
The first Mac prototypes were hand-made using a technique called “wire-wrapping”, where each individual signal is routed by wrapping an individual wire around two pins. Burrell [Smith] wire-wrapped the first prototype himself, and then others were done by Brian Howard and Dan Kottke. But wire-wrapping is time consuming and error prone.
By the spring of 1981, the Mac’s hardware design was stable enough for us to make a printed circuit board, which would allow us to make prototypes much more quickly. We recruited Collete Askeland from the Apple II group to lay out the board, and after working with Burrell and Brian for a couple of weeks, she taped out the design and sent it off for a limited production run of a few dozen boards.
We started having weekly management meetings in June 1981, which were attended by most of the team, where we discussed the issues of the week. At the second or third meeting, Burrell presented an intricate blueprint of the PC board layout, which had already been used to build a few working prototypes, blown up to four times the actual size.
Steve [Jobs] started critiquing the layout on a purely aesthetic basis. “That part’s really pretty”, he proclaimed. “But look at the memory chips. That’s ugly. The lines are too close together”.
George Crow, our recently hired analogue engineer, interrupted Steve. “Who cares what the PC board looks like? The only thing that’s important is how well that it works. Nobody is going to see the PC board.”
Steve responded strongly. “I’m gonna see it! I want it to be as beautiful as possible, even if it’s inside the box. A great carpenter isn’t going to use lousy wood for the back of a cabinet, even though nobody’s going to see it.”
George started to argue with Steve, since he wasn’t on the team long enough to know that it was a losing battle. Fortunately, Burrell interrupted him.
“Well that was a difficult part to layout because of the memory bus,” Burrell responded. “If we change it, it might not work as well electrically”.
“OK, I’ll tell you what,” said Steve. “Let’s do another layout to make the board prettier, but if it doesn’t work as well, we’ll change it back.”
So we invested another $US5000 or so to make a few boards with a new layout that routed the memory bus in a Steve-approved fashion. But sure enough, the new boards didn’t work properly, as Burrell had predicted, so we switched back to the old design for the next run of prototypes.
Andy Hertzfeld was one of the geniuses behind the original Apple Macintosh and a key designer of its software. After leaving Apple, Andy co-founded legendary Radius and General Magic, where he pioneered many of the ideas that form the core of the web and devices like the iPad today. He now works at Google.
Folklore.org is a fascinating site that showcases stories about the original Macintosh development as told from the perspectives of the protagonists. If you haven’t read it, visit them now, bookmark it, and keep coming back until you read it all. I promise you will love it.




















Cootified
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 9:19 AMI always thought engineers are to engineer a design into a final product…?
Not the other way around…?
So by writing this article, are you saying that designers are to listen to engineers?
If that is the case, then who does the designing?…
Vel
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 9:37 AMThere has to be a compromise between the two. A designer can spew out designs but if the engineers say it isn’t going to work then that design has to be reworked. Besides I’m with the engineers, who cares about the circuit board of a computer? That’s why you have a pretty case!
matt
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 9:58 AMno, what he is saying is:
when a designer comes up to an engineer and says: “hey, we are going to make this phone – something that is carried around in your hand all the time – entirely out of fragile, slippery glass! and then we are going to make it so the antenna is just this sliver of metal around the outside that the user will make direct contact with!”
the designer should LISTEN when the engineer responds:
“no, you’re a dumb f%*$. and that’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard, here’s why:”
he’s saying, making stuff as pretty as possible is all well and good, but not if all you end up with is a paper weight. you may as well not bother with any electronics then.
I have great respect for Apple engineers, and it really is shocking, though on reflection, not that surprising that Steve really said that sort of stuff.
I used to think that Apple’s beautiful design went hand in hand with good build quality, but clearly the two are actually at war… and build quality is loosing…
not your average joe
Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 1:59 AMWell, it all boils down to the requirements.
It’s always the evil triangle of cost, performance and form factor.
In Apple’s case, its form factor and user interface have always been what differentiates them from the rest.
Remember that good taste is not the norm, but the exception, and Apple is known for its good taste.