PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Best 5 Business Decisions


MacBytes
Jan 3, 2007, 07:03 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: History
Link: Apple's Best 5 Business Decisions (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070103200352)
Description:: Apple has managed to survive and even thrive despite some very bad leaders, products and financial results over the years. The company has survived because of a few stellar products, alliances and business decisions. In my opinion, these are the top five that allowed Apple to survive the past thirty years. Without them, Apple would not exist as we know the company today. Read about Apple's top five business decisions at Mac Observer.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

dllavaneras
Jan 3, 2007, 07:08 PM
While I didn't live a few of these, I recall the release of the iMac as the turning point for Apple. It transformed me from geek to hip in a months time :cool:

FrankBlack
Jan 3, 2007, 07:32 PM
Good list! Heh, we probably have an entire generation of Mac users now who have never heard of Mike Spindler, or remember those nail-biting times.

For those younger generation Mac users, I recommend two books, "Apple Confidential" by SF based author Owen Linzmayer, and "The Macintosh Way", by Guy Kawasaki. If you're in college, your respective libraries might have both.

DMann
Jan 3, 2007, 09:33 PM
Good list! Heh, we probably have an entire generation of Mac users now who have never heard of Mike Spindler, or remember those nail-biting times.

For those younger generation Mac users, I recommend two books, "Apple Confidential" by SF based author Owen Linzmayer, and "The Macintosh Way", by Guy Kawasaki. If you're in college, your respective libraries might have both.

At least Gil had the sense to steer away from the Dell mindset of offering a multitude of low-end models,
and to recognize that Steve and NeXT had developed an amazing OS which could bring Apple out of the
limited and closed "single tasking" environment -- What a turn-around! Also, what a blessing to be able
to 'rule out' those business models and strategies which do not excel.

dukebound85
Jan 3, 2007, 10:00 PM
maybe im dumb but why does microsoft still make office for mac? i thought microsoft no longer has any holding of Apple. Am I wrong?

solvs
Jan 3, 2007, 11:45 PM
maybe im dumb but why does microsoft still make office for mac? i thought microsoft no longer has any holding of Apple. Am I wrong?

No, they did sell it all off years ago. But they still have an agreement to continue making Office for Macs. It was just renewed for another 5 years too. They kinda have to. It helps sell the ability to be cross platform. They might get in trouble again with the DOJ if they stopped. Not to mention the fact that it makes them money. It's pretty profitable.

IJ Reilly
Jan 4, 2007, 12:13 AM
Once again, the phoney-baloney story that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple to look less like a monopoly is repeated, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense, and isn't true besides. That's the problem with the 'net -- any kind of nonsense can become accepted as gospel truth if it's repeated frequently enough.

Saad
Jan 4, 2007, 12:29 AM
Once again, the phoney-baloney story that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple to look less like a monopoly is repeated, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense, and isn't true besides. That's the problem with the 'net -- any kind of nonsense can become accepted as gospel truth if it's repeated frequently enough.

Umm...
It's an accepted fact, not rumor. It was featured prominently in a SteveNote and is in many reputable sources. Unless CNET and Apple's own press office are rumor mongers.
http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html
http://web.archive.org/web/19990223185827/product.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1997/q4/970806.pr.rel.microsoft.html

balamw
Jan 4, 2007, 12:31 AM
Umm...
It's an accepted fact, not rumor. It was featured prominently in a SteveNote and is in many reputable sources. Unless CNET and Apple's own press office are rumor mongers.
http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html
http://web.archive.org/web/19990223185827/product.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1997/q4/970806.pr.rel.microsoft.html

The investment's not in question, the motives are.

B

Aniej
Jan 4, 2007, 12:42 AM
No, they did sell it all off years ago. But they still have an agreement to continue making Office for Macs. It was just renewed for another 5 years too. They kinda have to. It helps sell the ability to be cross platform. They might get in trouble again with the DOJ if they stopped. Not to mention the fact that it makes them money. It's pretty profitable.

sorry my friend this is not how antitrust works, at all. Relevant market determinations, which is step one, is where the point you offer goes south. placing an investment in apple, even with the hypothetical intent to provide cross platform runs directly contrary to the analysis, which would look at, for example, apple's ability to enter the market and compete. Opening further channels to increase market share would actually impede Microsoft's hypothetical effort here.

IJ Reilly
Jan 4, 2007, 12:59 AM
The investment's not in question, the motives are.

Precisely. One fact rarely mentioned anymore is Apple and Microsoft's technology-sharing agreement, another major result of this deal. The two companies settled a long-standing conflict over patents. The $150 million "investment" was part of Apple's price. I think sometimes Apple engineered the public relations aspects this one too well. Even at the time, a lot of the media was bending over backwards to figure out how Bill won (because of course he always does).

sorry my friend this is not how antitrust works, at all. Relevant market determinations, which is step one, is where the point you offer goes south. placing an investment in apple, even with the hypothetical intent to provide cross platform runs directly contrary to the analysis, which would look at, for example, apple's ability to enter the market and compete. Opening further channels to increase market share would actually impede Microsoft's hypothetical effort here.

If I understand what you are saying, then yes. Microsoft investing in Apple to improve their own market share does not make them look any less monopolistic. This is the fundamental flaw in the antitrust logic generally applied to the 1997 deal.

Aniej
Jan 4, 2007, 01:07 AM
If I understand what you are saying, then yes. Microsoft investing in Apple to improve their own market share does not make them look any less monopolistic. This is the fundamental flaw in the antitrust logic generally applied to the 1997 deal.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, though I would just make a minor clarification to make sure we are 100% on the same page. It is not a flaw in antitrust principles, it is a flaw in the Saad's reasoning as applied to antitrust principles.

Outside of the legal point, that's why the cnet article, which is his "evidence" makes a passing reference, but finds not a single person at either aapl or msft to comment (obviously) nor any "senior individual familiar with the matter" or industry pontificator to quote.

solvs
Jan 4, 2007, 01:50 AM
Once again, the phoney-baloney story that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple to look less like a monopoly is repeated, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense, and isn't true besides. That's the problem with the 'net -- any kind of nonsense can become accepted as gospel truth if it's repeated frequently enough.
sorry my friend this is not how antitrust works, at all. Relevant market determinations, which is step one, is where the point you offer goes south. placing an investment in apple, even with the hypothetical intent to provide cross platform runs directly contrary to the analysis, which would look at, for example, apple's ability to enter the market and compete. Opening further channels to increase market share would actually impede Microsoft's hypothetical effort here.
They might get in trouble again with the DOJ if they stopped.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking specifically about Office. My main point was that it makes them money and provides a good (relatively speaking) cross platform product, helping to retain their marketshare by having a product (almost) everyone can use. But at the time, MS was under investigation for illegally using their monopoly, so who knows if that may have played a factor. Not saying it was the main reason, or even that it helped, but it certainly would have hurt their case at the time if they didn't. For right now, that seems to be just a side effect, profit being the main reason.

I wasn't really talking about the investment at all.

Aniej
Jan 4, 2007, 04:13 AM
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking specifically about Office. My main point was that it makes them money and provides a good (relatively speaking) cross platform product, helping to retain their marketshare by having a product (almost) everyone can use. But at the time, MS was under investigation for illegally using their monopoly, so who knows if that may have played a factor. Not saying it was the main reason, or even that it helped, but it certainly would have hurt their case at the time if they didn't. For right now, that seems to be just a side effect, profit being the main reason. I wasn't really talking about the investment at all.

Solvs, dude, you really still have it wrong. The bold text is where you keep getting yourself twisted around. look over my explanation again. increasing their market share does nothing to help, in fact it hurts their antitrust case. I am not sure if this is the problem, but you seem to be focused on the ability to use office on a mac. The focus needs to be on the relevant market. I am pooped, but we can chat about this tomorrow more when I get some sleep.

IJ Reilly
Jan 4, 2007, 10:41 AM
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking specifically about Office. My main point was that it makes them money and provides a good (relatively speaking) cross platform product, helping to retain their marketshare by having a product (almost) everyone can use. But at the time, MS was under investigation for illegally using their monopoly, so who knows if that may have played a factor. Not saying it was the main reason, or even that it helped, but it certainly would have hurt their case at the time if they didn't. For right now, that seems to be just a side effect, profit being the main reason.

I wasn't really talking about the investment at all.

I understand. I am referring to the general logic of Microsoft deciding to help Apple in order to prop up a competitor, with the expectation of less scrutiny from the DOJ over antitrust issues. I don't see how this reasoning works, especially when you consider one of the things Microsoft got from this deal: Apple's adoption of MSIE as the Mac's default browser. Microsoft's leveraging of Windows to destroy Netscape was a primary issue in the government's antitrust case. If anything, Microsoft handed the DOJ more ammunition. What's more, Microsoft's relationship with Apple was hardly at issue in the case.

Mac'Mo
Jan 4, 2007, 03:09 PM
i think the iPod really put them on the map wiht the hip yuppies