Skip to main content

Stop the lies! The day that Microsoft saved Apple

Stop the lies! The day that Microsoft saved Apple | ZDNet.

An interesting article from ZDNet about the days when Microsoft bought 150M of non-voting stock shares and committed to producing MS Office for the next 5 years. A lot of people claim that Apple would have died if not for MS saving Apple back then. That may be partially true, but only because MSFT had to pay them a considerably large amount of cash for the patents.

Check out the article above.

Comments

Rick said…
I'd say that article makes exactly the opposite point of its title.
Joel Esler said…
The way I read it, Microsoft didn't give them 150M to "survive", Microsoft paid them 150M to license some of their patented software. As well as committing to develop office for 5 years. The only concession that I see Apple giving is making Internet Explorer the default browser.
Rick said…
I'm not even suggesting that Microsoft altruistically saved Apple, or that they deserve all the credit, but committing to develop office and IE for Mac convinced investors to stay in the game a little longer. If Microsoft wanted to strike a death blow to Apple, the could have drug them through another year of arguing over how they were going to pay the $150M and completely abandoned Office and IE on Mac. If the stock had stayed in the free fall it was in during Q2 1997, Steve Jobs might not have had the time to turn Apple around. Shareholders might have ended up with a nice anti-trust settlement.
Joel Esler said…
Fair enough. I can see your points there.
Ashimmy said…
Joel, if I remember correctly, at the time Microsoft was facing several anti-trust investigations. They needed a viable Apple to prove their was competition in the market (OS2 was dead, Linux wasn't a force yet). They wanted to keep Apple alive, but not too strong to have a "competitor" to show the Justice Dept
Joel Esler said…
1997 was a couple years into the beginning of the major antitrust stuff, but you are correct in some ways. The biggest problem with that whole scenario is that MSFT was facing suits from lots of directions (as any company is), some of the suits were from the Justice department. Some of the suits were from other companies. But the suits that were important were from Apple (Interface, feel and design, streaming media, etc)
Joel, they could buy their way out of suits by Apple (which they did). If I remember correctly there was talk of the Justice department doing a "AT&T" like directive and splitting Microsoft up into separate companies. One for the OS and one for Office. That was a lot more scary to bill gates then a patent fight with apple
Joel Esler said…
I agree with that!

Popular posts from this blog

Offset, Depth, Distance, and Within

Without going off the deep-end here and discussing every single Snort rule keyword, I just wanted to touch on a few modifiers that people sometimes misunderstand.  They aren't difficult, and hopefully after this explanation and a few examples, I can clear some of the air around these five modifiers.

The five modifiers that I am talking about are
OffsetDepthDistanceWithinnocaseThese five modifiers are not keywords of themselves, but rather they apply as modifiers to another keyword.  That keyword is "content". The content keyword is one of the easiest pieces of the Snort rules language as all it does is look for a particular string.  So for instance if I wanted to look for the word "joel" within a packet.  A simple:
content:"joel";Would allow me to do that.  The interesting part comes into play when you want to specify where inside of a particular packet you want the string "joel" to be looked for.  If you are running just a plain content ma…

Writing Snort Rules Correctly

Let me start off by saying I'm not bashing the writer of this article, and I'm trying not to be super critical.  I don't want to discourage this person from writing articles about Snort rules.  It's great when people in the Snort community step up and explain some simple things out there.  There are mistakes, it comes with the territory.  If you choose to be one of the people that tries to write Snort rules, you also choose to be someone who wants to learn how to do it better.  That's why I write this blog post, not to bash the writer, but to teach.

I noticed this post today over at the "Tao of Signature Writing" blog, and to be honest I glanced over most of it figuring it was a rehash of things I've already read or things that have already been written from countless people about "Here's how you write Snort rules!".  I scrolled down quickly skimming, not reading at all really, and noticed this part:
Now, let us look at the second questio…

Safari 5.1.4 now available

Safari 5.1.4 now available, fixes issues and improves performance | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog:


Improve JavaScript performanceImprove responsiveness when typing into the search field after changing network configurations or with an intermittent network connectionAddress an issue that could cause webpages to flash white when switching between Safari windowsAddress issues that prevented printing U.S. Postal Service shipping labels and embedded PDFsPreserve links in PDFs saved from webpagesFix an issue that could make Flash content appear incomplete after using gesture zoomingFix an issue that could cause the screen to dim while watching HTML5 videoImprove stability, compatibility and startup time when using extensionsAllow cookies set during regular browsing to be available after using Private BrowsingFix an issue that could cause some data to be left behind after pressing the "Remove All Website Data" button