The Lost 1984 Video: young Steve Jobs introduces the Macintosh

No captions available for this video.

Channel: macessentials

Views: 9,561,333

Rating: 4.9073424 out of 5

Keywords: Macintosh, 1984, Steve, Jobs, lost, video, historical

Id: 2B-XwPjn9YY

Length: 5min 10sec (310 seconds)

Published: Fri Jan 23 2009

Reddit Comments

[u/ThiccDropkick]

Running on a prototype Macintosh 512k since the original didn’t have enough memory to load the presentation

[u/alepher]

You can feel history being made in this introduction. Same with the iPhone intro years later

[u/MartinNobel_]

Here is a 2017 spot-on remake of the original Macintosh intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHYjIsEaEe4

[u/dixius99]

What I didn't know until I read Walter Isaacson's book was how the original Macintosh didn't live up to expectations and was a major factor in Jobs leaving Apple in 1985.

Not that it was due to the product itself. More that the pricing made it difficult to compete with IBM.

[u/OnlyFactsMatter]

This is how people responded to the Mac on the internet back in 1984:

It's incredible the lack of vision IBM PCers have. Thank goodness we had true visionaries like Steve Jobs, because without him, we'd still be typing on command line interfaces or using a stylus/hardware keyboard with phones:

2-7-84

You probably won't hear this from anybody else, so I think it's time somebody played the devil's advocate with respect to the MacIntosh. Before I do, I will say some good things about the Mac so you won't think I am totally negative. First it will probably save Apple from getting eaten alive by IBM. Second, Apple's stock should go back up. Third it does use a lot of novel ideas and makes them affordable. Fourth, they'll probably sell a lot of machines.

But not to me.

If I was in the market for a personal computer today and wanted only the current functionality available on the MacIntosh, I would sooner buy a Kaypro or a Chameleon and take the money I saved and buy a printer.

I find Apple's marketing approach (though superbly timed and coordinated) to be insulting to my intelligence. "You don't have to memorize all those commands". So WHAT'S WRONG with memorizing stuff? Is it really that difficult to learn new things?

Apple is taking the typical American marketing approach: create a need where it didn't exist before, then come up with a bunch of features to meet it. Tell everybody how stupid they are and how difficult it is to use computers. Make everything look really dark. Then, voila! spring the answer -- the mouse!!

Really, you need a mouse with a word processor or spreadsheet like you need automatic transmission. It's a nice feature to have but you can learn to get along without it. My question is. Is the extra functionality worth the extra price? I'm afraid that this message won't get home to consumers amidst all the glamour and hoopla.

Now for the finale. Last year the buzzword was integration. You couldn't possibly function in the office and keep your boss happy without integrated software. Where's the integration with the MacIntosh? Can we forget about integrated software now?

The only Mac I get is going to have sesame seeds on top of it.

As expected, the Super Bowl commercial blew people away:

Would anyone else like to comment on the Apple Macintosh commercial shown during the third quarter of the Super Bowl? I thought it was a gripping visceral 60 seconds of SF, and extremely effective. The Boston Globe reports (not surprisingly) that it was directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner).

In case you missed it, it showed a large auditorium filled with zombie-like people with shaved heads, dressed in grey. They are staring at a "Big Brother" figure displayed on a screen who is lecturing them along the lines of "we control the information...". Into the hall runs a blonde woman, dressed in bright red, with police-types chasing her. Before the police get to her, she whirls a sledgehammer around her head and hurls it through the screen. The screen explodes in a blast of light. Then the voice-over explains that Macintosh is coming etc., and 1984 won't be like '1984'.

At first I thought the commercial was an ad for a new SF movie. But the one scene went on for too long - movie ads tend to cut among many scenes. My next thought was the Olympics - athletes preserving our freedom etc. But that didn't fit either - Big Brother was wired on a different track. Once the Apple name appeared, it all clicked - if the young woman is Apple, what other computer manufacturer is Big Brother? The deduction - IBM - was almost instantaneous.

Did anyone else have this immediate reaction? Did Apple tap a lot of subliminal feelings or is this only the reaction of the computer sophisticates? Has SF produced an archetype?

This guy gets it: he knew the Macintosh had potential:

2-14-84

We have all read the news reports, the reviews, the interviews. Most of us have even seen the Macintosh in real life. It's a wonderful machine, a monument to American technology and inovative design of both hardware and software - but is it useful to any of us? In one word I would say YES. I wouldn't even hesitate. It's simplicity of design and function makes it one of the shining stars in the microcomputer field. I have never read any of the Mac documentation, although I'm told that it is quite good. Yet I was able to use the Mac without any problems - able to use the word processor, the drawing program, etc. I'm even convinced that my parents would be able to use it within one half-hour period. Bravo for Apple and the Mac design team. There is, however, the question of the machine being useful - I mean really useful.

Software is this machines failing - at least for now. The Macwrite program is cute but it would be no good for me. I write long papers - I mean real long. I need a more industrial power wp - not a high school project preparer. If you are considering the MAC for serious word processing than I strongly suggest that you HOLD off for Microsoft's WORD for the MAC.

I think that the Mac will prove to be a popular machine. It's a bit pricey for most people's personal budget, though. Although the MAC/LISA/STAR working environment (icons, etc.) are attractive to many people, others, like myself, find this method of communicating with the machine distracting.

Have my views been perplexing - confusing - probably. You see - I like the Mac, but I don't think it could be a machine I could use a great deal of work - for programming, etc. Perhaps in time the software support will prove my point wrong - perhaps not. I would like to add that I don't think that the Mac will pose a very strong threat to IBM's share of the market - and certainly not to PCjr's - or Commodore's - or Atari's. Mac's too expensive for the later three. As for the PC and XT - well they are good vanillia - open-ended systems with a tremendous following - both in software and hardware. That's alot to give up for a cute machine - even though it has a great processor and nice graphics. I hope Apple fares well in the micro wars only so that some of the minds behind some of Apple's most recent accomplishments may have room to grow and produce more.

This guy also thinks the Macintosh has potential but held back by price:

To amplify this article's point: What is the real market for the Mac? I fear that it is to cutsy and of too limited a database capability (i.e., slow rates through the external ports) for the business market on the one hand and too expensive for the educational/home computing markets on the other. I hope I'm wrong. In many ways it is a rather beautiful machine.

Another guy got it: the Macintosh wasn't for IBM PCers, but for an entirely different demographic:

2-4-84

You are obviously a computer user. (You got a note here, right?)

The point of the Mac is to reach new POTENTIAL users-- those people who are afraid of computers (for whatever reason) and don't want to spend time memorizing commands and reading manuals.

I too am a fairly proficient computer user (even if I can't spell), and I probably wouldn't buy a Mac because I understand the concepts related to computer use and learning the commands wouldn't be too difficult for me. But the 'average' person isn't that familiar with computers and for the most part doesn't want to read manuals. My father (who has a PhD in Civil Engineering - so he's no dummy) recently bought an IBM PC and has yet to read all the documentation.

Since computers are going down in price, and since they can be helpful for many tasks, many more people will be tempted into purchasing computers. The companies who make their computers easiest to use (while being functional and versatile) will sell more of their computers.

This guy thought Microsoft and Apple created magic with the Mac:

2-1-84

After having seen the Mac being used by someone who had no familiarity with the machine (and was doing quite well at demoing its simplicity and capabilities). After reading the InfoWorld article...which among other things stated that: * Microsoft's Multiplan (available next month) runs twice as fast on the Mac as it does on the IBM PC, * MacIntosh Basic runs ten times faster than Microsoft Basic on the IBM PC and is incrementally compiled, (additionally Basic users will be able to run subroutines concurrently), * Mac's speed is so fast that it can generate graphics on the screen at an incredible rate, painting the entire screen in less than a second. I can't really believe that anyone can still believe that Mac is aimed at the PCjr. I also can't believe that anyone looking for a computer would choose an IBM PC which looks downright primitive in comparison. It still early...but my impression is that Apple and Microsoft have created magic.

[u/ThrockRuddygore]

In 1985 the vastly superior Amiga 1000 was released but sadly was run into the ground eventually by Commodore.

[u/Kaqtukaq]

<3 First computer I ever used was an OG Macintosh.

[u/OptimalSkin]

Cools. Cumbersome used to be portable back then.

[u/Bubbagump210]

It is somewhat amazing they have kept the name and line going for all these decades. You can’t say that about Gateway 2000.