Apple 'an amazing company' says Microsoft's Bill Gates

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    steveh said:
    Microsoft's "saving" Apple was hardly done out of altruism, nor did it cost Microsoft anything in the long term.

    In 1997, Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of Apple preferred stock, convertable to common shares of Apple stock at a price of $8.25, redeemable after a three year period, for $150 million. Apple was worth ~ $3B at the time.

    By 2001, they'd converted all of the shares into common stock, netting the company approximately 18.1 million shares. 

    By 2003, they'd sold all of it.

    It was mostly optics.

    As part of that deal, there was a much more important thing that Microsoft signed up for: they pledged to continue developing and shipping Microsoft Office for the Mac for several more years.  If they had gone through with their plan of abandoning the Mac at that time, when Apple was near death, I dare say that may have put the final nail in the coffin.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 22 of 51
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    bells said:
    sflocal said:
    I'm stunned and dismayed that a site like AppleInsider, even in the year 2018, continues to peddle the falsehood that Bill Gates was Apple's saviour! This has been debunked OVER and OVER again, and is a blunt LIE that was peddled by mainstream media in the late 90's whilst Apple was in dire straights.

    Please REMOVE the phrase "and one-time savior of Apple" from the opening statement, it's a blunt and proven lie!
    Apple and Microsoft were battling due to MS' infringement of Quicktime codec.  Apple was also very close to losing it all.  While "Savior" may be a bit melodramatic, I don't expect anything less from the media (including AI) to fluff pieces and claim "that's what everyone does".  

    The reality is that Apple really needed that $150m to prevent going under.  Call it whatever you want, but that money did keep Apple afloat long enough for Steve Jobs to set a clear and profitable course.


     Apple needed the money, but a company like  Apple spends that type of money fairly quickly. More importantly it needed Microsoft’s commitment to Internet explorer and word.   At the time Microsoft was threatening to abandon the Mac, and Apple would have a hard time selling Macs without  those programs. The Mac would’ve died without it. And we would’ve never seen the iPod iPhone and iPad . 
    Bingo.
  • Reply 23 of 51
    maciekskontaktmaciekskontakt Posts: 1,169member
    That is called OS2 and it was for IBM. Ask about that project and what happened. It was not just about Macintosh vs. Windows and who stole ideas from whom.
  • Reply 24 of 51
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    Obviously Gates isn’t wrong but he’s best buds with Buffett and was at a a Berkshire event. Berkshire owns like 5% of Apple. I wouldn’t expect Gates to say anything else.
    jony0
  • Reply 25 of 51
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    DAalseth said:
    knowitall said:
    "The multiple's not gigantic, it's not like a tech-speculative company that's still losing money or anything." 

    Does anyone know what this means?(espessially the ‘multiples’ part)

    Perhaps a reference to Elon Musk. I don't know that any of his companies are profitable yet.
    I didn’t think of that. Thanks, your probably right.
    I think SpaceX is profitable, but Mr. Gates is known for ‘not getting it’.
    jony0
  • Reply 26 of 51
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member

    maestro64 said:
    zoetmb said:
    steveh said:
    Microsoft's "saving" Apple was hardly done out of altruism, nor did it cost Microsoft anything in the long term.

    In 1997, Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of Apple preferred stock, convertable to common shares of Apple stock at a price of $8.25, redeemable after a three year period, for $150 million. Apple was worth ~ $3B at the time.

    By 2001, they'd converted all of the shares into common stock, netting the company approximately 18.1 million shares. 

    By 2003, they'd sold all of it.

    It was mostly optics.
    One of the reasons Microsoft invested in Apple was to make sure Apple survived.  They needed Apple because there were threats of restraint-of-trade suits against Microsoft because of the dominance of Windows and (at the time), Explorer as the default browser.    There were fears the Government was going to get involved. 

    Apple really was in trouble at the time.   There were calls for Apple to either shut down and give the money back to shareholders or sell itself to a company like Sony, which demonstrates how analysts and industry insiders were just as dumb (if not dumber) back then as they are now.

    predicted for some time that 15 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company, but with Siri still being so lame, I'm not so sure anymore.  


    This is something most people forget was going on at the time. MS could not afford for Apple to die, if Apple die MS would have been the only OS other than Unix which very few were using and MS would have been stepped on by governments. Too many time people try to make complex situation simple or simple thing complex. In the case of Apple and MS there was a lot going on. I give Jobs and Gates lots of credit for sitting down and focusing on what was important and working a deal with benefitted everyone involved including consumers.
    Would be nice to know what Steve Jobs said about this and possible even the opinion of Bill Gates at the time.
  • Reply 27 of 51
    knowitall said:
    "The multiple's not gigantic, it's not like a tech-speculative company that's still losing money or anything." 

    Does anyone know what this means?(espessially the ‘multiples’ part)

    “Multiple”is a term sometimes used in lieu of “PE”.  “PE” refers to the calculation Price (price of the stock) divided by Earnings Per Share (fully diluted). The formula and term were first devised to compare the relative values of stocks for firms with varying numbers of shares outstanding. Over the years the intent of the calculation has been corrupted and is now used as a standard to determine the value of a share, and not as a comparative between shares. The corruption has become so bad that analysts, media and investors will describe a “PE” as good, high, bad or low.

    in reality “PE” measures the level of sentiment towards the equity by the marketplace. In an attempt to keep that intent at the fore I do not use “PE” in my discussions of earnings per share. I refer to it as Investor Sentiment Multiplier (ISM). 
    ISM’s are neither good, bad, high or low, they are what they are and nothing more. 

    I do do believe that the value given to AAPL is low, especially when you compare growth rates, gross margins, net income and of course Earnings per Share. If the market valued Apple/AAPL the same way it does no growth commodity firms with stable net income it ISM would be about 25.  However, I think sentiment that high for a company the size of Apple, no matter its extraordinary performance, scares the market. 
    palominepscooter63
  • Reply 28 of 51
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    sflocal said:
    I'm stunned and dismayed that a site like AppleInsider, even in the year 2018, continues to peddle the falsehood that Bill Gates was Apple's saviour! This has been debunked OVER and OVER again, and is a blunt LIE that was peddled by mainstream media in the late 90's whilst Apple was in dire straights.

    Please REMOVE the phrase "and one-time savior of Apple" from the opening statement, it's a blunt and proven lie!
    Apple and Microsoft were battling due to MS' infringement of Quicktime codec.  Apple was also very close to losing it all.  While "Savior" may be a bit melodramatic, I don't expect anything less from the media (including AI) to fluff pieces and claim "that's what everyone does".  

    The reality is that Apple really needed that $150m to prevent going under.  Call it whatever you want, but that money did keep Apple afloat long enough for Steve Jobs to set a clear and profitable course.
    The $150 million had nothing to do with Apple’s surviving. It was totally marketing, to show that Microsoft had confidence in Apple, as did his video appearance in the MacWorld of that year. The $150 million was an investment in stock, which had no effect on Apple’s cash position
    anantksundaramjony0SpamSandwichtmaymacxpressjbdragon
  • Reply 29 of 51
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Microsoft
    zoetmb said:
    steveh said:
    Microsoft's "saving" Apple was hardly done out of altruism, nor did it cost Microsoft anything in the long term.

    In 1997, Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of Apple preferred stock, convertable to common shares of Apple stock at a price of $8.25, redeemable after a three year period, for $150 million. Apple was worth ~ $3B at the time.

    By 2001, they'd converted all of the shares into common stock, netting the company approximately 18.1 million shares. 

    By 2003, they'd sold all of it.

    It was mostly optics.
    One of the reasons Microsoft invested in Apple was to make sure Apple survived.  They needed Apple because there were threats of restraint-of-trade suits against Microsoft because of the dominance of Windows and (at the time), Explorer as the default browser.    There were fears the Government was going to get involved. 

    Apple really was in trouble at the time.   There were calls for Apple to either shut down and give the money back to shareholders or sell itself to a company like Sony, which demonstrates how analysts and industry insiders were just as dumb (if not dumber) back then as they are now.

    I've posted this before, but here's some brilliant quotes by these geniuses over the years:

    John C. Dvorak, 1984. “The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new fangled devices."

    former Apple VP Gaston Bastiaens, January 1996.  “Within the next two months, Sony will acquire Apple. … Sony will be the white knight who will step into the picture."

    Michael Dell, October 1997.  "I'd shut [Apple] down and give the money back to the shareholders."

    Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe, 1998.  "The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers. The iMac doesn’t include a floppy disk drive for doing file backups or sharing of data. ... The iMac will fail. 

    10/5/2000   Michael S. Malone.  Apple R.I.P.   … “Nevertheless, the bloom is off the rose. The incredible run-up Apple stock has enjoyed since Steve's return is over, and the sheen of success that had enveloped the company has been tarnished.    A temporary setback? Don't be too sure. Unlike, say, Hewlett-Packard, Apple has always been a company that deals poorly with failure. When things go bad at Apple, they go very bad. “

    5/21/2001  Cliff Edwards    Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work. “New retail outlets aren't going to fix Apple's sales “

     12/23/2006 Bill Ray (Mobile)

    “Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly”.  It's the Pippin all over again”

     1/14/2007 Matthew Lynn.   Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move

    “…Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business…

    The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant”

     

    3/28/2007 John Dvorak.  Apple should pull the plug in the iPhone.   Commentary:  Company risks its reputation in competitive business

    … Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp… and Motorola Inc.” 

    Apple just had two record breaking sales and net-income quarters at a time when the analysts and press claimed the iPhone X wasn't selling.  Apple Services alone, if spun off, would make the Fortune 100 list and it's rarely even mentioned.    Apple's net income in fiscal 2017 was LARGER than their net sales in 2009 and before.  One quarter of Apple's Services revenue is LARGER than annual sales of the entire company before fiscal 2004.    And yet the analysts keep trying to imply that Apple is somehow failing.   Either they're completely stupid or this is clearly stock manipulation.     

    I don't care what the article says - Buffet didn't buy more Apple stock because he saw that customers liked Apple and bought into the eco-system - there's no doubt in my mind that he looked at the numbers, which are extraordinary.  There's a good chance Apple will beat the fiscal 2015 net sales record of $233.715 billion as they're already at $149.44 billion after two quarters.   But having said all that, there is a question of what Apple is going to be ten years from now.   I've predicted for some time that 15 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company, but with Siri still being so lame, I'm not so sure anymore.  

    Microsoft did what it did back then because Apple had it over a barrel. As others have mentioned, Apple found a strange thing, Windows was able to play video without studdering. They were surprised, and decided to find out how. They found out that the third party codec development company Microsoft hired to fix their playback software had written it around Apple’s QuickTime.

    if Apple had not been in trouble, they likely would have sued Microsoft, and won that round. Imagine what we would have today if Windows couldn’t play video correctly! But because Apple couldn’t afford a multi year court battle with Microsoft, they decided instead to do a deal.

    that deal included several items. One was that Apple would allow Microsoft to continue using QuickTime-like code for video. In exchange, they worked out several concessions from Microsoft. One was that Microsoft continue to write Office for at least 5 years for the Mac. Two was that Microsoft would make a public announcement that they were investing $150 million in Apple, and that Bill Gates would make that video appearance at the Macworld, stating that they had confidence in Apple. Steve had to quiet the crowd when Gates came on. I remember that well.

    they also did a wide ranging patent cross licensing deal that still stands. You might notice that with all the lawsuits between Apple and others, and Microsoft and others, Apple and Microsoft haven’t sued each other. That is why.

    and lastly, Apple got Microsoft to agree to never use Apple UI elements in anymore of their OSs without agreement from Apple. That’s one reason why the Zune HD, in an attempt to compete with Apple’s iPod Touch had the UI it did, and why, when Microsoft was under pressure to replace Windows Mobile with Windows Phone, they used that same UI, and when Windows 8 came out, they used it again.

    Microsoft was in no way being nice to Apple for any reason. They were in their own bind with this, and this seemed to be the easy way out for them. Remember that these deals were before the iPod Touch, iPhone, and everything that happened later. They likely thought that the UI restrictions weren’t of any importance either to them, until years later, they were.
    anantksundaramjony0pscooter63radarthekatmmatz
  • Reply 30 of 51
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member

    knowitall said:
    "The multiple's not gigantic, it's not like a tech-speculative company that's still losing money or anything." 

    Does anyone know what this means?(espessially the ‘multiples’ part)

    It’s simple. The multiple normally means the P/E. That’s the price/earnings multiple. The price is the price of a share, and the earnings is the earnings per share. So there are a certain number of shares out there, and the companies earnings is the net profit. Divide the profit by the number of shares, and the result it the multiple. For Apple, it’s around 15-16. For tech stocks in general, it’s around 22. So that means that a share is trading at, in Apple’s case, about 15-16 times the net profit, and for tech overall, about 22 times.

    that makes Apple’s stock cheap. Amazon’s P/E is around 260. That’s way over the top. But while amazons net profit is small by percentage (Apple’s Is around 21%, while Amazon’s Is around 1.70%) it’s a very successful company.

    tesla, by comparison is losing money, and pretty much always has. It’s not accorded a P/E, because they don’t put negative multiples up as a negative P/E. But it’s stock is way over priced, and going almost entirely by Musk’s personality.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 31 of 51
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member

    sflocal said:
    I'm stunned and dismayed that a site like AppleInsider, even in the year 2018, continues to peddle the falsehood that Bill Gates was Apple's saviour! This has been debunked OVER and OVER again, and is a blunt LIE that was peddled by mainstream media in the late 90's whilst Apple was in dire straights.

    Please REMOVE the phrase "and one-time savior of Apple" from the opening statement, it's a blunt and proven lie!
    Apple and Microsoft were battling due to MS' infringement of Quicktime codec.  Apple was also very close to losing it all.  While "Savior" may be a bit melodramatic, I don't expect anything less from the media (including AI) to fluff pieces and claim "that's what everyone does".  

    The reality is that Apple really needed that $150m to prevent going under.  Call it whatever you want, but that money did keep Apple afloat long enough for Steve Jobs to set a clear and profitable course.
    In no way is it a lie, or a "fluff."

    Like it or not, there is no question that the money, the development deal to make sure that Office (and Internet Explorer!) remained on the Mac, plus the cessation of the QuickTime lawsuit saved Apple's ass.
    There is no question that the $150 million had nothing to do with anything financial for Apple. It was a pure publicity stunt. Since this was in exchange for non voting share, it contributed nothing to Apple’s position whatsoever.
    anantksundaramSpamSandwichpscooter63
  • Reply 32 of 51
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    knowitall said:
    DAalseth said:
    knowitall said:
    "The multiple's not gigantic, it's not like a tech-speculative company that's still losing money or anything." 

    Does anyone know what this means?(espessially the ‘multiples’ part)

    Perhaps a reference to Elon Musk. I don't know that any of his companies are profitable yet.
    I didn’t think of that. Thanks, your probably right.
    I think SpaceX is profitable, but Mr. Gates is known for ‘not getting it’.
    Spacex is not profitable either.
    anantksundaramSpamSandwich
  • Reply 33 of 51
    shaminoshamino Posts: 527member
    lkrupp said:
    I think Jim Cramer explained it best when he said, “Apple is the most manipulated stock on the market.” ... Because Apple never responds to analysts’s reports these analysts can print whatever the hell they want to about the company and they do so with a vengeance. 

    This kind of manipulation leads to short-term volatility before and after each quarter's earnings report.  It has no impact on long-term value, because all the hype gets replaced with facts after each quarter's report.  If you're market-timing, day-trading or engaging in some other kind of short-term speculation, then this is important to always keep in mind.  If you're holding shares long-term, not so much.

    bells said:
    Apple needed the money, but a company like  Apple spends that type of money fairly quickly. More importantly it needed Microsoft’s commitment to Internet explorer and word.   At the time Microsoft was threatening to abandon the Mac, and Apple would have a hard time selling Macs without  those programs. The Mac would’ve died without it. And we would’ve never seen the iPod iPhone and iPad . 

    Office is the big deal.  Very few people would use Macs for their everyday desktop without MS Office.  The alternative software is (generally) good quality, but it can't edit MS Office documents without creating significant artifacts (especially WRT formatting and embedded objects) on any non-trivial document.  This is an annoyance for personal users, but is a deal-breaker for business users.

    knowitall said:
    "The multiple's not gigantic, it's not like a tech-speculative company that's still losing money or anything." 
    Does anyone know what this means?(espessially the ‘multiples’ part)


    He's referring to P/E ratios - the price/earning ratio.  Put roughly, it is the price-per-share divided by the company's annual earnings-per-share (that is, total earnings divided by the number of outstanding shares).  A company that has posted a loss (negative earnings) has no P/E ratio.  A very high P/E ratio tends to indicate a bloated stock price - shareholders are expecting growth that may be impossible to actually realize.  Historically, stable businesses have tended to have P/E ratios in the single digits, with tech companies being much higher due to the greater desire to speculate in upcoming technologies.  Today, however, we seem to find a lot of well-established businesses with P/E ratios in the 20's and 30's, with tech stocks going even higher.

    For a quick comparison, Apple's current P/E ratio is 19.09, Microsoft is 78.23, Oracle is 53.88, Adobe is 61.61, Google is 58.61, Facebook is 33.02 and Amazon is a whopping 260.19.

    For comparison, looking at non-tech stocks, Fiat-Chrysler's P/E ratio is 8.29, Ford Motors is 5.97, Colegate-Palmolive is 27.55, McDonald's is 25.9, Coca Cola is 144.32 (!), PepsiCo is 29.08, Wal-Mart is 26.06 and Costco is 28.78.  (Several companies I wanted to include here like General Electric and General Motors have posted negative earnings so currently don't have any P/E ratios).

    It is noteworthy (and probably what Gates is referring to) that Apple's P/E ratio is around 19 when their competition has ratios that are significantly higher.  Which implies that despite Apple's high share price, they are easily bringing in the profits necessary to justify it and that if shareholders would be as speculative with Apple as they are with Google, Oracle, McDonalds, Coca-Cola or Amazon, then that price would go much much higher.

    (Needless to say, I'm simply describing the implications of P/E ratios.  I am not recommending anyone buy any particular stock.  Consult a competent financial advisor, not a random Internet person like me if you want to invest your money in something.)
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 34 of 51
    skingersskingers Posts: 32member
    sflocal said:
    I'm stunned and dismayed that a site like AppleInsider, even in the year 2018, continues to peddle the falsehood that Bill Gates was Apple's saviour! This has been debunked OVER and OVER again, and is a blunt LIE that was peddled by mainstream media in the late 90's whilst Apple was in dire straights.

    Please REMOVE the phrase "and one-time savior of Apple" from the opening statement, it's a blunt and proven lie!
    Apple and Microsoft were battling due to MS' infringement of Quicktime codec.  Apple was also very close to losing it all.  While "Savior" may be a bit melodramatic, I don't expect anything less from the media (including AI) to fluff pieces and claim "that's what everyone does".  

    The reality is that Apple really needed that $150m to prevent going under.  Call it whatever you want, but that money did keep Apple afloat long enough for Steve Jobs to set a clear and profitable course.
    In no way is it a lie, or a "fluff."

    Like it or not, there is no question that the money, the development deal to make sure that Office (and Internet Explorer!) remained on the Mac, plus the cessation of the QuickTime lawsuit saved Apple's ass.
    No, Magman is correct.  This was not some kind of altruistic side of Microsoft or even an action designed to provide good "optics".  It was a settlement for a lawsuit where Microsoft was caught red handed stealing code from quicktime.  

    Here's an article that describes what actually happened, written some 20 years closer to the actual event.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_150m/

    "David Boies, attorney for the DoJ, noted that John Warden, for Microsoft, had omitted to quote part of a handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million."

    No, Microsoft did not choose to "save" Apple, it was settlement for stolen quicktime code, plain and simple.
    anantksundaramSpamSandwichjony0pscooter63radarthekatshamino
  • Reply 35 of 51
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    melgross said:

    sflocal said:
    I'm stunned and dismayed that a site like AppleInsider, even in the year 2018, continues to peddle the falsehood that Bill Gates was Apple's saviour! This has been debunked OVER and OVER again, and is a blunt LIE that was peddled by mainstream media in the late 90's whilst Apple was in dire straights.

    Please REMOVE the phrase "and one-time savior of Apple" from the opening statement, it's a blunt and proven lie!
    Apple and Microsoft were battling due to MS' infringement of Quicktime codec.  Apple was also very close to losing it all.  While "Savior" may be a bit melodramatic, I don't expect anything less from the media (including AI) to fluff pieces and claim "that's what everyone does".  

    The reality is that Apple really needed that $150m to prevent going under.  Call it whatever you want, but that money did keep Apple afloat long enough for Steve Jobs to set a clear and profitable course.
    In no way is it a lie, or a "fluff."

    Like it or not, there is no question that the money, the development deal to make sure that Office (and Internet Explorer!) remained on the Mac, plus the cessation of the QuickTime lawsuit saved Apple's ass.
    There is no question that the $150 million had nothing to do with anything financial for Apple. It was a pure publicity stunt. Since this was in exchange for non voting share, it contributed nothing to Apple’s position whatsoever.
    Spot on!

    Moreover, if Microsoft had held on to the stock, it would be, arguably, the best investment they ever made: assuming my arithmetic is correct, it would be worth ~$26 billion now. 
    SpamSandwichshaminojbdragon
  • Reply 36 of 51
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    sflocal said:
    I'm stunned and dismayed that a site like AppleInsider, even in the year 2018, continues to peddle the falsehood that Bill Gates was Apple's saviour! This has been debunked OVER and OVER again, and is a blunt LIE that was peddled by mainstream media in the late 90's whilst Apple was in dire straights.

    Please REMOVE the phrase "and one-time savior of Apple" from the opening statement, it's a blunt and proven lie!
    Apple and Microsoft were battling due to MS' infringement of Quicktime codec.  Apple was also very close to losing it all.  While "Savior" may be a bit melodramatic, I don't expect anything less from the media (including AI) to fluff pieces and claim "that's what everyone does".  

    The reality is that Apple really needed that $150m to prevent going under.  Call it whatever you want, but that money did keep Apple afloat long enough for Steve Jobs to set a clear and profitable course.
    In no way is it a lie, or a "fluff."

    Like it or not, there is no question that the money, the development deal to make sure that Office (and Internet Explorer!) remained on the Mac, plus the cessation of the QuickTime lawsuit saved Apple's ass.
    You should get your facts straight (see @melgross above) and not peddle nonsense. 

    C’mon, Fix it
    SpamSandwichpscooter63
  • Reply 37 of 51
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    maestro64 said:
    zoetmb said:
    steveh said:
    Microsoft's "saving" Apple was hardly done out of altruism, nor did it cost Microsoft anything in the long term.

    In 1997, Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of Apple preferred stock, convertable to common shares of Apple stock at a price of $8.25, redeemable after a three year period, for $150 million. Apple was worth ~ $3B at the time.

    By 2001, they'd converted all of the shares into common stock, netting the company approximately 18.1 million shares. 

    By 2003, they'd sold all of it.

    It was mostly optics.
    One of the reasons Microsoft invested in Apple was to make sure Apple survived.  They needed Apple because there were threats of restraint-of-trade suits against Microsoft because of the dominance of Windows and (at the time), Explorer as the default browser.    There were fears the Government was going to get involved. 

    Apple really was in trouble at the time.   There were calls for Apple to either shut down and give the money back to shareholders or sell itself to a company like Sony, which demonstrates how analysts and industry insiders were just as dumb (if not dumber) back then as they are now.

    predicted for some time that 15 years from now, Apple will be an A.I. and robotics company, but with Siri still being so lame, I'm not so sure anymore.  


    This is something most people forget was going on at the time. MS could not afford for Apple to die, if Apple die MS would have been the only OS other than Unix which very few were using and MS would have been stepped on by governments. Too many time people try to make complex situation simple or simple thing complex. In the case of Apple and MS there was a lot going on. I give Jobs and Gates lots of credit for sitting down and focusing on what was important and working a deal with benefitted everyone involved including consumers.
    I think you meant "linix". Unix was and still is a popular OS for servers and non personal computers. Versions of Linix are still available for personal computers.

    That said, I think you are right about your assessment that neither Jobs or Gates (at least Jobs) saw any benefit of the continuing the fight between Apple and Microsoft. Jobs wanted to revitalize Apple and didn't really need the distraction of this fight.

    The $150M investment in AAPL by Microsoft was Jobs way of graciously allowing Microsoft off the hook for their Quicktime infringement, with out making it seem that Microsoft was the bad guy or even publicly admitting guilt. $150M would be a drop in the bucket toward saving Apple, if Apple needed saving. What the $150M investment did was to prop up AAPL stock as investors  already had the perception that AAPL would soon be bankrupt. But those fears were some what quelled by Microsoft $150M investment.This was what Jobs needed to do in order to buy the time he needed to save Apple, not the money itself.

    Apple knew that they would most likely be winning many times that with their lawsuit, but wouldn't see any of the money any time soon, as  Microsoft could tie that money up in the courts for years. It is rumored and some what confirmed by then Apple CFO Fred Anderson, that Microsoft may have eventually paid Apple as much as $500M or more for settling the Quicktime lawsuit. When you think about it, Microsoft was able to use their investment in AAPL to pay for most if not all of it. So in the end, the $150M investment did as much for Microsoft as it did for Apple.

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/

    Some are saying that even Microsoft promise to keep developing MS Office and Explorer was not a factor in saving AAPL because Microsoft at the time was under the scrutiny of the US government due to their monopoly. So there was no way that Microsoft was going to discontinue their support for the Mac and risk getting blamed if Apple were to go under. But the highly public announcement that Microsoft made, that they will continue development for the Mac, was welcome news for AAPL investors because investors knew that Mac sales depended on Macs being able to run MS Office and Macs were Apple's main source of revenue. This too propped up AAPL stocks and allowed more time for Jobs to implement his plans to revitalize Apple. Plus, Microsoft Mac business unit was profitable, and it wouldn't look good to the government, if Microsoft were to shut it down.

    In hindsight, we now know why Jobs did what he did in 1997, as Jobs had already invented the future. Or at least seen it. And that future needed Windows. So it was no use alienating Microsoft and Windows users. When the iPod came out, it was for Macs only. Even though it was a reasonable good seller when only for Macs, iPod sales didn't start generating more revenue than Macs, until iTunes was released for Windows. Which led the way for the iPhone and iPad.

    Some where buried in all this talk about how Microsoft "saved" Apple in 1997 with their $150M investment and their promise to keep developing MS Office for Macs, is a cross licensing agreement drawn up between Apple and Microsoft, that made it easier for Apple to develop iTunes for Windows, so that iPods were compatible with PC's. And because of the Samsung suit, we now know that this agreement was also responsible for why the Zune was the way it was and not even close to being able to compete with the iPod in functionality and design. Most just assume that Microsoft haven't a clue when it comes to designing consumer products. Gates, at the time, had no vision of the future and was only thinking Apple OS and Macs, when Microsoft entered into that cross licensing agreement with Apple in 1997. Meanwhile Jobs was able to effectively eliminate Microsoft as a viable competitor for Apples future products. 

    https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning





    edited May 2018
  • Reply 38 of 51
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,328member
    I always enjoyed the banter between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and none more so than what was witnessed at the 2007 D Conference. What was always apparent to me was a somewhat asymmetrical battle between two competitors who had a lot of mutual respect and who were always fighting a different battle from radically different perspectives. Sure, from a customer spending, marketshare, and adoption perspective they were somewhat locked in a zero sum game in Wall Street's eyes, but Steve Jobs' vision for personal computing was so foreign to anything Bill Gates could ever conceive from a logical or business perspective that it was and still is unwise to ever view their competitiveness as hand to hand combat in the same light of say Edison-vs-Tesla. Steve Jobs was an uncompromising visionary with amazing artistic sensibilities while Bill Gates defines the archetype for the enterprise software architect role while also bringing amazing business acumen to the table. In some ways you can look at Tim Cook as being the secret weapon that finally allowed Apple to beat Microsoft in hand to hand combat in the business marketplace by filling in the gaps that Steve Jobs lacked but Microsoft and Bill Gates previously exploited. But Tim's success would never have been possible without the rock solid and timeless foundation that Steve Jobs established in his far too brief time on earth. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 39 of 51
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,949member
    He famously banned Apple products from his house. His kids had to use Windows Phones. Wonder if he’s gotten off that high horse now that there isn’t a Windows Phone. Of course his kids are probably all grown up and just leave their iPhones in the car when they visit. 
    StrangeDaysradarthekatjbdragon
  • Reply 40 of 51
    elfig2012elfig2012 Posts: 63member
    Apple shares will always be underestimated by the Wall Street boys because they focus not on the company but on what they may gain!
Sign In or Register to comment.