9

The term "1977 trinity" has been used, here on Retrocomputing SE and elsewhere, to refer to a set of three computers that started shipping in mid- to late-1977: the Apple II, the TRS-80 Model I and the Commodore PET 2001.

This kind of term does not seem to have been unusual; the Japanese had an almost identical one (allowing for cultural differences) by the early '80s: 「御三家」 (gosanke), referring to their trinity of the Hitachi Basic Master, Sharp MZ-80K and NEC PC-8001, released from late 1978 through mid-1979. (With the rise of 16-bit machines this term was later amended to 「8ビット御三家」, hachi-bitto gosanke.)

Wikipedia mentions the "1977 trinity" in several places, but their reference is to the web version of a BYTE magazine article from almost twenty years later: "Most Important Companies" (BYTE Vol 20 No 9, Sept. 1995, p.99). It says, under "Commodore International" (p.100),

But along with Apple and Tandy, it was one of the 1977 Trinity: the three companies who brought out ready-to-run PCs.

But I can't find any references to the term in contemporary issues of BYTE. Carl Helmers' column "Reflections on Entry into Our Third Year" (BYTE Vol 2 No 9, Sept. 1977, p.6) says,

The "appliance" computer, a complete system presented in an assembled and tested package is on the threshold of its ultimate dominance in the general purpose personal computer field: from the high end, moving down in price, we find products like the Apple-II and the Commodore PET 2001 machines....

The last half of 1977 represents the entry of several relatively large concerns into the marketplace, in the form of Heathkit this summer and Commodore soon to follow. Rumors have it that companies ranging from Atari...to Radio Shack and Texas Instruments are in the process of developing general purpose systems appropriate for personal computing uses.

No other computer, much less "trinity," is mentioned in BYTE's coverage of the PET announcement, "Commodore's New PET Computer" (BYTE Vol 2 No 10, Oct. 1977, p.50), or the TRS-80 announcement, "The TRS-80: Radio Shack's New Entry" (BYTE Vol 2 No 11, Nov. 1977, p.446).

A quick scan of the tables of contents of BYTE from September to December of that year shows nothing else that looks like it would mention this "trinity," either.

So was this term really first coined in 1995, or were people using it earlier?

cjs
  • 25,592
  • 2
  • 79
  • 179
  • 3
    I wouldn't wonder if it has been coined before the late 1980s - and even less widely used before the mid-90s. After all, it's a retrospect title. Them being the most successful wasn't clear until may years after their introduction. Just look at the contemporary magazines giving other systems way more publicity than either of the three. Of the three only Tandy was of (some) reputation. So while the question in itself isn't wrong and highlights contemporary vs. retrospect view, it is of the kind that can't have a definite answer - one the Stackexchange format is made for. – Raffzahn Sep 18 '19 at 11:29
  • 1
    @Raffzahn Of the "personal" computers up through 1977 that were marketed to the general public up and where you could just sit down and start typing programs into them, they weren't just the most successful ones, they were the only ones. That the term could have been coined long before the late 80s is shown by the Japanese coining a similar term by at least the early 80s, if not before. – cjs Sep 18 '19 at 11:37
  • 2
    And I disagree that it can't have a definite answer: just find publications that used it and cite them. That said, if you feel the question would be better worded as "what were the earliest uses" of the term, or "was it used before 1995," feel free to edit the question title. – cjs Sep 18 '19 at 11:38
  • 3
    A search of the Byte archive CD shows that the term wasn’t used there between January 1990 and the September 1995 issue quoted above. – Stephen Kitt Sep 18 '19 at 12:25
  • 7
    Terms like that are most typically only formed in retrospective - For a contemporary author, it was really impossible to tell that the three would have that long-lasting significance (and not only two of them, or a new, fourth one). Also note, the "trinity" was only valid on the US market. Europe or Japan were different, with Tandy's footprint, at least in continental Europe, close to zero and none at all in Japan. – tofro Sep 18 '19 at 13:14
  • 1
    @CurtJ.Sampson It seams a quite retroactive to say these three had in 1977 any reason to stand out. Even with not being present at that time, careful studies of contemporary papers will show many others have been seen as on par or even more promising. Think SOL or Compucolor II. Both failed due management reasons - not to mention The Digital Group, a company literally drowned in orders. It wasn't until the late 80s that history was seen as them plus S100 plus others ... and it wasn't until again much later that memory has been 'compacted' to see them as the only major players, worth a nickname – Raffzahn Sep 18 '19 at 13:23
  • @Raffzahn Please read the question more carefully: I quote a contemporary source showing that the Apple II and the PET stood out in 1977. – cjs Sep 18 '19 at 13:50
  • https://www.techspot.com/trivia/146-which-one-three-computers-not-part-1977-trinity/ points the finger on Byte magazine, but no clue about what year they coined the name. – UncleBod Sep 18 '19 at 15:46
  • @CurtJ.Sampson Come on, both cited examples are just the same type of article where in next to every Byte a system was presented. They are not in any way denoting a special position. Check the Heathkit systems in 8/77 or many others. Keep in mind, that was the time when every month a new system was introduced - often more than one. Each with its own USP and each incompatible with each other. It was a great time to experience. – Raffzahn Sep 18 '19 at 18:47
  • @Raffzahn "Both" cites? There are three contemporary citations. Oddly enough, you've chosen to completly ignore the one relevant to this discussion, even though it's the only one of the three contemporary citations actually quoted (and at length) in the question. At any rate, since you seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the question even after several rounds of comments, I suggest you contact me in chat if you need further clarification. – cjs Sep 19 '19 at 09:12
  • 5
    @Raffzahn I speak as somebody who remembers computers in the late 70's and early 80's because I was there. My parents bought a Pet (in 1980, I think). The Apple, Pet and TRS-80 definitely were considered the "big three" at the time. I have to admit t that I have never heard the term "Trinity" applied to them before. – JeremyP Sep 19 '19 at 09:27
  • 1
    @JeremyP Well, being there as well also makes me remember them as big as well plus other equally big. By looking at the numbers, they were even bigger. Does it fit your memory that Apple sold only ~600 IIs in 1977 and ~7500 in 1978? There were many other computers outselling them. By 1978 Processor Technology had sold more than 30.000. Similar numbers can be made for other machines. So, even having been there and still loving my II, I say the picture remembered and presented today is heavily distorted by nostalgia - nostalgia that started somewhere in the 1990's – Raffzahn Sep 19 '19 at 10:08
  • @CurtJ.Sampson you're citing two examples. But that's not the point, and trying to setup detail arguments isn't helpful. As already said, I do think the question is a wrong one and may help to get insight, but it doesn't fit the SE format. SE is all about finding a true answer to an exact issue - this isn't one to start with, as it is about an opinion. To me this, especially your quite angry comments, seams like you want to force your view out and have everyone to agree point on. SE is a bad place to do so. Here you will get information instead. All given in good faith and hope to help improve – Raffzahn Sep 19 '19 at 10:20
  • 2
    @Raffzahn Giving a citation of use of the term "1977 trinity" (or something similar) is certainly not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of verifable fact: either you have a citation others can read or you don't. I am also going to suggest that for questions on-topic enough that they attract no close votes at all, your attacks on them, rather than just answering or ignoring them, are not doing RC SE any good at all. – cjs Sep 19 '19 at 12:06
  • @Raffzahn "The big three" doesn't necessarily mean "the three that sold the most". I've no idea why everybody thought of them as the "big three". Maybe it came later in about 1980 or something but they were the "big three" for whatever reason. – JeremyP Sep 20 '19 at 08:55
  • That "trinity" really didn't exist outside US. There were significant differences in footprint, for example in Europe and Asia. – tofro Oct 17 '22 at 13:28
  • @tofro The trinity weren't big sellers in every country outside North America (not just the U.S.!), but I don't see what your point is about that.Those computers certainly did exist outside the U.S. (all three were sold in Japan, for example, and and at least two two had localised versions with katakana keyboards and display), and I do mention that there are similar "trinities" in other regions of the world. – cjs Oct 18 '22 at 00:24
  • @cjs Well, you can't really talk of a trinity when in certain countries there's only two of them. – tofro Oct 18 '22 at 06:55
  • @tofro A computer does not cease to exist just because a country decides not to import it. A "trinity," "御三家" or other grouping is clearly contextual and does not have to be available everywhere in the world for it to be a thing. – cjs Oct 18 '22 at 08:32
  • @cjs But a term does cease to apply when it doesn't fit the facts. And the question is about the term, not anything else. – tofro Oct 18 '22 at 13:32
  • 1
    @tofro I have no idea what you're getting at. There were clearly three computers released in 1977 that are now referred to by at least some people as the "1977 Trinity." This is indisputable. I just want to know when the term was first used. You seem to have nothing to contribute to this aim. – cjs Oct 18 '22 at 19:14

3 Answers3

7

The phrase "1977 Trinity" was not in common usage before 1995. It's a bit challenging to prove a negative, but if given how information was shared in those times, I'd expect to find that more than one magazine would have used it. All the references I can find come from publications after 1995, and all that refer to it say, "later referred to in Byte Magazine as..."

I think the term was invented (and therefore first used) in the Byte retrospective article in 1995.

user3486184
  • 771
  • 6
  • 13
  • It would be handy if you could tell us what you searched and give the references you did find. – cjs Oct 18 '22 at 06:19
5

Back in '77 no sane person would have claimed that the Apple and Commodore computers were part of a "trinity" of computers for use at "home". As a young person that loved technology I went and looked at all three machines as soon as they became available. The Apple machine was gorgeous but very expensive. In '78 they offered the machine in bundles and the bundle for students (32K with floppy disk drive and printer) cost as much as a brand new old stock base model Firebird. They were literally the same price so almost no one had an Apple ][ in their home. The P.E.T. cost about half that but still much too expensive for home use. The TRS-80 Micro Computer System was about half the cost of the P.E.T. and was the first machine to sell more than 100k units (Apple sold less than 8k units in the first two years). The MCSs were used in peoples' homes but were still quire rare. It wasn't until Commodore introduced the VIC-20 a few years later that computers began selling in the millions and became a common sight in homes. [Some people did not consider the VIC to be a "real" computer so in that case the C64 was the first computer to sell more than a million copies. No matter how you look at it Commodore was the first company to sell more than a million computers.] Comparing the corporate hype to reality It is clear that the "fake news" did not just start recently but has been going on for decades.

Murray B
  • 75
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
  • This does not address in any way the question about first use of the term. 2. Price or whether you consider something a "home" computer is not relevant to this. 3. Sales figures are not relevant to this, nor are the Trinity any less "appliance computers" for having higher or lower sales figures. 4. Issue you seem to have with "corporate hype" and "fake news" over early appliance microcomputers ...I can't even tell what it is, an imaginary grievance, I think?
    • – cjs Oct 16 '22 at 23:24
  • And not really relevant, given how off-topic this answer is anyway, but comparing an Apple II with many expensive accessories (drives and printer) to a PET or TRS-80 without these does not give a sense of relative prices, and the Disk II wasn't even available when the Apple II was first released. All three systems were first released in 4K memory configurations with cassette tape used for storage and the Apple II, while still more expensive in this configuration, also had features the others did not (such as colour graphics, sound, expansion slots and a switching PSU). – cjs Oct 16 '22 at 23:27
  • 1
    @cjs eliminating a lower bound is definitely quite useful. – RonJohn Oct 17 '22 at 06:28
  • 1
    This does not "eliminate a lower bound." The 5% of the post that even tangentially addresses the original question (though it seems more concerned about the term "home," a term never used in my question or those it quotes) is entirely unsubstantiated opinion. It's beyond me how this is getting so many votes. – cjs Oct 18 '22 at 00:10
  • Apple's first advertisement for the Apple II: https://www.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/a2original.jpg — note the headline is "The home computer that's ready to work, play and grow with you" (emphasis added). I don't want to get too far into it because @cjs is exactly right about relevance here, but $1298 in 1977 dollars is $6,382.21 today. – Tommy Oct 18 '22 at 02:38
  • 1
    @Tommy Right, and the Apple II was the most expensive of the three. The TRS-80 with a display and cassette recorder was $599 ($2,940 today) in the first RS computer catalogue (page 4; pages 1 and 5 both mention "home" uses of the computer); this is the same price as the stereo system on the cover of the RS catalogue from the same year. In 1977 all base model Pontiac Firebirds cost over $4000. – cjs Oct 18 '22 at 06:17
  • The term "trinity" is obviously false to anyone that experienced the period and must have been first used much later than 1977. There were very few Apple computers in homes at the time. The MSRP of the 1978 Toyota Corolla was $3,388. The June '78 Apple price list gives the price of an Apple ][ 32K with two floppy drives, monochrome monitor, and printer as $3285. With some accessories the computer cost more than the Corolla. The only one of the "trinity" that was purchased in significant numbers by non-technical users for personal use at home was the TRS-80 MCS. It was a "trinity" of one. – Murray B Oct 22 '22 at 21:47