Actually, it's pretty clear at the time Apple management really didn't want Steve. Jean-Louis Gassée tried to overplay his hand and screwed himself out of what everyone at the time assumed was a sure thing.
That's true. I remember all the arguments pretty well. At my user group here in NYC (5,400 members at one time!) we had many contentious discussions about which Apple should buy. Most people thought Apple should go with BE. I didn't agree though. Too many problems with it, and deep down inside, it was too simple, and difficult to expand.
Obviously, Apple made a good choice for many reasons.
I find it disgusting and telling that more investors don't raise eyebrows at companies with debt. Debt is never a good thing. Short term due to cash flow it can be a necessary evil, but I just can't fathom how otherwise smart people think that having debt is a sign of strength
This is not correct. Debt is can be a good thing. Ask anyone who owns a home. Companies borrowing to expand, provided the money is put to good use, can also be a good thing. Too much debt or debt taken on to fund operating expenses is a bad thing. But debt itself? Inherently? No, that's a major overstatement.
Finance 101: The stockholders own a public company. It might be picturesque to suggest that treating the stockholders as if they own the company (which they do) is "slavishly pandering" to them, but of course it's simply not accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Except I don't view the Apple culture as similar to Microsoft's culture in any way. Microsoft's' downfall is they got taken over by MBA's and ex-IBMers - who turned MS into a huge bureaucracy like IBM was (and still is somewhat, but nothing like they used to be).
I don't think it's similar either, but that was not the point of the comparison. The point is, they are not infallible, because they are human. Apple has the means to make some very large investment decisions of potentially historical proportions, which because the company is run by mortal human beings, won't necessarily be wise ones.
No, it does not. To Apple, software is just a means to an end. The end being the other 90% of the business, which is selling hardware. And if you compare what Apple does when it does buy an incomplete software package, and develop it, it's still different from mot other companies, which buy entire companies with complete product lines, and simply keep selling them.
To all intents, The software that Apple did buy is still mostly their own product even with the 1.0 version.
So you are still happy to claim that Apple has developed all their technologies by themselves even though there is solid proof that they haven't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There were a number of Mac software products that Apple could have bought over the years for a song. Good programs too. When Corel bought Painter, and others, Apple could have bought them. It would have contributed greatly to Apple lines, but they didn't. It's too bad too.
I sense you are taking things the wrong way, I haven't said that this is a bad thing, there is nothing wrong with what they have done, a lot of companies have done the same thing, and if you can use it to an advantage that is good. All I am saying is, Apple hasn't developed all of their technologies by themselves.
In the real world acquired vs. home grown is irrelevant. It may matter to you but it doesn't matter to anyone who is more concerned with performance than some weird sense of ideals. Apple routinely leverages resources available to it to create products. Those may be 100% in house developed, or they may be a mixture of technologies they license or acquire. In the end the performance of what they ship is all that matters - people didn't buy the original iPods because their OS was developed by Portal Player - they bought them because they had the right combination of user experience, size, features and price. Less than 5% (and that's probably being VERY generous) of iPod users know or care who wrote the OS for the player.
It is very relevant, if someone claims that all their stuff is homegrown, and it isn't then that list is very relevant. You seem to be taking this too personally, I said originally this isn't a bad thing, but in your emotional state you seemed to miss this. I think you should calm down, and reread things in context, then try again.
This is not correct. Debt is can be a good thing. Ask anyone who owns a home.
Just because I can borrow to buy a house doesn't mean it's the best thing. Would I have been better off living well under my means for three years and then paying cash for a house? Undoubtedly. It's what my parents did and they retired comfortably on a decidedly middle class salary. I now see the wisdom of what they did and am working to rectify the situation.
You are ALWAYS better at paying cash.
Quote:
Companies borrowing to expand, provided the money is put to good use, can also be a good thing. Too much debt or debt taken on to fund operating expenses is a bad thing. But debt itself? Inherently? No, that's a major overstatement.
In the context of our current financial status as a country it's not a major overstatement at all.
We have become drunk on debt as a country and it's hurting us big time.
Quote:
Finance 101: The stockholders own a public company. It might be picturesque to suggest that treating the stockholders as if they own the company (which they do) is "slavishly pandering" to them, but of course it's simply not accurate.
Well, I'm not a huge fan of the stock market either. A house divided against it's self can not stand. The wants of the stock holders and the best interest of companies are often diametrically opposed and again, many of our current systemic problems with our economy can be traced back to this inherent conflict.
Quote:
I don't think it's similar either, but that was not the point of the comparison. The point is, they are not infallible, because they are human. Apple has the means to make some very large investment decisions of potentially historical proportions, which because the company is run by mortal human beings, won't necessarily be wise ones.
Just because they are human doesn't mean they will be unwise either. Pap flows both ways
It is very relevant, if someone claims that all their stuff is homegrown, and it isn't then that list is very relevant.
But where is the line between "homegrown" and not? There's lots of overlap in concepts - yet how you mix component parts can produce vastly different results.
So if I take the concept of a personal computer, a graphical OS, a Mouse, a 3.5" floppy drive and package it in such a way that it's unique where did the homegrown start/stop? Apple didn't invent the graphical OS, the personal computer (although one could argue of all the things they are the closest to a true father of), the mouse or the 3.5" floppy - but they put it together and made it work.
Quote:
You seem to be taking this too personally
Pot, kettle. In the end it doesn't matter except on a virtual scoreboard in an Internet pissing contest. Have your silly semantical argument all you want - it's still irrelevant.
Just because I can borrow to buy a house doesn't mean it's the best thing. Would I have been better off living well under my means for three years and then paying cash for a house? Undoubtedly. It's what my parents did and they retired comfortably on a decidedly middle class salary. I now see the wisdom of what they did and am working to rectify the situation.
You are ALWAYS better at paying cash.
I happen to be debt-free myself, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the power of financing under the right circumstances. You simply cannot make the statement that all debt is bad. It's just not true. There's a vast difference between the wise use of financing and being "drunk on debt," and if you can't see that then we probably should not discuss this subject any further.
If you're arguing against the very concept of public companies, then allow me to suggest a more productive activity: barking at the moon. Public companies exist all across the planet. Like it or not, that's how the system works. Because that's the way the system works, companies have very real and very certain responsibilities to their stockholders.
On the subject of Apple and their cash, you are committing a basic error of logic. I am not saying that they will make errors, only that they could. The risk of having enough money to make really bad decisions is that you might actually make really bad decisions.
But where is the line between "homegrown" and not? There's lots of overlap in concepts - yet how you mix component parts can produce vastly different results.
You are making this too complicated, this is very simple.
Q: Has Apple developed all their technologies from scratch?
A: No, in cases they have purchased pre-existing technologies and modified them to suit their needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Pot, kettle. In the end it doesn't matter except on a virtual scoreboard in an Internet pissing contest. Have your silly semantical argument all you want - it's still irrelevant.
I'm not sure where you are going about this, it seems rather pointless, I was just pointing out a fact, a fact that doesn't change anything in life, you seem to be taking this fact personally, me, I don't really care if you don't want to believe a fact, if it is your desire to live in a fantasy land so be it.
You are making this too complicated, this is very simple.
Q: Has Apple developed all their technologies from scratch?
A: No, in cases they have purchased pre-existing technologies and modified them to suit their needs.
Way to go pointing out the obvious which everyone else inherently knows but to you it's a revelation, while at the same time not answering his question. It's very simple, Apple designs and makes their own computers. Fin.
Way to go pointing out the obvious which everyone else inherently knows but to you it's a revelation, while at the same time not answering his question. It's very simple, Apple designs and makes their own computers. Fin.
Once again you pipe in with another pointless post, again your Apple shares have made you blind to a simple fact, a simple fact that you can't even register. Why don't you go on this holiday you have been so busy telling people about, or is that just another one of the constant lies you make up?
That's a very sneaky way to deny misreading a comment.
I didn't misread the comment, none of the information in the comment was relevant to what I was saying, so I had to reason to bring any of it up in the first place.
I didn't misread the comment, none of the information in the comment was relevant to what I was saying, so I had to reason to bring any of it up in the first place.
Again, still ducking the fact that you misread it in making a snippy sounding reply:
You quoted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
You neglected the fact that NeXT Computer was founded by Steve Jobs after he was forced to leave Apple in 1985. The NeXT OS, Unix based was an objects oriented program. Apple brought Jobs back to the company and bought NeXT as part of the deal.
Emphasis mine. Your response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I forgot that Steve gave NeXT to Apple for no money at all, oh that's right, he didn't, they purchased it. Remember Steve != Apple
Emphasis mine.
So, how is purchasing NeXT different from buying NeXT? I hope you can pardon our confusion when something like this comes up.
Again, still ducking the fact that you misread it in making a snippy sounding reply:
Getting back to the original discussion, melgross claimed Apple developed all their products by themselves, that has been proved incorrect, multiple times, this is my arguement, this is the important point, I mentioned NeXT as this was a technology Apple purchased and developed products from. It doesn't matter that Steve Jobs formed NeXT with ex Apple people, it is irrevelant, they didn't work for Apple at the time.
Also, I am lost at what you are trying to say, as I mentioned in a list of some technologies Apple purchased, NeXT was one of them, FineTines claimed I didn't mention that Steve Jobs founded it (I am still at a lost as to why this is relevant, infact I don't see why the message he posted is relevant at all), posted to state it was a tecnology they purchase, Steve didn't give it away freely (it wasn't his to give), he was paid in shares for it, so to finish this novel up, Apple purchased NeXT, they purchased the technology NeXT developed, it is once again another example of Apple purchasing technologies and not developing them.
Getting back to the original discussion, melgross claimed Apple developed all their products by themselves, Also, I am lost at what you are trying to say, as I mentioned in a list of some technologies Apple purchased, NeXT was one of them, FineTines claimed I didn't mention that Steve Jobs founded it (I am still at a lost as to why this is relevant, infact I don't see why the message he posted is relevant at all), posted to state it was a tecnology they purchase, Steve didn't give it away freely (it wasn't his to give), he was paid in shares for it, so to finish this novel up, Apple purchased NeXT, they purchased the technology NeXT developed, it is once again another example of Apple purchasing technologies and not developing them.
Hopefully that is clear enough for you.
Again, you miss the point. It's their PRODUCT. They bought NeXT so it's theres. They make OS X so it's theres, regardless that all way to the core there are free, licensed and purchased code within. Mac OS X is their product. By your lame argument they don't make a product called the MacBook because it contains a chipset by Nvidia, a CPU by Intel, RAM by Samsung, a battery by Sony and hundreds of other components they have other companies make off buy in bulk pre-made. None of that means it's not their product.
Again, you miss the point. It's their PRODUCT. They bought NeXT so it's theres. They make OS X so it's theres, regardless that all way to the core there are free, licensed and purchased code within. Mac OS X is their product. By your lame argument they don't make a product called the MacBook because it contains a chipset by Nvidia, a CPU by Intel, RAM by Samsung, a battery by Sony and hundreds of other components they have other companies make off buy in bulk pre-made. None of that means it's not their product.
First of the the word is their, calm down before posting.
Second, you need to get out more, that rant just proves what a sad person you are, you have to be the big man and get the final word in to prove you are right, even when it makes no point to. You seem to overlook the fact that neither option of Apple purchasing technologies, or Apple developing them from scratch is bad, and I haven't said that, but I imagine your blind hatred of anyone that has an opinion that differs from yours has blocked that from your viewpoint. Get a grip, seek help, that is all I can say.
Comments
Actually, it's pretty clear at the time Apple management really didn't want Steve. Jean-Louis Gassée tried to overplay his hand and screwed himself out of what everyone at the time assumed was a sure thing.
That's true. I remember all the arguments pretty well. At my user group here in NYC (5,400 members at one time!) we had many contentious discussions about which Apple should buy. Most people thought Apple should go with BE. I didn't agree though. Too many problems with it, and deep down inside, it was too simple, and difficult to expand.
Obviously, Apple made a good choice for many reasons.
I find it disgusting and telling that more investors don't raise eyebrows at companies with debt. Debt is never a good thing. Short term due to cash flow it can be a necessary evil, but I just can't fathom how otherwise smart people think that having debt is a sign of strength
This is not correct. Debt is can be a good thing. Ask anyone who owns a home. Companies borrowing to expand, provided the money is put to good use, can also be a good thing. Too much debt or debt taken on to fund operating expenses is a bad thing. But debt itself? Inherently? No, that's a major overstatement.
Finance 101: The stockholders own a public company. It might be picturesque to suggest that treating the stockholders as if they own the company (which they do) is "slavishly pandering" to them, but of course it's simply not accurate.
Except I don't view the Apple culture as similar to Microsoft's culture in any way. Microsoft's' downfall is they got taken over by MBA's and ex-IBMers - who turned MS into a huge bureaucracy like IBM was (and still is somewhat, but nothing like they used to be).
I don't think it's similar either, but that was not the point of the comparison. The point is, they are not infallible, because they are human. Apple has the means to make some very large investment decisions of potentially historical proportions, which because the company is run by mortal human beings, won't necessarily be wise ones.
And that's a bad thing because?
And can you tell me where I said it was a bad thing?
No, it does not. To Apple, software is just a means to an end. The end being the other 90% of the business, which is selling hardware. And if you compare what Apple does when it does buy an incomplete software package, and develop it, it's still different from mot other companies, which buy entire companies with complete product lines, and simply keep selling them.
To all intents, The software that Apple did buy is still mostly their own product even with the 1.0 version.
So you are still happy to claim that Apple has developed all their technologies by themselves even though there is solid proof that they haven't?
There were a number of Mac software products that Apple could have bought over the years for a song. Good programs too. When Corel bought Painter, and others, Apple could have bought them. It would have contributed greatly to Apple lines, but they didn't. It's too bad too.
I sense you are taking things the wrong way, I haven't said that this is a bad thing, there is nothing wrong with what they have done, a lot of companies have done the same thing, and if you can use it to an advantage that is good. All I am saying is, Apple hasn't developed all of their technologies by themselves.
In the real world acquired vs. home grown is irrelevant. It may matter to you but it doesn't matter to anyone who is more concerned with performance than some weird sense of ideals. Apple routinely leverages resources available to it to create products. Those may be 100% in house developed, or they may be a mixture of technologies they license or acquire. In the end the performance of what they ship is all that matters - people didn't buy the original iPods because their OS was developed by Portal Player - they bought them because they had the right combination of user experience, size, features and price. Less than 5% (and that's probably being VERY generous) of iPod users know or care who wrote the OS for the player.
It is very relevant, if someone claims that all their stuff is homegrown, and it isn't then that list is very relevant. You seem to be taking this too personally, I said originally this isn't a bad thing, but in your emotional state you seemed to miss this. I think you should calm down, and reread things in context, then try again.
Where did you get that out of his statement?
Oh yeah, you didn't!
If you can tell then I'm not going to help you.
If you can tell then I'm not going to help you.
That's a very sneaky way to deny misreading a comment.
This is not correct. Debt is can be a good thing. Ask anyone who owns a home.
Just because I can borrow to buy a house doesn't mean it's the best thing. Would I have been better off living well under my means for three years and then paying cash for a house? Undoubtedly. It's what my parents did and they retired comfortably on a decidedly middle class salary. I now see the wisdom of what they did and am working to rectify the situation.
You are ALWAYS better at paying cash.
Companies borrowing to expand, provided the money is put to good use, can also be a good thing. Too much debt or debt taken on to fund operating expenses is a bad thing. But debt itself? Inherently? No, that's a major overstatement.
In the context of our current financial status as a country it's not a major overstatement at all.
We have become drunk on debt as a country and it's hurting us big time.
Finance 101: The stockholders own a public company. It might be picturesque to suggest that treating the stockholders as if they own the company (which they do) is "slavishly pandering" to them, but of course it's simply not accurate.
Well, I'm not a huge fan of the stock market either. A house divided against it's self can not stand. The wants of the stock holders and the best interest of companies are often diametrically opposed and again, many of our current systemic problems with our economy can be traced back to this inherent conflict.
I don't think it's similar either, but that was not the point of the comparison. The point is, they are not infallible, because they are human. Apple has the means to make some very large investment decisions of potentially historical proportions, which because the company is run by mortal human beings, won't necessarily be wise ones.
It is very relevant, if someone claims that all their stuff is homegrown, and it isn't then that list is very relevant.
But where is the line between "homegrown" and not? There's lots of overlap in concepts - yet how you mix component parts can produce vastly different results.
So if I take the concept of a personal computer, a graphical OS, a Mouse, a 3.5" floppy drive and package it in such a way that it's unique where did the homegrown start/stop? Apple didn't invent the graphical OS, the personal computer (although one could argue of all the things they are the closest to a true father of), the mouse or the 3.5" floppy - but they put it together and made it work.
You seem to be taking this too personally
Pot, kettle. In the end it doesn't matter except on a virtual scoreboard in an Internet pissing contest. Have your silly semantical argument all you want - it's still irrelevant.
Just because I can borrow to buy a house doesn't mean it's the best thing. Would I have been better off living well under my means for three years and then paying cash for a house? Undoubtedly. It's what my parents did and they retired comfortably on a decidedly middle class salary. I now see the wisdom of what they did and am working to rectify the situation.
You are ALWAYS better at paying cash.
I happen to be debt-free myself, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the power of financing under the right circumstances. You simply cannot make the statement that all debt is bad. It's just not true. There's a vast difference between the wise use of financing and being "drunk on debt," and if you can't see that then we probably should not discuss this subject any further.
If you're arguing against the very concept of public companies, then allow me to suggest a more productive activity: barking at the moon. Public companies exist all across the planet. Like it or not, that's how the system works. Because that's the way the system works, companies have very real and very certain responsibilities to their stockholders.
On the subject of Apple and their cash, you are committing a basic error of logic. I am not saying that they will make errors, only that they could. The risk of having enough money to make really bad decisions is that you might actually make really bad decisions.
But where is the line between "homegrown" and not? There's lots of overlap in concepts - yet how you mix component parts can produce vastly different results.
You are making this too complicated, this is very simple.
Q: Has Apple developed all their technologies from scratch?
A: No, in cases they have purchased pre-existing technologies and modified them to suit their needs.
Pot, kettle. In the end it doesn't matter except on a virtual scoreboard in an Internet pissing contest. Have your silly semantical argument all you want - it's still irrelevant.
I'm not sure where you are going about this, it seems rather pointless, I was just pointing out a fact, a fact that doesn't change anything in life, you seem to be taking this fact personally, me, I don't really care if you don't want to believe a fact, if it is your desire to live in a fantasy land so be it.
You are making this too complicated, this is very simple.
Q: Has Apple developed all their technologies from scratch?
A: No, in cases they have purchased pre-existing technologies and modified them to suit their needs.
Way to go pointing out the obvious which everyone else inherently knows but to you it's a revelation, while at the same time not answering his question. It's very simple, Apple designs and makes their own computers. Fin.
Way to go pointing out the obvious which everyone else inherently knows but to you it's a revelation, while at the same time not answering his question. It's very simple, Apple designs and makes their own computers. Fin.
Once again you pipe in with another pointless post, again your Apple shares have made you blind to a simple fact, a simple fact that you can't even register. Why don't you go on this holiday you have been so busy telling people about, or is that just another one of the constant lies you make up?
That's a very sneaky way to deny misreading a comment.
I didn't misread the comment, none of the information in the comment was relevant to what I was saying, so I had to reason to bring any of it up in the first place.
OK, Steve. How about moving all of your manufacturing to a 1st world country that doesn't abuse its labor force?
1) That would kill their business since the prices would skyrocket.
2) Consumers would go to other companies with considerably cheaper prices for the basic tool.
3) The lack of work would mean unemployment therefore a loss of income therefore hungry families.
I didn't misread the comment, none of the information in the comment was relevant to what I was saying, so I had to reason to bring any of it up in the first place.
Again, still ducking the fact that you misread it in making a snippy sounding reply:
You quoted this:
You neglected the fact that NeXT Computer was founded by Steve Jobs after he was forced to leave Apple in 1985. The NeXT OS, Unix based was an objects oriented program. Apple brought Jobs back to the company and bought NeXT as part of the deal.
Emphasis mine. Your response:
I forgot that Steve gave NeXT to Apple for no money at all, oh that's right, he didn't, they purchased it. Remember Steve != Apple
Emphasis mine.
So, how is purchasing NeXT different from buying NeXT? I hope you can pardon our confusion when something like this comes up.
Again, still ducking the fact that you misread it in making a snippy sounding reply:
Getting back to the original discussion, melgross claimed Apple developed all their products by themselves, that has been proved incorrect, multiple times, this is my arguement, this is the important point, I mentioned NeXT as this was a technology Apple purchased and developed products from. It doesn't matter that Steve Jobs formed NeXT with ex Apple people, it is irrevelant, they didn't work for Apple at the time.
Also, I am lost at what you are trying to say, as I mentioned in a list of some technologies Apple purchased, NeXT was one of them, FineTines claimed I didn't mention that Steve Jobs founded it (I am still at a lost as to why this is relevant, infact I don't see why the message he posted is relevant at all), posted to state it was a tecnology they purchase, Steve didn't give it away freely (it wasn't his to give), he was paid in shares for it, so to finish this novel up, Apple purchased NeXT, they purchased the technology NeXT developed, it is once again another example of Apple purchasing technologies and not developing them.
Hopefully that is clear enough for you.
Getting back to the original discussion, melgross claimed Apple developed all their products by themselves, Also, I am lost at what you are trying to say, as I mentioned in a list of some technologies Apple purchased, NeXT was one of them, FineTines claimed I didn't mention that Steve Jobs founded it (I am still at a lost as to why this is relevant, infact I don't see why the message he posted is relevant at all), posted to state it was a tecnology they purchase, Steve didn't give it away freely (it wasn't his to give), he was paid in shares for it, so to finish this novel up, Apple purchased NeXT, they purchased the technology NeXT developed, it is once again another example of Apple purchasing technologies and not developing them.
Hopefully that is clear enough for you.
Again, you miss the point. It's their PRODUCT. They bought NeXT so it's theres. They make OS X so it's theres, regardless that all way to the core there are free, licensed and purchased code within. Mac OS X is their product. By your lame argument they don't make a product called the MacBook because it contains a chipset by Nvidia, a CPU by Intel, RAM by Samsung, a battery by Sony and hundreds of other components they have other companies make off buy in bulk pre-made. None of that means it's not their product.
Again, you miss the point. It's their PRODUCT. They bought NeXT so it's theres. They make OS X so it's theres, regardless that all way to the core there are free, licensed and purchased code within. Mac OS X is their product. By your lame argument they don't make a product called the MacBook because it contains a chipset by Nvidia, a CPU by Intel, RAM by Samsung, a battery by Sony and hundreds of other components they have other companies make off buy in bulk pre-made. None of that means it's not their product.
First of the the word is their, calm down before posting.
Second, you need to get out more, that rant just proves what a sad person you are, you have to be the big man and get the final word in to prove you are right, even when it makes no point to. You seem to overlook the fact that neither option of Apple purchasing technologies, or Apple developing them from scratch is bad, and I haven't said that, but I imagine your blind hatred of anyone that has an opinion that differs from yours has blocked that from your viewpoint. Get a grip, seek help, that is all I can say.