The Apple Jonathan: A Very 1980s Concept Computer That Never Shipped

In the middle of the 1980s, Apple found itself with several options regarding the future of its computing platforms. The Apple II was the company’s bread and butter. The Apple III was pitched as an evolution of that platform, but was clearly doomed due to hardware and software issues. The Lisa was expensive and not selling well, and while the Macintosh aimed to bring Lisa technology to the masses, sales were slow after its initial release.

Those four machines are well known, but there was a fifth possibility in the mix, named the Jonathan. In his book Inventing the Future, John Buck writes about the concept, which was led by Apple engineer Jonathan Fitch starting in the fall of 1984. Buck quotes George Cossey, talking about the idea:

I’d known Jonathan (Fitch) from my diagnostic days on the Lisa. He was one of the main board designers and I think that after Lisa was sidelined for the Mac, Fitch was looking for what to do, what was the “next generation” Apple computer but not a Mac. A lot of the people working on the Mac wanted to stick with it, just go onto the next iteration of the Mac, because they saw it as “growing,” and they didn’t want to go do something that might never see the light of day.

This concept envisioned a computer that would expand with the needs of the user, through the use of modular components:

Buck also writes:

It was a consumer model computer that came with pre-installed operations as well as a base-level I/O, and it could be upgraded during/or after purchase to business-centric specifications using a unique set of plug- and-play modules. Customers would be able to add a series of book-sized modules (for software and hardware options) that clicked into a slender docking station sitting under the monitor, that itself looked like a bookshelf. The individual software modules, for the prototype, contained the O/Ss for Apple II, Mac, UNIX, or DOS, while the hardware options were DSP, Ethernet, GenLock (for video), extra RAM, mass storage, or a power supply (for different regions). There were no cables.

Fitch believed that the machine’s literal backbone design could become the backbone of Apple’s future sales strategy. An ever-expandable computer that could cover multiple markets without Apple needing to make multiple devices.

A small team worked on the concept for about eight months before engaging Frog Design — yes, that Frog Design — to work on a prototype design to show the idea to Apple brass. Buck also writes about this in his book:

When Fitch eventually took Jonathan before the executive group it appeared as a sleek slate-grey computer, that looked like nothing Apple had done before. It had a reverse-hinged 13″ CRT monitor that squatted over a line of changeable modules, with a modern-style keyboard and mouse tethered to the side. The team had added more options to the bookshelf for the demonstration including the modules labeled “Floppy disk” and “3rd Party.”

The hardware also pops up in Paul Kunkel’s book AppleDesign, which you can still get on Amazon. In it, Kunkel describes the hardware:

Fitch wanted to design a computer around a new microprocessor, the Motorola 68030, which would be powerful enough for business and high-end applications, but could also be packaged in a form that would work in the home. With the Macintosh division developing its own high-end concepts — Big Mac1 and a modular CPU that would eventually become the Mac II — Fitch’s concept would need a totally different architecture to distinguish it from the Mac. As an Apple II product, it would have an “open” architecture. But rather than design another circuitboard-and-slots system, Fitch proposed a more radical approach.

[…]

Fitch’s design called for the backplane and track to support book-shaped modules, each containing circuitboards and chips for running the Mac OS, Apple II software, DOS, Windows, or Unix operating systems, plus other modules for connecting disk drives, modems and networking hardware, all plugged into the same track. Since the backplane was horizontal, and the modules were small and slender, Fitch imagined the system as a book on a shelf. “A basic system would have a short shelf with one or two books. A business setup would have three or four books. And a power system would have seven or eight books on a wider shelf.”

Pleased with his concept, Fitch named it Jonathan (after himself)…

There are very few images of this thing on the Internet. This set of photos is from Nicola D’Agostino’s excellent blog post on the subject:

Apple Jonathan Prototype

The Kunkel book contains several images (taken by Rick English) of the mockup as well, including one with a CRT that looks a lot like a CRT NeXT would eventually ship:

English images

NeXT Display

In more recent years, Dana Sibera has created several amazing renders of the Jonathan, and was kind enough to share them with me for this post. If you don’t follow Dana on Mastodon or Bluesky, you should fix that today.

I particularly love the Platinum version she created, which has some grounding in reality, as at least one mockup was built using the lighter color.

Platinum Jonathan

Here are a few of her renders in the slate color:

Slate Jonathan

Jonathan Modules

The general idea was simple, but in practice, this machine would have been a nightmare.

The backbone of the system would need to accept modules from Apple and other companies, letting users build what they needed in terms of functionality, as D’Agostino writes:

(Fitch) designed a simple hardware “backbone” carrying basic operations and I/O on which the user could add a series of “book” modules, carrying hardware for running Apple II, Mac, UNIX and DOS software, plus other modules with disk drives or networking capabilities.

This meant that every user could have their own unique Jonathan setup, pulling together various software platforms, storage devices, and hardware capabilities into their own personalized system. Imagining what would have been required for all this to work together gives me a headache. In addition to the shared backbone interface, there would need to be software written to make an almost-endless number of configurations work smoothly for the most demanding of users. It was all very ambitions, but perhaps a little too far-fetched.

Buck’s book reports on how Apple executives responded to the concept:

While the design and functionality of the prototype drew praise, the overall concept raised larger concerns. Fitch expected IBM users to buy a Jonathan with individual DOS and Apple software modules, then grow tired of Microsoft’s UI, and eventually opt for Apple’s OS full-time.

Kunkel expands on those concerns:

Jean-Louis Gassée delivered the first hit by observing that Apple would have to sell two or three Jonathans to equal the profit of a single Mac II. Others complained that Jonathan would compete with the Mac II. Then Sculley delivered the coup de grâce — voicing the fear that once the Mac and DOS were offered on the same platform, more Mac users might move to DOS then DOS users would move to the Mac. “That reasoning floored us,” says Fitch. “Apparently, Sculley had less faith in the Mac than we did.”

Sculley was probably right to be concerned, and coupled with the sheer complexity of such a project, the Jonathan was scrapped in the summer of 1985.

Apple Jonathan

Ironically, Apple would offer DOS support via add-on cards years later. The team’s plans for using the 68030 would also come in handy when that CPU landed in the Mac IIx and IIfx.

The phrase “ahead of its time” is often thrown around when talking about computers from the 1980s and 1990s, and in the case of the Jonathan, I think it totally fits. Modern Macs can run software from the command line, all the way up through apps written for the Mac, iPad, iPhone, and the web. Windows and Linux apps can also be run if the user is willing to jump through the right hoops.

Of course, all of this is done in software, not hardware. The Jonathan tried solving a software problem with hardware expandability, which made sense in the 1980s. Just ask TI-99 fans. Even here in 2024, there are folks trying to make this sort of thing work.

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.

Apple Jonathan Render


  1. Read more about the Big Mac project here

A More Charitable Take on Apple’s Self-Driving Car Ambitions

I’m still reeling a bit from Bloomberg’s reporting on what Apple was hoping to achieve with its self-driving car project. Even though $1 billion a year isn’t much on Apple’s scale, it’s clear that a lot of time and energy went into this project over the last ten years.

Many of Apple’s ideas around the future of the car were just too far-fetched to ship anything in the near future. However, I think there are at least three benefits to what the company was working toward with Project Titan.

Consumer Safety

In the United States, car crashes are a leading non-natural cause of death for people up to the age of 54, and some 1.4 million people are killed on roadways around the world each year. Those numbers are staggering.

The promise of a self-driving future is that far fewer people will die in automobile accidents. Autonomous vehicles don’t fall asleep behind the wheel, get distracted by looking at their phones, run red lights, or drive while under the influence.

Reducing — or entirely eliminating — deaths caused by car crashes is a noble goal. It’s clear in both the “Bread Loaf” and “I-Beam” designs that Mark Gurman and Drake Bennett reported on that this was at the heart of Apple’s work.

Better Cities

Some people pitch their vision of the future as one defined by robotaxis. Hail a car, hop in, and the computer will take you where you need to go, without human intervention or interaction. While I think that is an exciting possibility, it seems to me that it is merely a stepping stone toward something bigger.

If cars are autonomously delivering people to work, school, and more, people can begin to rethink infrastructure on a broader level. Mass transit could become more easily accessible to everyone, with cities like mine embracing it for the first time in a meaningful way. It may start with replacing human-driven vehicles with computer-controlled ones, but it doesn’t have to stop there.

Services

Lastly, we come to services. I am sure Apple wants to be a player in the robotaxi future comes, if it comes to fruition, but the opportunities are more fundamental than that. A car that doesn’t need a driver can become anything ranging from a mobile office to a rolling movie theater. Apple already offers services — and devices — that serve those markets, and could continue to expand its ecosystem in new and interesting ways.

Granted, this more of a benefit to Apple than society, but I’m sure folks at the company were thinking about what they could do.

Ahead of its Time

As I wrote earlier today, much of what Apple was hoping to accomplish with its car project was just out of reach of what is possible today. Honestly, if Apple couldn’t pull this off, I am not sure who else can at this point. Part of me feels disappointed at that, but it doesn’t mean Apple’s work here was completely in vain. I have no doubt their work in some of the areas required to build a self-driving car will (or already have) proved to be beneficial to products like the iPhone or Vision Pro.

Should Apple have pulled the plug on the car project years ago? Probably, but sometimes barely-kept-secret projects are not just about the destination.

Apple’s Car Project Was Far More Bonkers than We Ever Knew →

For a decade, we’ve all wondered what an Apple-designed car would be like. Thanks to Mark Gurman and Drake Bennett, we now have an idea:

Around the beginning of 2020, Apple Inc.’s top executives gathered at a former Chrysler testing track in Wittmann, Arizona, to try out the latest incarnation of the car the technology giant had been trying for years to make. The prototype, a white minivan with rounded sides, an all-glass roof, sliding doors and whitewall tires, was designed to comfortably seat four people and inspired by the classic flower-power Volkswagen microbus. The design was referred to within Apple, not always affectionately, as the Bread Loaf. The plan was for the vehicle to hit the market some five years later with a giant TV screen, a powerful audio system and windows that adjusted their own tint. The cabin would have club seating like a private plane, and passengers would be able to turn some of the seats into recliners and footrests.

The Bread Loaf, so far, sounds very much like something Jony Ive would be into, at least in terms of looks… but then things get weird:

Most important, the Bread Loaf would have what’s known in the industry as Level 5 autonomy, driving entirely on its own using a revolutionary onboard computer, a new operating system and cloud software developed in-house. There would be no steering wheel and no pedals, just a video-game-style controller or iPhone app for driving at low speed as a backup. Alternately, if the car found itself in a situation that it was unable to navigate, passengers would phone in to an Apple command center and ask to be driven remotely.

I read that last part about four times before it truly sank in. Pushing self-driving technology forward was clearly important to Apple, but this sounds like the company was reaching for pure science fiction, with a 1-800 number as a safety net.

According to this reporting, Tim Cook and Jeff Williams rode in the Bread Loaf and liked where things were heading, but after Doug Field left Apple for Ford, things got weirder still:

Under Field’s successor, Kevin Lynch, who also runs Apple’s smartwatch software group, the car’s design continued to evolve. It had become pod-shaped, with curved glass sides that doubled as gull-wing doors, and the company considered including ramps that would automatically fold out to make heavy cargo easier to load. The front and the back were identical, and the only windows were on the sides, a design choice with potentially dire consequences in the event that a human needed to do any driving. (Front and rear windows were later added.) Some people on the project called it the I-Beam.

It’s clear Apple thought it could pull off self-driving at a level that no one on Earth has been able to do so. It’s also clear that there was a staggering lack of decisive decision making concerning how the technology should be turned into a product.

There’s inherent tension in product design. If people can’t imagine the future, they can’t build it. With the car project, Apple’s dreams seem to have been too big, and its vast resources let work carry on far too long.

True self-driving cars will be here one day, and maybe Apple’s work will make them possible sooner than otherwise possible. However, at the end the day, companies like Apple have to ship products. It seems that someone at Apple finally remembered that real artists ship.

Update: Don’t miss my follow-up post discussing this in more detail.

Project Star Trek →

Ernie Smith has the best article I’ve ever read about Apple’s near miss with Novell in 1992:

With the growing success of Novell NetWare and its acquisition of DR-DOS (later called Novell DOS), perhaps Novell was feeling nervous about the idea that Microsoft Windows would eventually dominate the market, harming its good-guy position in the industry. It was going around at the time, after all.

(It came out years later that Novell had plenty to worry about, as Microsoft had intentionally added a fake error into Windows that only appeared when using DR-DOS … at the behest of Bill Gates.)

Novell had a play, however: Use DR-DOS as the launching pad for a competing graphical user interface that could compete with Windows. The question? Which one. The answer? Surprisingly, MacOS.

A Tour of QuickTime VR →

Michael Steeber:

Despite the profound impact Apple Vision Pro will have on the Apple Retail experience, I’ve scarce mentioned it here on Tabletops, and that’s no accident. A major new platform deserves careful study and an awful lot of context — the kind that’s only possible to grasp when the product is available in stores.

The future makes more sense when you understand the past, which is why I’m sharing this slice of history with you today.

A Daring Machine →

Harry McCracken has written an interesting column about the ways the original Mac was and wasn’t influential in its day:

Compared to other PCs of the time, the Mac’s small size and unified design offered several benefits. First, it took up little desk space and made the computer easy to tote around: It even sported a handle for that purpose. Second, ensuring that every Mac user had the same crisp 9-inch monochrome display gave the experience a consistency that was lacking in most other computers, which users plugged into whatever monitor (or TV set) they chose.

Beyond those advantages, the Mac was just plain approachable, back when many competitors still had a faint whiff of industrial equipment to them. Remember, most people had never touched a computer in 1984, and more than a few were intimidated by the prospect. The Mac’s unassuming hardware mirrored the user-friendliness of its software.

What the first Mac didn’t turn out to be was timeless. Thanks in part to its success and influence, computers didn’t stay scary forever. More and more people craved ones with larger displays, room for expansion, and new features such as CD-ROM drives—attributes that were at odds with the Mac’s diminutive sealed case. As laptops became popular (including Apple’s own PowerBooks), the whole notion of a desktop computer needing to be small felt outdated.

The Mac’s Eras Tour →

Jason Snell:

Before I started writing my piece on the Mac’s 40th anniversary for The Verge, I was thinking of different ways to plot out the arc of the Mac’s history. I ended up going with the fact that the Mac has been the underdog for most of its existence, but I also considered plotting the Mac’s history as defined by the Mac’s four distinct processor eras.