©Joe Carson 7-31-00

It's only been a bit more than a week since Steve Jobs gave his keynote address at the MacWorld Expo in New York and from the reports in the media, he has once again succeeded in creating a new controversy, quite deliberately. Of all the new and/or upgraded products unveiled, nothing has gotten the media's attention more than the PowerMac G4 Cube, aka "The Cube."

The responses to the Cube I have seen range from "I don't get it, it will be a bust" to the "I Gotta have one!" variety. Of course, the PC oriented media is sniffing disdainfully at the Cube, but then again, we all remember how accurately they predicted the failure of the iMac (now at 3.7 million units sold and still selling...). With a track record like that, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, pay attention to them?

Just to be one of the crowd of web journalists who are posting obligatory "Cube" articles, I decided that I would do a quick synopsis of what is being said about the Cube and maybe put out a guess as to why Steve Jobs came up with it in the first place.

Taken as a whole, most of the responses I have read tend to resemble the old story about the blind men trying to describe an elephant. You remember that story don't you? One guy grabs the elephant's tail and says an elephant is like a rope, another grabs the elephant's trunk and declares an elephant is like a snake, etc. (of course, you need a REALLY tolerant elephant for this story...). In much the same manner, each web writer tends to see the Cube only in a very small way. Read on for examples...

First, a couple of articles that give you some straight technical info. One from MacSpeedZone gives straight specs: "Think Small, Think Square, Think Cube". Another article from Mac-Upgrade.com, "Upgrading (or Just Looking At) the G4 Cube" tells us that although the Cube lacks PCI slots, it is far from non-upgradable.

As an example of those who are genuinely puzzled by the Cube, Philip Machanick at MacOpinion says "Cube? Sorry, But I Don't Get It. " He simply does not understand who would pay a premium price for a non-expandable (well, less expandable than he would like anyway...) computer.

George Edward Green III (what a moniker!) posted his misgivings about the Cube at macRelations 2k, "The Price is Wrong!". He seems to have a slightly better idea of who Apple thinks might buy it (but not much...) but again, he falls into the "What the H*ll!?" camp of thought. He mutters about the lack of PCI slots (in an 8" Cube? Where'd you put them?) and the higher price. I guess he associates small size with small price. Tell that to someone who plans to buy a Porsche Boxster some time.

MacUser (U.K.) tends to sit in the MugWump* camp. Although they feel that the Cube is like the 20th Anniversary Mac in their article "Comment: Who wants the Cube?" (meaning that it will get oohs and aahs, but few will actually buy one), they do admit that it will have strong appeal in the graphics professional's market. Since that is not a small market for Apple, I think that Apple will sell more than a few Cubes even if this is the only market that goes for it.

(*The Mugwump bird... it sits on a fence with it's mug on one side and it's wump on the other...)

Some web writers have some very interesting perspectives on the Cube. Charles Moore considers it a new portable from Apple in his article "The G4 Cube - Apple's Newest Mac Portable" posted at MacOpinion. That's not such a bad viewpoint. Consider the needs of a graphics pro who needs a full sized screen and a powerful G4 computer "to go" so to speak: A full sized G4 is simply too heavy and bulky for travel. A PowerBook does well, but lacks G4 punch. A G4 Cube might just fill the gap perfectly. This may not be the prime reason for the Cube's existence, but Mr. Moore certainly does have a good point.

In an interesting occurrence of serendipity, two technophilic writers have pointed out a remarkable new use for the Cube that I think had not occurred to Apple. Both have noticed that if you look at the core of the Cube as simply a computer component, you have a perfect unit for rack mounted clustered computer systems.

One writer using the handle "cjm" in a posting at OsOpinion proposed using cube components in rack mountings to create powerful and cost effective supercluster computer systems under Mac OS X or Linux. You can read his ideas, in his article "Cube?? no- 'cube cubed' (SuperCluster) Status".

Another writer using the handle "Soup" proposed much the same thing as "cjm". Although he doesn't see the Cube on his personal desk, he is awed by the Cube's potential as componentry in a supercluster computer. You can read his ideas in his article at MacEdition, "So Sayeth Soup: Racking the Cube"

Jonathan Duffy of the BBC expresses frustration with the dull and unimaginative offerings from the Wintel world in his article "Thinking outside the box" , noting how it seems it is always Apple that comes up with the nifty ideas. I think he really wants a Cube.

Lisa Napoli, a Mac-centric writer at MSNBC wrote a generic article from MWNY 2000 on the new Macs and how Mac types get into announcements of new Macs like rock fans at a concert. I think her feelings about the cube are summed up in the title of her article, "I want a groovy new Cube!". She does not go into why she wants a cube, but I guess she does. Mindless Techno-Lust, perhaps?

John Fortt of the San Jose Mercury news also is clearly taken with the cube. In his article "Apple's Cube takes new look at the PC", Mr. Fortt doesn't give any reasons based on technology and doesn't even try to. He simply gives us his immediate emotional and intellectual responses to it and the reader realizes that Mr. Fortt has a case of Cube Lust.

We still have the problem of who will really buy the Cube. Matthew Rogers wrote an article "Who is Apple trying to sell the G4 Cube to? Do I have a clue?" trying to figure this one out. He essentially gives us a synopsis of what other writers are thinking and then seems to want a cube if only Apple would drop the price and add a few more bells and whistles. Perhaps he is a potential Cubist himself and doesn't quite realize it?

Perhaps we can get a clue as to one potentially sizable market in an article, "Campus Computing III: The Problem Cube" by Ricky Spero. He points out the problems of college students with severely limited dorm space and the need for powerful computers that can fit into those tiny personal cubicles inflicted onto students. He points out that the Cube is the perfect solution for students, or anyone else, with a need for a powerful G4 but who have no room for one.

Then again, regardless of who we think the cube may or may not sell to, one fact is coming to light: The cube is selling! An article at Macinstein, "The Cube is Selling", has told us that the Cube is already getting orders from resellers, and it isn't even supposed to be available until September, 2000. As the Nazi in the Bushes used to say (apologies to Laugh-In), "very interesting..."

Regardless of who will or won't buy the Cube, we still have to ask why Apple chose to make it. Perhaps this little thumbnail history of Apple products in the past, strongly influenced by Steve Jobs' personal ideas of what a computer should be may hold an answer.

Apple's second product and first big seller was the Apple ][. Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs went around and around arguing about its design. Steve Wozniak wanted an engineer's tool and therefore it needed slots. Steve Jobs simply hated slots and fans, and he still does. They compromised on the design so the first Apple ][ had eight slots but no fan. This created a major aftermarket in add-on fans. Kensington made it's first hit product with its system-saver series for Apple ][ and later Macintosh computers.

The Macintosh was designed as a fanless and slotless computer partly to create a tiny computer Steve Jobs referred to as an "information appliance" and largely because Steve Jobs still hated slots and fans. This led to spectacular fireworks when the power supplies of early Macs would literally go up in a loud report and a big puff of smoke. Kensington came to the rescue with its Macintosh system savers. Kensington again made a bundle.

I also remember how most of us were sharply disappointed by the tiny 9 inch screen and the total lack of expansion. This is when the majority of Apple ][ people either staunchly refused to use Macs or switched to the IBM PC which at least had 4 slots. For many years thereafter, the Macintosh was in fact a money loser at Apple, supported on the back of the then still popular Apple ][ series, Apple's cash cow.

The first standard Macs with fans and slots were the SE 30 models (one slot) and the new Mac II (six slots), both introduced shortly after Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple. The Mac II was the first Macintosh that was taken seriously by the professional community outside of the core graphics and publishing users.

Unfortunately, most of Apple's following years were as one of the most badly managed companies in the entire computer industry, almost as badly managed as IBM or Motorola.

Meanwhile Jobs created NeXT, using up incredible amounts of money in the process. We saw the Next Cube (Gee, I wonder where that G4 Cube idea came from?), a quirky op system (currently injected into Aqua, with many complaints...) and very few machines ever sold.

Steve Jobs' triumphant return to Apple saw him once again create his own vision of what a computer ought to be. We then saw the iMac. This time Jobs was more judicious since although the first iMacs had no slots (again, one of his phobias...) it did have a fan. Later models dropped the fan and just like that we again have the Jobsian vision of a nonexpandable, slotless, fanless information appliance. This time however, he did it right and so far 3.7 million of the cute gumdrops have left Apple's doors.

Now Jobs has created the Cube... again with no expansion slots and no fan (does this begin to sound like a pattern to you?) although some, internal components are replaceable, such as the processor card and the graphics card.

Now we are getting warmer. Two writers on the web seem to have a good handle on why the Cube was created. In David Schultz' article "Question: Who's the Cube For? Answer: Steve Jobs." He asks the question and in the title aswers it for us. Fritz Swanson at big g media (yes, the lack of caps is correct...) in his article "The Real Reason Behind the Cube" also agrees with this reasoning.

An article in Newsweek by Steven Levy & Brad Stone "Thinking Inside The Box" pretty much confirms that the Cube was really meant for Jobs' desk

A clipping from the article... a Steve Jobs quote.

The idea for the Cube, he says, came “...from a user—it was me. I wanted the (flat-panel) Cinema display but I don’t need the features of the PowerMac.”

Needless to say, Steve Jobs thinks highly of his own idea (assuming the Cube really was his idea...).

"We absolutely think this is going to be huge"

In other words, the Cube was not really created for anyone in particular, except for one person... Steve Jobs.