Archive for October, 2011

Facebook Seeks Free Love Among Data Center Giants

October 29th, 2011

Facebook is dead serious about building common standards for efficient hardware in the data center.

On Thursday, the social networking giant launched the Open Compute Foundation, an industry association that aims to reduce the cost and environmental impact of the computers that run great swaths of the Internet. The foundation formalizes an effort the social media giant began in April, when it started the Open Compute Project (OCP).

In creating the Open Compute Project, Facebook “open sourced” its designs for a new data center that underpins its massive social networking service, and the foundation hopes to encourage other Internet icons to do much the same. The idea is to publish everything from the layout of server motherboards to the design of the warehouse-like buildings that house and cool the servers.

Open Compute members include Facebook, Intel, Dell, ASUS, Red Hat, Mozilla, Rackspace, NTT Data, and Netflix. Member organizations include corporations that make servers, software, networking equipment and power and cooling equipment, and companies that build and operate web-scale data centers.

The foundation is holding talks with the Open Data Center Association (ODCA), the user group for big data center operators founded by Intel. The foundation will take input from the ODCA’s hardware specification working group, said Frank Frankovsky, Director of Hardware Design and Supply Chain at Facebook and the face of the Open Compute Foundation.

Open Compute’s mission fills an urgent need, said Jason Waxman, general manager of High-Density Computing in Intel’s Data Center Group. The growth rate of server deployments will double over the next five years, he said. It will take “the equivalent of 45 coal power plants…just to keep up with that growth.”

Amazon Web Services illustrates the server boom well. Amazon’s daily increase of server capacity equals its entire capacity in 2000, when it had been in business for five years and pulled in $2.76 billion, said James Hamilton, an Amazon vice president and resident data center guru. Servers are close to the bottom line for Amazon Web Services. “That weighing point between being wildly successful and helping customers and being a tax on the company and not helping customers — the only difference is in the infrastructure,” said Hamilton.

In a related announcement, Facebook said it plans to build a massive data center just outside the Arctic Circle in the Swedish town of Lulea. The location means plenty of cold air to cool the servers and abundant hydroelectric power, which will meet most of the facility’s energy needs.

Open Compute’s specifications will standardize server motherboards, server racks, power supplies and cooling systems. This is analogous to the disk drive industry’s standardization of sizes and connectors, which made things easier for the industry’s customers and ended up boosting sales, said Andy Bechtolsheim, Founder and Chief Development Officer at Arista Networks, Inc. Bechtolsheim, who cofounded Sun Microsystems and was one of the first angel investors to fund Google, is on Open Compute’s board of directors.

The foundation is modeling itself on the open software movement and has taken its organizational cues from the Apache Software Foundation’s structure and bylaws, said Frankovsky. Open Compute’s bylaws are publicly available.

There are thousands of developers in the open software movement, including individuals who contribute bits and pieces when they have time. And there are many businesses built on open software. The realm of data center hardware is a bit different. In so far as Open Compute is a democracy, it is a democracy of the few. “In hardware, you need a supply-chain, you need a factory, you need access to low-cost parts,” said Bechtolsheim. “So it does benefit the larger vendors, let’s be honest here. You wouldn’t want to start a new company trying to build open racks.”

Open Compute is driven by equipment users — data center operators like Facebook, said Bechtolsheim. Server vendors differentiate their products in part on ancillary components at the expense of interoperability, he said. This greatly frustrates the data center operators, he said. “Open does away with gratuitous differentiation.”

Although the foundation’s efforts are likely to influence server design in general, the specs are aimed at helping web-scale data centers. “It’s not necessarily the ideal solution for every random commercial end-user that wants to add one more rack to their data center,” said Bechtolsheim.

Suppliers will also benefit from standardization in shared development costs, said Bechtolsheim. “There are only so many smart people in the world,” he said. “If everyone wants to write their own vertical standard, you waste all this intellectual capacity.”

Google is not an member foundation, but at Thursday’s launch, it was never far away from the discussion. As the behemoth among data center behemoths, the company has used its resources to make efficient, custom servers and data centers a competitive advantage.

Facebook has also put resources into designing efficient data centers, and much of its recent work is the core of the Open Compute Foundation’s initial specifications. By pivoting and fostering an open-software-like movement, Facebook can take advantage of collective development and more narrowly focus its internal development.

Of course, anyone else can do the same. “Apple wants to build a big iCloud. Obviously they want to minimize their power consumption and cost,” Bechtolsheim said. “I’m pretty sure they will look at this,” he said. And “they couldn’t have looked at this until it became an open spec.”

Facebook’s gain is twofold: by participating in the foundation they can more effectively influence their suppliers to meet their needs, and they can wrap themselves in the “open” flag at a time when Google is increasingly perceived as the new Microsoft. There is some irony in this, given the closed nature of Facebook’s product.

Open Compute is still finding its feet. It’s figuring out how to determine incubation committee membership. The nine-member incubation committee will select project proposals to forward to the board of directors for approval, said Frankovsky. Bechtolsheim is the committee’s chair.

The foundation is also wrestling with the issue of branding. One challenge is to keep companies from putting the OCP logo on everything so the brand doesn’t become diluted and mean nothing, said Frankovsky.

Source:http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/10/facebook-open_compute/

Wall Street Beat: Enterprise IT, Smartphones Boost Tech Earnings

October 29th, 2011

Third-quarter earnings reports from major tech vendors continued to pour in this week, confirming upbeat trends for enterprise software and emerging markets but mixed results for hardware and components.

News from the PC component arena turned more positive toward the end of the week as Advanced Micro Devices on Thursday said its profit for the quarter ending in September came out to US$97 million, a big turnaround from a year-earlier quarterly loss of $118 million.

AMD said revenue rose 4 percent to $1.69 billion. Growth in emerging markets including China balanced out flagging demand in the U.S. and Europe as well as manufacturing problems with GlobalFoundries that disrupted AMD’s supply chain.

AMD said it expects revenue for the current quarter to increase sequentially by about 3 percent, equal to or greater than expectations of analysts polled by Thomson Reuters.

On Tuesday, ARM, which designs chips for the booming smartphone and tablet markets, said that quarterly sales increased 22 percent to $192 million while profit jumped by a whopping 44 percent to $55.8 million. ARM is attracting new manufacturing customers as end-user demand for mobile devices grows.

“In the third quarter of 2011, we saw a continued high level of design activity with many new customers licensing ARM technology for the first time, driven by end market requirements for smarter, low-power chips,” said CEO Warren East.

In what could be seen as a vote of confidence for the flagging, low-margin hardware market, Hewlett-Packard Thursday said it has reversed course on ex-CEO Leo Apotheker’s decision to explore a spinoff of its giant PC arm.

The idea to spin off the business was part of an effort to focus on high profit-margin products and services. But ultimately it appeared that HP listened to customers who like the idea of buying hardware and software from one company, and decided that PCs offer a way to sell higher-margin offerings to corporations. In addition, the $40 billion business gives HP the sort of heft that allows it to buy parts in bulk and get a cost advantage over competitors.

Results from some chip companies this week, however, highlighted sectors where component demand is soft. Texas Instruments, which makes chips for the communications, automobile and wireless industries, said quarterly sales dropped 7 percent year over year to $3.5 billion while profit declined 30 percent to $601 million.

Results for the company, which completed the purchase of National Semiconductor during the quarter, were greater than expected, noted CEO Rich Templeton in a statement, adding, however, that “economic uncertainty continues to weigh on demand in almost every major market segment in which we operate.”

The most optimistic vendor financial news of the week, as usual, came from the enterprise arena. SAP reported Wednesday a 14 percent year-over-year rise in total revenue for the third quarter, to €3.41 billion (US$4.6 billion), while software sales jumped 28 percent to €841 million. Net profit skyrocketed 150 percent to €1.25 billion ($1.74 billion) as the reduction of provisions for copyright litigation with Oracle added €454 million to the figure.

SAP said it was winning business in head-to-head competition with Oracle, and benefiting from corporate spending trends that focus on innovation and growth.

Enterprise software vendor Citrix Systems also turned in a strong quarter, reporting a 20 percent year-over-year jump in sales to $565 million, and net income of $92 million, up from $88 million for the third quarter of 2010.

“We have strong positions across SaaS and collaboration, virtualization and desktop, networking and cloud platform markets,” CEO Mark Templeton said in a statement.

Other tech earnings highlights of the week included results from mobile and consumer electronics companies, including:

– Samsung, which Friday reported that total quarterly profit declined 23 percent from a year earlier to 3.44 trillion Korean won (US$3.1 billion). [The results were dampened by the chip and display operations business, but the good news was that profit at the increasingly important mobile unit more than doubled year over year. Samsung is now the premier vendor of smartphones, shipping about 28 million smartphones in the third quarter, up from about 20 million last quarter and passing Apple’s iPhone shipments, according to Strategy Analytics.

– Motorola Mobility, which Thursday reported a third-quarter net loss of $32 million, on an 11 percent increase in revenue, to $3.26 billion. The loss was narrower, by $2 million, than last year’s third quarter loss. A 9.1 percent increase in smartphone sales helped, though sales of the Xoom tablet, which amounted to 100,00 units in the quarter, were somewhat disappointing. If regulators approve, the business will be absorbed by Google as early as next quarter. The deal is controversial, as market insiders speculate that it will drive other manufacturers, suspecting that Motorola will get a leg up on Android advances, away from that mobile OS toward Windows.

The IT earnings news came against a backdrop of positive economic developments. On Thursday it appeared that European banks had accepted a deal for a 50 percent cut in Greek debt, reducing the possibility of the country’s default. A national default would have consequences on the economy that could dampen tech spending. In the U.S., gross domestic product figures from government Thursday showed a 2.5 percent growth, the strongest in a year.

“That the economy could muster any speed-up at all in the face of increased financial market headwinds and plunging consumer confidence readings is a reassuring sign,” said Credit Suisse Chief Economist Neal Soss in a research note.

The generally strong earnings news for corporate IT vendors combined with the positive economic news helped push Nasdaq computer company shares up Thursday by several percentage points, and they closed up by 6.86 percent in aggregate for the year. Friday morning, however, shares slipped, most likely as some investors decided to take the opportunity to cash out while the market was in an upbeat mood.

Source:http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242789/wall_street_beat_enterprise_it_smartphones_boost_tech_earnings.html

Linux Foundation wades into Windows 8 secure boot controversy

October 29th, 2011

The Linux Foundation today released technical guidance to PC makers on how to implement secure UEFI without locking Linux or other free software off of new Windows 8 machines. The guidance included a subtle tisk-tisk at Microsoft’s Steven Sinofsky for suggesting that PC owners won’t want to mess with control of their hardware and would happily concede that to operating system makers and hardware manufacturers.

Hey, why should the Free Software Foundation get the last word, with its anti-secure-boot petition?

BACKGROUND: Next-gen boot spec could forever lock Linux off Windows 8 PCs

The Red Hat/Canonical paper also warns that time is running short to stop the secure boot train. The paper’s first sentence is, “Given that Microsoft’s Windows 8 will require secure boot to be enabled by default, it is expected that the majority of personal computer devices will ship with it enabled in the first quarter of 2012.”

The paper then reiterates the fear that secure boot could lock Linux off of Windows 8 PCs forever. “Unfortunately, Microsoft’s recommended implementation of secure boot removes control of the system from the hardware owner, and may prevent open source operating systems from functioning. The Windows 8 requirement for secure boot will pressure OEMs to implement secure boot in this fashion.”

Microsoft has already publicly denied this — which I’ll get to in a minute — and the Linux Foundation is trying to stem the tide of anger by showing PC makers how secure UEFI can be implemented per Microsoft’s directive, while still giving PC owners control over their devices.

To recap: The next-generation boot specification is known as Unified Extensible Firmware Interface. Microsoft is requiring Windows 8 PC makers to use UEFI’s secure boot protocol to qualify for Microsoft’s Windows 8 logo program. Secure UEFI is intended to thwart rootkit infections by using a key infrastructure before allowing executables or drivers to be loaded onto the device. Problem is, such keys can also be used to keep the PC’s owner from wiping out the current OS and installing another option such as Linux. It can also prevent them from loading their own device drivers.

The Red Hat/Canonical paper points out that this can hinder third-party hardware manufacturers as much as it can hinder open source operating systems.

It is possible for OEMs to implement Secure UEFI in a way that users can simply disable it. Sinofsky, who is president of Microsoft’s Windows division, pointed this out in a blog post last month. He also noted that the Samsung Windows 8 developer tablet given away to BUILD attendees could disable secure boot. But Microsoft is not mandating the disable option. Matthew Garrett, a developer that works for Red Hat and has been involved in the UEFI specification process, has said that Red Hat is aware of some Windows 8 PCs that do not allow users a way to disable.

MORE FALLOUT: Some W8 PCs won’t turn off secure boot, Red Hat warns

The issue becomes even trickier if PC owners don’t want to disable secure UEFI and still want to be able to load Linux or to dual-boot Windows and Linux. In that case, they need access to the master platform key. Only the owner of the platform key can authorize new firmware or operating systems to be loaded onto the device. Then they will need a way to manage the signature database that validates the firmware, drivers and operating system.

Many free software advocates fear Microsoft is pushing an approach in which the key does not wind up in the hands of the devices owner.

“Steven Sinofsky has suggested in his blog posting … that the average platform owner might wish to give up control of the PK [platform key] (and with it control of the signature database) to Microsoft and the OEM suppliers of the platform. This mode of operation runs counter to the UEFI recommendation that the platform owner be the PK controller,” the Linux Foundation authors say in their paper entitled, Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms. The paper was written by James Bottomley, CTO at Parallels and Jonathan Corbet, Editor at LWN.net , both of whom are on the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board.

This paper concedes that some PC owners may have no desire to manage a PK infrastructure to use their PCs and would just as soon give it over to Microsoft to do, even if that means they will not be able to load drivers or operating systems unless Microsoft first approves.

But the Red Hat/Canonical paper is not so soft spoken, and offers one reason after another as to why secure UEFI is simply a bad idea. The paper, UEFI Secure Boot Impact on Linux, was penned by James Bottomley, Jeremy Kerr, Technical Architect at Canonical and Matthew Garrett the Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat that has been warning the world about secure boot for months now.

“Although there are some end-user benefits of secure boot, there are some consequences that may
benefit proprietary software vendors, rather than the user,” the authors argue. These benefits could include forced hardware obsolescence and forcing a user to buy only from a designated pre-approved “App Store,” the authors say.

This paper also points out that hardware makers could be harmed by secure boot. “If the component vendors signs their own drivers, then they must ensure that their key is installed on all hardware they wish to support. This approach would prevent new hardware vendors from entering the market until they had distributed their key to a range of OEMs, and has a large per-platform overhead,” the authors write.

But for those that want control and want the extra security secure UEFI affords, The Linux Foundation paper is proposing several guidelines — and is taking a we-can-all-play-nicely-together tone, too.

The Linux Foundation wants:

1) all platforms that enable UEFI secure boot to ship “in setup mode” where the PC owner can be the one to initially control the platform key. The owner can choose one controlled by Microsoft at that time. The device owner should also be able to return to setup mode and change the choice. This is particularly important if the owner sells the machine.

2) an operating system to detect when the PC is in setup mode and install keys appropriately at that time and then activate secure boot mode.

3) a firmware-based mechanism used to allow a platform owner to add new keys for validating software while running in secure mode so that dual-boot systems can be set up.

4) a firmware-based mechanism for easy booting off of removable media.

5) At some future time, the Foundation also wants an operating-system- and vendor-neutral certificate authority to be established to issue keys for third-party hardware and software vendors. However, the paper notes while this would make using secure UEFI easier, a new CA isn’t mandatory.

The authors emphasize that secure UEFI doesn’t have to be a technology that drives stakes between Microsoft and free software.

“Some observers have expressed concerns that secure boot could be used to exclude open systems from the market, but, as we have shown, there is no need for things to be that way,” they write. “If vendors ship their systems in the setup mode and provide a means to add new [keys] to the firmware, those systems will fully support open operating systems while maintaining compliance with the Windows 8 logo requirements. ”

Still, how much burden will the average Windows 8 consumer want to take on to manage secure UEFI? How much will the typical enterprise want to do? Can PC makers find a balance?

Source:http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/79050

Universal Display Corporation (PANL): Today’s Featured Computer Hardware Loser

October 29th, 2011

The computer hardware industry was unchanged today. Interphase (INPH), Omnicell Inc (OMCL), Socket Mobile Inc (SCKT), and Hauppauge Digital (HAUP) were all decliners today within the computer hardware industry with Universal Display Corporation (PANL) being today’s featured computer hardware loser. Universal Display Corporation fell $1.26 (-2.6%) to $47.94 on light volume. Throughout the day, 648,435 shares of Universal Display Corporation exchanged hands as compared to its average daily volume of 2.3 million shares.

Universal Display Corporation engages in the research, development, and commercialization of organic light emitting diode (OLED) technologies and materials for use in flat panel display, solid-state lighting, and other product applications. Universal Display Corporation has a market cap of $2.2 billion and is part of the technology sector. Shares are up 60.5% year to date as of the close of trading on Thursday.

TheStreet Ratings rates Universal Display as a hold. The company’s strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its robust revenue growth, largely solid financial position with reasonable debt levels by most measures and solid stock price performance. However, as a counter to these strengths, we find that the company’s return on equity has been disappointing.

Source:http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293117/1/universal-display-corporation-panl-todays-featured-computer-hardware-loser.html

Hewlett-Packard to Keep PC Business

October 28th, 2011

Hewlett-Packard has decided to keep its PC business.
The world’s largest maker of PCs has officially changed its mind as of late Thursday, after announcing in mid August plans to vacate the consumer PC business — ditching its struggling TouchPad tablet device — to focus on the high-end server and software markets.
“HP objectively evaluated the strategic, financial and operational impact of spinning off” the PC business, said HP chief executive Meg Whitman in a statement. Keeping the business “is right for customers and partners, right for shareholders, and right for employees,” she said.
Sources inside HP told FoxNews.com earlier this week that layoffs had been halted and Windows 8 was up and running on those defunct TouchPads (and internally executives are boasting that Win 8 runs better on their hardware). FoxNews.com has learned that HP has been testing Windows 8 on desktops and laptops as well.
The change would have been a remarkable switch in strategy for a company that was the top seller in the second quarter of 2011 of personal computers, with nearly 20 percent of the worldwide computer market, according to market research firm IDC. HP’s consumer computer business is also widely credited with introducing the first personal computer way back in 1968 — though it was IBM’s PC that really kicked off the PC revolution.
HP’s personal computers sales led to $40.7 billion in revenues for fiscal year 2010.

Source:http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/27/hewlett-packard-to-keep-pc-business/

Microsoft’s Vision for Future Computer Use

October 28th, 2011

As Microsoft prepares for the upcoming Windows 8 launch, they are also provided us a glimpse of what the future of computer use — this includes software and hardware — with a nifty video that not only gives us a forward thinking look at what lies ahead in the world of computer use, it also gives you an idea concerning Microsoft’s strategy going forward.

After watching the video, one thing’s for sure, if Microsoft’s vision comes to pass, there’s going to be an awful lot of touch technology coming down the pipe. In fact, if you fast forward to the three minute mark, you’ll see the user’s entire desk has been designed around touchscreen technology, only in this vision, it’s so much more robust. Even the keyboard the actor is using has a touchscreen function that allows him to move the incoming communication to his primary monitor.

The fact is, Microsoft’s vision for future computer use looks a lot like what Steven Spielberg showed us in Minority Report. Via touch, users would be able to control which content is displayed and how user’s interact with it. Take a look at Microsoft’s creation because regardless of your feelings on touch technology, the future envisioned by the company looks rather impressive:

According to a post at Official Microsoft blog, authored by Kurt DelBene, Microsoft feels most of the technology on display in the video already exists:
All of the ideas in the video are based on real technology. Some of the capabilities, such as speech recognition, real time collaboration and data visualization already exist today. Others are not yet available in specific products, but represent active research and development happening at Microsoft and other companies.

As indicated, whether or not you are a fan of touch technology, you should check out Microsoft’s vision of the future. As a person who isn’t the biggest adopter of touch technology, I must say I’m happy the keyboard exists in Microsoft’s future, and the way it’s integrated with touch is pretty damn cool.

Source:http://www.webpronews.com/microsofts-vision-for-future-computer-use-2011-10

A Short History of Apple Part 1: How The Mac Computer Evolved To Today

October 28th, 2011

From humble beginnings to worldwide leaders, how have Apple grown from designing and creating circuit boards in a bedroom to being named the most valuable company (albeit briefly) on the planet?

In this series, I will be looking at the history of Apple inc., it’s products and projections for the future in a post-Steve Jobs world.

Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne founded Apple Computers in 1976 with the intention of selling the Apple personal computer. Wozniak had designed and hand built the initial prototype in Job’s bedroom and financed the project by selling some of their posessions including Job’s Volkswagen van. The idea had originally started as a hobby but after discussions with a local businessman, Paul Terrell, who was opening a new computer shop, they hand built and sold 200 units at $666 each.

The Apple I was largely unrecognisable from today’s personal computers, consisting of a circuit board which housed a microprocessor, 4kb of RAM and connectors for keyboard and monitor (which the user had to purchase separately). The Apple I was an instant hit and still continued to sell well a year later when the Apple II was introduced. The Apple II improved on its predecessor by being sold as a comple home computer system complete with case, inbuilt keyboard and monitor capable of displaying colour graphics. The Apple II also had an upgraded 1MHZ microprocessor and the ability to install programmes via an audio cassette interface (a floppy disk drive was introduced later). As the Apple II had multiple expansion slots, users were able to add or remove additional hardware which enabled Apple to strike up deals with third party developers and essentially corner the personal computer market.

In 1979, the company introduced the Apple II Plus which came pre-installed with AppleSoft Basic, a feature that had previously only been available as an upgrade and had been designed by Microsoft as Wozniak was too busy designing peripherals for the Apple II.

Apple decided to venture into the international markets and released variations for Europe, Australia and the Far East called the Apple II Europlus ( J-Plus in Japan). Along with a different keyboard and software for the Japanese market, Apple added different power supply modifications as well as Pal support for Europe although to keep costs as low as possible, the American layout keyboard was used which did not have support for regional differences.

The Apple II plus continued to sell well and was joined in 1980 by the Apple III which was intended to be a cross over machine capable of being used as both a home as well as business computer but was a massive failure, partly due to the fact that it cost between 4 and 8 thousand dollars but mainly because it suffered from massive stability failures the main being overheating of the circuit board. Apple recalled the machines and at huge cost to the company replaced the faulty boards but although Apple introduced an updated machine in 1983 ( the Apple III PLus ) which featured a redesigned keyboard, 256 kb RAM and intergrated clock, by 1985 both models had been discontinued.

When Apple introduced the Apple III, it was designed to be a replacement for the Apple II but as it had failed to sell in vast numbers, the board decided to resurrect the earlier model and in 1983 introduced the Apple IIe.

The new model borrowed substantially from the III but featured a full keyboard with the ability to input both upper case and lower case letters. It was shipped with 64kb RAM ( expandable up to 1 mb), a 1.023 KHZ microprocessor as well as internal cassette recorder.

The IIe proved to be such a success that Apple continued to produce it until 1993 when it was discontinued. Apart from a few cosmetic changes, a motherboard enhancement and the addition of a numerical keyboard, the Apple IIe remained virtually the same as when it was first introduced and once again, turned Apple into a major player in the home computer sector.

Apple introduced three more variations of the Apple II, the IIc, which was billed as their first truly portable computer ( minus screen and battery), the IIgs, a powerful home computer which featured a 16 bit 2.8MHZ microprocessor, higher resolution and mouse and the IIc plus which had an internal power supply, smaller 3.5 inch floppy drive and 4MHZ processor.

By 1993, Apple sold almost 6 million Apple II computers which made it one of the most successful home computers of its day.

1983 also saw Apple introduce the first personal computer with a graphical user interface ( GUI ), which enabled users to navigate through programs via on screen icons rather than by text commands. Although the Apple LISA had amongst its features a hard disk operating system, faster processor and large high resolution display, many users were put off by its high price tag ( almost $10,000 ) and lack of software and it failed to sell in large numbers.

The next year, Apple introduced its latest range of low cost personal computers ‘The Mackintosh’, which sold well initially but really took off when affordable laser printers and desktop publishing software became available. The Mackintosh incorporated soft of LISA’s features, including the GUI and Apple’s own operating system rather than Microsoft Windows. Although successful, users complained of a lack of features such as a hard disk drive and small memory. Apple addressed these issues by creating the Mackintosh Plus in 1986 which came with multiple expansion slots and the ability to upgrade the RAM. The Mackintosh was hugely successful and continued to sell well up to being discontinued in 1990.

Upgraded versions of the machine included the Mackintosh II, which featured a fast Motorola processor, internal hard drive and the ability to connect to multiple displays, the Mackintosh SE, their first all in one machine and the Mackintosh Portable, a battery powered machine capable of being easily transported. Although the portable machine received critical acclaim, it failed to sell well as it was heavy, bulky and difficult to read in strong lit as originally it did not have a backlight facility which Apple addressed later.

In 1991 and still feeling the effects from the failure of its portable machine, Apple introduced the PowerBook, a machine that had a battery life of 12 hours and was significantly lighter and more powerful than its predecessor. The PowerBook sold well and brought in massive revenue for the company and continued to be produced up to 2006 when it was replaced by the MacBook And MacBook Pro.
Around the same time, Apple formed a partnership with IBM and Motorola and together they created the Power Mac, a tower design computer aimed at professionals and created to give users a way to use software designed for Motorola CPU’s through an emulator.

In 1997 and after suffering huge losses, Apple struck a deal with Microsoft to create a Mac compatible version of Office and introduced the Apple online store which enabled them to offer the ability to build and sell Apple computers to order giving customers more flexibility and hardware options.

1998 saw a massive change for Apple with Jonathan Ive leading a team of designers with a simple goal- to create a computer that was not only powerful but also different to anything currently available. Ive’s team came up with the iMac ( the ‘i’ standing for internet), an all in one computer encased in a colourful design. Ease of use and setup were the main features showcased by Apple along with the inclusion of a USB slot which enabled users to add hardware easily from other developers. The iMac has gone through major design changes through the years including the iMac g4 which featured an lcd monitor sat on a hemisphere which housed an optical drive and it’s current design, an intergrated screen housed in an aluminium body which continues to sell well globally but still far behind windows based computers.

Since 2006, Apple computers have used Intel duo core processors across its range. Currently, Apple offer several different versions including the iMac, MacBook Air and Mac Mini.

In the last 5 years, Apple has seen their Mac sales grow faster than Windows based computers and they continue to grow year on year but with the introduction of the iPad, will Apple be able to convince their customers that they need a home computer at all?

Source:http://whatculture.com/technology/a-short-history-of-apple-part-1-how-the-mac-computer-evolved-to-today.php

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes