6 ms·

> It's very rare that you see acquisitions work out like this The acquisition was a normal acquisition. What made it special was the DOJ stepping in to destro

by GDC7 5y ago

> It's very rare that you see acquisitions work out like this The acquisition was a normal acquisition. What made it special was the DOJ stepping in to destroy Microsoft because Bill Gates was essentially too rich and his riches were so talked about that people in DC wanted to show him who's the alpha. Apple would have gone to zero without Microsoft essentially saving it from bankruptcy, and it would be irrelevant had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft with such vigor.

macintux 5y ago
I don’t believe it was the money that really mattered, but the commitment to provide Office for Mac made a big difference.
- superdug 5y ago
  Wasn't there some language in the deal about Internet Explorer as well as Office?
  - mattl 5y ago
    Yes but Apple shipped both IE and Netscape.
  - MBCook 5y ago
    Yes. As part of the deal Apple was required to include Internet Explorer on Macs (for some amount of time). IE 5 and 5.5 on the Mac were actually very good browsers. But Apple was not prohibited from including other browsers as well. For example, years later, Safari.
- GDC7 5y ago
  In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acumen. The worst thing is that the majority of the American population would have not found themselves competing against Bill Gates for anything, except those in DC who had him as their #1 enemy in order to win their size measuring contest. Matter of fact the small individual consumer and small businesses were getting away robbing Microsoft blind as they didn't do anything to stop piracy. Microsoft would just treat it as free marketing or just pass those losses onto big paying customers such as the Fortune 500 companies, thus compensating for piracy losses at the base of the pyramid. After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Irony if you think about how passionate Jobs was about music
  - jen20 5y ago
    What exactly are you talking about? My iPhone 13 is simultaneously charging and playing music right this second - while writing this post. Do at least try to keep things rooted in fact, despite your emotions.
    - macintux 5y ago
      I think there's a point there about what comes in the box. If this is your first iPhone, your first Bluetooth-capable device, yes, you're stuck with awkward compromises without spending more money. Still, for most people it's not their first such device, so they already typically have their own infrastructure of chargers and BT headsets etc.
      - eyelidlessness 5y ago
        Apple has certainly slimmed down what comes with an iPhone, but from the cheapest single port iPhone to the most expensive, they all can charge and play music at the same time without spending or acquiring anything else.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Even the base model iPhone SE ($399) has an external speaker, bluetooth, and airplay, all of which are capable of playing music while charging at the same time. What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft. Had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft we'd have a better, more open phone which would also come out of the box with the ability to play music while charging. iPhones made in 2012 were only barely better than Pocket PCs made in 2005
dev_tty01 5y ago
> DOJ stepping in to destroy Microsoft because Bill Gates was essentially too rich.. That is revisionist. Microsoft got a slap on the wrist. I don't think this gave Apple any tangible benefit. Microsoft's investment was also insignificant. The only thing that really mattered was Microsoft's commitment to continue delivering MS Office for Mac OS. That was a big deal. MS got benefit from Explorer on Mac and for the continued "competition" from Apple to reduce antitrust accusations.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > Microsoft got a slap on the wrist Microsoft gave small users everywhere a free license to use the best GUI OS in the world. Not to mention the browser and the productivity tools It has always been a free software , unless you are really dedicated and want to pay for it. It was a really elegant solution, the degree to which you paid for Microsoft products ranged based on each individual user willingness to "look around" for free pirated copies. And over at Redmond they'd take notice and push the bill onto paying customers such as the Fortune 500 (Exxon, BP, JPMorgan) If there is one company that the public should love is Microsoft.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > Microsoft gave small users everywhere a free license to use the best GUI OS in the world. Not to mention the browser and the productivity tools > It has always been a free software , unless you are really dedicated and want to pay for it. The only way I can see for this claim to have any connection to reality is if you are talking about piracy. Yes, Microsoft kind of turned a blind eye to pirates if they stayed small-scale enough. Yes, it was still illegal, and you were still (at least theoretically) running the risk of legal trouble. If you weren't talking about piracy, then you are simply wrong. Microsoft was never free. (You may have been paying it bundled into the price of a new computer, but it wasn't free.) This goes all the way back to the beginning - see Bill Gates' letter to the hobbyists who were taking a "free license" to MicroSoft BASIC back in the 1970s.
  - tambourine_man 5y ago
    > …use the best GUI OS in the world. > If there is one company that the public should love is Microsoft Microsoft was a monopolistic and mediocre behemoth in the 90s. We’re lucky computing survived its grip. Mostly due to the open web, which is sadly under severe attack.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> ... because Bill Gates was essentially too rich and his riches were so talked about that people in DC wanted to show him who's the alpha. That's totally not how that happened. Microsoft was doing things that were legitimately anti-competitive, and legitimately against the law. That got proven, and Microsoft's best option was to take the consent decree rather than flat-out lose and let the DOJ have a free hand to write the rules going forward.
- GDC7 5y ago
  How can you be anticompetitive when your software is free? Antitrust laws were made to protect the consumer, the same consumer which was robbing Microsoft blind because they allowed piracy.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    For the third time: Microsoft's software wasn't free. I have no idea where you get the idea that it was.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        It was free to those who were willing to steal. That wasn't most of us. (I wouldn't call that "wise enough", by any stretch.) But I can see that your sense of ethics has no correlation with mine. Be that as it may, having piracy - even allowing piracy - is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for antitrust violations.
        GDC7 5y ago
        5y ago
eyelidlessness 5y ago
Bill Gates and Microsoft are surely grateful for you coming to their defense.

by GDC7 5y ago

macintux 5y ago

I don’t believe it was the money that really mattered, but the commitment to provide Office for Mac made a big difference.

superdug 5y ago
Wasn't there some language in the deal about Internet Explorer as well as Office?
- mattl 5y ago
  Yes but Apple shipped both IE and Netscape.
- MBCook 5y ago
  Yes. As part of the deal Apple was required to include Internet Explorer on Macs (for some amount of time). IE 5 and 5.5 on the Mac were actually very good browsers. But Apple was not prohibited from including other browsers as well. For example, years later, Safari.
GDC7 5y ago
In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acumen. The worst thing is that the majority of the American population would have not found themselves competing against Bill Gates for anything, except those in DC who had him as their #1 enemy in order to win their size measuring contest. Matter of fact the small individual consumer and small businesses were getting away robbing Microsoft blind as they didn't do anything to stop piracy. Microsoft would just treat it as free marketing or just pass those losses onto big paying customers such as the Fortune 500 companies, thus compensating for piracy losses at the base of the pyramid. After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Irony if you think about how passionate Jobs was about music
- jen20 5y ago
  What exactly are you talking about? My iPhone 13 is simultaneously charging and playing music right this second - while writing this post. Do at least try to keep things rooted in fact, despite your emotions.
  - macintux 5y ago
    I think there's a point there about what comes in the box. If this is your first iPhone, your first Bluetooth-capable device, yes, you're stuck with awkward compromises without spending more money. Still, for most people it's not their first such device, so they already typically have their own infrastructure of chargers and BT headsets etc.
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      Apple has certainly slimmed down what comes with an iPhone, but from the cheapest single port iPhone to the most expensive, they all can charge and play music at the same time without spending or acquiring anything else.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Even the base model iPhone SE ($399) has an external speaker, bluetooth, and airplay, all of which are capable of playing music while charging at the same time. What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft. Had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft we'd have a better, more open phone which would also come out of the box with the ability to play music while charging. iPhones made in 2012 were only barely better than Pocket PCs made in 2005

dev_tty01 5y ago

> DOJ stepping in to destroy Microsoft because Bill Gates was essentially too rich.. That is revisionist. Microsoft got a slap on the wrist. I don't think this gave Apple any tangible benefit. Microsoft's investment was also insignificant. The only thing that really mattered was Microsoft's commitment to continue delivering MS Office for Mac OS. That was a big deal. MS got benefit from Explorer on Mac and for the continued "competition" from Apple to reduce antitrust accusations.

GDC7 5y ago
> Microsoft got a slap on the wrist Microsoft gave small users everywhere a free license to use the best GUI OS in the world. Not to mention the browser and the productivity tools It has always been a free software , unless you are really dedicated and want to pay for it. It was a really elegant solution, the degree to which you paid for Microsoft products ranged based on each individual user willingness to "look around" for free pirated copies. And over at Redmond they'd take notice and push the bill onto paying customers such as the Fortune 500 (Exxon, BP, JPMorgan) If there is one company that the public should love is Microsoft.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > Microsoft gave small users everywhere a free license to use the best GUI OS in the world. Not to mention the browser and the productivity tools > It has always been a free software , unless you are really dedicated and want to pay for it. The only way I can see for this claim to have any connection to reality is if you are talking about piracy. Yes, Microsoft kind of turned a blind eye to pirates if they stayed small-scale enough. Yes, it was still illegal, and you were still (at least theoretically) running the risk of legal trouble. If you weren't talking about piracy, then you are simply wrong. Microsoft was never free. (You may have been paying it bundled into the price of a new computer, but it wasn't free.) This goes all the way back to the beginning - see Bill Gates' letter to the hobbyists who were taking a "free license" to MicroSoft BASIC back in the 1970s.
- tambourine_man 5y ago
  > …use the best GUI OS in the world. > If there is one company that the public should love is Microsoft Microsoft was a monopolistic and mediocre behemoth in the 90s. We’re lucky computing survived its grip. Mostly due to the open web, which is sadly under severe attack.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> ... because Bill Gates was essentially too rich and his riches were so talked about that people in DC wanted to show him who's the alpha. That's totally not how that happened. Microsoft was doing things that were legitimately anti-competitive, and legitimately against the law. That got proven, and Microsoft's best option was to take the consent decree rather than flat-out lose and let the DOJ have a free hand to write the rules going forward.

GDC7 5y ago
How can you be anticompetitive when your software is free? Antitrust laws were made to protect the consumer, the same consumer which was robbing Microsoft blind because they allowed piracy.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  For the third time: Microsoft's software wasn't free. I have no idea where you get the idea that it was.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      It was free to those who were willing to steal. That wasn't most of us. (I wouldn't call that "wise enough", by any stretch.) But I can see that your sense of ethics has no correlation with mine. Be that as it may, having piracy - even allowing piracy - is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for antitrust violations.
      - GDC7 5y ago
        5y ago

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Bill Gates and Microsoft are surely grateful for you coming to their defense.