OT: Steve Jobs

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Jobs “stole it” from PARC? No, that isn’t true. Xerox (and Motorola) had developed quite a bit of the technology that went into the Apple systems (and later IBM systems), but were more than content to simply let it go, largely because it didn’t fit their “core competency” (in Xerox’s case, xerography).
[/quote]

Ah. So Allan is an Apple Head!

So, you agree that the GUI concept used at Apple was not invented at Apple but at Xerox PARC?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Jobs “stole it” from PARC? No, that isn’t true. Xerox (and Motorola) had developed quite a bit of the technology that went into the Apple systems (and later IBM systems), but were more than content to simply let it go, largely because it didn’t fit their “core competency” (in Xerox’s case, xerography).
[/quote]

Ah. So Allan is an Apple Head!

So, you agree that the GUI concept used at Apple was not invented at Apple but at Xerox PARC?[/quote]

Svelte: No, not an Apple head at all (unless you count my iPod). Dedicated PC user from the jump.

And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. In my opinion, Xerox blew it horribly. They had market-changing opportunities spitting out of there regularly and just let them go. Motorola did this, too, along with IBM (with PC-DOS and selling the rights to Gates for a song), but nothing on the scale of Xerox. The Xerox Alto was the system that Jobs was also access to (in exchange for Xerox buying Apple shares on the cheap) and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Jobs “stole it” from PARC? No, that isn’t true. Xerox (and Motorola) had developed quite a bit of the technology that went into the Apple systems (and later IBM systems), but were more than content to simply let it go, largely because it didn’t fit their “core competency” (in Xerox’s case, xerography).
[/quote]

Ah. So Allan is an Apple Head!

So, you agree that the GUI concept used at Apple was not invented at Apple but at Xerox PARC?[/quote]

Svelte: No, not an Apple head at all (unless you count my iPod). Dedicated PC user from the jump.

And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. In my opinion, Xerox blew it horribly. They had market-changing opportunities spitting out of there regularly and just let them go. Motorola did this, too, along with IBM (with PC-DOS and selling the rights to Gates for a song), but nothing on the scale of Xerox. The Xerox Alto was the system that Jobs was also access to (in exchange for Xerox buying Apple shares on the cheap) and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Jobs “stole it” from PARC? No, that isn’t true. Xerox (and Motorola) had developed quite a bit of the technology that went into the Apple systems (and later IBM systems), but were more than content to simply let it go, largely because it didn’t fit their “core competency” (in Xerox’s case, xerography).
[/quote]

Ah. So Allan is an Apple Head!

So, you agree that the GUI concept used at Apple was not invented at Apple but at Xerox PARC?[/quote]

Svelte: No, not an Apple head at all (unless you count my iPod). Dedicated PC user from the jump.

And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. In my opinion, Xerox blew it horribly. They had market-changing opportunities spitting out of there regularly and just let them go. Motorola did this, too, along with IBM (with PC-DOS and selling the rights to Gates for a song), but nothing on the scale of Xerox. The Xerox Alto was the system that Jobs was also access to (in exchange for Xerox buying Apple shares on the cheap) and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Jobs “stole it” from PARC? No, that isn’t true. Xerox (and Motorola) had developed quite a bit of the technology that went into the Apple systems (and later IBM systems), but were more than content to simply let it go, largely because it didn’t fit their “core competency” (in Xerox’s case, xerography).
[/quote]

Ah. So Allan is an Apple Head!

So, you agree that the GUI concept used at Apple was not invented at Apple but at Xerox PARC?[/quote]

Svelte: No, not an Apple head at all (unless you count my iPod). Dedicated PC user from the jump.

And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. In my opinion, Xerox blew it horribly. They had market-changing opportunities spitting out of there regularly and just let them go. Motorola did this, too, along with IBM (with PC-DOS and selling the rights to Gates for a song), but nothing on the scale of Xerox. The Xerox Alto was the system that Jobs was also access to (in exchange for Xerox buying Apple shares on the cheap) and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Svelte: Jobs “stole it” from PARC? No, that isn’t true. Xerox (and Motorola) had developed quite a bit of the technology that went into the Apple systems (and later IBM systems), but were more than content to simply let it go, largely because it didn’t fit their “core competency” (in Xerox’s case, xerography).
[/quote]

Ah. So Allan is an Apple Head!

So, you agree that the GUI concept used at Apple was not invented at Apple but at Xerox PARC?[/quote]

Svelte: No, not an Apple head at all (unless you count my iPod). Dedicated PC user from the jump.

And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. In my opinion, Xerox blew it horribly. They had market-changing opportunities spitting out of there regularly and just let them go. Motorola did this, too, along with IBM (with PC-DOS and selling the rights to Gates for a song), but nothing on the scale of Xerox. The Xerox Alto was the system that Jobs was also access to (in exchange for Xerox buying Apple shares on the cheap) and the rest, as they say, is history.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]
In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.[/quote]

I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.

Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]
In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.[/quote]

I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.

Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]
In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.[/quote]

I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.

Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]
In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.[/quote]

I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.

Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]
In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.

So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.[/quote]

I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.

Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. [/quote]

I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘stole’. I should have used the word ‘took’, which doesn’t imply theft.

My point was that Apple Heads talk as if the GUI was invented by Apple and that big bad Microsoft took their original idea.

They didn’t take Apple’s original idea. They took Xerox’ original idea, just like Apple did.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. [/quote]

I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘stole’. I should have used the word ‘took’, which doesn’t imply theft.

My point was that Apple Heads talk as if the GUI was invented by Apple and that big bad Microsoft took their original idea.

They didn’t take Apple’s original idea. They took Xerox’ original idea, just like Apple did.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. [/quote]

I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘stole’. I should have used the word ‘took’, which doesn’t imply theft.

My point was that Apple Heads talk as if the GUI was invented by Apple and that big bad Microsoft took their original idea.

They didn’t take Apple’s original idea. They took Xerox’ original idea, just like Apple did.

[svelte]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, yeah, I absolutely agree that the GUI, along with OOP, VLSI and Ethernet, were invented at PARC. [/quote]

I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘stole’. I should have used the word ‘took’, which doesn’t imply theft.

My point was that Apple Heads talk as if the GUI was invented by Apple and that big bad Microsoft took their original idea.

They didn’t take Apple’s original idea. They took Xerox’ original idea, just like Apple did.

[Author]

Posts