Talk:NeXT

Article Ending
Nice article! But it seems to end abruptly; please tell us more!! What's it doing now? What happened to Steve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 09:12, 31 May 2002 (UTC)


 * This comment is several years old and the problem has been corrected. (Anonymous User) June 1, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.44.71 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WebObjects
We need to create a paragraph about WebObjects. It's an important NeXT product that still exists. -- tooki 17:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Technology
I don't think the comparison to 8088/8086/286s is appropriate time-wise. By the time the NeXT was released, 386s were definitely in use, and I think even the 486 was not too far off. Also, when my college received our NeXT cubes, we already had some Mac II computers, with color. I think we even had Macc IIci and IIsi models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)

Sentence Correction
This sentence needs to be re-worded: "Basically the drive itself, while faster than a floppy, was simply not fast enough to run a Unix based OS as its primary medium." It sounds like the OS is the primary medium of the MO drive, where it is in fact the MO drive that is the primary medium for the OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)


 * Changed to: "...was simply not fast enough to run as the primary medium for a Unix-based OS." ABoerma 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sneakernet Link
Sneakernet could probably be an article link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.250.252 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2004 (UTC)

Major Copyedit
I have gone through and performed a pretty serious copyedit... I also added a large number of s. It's important to remember that this article is about NeXT, not Apple, so I removed a lot of statements about OS X that weren't directly related to NeXT's software contributions. Themillofkeytone 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Good Article
After reviewing the article, I've determined it to meet the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, comprehensive, and of a good neutral tone. The last copyedit by User:Themillofkeytone seems to have done the trick.

The biggest step for improvement now would be filling all the templates with actual citations. If anyone wanted to help the article out, verifying and citing a few of those little facts would go a long way!

Keep up the good work, folks. Phidauex 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Apple Stuff
The last paragraph lists every new Apple machine that was released during the transition from PPC to Intel processors. These details are tangential overkill in an article about NeXT. No one who comes here to learn about the NeXT corporation needs to know the specific date the Apple MacBook was released. Just say when the transition began or ended and be done with it. emw 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed, removed the specifics about Apple. — Wackymacs 15:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NeXT's software was a BSD Variant
'NeXT's software was originally intended to be used as the foundation for Mac OS X[2], however they opted to base it on a BSD variant instead.'

This is not accurate. NeXTStep was a Mach 2.5-derived kernel with a BSD server which provided most of the UNIX services. During the Rhapsody era, Apple imported a lot of NetBSD code into the BSD component, to replace ageing 4.2BSD parts. With OS X, they imported more FreeBSD code. They also took a load of userland components from NetBSD and FreeBSD, although some (e.g. top) are still the NeXT versions.

If you read the XNU (OS X kernel) source code (or Amit Singh's excellent book on the subject) you will see a large number of source files with copyright notices dating back to 1996 and earlier. Most of these were present in NeXT's operating system and do not originate from any other BSD system.

The new IOKit, based on Embedded C++ replaces the old NeXT driver kit based on Objective-C (for performance reasons), but this is entirely new, and not found in any other OS.

At the kernel level, OS X is an updated OPENSTEP. At the API level (Cocoa) it is an updated OPENSTEP. The window server component was re-written in a large part to take advantage of the features of modern 3D cards, and to address some issues with DPS (e.g. the fact that it is not possible to determine how long a program written in a Turing-complete language will take to execute, making scheduling of drawing difficult).

--David Chisnall 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Glass Staircase
So which office had the glass staircase? The first or the second? It is mentioned as being in both.Geneffects 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

NeXTcube name
This article mistakenly refers to the first-generation NeXT workstation as the "NeXTcube"; this name was only officially used for the second-generation '040-based cube. The original NeXT model was simply called the "NeXT Computer" (or "NeXT Computer System") in NeXT's literature - see the brochure. Also, looking at the brochure scans, the company seems to have been called "NeXT, Inc." at the time of the original launch, and later changed to NeXT Computer, Inc. Letdorf 10:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Continuity issues
This article, says Steve Jobs resigned from Apple Computer. Yet the Steve Jobs article says he was fired ClEeFy


 * Jobs was marginalized from any active role in the company and subsequently resigned. In upper management, this is one way executives get fired. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Net income, gross revenues not present in the right side box
can some one please place these values as found in all the other company portals. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilhuilgol (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When did the Intel port of NeXTSTEP start?
Though a minor point, I have some reason to think (a private e-mail message by Jobs) that it started before 1992. Is this 1992 date based on good sources? If not, then from the message I got in Sep 1991 it seems they were already at work then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gctwnl (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The port began in October 1991. A demo version was displayed at the NeXTWorld Expo in January 1992. Subsequent to that, a full product version was developed and completed by May 1993. Tystnaden (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The missing citation for statement "The NeXT Computer was slower than many Unix workstations becoming available at that time, but cost about half as much"
I think that the New York Times article "The Executive Computer; Fresh Momentum for Unix, but Still Hurdles to Clear" is acceptable a  source, but I have chosen not to add it because do not know the proper way to do so. --AdamTheWebMan (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I now read the article, it doesn't say so. It says the NeXT computers were of comparable performance to other UNIX workstations, but cost about half as much. › mys id (☎∆) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It actually says that a Sun color IPC was $8,995 and a color Nextstation was $7,995.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

removed "NeXT To Return in 2009?"
Yoinked the following for myriad reasons:

Since the early period after the millennium rumors have been circulating in the back rooms of 1 Infinite loop Cupertino, California that NeXT is to make a comeback. Some employes have reportedly seen large black MacPro cases with a covered up logo in place of the usual Apple Logo, being hurriedly transported in and out of rooms. In February 2007 an employe was added to the apple payroll under the heading "New and Continuing Product Division", the name of this employee is Maxx Kai-Morten who previously worked for the now defunct Quicksilver (UK) software. From the very limited information that has been leaked, the new machine could be based upon the current MacPro and the OS would be based around Mac OS 10.5. As to be expected with NeXT the computer would have an insane spec and be very cutting edge.

NeXT was also rumored to make a comeback around the 2003 area but these plans never came to fruition as apple was concentrating all its energy on the iPod. From the time that the product development started the NeXT computer should be due for release in early 2009, although this is yet to be confirmed by Apple from the time that the project started and the amount of time that has been spent on the project the product is now more than overdue.

Diskless workstations

 * At the time of release in 1989, some workstations were not shipped with a hard drive, such as the DECstation 3100 and SPARCstation 1. Floppy disks were used to load the OS and additional software, meaning users needed to swap between floppy disks to load an ever-growing number of applications.

This is nonsense. Diskless workstations did exist, but they used a fileserver for their mass storage (and booting), not floppy disks. I can't think of any UNIX workstations contemporaneous with the NeXT Computer which used floppies as their primary mass storage medium - that would have been impractical. Letdorf (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I reworded it slightly. — Wackymacs (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge NeXT(UK) and NeXT articles
Does anyone think that the NeXT (UK) and the NeXT articles should be merged? (86.134.36.96 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
 * No. Because none of it is referenced, and it all seems dubious. (And that NeXT (UK) article is up for deletion). — Wackymacs (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some notes and ideas after copy-editing
At the request of Wackymacs, I've done some copy editing on the article. A lot of this was just simple grammar and formatting corrections which I haven't listed here. Three persistent errors to watch out for:


 * misuse of italics (used for names of books, films, albums but not for software and hardware or company names)
 * companies are singular, not plural ("Apple used the software for its site", not "Apple used the software for their site")
 * in the context of an article about a US company and only quoting US dollars, the US before figures isn't needed (or is needed at most on the first example), not at random after that.

Like many a Wikipedia article, this degrades a little over the course of the text. Here's a list of broader problems which I think need to be addressed in the article but will leave other editors to consider implementing.


 * The successor element in the former company infobox seems redundant.
 * Most of the inline references in the lead seem unnecessary and arbitrary to me, as they don't refer to controversial facts and they're all sourced in the body (I haven't followed any previous discussion on this topic though.
 * I don't think the OpenStep 5.0 reference is needed in the lead (and I'm not sure it's supported by the cited text); also, this point isn't made anywhere in the body text, where it would be more appropriate (if it's justified).
 * The section headings need work. 'Early years' is uninformative and could perhaps be replaced with 'Founding Next'. The subsequent sections are all quite long and could do with being divided up (certainly the hardware section could be split between the two main generations). The Apple section is mostly about the development of OS X, not the acquisition, so should also be renamed. I don't think the ", Inc." is needed in the subheadings either, just at the first reference to that version of the company name in the text.
 * The early history was a bit garbled, so I reordered it to make it more chronological.
 * The comment about late release of Macs needs a more precise time frame.
 * Most of the direct quotations in the article seem gratuitous to me -- included because they sound pithy rather than because they advance our understanding of the topic. The "five years ahead" quote is arguably well-known enough to merit inclusion, but needs to be set in context (what release date was missed?) The "bue jeans" quote adds nothing. The Gates and McNealy material could be presented more succinctly, and needs a topic sentence explaining the context (presumably reactions to NeXT from other industry players).
 * I think a brief explanation of what a wet lab simulation is (not just a Wikilink) would help general reader comprehension. Ditto for a Mach-based system.
 * While the article goes to some lengths to contrast the specifications for the NeXT Computer and its competitors, it doesn't say anything about an equally important factor: the price. Material on this is needed (there's discussion of the 'dorm room ambition' of an affordable machine but the high price is rather ignored subsequently).
 * "The drive was not sufficient to run as the primary medium" needs clarification, Not big enough? Not fast enough?
 * The material about NeXTWorld magazine and the expo doesn't sit well where it's currently located. Might work as a separate section on 'The NeXT Community' after the corporate culture section. More specific dates on the tenure of the editors would be good. Were the four volumes four individual magazines, or four years' worth of publication? (Volume is an odd term to use in a non-academic context.)
 * The processor port history was uncomfortably tangled with the material about NeXT ceasing systems manufacture. I've moved some stuff around here, but it probably needs further work.
 * Did the Sun investment go through?
 * The discussion of the development of Mac OS X is much too detailed in the context of an article about NeXT. The key points seem to me to be that the tools were ported to Mac and Intel platforms, that many key features were retained in OS X, and that platform independence remained a primary goal; the detail on Carbon, Blue Box, Yellow Box etc. is excessive and liable to confuse the reader. Definitely could use some trimming. Also, the details of what got included don't need repeating in the impact section, I'd argue.
 * The corporate culture section would benefit from a discussion of whether any of these innovations survived at Apple or influenced other companies, assuming that material can be sourced.
 * The section on Macs in the impact discussion needs some more context: if 10 million users had shifted, how many hadn't? Do we have more recent figures for OS X sales? What proportion of the overall computer market does this represent?
 * The list of sites that use WebObjects doesn't need repeating.
 * The stuff that's not included in Mac OS X (Display PostScript and tear-off menus) hasn't ever been mentioned before; it should be dropped or explained more fully earlier in the article. (I'd personally just dump it.

Hope this has been helpful, happy to clarify any comments here or explain other changes. Gusworld (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sound fine to me, but I'm curious about whether you're planning on posing this question on all talk pages...--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heavens no: shared task going through some FAs. We hope that letting key editors know about the option may prompt a broader shift. Thanks. Tony   (talk)  08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. While WP:MOSTM recommends using standard English capitalization rules regardless of the trademark owner's preference, there seems to be consensus that the current name is the most recognizable one for English speakers, and as such it meets the naming conventions. Jafeluv (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NeXT → ? — I am not familiar enough to know what it should be moved to, but the current name of the article violates WP:MOSTM, so the article needs to be moved (to something that has the "Next" capitalization).  TJ   Spyke   22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support &mdash; per WP:MOSTM & suggest NeXT → Next (computer company) 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」 ¤ • ¢ 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: notwithstanding WP:MOSTM, the distinctive presentation of the NeXT company name and trademark is well-known and generally accepted in published works other than WP. IMHO, an encyclopedia should, within reason, reflect reality as closely as possible and not distort it to fit its own norms - this should include typography. Furthermore, no-one appears to have objected to the title of this article when it achieved FA status in October 2008. Letdorf (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
 * First, what they are known as doesn't overide MOSTM. Take a look at TIME for example, they are almost always referred to as that, but the article is at "Time (magazine)", not "TIME" or "TIME (magazine)". As for your second point, even FA's are not perfect and can continue to be changed and improved.  TJ   Spyke   00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IDONTLIKETHEAPPLICATIONOFMOSTMINTHISCASE. Bongo  matic  02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not find this a useful or appropriate application of WP:MOSTM. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policies or guidelines to support NeXT? Because as of right now no one has provided any compelling reason for this article to continue violating the naming guidelines. This is like talking to a religious person about evolution, they keep ignoring facts and want to indulge their fantasy world.  TJ   Spyke   02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MOS is a guideline that should be taken seriously. However, the chief examples given are all-cap or all lowercase versus initial cap. Initial lowercase with a single camelcap (iPhone) are explicitly permitted). There are no examples that are on all fours with NeXT, and the closest (eBay, etc.) seem to point in another direction. Bongo  matic  02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The compelling reason is that the community has already reached consensus on "NeXT". Indeed, it appears to me that the Wikipedia community disagrees with WP:MOSTM on this point in nearly every example I can think of: TRUSTe, Banyan VINES, ProDOS, BeOS, microSD and miniSD, MiG-1, etc. etc. etc.  I think this particular guideline is just not a strong justification. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget SunOS. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tim Pierce,since any other selection would be even more confusing, also considering how common "Next" is. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose NeXT and NeXTSTEP are the official and the most recognised form of the name. The product documentation and software that I personally have in my possession have NeXT and NeXTSTEP printed on them. Even the config.guess script for GNU Autoconf checks to see if NeXT (which is case sensitive) is defined in the system header files or is present in the output of the  command (note that the only place config.guess uses lowercase is the configuration name or canonical host name triplet that the config.guess script itself generates for the configure script). The MOS and other guidelines also do not override common sense, see WP:RAP --Tothwolf (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is ridiculous. I strongly oppose the proposal to move the article to an unknown title. The nominator, who admits he is unfamiliar with the subject, should close this discussion immediately at least until he can come up with a valid alternate name. WP:MOSTM is a guideline not a policy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... which is not in and of itself a reason to side-step it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons that have everything to do with the existing usage, and nothing whatsoever to do with the MOS being a guideline or the wisdom (or otherwise) of the nominator. The exception is well-justified.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * NOTE there is a related move request for NeXTSTEP to Nextstep, see Talk:NeXTSTEP 76.66.196.139 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been much debate (generating more heat than light, it has to be said) on the WP:MOSTM guideline on its talk page. However, this particular comment seemed quite sensible to me:
 * "MOSTM must be one of the most widely and sensibly ignored guides on Wikipedia, and the timesink caused by people coming to articles to try to enforce it in good faith is an excellent case for junking it. Let editors decide this case by case and do not direct people to follow one way because of a particular guideline or policy which is not widely supported, and has a ridiculously convoluted set of 'legitimate' exceptions symptomatic of a problem."
 * Letdorf (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

I am not familiar with the subject either, but could someone say how many of these news hits are about this subject? In particular, how many of the standardized ones are about this subject? It seems that, at the very least, CNET News standardizes this trademark. Croctotheface (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear to me that they ever standardized at all: e.g. http://news.cnet.com/Its-Intel-inside-for-Apples-Mac/2009-1006_3-5733937.html uses "NeXT" but http://news.cnet.com/Apple-acquires-Next,-Jobs/2100-1001_3-256914.html uses "Next". Similarly for CNN: "NeXT" at http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0806/gallery.gates_v_jobs.fortune/7.html and "Next" at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/10/08/74184/index.htm.  If anything, it seems as if more recent articles are more likely to use "NeXT" and older articles are more likely to use "Next". Tim Pierce (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If our sources don't really use a style, it's hard to really argue that it's standard.  If "Next" basically doesn't exist, or only exists in a trivial way, while "NeXT" is used more or less exclusively, then it's hard to see how MOSTM even supports a move.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone referred the discussion to WP:Naming conventions for additional comments about trademarks. That policy has this to say about case-specific trademarks: "if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation." NeXT seems to be an excellent example of just such a term. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what happens when someone suggests a page move but doesn't suggest a destination name. If consensus resulted in "Support" for the move do we then have a second debate to then try to establish a consensus on an accepted destination name? This debate is ridiculous. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first off, there isn't going to be a move consensus, so it doesn't much matter in this case. I'd imagine that if there were a consensus to use something other than "NeXT," the discussion would be closed and editors would be advised to figure out where to move it and then execute the move.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Close this already. The consensus is clear, whether or not some editors like it. The community frequently rejects guidelines&mdash;that one way they are changed. Bongo  matic  01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spoken Wikipedia recording
I've updated the Spoken Wikipedia recording of this article. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. Thanks. --Mangst (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias
One issue I noticed in reading the page is that it does come across as being a bit biased. I realize NeXT may have its fans out there, but unless something has changed with Wikipedia's standards and views on this, it should be presented in as neutral and unbiased a way and viewpoint as possible. For example, I see references that it was supposedly very influential and yet no mention made of how exactly it impacted or influenced computing and when it does attempt to mention object-oriented programming (which existed long before NeXT came into being, from what I understand) and GUIs (which also existed with other systems out there prior to 1988), it seems a little confusing as to what it's trying to say. Did it cause object-oriented programming to become popular? The use of GUIs? Or some combination of both (possibly using object-oriented programming in GUIs)? Also, if any of that is the case, just how and what did it influence? Also where are the references or citations for any of that? Or did it just influence off-shoots of its own product? In which case, I don't know if I might call that a major influence or even as profound upon the computer industry as the article seems to imply, in the sense that it refers to something more within the company as opposed to the industry as a whole. I only cite that as one example of the bias being shown in this article. I think it might be more effective--and especially informative--if there was more neutral language used. As it is now, it almost sounds like it was written by a fan.Tuxenstein (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree some things are missing or need improvements, I also was surprised to see no reference BSD and Xerox (there was reference to Mach, though)... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NeXT was a flop as a seller of hardware boxes, but somewhat of an inspiration to many as a more or less comprehensive non-toy graphic/visual windowing Smalltalk-like operating system with integrated development tools. The attempted direct imitations of NeXT didn't work out too well commercially, but NeXT apparently still had a diffuse influence in a number of smaller ways on various operating system efforts during the late 1980s / early 1990s (though it certainly didn't single-handedly popularize the idea of GUIs)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Request edit on 11 October 2013
Addition of Books or Further Reading Section and inclusion of specific listing.

The book is "Anatomy of an Apple - The lessons Steve taught us." Author is Ben Klaiber. ISBN is 9781483506975.

While the majority of the book is about the turnaround of Apple with Steve Jobs' return, multiple chapters delve deeply into NeXT. It covers a tremendous amount of history and details of the NeXT period as well as often neglected elements of the company.

Examples: Covers in depth the legal limitations imposed by Apple on NeXT, which contributed heavily to their dearth of sales. Covers specific pricing/performance of models and comparisons with competition at the time. Explains and analyzes the competitive positioning of the hardware-software combination, the software alone, the software as extension of other competing OS's, the NeXT OS as open sourced product.

Anatomy of an Apple also extensively discusses anticompetitive tactics used by Microsoft at the time and how they affected NeXT. The discussion explores and details how these competitive experiences molded the strategies that Apple would use upon Steve Jobs' return there.

Excerpts related to the NeXT period are posted online at http://www.anatomyofanapple.com/2013/09/LetstalkaboutNeXT.html. Bryan Roberts7982 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Bryan Roberts7982 (talk)

(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)
 * ❌. Sorry, but there are dozens of books about Steve Jobs and NeXT - we don't have space to include them all, and including only some of them would be playing favourites. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

id software and NeXT
Also Wolfenstein 3D was developed with a NeXT computer(from Masters of Doom).--141.24.16.97 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NeXT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114182612/http://www.kevra.org/TheBestOfNext/ThirdPartyProducts/ThirdPartyHardware/NeXTSTEPonNonNeXTComputers/IntelHardwareForNeXTStep/Canon-object-station41/Canon-object-station41/Canon-object-station41.html to http://www.kevra.org/TheBestOfNext/ThirdPartyProducts/ThirdPartyHardware/NeXTSTEPonNonNeXTComputers/IntelHardwareForNeXTStep/Canon-object-station41/Canon-object-station41/Canon-object-station41.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review
Another late 2000s promotion that, for some reason, was "Today's featured article" as late as August 2020 (last year!). I don't see the hype. Excuse me, I was thinking of a different article. This article has many blatant problems that need to be fixed. These are just examples 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead has multiple issues
 * There are specific details about Perot's involvement that are only in the lead when they should be in the body. Nothing in the body talked about how the PBS documentary inspired him to invest into it, nor his $20 million investment amount.
 * "Nevertheless, their innovative object-oriented NeXTSTEP operating system and development environment (Interface Builder) were highly influential." How?
 * Body and lead introduce OpenStep very differently, plus has computer jargon not link or explained to the casual reader. What is a "programming environment standard"? What is an "application layer"
 * Body "NeXT partnered with Sun to create OpenStep which is NeXTSTEP's application layer hosted on a third party operating system."
 * Lead "NeXT later released much of the NeXTSTEP system as a programming environment standard called OpenStep."
 * History section have multiple uncited sentences, in a few instances even a paragraph-chunk of uncited sentences.
 * There's a paragraph in "Legacy" about Cairo that probably needs more citations. Plus, "By 1994, Microsoft and NeXT were collaborating on a Windows NT port of OpenStep which was never released.[69]" Why is this briefly only to never be talked about again, and why isn't this in the History section?
 * There is no explanation or suggestion on how the WebObjects paragraph connects to the legacy of NeXT.

The term "Defunct" should be changed to "Acquired"
Quite possibly the most egregious bias I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and trust me this site is polluted with bias --

To label NeXT Computer as a "Defunct" company in the company info summary section is like calling the Sun "lazy". NeXT Computer was a company that was "Acquired" by Apple, and the technology that NeXT developed, which Apple acquired, can largely be credited for Apple's subsequent success. So in fact, the "near defunct" company Apple "acquired" the non-defunct company NeXT, and Apple saved itself in the process.

I dare not edit the page and change "Defunct" to "Acquired", because certainly some self-important "Editor" will come along and change it right back 30 seconds later.

For this one, as for all biased entries on this polluted site, it's going to take a quorum of reasonable people to come together and make sure the switch from "Defunct" to "Acquired" permanently sticks. I hope the community makes the proper choice. 174.247.193.23 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What are you on about? The article is completely clear that the company was acquired by Apple. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the HARDWARE technology is 100% defunct, and so is part of the software technology (including Display PostScript, mysteriously not mentioned on this article). It's only parts of the software that continued onwards... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Good article status
I would oppose this being declared a good article as long as there's no mention of Display PostScript... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @AnonMoos Added. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, objection withdrawn. AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Apple-NeXT acquisition price
Wikipedia is all over the place when describing the acquisition deal terms. Corporate deals are often structured with cash and equity making up the total deal value. This article is bafflingly wrong when it states the whole $429m was cash; the equity (stock) was included in that figure. Jobs also did receive cash, unlike what was explicitly stated here. There were 2 citations for the sentence, but neither backed any of this up.

Furthermore, the deal's precise value, listed on this page and others (Apple, Steve Jobs among others) has shifted over the years ($427, $429, $420), with no proper sourcing, and has likely turned into feedback loop where lazy journalists copy Wikipedia's figure, which then gets sourced to these journalists. We must therefore look exclusively at contemporaneous reports.

DFlhb (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC) added links, looked at more financial statements, removed conclusion; see new conclusion below
 * Primary sources:
 * Apple's press release says $400m
 * NeXT's press release says $400m.
 * Gil Amelio, in his 1998 book: $377.5m in cash, plus one and a half million shares of stock, which were worth, according to Amelio, $37m, leading to a total of $415m.
 * Source:
 * Apple's form 8-K ("unscheduled material events") financial statement, filed 24/12/1996, reprints the press release on page 5, but gives an additional breakdown on page 2: $400 million ($350 million plus the assumption of approximately $50 million of debt)
 * Apple's form 10-Q quarterly report for the following quarter says the comprehensive purchase price [...] is expected to be approximately $430 million (page 7)
 * Apple's form 10-Q quarterly report filed August 1997 says total purchase price was $425 million, as adjusted, [...] The purchase price, including the fair value of the net tangible liabilities assumed, was $427 million, as adjusted,, page 6 (net tangible liabilities = debt; that's 2mil, but most of NeXT's debt was paid off with cash, not taken on)
 * Apple's form 10-K annual report (the 10-K is the "main" financial report) filed December 1997, says: the total purchase price [...] was $427 million, including cash, debt, shares and options; doesn't mention $425m (pages 9 and 44)
 * Apple's 1998 annual 10-K repeated 427 million, doesn't mention $425m (page 14)
 * Secondary sources:
 * CNET: $400m
 * SFGATE, published the next year, rounds the financial statements to $430m.
 * Les Echos, $424m.
 * Fortune Mag, $400.


 * Update: WSJ says "about $430 million" (dated May 1997) DFlhb (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update 2: I've added links so others can verify; and looked at a few more financial statements. The final number in financial statements is $427m. I don't think we need the "$400m" approximation anymore. Boldly changed article to $427m. DFlhb (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Other sources that say $427m: Linzmayer's great 2004 book (Apple Confidential 2.0), and Kahney (ex-Wired) in his 2008 book (Inside Steve's Brain). DFlhb (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)