New Zealand Bits & Bytes Interview with Wozniak (1985)

The inside story on the Apple IIc, Apple III, and more

March and April 1985 issues of Bits & Bytes from New Zealand

I haven’t been able to get an article published for a couple of weeks, so I planned to post two articles today. While searching for a particular ad, I ran into something more interesting. Back in 1985, the New Zealand magazine Bits & Bytes published an interview with Steve Wozniak over two issues. I know that it’s not an ad, but I just could not resist publishing it. Let me know in the comments if you would like more special posts like this. Enjoy

---

The Wozniak interview

In 1976, Steve Wozniak, along with collaborator Steve Jobs, hocked a Hewlett-Packard programmable calculator and a Volkswagen van to build the world's first practical microcomputer in a garage, so creating the Apple II legend. And a good deal of the Silicon Valley legend to boot. (Pun intended).

Wozniak, the technical genius behind the development, visited New Zealand last December at the invitation of the Wellington Apple User Club, to attend a champagne breakfast.

Bits & Bytes correspondent John MacGibbon, who also edits the Wellington club's newsletter, lured Wozniak with an offbeat letter inviting him to the breakfast "on behalf of our 100-plus members, the other 2,199,900 New Zealanders, and our 60 million sheep".

Travelling here was to be at Wozniak's own expense, but he was promised free breakfast.

The Wozniak response: "How could I turn down the opportunity to attend a genuine hacker-mode breakfast in a Pizza Hut in New Zealand."

"Woz", spoke for more than two hours among the pizzas, telling tales that included early days in Silicon Valley, the development of Apple Inc, electronic pranks and phone phreaking with Captain Crunch.

John MacGibbon was also able to tape an exclusive interview with Wozniak:

Apple's problem years

MacGibbon: The other day, you were talking about the Apple III taking 90% of the company effort for 3% of the income. Were those the figures?

Wozniak: Three per cent of the income — easily 90% of the creation efforts. Maybe more.

MacGibbon: What years were those?

Wozniak: 1980 to 1983, the years when the Apple II was our largest selling computer. Those days, we had no ads for Apple IIs. If you looked at all the dealer promotions, it was all Apple III. All of our internal product development was Apple III. Our staff all had Apple IIIs on their desks — no Apple lis. We paid our people to write for computer magazines, and gave them twice as much per word to write about the Apple III.

All we put out for the Apple II was Logo and Pilot, because they were in its small game, home, education, hobby market. We did not develop those. We basically just bought them and got them into shape for shipping, with minimal development.

To the outside world's mind, you could use the Apple II for almost anything. Everyone kept trying to use the Apple II for business purposes and add more to it: plug-in cards, more memory, every spreadsheet you could buy. You could also buy cards to plug in — have a megabyte of memory. They got hard disks onto it somehow, and they got operating systems, and they added all the things they wanted.

We should have looked at the users: what they wanted, where they were trying to take the machine was the indication of where we should have supported it. And we didn't.

We had the Apple III positioned as our business machine, and never paid attention to the fact it was always going to be such a small percentage of our sales. We should have diverted our resources to supporting the Apple II. Even the Apple lie development came

about only as an undercover operation by a manager and an engineer within the Apple II division.

MacGibbon: Even if Apple had got behind the II at that stage, and if the III hadn't had such a disastrous start, do you think the IBM PC's drive would have been significantly blunted?

Wozniak: I actually believe that if the III had been done right, then it would have been the choice of the higher capability community — instead of the PC. I also think if in the early days we had admitted the Apple III hadn't taken off right, and instead focused on the Apple II as a higher end business and office solution, we could have given it (the Apple II) a larger share of the market. We could have put in a lot of the things the market considered important.

MacGibbon: Once you ironed out the Apple III's technical problems, it turned out a pretty good machine, didn't it?

Wozniak: It's an excellent machine except for openness. We didn't say enough about it — how it works, documentation, use this when you want to, go try this. You know, let users find their own solutions. We sort of said no. We said we're so brilliant, we created such a perfect solution. Engineering said "we don't want anybody tampering with this and doing all the random things that are almost impossible to support".

MacGibbon: How important has been the appointment of John Scully (ex Pepsi Cola) as president, in the turnaround in Apple's fortunes?

Wozniak: The new president wasn't tied to a lot of the sacred cow projects. He came in, looked things over very quickly and realised the Apple III was a small percentage of our income, and all of our expenses. He refocused a lot of energy on the Apple II and it's starting to take place.

The most inspirational person in the world is Steve Jobs. He is very brilliant, spotted a lot of the answers and has created an incredible new technology product — the Macintosh — rather than just follow in the IBM footsteps. John Scully is heavily behind that and giving support above it.

The company image from this point on will be associated with Macintosh. It gives us higher credibility, although it's still a smaller percentage of our unit sales.

MacGibbon: Apple's stocks are still pretty volatile, aren't they?

Wozniak: They go up and down wildly because we've been a company with only one product the (Apple II) that ever made money. The value of Apple stock has varied nearly six to one in a six-month time frame. There were periods a little over a year ago when the American community, the press, were pretty much predicting Apple's demise, and the stock went from 30 to 20 in one day. But a year and a half ago, it was down to 11 . A little less than a year ago, it was up to $63.

It varies so greatly because it's been a very unpredictable future for a company with only one product that's selling. Now we're in a little healthier shape in that we have two products selling.

The company's future is still at risk. The whole personal computer business is. It's a very difficult business when you're trying to tailor products to the mass consumer market.

Eventually it will become less a creation battle, and just an efficient manufacturing battle. And the Japanese have a lead there.

MacGibbon: Already?

Wozniak: Whenever it comes down to efficient manufacturing, America's tended to fall into second place.

Macintosh

MacGibbon: Didn't the manufacturing techniques in the Macintosh plant borrow from the Japanese?

Wozniak: They attempted to. There was a lot of hype. For example, the major automation features of the Macintosh factory actually didn't work. So we took'em out and put in people rolling carts around. The challenges are very difficult when you're doing it for the first time. We're almost breaking new ground with that factory.

MacGibbon: Is the Macintosh Apple's saviour?

Wozniak: Steve Jobs makes a lot of enemies everywhere in the company, so almost everyone in the Apple II division, every manager right up to the division management, thought Macintosh was taking away a lot of what they had to work with. It was getting all the attention and dollars and focus. Pretty much the opinion at the executive level was that Macintosh was still a risky project.

The people who were actually working on Macintosh, knew what a great computer it was. They knew it was the one they'd want in their own lives, as computer people. They felt Steve Jobs was saving the company, and pretty much that's what it seemed like to me too. The product was accepted as a winner and took off when it came out. It was accepted as a good computer. Almost nobody has bad things to say about it, other than maybe it's not quite the computer for them.

MacGibbon: People have wondered if the mouse is such a wonderful thing...

Wozniak: If I were in control of these decisions, and I'm obviously not, I would have said, sure a mouse is great for a lot of things. But boy, if you allow options, everyone uses them and swears by them. So everyone I've ever heard I totally agree with — we should have had arrow keys as well as the mouse.

I personally find — even with word processors — that if there is a mouse available, I just will not want to use the arrows, even when they're available, as they are on my IIc. But you should still leave in a lot of options and simplifications. We should always allow a good flexible range of shortcuts.

MacGibbon: I certainly prefer to keep my hands on the keyboard when word processing — I don't like having to use the mouse to move the cursor around.

Wozniak: Almost everywhere I go, people say that. It might just be because the mouse stands out as a big difference factor. People who use the mouse all the time wind up swearing by it. But people who've done the most computer science or word processing, using all the fanciest, editors that have ever been done, for instance under the UNIX environment, pretty much hate the mouse. They'd rather build in a lot of other more flexible ways of doing things.

MacGibbon: What else do people ask you about the Macintosh?

Wozniak: The biggest questions are whether there's a colour Mac on the way, or why there aren't any slots. It turns out that just because you can define the perfect machine, with everything built in, it doesn't hurt to leave a couple of slots, or an expansion bus coming out the side, like IBM did with their PCjr. It doesn't hurt. Boy - it buys you the future.

MacGibbon; Is there a colour Mac coming?

Wozniak: If there were, I couldn't talk about it.

MacGibbon: How much memory do you think the Mac will eventually have?

Wozniak: I think the Macintosh will be around as a major competitor for probably 10 years. In 10 years, I expect that with the cost of memory falling so drastically, you'll automatically have enough memory in a personal computer to have dictionaries on-line, your major applications on-line. I think it will end up being four megabytes at the end of that time frame. Fortunately everything that's been written on Macintosh can work on four magabytes, just because of the operating system handling it.

MacGibbon: With a four megabyte Macintosh, what's the point of a Lisa?

Wozniak: There are levels of software sophistication Macintosh still has attain, to do some things as well or as unified as Lisa does. It's possible Lisa could be replaced, because Macintosh could wind up being a better computer for less than half the price. When that's the case, it will be just Macintosh.

MacGibbon: What's beyond the Macintosh?

Wozniak: Pretty much we don't think in terms of every year we've got to come up with some new computer to hook the world on as a standard. We've got two good sellers now - the Apple II and the Macintosh. A lot of the improvements are really going to be in software. For example, a better AppleWorks could be a major improvement in everyone's life. You don't necessarily have to invent a new computer based on a new processor to achieve improvements.

Apple II

MacGibbon: How is the new Apple IIc going?

Wonziak: It's still a little new. I figure you've got to give it some time before it reaches its final level. Initial sales were really not what we expected at all. We converted our main factory over to produce lies that we thought everyone would buy, and because our users didn't switch their purchase tendencies immediately, we wound up with 100,000 back orders on lies and 100,000 lies in a warehouse. It cost us heavily, because they were basically sales that we won't make up.

The IIc has bounced back though. What happened was that the dealers couldn't get IIes, so they had to find a way to make money. They found out how to sell the IIc.

Like — both computers are Apple IIs. They both run the same software, they both are very compatible. I wish they were more so, because it really stands out. We should always treat our Apple IIs as members of the same family and very compatible. We should not pretend the IIc is such a totally different computer. Basically, we created the whole world over instead of working it into the family.

MacGibbon: What is the chief advantage of the IIc?

Wozniak: I claim its advantage is that it's pre-built — not that it's small and lightweight. People are not going to carry their computer back and forth, day after day for years. No, No, No, you get to a point that very few people are ever going to need the portability.

It's just that it's pre-assembled. The printer port's built-in, the modem port's built in, the floppy disk is built in, the mouse is built in. You don't have to plug in the cards, read the manuals, figure out how to do it, open the boxes, connect the cables, set the dip switches. But it turns out that's not incompatible with having slots, for the easiest and simplest peripherals.

We had one program at one time that doesn't exist any more, called the llx, and it had both: built-in and slots.

MacGibbon: Is there any possibility at all of adding CP/M to the IIc as a peripheral?

Wozniak: No. Not feasible. But the thing is, if you're going to have a computer that winds up just sitting in one place and not being used for carryability, buy a IIe. I mean, with the He, you're basically safe for anything that ever comes out in the future.

Enhancements, any plug-in cards with more memory, higher speed, better processors: any of that stuff will work on a IIe, and you're safe. It's too bad we didn't build a little more in for you to save the first two hours of hassle.

MacGibbon: Do you regret not putting the 3.5in Sony drive in the lie?

Wozniak: No, because it wasn't around in sufficient quantity at the time the decision was made.

MacGibbon, If you did it now, would you put in the Sony drive?

Wozniak: No question. The current philosophies of the company, largely driven by Steve Jobs, are tending towards a more simple, unified approach where, for instance, one printer works across all our family of computers. One plotter for all of them. One interconnect scheme for monitors, one modem for all.

We would certainly prefer to have only one type of disk drive. We wouldn't have to stock so many parts around Apple.

MacGibbon: But then you'd have incompatibility with your older II series.

Wozniak: Yes, but only for a crossover durtion. You sometimes have to improve your technology capability and have the two of them side by side for a while. It can cause problems, but it can be thought out and dealt with during that time.

MacGibbon: Will you move to a 3.5in drive for the IIc?

Wozniak: That's our intention.

MacGibbon: Would you do a retrofit for existing IIcs?

Wozniak: There are a lot of outs. Obviously if you built a 3.5in drive in, you'd want to plug a 5.25in drive in too. And vice-versa. If you plug a disk drive into the IIc's external slot, that could theoretically be a 3.5in, if we designed it to do that. We've used the same controller chip that Macintosh uses, controlling the disk. So we could easily run a 3.5in, with its additional capabilities and dual density.

But it's interesting, and I'm not sure if it's in the manuals, that if you type "PR#7", the IIc boots from the plugged-in drive, not from the built-in. That was a very clever thing, and I don't know why we never told anyone. It was originally put in very thoughtfully by some of the firmware people, on the grounds of not knowing yet where we were going.

MacGibbon: Do you see a large market for peripherals that plug into the serial ports?

Wozniak: They'll be slower in coming than peripherals were in the old days. You've got to do the plastics and the cabling and you've got to receive signals out of serial ports and convert them to whatever format you need. It's not as easy as plugging onto a processor bus with card. Those were the simplest, quickest ones to design in the early days.

But fortunately it's a new computer. It's perceived as a newer market by developers, and let's jump in and do something we know how to do and get it onto this machine. It's one of the machines that's been accepted, and that will help. Development time will be a little longer because it's got to be a larger investment.

Apple of the future

MacGibbon: The IIc has the new 65C02 microprocessor and changes in ROM. Will the Me get these as a retrofit?

Wozniak: It would be reasonable to expect it, but I can't guarantee it.

MacGibbon: Would such a retrofit make the IIc fully compatible with a IIe?

Wozniak: Much more. Until the ROMs are identical they cannot be exactly identical. There's a mouse built into the IIc, and special addresses got assigned to operate it. If you look at it from an engineering point of view, it's hard to imagine that we would go to those extents — or that we could — without messing up the joystick on the IIe. You can never make anything totally identical. Just closer.

MacGibbon: So there could be software written for the IIc that will never run on a IIe?

Wozniak: I don't think it would be done by Apple. For example, we came out with a mouse card for the He at the same time as the IIc was released. And we built in standard entry points for subroutine calls, and we said as long as you use only these entry points the way we document them, it will work on a IIc or a IIe identically.

However, someone outside Apple could work on software products that work on only one of the products. They could do funny calls to operating systems, to undocumented entry points in the ROMs. Then if we ever do a ROM change for improvements, we didn't know about their product and it would possibly not work. We go through that all the time. But the computers are reasonably compatible.

MacGibbon: What price would a retrofit be?

Wozniak: I don't know. But you could probably make your own estimates though. What you've got to change is pretty much differences in the ROMs: ROMs that are easily replaceable, or we introduce some mouse-text characters in one character generation ROM, we have better 80-column handling firmware and we have some interrupt handling firmware in the monitor ROMs, and its got the 65C02 processor. The total price on five or six chips is not that great.

MacGibbon: Surely a lot would depend on what Apple decided to charge for the software contained in those ROMs.

Wozniak: Exactly. But we might be trying to ease the whole world for the future, and try to get to one compatible standard rather than two...

MacGibbon: What built-in memory is the Apple Me likely to move up to beyond the extended 80-column card's 128K?

Wozniak: You would not believe. I'm fighting so hard for them to support many megabytes. In the easiest and cleanest ways, you have to have an operating system that supports it. Then you've got to wait a while until applications start getting developed to utilise that much memory. But once an application gets developed with a new operating system that can handle it, we have to come up with a standard for how the memory's banked in — and it might be we just use the 65816, 16-bit 6502 processor. It has the 6502 built-in plus the addressibility of 16 megabytes. I think that's the cleanest way.

MacGibbon: And that could be put into an existing IIe?

Wozniak: It could be plugged into an existing IIe, II Plus or II. As odd as it sounds, we could go back and finally bring our oldest owners up into the world.

MacGibbon: Could you put it into a IIc?

Wozniak: No. But there are other schemes for adding just memory and modifying applications like Appleworks, to effectively utilise it. Modify LOGO or BASIC or Pascal to utilise more memory.

But the final clean solution that will get all the developers on line is: "Here is a solution for memory addition, here is the appropriate way that we intend to support with an operating system". And then they'll write applications. Say if you have a 64K machine, it uses 64K. If you have a one megabyte machine, it uses all one megabyte.

MacGibbon: Appleworks would certainly benefit from the extra memory. The spreadsheet alone gives you far more cells than memory available to support them.

Wozniak: Right. And also the database portion of it. There really are occasions when you want a megabyte or more for keeping a list. It would be so wonderful if Appleworks had a megabyte.

MacGibbon: How far into the future are we looking for the Apple II 16-bit development?

Wozniak: I can't say. Believe it or not, there's no work going on in our project, no design quite yet. It's getting closer, and I'm pushing for it.

But the funny thing is, we've had designs completed to breadboard stage in the past for that processor. Trouble is, you have to get the right partitioning where everything comes together and makes sense. The computer has to come out very sleek, very high performance. It really has to do the job we want, easily and supportably. You can run up against a bunch of roadblocks, but we're working on some new...trying to break through now. Because we want to present in the way that it will be around for five to 10 years.

MacGibbon: Could it happen, say within two years, or is it further down the track?

Wozniak: No, no, no! If it's further down the track, that's ridiculous once the processor is here.

The trouble is, if we start a new machine from scratch now, we need new plastics, new ergonomics, new everything. You know we'd have to redesign it, do all the software, do all the testing, to get it into high volume production. You're talking a minimum of a year and a half from now for delivery.

If we come up with simpler solutions, just like a plug-in card, that looks like a co-processor, but does some amazing magic things that you don't notice until you use it. That could possibly be done in a time frame approaching eight months starting from scratch.

MacGibbon: Just need the decision to do it.

Wozniak: Right. And there's pretty much some agreements going on now. We might have hit a good partitioning. I can't talk about specific details, but every once in a while you just click onto something that makes a lot more sense than what you were doing before.

I'm trying to do my best, along with everyone else, to help make the right decisions. Even before, when we had a lot of high performance built into a product wth a 16-bit processor, the computer side of me sort of liked a lot of these things, but to the programming side of me, it just didn't make sense. You know sometimes you've got to give up something, even if it's the neatest processor in the world. If it's not cleanly supportable, in the end, forget it.

MacGibbon: Has Apple any intention of competing against the low end — the Commodore 64/Atari type computers?

Wozniak: We try to provide useful products that we feel pay for themselves in the home. And the only way a Commodore or an Atari seems to pay for itself — because of the image of those companies and their products, not the technical capabilities of the products - is in games and entertainment, learning processing and writing a few routines. But those are all entertainment. They're not really used as a business tool in the home.

We tend to sit in a middle ground: the high end of the home, low end of business. We don't have any competition there, if you really think about it. The lower end products below us never really got an image for productivity tools; the higher ones up above us have more capability through technology — the amount of memory for example.

A 'living piece of history'

MacGibbon: It's popular to say that the Apple has been expanded far beyond what you had ever conceived. Have you been surprised at the things that have been done with the Apple II?

Wozniak: Yes, because at first I thought I was some rare person trying to do all these neat things so simply, with a neat elegant machine of my own. Now there are a million people who are that brilliant and doing those things. Everybody who got into our code wound up knowing more about it than I did, even though I wrote it! It's a little shocking to all of a sudden see that I'm nowhere near first class as far as design is concerned. The only thing I've got left is my own style.

When we first came out with the Apple II, we thought that all we'd sell was 4K. That was all anyone ever needed, to learn how to program games in BASIC. That was learning computers. They could run a little colour program that could teach them maths addition on the screen. We figured that in the home it would store recipes and keep track of your cheque book. You know, tasks that are ridiculous for a computer to do. Really. Our first-ever colour ad showed a person working his cheque book in front of the computer.

Oddly enough, we did the floppy disk almost by accident to make that program feasible. It was a personal project of Mike Markkula (Markkula was the first person Wozniak and Steve Jobs added to the team as marketing manager). The cassette tape was too slow, so the floppy disk came about almost by accident.

It turned out the market started going towards business, especially when VisiCalc came out. We got new perceptions: the market told us what it wanted, rather than us guessing. It was too scattered in the early days. We had no idea where it really would go. And when it finally settled down in a business direction, it was much different than we predicted.

MacGibbon: In some ways you're regarded as a living piece of Silicon Valley history. The guy who started it all off in the garage. How do you react to that attitude toward you, wherever you go?

Wozniak: There were a lot of people talking about, you know, little technical freaks, kind of like myself. You know, not businessmen. They were always talking about what you could do with a home computer of your own, but it was always "build it yourself".

I was into slick engineering designs. I know I had a good part of everything. With the Apple II, it was the first time ever for a plastic case, first time ever BASIC went in ROM, first time ever we had 48K bytes of RAM built in, the first time with colour, the first time with graphics, the first time with game paddles and sound. It was like so many things had never been done in a low-cost computer. All built into a small board. So it was radically different from all the computers that preceded it. It set the path for the future.

I played a very technical role, and Steve Jobs played a very important product role, as far as thinking about what we need to build a product for - for thousands of people if not millions.

MacGibbon: What is your current position at Apple?

Wozniak: Engineer. Just a logic designer, programmer, whatever comes my way. I pretty much don't have time to actually do any of that yet. But I'm trying to. Even right now, I'm trying to design a board.

I also participate in some lower levels of management within the Apple II division. Pretty much from the level of an owner of the company, some more global perspective than an engineer trying to prove he's clever and can think of a neat thing to add in. Sometimes an engineer loses a bit of common sense because they're not users.

MacGibbon: You said you are also an Apple fellow. What does that involve?

Wozniak: I never got a letter from Apple to tell me officially what it means. I can attend board meetings if I want. I think I could probably get a budget to work on some independent projects. But I can do that in Apple or at home as much as I wish anyway.

MacGibbon: What computers do you have in your own home?

Wozniak: An IBM PC I bought the first week it was out, Breadboards of Apple Is and our early Apple Ms. I probably have an Apple II in the house somewhere. I've got an Apple II Plus, a Number of Apple lies and lies, a Macintosh, Lisa, the Grid Compass and a Data General One. On my desk at work, I have a Macintosh and an Apple II. Those are really the only two I use.

MacGibbon: What do you use most?

Wozniak: An Apple II. You know you get familiar with one, and you just use it for ever. You just want one that does the job satisfactorily and you know why it does it. Computers are not like hi-fis where it's real easy to change.

MacGibbon: What five disks would you take to a desert island?

Wozniak: First of all, I would punch holes in the disks to use the back sides. And I would use the back sides as my initial blank disk portion.

I would not take Appleworks if I'm stuck on a desert island. I'd waste a whole disk, and all I could do was keep track of the rest of my software, which after all is only on five disks.

I wouldn't take Pascal because it takes up two disks. I would want some mathematical functions like logarithms, cosines and sines to help me in my own little mathematical explorations and games, numerical research and the like. I might take MagiCalc to assist me in that. I've already got Applesoft in the computer, right?

I would load up, as tightly as I could, my favourite games onto a couple of disks, using both sides. As many games as I could. I would not waste precious disk resource on long adventure games. Not even on one disk.

I'm sorry. In the end I've got to take Pascal. I've got to take it for development purposes. Or Forth. I'd try somehow to merge in Pascal and Forth, and DOS.

I don't think I'd take Locksmith!

MacGibbon: Do you play games much?

Wozniak: No, believe it or not, I'm the sort of person who will get an occasional game and get addicted to it, and I'll play that game heavily for the next two or three years. But I don't take up games very often, because I prefer a game I can get into on a many-month basis.

MacGibbon: What's your all-time favourite Apple arcade game?

Wozniak: Choplifter. Dung Beetles was good. Sabotage I loved when it first came out. You shot planes out of the sky back and forth, and I wore every paddle out that I ever got in my hands.

MacGibbon: Do you play adventure games?

Wozniak: No. I don't have time. Anything I know is going to take a hundred hours, I don't even bother starting, although at the Olympics I had a two-week vacation and actually did work my way through an adventure game called Secret Agent. It was just about the right timing for my stay there. Of course, I've got a kid too, so I only had a few hours a day to play it.

MacGibbon: Are you pessimistic about the future in terms of things like nuclear issues?

Wozniak: Not at all. If I really started to think about the future, I'd think about the past, and I'd say, what has any technology or anything we've ever got in millions of years of existence done for us? And I'd have to say nothing! Nothing!

Are we one bit happier than the guy who lived a million years ago? On the average day, are we happier or sadder? He had as good a life as we have. We just always want to feel that by understanding things we will get happier, but we never do. And not only does our technology create understandings of things, which might make us a little more content, but it creates things like nuclear bombs. But I'm not going to load my mind down.

I decided 15 years ago that anything that was going to lead me into an unhappy life of my own, I didn't want to know about. I read the right books back then, although I don't even remember what they were.

I don't want to wake up every morning with a list of 10 major things that are bothering me. I won't let anything bother me. So I'm one of the happiest people you'll ever find on the planet.

---

What computer ads would you like to see in the future? Please comment below. If you enjoyed, please share with your friends and relatives. Thank you.