What did a corporate network look like in 1994? Here are some slides I made in the summer of 1994 for the interns. MS had 35,000 PCs sending 12.2 million email messages a month. Also, MS had 23 mini computers and a mainframe with 3.2 terabytes of disk space. 1/
2/ Why is this so interesting? Because companies around the world were building out networks like this right when the Internet arrived. The Internet upended how to think about connectivity. A BigCo connected to the internet versus making its own Intranet.
3/ Many of us were incredibly excited by the opportunity the Internet brought us. Sitting in a hallway outside a the TCP/IP Dev Manager's office was Microsoft's FTP server. No demand gen. Spontaneous usage!
4/ Even the most basic stuff we don't even think about today was a "product" to get made. Microsoft released the first commercial DHCP Server in mid 1994 even before the OS was done. The ink was not even dry on the RFCs. (This is NAT, by the way).
5/ The Internet was happening ~18 months before Windows 95 ("Chicago") shipped. In "Hardcore Software" (subscribe 👉hardcoresoftware.substack.com), story is right at moment when MS faced the disruptive nature of the Internet. Here's Moasic running on early build w/ START. //END
PS/ The photo in the first tweet of the "Operations Center" is the *entire* operations center for the global network. It was located in the same building as the shared locker room for the corporate campus. We used to give tours!
PPS/ I probably should have included the title slide for full effect. I converted them to Office 97 from the native 16 bit to use on a more modern connected PC. That’s Clippy running natively.
Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger - // This study is out today and getting broad media play piling on to more evidence tech is bad. It is so dumb a read it should be getting coverage for how bad it is at science not as a way to "exercise caution in tablets." 1/
2/ This study appears to be instantly generalized to all screens and all content. The underlying tool used to measure the use of *tablets* is a survey+tool described in this referenced study ("CAFE"). Today's paper clearly takes a subset of this data, which is itself questionable.
3/ The underlying study as of 2020 says it monitors content on Android devices. I can't tell and there's no open data available to confirm that for today's study (that I could find.) This is a minor point perhaps but has obvious issues with sampling. But there are other issues:
Today the US DOJ+16 states/DC (HA we had 19+) filed suit against Apple over abuse of market position ̷b̷y̷ ̷m̷a̷k̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷a̷ ̷v̷a̷s̷t̷l̷y̷ ̷b̷e̷t̷t̷e̷r̷ ̷c̷o̷m̷p̷u̷t̷e̷r̷ in an effort to keep customers reliant on iPhone.
🧵contd until I lose steam
1. This is scary/concerning/freaky if you work at Apple. My first thoughts go to them. What I can say is heads down, be patient. It’s an ultramarathon.
2. If you are a competitor cheering then history tells us down the road you will either become a faded memory or will be sued.
Of course I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be one. When the Microsoft case first started in the early 90s. MS’s GC said to me “you have to remember, people who chose to practice antitrust (AT) law not only believe in it but see ‘monopolies’ and ‘abuse’ everywhere.”
So much of the evolution of technology can be summed up by “what’s new, was already done before…but being first (or early) if often no different in result than being wrong.”
Of course being done before is never ever the same as the new things… 1/
2/ New things that appear to have been done before have a different perspective, bring unique market forces to a problem, and rely on technologies that are often more mature, not brand new.
Many latest and greatest inventions fail and need to be reinvented in new contexts.
3/ I lived through too many Microsoft examples where we were “first”—even “innovative”—only to watch other companies come along and capitalize on something conceptually close/identical but implemented entirely differently.
Their patience and choices made all the difference.
Apple's 'Mother Nature' sketch was a complete dud, and didn't belong… // No, no. Issue is much more subtle and practical. Need to separate weird marketing from reality. This is greenwashing but the green is…profit. This isn't Bud Light. Or even "woke" 1/appleinsider.com/articles/23/09…
2/Sure the presentation might have been awkward or even a dud to some. A quasi-religious tone viz. Mother Nature isn't everyone's approach.
At the same time, every fact or position put forth is a strategic, margin-positive, and innovative effort from Apple. Super important.
3/ Start with packaging. Most people haven't thought much about packaging. Even most who have made something needing a package haven't thought about it. Packaging is *expensive* and necessary. It is also a whole discipline. How many knew you could get a PhD in packaging?
Why are people so quick to proclaim failure for new products? It seems a dumb thing to ask. I mean knowledgable people look at a new product and think it doesn't cut it and will fail. Much more going on. Innovation is nearly impossible to deliver. Harder to predict/analyze. 1/
2/ Regardless of the era, predicting failure has always been easy, always been attention grabbing, and always kind of fun. Some say it's necessary simply to counter the marketing and power of the launch. Silly. A launch still has to battle the market. The market is really brutal.
3/ Predicting failure is a form of social credit, a way of elevating oneself above the company. It is in effect a power grab. It is also a form of grift. A con. These are harsh words but let me explain.
Not a prediction for WWDC. But want to share what I will be looking for, IFF Apple announces a new platform and hardware. New platforms are super exciting. But a new platform from a massively established company is an extra degree of difficulty. 1/
2/ The an insurgent releases a new platform such as the original iPhone Google Chrome, or chatGPT, there’s nothing but upside. The risk is existential failure for the platform but not risk to a massive existing business.
3/ With an already existing platform business, launching an additional one does not happen in isolation. Instead, the new platform is all about how it connects to the existing efforts. This “synergy” can be viewed as a tax or as leverage. Just depends.