[FPGAhacker]

The article is neither making or debunking that claim. It is debunking the claim that apple revolutionized computer power supplies by borrowing the switching power supply design used in oscilloscopes. It’s the second sentence of the post.

[Angostura]

I've never heard the claim that apple revolutionized computer power supplies.

I've heard the claim they make decent ones.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Jobs made the claim in his biography. Read the article or the book.

[booi]

To be fair, he (and many other people) consider significant quality and design improvements as “revolutionary”. I tend to agree especially when the entire industry makes garbage. For example the touchpad. It’s still one of the top reasons not to switch to anything else for me. Nothing else comes close to being as accurate and natural.

[kragen]

As the article explained, the Apple ][ SMPS didn't have significant quality or design improvements. It did have some novel design features, but they weren't good enough to be widely adopted by others, and Apple eventually dropped them too.

[BugWatch]

I'd say the word "revolutionary" has just become an inflationary term for "evolutionary": really - it's thrown around willy nilly with everyone, PR guys, and their mother to describe any sort of improvement (or, more often, "improvement").

It really dimishes (and mostly eliminates) its value.

And yes, it so grinds my gears.

[harperlee]

Etymologically, it works (you “give another turn” to the base idea, you take an existing idea and you flip it, you tighten the screw on an existing idea, you adjust course by turning an existing direction, etc.)

[mongol]

According wikipedia, the latin origin means "a turn around", which I parse, going off in another direction. Not just another turn.

[briandear]

So why didn’t any other computer maker do it?

[TedDoesntTalk]

They did. Read the article.

[throwawaylinux]

What claim made in the article do you think is incorrect?