Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
Who knows? Steve was pretty careless in those days -- that's why he was forced out. Also, the reality is, we don't know if Apple could have successfully defended the "look and feel" of the MacOS even without the existence of the license agreement. From what I have read about this suit, the license may have contributed to the dismissal of the suit, but wasn't the only reason why it did not succeed.
Incidentally, when Steve settled another long-running patent dispute with Microsoft in 1997, a lot of pundits were sure that he'd sold Apple down the river. Sometimes these things are not what they appear to be.
Who knows? Steve was pretty careless in those days -- that's why he was forced out. Also, the reality is, we don't know if Apple could have successfully defended the "look and feel" of the MacOS even without the existence of the license agreement. From what I have read about this suit, the license may have contributed to the dismissal of the suit, but wasn't the only reason why it did not succeed.
Incidentally, when Steve settled another long-running patent dispute with Microsoft in 1997, a lot of pundits were sure that he'd sold Apple down the river. Sometimes these things are not what they appear to be.
Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.
And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.
And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
This is turning into a real stroll down memory lane.
We never really did know what was in dispute between the two companies, but it seemed to be related to QuickTime code that Microsoft had allegedly stolen. Again, an issue that was never tested in court, so we know only that allegations were being made -- quite possibly in both directions. I give Steve credit for turning what could have been a protracted legal battle (with uncertain results) into a publicity coup, at a time when Apple needed positive press more than anything. What they gave up we'll never know for certain, but we can chart Apple's turnaround right from that moment to this. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Steve and Bill were hammering out that deal.
Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.
And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
Apple was still worth billions and could easily have gotten such a trial amount (relatively speaking) if they needed it. It looks it would have been down for a couple different reasons. They were non-voting shares. The investment locked MS in for x amount of time, which I think they sold at a time when they really didn?t make a profit from them. Imagine what they would be worth today. It gave other investors hope that Apple was restructuring and that a company like MS was behind them. I recall a keynote after Jobs return with Gates on the big screen assuring everyone that MS Office for Mac would continue.
It was really worse then that. Apple trusted and brought Microsoft on board the Macintosh project early on in the Macintosh development process. Apple needed Office software when the Mac shipped. When Gates understood Apple wasn't going to offer the OS for IBM based PCs, he saw an opportunity to undermine Apple for it's gain. He told his team to start using all the confidential information he was getting from Apple that was giving for Application development, to start working on Windows.
Right before the Mac was set to ship, Gates threatened to not ship any applications unless Apple agreed to license parts of the GUI to it under the guise of using these elements for PC applications. That would have thrown a real wrench into Apple's ability to sell the Mac, and set it back years to get somebody else to develop similar applications. .
Some really interesting perspectives on the matter can be found here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software. Since Microsoft was just about the only major developer of Mac software at the time, this was a pretty substantial threat. Apple thought this license only extended to the version of Windows Microsoft was developing at the time (2.0) but later a court ruled that it also applied to Windows 3.0. This all came to light when Apple sued Microsoft in the "look and feel" case. The suit was dismissed in part because of the license, but we don't know if it would have succeeded without it.
The reactions from the audience as Steve announced the various aspects of the Microsoft partnership are so interesting, especially when seen from today's perspective. Certainly the pundit consensus was "Bill wins again" -- because of course, "Bill always wins" was the way the industry was understood at the time. But I think when you consider all that has transpired since, it's hard to view it that way. Even at the time, I think it was clear that Steve had pulled off something quite stunning.
It was really worse then that. Apple trusted and brought Microsoft on board the Macintosh project early on in the Macintosh development process.
I'm not sure how much worse it is the way you describe the situation, compared to the way I described it -- but the truth of the matter is that company after company discovered painfully that they could not trust Microsoft as a partner. Some went into their partnerships more aware of the perils and better protected than others. I think Apple might have been the first company to really get the better of Microsoft in the 1997 deal. I'm not sure Bill would say he'd take it back now if he could, but I'm quite certain that he never expected Apple to emerge as the powerhouse it is today.
The reactions from the audience as Steve announced the various aspects of the Microsoft partnership are so interesting, especially when seen from today's perspective. Certainly the pundit consensus was "Bill wins again" -- because of course, "Bill always wins" was the way the industry was understood at the time. But I think when you consider all that has transpired since, it's hard to view it that way. Even at the time, I think it was clear that Steve had pulled off something quite stunning.
Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the ?boos?. The news of the non-voting shares got a big approval, as it should.
Another good one to watch is the original iPod introduction. People in the audience didn?t get it. Not that I did either. I had no interest in an iPod until the Mini was introduced.
Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the ?boos?. The news of the non-voting shares got a big approval, as it should.
The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
And yet there still seem to a false consensus that MS saved Apple by giving them $150M. The booing was a very juvenile. I can't imagine doing that in that same setting. That wasn't the Apollo Theater, was it?
REASON----simple, they were a shell for other pc makers i hope as time goes by that apple finds out
the SHREDDING MACHINES WILL WORK OVERTIME TONIGHT
now what
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.
Their resilience in the face of clearly not acting like a real company in any way that matters to a successful PC manufacturer certainly seems to have "stalking horse" written all over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
As if no judge has ever essentially "rewritten" a law by the judge's "interpretation" of it.
We're talking about tribal naked apes a few evolutionary pico-seconds off being chased by predators around the Serengeti here while they were inventing language on the side. Human institutions are rudimentary when held up against some abstract notion of objectivity. And the phrase the "majesty of the law" still implies being subject to the whims of Kings.
But we do muddle through.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage. The end user is the winner here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they f***ing hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Psystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base. In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
Just another thought that 99.99% won't happen, but it strikes me there's a middle path Apple could take that would diversify their model base, sales network, etc. Rather than the Sculley clone model, or the strictly mod model which has resulted in a few ruggedized Mac notebooks and a tablet or two, Apple could selectively license Apple-approved designs and sell/resell companies not only OS X, but the Mobo and other key components as well - with the modding confined to things like form factors, opening up, e.g., a mid-sized tower, and like the App Store, final designs aproved by the mother ship.
That way Apple would still be making their traditional margins on hardware and software, keeping the key parts within their own expertise, and ensuring (through their markups on the sold and licensed bits) that the machines could not be sold profitably at prices that would steal sales from Apple's own SKU's and we could have MMMT's, Maxi-Minis, Matte-Macs, etc.
Not holding my breath - just blue skying for the hell of it. Plenty of reasons to pooh-pooh. E.g., how would these Apple/other hybrids be badged? And of course these tethered and compliant "partners" would always have the fear that success with a design could be supplanted by Apple deciding to produce that form factor in house...... ....anyway, next topic.....
And yet there still seem to a false consensus that MS saved Apple by giving them $150M. The booing was a very juvenile. I can't imagine doing that in that same setting. That wasn't the Apollo Theater, was it?
If you read back to the articles run at the time, the general consensus seemed to be that Apple had been saved by Microsoft, a myth that persists to this day. This really reflects the other consensus in play at the time, which is that Bill never loses. This view came for some good reason -- Microsoft was incredibly dominant in those years, and few thought it should be any different. Still this meant that many had such a hard time seeing the deal any other way than yet another big win for Bill.
As for the booing (and cheering), partisanship was so much a part of MacWorld during these years. I attended many of the keynotes in the late '90s and it was always more tent revival than trade show. Mac fans hardly even met another Mac fan except at these events. People who attended knew what side they were on, the embattled one. It was a bit of a bunker mentality, but still, MacWorld was really a lot more fun in those days. By the mid-2000s it felt like only a trade show.
See Article1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the consititution
That clause only give Congress the right to create Copyright laws the details would fall under other parts. For example one could argue that the extension of old copyrights is a violation of Article I section 9.
Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the ?boos?.
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.
Comments
Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.
If anyone is power mad, it's Jobs.
Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
Who knows? Steve was pretty careless in those days -- that's why he was forced out. Also, the reality is, we don't know if Apple could have successfully defended the "look and feel" of the MacOS even without the existence of the license agreement. From what I have read about this suit, the license may have contributed to the dismissal of the suit, but wasn't the only reason why it did not succeed.
Incidentally, when Steve settled another long-running patent dispute with Microsoft in 1997, a lot of pundits were sure that he'd sold Apple down the river. Sometimes these things are not what they appear to be.
Who knows? Steve was pretty careless in those days -- that's why he was forced out. Also, the reality is, we don't know if Apple could have successfully defended the "look and feel" of the MacOS even without the existence of the license agreement. From what I have read about this suit, the license may have contributed to the dismissal of the suit, but wasn't the only reason why it did not succeed.
Incidentally, when Steve settled another long-running patent dispute with Microsoft in 1997, a lot of pundits were sure that he'd sold Apple down the river. Sometimes these things are not what they appear to be.
Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.
And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.
And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
This is turning into a real stroll down memory lane.
We never really did know what was in dispute between the two companies, but it seemed to be related to QuickTime code that Microsoft had allegedly stolen. Again, an issue that was never tested in court, so we know only that allegations were being made -- quite possibly in both directions. I give Steve credit for turning what could have been a protracted legal battle (with uncertain results) into a publicity coup, at a time when Apple needed positive press more than anything. What they gave up we'll never know for certain, but we can chart Apple's turnaround right from that moment to this. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Steve and Bill were hammering out that deal.
Well, I do wonder if Apple really needed the $150 million investment other than for political reasons.
And of course, where would MS be today if they couldn't get around Apple's video patents? People forget that until MS had Apple's software, they couldn't play video properly. It was a major problem for them.
Apple was still worth billions and could easily have gotten such a trial amount (relatively speaking) if they needed it. It looks it would have been down for a couple different reasons. They were non-voting shares. The investment locked MS in for x amount of time, which I think they sold at a time when they really didn?t make a profit from them. Imagine what they would be worth today. It gave other investors hope that Apple was restructuring and that a company like MS was behind them. I recall a keynote after Jobs return with Gates on the big screen assuring everyone that MS Office for Mac would continue.
I recall a keynote after Jobs return with Gates on the big screen assuring everyone that MS Office for Mac would continue.
You are remembering MacWorld Boston 1997 when the deal was announced. Bill was roundly booed by the audience when he appeared on screen.
You are remembering MacWorld Boston 1997 when the deal was announced. Bill was roundly booed by the audience when he appeared on screen.
I felt bad for him but he just smiled politely, as I recall.
Right before the Mac was set to ship, Gates threatened to not ship any applications unless Apple agreed to license parts of the GUI to it under the guise of using these elements for PC applications. That would have thrown a real wrench into Apple's ability to sell the Mac, and set it back years to get somebody else to develop similar applications. .
Some really interesting perspectives on the matter can be found here.
Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software. Since Microsoft was just about the only major developer of Mac software at the time, this was a pretty substantial threat. Apple thought this license only extended to the version of Windows Microsoft was developing at the time (2.0) but later a court ruled that it also applied to Windows 3.0. This all came to light when Apple sued Microsoft in the "look and feel" case. The suit was dismissed in part because of the license, but we don't know if it would have succeeded without it.
I felt bad for him but he just smiled politely, as I recall.
Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY
The reactions from the audience as Steve announced the various aspects of the Microsoft partnership are so interesting, especially when seen from today's perspective. Certainly the pundit consensus was "Bill wins again" -- because of course, "Bill always wins" was the way the industry was understood at the time. But I think when you consider all that has transpired since, it's hard to view it that way. Even at the time, I think it was clear that Steve had pulled off something quite stunning.
It was really worse then that. Apple trusted and brought Microsoft on board the Macintosh project early on in the Macintosh development process.
I'm not sure how much worse it is the way you describe the situation, compared to the way I described it -- but the truth of the matter is that company after company discovered painfully that they could not trust Microsoft as a partner. Some went into their partnerships more aware of the perils and better protected than others. I think Apple might have been the first company to really get the better of Microsoft in the 1997 deal. I'm not sure Bill would say he'd take it back now if he could, but I'm quite certain that he never expected Apple to emerge as the powerhouse it is today.
Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY
The reactions from the audience as Steve announced the various aspects of the Microsoft partnership are so interesting, especially when seen from today's perspective. Certainly the pundit consensus was "Bill wins again" -- because of course, "Bill always wins" was the way the industry was understood at the time. But I think when you consider all that has transpired since, it's hard to view it that way. Even at the time, I think it was clear that Steve had pulled off something quite stunning.
Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the ?boos?. The news of the non-voting shares got a big approval, as it should.
Another good one to watch is the original iPod introduction. People in the audience didn?t get it. Not that I did either. I had no interest in an iPod until the Mini was introduced.
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
Riiiiiiiiight
so..
a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...
wins a case in its homestate against a no name company
in a country where presidents can steal elections....
hmm..... where's the news here?
I wish that this case had been in Europe..
Given the Copyright Directive is more restrictive than the DMCA it is likely Psystar would have done a major crash and burn there too.
Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the ?boos?. The news of the non-voting shares got a big approval, as it should.
The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
If anyone is power mad, it's Jobs.
Sculley's power usage was all about Sculley, Jobs' is all about getting the greatest products created. I prefer the latter.
The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.
And yet there still seem to a false consensus that MS saved Apple by giving them $150M. The booing was a very juvenile. I can't imagine doing that in that same setting. That wasn't the Apollo Theater, was it?
REASON----simple, they were a shell for other pc makers i hope as time goes by that apple finds out
the SHREDDING MACHINES WILL WORK OVERTIME TONIGHT
now what
The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.
Their resilience in the face of clearly not acting like a real company in any way that matters to a successful PC manufacturer certainly seems to have "stalking horse" written all over it.
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
As if no judge has ever essentially "rewritten" a law by the judge's "interpretation" of it.
We're talking about tribal naked apes a few evolutionary pico-seconds off being chased by predators around the Serengeti here while they were inventing language on the side. Human institutions are rudimentary when held up against some abstract notion of objectivity. And the phrase the "majesty of the law" still implies being subject to the whims of Kings.
But we do muddle through.......
You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage. The end user is the winner here.
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they f***ing hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Psystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base. In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
Just another thought that 99.99% won't happen, but it strikes me there's a middle path Apple could take that would diversify their model base, sales network, etc. Rather than the Sculley clone model, or the strictly mod model which has resulted in a few ruggedized Mac notebooks and a tablet or two, Apple could selectively license Apple-approved designs and sell/resell companies not only OS X, but the Mobo and other key components as well - with the modding confined to things like form factors, opening up, e.g., a mid-sized tower, and like the App Store, final designs aproved by the mother ship.
That way Apple would still be making their traditional margins on hardware and software, keeping the key parts within their own expertise, and ensuring (through their markups on the sold and licensed bits) that the machines could not be sold profitably at prices that would steal sales from Apple's own SKU's and we could have MMMT's, Maxi-Minis, Matte-Macs, etc.
Not holding my breath - just blue skying for the hell of it. Plenty of reasons to pooh-pooh. E.g., how would these Apple/other hybrids be badged? And of course these tethered and compliant "partners" would always have the fear that success with a design could be supplanted by Apple deciding to produce that form factor in house...... ....anyway, next topic.....
And yet there still seem to a false consensus that MS saved Apple by giving them $150M. The booing was a very juvenile. I can't imagine doing that in that same setting. That wasn't the Apollo Theater, was it?
If you read back to the articles run at the time, the general consensus seemed to be that Apple had been saved by Microsoft, a myth that persists to this day. This really reflects the other consensus in play at the time, which is that Bill never loses. This view came for some good reason -- Microsoft was incredibly dominant in those years, and few thought it should be any different. Still this meant that many had such a hard time seeing the deal any other way than yet another big win for Bill.
As for the booing (and cheering), partisanship was so much a part of MacWorld during these years. I attended many of the keynotes in the late '90s and it was always more tent revival than trade show. Mac fans hardly even met another Mac fan except at these events. People who attended knew what side they were on, the embattled one. It was a bit of a bunker mentality, but still, MacWorld was really a lot more fun in those days. By the mid-2000s it felt like only a trade show.
See Article1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the consititution
That clause only give Congress the right to create Copyright laws the details would fall under other parts. For example one could argue that the extension of old copyrights is a violation of Article I section 9.
Wow! IE as the default browser got most of the ?boos?.
With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.