Apple II Bits

No big story here, just a geek encounter that’s too cool to go unnoticed: Apple II inventor Steve Wozniak gets grilled by Leonard Nimoy, aka Spock.

This crossover, orchestrated by VentureBeat’s Matt Marshall, occurred Thursday, January 5, in San Francisco at DEMO Enterprise, an event hosted by my employer, IDG Enterprise and sponsored by Woz’s Fusion-io. It’s not clear to me what the science officer of the Federation starship Enterprise was doing there, but given how much closer to Star Trek‘s 23rd century Apple technology has brought us, it seems a fitting intersection.

(Hat tip to Computerworld)

The current state of the economy presents unique challenges, but also unique opportunities. As larger companies fold under the weight of their own bulk, new enterprises are small, nimble, and innovate enough to fill new niches and needs. What what better innovator and businessman to inspire budding entrepreneurs than Apple’s greatest Steve?

Jobs? No — Wozniak.

So says Trevor Owen, founder of the Lean Startup Machine. In his essay, "Why Founders Should Emulate Wozniak, Not Jobs" he makes several arguments:

• • Steve Jobs played a minor role in Apple’s early success with the Apple II
• • When Steve Jobs created the breakthrough Macintosh he had immense resources & clout
• • The Macintosh underperformed against the Apple II, essentially was a flop
• • NeXT Computers released a series of product flops
• • Jobs’s later success (as a CEO) is due to his failures

It’s not unusual to question Steve Jobs’ role in the design and success of Apple’s products, but this is the first time I’ve seen his business acumen also fall under scrutiny. Unsurprisingly, not everyone is convinced. Over at Forbes, E.D. Kain has some objections:

… if Wozniak had been in charge, it’s doubtful Apple would have been much of a company at all. Wozniak wanted to open the whole project up to all-comers. His enormous skill was in making things tick – not in building a company from the ground up…

… it really helps to couple visionary businessmen with brilliant engineers. So what if Jobs got ahead of himself in the early years? Start-ups today shouldn’t just look at the early careers of tech businessmen; they should pay attention to the entire package.

What do you think? Could Woz have built the Apple empire without Jobs? Could Jobs, without Woz?

Steve Jobs‘ passing made international headlines. This week, it’s nice to see the rest of the world remembers "the other Steve", Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.

Woz has been making the rounds throughout Eurasia, stopping first in Armenia, where he played some jokes on the hotel staff before going for a spin on the Segway.

Of greater substance is Woz’s interview with New Delhi Television in India. Woz spoke at length about not only Steve Jobs ("I haven’t read [Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs]. I have been so busy in the last two months. I never got around to reading that book… But I have lived a lot of it. So I am sure it is accurate") but also what made the Apple II a success, especially compared to other early Apple products:

Apple II became successful because of various reasons. Steve Jobs had a large part to play in it, and he knew where he wanted to go with it. It was an excellent product. Steve Jobs sought the best things in the world. He knew that I was the best designer, and that Apple II was the best computer, and that’s why he wanted both. We were best friends, though. So that helped. It was excellent because it came from my one mind. I controlled the entire environment of how that computer was built. It worked so well that very few parts did very much. Only because, I wanted a computer for me. And it had to be that beautiful.

But the Apple III failed… is it because there were too many people working on it?

Yes, if the guys at Apple had built the machine that they would love, it would have been successful. It came instead from formulas from Apple executives. Marketing people were in charge and some very bad decisions got made, in my opinion. There were hardware failures. You put out a product that has failures right away, and even if you fix it a year later, it just doesn’t sell. It’s the same thing with any smartphone today. It comes out and it has something horribly wrong about it. You can fix everything wrong about it, and it still won’t sell. It has missed its window of opportunity.

At the same time Woz praises Jobs for his involvement in the Apple II, he criticizes the Apple III for its design by committee. I wonder what the breaking point is between having the right people involved, and having too many people?

Last week, I posted a blog to Computerworld that may be of interest to Apple II users: "Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs’ resignation". It started when Greg Nelson sent the KansasFest email list a link to the CNN’s video interview with Woz. I thought to simply repurpose it for an Apple II Bits blog post — but the more I looked into it, the more I realized there was more to say here than found in a single embedded video.

The final blog post would’ve fit right at home on this site, but I decided to post it instead to my professional blog at my day job, Computerworld for several reasons:

1. It was already Friday, and I post here on Mondays and Thursdays only. I wanted to get the post published in time for the weekend.
2. Due to my own inconsistent publication schedule and a lack of focus in topics, I’ve not attracted an audience at Computerworld, which makes it rarely worth my time to blog there. But it’s still in my best interests to demonstrate that I occasionally have something relevant to contribute to discussions in the IT sector.
3. Even without a regular audience, the readership of Computerworld.com is, unsurprisingly, significantly larger than Apple II Bits. The details are company confidential, but I can say that putting the blog post there has earned it about a hundred-and-fifty times more pageviews than it would’ve gotten here.
4. My Computerworld co-workers have little interest in my Apple II hobby, but they’ll gladly promote any Computerworld content they find intriguing. As a result, my post got much more social media love on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus than it would’ve otherwise, contributing to the above pageviews. Heck, even Steve Wozniak had something to say about it on Facebook.
5. I was able to include a link back to apl2bits.net. Since it was a link to relevant and timely information, it wasn’t a conflict of interest or a blatant plug so much as a good opportunity to bring some new readers here.

I can’t republish that blog post here, but I wanted to do more than just link to it and say "Today’s Apple II Bits post is over here." I hope I’ve demonstrated some value in choosing to write for The Man instead of myself in this instance.

As A2Central.com and Open Apple both recently acknowledged, today is Steve Wozniak‘s birthday. The creator of the 34-year-old Apple II turns 61 today.

But today is also Bill Budge‘s birthday! After Woz practically invented personal computers, Mr. Budge was one of the first to see their limitless potential, using the Apple II to create the popular pinball game Raster Blaster and, later, the DIY tool Pinball Construction Set. Mr. Budge’s name often received higher billing than the title of the software, a rare status in an era when Warren Robinett had to resort to inventing the Easter Egg to get his name into a game.

Though he may not be as famous as Steve Wozniak, Bill Budge is nonetheless an important person in the computer industry and its history, and I’m glad he’s still around to celebrate his 57th birthday.

Happy birthday, gentlemen!

Steve Wozniak has achieved a fame that doesn’t seem to be fading. Although it was already eight months ago that he unveiled an expansion to the Computer History Museum, he was recently there conducting an interview on his early aspirations. At only eight minutes, it’s a quick and fun watch:

No matter how often I encounter Woz in various media, there always seems to be something new to learn. For example, I didn’t know that he and Steve Jobs had met in high school instead of college. Nor did I know that he pronounces that Hewlett-Packard device as “cackle-ator”. (His estimate that $400 at the time of the HP-35’s introduction (1972) would be $2000 is correct — $2060.98 in 2010 dollars, according to this inflation calculator.)

But my favorite is his closing ideology: “Don’t get attached to things have to turn out a certain way. The world just kinda flows, and whichever way it goes is right — it’s just how it went.” It reminds me of a similar philosophy against having expectations, suggesting instead that one have preferences. Is that a pessimistic detachment from results? Given Woz’s track record, I’d have to say no.

(Hat tips to Thomas Compter and Nicholas Griffin)