How long will Bill Gates stand with us?
Is there a contract deciding how long M$ is going to support the macintosh platform? Maybe even if their contract runs out they will renew it because the mac platform is just another cash source.
Take a look at this 1997 historical moment.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/macintosh4"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/macintosh4</a>;
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
Take a look at this 1997 historical moment.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/macintosh4"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/macintosh4</a>;
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
Comments
<strong>They don't need a contract to develop Macintosh software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thnk they signed one in 1997 for a five year deal. They probably should continue to though, that is if they like being a monopoly with a heart.
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
Apple still has a larger worldwide market share than Linux, and now controls the world's 'Easiest to use UNIX based OS'. But I think Microsoft realizes that there will always be the 5-6% of us who will always buy a Mac. I have no plans to buy a Windows based PC, and no reason to either. I don't own anything that Microsoft has produced other than my XBox which I won. I have never spent a cent on a Microsoft product. I don't plan on it either.
We'll have to see what Microsoft will do when the 5 year agreement expires. A lot of people seem to think that the Mac platform can't survive without Office. We'll just have to wait and see I guess, but I don't think they will drop support for a while.
Besides, Bill obviously likes Apple. Why else would he have kept Apple afloat with that contract back in 97? If you will recall, Apple was sinking like the Titanic.
(office is making an effort to be legal on software--finally)
<strong>Oh, come on people. Of course Microsoft will continue development for Apple. They've said the MBU is very profitable.
Besides, Bill obviously likes Apple. Why else would he have kept Apple afloat with that contract back in 97? If you will recall, Apple was sinking like the Titanic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was under the impression that they kept Apple afloat back in 1997 not because they liked Apple, but because if Apple went under then it would be harder to convince the DOJ that they did not have a monopoly.
I had no idea his intentions were upstanding! To think I thought Bill and Co. were an underhanded bunch....all along they were just trying to be helpful to us and make SOHO computing easier for Mac users! Wow...
[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>...but because if Apple went under then it would be harder to convince the DOJ that they did not have a monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe... but I remember very clearly that in the documents published in the DOJ trial, Apple was pointed out as not being competition with Microsoft. If not to keep Apple as "competition" for the trial, why else??
<strong>
Maybe... but I remember very clearly that in the documents published in the DOJ trial, Apple was pointed out as not being competition with Microsoft. If not to keep Apple as "competition" for the trial, why else??</strong><hr></blockquote>
pointed out by whom? Microsoft or DOJ? i can't remember
<strong>pointed out by whom? Microsoft or DOJ? i can't remember</strong><hr></blockquote>IIRC (of course, it has been a long time) the judge declined to consider Apple a real competitor in the same market as Microsoft. I remember this so well because the online community was making a big fuss about it.
Maybe someone else can shad some more light on it?
<strong>IIRC (of course, it has been a long time) the judge declined to consider Apple a real competitor in the same market as Microsoft. I remember this so well because the online community was making a big fuss about it.
Maybe someone else can shad some more light on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
well then if it wasn't Microsoft saying this, and it was only the judge that didn't consider Apple as a competitor, then Microsoft could have still bailed Apple out, hoping that Apple would be a competitor, but not knowing that they weren't?
if that made sense.
<strong>
If not to keep Apple as "competition" for the trial, why else??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Simply to make money. I read a few months back that Microsoft had unloaded all of the Apple shares it bought in 1997. If they timed the sale right (and I'm sure they did), they got a nice return on their investment.
Escher