Apple I Advertisement (1976)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Ad reproduction and OCR issues

  • Many point out obvious typos (“Compagny”, “Palo Atlt”, “4 Ko RAM”) and poor line breaks as artifacts of bad OCR and re-typesetting.
  • Links to scans of the original ad show these errors aren’t in the 1976 print; the posted version is called a “typographic eyesore” that Jobs would never have approved.

“Free software” philosophy vs Apple’s evolution

  • The ad’s line about “free or minimal cost” software is contrasted with Apple’s modern behavior: rapid deprecation of OS versions and hardware, and movement toward subscriptions (e.g., iWork going freemium).
  • Some argue Apple has always monetized software indirectly via expensive hardware; “bundled” is framed as “locked-in but counted as free.”
  • Others note Apple did charge significant prices for OS X upgrades in the 2000s.

Backward compatibility and product strategy

  • Strong criticism that Apple lets its “growing software library” shrink by dropping support after ~5–7 years despite enormous resources.
  • Counter-argument: dropping legacy support (PPC, 32‑bit, Classic, FireWire) is what lets Apple move quickly; Windows is given as the example of the opposite trade-off, with heavy backward-compatibility baggage.
  • Some accept this as a reasonable product choice; users needing old software can stay on old systems or use emulators.
  • Developers complain they can’t easily test real upgrade paths on iOS because downgrades aren’t allowed.

Price, value, and rarity of the Apple I

  • $666.66 is joked about as “diabolic” but also explained as Wozniak liking repeating digits.
  • Adjusted for inflation (~$3,800) it was unreachable for many 1970s hobbyists; some compare it to later, cheaper machines like the C64.
  • Discussion of Apple’s trade‑in program destroying Apple I boards explains their rarity and current multimillion-dollar auction prices.
  • Several emphasize how unfriendly the Apple I was compared to the Apple II (no built‑in BASIC, Monitor prompt only).

Flash, PWAs, and platform control

  • One thread uses the ad as a jumping-off point to vent about modern Apple: notarization delays, EU App Store compliance friction, and the feeling that many apps could just be PWAs.
  • A long subthread debates Flash’s demise:
    • One side mourns it as an accessible creative platform for nontechnical users, arguing its technical problems were solvable and that killing it reduced web creativity.
    • The other side calls Flash a security and performance disaster that deserved to die, praising Apple (and later Google) for ending a “nightmare” plugin era.
    • Some note that while HTML5/Web + PWAs are technically superior, they never replicated Flash’s easy tooling or culture.
  • Apple is accused of deliberately crippling Safari APIs (Bluetooth, USB, filesystem, etc.) to protect the App Store, limiting PWAs to “cached web pages.”
  • Others welcome these limits as a safety feature, worrying that fully app-capable web APIs would make the web more dangerous.
  • A separate debate covers hybrid apps, web-wrapped apps, and why many developers still choose native or cross-platform frameworks over pure PWAs.

Licensing and “Apple‑branded” hardware

  • A humorous story recounts running macOS in a PC hidden inside an old Mac chassis to satisfy the “Apple-branded system” license requirement.
  • Commenters debate whether an Apple logo or case could make a Hackintosh compliant; most regard this as playful “letter-of-the-law” rationalization unlikely to hold in court.
  • Differences between common-law vs codified legal systems and doctrines that limit hyper-literal readings are briefly discussed.

Account, security, and usability frustrations

  • Multiple comments complain about Apple ID and Developer account UX: login failures that only work in Chrome incognito, wonky OTP delivery to old devices, difficulty changing passwords or removing devices, and double-charged developer fees.
  • Similar annoyance is expressed at Google’s multi-account UX, suggesting both ecosystems neglect this everyday friction.

Historical and philosophical context

  • The ad’s “free software” language is tied back to 1970s debates over paid vs free software and contrasted with Microsoft’s famous “Open Letter to Hobbyists.”
  • One commenter notes Apple could afford to bundle BASIC because it was written in-house, but emphasizes that developer time is still a real cost, just amortized differently.
  • Another connects Apple’s early hardware–software integration (Apple I’s “all in one”, relatively hassle-free cassette interface) to product principles the company still follows.
  • Several reminisce about seeing early Apple I machines, the leap from minicomputers (like WANG systems) to hobbyist micros, and how unaffordable Apple remained for many until cheaper competitors appeared.
  • A side note mentions that the current thread’s focus is partly skewed because the submission originally had a different title highlighting Apple’s “philosophy” rather than just “Apple I Advertisement.”