

This Day in Tech: Aug. 6, 1997: Apple Rescued - by Microsoft - edw519
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/dayintech_0806/

======
jgrahamc
I commented on this situation in a song parody of "Don't cry for me Argentina"
many years ago:

[http://www.jgc.org/blog/2008/03/bouts-complete-song-
parodies...](http://www.jgc.org/blog/2008/03/bouts-complete-song-
parodies.html)

~~~
jacquesm
I think you have missed your calling :)

~~~
jgrahamc
Unfortunately, I have tried to learn to sing (twice) and failed. Thus I am
limited to writing song lyrics. One day I will fulfill my life long dream of
writing the lyrics for a country music hit song.

If you enjoyed that, you might enjoy this:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=156905>

------
stse
This event is featured in the tv movie 'Pirates of Silicon Valley', if I
remember correctly.

------
nailer
I generally dislike people who get emotional about technology. I was quite
surprised - not being an Apple person at all, and having seen this footage at
the time - to feel quite saddened by this.

------
jacquesm
I read that and it makes me wonder if Microsoft would have made the deal if
they knew the long term outcome.

~~~
jbarciauskas
What about it makes you wonder? It's not like Apple is a threat to Microsoft
in the operating system market. Apple is a threat in the portable music player
and smartphone markets, but those are not core to Microsoft's business anyway.
Microsoft had a chance to take over the smartphone market before Apple showed
up, and blew it with a crappy interface and being slow to incorporate push
e-mail natively into Exchange.

The goodwill they engendered from this move was sorely needed at the time and
surely that alone was worth the investment.

~~~
jacquesm
Microsoft diagrees with you, they think windows mobile is definitely core
business:

They just launched a guide on how to port from the iphone to windows mobile:

[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/mar09/03-11wmm...](http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/mar09/03-11wmmdeveloperspr.mspx)

and

[http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/microsoft-details-how-
po...](http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/microsoft-details-how-port-iphone-
apps-windows-mobile-073)

They may lose the battle (just like the zune has already lost the battle, I'm
surprised they haven't cut it yet) but for now they're putting up a fight.

~~~
philwelch
The fact that they're competing means Windows Mobile is _a_ business, not that
it's a core business. Something isn't a core business until it makes a
significant fraction of the company's revenue, and WinMobile doesn't approach
Windows/Office on that front.

Microsoft's strategy is to have as many businesses as possible, and for each
business to compete, in hopes that some of them become core businesses.
Apple's strategy is to make almost everything a core business. I don't think
"having tons of businesses that don't try to compete very hard" is even a
strategy.

------
sharjeel
I dunno why people (somewhat including myself as well) are so much against
Bill Gates. At a high level he's a very noble man compared to Steve Jobs.

On second thought I shouldn't start a heated debate.

------
berntb
Wasn't there also a part to not sue for code from Quicktime ending up in
Windows? Which would have netted a large sum in court.

(As far as I can remember, Apple had some third company port Quicktime and
after Microsoft saw that, they asked the company to make "Video for Windows"
to not look like "Slides for Windows".)

Edit: (Some syntax fixes.) According to this page, the Quicktime deal was the
most important part. That fits with my memory. The article is a bad hack job.
(The page also mentions that Microsoft tried to extort Apple to not support
video playback on Windows.)

[http://www.technstuff.com/windows/history-of-quicktime-
did-y...](http://www.technstuff.com/windows/history-of-quicktime-did-you-know-
apple-negotiated-with-microsoft-to-end-a-lawsuit/)

"Steve Jobs brokered a deal with Microsoft that dropped the QuickTime code
theft case in exchange for a visible partnership that made Microsoft an
investor in Apple and ensured regular new releases of Office for Mac."

~~~
TomOfTTB
This has always struck me as Apple-Fanboy revisionism (and this coming from a
guy with an iPhone and a Macbook). For this to be true it would have meant
Apple had the upper hand in the negotiation and I just don't see that. Apple
gave up too much (and had to look submissive doing it which had to sting Jobs)
and Microsoft gave up virtually nothing (a relatively small amount of money
and a promise to continue developing a product that was hugely profitable for
them)

Also, the Microsoft exec who supposedly gave testimony proving this theory
didn't do that at all and in fact continues to deny the suit had merit (even
though he no longer works there). That's all chronicled in this book:
[http://www.amazon.com/Renegades-Empire-Software-
Revolution-M...](http://www.amazon.com/Renegades-Empire-Software-Revolution-
Microsoft/dp/product-description/0609807455)

~~~
zmonkeyz
I didn't see them as giving up too much at the time. In the end they were able
to buy some time to release some great products and still have a great Mac
Business Unit producing Office.

------
tybris
I don't get it, wasn't Steve Jobs one of the greatest entrepreneurs ever?

~~~
tvon
I'd say this is more evidence to that argument. After all, Apple was in
shambles by the time the company hired Jobs back in 1996, and what is more
impressive than obtaining a bundle of cash from one of your biggest
competitors?

~~~
philwelch
They didn't hire Jobs, they acquired his company. NeXT is probably the only
acquired startup ever to take over the acquiring company.

~~~
pohl
Indeed...often referred to as NeXT acquiring Apple for a negative 429 million.

