Serious question: I know he's the Woz, but is there any other reason that we care about his opinion?
He hasn't been involved with Apple since 1987.
Has Woz ever demonstrated any expertise in design or UX?
[edit: For anyone that has accused me of bias or fanboi-ism, let me disclose where I stand. I have run Linux on PC hardware almost exclusively from roughly 1996 through October 2012. I bought my first Mac computer a few weeks ago, being frustrated by occasional hardware compatibility issues running Linux on laptops. I think Apple has good design, but would be happy with a slim Linux laptop that works without issues.]
> Has Woz ever demonstrated any expertise in design or UX?
Woz built a computer with an integrated programming language (Integer Basic) that he wrote himself. So the first Apple II hardware and software were both Woz' creations, including of course, the UI, primitive as it may have been: the first computer that you turned on and was immediately available for programming, with a color display, and nice tricks like the ability to display the code you're typing and the graphic result at the same time by splitting the screen, something that AFAIK never was made available on any other similar 8 bit computer.
So yes, indeed, Woz back in his time revolutionized personal computers UI, too.
By contrast, remember that the Altair had no screen and no keyboard (many used various terminals, ASR-33 teletypes or S-100 expansion cards to provide for a UI), and that you had to load a program from either the front panel keys or paper tape before doing anything with it, which was a huge PITA.
>No offense but I am almost certain, you will not be asking this question if Woz was praising Apple and dissing Microsof
Wrong. I'm asking these questions because I want to know why people fawn over Woz's opinion. It's the same opinion that thousands or millions of people hold, but no one cares when they say it. For some reason, because Wozniak worked at Apple many years ago, when he says it, it holds more weight? I'm much more interested in the opinions of people who analyze the strategy of Microsoft and Apple and who actually make -good- predictions, rather than some guy who worked with Steve Jobs 30 years ago.
> Has Woz ever demonstrated any expertise in design or UX?
Yes. He's the reason the Apple II had support for the Dvorak keyboard layout, hidden as it may have been. That's a big UX thing for me. Huge, in fact. His design skills in terms of putting motherboards together are beyond mere mortals.
May I pose a counter-question, which is if you're bitter that Woz has dissed your cult?
"That's a big UX thing for me" yes, for you and other 10 users of Dvorak keyboard
"His ->ELECTRONIC<- design skills in terms of putting motherboards together are beyond mere mortals."
Woz is a nerd. There's nothing wrong with it, and he is certainly very good at certain things, like creating minimal circuits that do several things at once.
But to say he understands UX is not really true. Having run a music festival and having taught kids makes him certainly (a little bit) more qualified for it, still.
You see, the problem with people who are very good with technology is that they will overcome any usability problems to use said tech. To be good at UX you need to put yourself in the shoes of your grandma and see things as she sees it, which is the opposite of the 'tech' way of thinking.
> To be good at UX you need to put yourself in the shoes of your grandma and see things as she sees it, which is the opposite of the 'tech' way of thinking.
No, you don't. UX can mean 'ls' just as much as it can Metro just as much as it can MATLAB.
> like creating minimal circuits that do several things at once.
There's a presumption here that this has limited impact on the design of the overall product. It doesn't.
"UX can mean 'ls' just as much as it can Metro just as much as it can MATLAB."
True, having Dvorak is a nice feature, but it's not the whole thing. You can certainly have a UX expert pouring over Matlab commands, then you would be considering several aspects, and would get a friendly command line interface, but not only one aspect as in that case.
"There's a presumption here that this has limited impact on the design of the overall product. It doesn't"
For the Apple I, it was certainly essential, since every part saved could save something like $10, $20 or even more (in 1980 dollars). Nowadays, not so much. Today you can fit the whole Apple I inside a FPGA (around $10) with room to spare.
It's popular with guys that like the exclusivity of using it and enjoy the placebo effect, but has never been conclusively shown easier or faster to type. Not to mention that for programmers its case is made even worst, because something designed for regular typing is not at all necessary to also be good for programming languages, where the common characters change, and even include ones like {} and such.
It's the ideal keyboard layout for the guys that make optimizations without profiling.
One man's premature optimisation is another man's common sense...
You can see some automatically-optimised keyboard layouts here, and decide whether they look different enough from Dvorak for it (or the site itself) to qualify as a scam: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization
>One man's premature optimisation is another man's common sense...
I doubt common sense comes into play into such complex matters as determining keyboard layout performance. Without testing between different options, using control groups and working on some specific domain (e.g performance for programming vs prose writing), common sense is useless.
(Not to mention that even in programming common sense can be both right and irrelevant --e.g. common sense might correctly assume that some function can be optimized to perform 3x faster, but fails to that it takes only 0.2% of the total running time in the first place so the win would be negligible).
>You can see some automatically-optimised keyboard layouts here, and decide whether they look different enough from Dvorak for it (or the site itself) to qualify as a scam: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization*
I never argued against alternative keyboard layouts, or that qwerty is the best. Just that Dvorak is not worth it (and mostly, badly tested placebo solution). I've read the mwbrooks article in the past, the points he makes are not really worth it -- mostly a hack job.
In any case, if we need a future keyboard layout standard, it would have to take into account use cases (e.g programming vs journalism, etc), modern typography and extended glyphs, and of course since this is 2012, international language switching (I, and billions of other people, alternate between english and my language layout).
We care about his opinion because he is a really smart guy who has been living at the forefront of technology for longer then most of us have been alive. You don't have to agree with his opinion, but ignoring it would be pretty foolish...
I have seen no evidence that this is the case. He gives his opinion, and people say, "oh my god, did you see what Woz said?!" and it's 'news' for a few days. And then everyone forgets about it. The only reason anyone listens to him anymore is because he was at the right place at the right time 30 years ago.
"At the right place at the right time" is overly dismissive. He cofounded Apple and the company as it is today would not exist without him. However, I don't think that's relevant to his technology commentary today.
I often wonder this even about current figures. How their ideas/opinions are praised (voted for), however simple and non-revolutionary they are. From recent history I remember Linus Torvalds writing (on google plus!) about resolutions on laptops and that they should be higher. What's interesting about that? Nothing. Pretty obvious idea that everyone thought off (unfortunately we don't control the market, manufacturers do). But because Linus said it it was on literally every tech site.
> Woz CREATED Apple... Job's single defining contribution to the Apple I was "hey we should sell this!", he did literally NOTHING else.
That's true, but that was essential. I was there, I met all the principals, and Jobs made Apple. He didn't design the computer, he sold it. Later, he met and persuaded financial backers to fund Apple's growth.
Wozniak's contribution cannot be denied (who would want to do that?), but without Jobs, it wouldn't have become Apple. The reason? Woz wanted to give his design away, to his peers, an instinct I share now and shared then. That's admirable, but it wouldn't have resulted in the Apple Computer of today, for better or worse.
Let's turn down the hyperbole. Jobs still marketed the company, even if Woz was the technical genius. Selling your product is just as essential as having a product.
While Wozniak was the technical wizard at Apple, I don't think he had a real vision for Apple's products. Jobs had the vision of what Apple products had to be about:
You are talking about hardware and/or engineering design. Important for sure but only one part of "design" and of a product having success in the marketplace. Without that appeal all the engineering genius in the world means nothing (and vice versa of course..)
Woz created the computer. The idea to sell it was what created Apple.
I'm not sure that's the point people are making though. No-one dispute's Woz's genius back in the late 70's and early 80's. The question is more does what he did 30 years ago qualify him to speak more authoritatively about Apple than any other random tech commentator?
Yes he's probably done enough to warrant being listened to, but I don't think his words carry any particular insight any more.
Look dude, Woz may be a very smart man, but without Jobs, there would not be an Apple today. Not only did he found the company, he also brought it from the dead.
As someone who was there and who met all the principals, I have to say I agree. Chance obviously plays a part in these stories, but granted the role of that factor, Jobs certainly appeared to make Apple what it is/was.
Jobs also benefited from being favorably contrasted with a series of truly unimaginative replacements. :)
Woz created the Apple I and Apple II. Great, but that was 30 years ago. And if it was left to Woz he would have stayed at his cushy job at HP and let the bean counters their shelf his computer.
I am sorry but, speaking as someone who was there and who knew the early Apple people, you're entirely mistaken. Woz wanted to do something more interesting than work at HP. He presented one of his early designs to HP management, hoping to inspire some interest, but getting no encouragement, he began to look elsewhere. He wouldn't have stayed at HP no matter what happened with his private project -- he was way too talented for that position.
This isn't meant to address Steve Jobs' role, only to correct the historical record.
He perfected the personal computer which lead to what we all use today. Woz is an engineer and not a manager-type. He left HP on the condition that he could remain an engineer when starting Apple.
I'm a developer and have only marginal interest in the business side of things, but give credit where credit is due. Without the financial infrastructure to fund research and R&D, none of modern computing is possible. Fabricating silicon chips or making even moderately complex software is basically a game of numbers with a huge up-front cost that only pays off when you can make (and sell) thousands of the things.
Without somebody selling this stuff computing would remain relegated to huge rooms in Universities.
And yet you like having a computer on your desk, a laptop on your lap etc. Sold by these "MBA idiots".
Instead of, you know, going all Woz and building one from scratch --which you couldn't even do with modern components, the best you could do would be assembling ready made parts.
Also, Jobs an "MBA idiot"? He never had an MBA to begin with, and as for the idiot part, well, I for one beg to differ.
The elders in any industry are always worth listening to. As input, not dogma, of course. So I think the answer is independent of any judgement of Wozniak's contribution.
There aren't very many smart, public personalities around that have been part of The Revolution since the beginning. There are even fewer who bring this particular perspective. It's valuable for that alone, and I'm glad Wozniak's considered newsworthy.
He plays with ALL the toys, so he's in a position to comment on their virtues and vices that many people aren't. He also does not appear to have the capacity for lying or even tact, which makes it easier to separate the sense from the nonsense when he speaks.
Certain tech geeks like to uncritically fawn over every inane thing Woz says.
Nobody else in the world actually cares, "Streisand effect" remarks aside. The guy's a putterer and a philanthropist - and as much as the same geeks like to pit him against the hated Jobs as if the two men were "geek" and "suit" archetypes, Woz has only been able to putter about with various projects and give away money because Jobs actually made them both rich.
He hasn't been involved with Apple since 1987.
Has Woz ever demonstrated any expertise in design or UX?
[edit: For anyone that has accused me of bias or fanboi-ism, let me disclose where I stand. I have run Linux on PC hardware almost exclusively from roughly 1996 through October 2012. I bought my first Mac computer a few weeks ago, being frustrated by occasional hardware compatibility issues running Linux on laptops. I think Apple has good design, but would be happy with a slim Linux laptop that works without issues.]