“The investment was a stock purchase, and didn't directly put money into the hands of Apple.”
I don’t think this makes sense. Are you saying that Jobs made a big deal out of it and teleconferenced Bill Gates onto the big screen because Microsoft went into the public market and bought $150 million of Apple shares? Tim Cook didn’t bring Warren Buffett on stage when Buffett made his open-market Apple share purchases. Or Carl Icahn when he made his purchases. Seems to me Apple would have issued shares to Microsoft, and that means Apple would most definitely have received the $150 million to add to its balance sheet and to use in its operations.
From some of the reactions here, my favorite maxim applies: Reading is fundamental! The very title says nothing about Apple being saved by Gates/Microsoft. The peace helped saved Apple. Without this peace agreement, we probably wouldn’t have Apple around today. At least not anywhere close to what it is today. It was the totality of Jobs’ efforts that truly saved Apple. Getting rid of costly and unprofitable production lines, streamlining the company’s focus and producing world class computers and updating the OS. All of that saved Apple. Having loyal workers and loyal, almost fanatical customers also helped. I’m proud to say that I’m part of the latter group.
This article is a bit misleading. Apple was in the process of actively suing Microsoft not for the GUI, but for copyright infringement related to QuickTime.
This case was a much better case for Apple than the GUI case because Apple had Microsoft executives acknowledging they ripped QuickTime Off. Apple might have some Appeal rights related to the GUI suit, but if so, that case was mostly done.
Apple was going to win a big chunk of money from Microsoft on the QuickTime suit, but likely didn’t really have the time to wait for it. Plus Microsoft was playing hardball and threatening to stop developing Office for the Mac.
Apple got a 150 Million investment from Microsoft, but it also received a undisclosed amount to settle the lawsuit. Based on Microsoft Finacial statements, its estimated the payment was much bigger than the 150 million.
Perhaps more importantly Apple got a five year commitment on Office for the Mac.
Completely off topic, but not. We need another Steve Jobs to come in and wipe the product line clean again. First let me say, I LOVE Apple and have had Apple products since the early Ipod days. But they have way too many iPhones. And way too many iPads. They have so many of each now they don’t even know how to name them anymore! Anything after the iPad Air 2 was unnecessary with the exception of the Pro. The 2017 and 2018 iPads are useless and have that plastic sounding screen like the original iPad Air because it doesn’t have the laminated screen. And what happened to the anti-reflective coating from the Air 2? That’s my everyday iPad and that coating is amazing. And the iPhones...ugh! 6s, 7, 8, X...do we seriously need that many choices? What happened to 2 colors and 3 SSD tiers? And that X is hideous. And looks like this year they will all be. I’m stocking up on 6’s and 7’s now to get me through this “notch” stage.
To be clear, as the original article isn't clear on how the stock deal worked, $0.85 per share isn't what Microsoft paid for AAPL stock.
Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of preferred stock at a cost of $150 million, or $1,000 per share. Those shares could be converted to common stock after 3 years and at a conversion rate of $16.50 per share. So the $150 million worth of preferred stock could, after 3 years, become 9.1 million shares of AAPL. In the meantime, AAPL split 2-for 1, so Microsoft actually got 18.2 million shares of AAPL. AAPL has since split 14-for-1, so those shares - held until today - would have become 254.5 million shares.
To your question: I'm not sure what date the original article is using to get that $0.85 per share price, but regardless it would have to be a split-adjusted price (with AAPL having split 28-for-1 since then). AAPL was never below $10 (not-split-adjusted) during 1997.
To be clear, as the original article isn't clear on how the stock deal worked, $0.85 per share isn't what Microsoft paid for AAPL stock.
Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of preferred stock at a cost of $150 million, or $1,000 per share. Those shares could be converted to common stock after 3 years and at a conversion rate of $16.50 per share. So the $150 million worth of preferred stock could, after 3 years, become 9.1 million shares of AAPL. In the meantime, AAPL split 2-for 1, so Microsoft actually got 18.2 million shares of AAPL. AAPL has since split 14-for-1, so those shares - held until today - would have become 254.5 million shares.
To your question: I'm not sure what date the original article is using to get that $0.85 per share price, but regardless it would have to be a split-adjusted price (with AAPL having split 28-for-1 since then). AAPL was never below $10 (not-split-adjusted) during 1997.
I'm not even sure what you're asking. That's what the cost per share was on the day the deal was announced.
They seem to be asking whether $0.85 would have been the actual price on that day or what the price on that day would translate to if you account for the 28-for-1 split AAPL has seen since then. It would have to be the latter, i.e. a split-adjust price. AAPL wouldn't have been $0.85 per share (not-split-adjusted) at any time during 1997.
At any rate, $0.85 per share (even as a split-adjusted price) wasn't the price that Microsoft was, in effect, agreeing to pay for AAPL shares. Microsoft was, in effect, agreeing to pay $16.50 per share (and to wait 3 years before it was able to sell those shares).
I'm not even sure what you're asking. That's what the cost per share was on the day the deal was announced.
They seem to be asking whether $0.85 would have been the actual price on that day or what the price on that day would translate to if you account for the 28-for-1 split AAPL has seen since then. It would have to be the latter, i.e. a split-adjust price. AAPL wouldn't have been $0.85 per share (not-split-adjusted) at any time during 1997.
At any rate, $0.85 per share (even as a split-adjusted price) wasn't the price that Microsoft was, in effect, agreeing to pay for AAPL shares. Microsoft was, in effect, agreeing to pay $16.50 per share (and to wait 3 years before it was able to sell those shares).
Yeah, now that I'm looking at it a bit closer and talking to Stephen, it is a split-adjusted price. We'll clean up the language a bit.
This article is a bit misleading. Apple was in the process of actively suing Microsoft not for the GUI, but for copyright infringement related to QuickTime.
This case was a much better case for Apple than the GUI case because Apple had Microsoft executives acknowledging they ripped QuickTime Off. Apple might have some Appeal rights related to the GUI suit, but if so, that case was mostly done.
Apple was going to win a big chunk of money from Microsoft on the QuickTime suit, but likely didn’t really have the time to wait for it. Plus Microsoft was playing hardball and threatening to stop developing Office for the Mac.
Apple got a 150 Million investment from Microsoft, but it also received a undisclosed amount to settle the lawsuit. Based on Microsoft Finacial statements, its estimated the payment was much bigger than the 150 million.
Perhaps more importantly Apple got a five year commitment on Office for the Mac.
It ASTONISHES me that, even after 21 YEARS, this pro-Microsoft drivel is being peddled by mainstream media!
The "investment" of $150 million was a SETTLEMENT that Microsoft agreed to pay for BLATANTLY stealing and using QuickTime code that was created by one of Apple's third-party software developers, and integrated into what was then Windows Media Video format!
I am absolutely disgusted when I see this crap posted 21 years later, continuing the narrative that Microsoft "saved" Apple, putting Microsoft in an altruistic light when no such thing is deserved or warranted!
I signed in specifically to say the same thing. That was a payoff for what they did with the QuickTime code. They literally stole it, comments and all. They were caught dead to rights. The agreement was not an altruistic gesture from Microsoft. It was a "please don't sue us and prevent us from playing video on Windows for years to come". But history will eventually forget thanks to articles like this.
Completely off topic, but not. We need another Steve Jobs to come in and wipe the product line clean again. First let me say, I LOVE Apple and have had Apple products since the early Ipod days. But they have way too many iPhones. And way too many iPads. They have so many of each now they don’t even know how to name them anymore! Anything after the iPad Air 2 was unnecessary with the exception of the Pro. The 2017 and 2018 iPads are useless and have that plastic sounding screen like the original iPad Air because it doesn’t have the laminated screen. And what happened to the anti-reflective coating from the Air 2? That’s my everyday iPad and that coating is amazing. And the iPhones...ugh! 6s, 7, 8, X...do we seriously need that many choices? What happened to 2 colors and 3 SSD tiers? And that X is hideous. And looks like this year they will all be. I’m stocking up on 6’s and 7’s now to get me through this “notch” stage.
Be be careful of what you wish for. Anybody clearing the product line at this point would probably kill all the desktop Macs.
It ASTONISHES me that, even after 21 YEARS, this pro-Microsoft drivel is being peddled by mainstream media!
The "investment" of $150 million was a SETTLEMENT that Microsoft agreed to pay for BLATANTLY stealing and using QuickTime code that was created by one of Apple's third-party software developers, and integrated into what was then Windows Media Video format!
I am absolutely disgusted when I see this crap posted 21 years later, continuing the narrative that Microsoft "saved" Apple, putting Microsoft in an altruistic light when no such thing is deserved or warranted!
Did you even read the article? Or, for that matter, the one you linked to?
There's plenty more evidence about this FACT, that this was a settlement to end Apple's lawsuit against San Francisco Canyon Company, Intel, and Microsoft, and as a condition of ending the settlement, Microsoft would pay damages, continue working on Office and IE for the Mac for 5 more years, AND buy $150 million of AAPL.
Stop spreading trash news spun over the decades by the anti-Apple tech media, it gets old, and I expect FAR BETTER from a site professing to be an Apple venue. I'm sure DED could chime in and vouch for EVERYTHING I've said.
“Some now believe the undisclosed amount of money that Microsoft paid Apple was in fact a secret settlement to the patent-infringment claims. Estimated at anywhere between $500 million to $2 billion, this was the real meat of the “cross-licensing” arrangement. It was likely this much larger undisclosed amount”
From your own source. “Some now believe” is hardly definitive, and there is no money trail.
Please read Stephen’s article again, considering you didn’t get the author right, and do it without your pre-conceptions about what you think it says.
Plus, hit the commenting guidelines while you’re at it. A deleted comment was way, way over the line. Dissent is fine. Respectful dissent is mandatory.
Look, man. You're a smart guy. I'm not interested in a war, but I will finish one. You've toed up to the line in the comments here -- please go no further.
Completely off topic, but not. We need another Steve Jobs to come in and wipe the product line clean again. First let me say, I LOVE Apple and have had Apple products since the early Ipod days. But they have way too many iPhones. And way too many iPads. They have so many of each now they don’t even know how to name them anymore! Anything after the iPad Air 2 was unnecessary with the exception of the Pro. The 2017 and 2018 iPads are useless and have that plastic sounding screen like the original iPad Air because it doesn’t have the laminated screen. And what happened to the anti-reflective coating from the Air 2? That’s my everyday iPad and that coating is amazing. And the iPhones...ugh! 6s, 7, 8, X...do we seriously need that many choices? What happened to 2 colors and 3 SSD tiers? And that X is hideous. And looks like this year they will all be. I’m stocking up on 6’s and 7’s now to get me through this “notch” stage.
Be be careful of what you wish for. Anybody clearing the product line at this point would probably kill all the desktop Macs.
“Some now believe the undisclosed amount of money that Microsoft paid Apple was in fact a secret settlement to the patent-infringment claims. Estimated at anywhere between $500 million to $2 billion, this was the real meat of the “cross-licensing” arrangement. It was likely this much larger undisclosed amount”
From your own source. “Some now believe” is hardly definitive, and there is no money trail.
Please read Stephen’s article again, considering you didn’t get the author right, and do it without your pre-conceptions about what you think it says.
Plus, hit the commenting guidelines while you’re at it. A deleted comment was way, way over the line. Dissent is fine. Respectful dissent is mandatory.
Look, man. You're a smart guy. I'm not interested in a war, but I will finish one. You've toed up to the line in the comments here -- please go no further.
Buddy, I LIVED thru that history, and I know what WAS, and what WASN'T... Your insistence of a falsehood doesn't suddenly make it a reality. This was even in sworn testimony in the US DoJ vs MS trial where it was revealed this was a settlement regarding theft of Apple's IP and proprietary code.
Respect is something that is EARNED, and threatening silence doesn't earn you "respectful dissent" as you imply, just the opposite. Your article and assumptions are false, and your attempt at trying to put down and silence someone who is trying to set the record straight shows a blatant disregard for factual reporting and instead trying to spin convenient and false narratives that were WRONGLY adopted by the media for DECADES to make MS look like Apple's saviour and not that they were thieves who were caught and paid up.
“Some now believe the undisclosed amount of money that Microsoft paid Apple was in fact a secret settlement to the patent-infringment claims. Estimated at anywhere between $500 million to $2 billion, this was the real meat of the “cross-licensing” arrangement. It was likely this much larger undisclosed amount”
From your own source. “Some now believe” is hardly definitive, and there is no money trail.
Please read Stephen’s article again, considering you didn’t get the author right, and do it without your pre-conceptions about what you think it says.
Plus, hit the commenting guidelines while you’re at it. A deleted comment was way, way over the line. Dissent is fine. Respectful dissent is mandatory.
Look, man. You're a smart guy. I'm not interested in a war, but I will finish one. You've toed up to the line in the comments here -- please go no further.
Buddy, I LIVED thru that history, and I know what WAS, and what WASN'T... Your insistence of a falsehood doesn't suddenly make it a reality. This was even in sworn testimony in the US DoJ vs MS trial where it was revealed this was a settlement regarding theft of Apple's IP and proprietary code.
Respect is something that is EARNED, and threatening silence doesn't earn you "respectful dissent" as you imply, just the opposite. Your article and assumptions are false, and your attempt at trying to put down and silence someone who is trying to set the record straight shows a blatant disregard for factual reporting and instead trying to spin convenient and false narratives that were WRONGLY adopted by the media for DECADES to make MS look like Apple's saviour and not that they were thieves who were caught and paid up.
You can believe what you like. However, a "lived through" authoritative claim gets you precisely no credit from somebody else that did too.
You speak of facts and factual reporting. Your sources have nothing but whisper and hearsay, and there is still no money trail suggesting that there was a secret payment like your sources purport.
Did it stop litigation? Yup. Did it help Apple a great deal from a reputational standpoint from enterprise, users, and Wall Street? Sure did -- in fact, Apple's deal with the US Army for OS X Server and a similar one with the Navy was a direct result of the deal. You want to know how I know that? I lived through it, and was there.
Is there concrete evidence of a secret payment as your sources allege? Zero.
I'm not trying to put you down and silence you. I have more than enough moderation tools to do so if I was so inclined. As you can see, your dissent remains. What does not is your ad hominem post from the one before the one I quoted above -- which is clearly on the wrong side of the commenting guidelines. If I wanted to silence you, I'd have either banned you already, or deleted all of your comments in this thread.
You do you, man, and you're welcome to believe that the article and assumptions are false. You will follow the commenting guidelines, and you will be respectful of forum-goers, though.
Comments
I don’t think this makes sense. Are you saying that Jobs made a big deal out of it and teleconferenced Bill Gates onto the big screen because Microsoft went into the public market and bought $150 million of Apple shares? Tim Cook didn’t bring Warren Buffett on stage when Buffett made his open-market Apple share purchases. Or Carl Icahn when he made his purchases. Seems to me Apple would have issued shares to Microsoft, and that means Apple would most definitely have received the $150 million to add to its balance sheet and to use in its operations.
This case was a much better case for Apple than the GUI case because Apple had Microsoft executives acknowledging they ripped QuickTime Off. Apple might have some Appeal rights related to the GUI suit, but if so, that case was mostly done.
Apple was going to win a big chunk of money from Microsoft on the QuickTime suit, but likely didn’t really have the time to wait for it. Plus Microsoft was playing hardball and threatening to stop developing Office for the Mac.
Apple got a 150 Million investment from Microsoft, but it also received a undisclosed amount to settle the lawsuit. Based on Microsoft Finacial statements, its estimated the payment was much bigger than the 150 million.
Perhaps more importantly Apple got a five year commitment on Office for the Mac.
http://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quicktime/
Microsoft bought 150,000 shares of preferred stock at a cost of $150 million, or $1,000 per share. Those shares could be converted to common stock after 3 years and at a conversion rate of $16.50 per share. So the $150 million worth of preferred stock could, after 3 years, become 9.1 million shares of AAPL. In the meantime, AAPL split 2-for 1, so Microsoft actually got 18.2 million shares of AAPL. AAPL has since split 14-for-1, so those shares - held until today - would have become 254.5 million shares.
To your question: I'm not sure what date the original article is using to get that $0.85 per share price, but regardless it would have to be a split-adjusted price (with AAPL having split 28-for-1 since then). AAPL was never below $10 (not-split-adjusted) during 1997.
They seem to be asking whether $0.85 would have been the actual price on that day or what the price on that day would translate to if you account for the 28-for-1 split AAPL has seen since then. It would have to be the latter, i.e. a split-adjust price. AAPL wouldn't have been $0.85 per share (not-split-adjusted) at any time during 1997.
At any rate, $0.85 per share (even as a split-adjusted price) wasn't the price that Microsoft was, in effect, agreeing to pay for AAPL shares. Microsoft was, in effect, agreeing to pay $16.50 per share (and to wait 3 years before it was able to sell those shares).
http://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quicktime/
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16663414.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
There's plenty more evidence about this FACT, that this was a settlement to end Apple's lawsuit against San Francisco Canyon Company, Intel, and Microsoft, and as a condition of ending the settlement, Microsoft would pay damages, continue working on Office and IE for the Mac for 5 more years, AND buy $150 million of AAPL.
Stop spreading trash news spun over the decades by the anti-Apple tech media, it gets old, and I expect FAR BETTER from a site professing to be an Apple venue. I'm sure DED could chime in and vouch for EVERYTHING I've said.
From your own source. “Some now believe” is hardly definitive, and there is no money trail.
Please read Stephen’s article again, considering you didn’t get the author right, and do it without your pre-conceptions about what you think it says.
Plus, hit the commenting guidelines while you’re at it. A deleted comment was way, way over the line. Dissent is fine. Respectful dissent is mandatory.
Look, man. You're a smart guy. I'm not interested in a war, but I will finish one. You've toed up to the line in the comments here -- please go no further.
Respect is something that is EARNED, and threatening silence doesn't earn you "respectful dissent" as you imply, just the opposite. Your article and assumptions are false, and your attempt at trying to put down and silence someone who is trying to set the record straight shows a blatant disregard for factual reporting and instead trying to spin convenient and false narratives that were WRONGLY adopted by the media for DECADES to make MS look like Apple's saviour and not that they were thieves who were caught and paid up.
You speak of facts and factual reporting. Your sources have nothing but whisper and hearsay, and there is still no money trail suggesting that there was a secret payment like your sources purport.
Did it stop litigation? Yup. Did it help Apple a great deal from a reputational standpoint from enterprise, users, and Wall Street? Sure did -- in fact, Apple's deal with the US Army for OS X Server and a similar one with the Navy was a direct result of the deal. You want to know how I know that? I lived through it, and was there.
Is there concrete evidence of a secret payment as your sources allege? Zero.
You do you, man, and you're welcome to believe that the article and assumptions are false. You will follow the commenting guidelines, and you will be respectful of forum-goers, though.