39 comments

[ 12.5 ms ] story [ 94.0 ms ] thread
The full sentence:

> And since our philosophy is to provide software for our machines free or at minimal cost, you won't be continually paying for access to this growing software library.

At $666.66 this must have been a diabolic deal!
A lot of corporate "philosophies" are actually just business models. There have been times between then and now they charged for the OS. They do charge for other software. But largely it's been a good business model for them.
"Compared to switches and LED's, a video terminal can dis- play vast amounts of information simultaneously."

The beginning of the end.

I worked at a place that tested software releases on a VM of every supported operating system, including OS X. We didn't have any Apple hardware, because no one wanted to deal with that, but someone had brought in the chassis of an old Apple computer and the host computer was inside it. We didn't run it by any lawyers or anything, but as far as we could tell, running OS X inside a computer that had all of its guts replaced was entirely within the license requirements.
IANAL but I think you'd be fine as long as you placed your NUC on a Mac Mini or maybe a closed Macbook if your hardware has a larger footprint.

> use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.

Note that you do have to be careful not to stack multiple Macbooks when you do this.

Haha, excellent timing:

I opened HN just now because:

1. I got tired of waiting 2h for my app to get notarized because

2. I can't sell it on the AppStore in the EU... because

3. the AppStore Connect page gets stuck at their DSA compliance form (it's been 10 days).

And, to add insult to injury, the whole thing could be a PWA, without any compromises in the UX whatsoever.

I misread the title, but I still posted this comment as an example of confirmation bias* in the orange book for posteriority. Time to step away from the computer!

* (sunk cost fallacy)

(comment deleted)
I appreciate that the software and updates are made "free" to me, and it may be their right to disallow "downgrades" and have time-limited windows for redemption. However, as a developer for their platform, it is quite frustrating that these restrictions are at odds with industry practice to guarantee support for older OS versions than current. I cannot purchase a new iPhone, put iOS 18 on it, install my app, and test updating the iPhone to 26. This can have very real negative consequences for the very same shared customers of mine and Apple's.
Expandable to 65K. I don’t recall seeing SI units used in this context until by hard disk manufacturers years later.
I think that comes from 64k + 1k ("the video display section contains its own 1K bytes").
Interesting to think that:

>If Microsoft never bailed Apple out, this wouldn't be on the front page today

>If Apple didn't have the greatest marketing team of all time and nail the ipod commercial, this wouldn't be on the front page today

>If Apple charged competitive prices for the iphone, rather than make it a veblen good, this wouldn't be on the front page today.

If I could only consider how much luck is involved in life, it might make setbacks feel better.

Heard to believe that all this (product and ad) was by kids barely out of teenage.
What do any of these comments have to do with this advertisement for the Apple1?
Yes, I was wondering if I missed some context.
The post had a different title hours ago. Something along the lines of "it's Apple's philosophy to offer our software for free forever". I didn't followed the link before, so I don't know if it was the same content, but I'm sure the comments are related to the previous title.
I know people are rightly amazed by Woz’s engineering prowess, but it’s fascinating to see Steve’s fingerprints all of Apple I. Look at the product commitments and they’ll ring a bell:

- It’s all in one - Hassle free to set up - Something that usually doesn’t work (cassette board) now just works

They rightly identified the hobbyist market (I want to tinker) was actually the smaller market within a larger one. Seems obvious in hindsight. It wasn’t obvious then.

(comment deleted)
I first saw an Apple I at a Maths Camp in late 1976. It was from the first batch to arrive in Australia. We were all enthralled. We were slightly less enthralled waiting for the floating point libraries to load from cassette tape.

Earlier that year I'd been on a school excursion to Lismore "to see the computer". Richmond River High had got themselves a computer. It was a WANG the size of a washing machine, with a separate mark-sense card reader and a separate RF adapter which connected to a big black and white TV. It was new by the way.

The rate of advance from the WANG to the Apple I was incredible. I'm still intoxicated by it.

The Apple I computers got bought back by Apple for the release of the Apple II. That's why they're so rare, Apple wanted them gone. They were not a user-friendly computer. It booted to the Monitor prompt, and did not include BASIC in the ROM.
Weird that they say "4 Ko RAM". That's how the French refer to bytes (octets) but everything else is in American units and dollars.
This is not an original copy of the advertisement. This is typeset horribly from the original text of the ad, probably.

Giveaways are brutal/ill placed line breaks, zero quotes being curly ones (single and double), -- instead of a en/em dash, missing hypenation or existing one that does not align with typesetting "dis- play", etc., etc.

Why not use an image of the original instead? [1]

Jobs would have never signed off on a typographic eyesore like this. :]

[1] https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-an-advertisement-for-the-a...

Jobs might have had a good eye for typography but he seems to have had a blind spot when it came to grocers’ apostrophes. :)
It descended into glitch-ass slop towards the end, which I found funny. Very telling of an LLM/VLM since OCR would print straight garbage if it can't map a glyph to text.

This is actually a great example of why domain knowledge is important.

The printed ad is much easier to read despite the text being more densely-packed. This is because the LLM extraction stripped formatting (including the bolded and italicized text that directs readers towards interesting factoids) and used a system font and size (which is inconsistent and, often times, harder to read in column form) while the ad used a print appropriate serif that is consistent and easy to read on paper.

I'd like to think that this is graphic design 101, but when LLMs are threatening creative jobs en masse...not great.

But not to worry! All of the LLMs will nail this tomorrow after the ad's been RLHF'ed appropriately. minitruth doesn't sleep!