Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace,alt.culture.internet,soc.history.science,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.icon,alt.hypertext,alt.wired
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.pgh.net!amanue!jr
From: jr@amanue.uucp (Jim Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Letter From Ted Nelson
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <DAEFHI.K6D@amanue.uucp>
Organization: Amanuensis, Inc.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 02:41:41 GMT
References: <3r29km$m7p@crl11.crl.com> <DA4vtK.5Dw@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <RMZ.95Jun14061704@solva.ifi.uio.no> <hbaker-1406950011580001@192.0.2.1> <DAB9In.2Lt@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:18185 comp.lang.icon:3197

In <DAB9In.2Lt@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sdm7g@elvis.med.Virginia.EDU (Steven D. Majewski) writes:

>Levy explicitly draws the
>contrast with the Xerox researchers, who's 'PRODUCT' is research
>reports. ( I'll be the last person to knock research: NIH and UVA
>have been feeding me for the last 6 years! ) 

This statement is unfair and inaccurate.  Although I have never had my hands
on a Xerox Star, I was there at the National Computer Conference when it was
unveiled -- '81 I believe -- and it was quite definitely a product.  You
could not get close to the booth -- it was wall-to-wall people standing there
bug-eyed looking at the demo.

The Xerox Star did fail as a product, economically speaking:  it was just
too darned expensive (as I recall at least $16K for starters).  There is
a lot of analysis of why Xerox failed to capitalize properly on the PARC
research; whatever your feelings about that, to accuse them of never shipping
product is a bum rap.  Xerox *did* ship product based on the PARC research,
but it flopped in the marketplace.
-- 
 Jim Rosenberg                                  http://www.well.com/user/jer/
     CIS: 71515,124
     WELL: jer
     Internet: jr@amanue.pgh.net
