Print - Reality Check: Microsoft Showed Practicality, Compassion for Mac at Apple's Lowest Point

With Apple teetering towards bankruptcy in 1997 and in desperate need of financial aid and help from its partners, top executives at Microsoft reviewed an upcoming version of Mac Office (which eventually shipped as Mac Office 98) and made impassioned pleas for its release, despite Apple's declining market share and falling revenues in Microsoft's Mac Business Unit (MBU). These details came to light in recent court disclosures related to Microsoft's Iowa class action lawsuit. And they paint a decidedly unfamiliar portrait of a corporate super giant who is more infamous for stepping on competitors than aiding them.

Of course, that's not how the Mac community sees things. And it's time for this silliness to stop.

According to Computerworld, these documents have resulted in "yet more criticism of Microsoft's business practices" because they demonstrated that Microsoft "considered abandoning Office for Mac in order to cause 'a great deal of harm' to Apple." That sounds sensational, damning. Let's see what the documents really say.

In a June 1997 email exchange between then-Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and MBU chief Ben Waldman, Gates thanks Waldman for showing "the kind of passion about great products that has made Microsoft successful." "I admit we have neglected the Mac business," Gates wrote. "Although the Mac is declining if we move ahead on this product we should ask for the [subsidiaries] with localized product to make a real effort."

If you think Gates come off as a real jerk, consider what he was responding to. Waldman had told Gates previously that the pace of discussions with Apple had frustrated many at the MBU, who were eager to get the next Mac Office out the door. "The threat to cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately," Waldman said. "Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, though, I believe we should ship Mac Office [98]."

Waldman then describes why, in length, and it's obvious he's quite proud of what the MBU had accomplished with that release. Mac Office 98 was "a good product ... one [Microsoft] can feel good about, and that will be well received by customers, press, and analysts" Waldman explained. It included dramatically better performance, "FAR" simpler deployment and maintenance thanks to a drag-and-drop installer, good migration support for Mac Word 5.1 (then considered the last decent Mac version of Word), support for various Mac-specific technologies, integration with Microsoft's Mac-oriented Web browser and email products, and other features. It was, in other words, an exceptional Mac product.

"We are close to shipping," Waldman continued, and "the team is motivated." He noted that previous attempts to cancel Mac Office had had a terrible effect on the MBU, and that canceling it at the time of the email exchange would be "devastating." And while he admitted that a lack of plans for the future created a morale issue, "People are enthusiastic and believe in our vision of creating a great product and making a difference."

As you can see, Waldman, too, comes off as a real jerk. You know, the kind of guy that wants to stick it to the Mac community.

Wait, you didn't get that from the email exchange? Odd. Because every Mac-oriented publication on earth, from what I can tell, has cited this email exchange as an example of Microsoft's ongoing efforts to keep Apple down. Computerworld, for example, also reported that Microsoft was using Mac users as "guinea pigs" to test features that would later appear in Windows versions of Office, as if getting features first were somehow a bad thing. (Microsoft actually promotes these features as its "Mac-First" innovations.) Other publications and Mac news sites played up the threat to shut down Mac Office, which frankly would have made good business sense given that revenues from Mac Office fell from $200 million to $150 million between 1996 and 1997 as Apple teetered toward a bleak finish that, ultimately, never happened.

What did happened is that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple about six weeks after this email exchange, announced its intention to develop an OS X-based version of Mac Office going forward, and pledged to keep making new Office versions for five more years. Today, Microsoft is working on yet another version of Mac Office that will ship late this year. (And Apple, of course, rebounded, partly because of help from Microsoft and others, partly because of the iMac, and, years later, thanks to the iPod.)

Now, Microsoft's actions on behalf of Apple were somewhat self-serving: As part of wide-ranging set of agreements with the struggling Apple that year, Apple agreed to bundle Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser with Mac OS. And I have little doubt that Microsoft was propping up its sole viable OS competitor during a time in which its antitrust troubles were heating up. But Microsoft is a publicly held company, not a charity: Obviously, it would bargain with other companies as effectively as possible. To not do so would be negligent. To suggest that their actions were anything less than prudent is, therefore, naïve.

More important, we have that email record that everyone is so excited about. What it shows to me is a company dedicated to making great products and, yes, supporting then-struggling Apple with the best version of Office Microsoft had yet created. Don't believe me? You can read it yourself. My guess is you'll come away with a less dramatic version of history than the Mac fanatics are pushing.

Moving Forward with Mac Office 97 (Microsoft email exchange) (PDF format)

Note: I originally credited Macworld as the source of various quotes in this article. In fact, the original report was from Computerworld and Macworld, a sister publication, republished it on their site. I've corrected these references in the above article.

My favorite part of the memo is this: "I’ve personally also found the Mac market interesting because I’ve seen so many trends appear there first, and eventually become important on Windows." Funny how some things never change.

Hey bonches, before you start flaming, maybe you should pass this quiz: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/49231637/ Maybe then the rest of us can have a reasonable discussion... I have always found it fascinating how some people can completely twist facts to fit their view, even if the facts *directly* contradict what they are saying (like this email exchange). It is certainly an art to pick words from an article and craft them to fit one's narrow view.

Unclear wording, the intro should have gone like this: "Hey bonches, before you start flaming, maybe you should spend your time passing this quiz:"

It's amazing how Paul ignores these elements of the thread: "Can we avoid Apple knowing how far along we are for the next 30 days?" In other words, the agreement served Microsoft better by getting IE default rather than Apple considering Microsoft was already pretty much done with a successful product. And: "Though the decline in our sales is, in large part, atributable to Apple's decreased market share, another, not insignificant, factor is the incredibly terrible job we do with the sales force..." The rest of the email being astonishing. 1 person creating 17% mac software sales increase with 20% drop in Mac marketshare? Etc...

Because of post constraints, I'd like to sum up the email differently than Paul (and the Mac press). Page 3 makes it clear that the MacBU is throttled by Microsoft corporate: they aren't allowed to market, to communicate with users or the press, they aren't allowed to move development forward without mothership approval despite having an engaged and productive dev team. Mac Office has always been profitable and could have been much more so with the slightest support from Corporate. The MacBU feels frustrated and thwarted by Corporate despite their public statements to the contrary.

"Because of post constraints, I'd like to sum up the email differently than Paul (and the Mac press)." Of course you would, PFC. Going back to yahoo's comment that he made on the "Windows Live" article yesterday, you guys are happy when Paul criticizes Microsoft and either shut up or if you're like bdk, express your support for the article. On the other hand, any article with a hint of negativity towards Apple brings out the so called "fact checkers". This is an all too familiar sight.

shark, refute me with some facts. Nobody has ever said MacBU makes crap software. All Paul is saying is that the MacBU makes some of the best software in MSFT with the most motivated developers. Something we knew in the first place. This email is begging Gates to let them move forward with software that was essentially done. It points out that MSFT is equally responsible for any sales decline because of refusal to advertise, communicate, promote... Refute that if you can. It's absurd for Paul to spin this as absurdly as he has.

"What did happened is that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple about six weeks after this email exchange, announced its intention to develop an OS X-based version of Mac Office going forward, and pledged to keep making new Office versions for five more years." There was absolutely no reason for Microsoft to support a dying platform. And you may claim otherwise but Apple probably wouldn't have survived had it not been for Microsoft. You can spin it any which way you want (good Apple vs. evil MS) but the truth is that Apple was dying and Microsoft infused life into it. I think Paul is right on this one.

OK. In plain simple english now. Is the email begging Gates to let the group move forward with the software? Yes. Did Gates ultimately agree? Yes and in fact, he took steps to revive the platform too. Did Gates take anything in return from Apple? Of course, Microsoft isn't a charity institution. Is Microsoft evil? Yes, according to many in the Mac community.

I suggest that anyone who wants to understand Microsoft's mindset in 1997 looks at this sworn deposition from Avie Tevanian: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2010.htm#14 Judge for yourself how much 'compassion' Microsoft were demonstrating towards Apple...

"You can spin it any which way you want (good Apple vs. evil MS) but the truth is that Apple was dying and Microsoft infused life into it. I think Paul is right on this one." I know he is. I remember those days all too well. At the time, I was working in the Marketing group of a multinational company, and we were the only ones in the company that had Macs. With thousands of legacy documents and 10+ years of work--all done on Macs--we were getting pressured HARD to switch to PCs by corporate management in search of the "holy grail" of compatibility with the rest of the company. Apple's financial crisis didn't help...Business Week ran a cover story saying the Mac was dead; I remember our VP coming into my boss's office and slamming that magazine on his desk. Wired ran a cover story with the Apple logo and the word "Pray". Dark times indeed. The triad that kept Apple going was: * The return of Steve Jobs to Apple • Microsoft's public commitment to continue Office development • A (largely symbolic) infusion of cash from MS to Apple I don't blame Bill Gates for at least considering pulling the plug on Office. He obviously would have liked to "win", but I think even he realized (and realizes) that a healthy Apple is good for Microsoft in many ways. This memo is just a reflection of the reality of those times. He used his leverage to his benefit--good for him. That's smart business. There's no "evil" here, just typical corporate bullsh1t. Gate and Jobs may be fierce competitors, but they're also friends. (Incidentally, our department did switch from Mac to PCs running Windows '95. Three months later, we switched back with the blessing of our IT department and corporate management when it became obvious that the PCs were not up to the tasks we threw at them. Years later, I fought the same battle when purchasing a mac-based Avid editing solution. The vendor offered to buy the Mac back if Apple went out of business in a year. Clearly, he never had to pony up a refund.)

"Judge for yourself how much 'compassion' Microsoft were demonstrating towards Apple..." I think this segment sums it up, "82. At this event, Mr. Engstrom again urged Apple to focus on the authoring segment and to cede the playback business to Microsoft. Mr. Engstrom warned that if Apple refused, Microsoft would take over the authoring segment of the market. Mr. Engstrom stated that, if necessary, Microsoft would assign 150 engineers to an authoring development project in order to displace Apple from that market. At that time, Apple's entire QuickTime engineering group only consisted of approximately 100 engineers. (Schaaff Depo., pp. 58-62) " It seems that Apple's defense was not aware that we operate in a capitalist economic structure. I grew up in a rural area, and there was a single gas station owned by a guy that grew up in the little town. I remember when rumors cropped up that a Citgo franchise was interested in moving in due to the locality relative to the interstate (1 gas station for a 35 mile radius = lots o money). There was actually a town meeting about it when the old dude that owned the current station said, 'That guy said he would build his station right next to mine and set his prices at whatever my prices are -5c/gal! And he didn't care if he took a loss for 3 years straight as long as it made me close!' He pleaded with the town to not zone any area other than his as industrial/commercial so that the other guy couldn't come in. In the end the town did not listen, allowed the competitor in, and within 6 months the old guy had to close up shop because he was being destroyed on prices at every corner (the new guy even had pepsi saturdays, a free case of pepsi with every 5gal of gas). Apple essentially begged the same thing. That MS aught not be allowed to enter into mastering audio because they would 'oh deary me' use their resources to generate a product superior.

@Will84: The next paragraph reads: "Mr. Engstrom noted at the meeting that Microsoft's Bill Gates was not interested in an authoring program because the market for this product was too small. He assured the Apple representatives, however, that if Microsoft needed to make an investment in providing authoring tools in order to push Apple out of the playback market, then Microsoft would devote all the necessary resources to accomplish this goal. " Further, on Paragraphs 140 and 141: "As our experience with QuickTime shows, Microsoft will seriously disparage and disable competing application programs through its control of the operating system. Because Microsoft can use its monopoly power in this way, consumers are deprived of a fair opportunity to judge competing products on their merits. "Once it controls the market for a particular application, Microsoft will use that power to pursue other objectives. As it did with Microsoft Office for Macintosh, Microsoft will aggressively leverage its control of essential application programs to dominate other markets, such as the market for Internet browsers. The advantages Microsoft gains for its products through this strategy are not the result of technological advances or consumer preference; they result solely from the use of monopoly power." -----end quoted text----- There's a difference between "agressive competition" and "leveraging your monopoly power to stifle competition". One's just good business; one's illegal. We could argue all day over which is the case here, but I'm sure there's a little of both.

Paul, Why would Microsoft want to help Apple? Look at all the grief Apple has caused Microsoft these last 10 years. It doesn't make sense to pretend that Microsoft is a philanthropic organization and to defend Microsoft's internal discussions and actions is silly. You're really trying to do damage control on behalf of Microsoft. Just admit they're hard-ball competitors. Apple, Netscape, Sun, Google can all attest to that. Why pretend otherwise? It comes off disingenuous.

"Why would Microsoft want to help Apple?" "It doesn't make sense to pretend that Microsoft is a philanthropic organization and to defend Microsoft's internal discussions and actions is silly." Come on, read the entire article. You wouldn't be asking these questions if you read it carefully - especially this paragraph: "Now, Microsoft's actions on behalf of Apple were somewhat self-serving: As part of wide-ranging set of agreements with the struggling Apple that year, Apple agreed to bundle Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser with Mac OS. And I have little doubt that Microsoft was propping up its sole viable OS competitor during a time in which its antitrust troubles were heating up. But Microsoft is a publicly held company, not a charity: Obviously, it would bargain with other companies as effectively as possible. To not do so would be negligent. To suggest that their actions were anything less than prudent is, therefore, naïve." Or, as lotsa mentions, "... [Bill Gates] realized (and realizes) that a healthy Apple is good for Microsoft in many ways." There's the answer to your question.

"With Apple teetering towards bankruptcy in 1997 and in desperate need of financial aid and help from its partners..." This is an incorrect assessment of where Apple was financially at that time. It's actually completely wrong. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001047469-98-044981.txt Scroll down and look at the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Apple had $4.2B in assets from 1997-1998. Further down is the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Apple's net sales declined over the period but the gross margin increased. Also, operating expenses declined (this is a good thing) over the period by $1.2B. Scroll down again to the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Although Apple recorded a net loss in 1996 ($816M) and 1997 ($1B), it was able to maintain cash equivalents of of $1.4B (1998), 1.23B (1997) and $1.5B (1996). Fast forward to 2002 to review the 10-K again. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000091205701544436/a2066171z10-k405.htm Cash equivalents for those years were $1.3B (1999), $1.1B (2000) and $2.3B (2001) on net sales of $6.1B (1999), $7.9B (2000), and $5.3B (2001). Also, operating expenses remained relatively flat across all years with $1.3B (1999), $1.6B (2000) and $1.5B (2001). The media distorts many things depending on the reporter and the editors. However, the SEC has rigid guidelines and standards that must provide shareholders transparent access to the financial workings of a publicly traded corporation. The numbers on file with the SEC hardly reflect a "company teetering toward bankruptcy". Apple's sales and net profits were in considerable flux, but they had more cash on had than they did in net losses and were able to maintain that cash position several years beyond the period you reference. In reviewing the financial filings with the SEC, there is very little evidence to support your opening position.

Paul seem to be trying to rewrite history. As pointed out above Apple had a lot of cash on hand. As for that little investment - it was part of a lawsuit settlement. The final agreement, signed in August 1997, is in three parts: a preferred stock agreement, the patent cross-licensing agreement, and a technology agreement in which Apple promised to make IE its default on condition that Microsoft continued to develop Office for Macintosh. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_1999_Jan_26/ai_53999515 Nice try Paul.

lotsa, do you realize now why a book about Mac by Paul Thurrott won't sell? Mac users who've been lying dormant all these days have suddenly come out in large numbers to criticize Paul for even implying that Apple was in trouble and was helped by Microsoft. In fact, not one person (except for sharky) pointed out a mistake in Paul's article yesterday. There are two measures of performance when it comes to online services - numbers and profits. Windows Live actually has the numbers: * 40 percent to 45 percent increase in Live ID accounts in 2006 * Creation of 20 billion relationships between Windows Live blogging, e-mail and instant messaging services * 250 million Windows Live Mail users, every day * 250 million Windows Live Messenger users, every day * 450 million unique visitors to MSN and Windows Live, every month However the Online Services group at MS posted a $155 million loss during the last quarter. In short, Live search doesn't have the numbers whereas many of the other Live services do. I would've thought the person who claims to be "Paul's Fact Checker" would point this out.

Why would I point out something completely irrelevent to this story? No one needs to point out that Live is failing.

"Why would I point out something completely irrelevent to this story?" Not toda, but yesterday. Paul's headline was obviously incorrect. As I mentioned earlier, some live services are actuall doing well. You call yourself a fact checker - I thought you'd know this or at least verify this. Obviously you're another one of those idiots who doesn't tolerate anything that's even marginally anti-Apple. "Paul's Fact Checker"?? Not even close.

OK, my fault, really. Maybe I expected someone with the screen name of "Paul's Fact Checker" to be more objective. I really can't understand this hatred for Microsoft among you guys. I mean, come on, it's just another company and whether you like it or not, Microsoft makes some good products just like Apple makes some good products. I really don't understand why you people don't have an open mind about this.

Let's put some perspective in Microsoft's "investment" in Apple: Microsoft was even then being recognized as a monopolist. Strategically, keeping Apple alive but on life support was the best way to show that users had an alternative to Windows. This worked very well for Microsoft for years as Apple's market share languished in single-digits. So while the AppleBU may have been motivated and excited about making great software for the Mac, their very existence served a larger strategic purpose for Microsoft.

@yahoo "I mean, come on, it's just another company and whether you like it or not, Microsoft makes some good products just like Apple makes some good products. I really don't understand why you people don't have an open mind about this." Stop applying logic to an illogical debate. ;-)

Its amazing how Microsoft lovers never stop, forgetting reality, and attempt to impose their own distorted view of reality on the world. The reason MS created the MacBU and invested 150$+ <-- (Plus mentioned but undisclosed additional investments) in Apple was because MS LOST VERY BADLY IN COURT and SETTLED QUICKLY OUT OF COURT !!! This was the Quicktime dispute Apple VS. Microsoft and Intel, and for some reason Intel got out of it early but Microsoft lost and had to pay big, MS had gone to the software consulting firm that had built important parts of Quicktime, Apple of course had an exclusive agreement with them, but MS had gone to the same firm and gotten the same code. That exclusive code showed up in MS Media Player framework and Intel's new media software that had just shipped around that time. Previous to this theft of critical software Quicktime had been growing market share and was near a breakout as the undisputed leader because QT was much faster and cleaner then any other video player solution !!! Is Microsoft EVIL !?!?!? HELL YES !!! Have they made amends, I would say about as well as any clumsy lumbering giant could, the embarrassing, sweaty, Ballmer convulsions made up for a lot. Now if Vista will just lay down and let Mac OS X run over it, like road kill, I think that would be very nice and polite of Microsoft.

@MACchine Care to cite sources? Microsoft created software for the Mac before it created software for its own OS. Word originally came out for the Mac, way before it came out for Windows. "Now if Vista will just lay down and let Mac OS X run over it, like road kill, I think that would be very nice and polite of Microsoft." I think you have Vista and Mac OS X mixed up... :-)

or maybe I just read this site once every few days and comment sporadically? Naw, it must be a conspiracy because I'm paranoid delusional.

If any of you actually think Apple was doing 'Just Fine' back in 97, and had plenty of money to spare and didn't need Microsoft, I redirect you to MacWorld '97 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY To a particularly happy crowd, you see a mighty Bill before his newly purchased investors. I ask you this: If the 150M in investments along with 7% ownership of Apple by Microsoft was due to Apple 'winning' some court debate, then why... WHY on EARTH, would Apple let IE be released on Mac? Why would the 'winner' of the debate shoot himself in the foot? You'll never change the past, no matter how much you close your ears and eyes and fantisize. Video of a humbled Steve before Gates is golden, look at the video, he is not a proud victor but complacent and beaten. So don't give me that bullcrap that Apple was doing fine in 97, they were all but dead. They knew, they absolutely knew that OS9 couldn't take another punch from a killer OS like Windows 95, and they also knew that Windows 98 was right around the corner. Had Microsoft taken the measures that they had to stop the rest of the Mac userbase from jumping ship, Windows 98 would have demolished what was left of Apple Computer Inc.

'We [Apple] need all the help we can get." "If we want Microsoft Office on the Mac we should treat the company that makes it with a little bit of respect." Why don't Jobs' followers of today heed his words of the past? I think those are some quite decent tidbits of information.

My favorite quote (taken from the News.com article on the same conference): "Jobs, who took the stage to a standing ovation, said that the Microsoft investment cannot be sold for three years and covers non-voting shares in the company. "We have to let go of a few things here. We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose," Jobs told the crowd soon after it reacted negatively to Gates's satellite appearance. " I don't think they've given up on that notion. http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html

"Now if Vista will just lay down and let Mac OS X run over it, like road kill, I think that would be very nice and polite of Microsoft." Not only that. Bill Gates should publicly apologize to Steve Jobs and the Mac community for Windows' market share. He should also give away all his wealth (including all the money he's donated to Apple.

And look at all the DENIERS HERE OF THE TRUTH. DENY THE TRUTH AND WE CAN BELIEVE Microsoft invented THE WORLD THAT WE NOW LIVE IN !!! YES, MS LOST and that is the ONLY REASON MS made the investment, and its the ONLY REASON you are reading about it now. If this sweet fairy tail had been the truth it would be well remembered and there would be no reason to try to REWRITE HISTORY with this article. I believe that the reason Intel got out of it was because they took their video streaming software off the market. Why did Apple let IE run on the Mac the same reason they let Excel or Word or anything else for MS run on the Mac. Safari did not exist then. Yes, Excel and Word were invented on the Mac but the MacBU did NOT exist until Apple beat Microsoft upside the head in court. When Excel and Word were created there were rumors for many years that about half of the machines at Microsoft were Macs, in those days Bill insisted on letting his employees choose which OS they wanted to run on. Here is a reference ... http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html There should be many more, like this one, HE, HE !!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/04/98/microsoft/210650.stm"However, "they said they had agreed to work out a settlement to a long-standing dispute over whether Microsoft's Windows operating system infringes on any of Apple's patents. More important, Microsoft said it has pledged to offer the Office business productivity software suite for the Macintosh platform for the next five years. Mac Office 98 is expected to debut by the end of the year. "This deal strengthens Apple's viability. It's a new era in terms of Apple and Microsoft working together," said Apple chief financial officer Fred Anderson, who has been assigned to run the company's daily operations until a successor to outgoing CEO Gilbert Amelio is found." I can't wait to eat that tasty Vista road-kill sandwitch !

@shark47 You say: "Or, as lotsa mentions, "... [Bill Gates] realized (and realizes) that a healthy Apple is good for Microsoft in many ways." There's the answer to your question." Dubious answer. After all, the Department of Justice lawsuits were in progress at the time and Netscape was Microsoft's latest victim. It was in Microsoft's interest to keep Apple around to prove to the DOJ that Microsoft was a good corporate player. Microsoft doesn't care about Apple's role in the industry. Bill Gates is even quoted as saying that he didn't see the point of Steve Jobs returning to Apple. His minion, Michael Dell, said he would sell Apple and return the money to the investors. Microsoft would love to see Apple die, so they can dominate everything that Apple currently succeeds at. Damn Apple and their hubris for killing PlaysForSure, or for the embarrassment Mac OS X has made for Vista, or for daring to enter the 'smart phone' market with that overpriced iPhone. After all Apple products are used by nothing more than a bunch of gullible, Jobsonian kool-aid drinking zealots with no sense of propriety for the cost of computers or rationality (paraphrase of just about every mention by Thurrott about Apple users). Just read the Microsoft press' articles about Apple, which give one crumb of grudging acknowledgment for every five defaming articles. Apple is a freakish thorn in the side of the otherwise wholesale domination of the internet by Microsoft. We're better off knowing who our enemies are. Paul. Quit being passive agressive about Apple and just admit you wish they'd die.

There were TWO law suits brought by Apple against MS, the first in 1994 ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft Which Apple LOST, but the second suit in 1997 was about Quicktime, THAT is what this article is about, and was settled out of court so all of the details were never completely known, Apple beat MS BADLY ... My second source that I cited in my earlier post got screwed, so I will fix it here ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/04/98/microsoft/210650.stm This is the interesting part ... "Patent dispute Dr Tevanian said that Microsoft had sabotaged Apple's QuickTime For its part, Microsoft claimed that Apple had tried to sue it for $1.2bn over a patent dispute. Apple denied this. But details of the dispute, which was settled apparently by the payment of $100m to Apple, remain a mystery - probably because the terms of the settlement require secrecy on the issue. Dr Tevanian accused Microsoft of threatening to stop the development - important for Apple's business viability - of a new version of Microsoft Office for the Mac. A Microsoft e-mail confirming this was introduced during the questioning of Bill Gates on video last week." And earlier in the article it says ... "Peter Hoddie [Apple]: "Are you really asking us to kill playback? Do you want us to knife the baby?" -- meaning QuickTime. Christopher Phillips [Microsoft]: "Yes, we're talking about knifing the baby." This dramatic exchange at a meeting in April 1997 was quoted by Dr Avadis Tevanian, Apple's senior Vice President for software, during the cross-examination by Microsoft attorney Theodore Edelman. Microsoft wanted Apple to drop QuickTime product and leave the multimedia playback market to Microsoft, while Apple concentrated on software tools for Internet content." You see MS was afraid of QT in those days, true but obsessive, as QT only had about 50% marketshare at the time !!!

Here it is I found a good source ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_litigation_of_Apple_Computer#Apple_v._Microsoft.2C_Intel.2C_and_San_Franc isco_Canyon_Company "Apple v. Microsoft, Intel, and San Francisco Canyon Company Main article: San Francisco Canyon Company In 1995 Apple added Microsoft and Intel to an existing lawsuit against the San Francisco Canyon Company, alledging that Microsoft and Intel knowingly used the software company to aid them in stealing several thousand lines of Apple's QuickTime code in an effort to improve the performance of Video for Windows. [8] [9] [10] [11] After a threat to withdraw support for Office for Mac, [12] [13] this lawsuit was ultimately settled in 1997, along with all lingering issues from the "Look & Feel" lawsuit. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser over Netscape, and Microsoft agreed to continue developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years, and purchase $150 million of non-voting Apple stock. [14] [15]" Let it be known far and wide that history records that both Microsoft and Intel stole code from Apple's Quicktime because IT WAS MUCH BETTER SOFTWARE THEN MICROSOFT OR INTEL COULD PRODUCE WITHOUT APPLE'S HELP !!! AND that the $150 million settlement occurred BECAUSE MICROSOFT STOLE THIS CODE !!! Thank you to the author of the above article so it could once again be proven that politics and rewriting history is really what the Windows movement is all about. CRUNCH, CRUNCH, that is my Vista Road Kill sandwich going down in bits !!!

MACchine, All these links you've provided don't prove that Microsoft is EVIL. What does, however is this: In the year 1993, Satan (yes, the devil himself) appeared before Bill Gates and promised to grant him one wish if Bill Gates sold his soul to him. Bill Gates agreed and asked Satan to make him the richest man on the planet. In return, Satan demanded that Bill Gates eat babies (note that stevejobs referred to this in one of his comments on this site; the "knifing the baby" comment by Christopher Phillips also refers to this act). In no time Bill Gates became the richest man on the planet and continued eating babies to preserve that status. Steve Jobs, when he got to know about this, approached God and complained to Him. God told him he wouldn't give him as much wealth as Bill Gates, but would give him a group of followers who would do anything for him (much like the Pope's crusaders in 11th Century Europe). He also told him that he would suffer through the late 90s but as long as he kept the faith, he'd be fine. In 2001 Bill Gates realized the extent of the sins he had committed and gave up the reins of the company to Steve Ballmer and decided to atone for his sins by donating his money to deserving people. AS God had predicted, Steve Jobs struggled through the late 90s. In 2000, god was happy with his devotion and gave him the idea to make a music player and also the technology to produce it. The rest is history. So, you see? Bill Gates is one evil man. Microsoft is evil too (notice the dark clouds over Redmond throughout the year?). I'm not trying to be blasphemous here. This is a true story. The timeline may not be exact, though.

shark47 thanks for straightening that out for me, I can now see thanks to you that I was extremely confused. And now I know why SJ came to me with those strange questions years ago and why Apple followed my advice when I sent down to him stone tablets etched with the words, make media players, distribute media widely, and buy Disney !!! Come to think of it I also told him to buy Pixar years ago when I was testing Renderman with Super3D at Silicon Beach. That was before I ascended to haven. Thanks !

1997 was a long time ago, in the small computer world. And at that time, Office for mac wasn't the compatibility app it has become for mac users. These were the OS 8.1-8.5 days, people. In the end, I'm sure the availability of cross-platform Office tools helped to transition PC users to Mac. But Mac fans are making a big deal about nothing instead of just being grateful their is a Office suite for Mac that has helped many core customers purchase their mac, because lets face it NeoOffice/Open Office/iWork are horrid on OS X and would sway many PC users to stay with Windows. Thankfully with Parallels I can use Office 2007 booting from my Boot Camp partition inside my Mac. Best of both worlds with coherence mode.

Shark 47 - :) Microsoft isn't evil and the prove it by offering this link: http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/

First, I gave you Macintosh, one my best works and yet you ignored my beautiful work and continued to use your hideous and evil DOS !!! So I punished all of you by forcing you to do that which you hated the most, WINDOWS -- I put a blight upon your land !!!!!! And even now most of you have proven how evil and rebellious you truly are as you revel in your iniquity while you love and continue to use this ugly evil thing called Windows, judgment surely will be passed upon you.

aahh....dromedy! /me sits back to watch the show.... "mmmm....i like me some fairy tails" *munch* *munch* XP

Somehow our words have translated to MACchine in some form as slapping his mother crossways whilst engaging in the most vulgar of profanities involving his sister and mother and a billygoat. For this I apologize, for comments regarding Steve Jobs being pompus and put in his proper place at MacWorld '97, I do not.

Apple may be in a bad situation in the near future too. What Apple should do is make Apple PCs, monitors and rest of its hardware, 100% compatible with the rest PCs and their OSes (including Windows), and make OS X to run on all PCs. Then we would see very nice competition and Apple's income increasing dramatically, 100% sure. Why they don't do this, puzzles me, and we spend our time arguing about "Mac Office" and rest minor details.

@MACchine: "So I punished all of you by forcing you to do ..." How old are you? BillG said he never lets his children on the computer for more than 45 minutes per day.

Sure. I decide to go all civil and stop being childish, and then the children all come out to play. Get off my lawn, you damn kids!

"Why they don't do this, puzzles me" It goes against their business model. Apple takes closed source to the extreme, it works very well certain areas, like the iPod Plus there are those that believe OSX would break if it had to comply with all sorts of different hardware. I don't personally believe that to be the case, sure at first there would be bugs and hiccups, but it would all iron out, the same way windows does. But mainly it's because PC-level interoperability between components requires you to give up some level of control, Apple simply doesn't want to do that. It has good and bad points.

"I decide to go all civil and stop being childish" you wet your bed, now lay in it. those are your seeds you've sown. XP

I see many of you are resorting to irrational criticism that means I am winning, thank you. Please don't "knife the Baby" just out of frustration -- I didn't Windows people were like, NEVER heard that before, that but now I know better. Paul's version of this story is strictly a fairy tail. Here is the way this story actually went as far as I now, I was working at Aldus and then McGraw-Hill in Monterey as a software test lead when these things happened, and had a lot of contact with Apple from testing prototypes and visiting Apple at various events ... The Mac laptops were Skulley's huge success at Apple and takes them to 12% market share by delivering faster machines then PCs that have longer battery life. Then Intel starts to catch up with board design and processors that work well with laptops, XS386, XS486, ect. Then Skulley makes the Newton which has some real nice features is excellent tech but totally messes up rolling it out by not copyrighting and getting trademarks for much of the marketing. Billy G. was famous for being very childish and trademarking anything anyone says! And they build some other very innovative products but they don't fit a large core market which was a mistake. And the PPC transition is also going on because Skulley is trying to return the advantage to the Mac laptop market but much of the Mac advantage came from the better connectivity and native RAM, Windows memory extensions severely sucked for many years. This allows SoftWindows on the Mac laptops to run at speeds comparable to a Win Laptop. So with these many dumb mistakes Skulley gets the boot, and Guy Ammelio takes over, he was previously Apple's engineering manager in Germany. Guy sucks as a manager, he insults a lot of director level managers at Apple and hires a BIG rough necked SQA manager, which is always a sign of decline at a software company. Continued ...

"I see many of you are resorting to irrational criticism that means I am winning, thank you." --- 'Cap'n I see our ship is getting riddled with cannonshells!!' 'Aye, that means we'er winning me hearty!' 'Aye? That be what that-' 'I SAID WE BE WINNIN!' 'aye...' --- You declaring 'victory' over a faceless enemy means you have nothing important to say. Last I checked I didn't sit down at my computer to go to battle. If that's how you treat this, then I think the tinfoil on your windows is blocking way too much sun.

Apple is now clearly in decline and their employees begin to believe the company soon go broke and many of the old timer employees start to try to make the company go broke because these people know how to make money with Macs on the side by doing work automated with Applescript that can't be done of Windows. The feds case against MS is still running but its now longer on TV and the general public has decide MS has won. The FIRST case between Apple and MS over interface design has long since, two years previous, been lost as far as the public is concerned. Quicktime is doing very well and growing rapidly to around 50% market share but it has no clear revenue streams, but is play on a lot of PCs. In these days there are still a relatively small numbers of versions of Windows so to the public it is not so obvious that MS is a mess in terms of management and must promise something new every year just to pretend the major problems with the OS will go away. PPC has shipped on the Mac and DDL hell also appears on the Mac for the first and only time and MS ships Word that is NOT compatible with previous versions, system 7 on the Mac has major problems with threads thrashing with the first PPC machines, and for about 6 months everyone is having big problems and a small economic slow down occurs. Then it hits the news the MS and Intel are bringing out new video playing software and seems strange that Intel is getting into this for the first time. Ammelio gets canned and there is tones of speculation about who will run Apple, after a couple of months Jobs become a possibility. System 9 is billed at WWDC as the solution for everything and that team COMPLETELY shoots their ... by promissing everything under the sun and they obviously believe they deliver it but are mostly a pack of liars and short term ego maniacs. Continued ...

Mean while MS is focusing on a C/C++ compiler for the first time and at making VB the DOS of the modern age. Visual C++ gets a cross compiler with libraries for both platforms Windows/Mac. And Java is a years away from becoming important. Both platforms are on the web but don't do it very well some ISPs don't work. AT&T has imploded and is looking for a future and hate their customers, a BAD culture. So people are starting to see that ALL monopolies are and have been bad, it had been readily accepted for many years that monopolies were often good. Quicktime had been by far the best to run video and was almost as good as today's best but starts to have glitches in Windows. MS and Apple begin to fight over this, then the Apple v. Microsoft, Intel, and San Francisco Canyon Company case hits the news. I think Intel's video software disappears, and various confused news stories about what this is all about is in the news. MS starts enforcing only Windows machines for employees but the MacBU unit does not exist has never even been concieved. Excel and word started out on the Mac but most Widnows people will NOT acknowledge this and are unaware of it. Macs have a LOT of problems with fonts, corrupted fonts, and people believe the same problems don't exist in Windows even though they do and viruses are starting to become a problem for Windows, there were a few viruses on Mac years ago when the Mac Plus first came out but those problems went way. Excel has a history of being very bug free on both Mac and Windows but all other Win software is LOADED with bugs. System 7 is starting to work very well and the PPC problems have cleared up. Continued ...

Fred Anderson is running Apple with Guy gone and apparently gets an initial deal from MS over stealing Apple's code which they owned from their exclusive agreement for the consulting work from San Francisco Canyon Company. At first the agreement is reported to be for 100 million, and this hits the news but is confusing to the public, hard to believe and not a huge story. Then Jobs come back to Apple, Apple buys NeXT and that is HUGE news. MS THREATENS VERY PUBLICALLY TO WITHDRAW SUPPORT FOR THE MAC !!! But there is also talk about forming a Mac business unit at MS for the first time which sounds extremely hypothetical. And then after a few months the story about MS stealing QT code hits the news again and it is revealed by jobs that he has this package deal and can tell us about some of it but not all of it. So now it is 150 million plus other cash infusions that are secret !?!? And agreements about what future OSs will look like and how Windows and the Mac System will get closer in functionality, OS starts to be used for the first time to refer to both systems. And there a lot of rumors about who is now building system 9, NeXT engineers or the Copland team and the new mystery Unix based OS that is about to ship and it will have a public bata for a long period of time. There is a huge shake up at Apple as many old Apple employees are fired and replaced with NeXT engineers. Jobs populates the Apple board with his powerful friends in business and that makes it clear to me that Jobs will be running Apple and it will be successful because its management will become focused. Win XP starts shipping sort of but is a yan, because of poor software support, everybody on Windows in business sticks with Win 98 or 95. About a year later OS X is successful enough, two years later the Mac press works very hard to say that Mac OS X came from the Copland team but I don't believe that AT ALL I think it was all done by NeXT engineers. Continued ...

Just before Jobs returns to Apple I am posting in MacCentral forums about how Jobs should return, they should make media players, distribute music, merge with Disney, switch to Intel chips by making machines that have both PPC and Intel chips, make Wifi boxes that daisy chain and include users in franchise agreements that will allow them to make a little money by creating a wireless cable TV net. I also argue with PC trolls on MacCentral like crazy and they ban me. So I go to the Spymac forums and post all kinds of crazy designs for wireless networks and hardware designs. Nokia implements the network idea a couple of years later. iPods ship. The improved PPCs ship, WIDE bus, which I had been predicting and talking about in the forum. I get hassled a LOT by the admins on Spymac, for no good reason. Then I post a design to improve hard drive performance buy putting Flash or cheap RAM at least 1 to 2 Gigs between the harddrive and the buss. I write about 3 things that could be done with this new design, what I wrote was almost EXACTLY what Intel said when they introduced Robson technology about 2 1/2 years later. I get banned from the Spymac forum but get back in easily many times to demonstrate how easy it is for people to multiply accounts if they have DSL and that the crazed admins in the forum could have had many accounts and used those to attack people. The news covers the final decisions about MS antitrust and proves that they did get some restrictions and that the courts DID consider them to be a monopoly. Then after 1999 it starts to appear that the court restrictions did hurt MS and Linux and Apple benefit a bit from the new restrictions. In the end certainly Billy G. was not the altruistic business man indicated in this article, a manager very close to him threaten the Mac LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY with NO OFFICE ON THE MAC, THEY WERE PLAYING HARD BALL, AND Billy G. got caught with his hand in the cooky jar when he stole code from Apple.

So now I wonder if Fred Anderson was angry and jealous of Jobs for getting ALL of the credit for saving Apple, and because he was the first one involved in the agreement with MS felt like he should have gotten most of the credit. So then did that cause him at a later date to tell Jobs that back dating options was OK, trying to get him into trouble !?!?!?!? Did he think he could shift most of the blame from himself to Jobs ?? Or did he just get old and senile ???

Wow...this guy is a moron. lotsa, Preseton, Vandil, and maybe even bonch...You have all been topped!!! Actually, I think its David Pogue!!! I am outta here!!! --tayme

Magnus es, domine, et laudabilis valde: magna virtus tua, et sapientiae tuae non est numerus. et laudare te vult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae, et homo circumferens mortalitem suam, circumferens testimonium peccati sui et testimonium, quia superbis resistis: et tamen laudare te vult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae.tu excitas, ut laudare te delectet, quia fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te. da mihi, domine, scire et intellegere, utrum sit prius invocare te an laudare te, et scire te prius sit an invocare te. sed quis te invocat nesciens te? aliud enim pro alio potest invocare nesciens. an potius invocaris, ut sciaris? quomodo autem invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? aut quomodo credent sine praedicante? et laudabunt dominum qui requirunt eum. quaerentes enim inveniunt eum et invenientes laudabunt eum. quaeram te, domine, invocans te, et invocem te credens in te: praedicatus enim es nobis. invocat te, domine, fides mea, quam dedisti mihi, quam inspirasti mihi per humanitatem filii tui, per ministerium praedicatoris tui. Et quomodo invocabo deum meum, deum et dominum meum, quoniam utique inme ipsum eum invocabo, *** invocabo eum? et quis locus est in me, quoveniat in me deus meus? quo deus veniat in me, deus, qui fecit caelum et terram? itane, domine deus meus, est quiquam in me, quod capiat te?an vero caelum et terra, quae fecisti et in quibus me fecisti, capiuntte? an quia sine te non esset quidquid est, fit, ut quidquid est capiat te? quoniam itaque et ego sum, quid peto, ut venias in me, quinon essem, nisi esses in me? non enim ego iam in inferis, et tamen etiam ibi es. nam etsi descendero in infernum, ades. non ergo essem, deus meus, non omnino essem, nisi esses in me. an potius non essem, nisi essem in te, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia? etiam sic, domine, etiam sic. quo te invoco, *** in te sim? aut unde venias in me? quo enim recedam extra caelum et terram, ut inde in me veniat deus meus, qui dixit: cae

He's not david pogue... take a look at this, "Just before Jobs returns to Apple I am posting in MacCentral forums about how Jobs should return, they should make media players, distribute music, merge with Disney, switch to Intel chips by making machines that have both PPC and Intel chips, make Wifi boxes that daisy chain and include users in franchise agreements that will allow them to make a little money by creating a wireless cable TV net." He's iPaul!!!!!!! The same 'i told them so!' windows attutude now with _iAdditude!_ Here's an FYI, assuming you actually do tell the truth, if you thought these were such great ideas, then why would you sit at home and whine on mac forums about it? You don't realize the people who actually came up with these ideas made millions of dollars off of them? So don't give me that 'i has a jobzorz' bullcrap. Having great ideas and doing nothing is worse than having no ideas at all. Of course it's not nearly as bad as _saying_ you had great ideas 'way back when'. And even that is not as bad as _believing_ you had great ideas 'way back when'. Mr. Crazy iPaul.

"Here's an FYI, assuming you actually do tell the truth, if you thought these were such great ideas, then why would you sit at home and whine on mac forums about it? You don't realize the people who actually came up with these ideas made millions of dollars off of them? So don't give me that 'i has a jobzorz' bullcrap. Having great ideas and doing nothing is worse than having no ideas at all. Of course it's not nearly as bad as _saying_ you had great ideas 'way back when'. And even that is not as bad as _believing_ you had great ideas 'way back when'. Mr. Crazy iPaul." I am definitely NOT iPaul. I have WAY better INSANELY better ideas then those ... I have a SAD truth to report to you, human civilizations including ours are driven by groups of people with expertise and money and stupid approaches to investing and choosing who has the right stuff, that requires arbitrary behaviors to confirm that a person with ideas really has a good idea. In other words I am a male WASP, NOT A FREAK, thus in todays world I don't have right stuff. Trying to get venture capital would be a waste of time and sentence me to a life in the blight of the city -- which I hate. I also have parents who attack me every way they can, and they have broad influence, you see they are failures and can't bear even the tiniest success for me. Sorry, to burst your bubble, yes ideas do have power, but these day you must give them away to stop politics from stopping the idea. Ben Franklin gave away his greatest idea, the lightning rod. I gave away my greatest idea, make vaccinations for disease vectors, not for people. Because of this suggestion there is in trail now for a vaccine for bird flu that always works, making birds immune, thus they won't spread the virus to human handlers and they won't have to make farmers go broke when all their birds get killed. Continued ...

Why not spread my free ideas in my real name, I could get killed for spreading some of these ideas, and I am not sure which ideas or exactly who would do the killing -- a LOT of IT guys pretty scary !!! Although I did recently posted in my name some ideas about quantum mechanics that seemed to impress some people and also seemed to get some acknowledgments in the science news, scientists with similar ideas reached conclusions as though what I said was true. And that was the disputed, may/may not be true, part of the article. A short time after posting the comments I was in a head-on-collision that nearly totaled both cars involved, the other persons insurance is paying for it because she was drunk, easy to fake, they are out to get me, I keep upsetting the apple cart. I was not hurt at all, had my seat belt on and airbag worked perfectly. If it was planned it was probably for something else that I said/posted but who knows ??? ¡¡¡ THE WORLD IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS !!!

"I gave away my greatest idea, make vaccinations for disease vectors" "Why not spread my free ideas in my real name, I could get killed for spreading some of these ideas" "easy to fake, they are out to get me" You know... before I was joking about the tinfoil thing. But um... now I'm not so sure. Now I really do think you are someone who browses the web alot and reinvents your past around it for artificial significance. That... or you are just weird and posting things to make you look crazy is fun. There is no way off the crazy boat though in either case.

Oh, by the way just for the sake of accuracy and love of the truth. For a while I was thinking that I don't really remember the double announcement of the agreement with MS, it am sure it happened that way but remember being within weeks first 100 million and then 150 million, the extra 50 mill. was for switching from Netscape browser to IE, and the news actually said that. But that is actually pretty fussy, maybe it was future appart, that old article I found does confirm that at first it 100 mil. and that was before Jobs. But my memory does keep tugging at me and telling me Guy Ammelio and Anderson actually BOTH did it together and then Guy actually closed the deal to bring Jobs in just before he was canned, which I remember thinking it was curious how Guy did such a good job at the end, how could they fire him. There was a about 3 months when Jobs was said to be confirmed to be returning to Apple but was not in the public eye yet, so that was when Anderson was supposedly running things, I think this is the way it actually happened. And the final deal was made public at least a few months after Jobs was on the job.

http://www.answers.com/topic/san-francisco-canyon-company "San Francisco Canyon Company San Francisco Canyon Company was a software developer company that were contracted by Apple Computer in 1992 to port the QuickTime technology to Microsoft Windows. They made their first release of QuickTime for Windows in November 1992. In July 1993, Intel contracted the San Francisco Canyon Company to improve the performance of Microsoft's Video for Windows technology on Intel processors. By the end of 1993, Intel and Microsoft had combined their efforts to improve Video for Windows by creating a joint technology called Display Control Interface, that was included in version 1.1d of Video for Windows. The lawsuit "Apple Computer v. San Francisco Canyon Co.", filed on December 6 1994, alleged that the San Francisco Canyon Company used some of the code developed under contract to Apple, in their additions to Video for Windows. Apple expanded the lawsuit to include Intel and Microsoft on February 10 1995. In March 1995, Microsoft released version 1.1e of Video for Windows, that removed all of the code contributed by the San Francisco Canyon Company, stating in the release notes does not include the low-level driver code that was licensed from Intel Corporation. Reference * Carlton, Jim (1997). Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders. Random House. ISBN 0-88730-965-8."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10/09/doj_posts_final_witness_list/ "The final witness lists for the US vs Microsoft case, still scheduled for next Thursday but probably delayed until 19 October, were given yesterday. They are mostly as previously indicated, but the changes provide some clues as to current thinking. The DoJ has substituted Avi Tevanian, an Apple VP who would be able to elaborate on Microsoft's alleged attempts to subvert QuickTime and generally decrease competition in the multimedia sector. Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan was telling everybody yesterday that the DoJ is now trying to bring an additional case, since there is nothing about QuickTime in the original case. The story is in fact rather complex. Microsoft was caught red-handed with a couple of thousand lines of Apple code that just happened to make Video for Windows run faster. In fact, part of the code had been developed for Apple by the San Francisco Canyon Company, which was then contracted to write something similar by Intel. The code was then passed from Intel to Microsoft and ended up in Microsoft's code with the same comment lines as in Apple's code."

http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/history/2006/11/22/ "November 22, 1985: Sculley and Gates Sign Agreement Allowing Microsoft to Use Mac Technology by Chris Seibold Gates and Sculley had reached an agreement on October 24 of the previous month that would allow Microsoft to use Mac technology in Windows in exchange for a promise to upgrade Word for the Mac and not to release Excel for the PC until at least 1990. Those are things that would have happened even without the agreement; a minor update of Word was money in the bank for Microsoft and the Redmond giant is always late with releases. While the trade was unnecessary and decidedly lopsided, Sculley went ahead and signed the agreement (after he had nearly a month to reflect on it), this day in 1985. Sources Apple Confidential 2.0, 171"

http://biz.yahoo.com/msft/p29.html "6. Foreclosing Apple as a Distribution Channel for Navigator 341. In the summer of 1995, Microsoft had been willing to cede to Netscape the development of browsing software for the Mac OS, provided that Netscape would stop competing with the platform-level browsing technologies that Microsoft was developing for its 32-bit Windows products. The genesis of this offer had been Microsoft's belief that Netscape could never become the leading platform for network-centric software development if it did not distribute a middleware layer for the soon-to-be dominant 32-bit Windows platform. But once Netscape confirmed its determination to offer a middleware layer that would expose the same set of APIs on Windows, the Mac OS, and other platforms, Microsoft recognized that it needed to stifle the attention that developers would be inclined to devote to those APIs, even when the they rested on top of a non-Windows platform like the Mac OS. After all, if Navigator became so popular on the Mac OS that developers made extensive use of the APIs exposed by that version of Navigator, those developers would be disposed to take advantage of identical APIs exposed by the version of Navigator written for the dominant platform, Windows. Microsoft therefore set out to convince developers that applications relying on APIs exposed by Navigator would not reach as many Mac OS users as applications that invoked platform technologies found exclusively in Windows. Therefore, Microsoft set out to recruit Mac OS users to Internet Explorer, and to minimize Navigator's usage share among Mac OS users."

/ignore MAC It's nice to see Paul setting things straight again. I noticed over on slashdot where they had this same subject up that many posters were bringing up the same opinions and quoting the same facts. Just a note, guys, that right now is Spring Break for many highschoolers. That's probably why we see so many immature opinionated posts right now. Ala, what is above me.

"/ignore MAC It's nice to see Paul setting things straight again. I noticed over on slashdot where they had this same subject up that many posters were bringing up the same opinions and quoting the same facts. Just a note, guys, that right now is Spring Break for many highschoolers. That's probably why we see so many immature opinionated posts right now. Ala, what is above me." SEE THIS GUY, people like this NEEEED to believe that the wealthy are GOOD, his own worshiping to the wealthy is also GOOD, they are part of the IN croud and everything in the world is in place and where it should be ... ... HIS COMMENT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A CHILD THAT SUCKS ITS THUMB, reminding himself of the safety and reassurance of being feed on demand by mommas bosom, he needs to suck because momma is not there anymore. Its is EXACTLY this kind of childish insecurity that drives most human endeavors ESPECIALLY THE RISKY ONES !!! And that is why the most popular OS SUCKS ... ... the biggest car makers makes cars that SUCK ... ... and politics that SUCK rules our lives !!!

And by the way ... I posted the Robson technology Flash Cach idea on Spymac under the name of MACchine. Some of my old stuff can still be found with a goooooogle on MACchine but most of it is gone. There must be a web archive site somewhere that would have it.

"on slashdot where they had this same subject up that many posters were bringing up the same opinions and quoting the same facts." Loiosh, I did not realize before what you were alluding to unconsciously and narcissistically !!! What you are saying is that Paul, for the most part just copied this article from SLASHDOT ! And the reason he did that is because on SLASHDOT it created a lot traffic !! And you also called the references that dispute this article FACTS, and so you believe what Paul wrote WAS LIES, but you said YOU LIKE HIS LIES -- so without question its like I said, you SUCK your thumb !!!

Wow. Over the deep end = Macchine I normally post here, but my bugmenot subscription is lost. I said I wouldn't post, but this is just too crazy not to. See here for what I mean: http://tinyurl.com/jm8gm

bunny + pancake = check and mate. Sory Mac, but 50 posts in a row cannot stand against the bunnycake.

@gnu-user: Apple may be in a bad situation in the near future too. What Apple should do is make Apple PCs, monitors and rest of its hardware, 100% compatible with the rest PCs and their OSes (including Windows), and make OS X to run on all PCs. Then we would see very nice competition and Apple's income increasing dramatically, 100% sure. Why they don't do this, puzzles me, and we spend our time arguing about "Mac Office" and rest minor details. ------ My response may take more than one post due to the character cap, and for a mac user I've been around here for a good while and hopefully you will find me to be a little more sane than some. So here goes: I don't believe Apple will be in a disposition even in the distant future. The company pulls revenue from far more than computers, and almost from anything but OS X to be honest. Apple is the industry leader in MP3 player sales, and online digital music stores. They're in no danger of bad situations as a company. Truth is, it doesn't matter what Apple's desktop OS market share is compared to Windows. It could be less than 1% world wide and still not change things. Apple would continue to make macs, and develop their own in house OS and software. A bad situation for Apple's future would be to lose the iPod. That could be about the only thing that truly affects the Mac in the long run. Besides, incase you didn't notice the past two years. Mac sales have been at a continual increase. Did you know that Toshiba is the fifth ranked PC vender in the world? You know what their market share is? 4.2% - Apple is at 2.7%... I find it hard to see compelling evidence that Apple's computer sales are in any disposition by comparison to their competitors. http://www.internet-nexus.com/2006_10_15_archive.htm I know, but seriously - just a little over half a year ago. The market hasn't changed much since then. And kinda funny I would use Paul for the reference. Everyone who's been around here should remember - th

Getting away from the fact that Apple isn't doing bad, and that there's no reason to believe that they will be in a bad possition in the near future either, let's move on. In a way, Apple did expand compatibility with the PC industry and Windows. Macs run Windows, and therefore are a Mac/PC. It's not the same scinario you gave, but it achieves the same goal. Only it gives Apple the money, and not HP or Dell. Nothing wrong with that, it's smart if anything. It has also been a cause of some PC users purchasing a mac for the very reason that they can own a mac and still use Windows and their PC software. So macs do run PC software, as well as PC OS's. They also run Linux and Unix in X11. I'm running Fedora on my G4 Sawtooth right now as a matter of fact. My Powermac runs three operating systems... It's running Tiger, XP Home, and Fedora Linux. I also have access to Unix software anytime I want through X11 while running OS X. I'm sorry, but I really don't catch where you were going with this one. I just don't see how my mac could be any more PC compatible than it already is. No, I mean, it IS a PC. My point now, is that even still - nobody's flocking to the Apple store. Even knowing that the machines are capable of running almost whatever you want these days. While Apple's market share has been increasing, they'll never have the market Windows owns. Well, as far as desktop OS's are concerned anyway... Mobile OS's are a totally different issue: http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/4887_Symbian_worldwide_smartphone_s.php Microsoft doesn't quite own that OS market, by a long shot. Perhaps you have not considered that Apple may not need the desktop OS market figures Windows has to have a dominant OS in the future as well. Also consider where the industry is moving.

A few things to add - First post, last two words cut off. Meant to say "that's why." Also for the first post link, you should scroll down half way through the page or so until you see the Apple increases market share to 2.77 peprcent... incase you didn't see it at first and were wondering what was up. Anywho, that's a mac users's oppinion on Apple computers and the PC industry. -Cheers

@DerekTraver: You provided interesting info. But I think that even in the case that Apple has secured itself from dangers, it should be more ambitious. Consider the following scenario: 1) Apple makes Windows/GNU/Linux/everything-PC compatibles with specific specs on hardware, of common hardware, like NVIDIA graphics cards, etc. In this way anyone buying a Mac PC would be able to run whatever he wanted (including Windows), and having specific specs, would allow them to focus OSX development on this hardware, in the same way they do now. 2) Keep Mac PC prices in reasonable ranges to competitive PCs. Wouldn't Apple be the same "danger-secured" as you said it is now, and open its profits window much further?

"Keep Mac PC prices in reasonable ranges to competitive PCs." that's not gonna happen. ever. when a MacBook Pro is almost $1000 more than a comparable Dell (re: from my previous comparison i did a couple months ago), you know Apple's not gonna give up that profit margin. "like NVIDIA graphics cards" not in the consumer lineup.... only MacBook Pro notebooks have ATI graphics, and they start at $2G's. there are no NVIDIA graphics chips in the notebook lineup. in the iMac's the 17" 2.0GHz and 2.16GHz include ATI Radeon X1600's and only the 24" includes an NVIDIA GeForce chip which happens to be a sad 7300GT with an option to go to a 7600GT. Again, that system is $2G's, which hardly puts it in the hands of typical consumers. Of course, all of the iMac's use mobile processors, not the much faster desktop version Core 2 Duo's. Apple doesn't make any systems with real Intel desktop chips. Only the MacPro has support for a real PCI Express card and it ships with [again, the sad] 7300GT. The MacPro includes Intel Xeon processors which aren't even designed for desktop use. I don't know why you would call these graphics chips "common" though. It's all budget-level stuff in the [real] PC market. "open its profits window much further?" i'll say the same thing but with much more expression and sarcasm: open its profits window much further???!??! are you serious? XP

@gnu-user: I truly understand where you're coming from as I ask myself many questions about Apple and why they do the things they do. But I do believe I have some answers. Surely not all of them, by a long shot. But I have asked myself enough by now to be content with what I do know. 1) Apple makes Windows/GNU/Linux/everything-PC compatibles with specific specs on hardware, of common hardware, like NVIDIA graphics cards, etc. There are a few things you should know first about Apple's marketing strategy. a) everyone is on similar hardware configurations. b) everyone is on the same operating system / software. There's a reason why it's like that too. Apple is one company that does it all. Dell doesn't, nor does HP, or any PC manufacturer for that matter. They don't make operating systems, or software... They barely think outside the dull grey boxes they poop out. Apple is much more than a hardware assembly plant, much more. So my best explination is that Apple (or Steve Jobs) markets the Mac with everything else they make too. Which is a lot more than computers. When it's time to upgrade, everyone upgrades together. The user base is centralized, not spread out over many different versions (most of which are incredibly outdated) like the Windows user base. It's just how Apple does it. They're not anywhere near as big as Microsoft, and nor is the Mac market. They can stay small, and do it this way. It actually works to Apple's advantage to have everybody on similar hardware, systems, and software - and then shut the rest out. Mac users don't seem to have a problem with it either. Frankly they're emphatic about it if not over zealous.

Continued: I would have loved to see two different things in the new macs than what they are today though. Honestly: Nvidia and AMD But hey, I don't own a new mac anyway so I can't complain too much. You make some good points, but I hope I helped you see things from Apple's point of view. Or a mac user's rather - which ever. As far as keeping mac prices reasonable... well, haha. I don't think we'll ever see that to tell you the truth. When Steve Jobs told us that there will be a switch to Intel - nearly half of the entire mac community (forums, blogs, etc.) hoped for price drops that would rival similar PC configurations. But no, that didn't quite happen. Don't get me wrong, I think the MacBook is an excellent notebook for the price. I'd never throw $1,000 into a PC notebook unless it looked that nice, had special hardware like motion sensors for my hard drive, a no-noise keyboard, etc. Especially considering I could just run Vista on a MacBook anyway... But to answer your second part I honestly just don't think Apple will truly drop prices. Even when they have the chance to they don't, they just give us really nice computers which always cost an arm and a leg. Not saying PC's are cheap, either. Core 2 Duo PC Notebooks aren't exactly cheaper than $1,000 either. I'm not sure if opening up to more hardware would make them cheaper is what I'm saying. I think Apple would still charge good money for their computers. Well, there's only one iMac. And there's only one Apple, PC companies just don't quite match up to the design. Just depends on how you look at it, how much you're willing to spend. For a home user especially, any mac will be more than enough (save for the mac mini perhaps). -cheers

@DerekTraver: The way you are mentioning it, it resembles the old computer hardware industry, company-branded hardware with company-branded software. Or the Rolls Royce way. In any case, the market will decide.

Reality check: If Microsoft allowed Apple to die, Microsoft would lose its primary source of innovation. Microsoft lets Apple create and perfect technologies, then Microsoft makes terrible copies of them that sell better than Apple's original product.

http://www.internet-nexus.com/2007/03/apple-irack.htm true. so true. and on so many levels. XP

Reality check-OUT !!! Have any of Windows LOVERS noticed that Vista is 15 GIGs !?!?!?!?! blah, gahhh, furrrrrrd ¡¡¡ MAC OS X IS AND WILL BE 2 to 4 G, much much smaller and more features ... You people are nuts !!!

I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought stick and stones, opps I mean bits and algorithms, opps I means arrows, boat anchors, and viruses -- YAH THAT'S IT ARROWS (Mac OS X), BOAT ANCHORS (Windows), AND VIRUSES (from China and India) !!! The code name for the next Windows OS should be BOAT ANCHOR. Here are some images for your system icon ... http://www.discountmarinesupplies.com/cart.cgi?group=71310&child=71312&gclid=CK_80q759IoCFQtpGAodQQUUpw

Arrows and boat anchors ... Mac OS X is an arrow ... The arrow that hits the bulls eye at the center of the X ... The arrow that splits the Apple on the head of SJ ... Windows Vista is a BOAT ANCHOR ... Its the anchor that keeps MS from washing away in the winds, rains, and rough seas of the Puget Sound. ¡¡¡ 4 Gig vs. 15 Gig/Big !!!