To be fair - thats what computers were back then. Pretty much just boards. The Apple I was impressive because you didn't have to solder that board together yourself, unlike most other home computers at the time. I don't really agree with the authors premise once you put it under a historical lens
If I recall correctly, you still had to supply (and wire up) the power supply, keyboard, and screen.
"To be fair" implies there is unfairness.
I'd like to better understand who's being shortchanged fairness here. Is it Apple or is it Steve Jobs? In either case, I think protecting the extremely successful, seems like a waste of (argument) energy.
Im not really protecting anyone. The author puts forth the idea of Apple having a minimum viable product (just a board), and shipping it because they were once young and scrappy. I counter, saying this was simply par for the course at the time. I don't think he has a valid point. 'To be fair' is being used in more of a colloquialistic sense - a sort of introduction to a counter point.
Whether or not it's true, the author's argument isn't that the first product wasn't better than what was available at the time, his argument is that it was a giant compromise compared to what the founders wanted to provide.
And my argument is there isn't a basis for this.
Back then computers were not just boards. Most sold computers had cases.
Products like the Altair 8800 certainly came in a case, but they were not able to receive keyboard input or output test to a CRT display without significant aftermarket modifications. (Or various S-100 expansion boards that were released later)
Most came /with/ a case - but almost all commercially available computers had to be hand assembled by the end user. Within a year or two, mass marketed computers were common place. But pre 1977 there were not that many to choose from, and even fewer to pick that were as completed made as the Apple.
I feel like the 'get something out there' philosophy is so important. When you do, you can use the feedback to revise future plans and features you were planning on implementing, as well as having the ability to pivot with minimum wasted time. Also its not fun to build an elaborate architecture and to have it fail (violating the principle of failing early and often).
That's just not how Apple's first customers saw the product. It wasn't minimally viable, it was absolutely amazing compared to your other options at the time.
I don't really get it: this guy seems to be bashing Jobs in the first paragraph ("I always hate when...") only to come out in his defense in the next paragraph.
What is exactly the point of the post? That a company started with a not-so-good-looking but impressive products and over the years with the infuse of billions of dollars they have improved it? I thought that was the normal way to go.
The biggest irony in tech is that Apple started out as the common man's computer company. Then, it morphed into making computers from a functional item into a luxury purchase. Amazing.
at what point were they a common man's computer? Not to be confused with a popular choice of a home computer