Live data from Hacker News

A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

cake.co

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#41
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple was also in close to licensing Sun Solaris 2.5 which already ran on PowerPC. They just had to put the Apple UI on it but history happened.

The alternate timeline where sometime in late 200x Apple buys Sun (instead of Oracle) and still invests in Unixy datacenter things, ZFS, and similar tech that Sun was good at, and use it to build high quality services and hardware is a fun thought experiment to explore. Wouldn't have happened because of the iPhone profit rocketship which caused Apple to abandon that entire market segment.

Apple was doing some half-hearted enterprise-y efforts at the time like the Xserve. As an IT industry analyst at the time I got invited for various briefings related to such things. However, as you note, once the iPhone in particular really took off, Apple pretty much stopped pretending to be anything other than a consumer company, especially after BYOD became the norm.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#42
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic MacOS had multitasking (cooperative...), but it was missing memory protection. The same was true of earlier 68K-based OSes (Atari, Amiga.)

The problem with cooperative multitasking is that a SINGLE poorly behaved process in the background locks up the whole operating system. This leads to a horrible user experience. As a user of the old Mac OS 8 I had no idea what the cause was. I just knew that once I ran into the spinning wheel of doom I was likely to have to reboot. Again. Preemptive multi-tasking is worse in every way except that one. I mean that yo…

Yes, the Amiga had preemptive multitasking, but no memory protection, and the situation wasn't really any better. A single rogue process could bring down the whole system by overwriting parts of the OS.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#43
post #8

Slightly Off Topic. I consider both Andy Grove and Steve Jobs as the greatest CEO ever lived in Silicon Valley. ( Sorry it is hard to pick just one between the two ) Current Generation are Patrick Gelsinger ( VMware ), Jensen Huang ( Nvidia ). Satya Nadella ( Microsoft ) and Lisa Su ( AMD ) are two possible candidate but I think it is still too early to tell. Sometimes if I think if I did't set the bar so high for Ap…

Steve Ballmer was pretty good. He couldn't evolve the company to a changing world, but he made shit tons of money for Microsoft. Also I think Nadella has done a really good job: I think they both kind of needed each other to turn Microsoft into what it is today.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Cook arguably made Apple what it is today. Without him, Apple might've had great products but failed miserably in the supply chain management side of the business. It's telling that after Jobs, Apple didn't slide into irrelevance but instead continued to thrive. Tech aficionados (myself included) might have qualms about their product strategy, but overall the business continues to be wildly successful with regula…

How much of that is staying power because of the ecosystem and just enough incremental improvements to keep consumers happy? I agree that Tim Cook made all of the logistics work to turn the dream into reality but now that Jobs is gone it just feels like the dream stopped evolving and lots of blemishes and complexity are slipping into the operating systems that Jobs wouldn't have allowed.

Blackberry also had tons of brand loyalty as did Nokia, Motorola. I don't know that, ecosystem, and incremental improvements are enough to keep going with how competitive the space is, or they'd be eaten alive by samsung, Microsoft, etc that are also slowly but surely building those same things. And the apple watch is a huge success - and sure, year to hear iPhones are iterative, but look back a few years and it's amazing how far tech has come

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#45
post #8

Slightly Off Topic. I consider both Andy Grove and Steve Jobs as the greatest CEO ever lived in Silicon Valley. ( Sorry it is hard to pick just one between the two ) Current Generation are Patrick Gelsinger ( VMware ), Jensen Huang ( Nvidia ). Satya Nadella ( Microsoft ) and Lisa Su ( AMD ) are two possible candidate but I think it is still too early to tell. Sometimes if I think if I did't set the bar so high for Ap…

Definitely would add Bezos and Musk. Bezos is one of the most managerially/business astute CEOs and Musk is able to will futuristic companies basically out of thin air.

I think bezos has to show continued dominance - but he's obviously up there. I don't know I'd you can call it for muak without a few decades to see whether his companies stick. Sure, he's changed the conception of electric cars and made low earth orbit really accessible, but as a CEO and leader it's still not clear whether he can lead that revolution long term or if some of his more erratic tendencies will bring things down. Tesla still isn't a stable, well functioning business (and as he veo he just put an awful lot of people at risk with his behavior during the pandemic - look at what's happening in Italy - he defied the rules meant to prevent that. I dont think that sounds like leadership). But in the long run he very could be.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#46
post #31

It's crazy to think that if: 1. Apple had bought Be instead of Next. 2. Then OS X would have been based on BeOS instead of OpenStep. 3. Which in turn means it would have been written in C++ instead of Objective-C. 4. Which means iOS wouldn't have chosen Objective-C. 5. Which means Swift would never have been created to address its shortcomings. Maybe there would have been some alternate-universe Swift to deal with C+…

Apple would not exist if they had bought Be instead. Buying Next brought Steve back, and that's the only thing that kept Apple alive.

Well regardless of whether if Be or NeXT was chosen, Apple was very close to becoming bankrupt in 1997 and without the Microsoft $100M investment in Apple shares, I'm not sure if Apple would be here anyway without it even with Jobs being on board.

Apple lost their lawsuits against Microsoft and had to compromise with a deal with Bill Gates to save themselves. It was at that point Microsoft could have refused at the time and Apple would simply be relegated to the history books.

You have to thank Gates for saving Apple because Jobs did too. [0]

[0] https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1...

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic MacOS was a disaster once multitasking became a needed feature, and Copland (its in-house replacement) wasn't going anywhere. The only other option would have been to buy Be, to get BeOS. That could have worked too, BeOS was great (and its modern clone Haiku is fun too), but it was clear Apple needed something from outside.

Are there any engineers on HN who worked on Copeland? Because I've always found it astounding that while the stated reason for the NeXT aquisition and the transition to the OpenStep-based OS was that Copeland was still years away from completion -- but then after Jobs took over it was still 5ish years for OS X to finally be released... And in the meantime they continued to release OS 8 and OS 9 as updates, including…

I was in elementary school during Copland and the NeXT acquisition and so I wasn't there, but based on everything that I've read, the reason for the long gap between the purchase of NeXT in December 1996 and the release of Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001 had largely to do with the inclusion of the Carbon API.

The story goes as follows: after Copland was cancelled in 1996, Apple then pursued the idea of purchasing or licensing an operating system from another company and then building a new Mac operating system on top of it. Existing Mac programs running on then-current System 7.5 would run in emulation under what's called the "Blue Box," which would later be known as Classic Mode in Mac OS X. New programs would run under a then-undefined API called Yellow Box that ran natively on Apple's future operating system. The questions were: (1) what would be Yellow Box, and (2) what would be the native operating system? The choices were Windows NT, Solaris, BeOS, and OPENSTEP. BeOS and OPENSTEP ended up making it to the "final round." In the end, Apple bought NeXT, and work started on a project called Rhapsody, which was essentially OPENSTEP with a Mac OS 8-style theme. Yellow Box was the OpenStep Objective-C based API, which would later be renamed Cocoa in 1998. Rhapsody was supposed to be released sometime in 1999 if I recall correctly.

In the beginning, it was expected that Mac developers would port their software from the classic Mac API to Yellow Box. However, some developers balked at the prospect of porting their code to Yellow Box, most notably Microsoft and Adobe. Given the importance of products like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop to the Mac platform, during WWDC 1998 Apple announced the Carbon API, which was similar to the classic Mac API but was designed to take advantage of features such as preemptive multitasking and protected memory. Also, Apple announced that both Carbon and Cocoa would be based on a common substrate of C functions, allowing "toll-free bridging" between the two APIs.

The addition of Carbon was a significant engineering effort that contributed to the delay of the release of Mac OS X. There may have been some other factors, such as designing the Aqua interface and incorporating the feedback received from users of the Mac OS X Public Beta, which was released in 2000.

In the meanwhile, Steve Jobs was able to buy time for Apple through the introduction of well-received, now legendary products such as the iMac and the iBook. By 2000 Apple got its mojo back, and the attention became less on when Apple would finally release Mac OS X and more on anticipating what type of products Apple would come out with next. Eventually Mac OS X 10.0 would get released in March 2001, just in time to compete against Windows XP, the first consumer version of Windows based on Windows NT as opposed to MS-DOS.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic MacOS was a disaster once multitasking became a needed feature, and Copland (its in-house replacement) wasn't going anywhere. The only other option would have been to buy Be, to get BeOS. That could have worked too, BeOS was great (and its modern clone Haiku is fun too), but it was clear Apple needed something from outside.

Are there any engineers on HN who worked on Copeland? Because I've always found it astounding that while the stated reason for the NeXT aquisition and the transition to the OpenStep-based OS was that Copeland was still years away from completion -- but then after Jobs took over it was still 5ish years for OS X to finally be released... And in the meantime they continued to release OS 8 and OS 9 as updates, including…

Second hand (I wasn't there at the time), but Apple had more than anything a management problem. Managers making a land-grab put everything+kitchen sink into Copland. It was an incoherent mess. Then the VM folks would decide to rewrite the VM subsystem and Copeland would go a month without a single usable build.

Steve and the management team he brought in essentially fired all the MBAs and non-engineering managers. Copeland was doomed by bad management.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic MacOS was a disaster once multitasking became a needed feature, and Copland (its in-house replacement) wasn't going anywhere. The only other option would have been to buy Be, to get BeOS. That could have worked too, BeOS was great (and its modern clone Haiku is fun too), but it was clear Apple needed something from outside.

Multitasking was needed and Be could have filled the Darwin gap but what they really needed was a leadership kick in the head. Steve was hired, almost immediately led a coup that ended up with Gil gone, the board disbanded and him with near pure control over the company. He fired, chopped, focused, and brought operations to the point where they were not lighting their cash on hand on fire. The business turnaround sto…

Be was a tech demo at best. It looked finished on the surface but had less than 10% of what a complete operating system needs in terms of feature depth, libraries and extensive real word testing.

Steve Jobs was utterly critical, but NeXT technology was also insanely valuable.

Re: A secret call to Andy Grove that may have helped Apple buy NeXT (2018)

#50
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multitasking was needed and Be could have filled the Darwin gap but what they really needed was a leadership kick in the head. Steve was hired, almost immediately led a coup that ended up with Gil gone, the board disbanded and him with near pure control over the company. He fired, chopped, focused, and brought operations to the point where they were not lighting their cash on hand on fire. The business turnaround sto…

I agree -- I like Gasee and BeOS but there's no chance he would have managed to do the same with Apple. The modern Apple, like the original Apple, is Job's creation. In a way that very very few CEOs (who get all the credit regardless) can say.

Indeed. BeOS would have made Macintosh as successful as the Amiga.
Post reply on HN