine. And that meant customer satisfaction! Who wouldn't invest an extra $500 for one's own satisfaction and confirmation of superiority over everybody else! Of course, the initial price tag wasn't $2500, it was even higher. Never mind.
@@Maximara competition between the ST and Amiga eventually killed off the ST. The Amiga was plagued with mismanagement and poor marketing which led to the Amiga being much more popular in Europe and a niche system in North America. Apple and IBM compatibles had a big foothold in the US market. Apple had a big head start in the US, they made deals with schools and provided systems to them, and were first to market with the Macintosh. IBM compatibles meanwhile dominated the business market. Game consoles blew up in popularity in the US. The ST and Amiga were late in the game and not enough was done to keep them alive in NA. However, their power and performance over the Macintosh and even IBM compatibles has nothing to do with their market performance. You can have an amazing product but if you can’t market it properly, it may as well be the worst product.
Just a note: "Big Blue" was never a derogatory name. The employees (who were very team-oriented at that time, as a Japanese corporation) lovingly called their corporate god "Big Blue". I know. I was there. I was a team player. I wore IBM boxers and had an IBM tie. I loved that job. I loved that company. It was sort of a cross between an extended family and a cult. In hindsight, it was freaking weird. But we all called our insular, corporate mama "Big Blue" because we loved the place. Again, it was never derrogatory.
Let's not forget that the OS didn't initially have multitasking, and when they grafted on a system that could it wasn't the greatest. Update after Update and patch after patch gradually made the system unstable and led to the disaster that was Copeland.
Copland, not Copeland. Named after a composer. System 7.5 was code named Mozart, system 8 was Copland and at one time a project named Gershwin was to follow Copland. A lot of what was developed for Copland ended up in MacOS 8 and 9 as delivered after it was decided to buy Next.
@@av_oid want to hear something funny? I initially thought that they named it after Stewart Copeland of The Police. Chances are I misspelled his name too.
For all the game-changing and market disrupting products/services that Jobs and Apple created, people tend to gloss over the numerous failures that happened along the way. But hey, you gotta break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet.
Man this brings me back. My school back in 98-99 had a macintosh SE or 2 in every classroom. My first time really fumbling around on a computer was one of those. They were dated for that time but the school didn't have the funds to upgrade yet. Then one day we came in and they had upgraded them all to the iMac G3. We thought we were living in the future lol. Thanks for bringing me back buddy!
Yessir!! I also remember playing on these in early grade school and the dawn of those sexy G3s. I have flashbacks to a game i think was called "Monster & Me" on the Macintosh that was a click based adventure where you would interact with a room and play various minigames... ahh man those were the days.
lol nice. The first Macs I interacted with in school were Macintosh LC machines (might have been LC II's or LC III's. Don't recall now but pretty sure they weren't the original LCs though) and one of those early PowerPC all in one's. (Not the molor macs. The machines that came after the LC 550/575 series I just don't recall what model it was anymore. Only that it did have a PowerPC on it because I distinctly remembering that it was the only Mac I came across at school that could run Graphing Calculator. :P ) First Mac I owned was a Macintosh Classic. Was given to me to repair (it had a corrupted file system so was getting the flashing disk icon) that I was able to keep since for what ever reason they didn't want it back. That was probably mid to late 90s. First iMac G3 I saw in person was a single machine I saw in computer class in high school in the early 2000s (I think that was around 2001/2004 range). that was after my move to the current town I live in and unlike the previous city all the schools here used PCs and not Macs so it was an oddity that there was this one iMac G3 sitting on the teacher's desk in computer class. I now own a iMac G3. A 333mhz Tangerine model. The Rev D tray loader. Not as big a fan as the later slot loader machines. They lacked an internal fan and the slot load drives are infamous for needing new belts/etc. Plus I preferred the frosted transparency of the first iMacs and not the glossy/clearish transparency the newer ones had. Came off as cheaper looking to me. Real shame tray loader iMacs didn't get a DVD drive like the slot loaders though. :(
In 1986/7 I worked in a graphic design studio. My then boss saw the Mac plus and considered it a possible advantage to our otherwise manual artwork production (pens, typesetting and scalpels). He bought one of the first units in the North of the UK, along with an external monitor that had the display cable literally hot glued to the top of the graphics chip to enable it to display the image as it was not a 'thing' to have a large monitor yet!!!!. This was the beginnings of the DTP revolution, and I loved it. Mac WAS very capable by the late 80s, albeit most days I had the take off to case cover to re-glue the piggyback mount on the graphic chip. I used photoshop, illustrator etc all from first releases and as a company we showcased what a computer based studio was capable of… great times.
The almost universal statement by Mac users was, "I don't want to know how a computer works, I just want to work with a computer. They did not understand that the more you know about how computers work, the better you can work.
There's a few liberties taken toward the end here. NeXT wasn't exactly doing great when Apple bought them back, and the iMac (1998) had about three years of running on classic Mac OS before OSX came out and it took a few more after that before Apple considered the Mac OS -> OSX transition complete (and a few more still before users agreed). Also NeXT's reliance on object orientation had nothing to do with its 3D capabilities (which were also quite primitive even by the day's standards). Where the pervasive OO helped NeXT was by making it easier for programs to communicate with one another through component embedding, and another big advantage for NeXTstep was that it was built for networking from the ground up. 3D was hardly a factor in NeXT.
Most of NextStep was based around Objective C. But there is nothing really special about a compiled OO code for the OS. It's really about manually memory managing or have it done for you to over simplify. BUT Next wasn't abusive with their linker allowing the filesystem itself handle allow of the would-be linker issues. It was super popular than (thanks to Microsoft) to do obnoxious stuff in linking. Things that would really be better if the file system handled it. Like linking in sounds and pictures. But anyways... since raw compiled code before it goes to the linker is/was referred to as objects... maybe that is what was mistranslated. Pixar's Toy Story was made with Sun. Pixar would bounce between Sun and SGI for their hardware back than. Which says everything about NextStep's 3D performance. Job's saw the potential in 3D rendering for workstations but it was more like an ADHD spasm than any real focus. Apple before Job's 90's was closed off. Convinced they will make the software and the hardware. One of the first thing Job's did was bring back the 3rd party developers. Everyone had lost interest in Apple. Software was getting very thin. I remember being told by an Apple rep that they don't want 3rd party developers because they will make all the software anyone would need and 3rd party developers just diminish their image with sub-standard quality software. Maintaining a Code Warrior license for a platform the head people are taking pop-shots at... pass. Switched compilers and dropped Apple. Job's brought guys like myself back to Apple. And I bought a G4 Power Mac with the release of MacOS 10.0. Post Job's death you can see Apple sliding back into that habit. I think the next go-around might be their final end. They really aren't being innovative and are back with that haughty attitude they had in the mid-late 80's. I won't make predictions but the untouchable attitude and riding on your brand has not worked out for companies like DEC and IBM.
@@badopcode I respect your prowess and sheer knowledge compiled on this subject, but please sir, don’t waste all your time on this little comment section
@@badopcode The M1 chip has impressed a lot of people and they started listening and improved their laptop design, so I'm not sure you're right. iPhones are a business standard. If the worst they can do is 80s IBM standards, I don't think they'll be poor anytime soon.
Hoooooooly moly I wasn't prepared for that bombshelle of a fact that Pixar was bought by Steve Jobs at some point. Hoooooly CRAP that was interesting as heck
Not only that, he actually really helped folks like John Lassiter keep their creative freedom when Disney initially tried to force changes on Toy Story. Steve Jobs put his foot down as their CEO and let Lassiter make the movie he wanted to make. In fact, Pixar mentality is largely what influenced how Jobs would push Mac OS X in the early 2000s. He was inspired by Lassiter's vision of a movie that wasn't just for kids or just for adults, but for everyone, and wanted the same for the OS.
Lots of fundamental errors of historical research in this, but one of the most egregious is as 14:32 - most people DIDN'T "just go the hardware store and buy the parts they needed", because hardware stores didn't sell specialist computer components. If you were upgrading your 1970s computer you had to already be a computer expert with a great deal of experience in designing and building digital electronics, and you had to source much of the components from specialist suppliers, most commonly by mail-order. The whole point of the original Mac design philosophy was to open up computers to people who wanted computers to be as easy to use as possible, with the minimum of messing around with circuit boards. BTW, the original 128K Mac *was* upgradeable to 512K. Burrell Smith deliberately left the necessary traces on the motherboard to allow extra RAM chips to be soldered in.
@@ttrjw Yes, and Steve Jobs wasn't the CEO right after Apple bought NeXT, instead Gil Amelio (CEO) just wanted him to be the supervisor to get the company back on track (and fire him again after everything was sorted out.. i guess), but Steve managed to convince the higher-ups, or whoever those people were, to get rid of Gil instead, making Steve the interim CEO. After OS X was in early beta, 2000 or so, Steve announced he was dropping the interim title and becoming the "real" CEO.
"... original Mac design philosophy was to open up computers ..." i used to be a hard-core Apple user, and i disagree. i believe that it was to close off the previously open Apple ][ architecture, make everything serviceable ONLY by official Apple personnel, and bleed the users dry. they wanted to forcibly harvest all that (previously) third-party hardware/service money they saw they were missing out on. then they extended this philosophy to include any software that people wanted to run on the platform. all this, essentially bent the users over so Apple could have their way while grabbing the wallet.
Yep and circuit designs for that were circulating the interwebs (bbs and chat boards). Upgraded mine about a month after buying it. Bought the IC's, soldering iron, pliers, some wire, capacitors and after some soldering, the bling and 512k, amazing!
"Overpriced and underpowered"....nothing has changed and yet people still shell out tons of money for them. Also I had no idea they were pulling the whole "can't upgrade or fix them yourself so we can make more money" scheme since way back then..
The M series are very good and pretty affordable! But it's storage...they trick you with the starting price and force you to overspend on storage and RAM. No reason 16GB RAM shouldn't be standard, magic RAM or not.
To be fair, the Apple III, also a Jobs creation, was Apple’s most infamous fanless and overheating machine from that period. They would try that trick again, first under Jobs once again, with the G4 Cube, and then under Ive, with the Retina 12’’ MacBook and its even more infamous butterfly keyboard, and fail miserably… The first such machine to both get it right *and* be wildly successful happens to be the current M1 MacBook Air, which is really surprising. It’s the most Jobsian Mac ever, in that they finally control the entire technological stack, just as he envisioned, and it shows.
The one thing about that is that the M1 chip is actually impressive by mobile chip technological standards. I didn't think they'd be able to outdo a lot of the other chip manufacturers
@@StonedDragons Woz had nothing to do with the Apple /// either iirc. In fact, the Apple /// was kinda made by a B team while the A team worked on the Lisa, and while Woz just kinda left the corporate politics as he was fed up with both Jobs and the others in the company too.
"Everything was soldered to the motherboard so you couldn't upgrade it." Ugh. Didn't know that's how they started. Cuz that's how they're going now, "so that the computer can be light and thin." Uh, sure, Jan. Thanks for this insight. The Macintosh has this halo around it. People act like it was this misunderstood revolution, but the truth is so much less glamorous.
Ah, back in the 80s where a pretty computer which was impractical, expensive, and had no upgradeability caused the company to almost go bankrupt. Nowadays it turns it into a 2.75 trillion dollar company
" Nowadays it turns it into a 2.75 trillion dollar glorified smartphone company" - There, fixed that mistake for you. Today's Apple is not the "Apple Computer" of the past - it's a smartphone company that happens to sell a sideline based around a computer that can't even reach a 20% market share.
@@looneyburgmusic tbh 20% is pretty impressive considering the cheapest Mac they sell sits at 700usd. The vast majority of the windows market share is built by budget machines, if you look at the market share of more expensive machines however apple is much more competitive, really depends on the perspective. Linux also has a minuscule market share but it is ubiquitous in certain areas.
I've read this one just one other time a few months ago. Never heard it before, and despite it being pretty funny, it's probably the least accurate Mac description *_ever._* The only two ways to hang a Classic Mac I can think of are 1) tinkering with ResEdit; 2) running Pro Tools. Oh wait, #2 does still work nowadays :D
Everything wrong with the Mac is why I adore the Mac SE. Same physical footprint, and actually does all the original Mac advertised and more. Unlike the Mac, though, the SE included user-upgradeable memory up to 4 MB, versatile expandability via a PDS card slot, a fan, an optional internal hard drive, and a somewhat standardized and interchangeable bus for keyboards, mice, and other input devices. In short, the Macintosh finally done right. Alas, only possible after Steve Jobs's exit. Also, I get the love for silent operation, but the SE was never obnoxiously loud even with the fan and hard drive.
For my money, the first really successful publishing Mac was the IICX. Cheaper and smaller than the Mac II, with a reasonable number of NuBus slots, plus a 68030. Kept mine going for years with a DayStar accelerator.
There is never anything apple has done truly well in regards to their whole product ranges. They've all been overpriced, underpowered and unrepairable.
@@credit0880 unrepairable and overpriced? …sure but underpowered? No way. If you’re talking specifically around the Mac in the intel/PPC era then I agree with you.
In 1984 I worked for a company that sold into the IBM mainframe environment, workplaces that were replacing 3270 terminals with PCs. I’d seen the Xerox Star mouse-and-icon system in action, and was gobsmacked when a colleague brought a Macintosh back from the '84 Olympics. Its mouse and graphics were clearly superior to the Xerox system. Within weeks I had the opportunity to win a Macintosh in a company-wide department performance contest, and won it. Upon attempting to write a document in MacWrite I discovered that my first-generation Macintosh ran out of memory after a page and a half. I concluded that this Mac was a toy and put it away. Later I bought a Mac SE and was impressed with how easy it was to pick up where I left off even though the system software had gone through 3 major upgrades. (At that point Microsoft Excel was a Macintosh-only program named Multiplan.) I stuck with the Mac and was highly amused at how much more I was able to get done than colleagues who used IBM-compatible PCs. This differential peaked around the Mac System 7/Windows 3.1 era. System crashes, user friendliness, OS sophistication...it was no contest. I have probably never had as much smug satisfaction with a product as I did with my Macintosh IIci. Yet, at that time, the Mac’s share of the market was minuscule compared to what it is today, when Windows 11 is much more closely comparable to macOS. Go figure. (Hint: the “nobody gets fired for buying IBM” phenomenon was still very real during the 1980s, making buying PCs the safe, conservative choice. I used to say that Microsoft’s unspoken motto was “Microsoft. It doesn’t _have_ to be any good.” And truly, Microsoft’s products weren’t very good until Apple's fortunes exploded, after the iPod and iPhone made the MacBook a computer of choice.)
The Macintosh 128K had an insufficient ammount of ram and just one year later the competition (Amiga and Atari ST) could do more stuff like sound and full color graphics for half the price.
Come to think of it, even the base model of the IBM PC/XT had 128K and further exceeded that with a minimum of 256K on the PC/AT shortly before the Mac 512K came out. That said, the latter only was a pure 16-bit machine and both were a lot more expensive due to their hard drives.
Well, the ST took only 6 months to develop from scratch while Apple had the Lisa sold a year before and only iterated on that. People called the ST the Jackintosh. Which shows the ignorance of the people in the USA.
And they don't kill themselves from overheating since almost everything was off-loaded by high-tech custom chips and they don't have integrated display. If only Steve Jobs was a little bit smarter when he came out with Macintosh by not integrating the display into the machine, Jobs would already have a reliable, not so overpriced, and completely silent machine that he envisioned.
I was there, making money writing and doing actual work and making music on my Mac, while my friends with Amigas were just showing everybody how cool their computers were... Steve Jobs and Apple have many faults, but being insensitive to a paying customer is actually not one of them - I could rely on my Mac for my livelihood, I challenge you to find anybody doing the same for an Amiga, ever, apart from games developers (And I thumbs upped your comment BTW, lol.)
@@Turrican Ahh, the video Toaster with the first version of Lightwave. By the time IT came out though, the Mac had well and truly caught up to the Amiga technology wise with the release of the expandable Mac II and IIfx, with Nubus cards. The Amiga was old news by then, and practically everybody on the Amiga was jumping ship to Windows NT on i86. Microsoft had bought Softimage and cut its price, and 3dstudio was released..... The video toaster's price, ease of use, and pretty comprehensive features though made it the most popular in raw numbers for video people, a breakthrough product, although for not really that much more, you could get a video card that output broadcast video on a Mac, but the software available was pricier or more complicated than the Toaster. The Amiga was only technically ahead of Mac for a very short time, only a few months between the release of its models supporting 8bit color, and the release of the colored Mac II. What did you use your Amiga for? (PS I actually worked for NASA for people at its Ames Research Lab in Silicon Valley for many years during those early days, and they pretty much made it a policy to have everything when it came to computers back then, both high and low tech, although the Mac was always the favorite for personal computing. They had a Cray and a Connection Machine at Ames too, lol....)
@@pixelwash9707 I relied on my Mac too, then the GFX Card broke after 2 weeks and I had to wait another one to give the card to the store and wait until the store got my replacement. I can find a computer on the dump that does the same. And I did. Found an A1000 and it still works.
@@AmstradExin I would NOT want to have to rely on any single provider of ANYTHING, especially things on which my livelihood depends. I've always had mixed computing platforms in my life, for that reason. (Says he writing this on my souped up Windows PC (48 cores of dual Xeons with Quadro graphics) which I use for my 3d development, and running old music software.)
If not for desktop publishing, the Mac might not have survived. Aldus Pagemaker made the computer more valuable. The Apple II was also saved by VisiCalc so it was software that saved these systems; not its hardware.
A non-upgradable machine, with multiple poor design decisions that's both overpriced and underpowered, and a deceptive but ultimately successful marketing campaign that relied on appearing functional to people who aren't familiar with computers. It's amazing how Apple's business model really hasn't changed in nearly 40 years.
yet the sheeple will gladly and willing fork over $2k for a crapple phone,watch. that mentality hasnt changed in the 20 years, thus encouraging crapple to pump out junk for inflated prices
@@miket.220 Except in reality he didn't. His vision of the tech world basically remained the same when he returned to Apple, with the key difference being that technology had caught up to the point where that vision could become a reality.
@@iClone101 By failures I mean his failures in leading and management, honing his knowledge of what to say "no" to. Not that he was 100%, but he was much better at it in 1997 than he was in 1987.
@@miket.220 he absolutely improved his business skills over that time, but his "form over function" design philosophy persisted. The iPod, just like the Macintosh, was a beautiful device, with the difference being that he could actually make a fully functional device with minimal sacrifices (in the case of the iPod, the SD card slot). Apparently even after his return to Apple he was just as hard of a person to work for in the past, with the difference being that the engineers could produce his vision fully. His business skills certainly improved, but his understanding of tech did not, except with a 15 years gap the technology caught up to where they could produce the outrageous designs he wanted. The iPhone was probably the last time we've seen a single device create such a massive shift in the tech world, singlehandedly flipping over the cell phone market and pushing it into a direction opposite of what it once was. The first iPhone was actually quite a flawed device, but the movement Jobs managed to create pushed technology in a way where they could fix those flaws with just a bit of time. His greatest strength was his ability to move the entire tech world in the direction of his vision, and even though the Macintosh was a market failure it still managed to do just that. And his absence shows just how much of a difference he made, with the iPad being both his last major product and the last industry-shifting product we've had to this day. TL;DR you're basically correct
This was an amazing video dude! The amount of effort put into this and other of your videos makes your channel so underrated! I cannot wait to see a video on Windows 11 in a year or two!
I'm absolutely not an Apple fanboy. But you have to give Apple/Jobs credit. The Mac was like the 1.0 version of an Apple GUI computer. You never want to use the 1.0 version of anything, because it takes a while to work all the kinks out. But credit to Jobs for having the vision to get the ball rolling. Up to that point, the GUI was a Xerox research project. Jobs went on to give the world (via Apple engineers) the iPad, iPod and the iPhone. Not a bad trail of innovation.
Tablet computers, portable music players and smartphones all existed for years before Apple came out with theirs. The only real innovation Apple has ever done is in the realm of design and marketing. When Apple's versions of these came out, they created a huge buzz around them, and they were truly beautiful designs. Much credit to them for that. I use iPhones and iPads myself. I like them, but I don't kid myself that they were ever revolutionary technology. They work great for my needs until Apple inevitably orphans them, rendering my beautiful, still viable hardware less and less useful. It's bittersweet at best, and infuriating at worst.
@@Euthymia I disagree Apple may be a design focused company now in the sense they take form over function when ever a design is finalized but this wasn't always the case apple is not one person's vision it is the culmination of many different conflicting visions and sometimes some took more prominence than others the Ipod for instance not only looked leaps and bounds better than every other MP3 Player in 2001 but it had more storage a better DAC longer battery life and most importantly an Amazing UI that has still yet to be rivaled when scrolling through music. The Apple 1 was as function over form as it gets the board was laid out in such a way that you could use a completely different cpu with only minor modifications, heck the system didnt even have a case. Its a shame now apple has focused there engineering efforts to made things as hard to replace as possible with the hope that by then you will would rather buy a new one than endure the hastle. I think it is unfair to discredit Apples prior innovations simply over the ones they didnt make that they are acreditit for, (GUI, Firewire, MP3Player, Tablets, ect)
@@jacksong6226 I was responding to the OP. I'll back down on the "only real innovation ever" but look at what you mention and how long ago it happened. The iPod was 2 decades ago, and everything you list about it is ways that it improved upon the products that preceded it. And how many Apple 1's were sold before they changed up their strategy? 200 if that. I really don't mean to discount their continuing genius at refining, packaging and marketing. The Apple II was brilliant. The Mac (after the LaserWriter shipped) eventually created "desktop publishing," but this was all refinement, slick design and marketing. The guts of the LaserWriter were off-the-shelf from Canon. It took Apple to make a system where you could write and draw on the screen and it would look like what would be printed out, but none of the tech was new. Apple's genius is in taking existing ideas and turning them into products that people find attractive and easy and fun to use. And genius it is. Still, I've never bought one of their products new because I can't and won't pay Apple's prices for devices with such short useful lives
Man. I remember the ][e we had at home. And years later, I remember being at a computer convention where I got to see the NeXT showcased. That one blew me away. The next time I had that sort of 'wow' moment was when I laid hands on a Sun workstation.
Macintosh was really ahead of it's time in terms of repairibility. The used to solder their components way back in 80s 🤯🤯🤯. History repeats with m1 mac
The Mac was pure fail compared to the Commodore Amiga. There is just no comparison. The only difference was the advertising - Jobs used his car salesman personality to make buyers feel smart, even if the Mac they bought sat in the attic unopened gathering dust.
Mac Classic and everything before Power-Macs are overrated. Amiga's were the most "ahead-of-its-time" PCs ever. Amiga 1000 which came out in 1985 had 256K in minimal setup, had a revolutionary at that time in PC world set of chips that complemented the CPU. They can be called predecessors of the nowadays north/south-bridges/chipsets etc. Add to this a really comfortable multi-tasking graphical OS with CLI for power users, AREXX programming language what could be used for inter-applications integrations/automation task, and M$ basic for beginner programmers, colour display, better resolution, 4 channels stereo. In 1987 it was replaced with the power-horse Amiga 2000 and a compact Amiga 500. All these models beat the hell out of the Mac Classic 512 anytime, and out of newer models. There was so much extra power/versatility that compensated over the lacklustre of numbers in the dry specs. I used A500 till 1991 then A1200 till 2000 as main computers, A1200 is still alive. If Commodore had a mere 10% of Jobs' marketing charisma....
@@madeleinemcandrews6712 Commodore's poor marketing tactics lead to the company's downfall in the later years, along with Amiga. Just because they failed due to their improper marketing doesn't warrant you to be a complete jackass about it.
Looking forward to your video on NeXT. That OS is absolutely mind-blowing especially considering when it was made. It had features that are integral to mac OS today (and as a developer I still code against the NextStep API's when developing for the mac) , to say it had revolutionary tech is an understatement. For anyone curious, have a look at the demo steve jobs did, it's on YT., but then compare that to contemporary OS'es at the time (DOS, Windows 2x & 3x etc).
"what was even the point of macintosh if you couldnt upgrade it?" apple today: lets solder your ssd to the logic board so you have to buy new computer.
The problems with the first Mac were that it was expensive, the initial memory and floppy drive were both too small and it didn't have the installed software base of non-GUI machines. This last point was particularly important as writing GUI applications was totally new at the time. I bought one of the very first Macs. Was it terribly useful? At the time, no. But those issues were quickly remedied once a hard drive and more memory became available. The Mac scared the crap out of Bill Gates leading to the first version of Windows which was even more useless than the first Mac. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 (which arrived more than 6 years after the first Mac) that it actually became useful. Much better versions of the Mac came quickly, the SE30, the Mac II, etc. The Mac *created* the personal graphics/design computer. To this day, the Mac still owns certain segments of these markets. We can't discuss the PC/Mac question without mentioning Lotus Development. Lotus had written the most successful app of all time, 123, the second successful spreadsheet after VisiCalc. Business people bought expensive Apple IIs just to run VisiCalc. That continued with PCs and 123. By 1983, 123 was a monster. When the Mac arrived, it had no spreadsheet at all. That made it unappealing to the business types who needed to crunch numbers. Lotus began work on a totally new app (which contained a spreadsheet) rather than a port of 123 to the Mac GUI. Everyone expected it to be the killer app. When the new app (named Jazz), arrived horribly late, it was a major failure. This branded early Macs as "not business computers". As for price, I sold a number of Apple II systems in 1980-82 that cost $3-4K (once optioned up enough to do what the customer wanted with 80-column video cards, dual floppies, Z80 CP/M cards and WordStar and dBase II). The IBM PC was expensive as well. It was possible to buy a stripped 5150 (with 16K of RAM and one single-sided 160K disk drive) for about $1200 (Which is what I did). But I spent a lot of money on RAM and new double-sided disk drives, driving up the total cost to over $2,000. The irony, of course, is that after being allowed to almost die on the vine, Jobs returned to Apple and rejuvenated the Mac, just as you showed. That effort has continued to this day and the Mac is now seen as, perhaps, the best computer choice. Eventually, it did catch up as a business tool due, ironically, to Microsoft and its Mac versions of Excel and Word. One point: Most of your images of the Lisa are actually of Mac XL machines (which were out f slightly revamped Lisa hardware repurposed to run the Mac OS). One difference is that the Lisa had twin 5.25" floppy drives (with dual read heads that required bespoke floppies with two windows) while the Mac XL used a 3.5" floppy drive.
I love your comment... but wish that you could read my comment (above) to see my point of view. The Mac was my ONLY computer, up until around 2004-05. I was in love with the Mac before that. OS X killed that for me. As a HOME user, I wasn't looking into what the corporates wanted in a Mac. My Mac running 9.6 could do Aldus Pagemaker, MacPaint, Microsoft Works, play all the relevant Mac game at the time... You name it. I used to do a lot of video editing in my 8500/180 Mac. That was amazing! Having a considerable amount of OS X Macs not able to do what for example, an 8500 could do, was mind boggling. That wasn't the only issue there were more things I was unhappy about. Having limited knowledge of the PC made me invulnerable to "look what the PC can do". Not that it was too much of a deal. When I bought my first PC in 2006 it had programs that did EXACTLY the same thing my Mac used to do. What really did it for me, was the money involvement. If you needed anything for the PC, it was cheaper, AND it was also available. Tweaks and mods galore it was. In performance, Macs still to this day, outperform PC by at least 40%. The iPhone was what saved Apple, there is no question about it.
@@MacCentrisSimpleSencilla These comments .. "In performance, Macs still to this day, outperform PC by at least 40%." and the one above "...the Mac is now seen as, perhaps, the best computer choice." are so utterly disconnected from reality .. I don't even know where to begin. I think you may still be "...invulnerable to "look what the PC can do". Honestly, I'm not one of those guys that likes to argue Mac vs PC .. but it's just ludicrous to say something like: Macs outperform PC's by 40%. What Mac vs what PC? And at what cost? It's just legit insane.
@@THE-X-Force I'm back to Mac, what else can I tell ya? My PC is a gaming desktop HP 690-0083W (recently got 16GB RAM) I believe it's from 2020. Been using Windows for 16 years and you must've missed my point above. I used XP, Vista, Windows 7, 8 and 10. I loved Windows 8.1 and 10 above all. Aside from the fact that the PC has plenty of programs from many small companies that do just about anything...I have all that I need on the Mac now. My Mac? A late 2014 Intel Mac mini at 3.0ghz (maxed in everything) is running the games my HP 2020 gaming computer runs (granted they're not high demanding games, Goat Simulator and Stardew Valley just to name my faves now) I'm already doing some graphic editing, video editing, writing music, etc. Sorry to disappoint you pal, but show me a PC from 2014 that can do that without painfully slowing down... I'll wait. 😏 PS. No, I do not play GTA or Call of Duty, just not a fan, I'm 45 and moved on from all of that.
@@cefalopodo5717 Ok I just looked it up. First of all M1 is an arm based cpu, it's a cpu for a smartphone or a tablet, that's not even in the same league as a real cpu.. you can't be serious. I was comparing macs (you know real computers.. even though that's also debateable since they are so bad) to pcs and pc wins easily, blowing macs twice the cost out of the water
@@Carnyzzle Yeah, it amazes me how they KEEP standardizing the tech market by making stuff shittier. Like, I just bought the S22 Ultra and it really *is* the Apple of Android: no expandable storage, no headphone jack, included cable is USB-C to USB-C and no power adapter included, but has a great camera, lol.
On the flipside their products have a great user experience and (price aside) are good performing *for the tasks they are designed to do*. Let's not surrender ourselves to the internet hivemind that will always say Apple products are "sHiT" because of their admittedly arrogant practices, without considering the good in them as well. Also, regarding "the old shit", you are underappreciating Apple's innovation. Sure, they didn't INVENT everything, but in many cases they were responsible for bringing technologies to the forefront. Example, the iphone wasn't the first smartphone but look how it changed society.
if the Amiga was actually properly marketed, the Macintosh wouldn't've gotten away with much of what it did. the original Amiga had specs comparable or better than the Macintosh at the time for half the price, and it was much more user-friendly. Hell, even Apple's own IIGS had better specs than the Macintosh.
The Apple IIGS is what the Macintosh should have been, honestly. A proper color multimedia system that leveraged Apple's significant base of existing Apple II software via backwards compatibility. If it hadn't been hamstrung by deliberately low specs to keep it from competing with the Mac and by Apple's refusal to properly market the thing, it could have been a real success. Honestly, you can argue something similar hurt the Amiga and the Atari ST. In all three cases, the companies responsible for them struggled with the fact that they were simultaneously selling older and/or competing systems and never quite figured out how to market their newer and more impressive machines out of fear of cannibalizing their existing cash cows. Which probably explains why, by the end of '80s, the market for personal computers had been taken over by upstart IBM PC clone manufacturers like Compaq, who didn't have a generational identity crisis to contend with.
@@seancdaug Sometimes, though, backwards compatibility can be more of a curse than a blessing. Say, with Commodore's plus/4, most software was developed for the C16 it was backwards compatible with instead of the plus/4 which had superior specs. Same case for the C128, except the C64 it was backwards-compatible with was their bestselling machine, and software developers were perfectly content with developing for the C64 and not the C128 since it would grant them a larger market for their software.
“Hell, even Apple's own IIGS had better specs than the Macintosh.” Um, say what? And I say this as a IIgs fan (I still own mine). The IIgs wasn't ready until 1986, the Mac shipped in 1984. The IIgs was limited to 640x200 resolution; even the original Mac was a more usable 512x342. The IIgs shipped with 256K RAM, the contemporary Mac (the Plus) shipped with 1MB (though the IIgs was more easily upgraded). The IIgs had a weird 8/16-bit CPU, the WDC 65816, at 2.8 MHz that was a dead end (and Western Design had trouble even getting the 2.8 MHz chips running stably initially, delaying the introduction of the IIgs). The Mac shipped with an 8 MHz 68000 and of course the 680x0 line had a lot of life left in it. (WDC never shipped the 65832, though higher clock 65816s eventually did make it to market.) The IIgs nominally had better audio capabilities, but the Mac would very soon eclipse even those. I love my IIgs. I've upgraded it with HDMI graphics (VidHD), Ethernet (Uthernet II), solid state storage (CFAA3000), modern USB peripherals through a Wombat ABD converter ... But it was never a competitor to the Mac. (Whether or not you believe Apple crippled the IIgs with a lower clock speed (certainly they did that to the IIsi, to avoid cannibalizing sales from the IIci), the Apple II architecture was at a dead end by the mid-1980s. You can only take a 1 MHz bus so far; the future, then, was Motorola CPUs and NuBus.)
I remember hearing a story, where two engineers handed Jobs an early prototype of the original iPod, and it was rather large and clunky. Jobs said nothing, walked to a nearby fish tank, prototype in hand, and dropped it in. And when bubbles started coming out, he said "see that? That's empty space. Make it smaller"
FireSonic101 This guy is not understanding why the Mac's were that wanted. Try Early Windows apps, way more crappy then apple then, apple gave perfect post script on Canon printers! This guy never used it, mumbeling, not understanding......
5:29 In 1977 three successful personal computers were released: Apple ][, Commodore PET and TRS-80 Model 1. 13:27 The breakthrough was that it had an 8 Mhz CPU but I agree the marketing wasn't as honest as it could have been. 22:29 NeXT could run 3D simulations so well because it was initially 1) B&W 2) used a multitasking microkernel OS from CMU (Mach/BSD). 22:51 Before it was called Pixar it was part of the Lucasfilm Computer Division, simply known as "Graphics Group". 23:39 NeXT was also on its last legs having shuttered its hardware business and operating solely as a software company. 24:05 The iMac debuted running Mac OS 8 not Mac OS X which was based on NeXTStep.
My only computer in the late 70's and early 80's was a Hewlett Packard HP-41 programable calculator. It had lots of software and the hardware itself could be upgraded and expanded. Now it was 1984 and I was going to buy my first computer. I had not been able to use a computer anywhere for more than a few minutes at a time at a few jobs. So I read lots of computer magazines and researched. Tandy, Commodore, Atari, and Sinclair all seemed to be too underpowered for me. IBM's successful design, with a lack of strong patents, had given birth to a thriving "PC Clone" industry. The two leading contenders were Apple with its new Macintosh and a PC clone from a company called Columbia Data Products. Both were around $2500 for the base models. The Columbia PC could be upgraded, when I could afford it, with more RAM, hard disk drive, color monitor and other peripherals. The Apple Macintosh had NO hardware upgradeability. If I wanted any of the upgrades I had with the PC I would have to buy a entirely new machine! Needless to say at this point, I bought the Columbia PC and over the new few years I added a lot of parts to it. I tried all versions of MS Windows from version 1 on up. Windows NT version 4 was the first really stable OS with a good user interface. During the past thirty years I have acquired several Macintosh computers so I could judge for myself whether there were in any way superior the the PC's I had. IMHO they were just a little bit different, just not superior. YMMV. ;-(
Software Entrepreneurs' Forum hosted a conference for prospective Macintosh developers. Guy Kawasaki, the Mac evangelist, was the keynote speaker. To develop Macintosh software required (of course) a Macintosh, plus a Lisa with memory and disk upgrades, and some tools. That was pretty steep up front costs. Although I wanted a Lisa, I couldn't afford one. I ended up buying an Apple IIe and gave my Apple II+ to my niece. The Computerland store I went to was owned by Woz's brother. He kept grilling me on why wasn't I buying a Mac, so I gave him a detailed explanation. I wanted a Next Computer but it was out of my price range. Later on I bought an IBM AT clone. I liked MacOSX. It was based on BSD UNIX.
"The most influential invention in human history" 😂😂 There are some people out there who want to talk to you, Johannes Gutenberg, Edward Jenner, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Alexander Fleming and many more. Sure they didn't bring us Toy Story or Mac OS10 but they did quite a bit themselves.
Uh, Thomas Edison didn't. Everything his name is on was stolen. And he killed and abused many, many animals. And possibly even had Louis Le Prince murdered. That ain't some niche conspiracy theory, that's something Edison actually very likely did.
It's a really good video, and what seems a bit confusing for me is that many of the traits that are mentioned like mistakes, compromises and failure causes are still present today (no upgradabilty, soddered to the motherboard, expensive price for cheaper or standard components), I guess in the end the idea of design over performance prevails.
form over function is/was Job's motto. who cares if it works or not , catches on fire overheats. the sheeple will fork over their money just cuz crapple
Not necessarily true. We just got to the point of performance is good enough that even if one prioritize design over performance, the penalty isn't that bad and the performance is gonna be good enough. Usually the first product is a failure but give it some years and using the same design concept it will work cause the performance is good enough even with that concept. Macintosh was a failure but iMac was a success. The first macbook air is just too slow, limited, and expensive. The 2011 macbook air have ok performance and long battery life that it's basically a default recommendation for a lot of student. Apple try to make everything unnecessarily thin since 2016 and even made a fanless design in macbook making every mac a worse performer in order to pursue thinness. Yet now the macbook air M1 with also thin and fanless design could export 4k video easily.
The first personal computer…. oh, there were some others. Nice Apple revisionist history. Let’s just for get about the TRS80 and Commodore PET. The former which outsold the Apple, and the later which led to the C64 which went on to sell 17M units.
The Apple II (or Apple ][ if your one of those folks) was the first SUCCESSFUL personal Computer, but the entire Hoard of weird proprietary 70s computers in addition to the Numerous somewhat widespread IEEE certified platforms like S-100 systems (Intel, Altair, IMISIA) and IBM & HP's Early attempts of a PC ALL PREDATE APPLE'S EXISTENCE!!! You cant tell me with a shred of integrity and seriousness that Apple Invented the PC or the GUI much less Steve Jobs of all people, the Apple revisionists would love for you to believe that computers before the mac were all primitive and the Mac was this huge step forward, it wasn't. The Apple IIgs Was, the Amiga was, the IBM PC was, The Mac on the other hand was an overpriced plastic box that had no hardware to back its price-tag its a shame that this company has decided to peruse this business model of Hyping up overpriced garbage engineering failures. Apple says Think Different. I say Think Smart, glued aluminum mount rails in the top case and calling it Unibody is only the kind of different thinking you will find here at apple now.
@@jacksong6226 Tandy outsold both Apple and C= until 1982 when the C64 was released and Apple didn’t overtake Tandy until 1983. I’d argue the TRS80 was the first successful home computer.
@@MrLurchsThings Yeah, pretty much this. The TRS-80 model I absolutely crushed apple II sales for years, not even a contest, and if I remember right the PET I think even sold a bit better. (the Atari 400/800's first year may have even outsold Apple's '77-79 numbers.) But people forget about Tandy and Commodore's early machines since neither one made it long term. Still, I do have to say the Apple II is a lot more pleasant to upgrade/repair and being the only 1977 trinity machine capable of color is nice.
@@Karthex as someone who has all three (truly blessed), the TRS80 is a tremulous machine, the PET is just that - a gorgeous machine you want to bring in at night, but the A2 was definitely the better architecture (although it was nearly twice the price as the others).
@@MrLurchsThings I have a TRS-80 model I and III and Apple IIe myself. The model I is a fragile design but the III does what it was made for very well. The Apple is definitely the most advanced and robust of the three I agree. Great computer that's given me little trouble over the years. Still need to track down a PET but they're rare beasts anymore.
Marketing is the team that puts a pretty bow and sparkles on a scam. I've worked in I.T. since 2001....... and started as a computer kid in the 80's....... I've NEVER paid for an Apple product... EVER.
I remember all this happening. I can remember noticing the "overconfidence" as you put it. I'll admit to being a utilitarian when it comes to computing and my thinking at the time was that there needed to be not only something that this computer could do that none of the others could, but that that something had to be something you actually wanted to do. All the things that the Mac could do that I wanted to do were things that other computers could do (and some even better). The non-upgradability and lack of a lot of software were major points to me too.
Bought my first Apple, like Feb of 82, 2700 out the door; green screen monitor, dot matrix printer, floppy drive, and the expensive part 48k of memory. Now has a 1 meg memory card, 10 meg hard drive, and sits in the basement unused. Watched this video on a 10 year old MacPro with a few upgrades. Had a IIFX, unique machine. Macintosh is not dead, yet. Have fun
This undying meme has probably done more to keep Apple products at absolutely the top of the stack than anything else. Nothing motivates company engineers to do even better like the 'everyone knows' public misinformation that their work is crap. On the flip side, nothing makes a company's products technologically terrible like the 'public knowledge' that their stuff is the "best". Microsoft of the 90's to the 2010's, I'm looking at you.
2 years later, the Apple IIgs came out and mopped the floor with the Mac, but the mac poison the well so badly no one wanted the IIgs, which was the REAL computer they should have hyped up.
Fond memories of using the Macintosh in primary school from 1993 to 1997. I've been a PC boy all my life and I can't stand Apple nowadays, but I have huge respect for Steve Jobs and what he created and the fact that I first learned using a computer on those old Macintoshes. Also, I gotta give a shoutout to Hypercard! I loved making my own computer games on that software!
3:39 just for those unfamiliar with the reference 1984 was/is a sci-fi book written in the late 1940s about a future dystopian society where people were mind controlled in the 1980's it copied some elements from how germans in ww2 were "mind-controlled" by the nazi party to not resist what was happening to the Jews and some elements from the authors own imagination.
"A computer even children could use!" Dude, I was using a Commodore 64 2 years before the Macintosh came out, 6 years before we bought a Mac. Even children could use the Commodore PET, because we did that in elementary school before the 64 came out!
Funny how they seem to be slipping back into the "hard wired" syndrome. The new Mac Minis, Mac Mini Studio have non upgradable hard drives, meaning, the user can't upgrade to more SD space. The RAM can be increased, but not cheaply. They need to make both RAM and SSD to be upgradable. I use a PC and a Mac, and I can tell you, hands down, I have 5-10 times more problems with the PC than I ever have with a Mac. I have to have two malware and protection apps (Webroot and CC Cleaner) where I never have had any on any Mac I owned. I ran an all Mac computer lab at my school for 10 years, never had a virus problem, never had a virus protection program. The only limitations I ever ran into was types of programs available, and limits on the internet sites, and that has largely disappeared.
@@cebruthius well, yes, I think people get what I'm saying without that "qualification". Yes Mac and Windows machines are all PC's. Ok, then, I hate Microsoft Windows.
@@michaeld.mcclish You misunderstood. There are wonderful operating systems for non-Apple hardware. I've been a Linux user for the past 18 years. First Gentoo, now NixOS. It never breaks.
@@cebruthius I know, I don't claim to know everything about computers by any means. None of my Windows or Macs ever "broke down" but I have more viruses, more hiccups, more virus software/ on my Windows machines than I ever had to have on my Macs. I built and ran a computer classroom with my own Apple servers, 35 workstations, my own switches, and never had any virus software or problems(other than my own lack of experience). At home, I have constant annoyances with my one Windows computer, and am about ready to go back to strictly Apple/Mac. Cheers.
I wouldn’t say the Mac was underpowered. It was simply weighed down. The cooling and gui were it’s weakness. Trying to run a GUI on a 68000 especially a fully bitmapped one is insane. The 68K was very good for the time and was another reason the Mac was very expensive.
At the time, it was a cool computer. Especially in 1989, when the SE/30 came out. If you were a kid then, the DOS OS, was dominate, so cool like Wordperfect 5. But, the moment you popped a disk on a Mac and it told you, do you want to format the disk, that was enough to fall in love with the machine.
you fail to mention is was Jonathan Ives who designed the Imac along with every other product since. THAT is what rescued apple. I at least give credit that jobs made the right decision and run with his designs. Jobs mostly did the marketing. That's why Jonathan Ives had his own lab to design new stuff where only a handfull of people on his design team ever could go inside and see what he is working on. Even Ives would run out of gas eventually as for quite a few years lately, all he put out are apple going back to upgrades in their phone, pda, desktop, etc. and no new "earth shattering" product. Ives originally took products already on the market and made them actually appealing to the public market. I mean Diamond MP3 player, HP\IBM\Zenith PDAs, Motorola GUI touchscreen phone, etc.
Love the new video, again, the quality just keeps on improving!! Did you use an actual Mac for the MacSpeak sections of the video or some kind of mockup? Either way, that is so cool!! Excited for new content!
Thank you!! For Macspeak I did use an emulator! The original Mac was unable to support it, but the Mac itself in the video is real and powers on like it’s supposed to. :)
Neat video... but I WILL take issue of your statement about "128K basically making it an 8-bit system." It absolutely should have shipped with 256-1024k memory, but memory in 1984 was crazy expensive. The ROM had some 32-bit and some 24-bit routines. One could make a case that it was more like a slightly-fast 24-bit (or 16-bit) computer, but in no way was it like an 8-bit system. I'd push to call it a 24/32 if you wanted to be honest about what the code was doing and what it was capable of.
You Could Upgrade a MAC! I Got a Mac for college in 1984. It was known at the "thin" Mac, because of its 128K of RAM. This base product was designated as the "Mac 128K." It also has one built a single sided 400K FDD. This machine replaced my Radio Shack TRS-80. Anyway, back to my point of this comment... I first upgraded my Mac with 512K of RAM, essentially making it a "Mac 512K." Later to became know a "MAC 512Ke" (the e was for enhanced). My next upgrade was to change out the original FDD to double sided 800K drive. Again, this upgrade changed the model to a "Mac Plus." The last upgrade I made was to add a 2nd 800K internal floppy disk drive. This upgrade required basically a new case and an internal bracket to support the 2nd drive. My Mac would now be known as a "Mac SE." The final upgrade that you could do to this platform was an expensive one. To go the "Mac SE30" you had to change out the mother board. This Upgrade I did not do. So, my original Mac 128K changed to 3 different models.
One of the highschools I went to in 2019 had a fully functioning Macintosh II with a working floppy disk of Summer Games. Never tried to use it myself, but other people used it often during recess.
the amiga in 1985 had a color gui and great sound chip with a mod tracker and a great graphics processor and later in 87 a max came out with a product that let you run mac os on a amiga
To be fair the original Amiga 1000 wasn't off to a great start either, and it also took until 1987 until a good software/game catalog and an affordable home model based on it became available. But that was more a matter of marketing and rushing a capable product to market.
The problems with macintosh were 2: 1) while Steve Wozniak designed the Apple II with expansion and open architecture in mind, for users/hackers to tinker with it and get a huge fan base, Jobs wanted the macintosh to be super closed and non expandable (he wanted to sell obviously new computers only thru apple channels) 2) the price; while ibm branded pcs weren't cheap, the pc market saw a tremendous variety in price (and quality) thru the 80s, resulting in prices going lower and lower , but even with the cheapest pc clone you get to run all the cool software the original ibm pc ran; macintosh computers were expensive, underpowered (compared to pcs) and unexpandable and the software available to it was also a mere fraction of the D.O.S. platform. These 2 factors made macintosh the "fancy graphic 1 click computer" only some high profile artists (Warhol, Ace Freheley, and a dozen more) could afford; the rest of the industry AND the home consumers only could afford the pc which for a fraction of the price of a mac could do the same.
I bought my 1MB Macintosh at Goodwill in 1992 for $30. They had a bunch of them. I still have it in a closet but I'd be surprised if it still works. The last time I used it was in May 1999 to write a letter. I never turned it on again.
9:09 - woah, maybe it's just me, but watching that pop-up appear in the video but outside of that monitor really screwed me up for a sec. i just implicitly interpreted it as a native popup on my PC since I was only expecting action on that monitor. Like, I legitimately felt like the Mac shown in the video was somehow hacking into my computer to show a native Mac popup in Windows, like it was cursed or something. completely irrational response lmao, there's just something about that composition that manipulated my brain for a split second lol.
This pretty much sums up CrApple to this day: overtly expensive, made to look pretty rather than being functional, and using deprecated technologies and trying to sell them as brand new and innovative. This why only iSheep buy iCrap, and the rest of us (80% of the market share) use Windows, Linux, or Android, because we actually know how to use powerful and highly functional devices.
Huge generalisation, if you know anything about the last couple years, you’ll know that arm processors are the future and that like it or not, apple is no longer selling underpowered, inefficient, flawed products, in fact they’re doing quite the opposite.
It is funny how apple's commercial that IBM users are hypnotized is today steve jobs on the screen- u must buy all new accessories as we changed the plug... there are no more ports you must buy the apple adaptor... we are intentionally slowing down your phone so u buy a new one... and all apple owners go "ok".
@@h.mandelene3279 Apples lightning connector has been around for 10 years, USBC Mac charging has been around for 6 years and is now backwards compatible. Despite being mostly a Windows user daily, I laugh at how many different barrel and other charger types windows laptops have had in the past. They slow down older phones to save the battery. Especially running new software on older hardware, they need to otherwise the community complains about battery life. There is no easy answer.
@@sgeggbub1008 "I laugh at how many different barrel and other charger types " Ever notice that is because those are different brands??? Apple(jobs) has been screwing their customers since Steve Job was working in the field. Read how steve screwed his friend to make a circuit for him. In the early 90's jobs would not include TCP\IP he would only give appletalk. He finally gave in(pouting). intentionally slowing down older phones, u name it, over all those years, but for some reason, buyers came back and said - screw me again please...
@@h.mandelene3279 "intentionally slowing down older phones" mate it's for the battery. Yea it's annoying but at least you won't need a battery replacement every 3 months when your phone because obsolete
The 512K Mac was my first PC. Bought it at a local thrift store for all of $5 in '97. Sooo many fun games I had on that machine: Shufflepuck & Daleks are just a couple examples. I'd love to have one again, if only to recreate the control panel / desktop patterns using MS Paint on my Win7 laptop.
You had to be around in 1984 to appreciate how far ahead of the curve the Mac was when it debuted. Windows did not arrive until years later and was ugly and useless when it did. Some people immediately got it and others didn't. Those who understood the appeal loved their Macs with passion. Apple made the best personal computers until the mid 2000's. With the advent of iOS Apple rapidly went downhill with each successive OS worse than the previous one, up to the present moment where Apple products are simply garbage.
The original Macintosh was really an office computer. It did great at running word processing and spreadsheet applications. Anything beyond the office style usage and it was bad. It was a true example of form over function.
Yeah. On one hand, that made sense: Jobs wanted to compete with the IBM PC, and the IBM PC was designed as a professional office machine first and foremost. But it also makes the extent to which the Macintosh went all-in with the multimedia aspect of its design look more than a little ridiculous. An office computer in the early 1980s didn't really need a GUI, and it can be argued that the fact that users essentially had to learn an entirely new way of interacting with their computer was actually a turn-off for business-oriented consumers. And if you did look at the Macintosh as a multimedia system a la the later Amiga or Atari ST, it was both too expensive for its likely target audience, and too underpowered to really shine.
Your videos always fascinate me so much, especially ones like these. Very well done Mr. Squid! Edit: You eat dirt over sand?? You are obviously above me 😂
I was just a lil kid when it came out but I don't remember it being a failure. My aunt had one. Every classroom at school had one. I remember mac paint as magical...
The MacIntosh was around $800 when it was released. The Commodore 64 could be purshed for $300 in 1983.. I know , Montgommery Wards was selling them en masse. The Commodore 64 had a SID chip in it that had the capacity to make sound with the modular components of a Moog synthesizer: ADSR Envelope, Triangle, Sine, Sawtooth, Reverse Sawtooth, Square and Pulse with adjustable Pulse Width, Noise Waveform, Ring Modulation, Sync Modulation, Low, Mid and High pass Filters.. No other computer had this capability. IT also could address 16 colors and a resolution of 320x200. The text width made it suitable as a terminal for people who needed to work at home ona remote computer via a telephone connection. The MAcintosh however had a high enough resolution screen and could address multi-resolution fonts, which made it suitable for desktop publishing, which became its killer application in the 80s.
I worked in a small office that purchased one Macintosh. The person behind the purchase dealt doggedly with the machine. She could only get things done by covering the thing with sticky notes explaining how to do things. I tried doing a few things on it, but most of the time I spent looking at the little bomb which signaled that the machine had crashed ... again. Subsequently I seemed to get a reputation for being able to get stuff into, or out of the Mac. That was very difficult, and still is to an extent. I finally escaped the Apple machines and went to a company running Unix that hosted plenty of actually functional software. It was a great relief to be able to spend more time on my work than on dealing with the Apple machines. And I never looked back.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
For your chance to win the Tesla Model X and support a great cause, enter at
www.omaze.com/nationsquid
No one cares 🤓
Yaaaaaaaaa
Sheeeeesh
X
yo thinking of doing more things abt viruses? i rlly like those type of content
"broken parts meant only Apple could fix it, meaning more money for Apple" *and they never looked back*
Just another reason that android is better
Until people like ifixit entered the market.
@@japjao5385 nope it's the damn same here no parts availability
This, hence why I find it funny that Apple now is endorsing the Right To Repair movement, at least according to some of the TH-camrs I watch, since they were the ones who created this problem to begin with. 😆
@@Jolis_Parsec its a joke of a program, insanely good marketing scheme. this was made to shut the media up and piss off actually supporters of right to repair
"while apple recognized the wants and needs of the average person, they failed to recognize the average person's salary." *still happens now*
they used to, now they don't care about the salary
What wasn't explained here is WHY the Mac performed so poorly, and why it was so un-upgradeable. The whole reason for this is that the 68000 processor was used to emulate all sorts of hardware, such as sound card, disk controller, video adapter; it had none of these. These pieces of "hardware" were created in software every time the machine was turned on. While this says a lot for the capabilities of the 68000 chip, and the cleverness of Apple's programmers, the real issue was that by the time all this phantom hardware was created, there was little capacity left for the CPU to run programs. Besides that, this approach made the operating system inextricably bound to the hardware, and severely limited any upgrade path.
As well as all that, the Mac was way overpriced. Since the interior was mostly air, with only one circuit board, and no expansion path other than the scsi bus, it should have sold for much less than it did. The only expensive component was the 68000 chip itself, but there was no other processor at the time that could have done the job. Having painted themselves into a corner with this approach, Apple paid dearly for this supposedly clever piece of deception. It nearly sank the company. Later on, Atari and Amiga used the same 68000 chip, but did a much better job of exploiting its capabilities to do really useful stuff.
The Macintosh’s motherboard design was the equivalent of a one-man band. As you said, the 68000 had to manage basically everything, which took a toll on the actual processing power. The Atari ST and especially the Amiga used the same 68000 CPU but had other specialized chips for video, sound, memory management, etc. This allowed for these machines to be more capable and allowed the 68000 to run at a higher potential than what the Mac allowed. The Macintosh’s one-man band design had a lasting impact on its successive compact models and even into the Macintosh II series. These machines were usually the first commercial computers to ship with the newer models of 68k processor like the 68020 and 68030, unlike the Atari ST and Amiga. However, because the CPU had to do things without other specialized supporting chips, a better CPU would make up ground lost on performance. That’s why an Atari ST and Amiga can emulate the original Macintosh and beyond through software, even with the exact same processor of that Macintosh they were emulating.
The Mac was un-upgradeable because of the bad experience Steve Jobs had with the Apple 2. You know, people would modify and upgrade their Apple 2 machine - which Steve Jobs thought of as *his* Apple 2s, not *theirs.* They didn'tg even ask him for permission! Bad users! Very bad users!
So for the Mac, Steve Jobs explicitly ordered it to be non-upgradeable. In his opinion, the onyl way to get an upgrade would be to dump your old machine into the trash bin and buy the next model. Some Apple engineers disagreed with that, but Steve checked the PCBs to make sure that there was no way to upgrade the Mac. Because the engineers tried to sneak in an option for a RAM upgrade. Bad engineers! Very bad engineers! Luckily, Steve caught them! Good Steve!
Okay, by now we all know that one enginieer added a "debug port" to the Mac, which actually was a hidden way to...upgrade the RAM. Oh, these bad, bad engineers! To play such nasty tricks on good Steve!
Whatever.
And the Mac wasn't overpriced. While Steve had originally envisioned a price tag of $1000 max, that price tag was not high enough to secure Apple's success. The MAc would have to sell for $2000. But John Sculley disagreed. His brilliant idea (no sarcasm here!) was to raise the price to $2500, and spend the extra $500 per Mac on advertising. So yes, the end user paid ore money for the *machine* that it worth it, but a substantial part of the money the user paid was invested into telling the user that he invested his money wisely in the best possible way for the best possible machine. And that meant customer satisfaction! Who wouldn't invest an extra $500 for one's own satisfaction and confirmation of superiority over everybody else!
Of course, the initial price tag wasn't $2500, it was even higher. Never mind.
Yes Atari and Amiga did such a good job that they basically got out of the computer business /s
@@Maximara competition between the ST and Amiga eventually killed off the ST. The Amiga was plagued with mismanagement and poor marketing which led to the Amiga being much more popular in Europe and a niche system in North America. Apple and IBM compatibles had a big foothold in the US market. Apple had a big head start in the US, they made deals with schools and provided systems to them, and were first to market with the Macintosh. IBM compatibles meanwhile dominated the business market. Game consoles blew up in popularity in the US. The ST and Amiga were late in the game and not enough was done to keep them alive in NA. However, their power and performance over the Macintosh and even IBM compatibles has nothing to do with their market performance. You can have an amazing product but if you can’t market it properly, it may as well be the worst product.
@@Maximara Not the fault of the hardware itself, the companies were run by utter morons.
Just a note: "Big Blue" was never a derogatory name. The employees (who were very team-oriented at that time, as a Japanese corporation) lovingly called their corporate god "Big Blue". I know. I was there. I was a team player. I wore IBM boxers and had an IBM tie. I loved that job. I loved that company. It was sort of a cross between an extended family and a cult. In hindsight, it was freaking weird. But we all called our insular, corporate mama "Big Blue" because we loved the place. Again, it was never derrogatory.
people think big blue is derogatory?
that really doesn't sound like a derogatory term. cool story though
I loved IBM too when i was younger and my parents worked there
Just like att was ma bell
@@minelayer26 I do not think so but it was said in the video.
Let's not forget that the OS didn't initially have multitasking, and when they grafted on a system that could it wasn't the greatest. Update after Update and patch after patch gradually made the system unstable and led to the disaster that was Copeland.
Yes!! Very good point there. :)
Copland, not Copeland. Named after a composer.
System 7.5 was code named Mozart, system 8 was Copland and at one time a project named Gershwin was to follow Copland.
A lot of what was developed for Copland ended up in MacOS 8 and 9 as delivered after it was decided to buy Next.
The Commodore Amiga did have real (preemptive) multitasking, and also a GUI, in 1985 no less.
@@Ezyasnos Yeah the only problems with the Amiga was it was ahead of its time as well as later Commodore management.
@@av_oid want to hear something funny? I initially thought that they named it after Stewart Copeland of The Police. Chances are I misspelled his name too.
The failure of the Macintosh just fascinates me. Computer history is always amazing to look at. I hope this will be very fun!
History is awesome
It doesn't suprise me, Apple constantly make mistakes
History is cool when you're part of a team
@@ThatCyberpunkGuy That's what makes them such a phenomenally successful company,.
For all the game-changing and market disrupting products/services that Jobs and Apple created, people tend to gloss over the numerous failures that happened along the way. But hey, you gotta break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet.
Man this brings me back. My school back in 98-99 had a macintosh SE or 2 in every classroom. My first time really fumbling around on a computer was one of those. They were dated for that time but the school didn't have the funds to upgrade yet. Then one day we came in and they had upgraded them all to the iMac G3. We thought we were living in the future lol. Thanks for bringing me back buddy!
Thank you!! I'm glad you enjoyed it! :)
Yessir!! I also remember playing on these in early grade school and the dawn of those sexy G3s. I have flashbacks to a game i think was called "Monster & Me" on the Macintosh that was a click based adventure where you would interact with a room and play various minigames... ahh man those were the days.
Bruh my kindergarten still had those G3 Macs in 2010-2011
@@doctahjonez damn those things were like 8 years old back then... they stopped selling them in late 2003
lol nice. The first Macs I interacted with in school were Macintosh LC machines (might have been LC II's or LC III's. Don't recall now but pretty sure they weren't the original LCs though) and one of those early PowerPC all in one's. (Not the molor macs. The machines that came after the LC 550/575 series I just don't recall what model it was anymore. Only that it did have a PowerPC on it because I distinctly remembering that it was the only Mac I came across at school that could run Graphing Calculator. :P ) First Mac I owned was a Macintosh Classic. Was given to me to repair (it had a corrupted file system so was getting the flashing disk icon) that I was able to keep since for what ever reason they didn't want it back.
That was probably mid to late 90s. First iMac G3 I saw in person was a single machine I saw in computer class in high school in the early 2000s (I think that was around 2001/2004 range). that was after my move to the current town I live in and unlike the previous city all the schools here used PCs and not Macs so it was an oddity that there was this one iMac G3 sitting on the teacher's desk in computer class. I now own a iMac G3. A 333mhz Tangerine model. The Rev D tray loader. Not as big a fan as the later slot loader machines. They lacked an internal fan and the slot load drives are infamous for needing new belts/etc. Plus I preferred the frosted transparency of the first iMacs and not the glossy/clearish transparency the newer ones had. Came off as cheaper looking to me. Real shame tray loader iMacs didn't get a DVD drive like the slot loaders though. :(
My Mom bought a decent amount of Apple stock right before they launched the iPod.
She's doing pretty well in retirement.
My family has been using Macs since 1994. If only we new how much bigger they would become!
Man! Wish I had bought a bunch in 1997 when they were selling for $27 a share. Could be retired right now myself.
Crypto when crypto wasn't there, was the tech stocks lol.
Yes, toys and gadgets saved the computer company that even dropped the word "computer" from their name.
@@miket.220 same, but I was just a dumb kid in school at the time 😄
In 1986/7 I worked in a graphic design studio. My then boss saw the Mac plus and considered it a possible advantage to our otherwise manual artwork production (pens, typesetting and scalpels). He bought one of the first units in the North of the UK, along with an external monitor that had the display cable literally hot glued to the top of the graphics chip to enable it to display the image as it was not a 'thing' to have a large monitor yet!!!!. This was the beginnings of the DTP revolution, and I loved it. Mac WAS very capable by the late 80s, albeit most days I had the take off to case cover to re-glue the piggyback mount on the graphic chip. I used photoshop, illustrator etc all from first releases and as a company we showcased what a computer based studio was capable of… great times.
The almost universal statement by Mac users was, "I don't want to know how a computer works, I just want to work with a computer. They did not understand that the more you know about how computers work, the better you can work.
There's a few liberties taken toward the end here. NeXT wasn't exactly doing great when Apple bought them back, and the iMac (1998) had about three years of running on classic Mac OS before OSX came out and it took a few more after that before Apple considered the Mac OS -> OSX transition complete (and a few more still before users agreed).
Also NeXT's reliance on object orientation had nothing to do with its 3D capabilities (which were also quite primitive even by the day's standards). Where the pervasive OO helped NeXT was by making it easier for programs to communicate with one another through component embedding, and another big advantage for NeXTstep was that it was built for networking from the ground up. 3D was hardly a factor in NeXT.
Well, he took quite a few opinionated liberties in this video lol
Didn't Steve Jobs say his whole strategy with NeXT was to be bought out by Apple?
Most of NextStep was based around Objective C. But there is nothing really special about a compiled OO code for the OS. It's really about manually memory managing or have it done for you to over simplify. BUT Next wasn't abusive with their linker allowing the filesystem itself handle allow of the would-be linker issues. It was super popular than (thanks to Microsoft) to do obnoxious stuff in linking. Things that would really be better if the file system handled it. Like linking in sounds and pictures.
But anyways... since raw compiled code before it goes to the linker is/was referred to as objects... maybe that is what was mistranslated.
Pixar's Toy Story was made with Sun. Pixar would bounce between Sun and SGI for their hardware back than. Which says everything about NextStep's 3D performance. Job's saw the potential in 3D rendering for workstations but it was more like an ADHD spasm than any real focus.
Apple before Job's 90's was closed off. Convinced they will make the software and the hardware. One of the first thing Job's did was bring back the 3rd party developers. Everyone had lost interest in Apple. Software was getting very thin. I remember being told by an Apple rep that they don't want 3rd party developers because they will make all the software anyone would need and 3rd party developers just diminish their image with sub-standard quality software. Maintaining a Code Warrior license for a platform the head people are taking pop-shots at... pass. Switched compilers and dropped Apple.
Job's brought guys like myself back to Apple. And I bought a G4 Power Mac with the release of MacOS 10.0.
Post Job's death you can see Apple sliding back into that habit. I think the next go-around might be their final end. They really aren't being innovative and are back with that haughty attitude they had in the mid-late 80's. I won't make predictions but the untouchable attitude and riding on your brand has not worked out for companies like DEC and IBM.
@@badopcode I respect your prowess and sheer knowledge compiled on this subject, but please sir, don’t waste all your time on this little comment section
@@badopcode The M1 chip has impressed a lot of people and they started listening and improved their laptop design, so I'm not sure you're right. iPhones are a business standard. If the worst they can do is 80s IBM standards, I don't think they'll be poor anytime soon.
30 years later you still can't upgrade your own mac
"if you wanted to upgrade the RAM, you couldn't. everything was soldered to the motherboard.". Some things never change, eh apple?
Hoooooooly moly I wasn't prepared for that bombshelle of a fact that Pixar was bought by Steve Jobs at some point. Hoooooly CRAP that was interesting as heck
Steve Jobs appears on the credits of the first Toy Story! :)
No wonder they're adding these gay characters
It wasn't Pixar when Apple bought it. This video glosses over a *lot* of details. The company eventually *_became_* Pixar.
Not only that, he actually really helped folks like John Lassiter keep their creative freedom when Disney initially tried to force changes on Toy Story. Steve Jobs put his foot down as their CEO and let Lassiter make the movie he wanted to make. In fact, Pixar mentality is largely what influenced how Jobs would push Mac OS X in the early 2000s. He was inspired by Lassiter's vision of a movie that wasn't just for kids or just for adults, but for everyone, and wanted the same for the OS.
Lots of fundamental errors of historical research in this, but one of the most egregious is as 14:32 - most people DIDN'T "just go the hardware store and buy the parts they needed", because hardware stores didn't sell specialist computer components. If you were upgrading your 1970s computer you had to already be a computer expert with a great deal of experience in designing and building digital electronics, and you had to source much of the components from specialist suppliers, most commonly by mail-order.
The whole point of the original Mac design philosophy was to open up computers to people who wanted computers to be as easy to use as possible, with the minimum of messing around with circuit boards.
BTW, the original 128K Mac *was* upgradeable to 512K. Burrell Smith deliberately left the necessary traces on the motherboard to allow extra RAM chips to be soldered in.
Also - the iMac did NOT run MacOS X - it used MacOS8 initially.
@@ttrjw Yes, and Steve Jobs wasn't the CEO right after Apple bought NeXT, instead Gil Amelio (CEO) just wanted him to be the supervisor to get the company back on track (and fire him again after everything was sorted out.. i guess), but Steve managed to convince the higher-ups, or whoever those people were, to get rid of Gil instead, making Steve the interim CEO. After OS X was in early beta, 2000 or so, Steve announced he was dropping the interim title and becoming the "real" CEO.
"... original Mac design philosophy was to open up computers ..."
i used to be a hard-core Apple user, and i disagree. i believe that it was to close off the previously open Apple ][ architecture, make everything serviceable ONLY by official Apple personnel, and bleed the users dry. they wanted to forcibly harvest all that (previously) third-party hardware/service money they saw they were missing out on. then they extended this philosophy to include any software that people wanted to run on the platform. all this, essentially bent the users over so Apple could have their way while grabbing the wallet.
Yep and circuit designs for that were circulating the interwebs (bbs and chat boards). Upgraded mine about a month after buying it. Bought the IC's, soldering iron, pliers, some wire, capacitors and after some soldering, the bling and 512k, amazing!
"Overpriced and underpowered"....nothing has changed and yet people still shell out tons of money for them.
Also I had no idea they were pulling the whole "can't upgrade or fix them yourself so we can make more money" scheme since way back then..
sheeple cult mentality is a horrible thing isnt it
The M series are very good and pretty affordable! But it's storage...they trick you with the starting price and force you to overspend on storage and RAM. No reason 16GB RAM shouldn't be standard, magic RAM or not.
19:25 almost 40 years later and it still holds true.
Shouldn't apple batteries just be called: apple juice? 😏
You got that from shorts-
I need a MacBook battery changed so I will use this line next time I’m at Genius Bar
Perhaps, but they did have AppleSOS.
@@michaelgergen4318 sauce and sus
@@lucss21a en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_SOS
To be fair, the Apple III, also a Jobs creation, was Apple’s most infamous fanless and overheating machine from that period. They would try that trick again, first under Jobs once again, with the G4 Cube, and then under Ive, with the Retina 12’’ MacBook and its even more infamous butterfly keyboard, and fail miserably… The first such machine to both get it right *and* be wildly successful happens to be the current M1 MacBook Air, which is really surprising. It’s the most Jobsian Mac ever, in that they finally control the entire technological stack, just as he envisioned, and it shows.
The one thing about that is that the M1 chip is actually impressive by mobile chip technological standards. I didn't think they'd be able to outdo a lot of the other chip manufacturers
I mean, Jobs never done any work on any of them, you're looking at the other Steve for that, the Steve that Jobs repeatedly screwed, Wozniak.
@@StonedDragons Woz had nothing to do with the Apple /// either iirc. In fact, the Apple /// was kinda made by a B team while the A team worked on the Lisa, and while Woz just kinda left the corporate politics as he was fed up with both Jobs and the others in the company too.
"Everything was soldered to the motherboard so you couldn't upgrade it." Ugh. Didn't know that's how they started. Cuz that's how they're going now, "so that the computer can be light and thin." Uh, sure, Jan.
Thanks for this insight. The Macintosh has this halo around it. People act like it was this misunderstood revolution, but the truth is so much less glamorous.
having Job's knob in their mouth makes the sheeple blind to their God's shortcomings and obvious price gouging
Ah, back in the 80s where a pretty computer which was impractical, expensive, and had no upgradeability caused the company to almost go bankrupt. Nowadays it turns it into a 2.75 trillion dollar company
That was before computers became hand wavy "magic" to the general population
Saving the precious Apple rom dying literally cost a shitty boss/partner/dad his life .. :/
People didnt buy tech for looks back then.
" Nowadays it turns it into a 2.75 trillion dollar glorified smartphone company" - There, fixed that mistake for you.
Today's Apple is not the "Apple Computer" of the past - it's a smartphone company that happens to sell a sideline based around a computer that can't even reach a 20% market share.
@@looneyburgmusic tbh 20% is pretty impressive considering the cheapest Mac they sell sits at 700usd.
The vast majority of the windows market share is built by budget machines, if you look at the market share of more expensive machines however apple is much more competitive, really depends on the perspective.
Linux also has a minuscule market share but it is ubiquitous in certain areas.
This is from back in the days when people said Macintosh = Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs 😊
That's why there was a reset button on the keyboard.
But they crash with beautiful sad icons and little bombs lol
I've read this one just one other time a few months ago. Never heard it before, and despite it being pretty funny, it's probably the least accurate Mac description *_ever._* The only two ways to hang a Classic Mac I can think of are 1) tinkering with ResEdit; 2) running Pro Tools. Oh wait, #2 does still work nowadays :D
@@IlBiggo Derp 🤡🎈
@@videosbruno Or Crashintosh. Which was a Nickname it had until 2005.
Everything wrong with the Mac is why I adore the Mac SE. Same physical footprint, and actually does all the original Mac advertised and more. Unlike the Mac, though, the SE included user-upgradeable memory up to 4 MB, versatile expandability via a PDS card slot, a fan, an optional internal hard drive, and a somewhat standardized and interchangeable bus for keyboards, mice, and other input devices.
In short, the Macintosh finally done right. Alas, only possible after Steve Jobs's exit. Also, I get the love for silent operation, but the SE was never obnoxiously loud even with the fan and hard drive.
For my money, the first really successful publishing Mac was the IICX. Cheaper and smaller than the Mac II, with a reasonable number of NuBus slots, plus a 68030. Kept mine going for years with a DayStar accelerator.
"Broken parts meant only Apple could fix it, meaning more money for Apple" Old habits die hard, I see
stonks
There is never anything apple has done truly well in regards to their whole product ranges. They've all been overpriced, underpowered and unrepairable.
@@credit0880 unrepairable and overpriced? …sure but underpowered? No way.
If you’re talking specifically around the Mac in the intel/PPC era then I agree with you.
@@liamsz some of the more modern macbooks and even desktops are still throtteling when you let them work hard.
@@mjouwbuis As windows notebooks do even harder?!
In 1984 I worked for a company that sold into the IBM mainframe environment, workplaces that were replacing 3270 terminals with PCs. I’d seen the Xerox Star mouse-and-icon system in action, and was gobsmacked when a colleague brought a Macintosh back from the '84 Olympics. Its mouse and graphics were clearly superior to the Xerox system. Within weeks I had the opportunity to win a Macintosh in a company-wide department performance contest, and won it. Upon attempting to write a document in MacWrite I discovered that my first-generation Macintosh ran out of memory after a page and a half. I concluded that this Mac was a toy and put it away. Later I bought a Mac SE and was impressed with how easy it was to pick up where I left off even though the system software had gone through 3 major upgrades. (At that point Microsoft Excel was a Macintosh-only program named Multiplan.) I stuck with the Mac and was highly amused at how much more I was able to get done than colleagues who used IBM-compatible PCs. This differential peaked around the Mac System 7/Windows 3.1 era. System crashes, user friendliness, OS sophistication...it was no contest. I have probably never had as much smug satisfaction with a product as I did with my Macintosh IIci. Yet, at that time, the Mac’s share of the market was minuscule compared to what it is today, when Windows 11 is much more closely comparable to macOS. Go figure. (Hint: the “nobody gets fired for buying IBM” phenomenon was still very real during the 1980s, making buying PCs the safe, conservative choice. I used to say that Microsoft’s unspoken motto was “Microsoft. It doesn’t _have_ to be any good.” And truly, Microsoft’s products weren’t very good until Apple's fortunes exploded, after the iPod and iPhone made the MacBook a computer of choice.)
The Macintosh 128K had an insufficient ammount of ram and just one year later the competition (Amiga and Atari ST) could do more stuff like sound and full color graphics for half the price.
Come to think of it, even the base model of the IBM PC/XT had 128K and further exceeded that with a minimum of 256K on the PC/AT shortly before the Mac 512K came out. That said, the latter only was a pure 16-bit machine and both were a lot more expensive due to their hard drives.
@@D0Samp yes, but the IBM was made with ram upgrades in mind and didn't have a gui running beneath every programm.
@@D0Samp PC/AT was a 24-bit machine.
Well, the ST took only 6 months to develop from scratch while Apple had the Lisa sold a year before and only iterated on that. People called the ST the Jackintosh. Which shows the ignorance of the people in the USA.
And they don't kill themselves from overheating since almost everything was off-loaded by high-tech custom chips and they don't have integrated display. If only Steve Jobs was a little bit smarter when he came out with Macintosh by not integrating the display into the machine, Jobs would already have a reliable, not so overpriced, and completely silent machine that he envisioned.
Compare 1984 Macintosh to an 1985 Amiga. Then you’ll know which machine was 10 years ahead of its time.
I was there, making money writing and doing actual work and making music on my Mac, while my friends with Amigas were just showing everybody how cool their computers were... Steve Jobs and Apple have many faults, but being insensitive to a paying customer is actually not one of them - I could rely on my Mac for my livelihood, I challenge you to find anybody doing the same for an Amiga, ever, apart from games developers (And I thumbs upped your comment BTW, lol.)
Nasa used Amiga. I used one for work. Babylon 5 TV series used amigas for CGI.
@@Turrican Ahh, the video Toaster with the first version of Lightwave. By the time IT came out though, the Mac had well and truly caught up to the Amiga technology wise with the release of the expandable Mac II and IIfx, with Nubus cards. The Amiga was old news by then, and practically everybody on the Amiga was jumping ship to Windows NT on i86.
Microsoft had bought Softimage and cut its price, and 3dstudio was released..... The video toaster's price, ease of use, and pretty comprehensive features though made it the most popular in raw numbers for video people, a breakthrough product, although for not really that much more, you could get a video card that output broadcast video on a Mac, but the software available was pricier or more complicated than the Toaster.
The Amiga was only technically ahead of Mac for a very short time, only a few months between the release of its models supporting 8bit color, and the release of the colored Mac II. What did you use your Amiga for?
(PS I actually worked for NASA for people at its Ames Research Lab in Silicon Valley for many years during those early days, and they pretty much made it a policy to have everything when it came to computers back then, both high and low tech, although the Mac was always the favorite for personal computing. They had a Cray and a Connection Machine at Ames too, lol....)
@@pixelwash9707 I relied on my Mac too, then the GFX Card broke after 2 weeks and I had to wait another one to give the card to the store and wait until the store got my replacement. I can find a computer on the dump that does the same. And I did. Found an A1000 and it still works.
@@AmstradExin I would NOT want to have to rely on any single provider of ANYTHING, especially things on which my livelihood depends. I've always had mixed computing platforms in my life, for that reason. (Says he writing this on my souped up Windows PC (48 cores of dual Xeons with Quadro graphics) which I use for my 3d development, and running old music software.)
If not for desktop publishing, the Mac might not have survived. Aldus Pagemaker made the computer more valuable. The Apple II was also saved by VisiCalc so it was software that saved these systems; not its hardware.
A non-upgradable machine, with multiple poor design decisions that's both overpriced and underpowered, and a deceptive but ultimately successful marketing campaign that relied on appearing functional to people who aren't familiar with computers. It's amazing how Apple's business model really hasn't changed in nearly 40 years.
And even more amazing how others are starting to copy it more and more :(
I have to ask, what recent Mac is underpowered?
yet the sheeple will gladly and willing fork over $2k for a crapple phone,watch. that mentality hasnt changed in the 20 years, thus encouraging crapple to pump out junk for inflated prices
I know!!! it reminded me of my overheating Macbook Pro form 2015 ):
@@eccremocarpusscaber5159 the M1 Ultra processor is a huge joke a much cheaper laptop with an i5 out performs it in every way
As much as this video was about the Macintosh, it was also a refreshing exposé of Mr. Jobs' brilliance, foibles and hubris.
11 likes
nice
Jobs admitted several times how he learned so much from his failures with Apple and Next.
@@miket.220 Except in reality he didn't. His vision of the tech world basically remained the same when he returned to Apple, with the key difference being that technology had caught up to the point where that vision could become a reality.
@@iClone101 By failures I mean his failures in leading and management, honing his knowledge of what to say "no" to. Not that he was 100%, but he was much better at it in 1997 than he was in 1987.
@@miket.220 he absolutely improved his business skills over that time, but his "form over function" design philosophy persisted. The iPod, just like the Macintosh, was a beautiful device, with the difference being that he could actually make a fully functional device with minimal sacrifices (in the case of the iPod, the SD card slot). Apparently even after his return to Apple he was just as hard of a person to work for in the past, with the difference being that the engineers could produce his vision fully. His business skills certainly improved, but his understanding of tech did not, except with a 15 years gap the technology caught up to where they could produce the outrageous designs he wanted. The iPhone was probably the last time we've seen a single device create such a massive shift in the tech world, singlehandedly flipping over the cell phone market and pushing it into a direction opposite of what it once was. The first iPhone was actually quite a flawed device, but the movement Jobs managed to create pushed technology in a way where they could fix those flaws with just a bit of time. His greatest strength was his ability to move the entire tech world in the direction of his vision, and even though the Macintosh was a market failure it still managed to do just that. And his absence shows just how much of a difference he made, with the iPad being both his last major product and the last industry-shifting product we've had to this day.
TL;DR you're basically correct
This was an amazing video dude! The amount of effort put into this and other of your videos makes your channel so underrated!
I cannot wait to see a video on Windows 11 in a year or two!
I'm absolutely not an Apple fanboy. But you have to give Apple/Jobs credit. The Mac was like the 1.0 version of an Apple GUI computer. You never want to use the 1.0 version of anything, because it takes a while to work all the kinks out. But credit to Jobs for having the vision to get the ball rolling. Up to that point, the GUI was a Xerox research project. Jobs went on to give the world (via Apple engineers) the iPad, iPod and the iPhone. Not a bad trail of innovation.
Given both Xerox alto came 14 years prior, and the Apple II had its own GUI in 1983
Apple engineers made those. Not Jobs. Quit worshiping rich people.
Tablet computers, portable music players and smartphones all existed for years before Apple came out with theirs. The only real innovation Apple has ever done is in the realm of design and marketing. When Apple's versions of these came out, they created a huge buzz around them, and they were truly beautiful designs. Much credit to them for that. I use iPhones and iPads myself. I like them, but I don't kid myself that they were ever revolutionary technology. They work great for my needs until Apple inevitably orphans them, rendering my beautiful, still viable hardware less and less useful. It's bittersweet at best, and infuriating at worst.
@@Euthymia I disagree Apple may be a design focused company now in the sense they take form over function when ever a design is finalized but this wasn't always the case apple is not one person's vision it is the culmination of many different conflicting visions and sometimes some took more prominence than others the Ipod for instance not only looked leaps and bounds better than every other MP3 Player in 2001 but it had more storage a better DAC longer battery life and most importantly an Amazing UI that has still yet to be rivaled when scrolling through music. The Apple 1 was as function over form as it gets the board was laid out in such a way that you could use a completely different cpu with only minor modifications, heck the system didnt even have a case. Its a shame now apple has focused there engineering efforts to made things as hard to replace as possible with the hope that by then you will would rather buy a new one than endure the hastle. I think it is unfair to discredit Apples prior innovations simply over the ones they didnt make that they are acreditit for, (GUI, Firewire, MP3Player, Tablets, ect)
@@jacksong6226 I was responding to the OP. I'll back down on the "only real innovation ever" but look at what you mention and how long ago it happened. The iPod was 2 decades ago, and everything you list about it is ways that it improved upon the products that preceded it. And how many Apple 1's were sold before they changed up their strategy? 200 if that. I really don't mean to discount their continuing genius at refining, packaging and marketing. The Apple II was brilliant. The Mac (after the LaserWriter shipped) eventually created "desktop publishing," but this was all refinement, slick design and marketing. The guts of the LaserWriter were off-the-shelf from Canon. It took Apple to make a system where you could write and draw on the screen and it would look like what would be printed out, but none of the tech was new. Apple's genius is in taking existing ideas and turning them into products that people find attractive and easy and fun to use. And genius it is. Still, I've never bought one of their products new because I can't and won't pay Apple's prices for devices with such short useful lives
There's nothing more satisfactory that being an student of computer sciences and understand all the data that were told in the video about the GPU
I know this is off-topic but I recognized the Mother logo as your PFP. EarthBound is one of my favorite games
Just wanna say your content is always SUPER high quality and I will always enjoy watching your videos!
Man. I remember the ][e we had at home. And years later, I remember being at a computer convention where I got to see the NeXT showcased. That one blew me away. The next time I had that sort of 'wow' moment was when I laid hands on a Sun workstation.
When you realize a failure can be a success:
When you realize a success can be a failure:
Task Failed Successfully.
Macintosh was really ahead of it's time in terms of repairibility. The used to solder their components way back in 80s 🤯🤯🤯. History repeats with m1 mac
The Mac was pure fail compared to the Commodore Amiga. There is just no comparison.
The only difference was the advertising - Jobs used his car salesman personality to make buyers feel smart, even if the Mac they bought sat in the attic unopened gathering dust.
Mac Classic and everything before Power-Macs are overrated. Amiga's were the most "ahead-of-its-time" PCs ever. Amiga 1000 which came out in 1985 had 256K in minimal setup, had a revolutionary at that time in PC world set of chips that complemented the CPU. They can be called predecessors of the nowadays north/south-bridges/chipsets etc. Add to this a really comfortable multi-tasking graphical OS with CLI for power users, AREXX programming language what could be used for inter-applications integrations/automation task, and M$ basic for beginner programmers, colour display, better resolution, 4 channels stereo. In 1987 it was replaced with the power-horse Amiga 2000 and a compact Amiga 500. All these models beat the hell out of the Mac Classic 512 anytime, and out of newer models. There was so much extra power/versatility that compensated over the lacklustre of numbers in the dry specs. I used A500 till 1991 then A1200 till 2000 as main computers, A1200 is still alive. If Commodore had a mere 10% of Jobs' marketing charisma....
Oh, absolutely dude. That’s why we all have a Commodore Amiga in front of us today.
@@madeleinemcandrews6712 Commodore's poor marketing tactics lead to the company's downfall in the later years, along with Amiga. Just because they failed due to their improper marketing doesn't warrant you to be a complete jackass about it.
Looking forward to your video on NeXT. That OS is absolutely mind-blowing especially considering when it was made. It had features that are integral to mac OS today (and as a developer I still code against the NextStep API's when developing for the mac) , to say it had revolutionary tech is an understatement. For anyone curious, have a look at the demo steve jobs did, it's on YT., but then compare that to contemporary OS'es at the time (DOS, Windows 2x & 3x etc).
"what was even the point of macintosh if you couldnt upgrade it?" apple today: lets solder your ssd to the logic board so you have to buy new computer.
People who can microsolder: 🗿
The problems with the first Mac were that it was expensive, the initial memory and floppy drive were both too small and it didn't have the installed software base of non-GUI machines. This last point was particularly important as writing GUI applications was totally new at the time. I bought one of the very first Macs. Was it terribly useful? At the time, no. But those issues were quickly remedied once a hard drive and more memory became available. The Mac scared the crap out of Bill Gates leading to the first version of Windows which was even more useless than the first Mac. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 (which arrived more than 6 years after the first Mac) that it actually became useful. Much better versions of the Mac came quickly, the SE30, the Mac II, etc. The Mac *created* the personal graphics/design computer. To this day, the Mac still owns certain segments of these markets.
We can't discuss the PC/Mac question without mentioning Lotus Development. Lotus had written the most successful app of all time, 123, the second successful spreadsheet after VisiCalc. Business people bought expensive Apple IIs just to run VisiCalc. That continued with PCs and 123. By 1983, 123 was a monster. When the Mac arrived, it had no spreadsheet at all. That made it unappealing to the business types who needed to crunch numbers. Lotus began work on a totally new app (which contained a spreadsheet) rather than a port of 123 to the Mac GUI. Everyone expected it to be the killer app. When the new app (named Jazz), arrived horribly late, it was a major failure. This branded early Macs as "not business computers".
As for price, I sold a number of Apple II systems in 1980-82 that cost $3-4K (once optioned up enough to do what the customer wanted with 80-column video cards, dual floppies, Z80 CP/M cards and WordStar and dBase II). The IBM PC was expensive as well. It was possible to buy a stripped 5150 (with 16K of RAM and one single-sided 160K disk drive) for about $1200 (Which is what I did). But I spent a lot of money on RAM and new double-sided disk drives, driving up the total cost to over $2,000.
The irony, of course, is that after being allowed to almost die on the vine, Jobs returned to Apple and rejuvenated the Mac, just as you showed. That effort has continued to this day and the Mac is now seen as, perhaps, the best computer choice. Eventually, it did catch up as a business tool due, ironically, to Microsoft and its Mac versions of Excel and Word.
One point: Most of your images of the Lisa are actually of Mac XL machines (which were out f slightly revamped Lisa hardware repurposed to run the Mac OS). One difference is that the Lisa had twin 5.25" floppy drives (with dual read heads that required bespoke floppies with two windows) while the Mac XL used a 3.5" floppy drive.
I love your comment... but wish that you could read my comment (above) to see my point of view. The Mac was my ONLY computer, up until around 2004-05. I was in love with the Mac before that. OS X killed that for me. As a HOME user, I wasn't looking into what the corporates wanted in a Mac. My Mac running 9.6 could do Aldus Pagemaker, MacPaint, Microsoft Works, play all the relevant Mac game at the time... You name it. I used to do a lot of video editing in my 8500/180 Mac. That was amazing! Having a considerable amount of OS X Macs not able to do what for example, an 8500 could do, was mind boggling. That wasn't the only issue there were more things I was unhappy about. Having limited knowledge of the PC made me invulnerable to "look what the PC can do". Not that it was too much of a deal. When I bought my first PC in 2006 it had programs that did EXACTLY the same thing my Mac used to do. What really did it for me, was the money involvement. If you needed anything for the PC, it was cheaper, AND it was also available. Tweaks and mods galore it was. In performance, Macs still to this day, outperform PC by at least 40%. The iPhone was what saved Apple, there is no question about it.
@@MacCentrisSimpleSencilla These comments .. "In performance, Macs still to this day, outperform PC by at least 40%." and the one above "...the Mac is now seen as, perhaps, the best computer choice." are so utterly disconnected from reality .. I don't even know where to begin. I think you may still be "...invulnerable to "look what the PC can do".
Honestly, I'm not one of those guys that likes to argue Mac vs PC .. but it's just ludicrous to say something like: Macs outperform PC's by 40%. What Mac vs what PC? And at what cost? It's just legit insane.
@@THE-X-Force I'm back to Mac, what else can I tell ya? My PC is a gaming desktop HP 690-0083W (recently got 16GB RAM) I believe it's from 2020. Been using Windows for 16 years and you must've missed my point above. I used XP, Vista, Windows 7, 8 and 10. I loved Windows 8.1 and 10 above all. Aside from the fact that the PC has plenty of programs from many small companies that do just about anything...I have all that I need on the Mac now. My Mac? A late 2014 Intel Mac mini at 3.0ghz (maxed in everything) is running the games my HP 2020 gaming computer runs (granted they're not high demanding games, Goat Simulator and Stardew Valley just to name my faves now) I'm already doing some graphic editing, video editing, writing music, etc. Sorry to disappoint you pal, but show me a PC from 2014 that can do that without painfully slowing down... I'll wait. 😏 PS. No, I do not play GTA or Call of Duty, just not a fan, I'm 45 and moved on from all of that.
He wanted the computer to be silent; form over function.
A lot of things never change, do they?
"Apple computers are very low-powered and very highly-priced, and that's true of all Apple products"
@@amoureux6502 new apple computers are anything but low powered though (lets ignore gaming)
@@cefalopodo5717 No they are low powered, they are literally PCs with garbage specs and hardware upgrades are at huge markup
@@beardsntools the M1 is """""garbage"""" now? wtf?
@@cefalopodo5717 Ok I just looked it up. First of all M1 is an arm based cpu, it's a cpu for a smartphone or a tablet, that's not even in the same league as a real cpu.. you can't be serious. I was comparing macs (you know real computers.. even though that's also debateable since they are so bad) to pcs and pc wins easily, blowing macs twice the cost out of the water
19:25 Wow he's speaking fax. Mind-boggling how this was a problem almost 40 years ago.
I love how Apple still pulls the same shit to this day. Use old parts in new devices, no customization possibility and no repairability. Amazing.
Also making something seem revolutionary when it's shit we already have
@@Carnyzzle Yeah, it amazes me how they KEEP standardizing the tech market by making stuff shittier. Like, I just bought the S22 Ultra and it really *is* the Apple of Android: no expandable storage, no headphone jack, included cable is USB-C to USB-C and no power adapter included, but has a great camera, lol.
On the flipside their products have a great user experience and (price aside) are good performing *for the tasks they are designed to do*. Let's not surrender ourselves to the internet hivemind that will always say Apple products are "sHiT" because of their admittedly arrogant practices, without considering the good in them as well.
Also, regarding "the old shit", you are underappreciating Apple's innovation. Sure, they didn't INVENT everything, but in many cases they were responsible for bringing technologies to the forefront. Example, the iphone wasn't the first smartphone but look how it changed society.
@@fayelinae that's the problem spoiled idiots buy apple and because of them every other company follows apple when nobody wants that
@@cefalopodo5717 Are Apple products shit? No. Are they overpriced garbage that are designed for people who don't know any better?
In my opinion, yes
if the Amiga was actually properly marketed, the Macintosh wouldn't've gotten away with much of what it did. the original Amiga had specs comparable or better than the Macintosh at the time for half the price, and it was much more user-friendly. Hell, even Apple's own IIGS had better specs than the Macintosh.
The Apple IIGS is what the Macintosh should have been, honestly. A proper color multimedia system that leveraged Apple's significant base of existing Apple II software via backwards compatibility. If it hadn't been hamstrung by deliberately low specs to keep it from competing with the Mac and by Apple's refusal to properly market the thing, it could have been a real success.
Honestly, you can argue something similar hurt the Amiga and the Atari ST. In all three cases, the companies responsible for them struggled with the fact that they were simultaneously selling older and/or competing systems and never quite figured out how to market their newer and more impressive machines out of fear of cannibalizing their existing cash cows. Which probably explains why, by the end of '80s, the market for personal computers had been taken over by upstart IBM PC clone manufacturers like Compaq, who didn't have a generational identity crisis to contend with.
@@seancdaug Sometimes, though, backwards compatibility can be more of a curse than a blessing. Say, with Commodore's plus/4, most software was developed for the C16 it was backwards compatible with instead of the plus/4 which had superior specs. Same case for the C128, except the C64 it was backwards-compatible with was their bestselling machine, and software developers were perfectly content with developing for the C64 and not the C128 since it would grant them a larger market for their software.
@@seancdaug Yup, another Steve Jobs thing, neutering the IIgs. The beginning of closed appliances rather than open computing devices.
“Hell, even Apple's own IIGS had better specs than the Macintosh.” Um, say what? And I say this as a IIgs fan (I still own mine). The IIgs wasn't ready until 1986, the Mac shipped in 1984. The IIgs was limited to 640x200 resolution; even the original Mac was a more usable 512x342. The IIgs shipped with 256K RAM, the contemporary Mac (the Plus) shipped with 1MB (though the IIgs was more easily upgraded). The IIgs had a weird 8/16-bit CPU, the WDC 65816, at 2.8 MHz that was a dead end (and Western Design had trouble even getting the 2.8 MHz chips running stably initially, delaying the introduction of the IIgs). The Mac shipped with an 8 MHz 68000 and of course the 680x0 line had a lot of life left in it. (WDC never shipped the 65832, though higher clock 65816s eventually did make it to market.) The IIgs nominally had better audio capabilities, but the Mac would very soon eclipse even those.
I love my IIgs. I've upgraded it with HDMI graphics (VidHD), Ethernet (Uthernet II), solid state storage (CFAA3000), modern USB peripherals through a Wombat ABD converter ... But it was never a competitor to the Mac. (Whether or not you believe Apple crippled the IIgs with a lower clock speed (certainly they did that to the IIsi, to avoid cannibalizing sales from the IIci), the Apple II architecture was at a dead end by the mid-1980s. You can only take a 1 MHz bus so far; the future, then, was Motorola CPUs and NuBus.)
Amiga was a pile of overpriced unupgradable proprietary components with tackled on NTSC passthrough support.
It was already obsolete in '85.
14:06 how to make your computer fly:
step one: wait for rain
step two: mix it in oil and water
step three: throw it out the window
I remember hearing a story, where two engineers handed Jobs an early prototype of the original iPod, and it was rather large and clunky. Jobs said nothing, walked to a nearby fish tank, prototype in hand, and dropped it in. And when bubbles started coming out, he said "see that? That's empty space. Make it smaller"
FireSonic101
This guy is not understanding why the Mac's were that wanted.
Try Early Windows apps, way more crappy then apple then, apple gave perfect post script on Canon printers!
This guy never used it, mumbeling, not understanding......
You talking about that clunky beige box that looked like a thermostat with a pair of headphones plugged in?
@@olliegoria i guess so. I've never really seen the early prototype in question.
Should have done no charging brick: apples most successful failure
:D this made me crack up so hard
💀
Pixel does that too now, so dumb
Apple is the king of soldering your PC to the mainboard even in the 80's.
@@hmwith At this point I am just gonna build my own phone
5:29 In 1977 three successful personal computers were released: Apple ][, Commodore PET and TRS-80 Model 1.
13:27 The breakthrough was that it had an 8 Mhz CPU but I agree the marketing wasn't as honest as it could have been.
22:29 NeXT could run 3D simulations so well because it was initially 1) B&W 2) used a multitasking microkernel OS from CMU (Mach/BSD).
22:51 Before it was called Pixar it was part of the Lucasfilm Computer Division, simply known as "Graphics Group".
23:39 NeXT was also on its last legs having shuttered its hardware business and operating solely as a software company.
24:05 The iMac debuted running Mac OS 8 not Mac OS X which was based on NeXTStep.
My only computer in the late 70's and early 80's was a Hewlett Packard HP-41 programable calculator. It had lots of software and the hardware itself could be upgraded and expanded.
Now it was 1984 and I was going to buy my first computer. I had not been able to use a computer anywhere for more than a few minutes at a time at a few jobs. So I read lots of computer magazines and researched.
Tandy, Commodore, Atari, and Sinclair all seemed to be too underpowered for me. IBM's successful design, with a lack of strong patents, had given birth to a thriving "PC Clone" industry.
The two leading contenders were Apple with its new Macintosh and a PC clone from a company called Columbia Data Products. Both were around $2500 for the base models. The Columbia PC could be upgraded, when I could afford it, with more RAM, hard disk drive, color monitor and other peripherals.
The Apple Macintosh had NO hardware upgradeability. If I wanted any of the upgrades I had with the PC I would have to buy a entirely new machine!
Needless to say at this point, I bought the Columbia PC and over the new few years I added a lot of parts to it. I tried all versions of MS Windows from version 1 on up. Windows NT version 4 was the first really stable OS with a good user interface.
During the past thirty years I have acquired several Macintosh computers so I could judge for myself whether there were in any way superior the the PC's I had. IMHO they were just a little bit different, just not superior. YMMV. ;-(
Software Entrepreneurs' Forum hosted a conference for prospective Macintosh developers. Guy Kawasaki, the Mac evangelist, was the keynote speaker. To develop Macintosh software required (of course) a Macintosh, plus a Lisa with memory and disk upgrades, and some tools. That was pretty steep up front costs. Although I wanted a Lisa, I couldn't afford one. I ended up buying an Apple IIe and gave my Apple II+ to my niece. The Computerland store I went to was owned by Woz's brother. He kept grilling me on why wasn't I buying a Mac, so I gave him a detailed explanation. I wanted a Next Computer but it was out of my price range. Later on I bought an IBM AT clone. I liked MacOSX. It was based on BSD UNIX.
"The most influential invention in human history" 😂😂 There are some people out there who want to talk to you, Johannes Gutenberg, Edward Jenner, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Alexander Fleming and many more. Sure they didn't bring us Toy Story or Mac OS10 but they did quite a bit themselves.
Or maybe the fucking transistor, god I hate apple revisionist history
Uh, Thomas Edison didn't. Everything his name is on was stolen. And he killed and abused many, many animals. And possibly even had Louis Le Prince murdered. That ain't some niche conspiracy theory, that's something Edison actually very likely did.
It's a really good video, and what seems a bit confusing for me is that many of the traits that are mentioned like mistakes, compromises and failure causes are still present today (no upgradabilty, soddered to the motherboard, expensive price for cheaper or standard components), I guess in the end the idea of design over performance prevails.
form over function is/was Job's motto. who cares if it works or not , catches on fire overheats. the sheeple will fork over their money just cuz crapple
Not necessarily true. We just got to the point of performance is good enough that even if one prioritize design over performance, the penalty isn't that bad and the performance is gonna be good enough. Usually the first product is a failure but give it some years and using the same design concept it will work cause the performance is good enough even with that concept. Macintosh was a failure but iMac was a success. The first macbook air is just too slow, limited, and expensive. The 2011 macbook air have ok performance and long battery life that it's basically a default recommendation for a lot of student. Apple try to make everything unnecessarily thin since 2016 and even made a fanless design in macbook making every mac a worse performer in order to pursue thinness. Yet now the macbook air M1 with also thin and fanless design could export 4k video easily.
The first personal computer…. oh, there were some others.
Nice Apple revisionist history. Let’s just for get about the TRS80 and Commodore PET. The former which outsold the Apple, and the later which led to the C64 which went on to sell 17M units.
The Apple II (or Apple ][ if your one of those folks) was the first SUCCESSFUL personal Computer, but the entire Hoard of weird proprietary 70s computers in addition to the Numerous somewhat widespread IEEE certified platforms like S-100 systems (Intel, Altair, IMISIA) and IBM & HP's Early attempts of a PC ALL PREDATE APPLE'S EXISTENCE!!! You cant tell me with a shred of integrity and seriousness that Apple Invented the PC or the GUI much less Steve Jobs of all people, the Apple revisionists would love for you to believe that computers before the mac were all primitive and the Mac was this huge step forward, it wasn't. The Apple IIgs Was, the Amiga was, the IBM PC was, The Mac on the other hand was an overpriced plastic box that had no hardware to back its price-tag its a shame that this company has decided to peruse this business model of Hyping up overpriced garbage engineering failures. Apple says Think Different. I say Think Smart, glued aluminum mount rails in the top case and calling it Unibody is only the kind of different thinking you will find here at apple now.
@@jacksong6226 Tandy outsold both Apple and C= until 1982 when the C64 was released and Apple didn’t overtake Tandy until 1983. I’d argue the TRS80 was the first successful home computer.
@@MrLurchsThings Yeah, pretty much this. The TRS-80 model I absolutely crushed apple II sales for years, not even a contest, and if I remember right the PET I think even sold a bit better. (the Atari 400/800's first year may have even outsold Apple's '77-79 numbers.) But people forget about Tandy and Commodore's early machines since neither one made it long term. Still, I do have to say the Apple II is a lot more pleasant to upgrade/repair and being the only 1977 trinity machine capable of color is nice.
@@Karthex as someone who has all three (truly blessed), the TRS80 is a tremulous machine, the PET is just that - a gorgeous machine you want to bring in at night, but the A2 was definitely the better architecture (although it was nearly twice the price as the others).
@@MrLurchsThings I have a TRS-80 model I and III and Apple IIe myself. The model I is a fragile design but the III does what it was made for very well. The Apple is definitely the most advanced and robust of the three I agree. Great computer that's given me little trouble over the years. Still need to track down a PET but they're rare beasts anymore.
Marketing is the team that puts a pretty bow and sparkles on a scam. I've worked in I.T. since 2001....... and started as a computer kid in the 80's....... I've NEVER paid for an Apple product... EVER.
They're masters at making money on people's illiteracy. And it's a cult now.
this is literally 1984
"a concept that had only seemed possible in 'the Jetsons', ten years prior" i didnt even know that anyone still knows about that show.
I remember all this happening. I can remember noticing the "overconfidence" as you put it. I'll admit to being a utilitarian when it comes to computing and my thinking at the time was that there needed to be not only something that this computer could do that none of the others could, but that that something had to be something you actually wanted to do. All the things that the Mac could do that I wanted to do were things that other computers could do (and some even better). The non-upgradability and lack of a lot of software were major points to me too.
this is probably the best channel which focuses on these topics honestly
ur videos are always so entertaining bro they make my day, i love your documentaries
The Mac SE/30, while much more expensive, fixed all of these problems. So did the Mac II line, with full 32 bit, expansion, and colors graphics.
Bought my first Apple, like Feb of 82, 2700 out the door; green screen monitor, dot matrix printer, floppy drive, and the expensive part 48k of memory. Now has a 1 meg memory card, 10 meg hard drive, and sits in the basement unused. Watched this video on a 10 year old MacPro with a few upgrades. Had a IIFX, unique machine. Macintosh is not dead, yet. Have fun
"apple computers are very under powered and very highly priced"
Nice to see apple hasn't changed in almost 40 years
new apple computers are anything but low power (lets ignore gaming)
They still are highly priced, but definitely not underpowered. Just look at the M1 (and the M1 Pro and M1 Max).
This undying meme has probably done more to keep Apple products at absolutely the top of the stack than anything else. Nothing motivates company engineers to do even better like the 'everyone knows' public misinformation that their work is crap. On the flip side, nothing makes a company's products technologically terrible like the 'public knowledge' that their stuff is the "best". Microsoft of the 90's to the 2010's, I'm looking at you.
2 years later, the Apple IIgs came out and mopped the floor with the Mac, but the mac poison the well so badly no one wanted the IIgs, which was the REAL computer they should have hyped up.
Fond memories of using the Macintosh in primary school from 1993 to 1997. I've been a PC boy all my life and I can't stand Apple nowadays, but I have huge respect for Steve Jobs and what he created and the fact that I first learned using a computer on those old Macintoshes. Also, I gotta give a shoutout to Hypercard! I loved making my own computer games on that software!
That outro was pure perfection
3:39 just for those unfamiliar with the reference 1984 was/is a sci-fi book written in the late 1940s about a future dystopian society where people were mind controlled in the 1980's it copied some elements from how germans in ww2 were "mind-controlled" by the nazi party to not resist what was happening to the Jews and some elements from the authors own imagination.
well they were 20-30 years to early I guess.
Welcome in the future.😔
"A computer even children could use!" Dude, I was using a Commodore 64 2 years before the Macintosh came out, 6 years before we bought a Mac. Even children could use the Commodore PET, because we did that in elementary school before the 64 came out!
Funny how they seem to be slipping back into the "hard wired" syndrome. The new Mac Minis, Mac Mini Studio have non upgradable hard drives, meaning, the user can't upgrade to more SD space. The RAM can be increased, but not cheaply. They need to make both RAM and SSD to be upgradable. I use a PC and a Mac, and I can tell you, hands down, I have 5-10 times more problems with the PC than I ever have with a Mac. I have to have two malware and protection apps (Webroot and CC Cleaner) where I never have had any on any Mac I owned. I ran an all Mac computer lab at my school for 10 years, never had a virus problem, never had a virus protection program. The only limitations I ever ran into was types of programs available, and limits on the internet sites, and that has largely disappeared.
You don't have a problem with "PC." You have a problem with MS Windows.
@@cebruthius well, yes, I think people get what I'm saying without that "qualification". Yes Mac and Windows machines are all PC's. Ok, then, I hate Microsoft Windows.
@@michaeld.mcclish You misunderstood. There are wonderful operating systems for non-Apple hardware. I've been a Linux user for the past 18 years. First Gentoo, now NixOS. It never breaks.
@@cebruthius I know, I don't claim to know everything about computers by any means. None of my Windows or Macs ever "broke down" but I have more viruses, more hiccups, more virus software/ on my Windows machines than I ever had to have on my Macs. I built and ran a computer classroom with my own Apple servers, 35 workstations, my own switches, and never had any virus software or problems(other than my own lack of experience). At home, I have constant annoyances with my one Windows computer, and am about ready to go back to strictly Apple/Mac. Cheers.
@@michaeld.mcclish I haven't used MS Windows for the past 18 years so I really can't help you with that.
"To be overpriced, oversimplified, overly exclusive, and obsolete as soon as the next model comes out" -Apple
Apple didn’t elect Steve as the next CEO, he was brought in as an advisor, and then only interim CEO. Only later did he become the CEO again..
I wouldn’t say the Mac was underpowered. It was simply weighed down. The cooling and gui were it’s weakness. Trying to run a GUI on a 68000 especially a fully bitmapped one is insane. The 68K was very good for the time and was another reason the Mac was very expensive.
Amazing video!!! Never knew about Job’s influence on the 3D film world.
He just bought a company. Something Apple does *A LOT* .. Jobs didn't influence not one single thing in the "3D film world".
At the time, it was a cool computer. Especially in 1989, when the SE/30 came out. If you were a kid then, the DOS OS, was dominate, so cool like Wordperfect 5. But, the moment you popped a disk on a Mac and it told you, do you want to format the disk, that was enough to fall in love with the machine.
Apple didn't want to have people changing RAM in the Mac? Dang, they really didn't like people upgrading anything themselves, did they?
you fail to mention is was Jonathan Ives who designed the Imac along with every other product since. THAT is what rescued apple. I at least give credit that jobs made the right decision and run with his designs. Jobs mostly did the marketing.
That's why Jonathan Ives had his own lab to design new stuff where only a handfull of people on his design team ever could go inside and see what he is working on.
Even Ives would run out of gas eventually as for quite a few years lately, all he put out are apple going back to upgrades in their phone, pda, desktop, etc. and no new "earth shattering" product. Ives originally took products already on the market and made them actually appealing to the public market. I mean Diamond MP3 player, HP\IBM\Zenith PDAs, Motorola GUI touchscreen phone, etc.
Love the new video, again, the quality just keeps on improving!! Did you use an actual Mac for the MacSpeak sections of the video or some kind of mockup? Either way, that is so cool!! Excited for new content!
Thank you!! For Macspeak I did use an emulator! The original Mac was unable to support it, but the Mac itself in the video is real and powers on like it’s supposed to. :)
@@nationsquid Wow, it's awesome to think that emulators were around back then! Amazing video as always.
Neat video... but I WILL take issue of your statement about "128K basically making it an 8-bit system." It absolutely should have shipped with 256-1024k memory, but memory in 1984 was crazy expensive. The ROM had some 32-bit and some 24-bit routines. One could make a case that it was more like a slightly-fast 24-bit (or 16-bit) computer, but in no way was it like an 8-bit system. I'd push to call it a 24/32 if you wanted to be honest about what the code was doing and what it was capable of.
Back when Apple was a rainbow
You Could Upgrade a MAC!
I Got a Mac for college in 1984. It was known at the "thin" Mac, because of its 128K of RAM. This base product was designated as the "Mac 128K." It also has one built a single sided 400K FDD. This machine replaced my Radio Shack TRS-80. Anyway, back to my point of this comment...
I first upgraded my Mac with 512K of RAM, essentially making it a "Mac 512K." Later to became know a "MAC 512Ke" (the e was for enhanced). My next upgrade was to change out the original FDD to double sided 800K drive. Again, this upgrade changed the model to a "Mac Plus." The last upgrade I made was to add a 2nd 800K internal floppy disk drive. This upgrade required basically a new case and an internal bracket to support the 2nd drive. My Mac would now be known as a "Mac SE." The final upgrade that you could do to this platform was an expensive one. To go the "Mac SE30" you had to change out the mother board. This Upgrade I did not do. So, my original Mac 128K changed to 3 different models.
Watching this on a mac, makes me think that so many things I love could be waaaaay different
Also, how'd you get the Macintosh?
Ebay! :)
One of the highschools I went to in 2019 had a fully functioning Macintosh II with a working floppy disk of Summer Games. Never tried to use it myself, but other people used it often during recess.
the amiga in 1985 had a color gui and great sound chip with a mod tracker and a great graphics processor and later in 87 a max came out with a product that let you run mac os on a amiga
To be fair the original Amiga 1000 wasn't off to a great start either, and it also took until 1987 until a good software/game catalog and an affordable home model based on it became available. But that was more a matter of marketing and rushing a capable product to market.
The problems with macintosh were 2:
1) while Steve Wozniak designed the Apple II with expansion and open architecture in mind, for users/hackers to tinker with it and get a huge fan base, Jobs wanted the macintosh to be super closed and non expandable (he wanted to sell obviously new computers only thru apple channels)
2) the price; while ibm branded pcs weren't cheap, the pc market saw a tremendous variety in price (and quality) thru the 80s, resulting in prices going lower and lower , but even with the cheapest pc clone you get to run all the cool software the original ibm pc ran; macintosh computers were expensive, underpowered (compared to pcs) and unexpandable and the software available to it was also a mere fraction of the D.O.S. platform.
These 2 factors made macintosh the "fancy graphic 1 click computer" only some high profile artists (Warhol, Ace Freheley, and a dozen more) could afford; the rest of the industry AND the home consumers only could afford the pc which for a fraction of the price of a mac could do the same.
After this, do a video on Windows 7
23 minutes of farts over a windows logo :D
I bought my 1MB Macintosh at Goodwill in 1992 for $30. They had a bunch of them. I still have it in a closet but I'd be surprised if it still works. The last time I used it was in May 1999 to write a letter. I never turned it on again.
9:09 - woah, maybe it's just me, but watching that pop-up appear in the video but outside of that monitor really screwed me up for a sec. i just implicitly interpreted it as a native popup on my PC since I was only expecting action on that monitor. Like, I legitimately felt like the Mac shown in the video was somehow hacking into my computer to show a native Mac popup in Windows, like it was cursed or something. completely irrational response lmao, there's just something about that composition that manipulated my brain for a split second lol.
Everytime I see one of your videos, I just can't wait till the next one.
This pretty much sums up CrApple to this day: overtly expensive, made to look pretty rather than being functional, and using deprecated technologies and trying to sell them as brand new and innovative. This why only iSheep buy iCrap, and the rest of us (80% of the market share) use Windows, Linux, or Android, because we actually know how to use powerful and highly functional devices.
Huge generalisation, if you know anything about the last couple years, you’ll know that arm processors are the future and that like it or not, apple is no longer selling underpowered, inefficient, flawed products, in fact they’re doing quite the opposite.
It is funny how apple's commercial that IBM users are hypnotized is today steve jobs on the screen- u must buy all new accessories as we changed the plug... there are no more ports you must buy the apple adaptor... we are intentionally slowing down your phone so u buy a new one... and all apple owners go "ok".
@@h.mandelene3279 Apples lightning connector has been around for 10 years, USBC Mac charging has been around for 6 years and is now backwards compatible. Despite being mostly a Windows user daily, I laugh at how many different barrel and other charger types windows laptops have had in the past. They slow down older phones to save the battery. Especially running new software on older hardware, they need to otherwise the community complains about battery life. There is no easy answer.
@@sgeggbub1008 "I laugh at how many different barrel and other charger types " Ever notice that is because those are different brands???
Apple(jobs) has been screwing their customers since Steve Job was working in the field. Read how steve screwed his friend to make a circuit for him. In the early 90's jobs would not include TCP\IP he would only give appletalk. He finally gave in(pouting). intentionally slowing down older phones, u name it, over all those years, but for some reason, buyers came back and said - screw me again please...
@@h.mandelene3279 "intentionally slowing down older phones" mate it's for the battery. Yea it's annoying but at least you won't need a battery replacement every 3 months when your phone because obsolete
The 512K Mac was my first PC. Bought it at a local thrift store for all of $5 in '97. Sooo many fun games I had on that machine: Shufflepuck & Daleks are just a couple examples. I'd love to have one again, if only to recreate the control panel / desktop patterns using MS Paint on my Win7 laptop.
You had to be around in 1984 to appreciate how far ahead of the curve the Mac was when it debuted. Windows did not arrive until years later and was ugly and useless when it did. Some people immediately got it and others didn't. Those who understood the appeal loved their Macs with passion. Apple made the best personal computers until the mid 2000's. With the advent of iOS Apple rapidly went downhill with each successive OS worse than the previous one, up to the present moment where Apple products are simply garbage.
Sounds like someone never heard of the glory that is the Commodore Amiga.
The original Macintosh was really an office computer. It did great at running word processing and spreadsheet applications. Anything beyond the office style usage and it was bad. It was a true example of form over function.
Yeah. On one hand, that made sense: Jobs wanted to compete with the IBM PC, and the IBM PC was designed as a professional office machine first and foremost. But it also makes the extent to which the Macintosh went all-in with the multimedia aspect of its design look more than a little ridiculous. An office computer in the early 1980s didn't really need a GUI, and it can be argued that the fact that users essentially had to learn an entirely new way of interacting with their computer was actually a turn-off for business-oriented consumers. And if you did look at the Macintosh as a multimedia system a la the later Amiga or Atari ST, it was both too expensive for its likely target audience, and too underpowered to really shine.
Your videos always fascinate me so much, especially ones like these. Very well done Mr. Squid!
Edit: You eat dirt over sand?? You are obviously above me 😂
I was just a lil kid when it came out but I don't remember it being a failure. My aunt had one. Every classroom at school had one. I remember mac paint as magical...
This was way ahead of its time by a long run. Wow. When Apple was actually innovative and not charging $1000 + for a stand.
Yeah back when they didn't put a fan in the computer and and soldered everything to the motherboard
That opening scared me, man!
apple’s retro tech is super cool, i’ve got an apple iie and a macintosh se/30. excited to see this video!
I grew up playing on my parent's old //c.
The MacIntosh was around $800 when it was released. The Commodore 64 could be purshed for $300 in 1983.. I know , Montgommery Wards was selling them en masse. The Commodore 64 had a SID chip in it that had the capacity to make sound with the modular components of a Moog synthesizer: ADSR Envelope, Triangle, Sine, Sawtooth, Reverse Sawtooth, Square and Pulse with adjustable Pulse Width, Noise Waveform, Ring Modulation, Sync Modulation, Low, Mid and High pass Filters.. No other computer had this capability. IT also could address 16 colors and a resolution of 320x200. The text width made it suitable as a terminal for people who needed to work at home ona remote computer via a telephone connection.
The MAcintosh however had a high enough resolution screen and could address multi-resolution fonts, which made it suitable for desktop publishing, which became its killer application in the 80s.
You make great informative content keep it up 👍👍👍
I worked in a small office that purchased one Macintosh. The person behind the purchase dealt doggedly with the machine. She could only get things done by covering the thing with sticky notes explaining how to do things. I tried doing a few things on it, but most of the time I spent looking at the little bomb which signaled that the machine had crashed ... again. Subsequently I seemed to get a reputation for being able to get stuff into, or out of the Mac. That was very difficult, and still is to an extent. I finally escaped the Apple machines and went to a company running Unix that hosted plenty of actually functional software. It was a great relief to be able to spend more time on my work than on dealing with the Apple machines. And I never looked back.