Defending the Jonathan

Back in March I wrote about the Jonathan, a computer Apple worked on in the 1980s that was designed around modularity:

In that post, I wrote:

My understanding is that the project never made it past the “conversations and mockups” stage. I get why the Jonathan never made it beyond the concept phase, but part of me wishes I could round up a bunch of modules meant for this platform. At least we have some fun photos and renders to enjoy.

Earlier this week, I got an email from 512 Pixels reader Geoff. He had a family member named Tom Toedtman, who worked at Apple in the 1980s. In April 1986, Tom wrote a memo to Apple CEO John Sculley in an attempt to save the project from cancellation.

What follows is that memo, published in full:

This communication is offered to you with the hope that you will agree that the significance of the Jonathan project to Apple’s long term goals warrants its completion now.

Now because the cognizant engineering teams are together; the knowledge
is together, and Jonathan is a great product.

JONATHAN, a MODULAR SOLTUION:

Obvious non-obsolescence

• This design REMOVES THE FEAR that this computer will be obsolete next year. It will also remove a similar cause of hesitation — “I’ll wait for the next model to be released”.

• System growth capability is far beyond marketplace offerings. This is a great point of sale asset, particularly for serious users, businesses with growth plans, and individuals with a growing future.

• True multi-master coprocessing. The right architecture for tomorrow.

• Configuration flexibility is also far beyond the marketplace. Jonathan can be loaded in any mix of current and future hardware by the customer. Fileserver, process controller, and numerous other special applications are now viable.

RAPID introduction of new hardware

• Standardized product design, manufacturing line, and final packaging are in place for CD-ROM, Optical magneto disk, 80MB drive, etc.

• Enclosed peripheral cards is a desired value added enhancement for most customers.

• An equivalent Jonathan appears cost competitive with Milwalkee.¹

It goes on:

Although we do need to respond to the market; the market will never tell us how to innovate. Those ideas are born here. It is our reputation.

The Jonathan Product Design, and the capability it offers, is the innovation. Apple deserves to win only if it tries; only if it gambles.

Marketing has the products they want and need for the near term, and we have the resources and desire to develop them- including Jonathan. No market research was accomplished (as requested in Sept.), and no better explanation was presented by Wayne Dyer other than the other products make the most sense for the Marketing Plan.

On behalf of several of your key Engineering managers, and many of your dedicated contributors, please consider the possibilities, check it out with us and Marketing, and give this product a chance to be the great product we think it is.

Would you be willing to discuss this product’s potential with myself, Jon Fitch, and/or other Engineering managers?

This memo is fascinating for several reasons. First, it appears that the Jonathan concept was much further along than I previously thought, including packaging materials.

Secondly, it shows just how passionate the people who worked on this were about the idea. Tom’s career at Apple included other projects, including the IIGS and working on the design of the case for the Mac IIcx. His name is even on the inside of early examples of that machine. He saw the Jonathan as a way forward from those more traditional systems.

Of course, we know that this memo didn’t save the program, and Sculley shut it down, and nothing like the Jonathan ever shipped.