5 ms·

40 years ago, maybe. The Microsoft investment that saved them was in 1997. The writing had been on the wall for most of the 90s, at least as I recall.

alsetmusic 9d ago
> The Microsoft investment that saved them was in 1997. The MS investment didn’t save them. It provided both companies cover in the news. “Apple won’t die” and “Microsoft isn’t a monopoly”. Neither was a fact and both benefited.
- anthonyrstevens 9d ago
  Microsoft certainly did throw Apple a $150MM lifeline that was sorely needed, else they were looking at bankruptcy within weeks. I would say that "saved" them. AND yes, both companies benefited.
  - iainmerrick 9d ago
    Right. It was convenient for Microsoft, but essential for Apple. MS was the last partner they'd have chosen if they weren't desperate. Jobs was booed when he announced it! It had very much the air of Lando Calrissian announcing Cloud City's strategic partnership with Darth Vader.
  - Danox 8d ago
    Commodore, Acorn, Arm Holding, SGI, Sun, and Next were relatively small compared to the Wintel juggernaut, but this did not imply that the technology driving them was inferior. In fact, much of it was superior. What likely saved Apple was the fact that despite undergoing three CEOs, they did not squander the $150 million settlement with Microsoft. But they still had sufficient funds, equivalent to $2 billion at today’s value, to continue their operations. They also had a team of highly skilled individuals who went on to develop a new operating system, OSX, and build computers with G3, G4 processors. They have also released new iMacs, Mac laptops, and Mac desktop computers to the public. Does this imply that with $2 billion today, plus or minus $1 billion, one can achieve all these accomplishments and grow into a large technology company? It seems like an unlikely long-shot that Microsoft saved Apple. In hindsight, it appears that Apple had some exceptionally talented individuals, certainty more talented than the group at Microsoft and Intel. Because both Microsoft and Intel, in hindsight, sat on their laurels for the better part of two decades. -
    - iainmerrick 8d ago
      this did not imply that the technology driving them was inferior Does this imply that with $2 billion today, plus or minus $1 billion, one can achieve all these accomplishments and grow into a large technology company? You're the only one implying those things! It seems like an unlikely long-shot that Microsoft saved Apple. Why unlikely? They got into financial trouble due to bad decisions. They needed a bail-out from a former arch-rival to dodge bankruptcy. They eventually achieved huge success due to better decisions. There's nothing contradictory there.
baruz 9d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company It was presented as an investment, but the $150 million was just the initial payment of a much larger settlement which was not disclosed.

alsetmusic 9d ago

> The Microsoft investment that saved them was in 1997. The MS investment didn’t save them. It provided both companies cover in the news. “Apple won’t die” and “Microsoft isn’t a monopoly”. Neither was a fact and both benefited.

anthonyrstevens 9d ago
Microsoft certainly did throw Apple a $150MM lifeline that was sorely needed, else they were looking at bankruptcy within weeks. I would say that "saved" them. AND yes, both companies benefited.
- iainmerrick 9d ago
  Right. It was convenient for Microsoft, but essential for Apple. MS was the last partner they'd have chosen if they weren't desperate. Jobs was booed when he announced it! It had very much the air of Lando Calrissian announcing Cloud City's strategic partnership with Darth Vader.
- Danox 8d ago
  Commodore, Acorn, Arm Holding, SGI, Sun, and Next were relatively small compared to the Wintel juggernaut, but this did not imply that the technology driving them was inferior. In fact, much of it was superior. What likely saved Apple was the fact that despite undergoing three CEOs, they did not squander the $150 million settlement with Microsoft. But they still had sufficient funds, equivalent to $2 billion at today’s value, to continue their operations. They also had a team of highly skilled individuals who went on to develop a new operating system, OSX, and build computers with G3, G4 processors. They have also released new iMacs, Mac laptops, and Mac desktop computers to the public. Does this imply that with $2 billion today, plus or minus $1 billion, one can achieve all these accomplishments and grow into a large technology company? It seems like an unlikely long-shot that Microsoft saved Apple. In hindsight, it appears that Apple had some exceptionally talented individuals, certainty more talented than the group at Microsoft and Intel. Because both Microsoft and Intel, in hindsight, sat on their laurels for the better part of two decades. -
  - iainmerrick 8d ago
    this did not imply that the technology driving them was inferior Does this imply that with $2 billion today, plus or minus $1 billion, one can achieve all these accomplishments and grow into a large technology company? You're the only one implying those things! It seems like an unlikely long-shot that Microsoft saved Apple. Why unlikely? They got into financial trouble due to bad decisions. They needed a bail-out from a former arch-rival to dodge bankruptcy. They eventually achieved huge success due to better decisions. There's nothing contradictory there.

baruz 9d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company It was presented as an investment, but the $150 million was just the initial payment of a much larger settlement which was not disclosed.