[flomo]

> "the Macintosh itself was not a commercial success" which is another strange claim

Macintosh was in fact not successful for many years, and Apple survived by chanting "Apple II Forever!" at their legacy edu market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcjlhFVTY50

Also the fail Apple III was Jobs' machine.

Scully and Gasse made the Macintosh II line successful by marketing expensive workstations to creative professionals. That was against Jobs' "vision" so of course he discounts it. One thing which has never changed: Apple won't lift their finger unless they get a 30% margin.

[mrandish]

We probably don't disagree on much but nuanced details, which is why I said it was a "strange claim" instead of "incorrect".

Being a retro-head who lived through those days obsessively watching every twist and turn... with "strange claim" I was trying to convey it's a "commercial success" is a nuanced judgement on which reasonable people can disagree and any such absolute claims require clear definition of terms, scopes and time frames.

[flomo]

I think everyone knew the Macintosh was a technical success and "the future". But it was a commercial flop, and Steve Jobs got fired. So obviously he wan't happy about that.

(The Mac press back then loved to portray Jobs as some insane cocaine addict, and local gossip backed that up. Probably not in his biographies, but that would get you fired.)