NeXT Step 3.0 video with Steve Jobs
- Thread starter huck
- Start date
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
NEXTSTEP is/was an incredible operating system. It really was far ahead of it's time.
Sadly, the cost of ownership was the main hurdle back then. In those pre-Linux revolution days, a Unix based operating system carried a pretty heavy price tag. NEXTSTEP was about $800.00 (add on another $5000 for the developer tools).
While this sounds extraordinarily high considering that System 7 and Windows 3.1 were both about $100, Apple's Unix variant of the time, A/UX, was running about $900.
Back then, there was simply no way for me to afford a NEXTSTEP system... even on PC hardware. I used NeXT systems at school/work and Macs at home.
These days, I carry an OPENSTEP system with me to school.
Of course I own almost as much NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP software as I do Mac software. Most people who see NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody running these days have no software and then wonder (often aloud) how they could possibly be useful as an operating system.
It is always fun to see people looking at operating systems I use daily as a blast from the past.
Sadly, the cost of ownership was the main hurdle back then. In those pre-Linux revolution days, a Unix based operating system carried a pretty heavy price tag. NEXTSTEP was about $800.00 (add on another $5000 for the developer tools).
While this sounds extraordinarily high considering that System 7 and Windows 3.1 were both about $100, Apple's Unix variant of the time, A/UX, was running about $900.
Back then, there was simply no way for me to afford a NEXTSTEP system... even on PC hardware. I used NeXT systems at school/work and Macs at home.
These days, I carry an OPENSTEP system with me to school.
Of course I own almost as much NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP software as I do Mac software. Most people who see NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody running these days have no software and then wonder (often aloud) how they could possibly be useful as an operating system.It is always fun to see people looking at operating systems I use daily as a blast from the past.
Attachments
The video's post-stamp sized, though. Sadly, we don't see much of the interface like this... However: It's nice how Steve Jobs bashes both Macs and PCs in the video.
I sometimes wish Steve had been as aggressive as Bill back then. If the _first_ step of NeXT would have been to release the OS for 486-based hardware at a lower price than Windows, we probably wouldn't talk about Windows or Macs today. (Of course, there probably wouldn't be an iPod, either...)
I sometimes wish Steve had been as aggressive as Bill back then. If the _first_ step of NeXT would have been to release the OS for 486-based hardware at a lower price than Windows, we probably wouldn't talk about Windows or Macs today. (Of course, there probably wouldn't be an iPod, either...)
Steve Jobs was and is smart and agressive. No matter how agressive he was, there were some things that he cannot do. Releasing NeXTstep first on a 486 is one of them. Steve released the original NeXT cube in 1988. The 486 was did not go on the market until 1989.fryke said:The video's post-stamp sized, though. Sadly, we don't see much of the interface like this... However: It's nice how Steve Jobs bashes both Macs and PCs in the video.
I sometimes wish Steve had been as aggressive as Bill back then. If the _first_ step of NeXT would have been to release the OS for 486-based hardware at a lower price than Windows, we probably wouldn't talk about Windows or Macs today. (Of course, there probably wouldn't be an iPod, either...)
Natobasso
Tech-Bot 5000
MisterMe said:
Usually it's the demand for the product, not the creators of a product, that determines the success of a product. Circumstances dictated that Microsoft became a behemoth because they figured out through licensing their software system that they could be on many types of computers.
If Apple had just licensed it's computers/op systems with success (see the failed PowerComputing, et. al. for proof!) they might have more marketshare today.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Well, I've seen some very good arguments as to why there was really no way for the Macintosh operating system to successfully run on PCs of the 80's and early 90's (this being a good example). And considering that NeXT's operating system faced the same challenges (as did SGI's operating system of the time), Motorola processors really were the only choice for graphic computing back then.Natobasso said:
And it should be noted that most PCs of the time were designed for the operating system that they were forced to license with them... MS-DOS (by forced I mean forced, this was the root cause of the original DOJ case against Microsoft).
As for guessing as to the What if of NeXT and their products, it should not be over looked that NeXT was legally barred from selling desktops or competing directly with Apple in the desktop market.fryke said:I sometimes wish Steve had been as aggressive as Bill back then. If the _first_ step of NeXT would have been to release the OS for 486-based hardware at a lower price than Windows, we probably wouldn't talk about Windows or Macs today. (Of course, there probably wouldn't be an iPod, either...)
Given that NeXT was unable to sell desktops to the public, there was little chance of the public getting their hands on a NeXT system. NeXT was forced into the workstation market, which was already beginning to evaporate thanks to the increasing power of desktop systems and the advances of Linux on Intel's 386 architecture.
To my knowledge, Apple never relaxed the restrictions on NeXT for selling within the desktop market, even after NeXT stopped making hardware and had a version of NEXTSTEP for 486 based computers.
NeXT was a late comer into a dying market and was barred from competing in a growing market. NeXT fate was sealed with their settlement with Apple. I don't see any (legal) way around their problems back then short of Apple disappearing off the face of the Earth.
pds
Registered
Natobasso said:
One of the best things I ever read on c|net challenges the whole idea of licensing. It's a reply to another inane article about What If (Apple had licensed)?
The gist of the post is that Apple sticking to it's knitting left it small enough to be ignored in the vicious world of 80's and 90's computing and that had it adopted any other strategy it would have become shark bait and a footnote to the history of computing.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
When Steve Jobs left Apple and formed NeXT Computer, a substantial number of the people responsible for Macintosh left Apple to join Jobs at NeXT. Apple sued NeXT for this. The settlement agreement of that suit barred NeXT from competing directly with Apple in the desktop market.
Jobs didn't form NeXT with the idea of making workstation computers, he wanted to take the vision of the desktop that he had from his original visit to Xerox PARC and bring it to fruition. The reason so many people followed him was because Apple had no intention (at that time at least) of following up on all that technology (they were happy with just the GUI).
The whole enterprise pitch that we constantly see Jobs making while at NeXT was because that was the only other market NeXT could go after once Apple had effectively eliminated the desktop market for NeXT.
People always make it out like NeXT ignored the desktop market. Like Jobs thought the desktop market wasn't good enough for NeXT Computer. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Jobs original goal with NeXT was to make the dream desktop system... which they did do. But thanks to the settlement, it could never be sold within the desktop market.
Saying that NeXT should have made an inexpensive operating system or desktop computer that could have competed with Windows is ignoring the fact that that is the same desktop market that NeXT was barred from because Apple was part of it.
On the Sun topic, they were never all that close to buying Apple. Apple held little value to Sun. A company that Sun should have bought was NeXT. Sun had started a transition to OpenStep in Solaris in 1995/1996 based on a partnership with NeXT. Sun was buying up companies left and right as they saw a need for other companies technology (they bought Lighthouse Design for an OpenStep native office suite much like they would later buy StarDivision for StarOffice).
Having banked so much on OpenStep, NeXT would have been a logical (and prudent) choice to acquire. Why didn't they? Because NeXT was not for sale... to Sun at least. The offer made to Apple was under the table. NeXT wasn't doing nearly as badly as people seem to believe today. They were getting out of the operating system market (by passing what they had to Sun) because they were (again) barred from competing in the desktop arena which by 1996 was where the big money was. As Sun wasn't part of the agreement with Apple, Sun could have brought Solaris with OpenStep to desktops (along with their newly acquired office suite from Lighthouse) and competed directly with both Apple and Microsoft.
The deal in December 1996 ended OpenStep on Solaris. Three years of work by Sun (and NeXT) was wiped out when NeXT became part of Apple.
If NeXT had been openly for sale, Sun wouldn't have wasted a second in purchasing them considering what they had invested in OpenStep up to that point.
Sadly (and oddly) most of this history has been lost or forgotten. It wasn't that long ago, and it wasn't like any of this was a secret. For most people NeXT was as foreign a computer company as Sun and SGI. People may have heard of them, but few had ever used one of their systems.
Most people seem to assume that this was because NeXT didn't want to sell to the average computer user, when in reality NEXTSTEP was actually designed to bring a new level of computing to the average computer user. But there was something keeping NeXT apart from the average computer user... it was Apple Computer.
Jobs didn't form NeXT with the idea of making workstation computers, he wanted to take the vision of the desktop that he had from his original visit to Xerox PARC and bring it to fruition. The reason so many people followed him was because Apple had no intention (at that time at least) of following up on all that technology (they were happy with just the GUI).
The whole enterprise pitch that we constantly see Jobs making while at NeXT was because that was the only other market NeXT could go after once Apple had effectively eliminated the desktop market for NeXT.
People always make it out like NeXT ignored the desktop market. Like Jobs thought the desktop market wasn't good enough for NeXT Computer. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Jobs original goal with NeXT was to make the dream desktop system... which they did do. But thanks to the settlement, it could never be sold within the desktop market.
Saying that NeXT should have made an inexpensive operating system or desktop computer that could have competed with Windows is ignoring the fact that that is the same desktop market that NeXT was barred from because Apple was part of it.
On the Sun topic, they were never all that close to buying Apple. Apple held little value to Sun. A company that Sun should have bought was NeXT. Sun had started a transition to OpenStep in Solaris in 1995/1996 based on a partnership with NeXT. Sun was buying up companies left and right as they saw a need for other companies technology (they bought Lighthouse Design for an OpenStep native office suite much like they would later buy StarDivision for StarOffice).
Having banked so much on OpenStep, NeXT would have been a logical (and prudent) choice to acquire. Why didn't they? Because NeXT was not for sale... to Sun at least. The offer made to Apple was under the table. NeXT wasn't doing nearly as badly as people seem to believe today. They were getting out of the operating system market (by passing what they had to Sun) because they were (again) barred from competing in the desktop arena which by 1996 was where the big money was. As Sun wasn't part of the agreement with Apple, Sun could have brought Solaris with OpenStep to desktops (along with their newly acquired office suite from Lighthouse) and competed directly with both Apple and Microsoft.
The deal in December 1996 ended OpenStep on Solaris. Three years of work by Sun (and NeXT) was wiped out when NeXT became part of Apple.
If NeXT had been openly for sale, Sun wouldn't have wasted a second in purchasing them considering what they had invested in OpenStep up to that point.
Sadly (and oddly) most of this history has been lost or forgotten. It wasn't that long ago, and it wasn't like any of this was a secret. For most people NeXT was as foreign a computer company as Sun and SGI. People may have heard of them, but few had ever used one of their systems.
Most people seem to assume that this was because NeXT didn't want to sell to the average computer user, when in reality NEXTSTEP was actually designed to bring a new level of computing to the average computer user. But there was something keeping NeXT apart from the average computer user... it was Apple Computer.
No, I really _meant_ that "thank you", since I think it's important to know these things. I was certainly aware of the technological history of OS X/Rhapsody/OpenStep/NeXT-STEP, but the legal things didn't interest me so far. Guess NeXT didn't really ever have a chance in the desktop market, then.
Which leads to questions now... With Steve Jobs - in earlier times - always keen to squeeze every bit of performance out of a machine and software before releasing it, how come Apple decided to go with Aqua? Sure, it was alluring a lot of people and the whole Quartz Extreme thing was certainly future-proof, but when Apple released Mac OS X 10.0, speed didn't seem like a priority, exactly. I remember sitting in front of a NeXT-Station (grayscale thing, beautifully dark...) and thinking: "Wow, Mac OS X will certainly rock." Since that was a 68030 33 MHz machine after all, and we already had much faster hardware back then (200 MHz 604's). However: Even Rhapsody's UI didn't feel "much faster" than what NeXT-STEP already had.
And then I muse... What if Steve wasn't made leave Apple in the first place. What if NeXT had been a project of Apple and Steve had free hands (and money)... Sure, those "ifs" never make much sense, I'm aware of that... And after all: We've GOT Mac OS X 10.3/10.4 now, which _is_ the get-together of Apple and NeXT. I just sometimes wonder whether the long journey and the beating around the bush was necessary to get us here - and whether we would have gotten here much earlier, had some things played out differently in the past.
Which leads to questions now... With Steve Jobs - in earlier times - always keen to squeeze every bit of performance out of a machine and software before releasing it, how come Apple decided to go with Aqua? Sure, it was alluring a lot of people and the whole Quartz Extreme thing was certainly future-proof, but when Apple released Mac OS X 10.0, speed didn't seem like a priority, exactly. I remember sitting in front of a NeXT-Station (grayscale thing, beautifully dark...) and thinking: "Wow, Mac OS X will certainly rock." Since that was a 68030 33 MHz machine after all, and we already had much faster hardware back then (200 MHz 604's). However: Even Rhapsody's UI didn't feel "much faster" than what NeXT-STEP already had.
And then I muse... What if Steve wasn't made leave Apple in the first place. What if NeXT had been a project of Apple and Steve had free hands (and money)... Sure, those "ifs" never make much sense, I'm aware of that... And after all: We've GOT Mac OS X 10.3/10.4 now, which _is_ the get-together of Apple and NeXT. I just sometimes wonder whether the long journey and the beating around the bush was necessary to get us here - and whether we would have gotten here much earlier, had some things played out differently in the past.
Pengu
Digital Music Pimp
I find it hard to believe that a judge would rule that because you used to work for a company, the new company you work for can't compete with them. that's like saying that because Mark Webber used to drive for Jaguar (now RedBull) F1 team, he can't race for BMW-Williams now, because they compete with Jag/RedBull...
only in america...
but still. very interesting none-the-less. seems a bit odd to me though, why Steve would return to apple (and make an offer to them, no less) after the way he was treated..
only in america...
but still. very interesting none-the-less. seems a bit odd to me though, why Steve would return to apple (and make an offer to them, no less) after the way he was treated..
There's a torrent of the video on Slashdot somewhere and the video is not too bad, but not too great.
whitesaint
cocoa love
Wow thanks for the video, very interesting stuff. I can't believe how NeXTSTEP was able to connect to so many different kinds of networks(Sun, Mac, PC, NeXT). It looked like he was using a NeXTStation? How could it be so fast? Any Cocoa-heads know what happened to that database enterprise object or whatever? When was that video taken, like in 1993? Thank God most of the interface elements made it to OS X, i see only a few that didnt....I love it how when he's using DOS he's like "its a wonderful interface" bein sarcastic as hell..Steve Jobs is such a fascinating enigma...
I can just imagine Bill Gates thinking back then, "This guy is trying to set up another computer empire! Eh he probably won't make it even if his products do kick ass..."
I can just imagine Bill Gates thinking back then, "This guy is trying to set up another computer empire! Eh he probably won't make it even if his products do kick ass..."
Pengu
Digital Music Pimp
djeans - i was thinking the same thing..
it's a pity the Netware stuff didn't make it into OSX. that would eliminate the last major "macs dont work on our network" argument...
he seemed to really give all hell to apple... understandably i guess...
and. while i can see some of the same cool ease of use in IB, what DID happen to that easy data-access stuff??
makes me want to get a copy of OpenStep.. but then i'd realise how much like osx it is and stop using it all over again. while i like UNIX/Linux, the UI definitely needs the apple touch to make it a pleasure to use : )
it's a pity the Netware stuff didn't make it into OSX. that would eliminate the last major "macs dont work on our network" argument...
he seemed to really give all hell to apple... understandably i guess...
and. while i can see some of the same cool ease of use in IB, what DID happen to that easy data-access stuff??
makes me want to get a copy of OpenStep.. but then i'd realise how much like osx it is and stop using it all over again. while i like UNIX/Linux, the UI definitely needs the apple touch to make it a pleasure to use : )