anantksundaram

Soli said:

SendMcjak said:

I doubt that was the pitch made to executive management, though -- "Guys, it'll be a great backup option!" --or-- "Hilton will be the leader in seemless, backup room access."

It's how I'd pitch it. 

melgross said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

sflocal said:

magman1979 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.