“It’s a poorly kept secret, but we’re all using Macintosh computers right now. Most of them, of course, use microprocessors made by Intel rather than Apple, and run Microsoft’s Windows, not Apple’s OS 9 or OS X, but they’re all direct descendants of the original graphic user interface and operating system created by an amazing group of computer artists in the early 1980s,” Richard Pachter writes for The Miami Herald. “The popularity of the nascent Apple II microcomputer began the personal computer revolution, but that was just the beginning for the upstart company in Cupertino, California.”
Pachter writes, “Author Andy Hertzfeld joined Apple as a young developer and eventually became a part of the team that was assembled to create the Macintosh, a revolutionary computer that didn’t require arcane keyboard combinations or other specialized knowledge. Its point and click commands, using a metaphoric, icon-driven method of running software applications and creating documents — derived in part from the work of Xerox’s seminal interface experiments — is now the industry standard.”
Pachter writes, “The story of the creation of the Mac is an exciting tale of creativity, innovation, ego and revolution. It’s far more dramatic than one would expect, and certainly more than just a routine product development story, as evidenced in Hertzfeld’s new book, ‘Revolution in the Valley.'”
Pachter writes, There are ample business insights amid the memories. For example, the tough negotiating of Bill Gates resulted in Microsoft’s perpetual license for the Mac interface, hence Windows’ ‘resemblance’ to the Macintosh operating system… Whether you’re a Mac person or a Windows user, this classic tale of American innovation is entertaining and insightful.”
Full article here.
Mac Daddy,
These are actual quotes from the actual Guy Kawasaki, taken from his book “The Macintosh Way: The Art of Guerilla Marketing”, Scott, Foresman and Company, 1990.The first paragraph is found on pp.145/146, the rest on pp.187/188. Other than putting these two quotes in sequence, I have not altered or omitted a word.
Your statement that Microsoft “jumped on Macintosh development ONLY after Apple made the GUI a marketing success” seems strangely inconsistent with Guy Kawasaki’s statement that they did so in 1982.
As for the 640k statement, it is most likely fake:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
Even if it were true, it were far less off than, say, Ken Olson’s “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home” from 1977.
Didn’t, in 1984, Steve Jobs obviously believe that 128k was enough for anybody?
Steve, God Bless Him, still thinks that 256 mb is enough!
Great, but not perfect
The quote from Guy Kawasaki is accurate, but you have to remember, that book was published in 1990. The Apple Computer he’s talking about is not the same we know today. The parade of clueless CEOs that started with Sculley and ended with Gil Amelio had no idea what they were doing. From 1986 to 1997 Apple drifted around like a ship without a sail and it’s truly a miracle that they even made it to the 21st Century. He’s right, Microsoft pulled Apple’s pants down and spanked them red. Those days are long over though.
As for Apple and Xerox and the GUI, it’s true that much of it came from Xerox, but Apple was already working on a GUI idea of their own when they went to PARC. Xerox sold them the IP because they didn’t have plans to use it themselves. Microsoft, on the other hand, reverse engineered the Mac OS and used what they learned to create Windows. They took advantage of a poorly written contract that allowed them to have early access to the Mac to develop software for it. The agreement stated that they could have access to develop software for it, as long as they didn’t then develop the same software for any other system for one year to give the Mac a jump on the competition. The problem is, instead of building applications for competing systems, they took advantage of the situation to build their own competitor, and, unfortunately, the contract did not bar them from that. For years after that, Apple and MS argued in and out of court regarding those details, but MS had the upper hand because Apple needed them (or at least Sculley thought they did – perhaps he was right) and was able to twist their arm to get them to do what they wanted.
Nowadays I don’t think MS has any control over Apple. Due to the monopoly litigation, they need Apple to stick around to prove that they have competition. Apple seems to be putting itself in a position to where they are less reliant on Microsoft with apps such as Keynote and Pages.
Mac & PC Guy
I’d like to address what you wrote n maybe try to make things clearer for most people.
Think of Apple as US; Think of Xerox and Creative as Italy; Think of GUI and iPod as pizza.
Long time ago, Italy makes a round piece of dough puts some tomato paste and a bit of cheese on it way back then but not many people cared for it. A couple of years back, US makes the same piece of bread with the cheese and tomato and jazz it up with some ham and salami and pepper and now everyone now loves it and can’t stop eating it.
So did Italy (Xerox) or US (Apple) make the pizza (GUI)?
or did Italy (Creative) or US (Apple) make the portable MP3 player?
Microsoft on the other hand is a differnt story.
Microsoft came to the Apple pizza joint, told Apple they wanted to deliver the pizza for them. But instead copies the recipe Apple used for making the pizza topping and opens up their own Pizza joint. Then Microsoft starts telling everyone they created this new thing called Pizza. Problem is Microsoft couldn’t make the dough, so they put slices of bread underneath and put the topping in a circular shape and call it Windows. Now when people tried to take a standard pizza slice, it would break apart and all the topping would fall off. So Microsoft tells everyone “This IS the way pizza is supposed to be eaten” and those who have never tried Apple’s pizza believe Microsoft.
If Xerox developed it, why didn’t they use it for stuff, like copie machines…why didn’t they mass produce it and market it? To be revolutionary, you also have to be remembered.
twidldumb
The subject was who invented what,NOT who mass produced or should be remebered. Minor detail huh?
Ed: Since you they play the same role in your analogy, can you first explain the similarities and differences between iPod and pizza? Are their histories and technologies even remotely related?
Ed: Since you they play the same role in your analogy, can you first explain the similarities and differences between iPod and pizza? Are their histories and technologies even remotely related?