[vecter]

I remember a video of Steve in 1997(?) where he said "people want big beautiful color displays, maps, intuitive interfaces, etc." (horribly misquoted I'm sure). It was clear back then that he had the vision for the iPhone and iPad, in some way.

Just because Steve wasn't technically proficient doesn't mean that he didn't have any good input into the design and features of the machines that Woz was building. I'm sure Steve said a lot of things, about the software especially, that helped determine the direction of the product they were building.

[ajross]

What would Steve have said about the software? Have you actually used Integer BASIC? Looked through the red book at the code samples they shipped with the machine? Seriously, it's 100% Woz. The case, and the idea of selling it as a preassembled machine clearly came from Jobs. And the hustle required to actually sell and market them was all his. But I'm not kidding: Jobs' technical work lay in the future. His skills weren't well suited to the hardware world of the mid 70's.

[vecter]

Maybe we're talking past each other. It would be ridiculous to claim that Steve would've said "Woz, you should consider this design pattern or abstraction to solve that problem you're having". I imagine it would have been more general points about the user experience he hoped for.

[ajross]

But that's the thing: the Apple II simply had no "user experience" in the sense we understand today. You turned it on and got an Integer BASIC prompt (or the monitor). That software was a stripped down version of BASICs that existed elsewhere, not something meaningfully "improved" by Apple (except in the sense of running amazingly well in 8kb of RAM) it was hand written (hand assembled I believe) by Woz.

Eventually, sure, real software shipped for the Apple II. But in the early days it was all out of house (c.f. Applesoft). It wasn't until the days of ProDOS that Apple got serious about writing its own software, and by then Woz had left and Jobs was working on the Mac.

Really, download an emulator and try this thing. Then download the Red Book from bitsavers.org or wherever and read it. It's a hacker's paradise. It's very much not a precursor to the Mac, or the iPhone.

And it's all Woz. He's one of the greatest hackers ever to live, and yet people like you, trapped in the reality distortion field, have managed to needlessly forget him and/or write him out of the history books. And that makes me sad.

[rbanffy]

> the Apple II simply had no "user experience" in the sense we understand today

Of course there is an user experience element on an Apple II. You just have to put the II in the context of the microcomputers if its time. It came in a plastic box, you could hook up your TV and you could display color and make music and sound effects in the speaker. You turned it on and you got a BASIC language interpreter instantly. You could connect a cassette recorder (an 8-track would do) and save your programs.

Compare that with the average computer of 1977:

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/year.asp?st=1&y=1977

and you'll see the "user experience" of an Apple II was miles ahead what most of the competition could offer (monochrome text on a screen, fan noise, metal cases, serial terminals, no BASIC...) at much higher prices.

People often compare the II to other 8-bit micros like the Atari 400/800 and the VIC family, but forget they were launched 2 and 3 years after the II respectively.

[ajross]

I guess this is true, but it's seems like a needless digression. Woz did all that stuff. The power-on prompts (both monitor and BASIC) were his. TV output certainly wasn't a Jobs innovation (nor was it Woz's, he just did it better with a staggeringly low part count).

My point earlier was that attributing this to Jobs purely because of an intuition that "Jobs does UX" is incorrect, and speaks more broadly to my point that Woz has been terribly shafted by history.

I mean, when a site called "Hacker News" no less can't speak unanimously to this man's genius, something is terribly wrong.

[rbanffy]

> Woz did all that stuff.

While I agree the II is not a Jobs-only product, I can't imagine Jobs sitting quietly letting Woz make all the decisions. I can't picture Jobs sitting quietly at all.

[ern]

Not to diminish the genius of Woz, but it should be pointed out that in a design book (I think it was The Design of Everyday Things) his CORE universal remote was singled out for harsh criticism because of its overly complex UI.

Based on this, there may be some truth in the idea that he lacked some UX finesse.

[option1138]

I have to disagree. I used the Apple IIe and the TRS-80 extensively during this period. I coded games and other software in BASIC and assembly on both machines. I poured over the schematics of both machines for hours at a time. You could literally say that I knew those machines inside and out.

What you refer to as "user experience" was not at all uncommon. The TRS-80, the Sinclair, and many other computers shipped in plastic boxes. I don't recall the Apple natively supporting a hookup to a TV (the TRS-80 did not), but this was certainly not a positive at the time... TVs were far more difficult to read and work on than monitors.

Both the TRS-80 and the Apple shipped with BASIC and connected to a cassette recorder.

There were dozens of other computers, but there were just a few that were commonly used.

[rbanffy]

The TRS-80 didn't have color and, unless you went into 32x16 mode, text would be unreadable on a TV (it had a matching TTL monochrome monitor built with a TV-grade CRT). 40x24 text was readable on the Apple II even through an RF modulator. While it didn't come with an RF modulator built-in, you could buy one cheaply.

In 77, there were more or less two computers that didn't look too much like office equipment: the II and the TRS-80 model 1. You mention the IIe and the Sinclair. The ZX-80 wasn't launched until 3 years after the original II. The IIe was introduced in 1983 (that is, after the III). The TRS-80 you remember is, most likely, the model III.

[lawnchair_larry]

It's amazing how humble Woz is about it too. Even after several incidents between the two that paint Jobs in fairly poor light (such as the "Woz Plan"), Woz has nothing but respect and admiration for him.

I thought the first computer that Woz made had a mouse and GUI though ("borrowed" from Xerox PARC), am I remembering wrong? The Lisa was started in 1978 way before Woz left.

[LukeShu]

The first "computer" Woz made (and sold, I suppose) was the Apple I, which was actually a kit, just the motherboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I

The first computer Woz made was the Apple II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II, which had no mouse or GUI, but could do graphics, which were mostly used by games. I suppose many programs for it used a TUI, a la VisiCalc.

[brianobush]

All this talk makes me want to build a replica.... http://www.brielcomputers.com/replica1.html

If only to relive a bit of history.

[pietro]

Handwritten in machine code, according to this article: http://apple2history.org/history/ah16/#03

[arethuza]

The first computers I used were an Apple II and a ZX-80 - the "user experience" of the Apple was infinitely better than the Sinclair machine.

[rimantas]

  > What would Steve have said about the software?

Why are OS X and iOS APIs riddled with NS prefix? Who founded NEXTStep? Was Woz there? Was Woz at Pixar? Not to diminish the input of the man, but: Steve without Woz would still be known for something. Woz without Steve? Would probably hack happily at HP.

[rimantas]

Apparently I got facts wrong. I just wonder which ones…

[bane]

We're talking about the Apple I/II, not things that happened decades later.