25 Years Ago, Apple Acquired NeXT and Brought Back Steve Jobs

[alherb]

I worked for one of the MANY computer vendors (DEC) that were all racing to be THE Leading UNIX vendor. I was introduced at NASA to the Apple environment during the Hubble project and how Apple simplified and intuitive their user interface was. I came from a very UNIX world at NSA and realized what Apple could do for the UNIX user. At NSA, I became accustomed to the CLI. At NASA, I realized the true value of Apple's philosophy. While the industry was focused on the rest of the market becoming more their flavor of UNIX under the guise of "portable software" , Apple had the Crown Jewels, the UI capable of hiding the user from any underlying OS. Many long gone computer vendors missed and regret the chance to gobble up Steve Jobs. Microsoft used their "cheaper" strategy to gain market share. They lost their way when they began focusing on fashion. Unfortunately , the current Apple is focusing on this problem as well and no one really knows how they will fare with this strategy.

I don't follow Apple watches or enemas. Now, I struggle with how to get along with Windows rather than just getting the job done under MacOS until Mac can do it.

 

[NitroOH]

at the time, I would say BeOS would have been a great choice.

The problem with BeOS was that it did not come bundled with Steve Jobs 2.0

Either OS would have been a good fit. The key was having Steve to sell the vision of the ecosystem. That is what made Apple successful again, and paved the way for the future innovation.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Best waste of money Apple has ever done. Next got them OSx.

 

[BGPL]

A lot of companies try to create technology in Apple's path, so it's easier for Apple to buy them out rather than develop the tech itself. Steve was one of the first to do this with NEXT. It was his ticket back into Apple. Then he doubled down and created Pixar.

 

[kemal]

I seem to remember it was a few NeXT employees who brought the idea of the buyout to Apple.

 

[StoneyG]

I remember reading about this and feeling like it was the wrong move. BeOS seemed a better fit.

Apparently, I was wrong.

Ha! You've reminded me that 12 year old me had kinda wondered the same thing.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Some people talk about little Timmy being a great CEO, but don't forget that Timmy took Apple from the world's most valuable company... to the world's most valuable company.

Steve was a visionary who rejoined and rescued the floundering company that was borderline bankrupt in his absence, and transformed it into... the worlds most valuable company. Steve revolutionised Apple with NEXT becoming the basis of not only macOS, but also iOS and iPadOS. NEXT being, no surprise, a company that Steve founded. He then went on to create the iPod and iPhone, which revolutionised the world. Apple IS Steve.

Timmy has done nothing great except keep the wheels turning like any highly competent bean counter could have. If you already have money, it's a lot easier to make money. Even the fantastic M-series Macs are all Steve's work. Firstly, they are simply beefed up A-series processors; and secondly the idea was first planned whilst Steve was still around. In Steve's absence, the disastrous dark ages of Macs from 2016-2020 plagued us with woefully, stubbornly, horrid design decisions. Only after 4 years of furious angry feedback from customers, and corporates and creatives abandoning the Apple ecosystem entirely, did Apple back down and bring back all the features that we wanted. Thus, the outstanding new 14" and 16" MBP's, are in effect, designed almost entirely by a collaboration between Steve and us the customers! The most useful thing that Timmy did amongst all that, was to get out of our way, and let us design it. And yet, even then, he had to go and give us his controversial little touches like the notch, and older tech in the HDMI and card readers, ffs. No, Timmy is not a great CEO, he is a journeyman, and the greatest thing he has done is to keep this great empire from collapsing, and I am thankful of that at the very least.

Steve, a legend, a visionary, a rare man who turns crazy little ideas into products that revolutionise the world. RIP.

 

[buckwheet]

Though I'm not one of the many here who think Cook is a terrible CEO, I do think Jobs' decision was based on the roadmap he knew was already in place, and the time Cook would be around to execute that roadmap. He knew Cook would be a good business lead, and he probably trusted that Cook would find a successor who understood the DNA of the company. I don't think it was ever about Cook "replacing" Jobs; it was about Cook running things until he could find the person to replace Jobs.

It's the successor who needs to be another visionary.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

Let us not forget that Steve Jobs was instrumental in getting Bill Gates to invest over $100 million dollars to keep MS out of antitrust court in a secret meeting no one ever knew about and not having Apple testify against them. Without that, Apple would have folded into bankruptcy. Jobs was brilliant at a lot of things that Cook is not nor was Amelio. In fact I would venture to say that Cook and Amelio are pretty similar types except that Cook did like Jobs vision while Amelio could not ever even see it, but I'm still unconvinced that Cook can do similar Insanely Great things. JMHO.

 

[Wackery]

like Justinian II, never give up, inspiring

 

[SFjohn]

Anyone here remember how devastatingly bad the first release of OSX was? It took a very long time for that to get better.

 

[SFjohn]

I was sitting in the audience (and seriously ready to switch to Windows PC) when Steve Jobs announced OSX. Totally brought me right back to Apple that day.

 

[DaveN]

Mac OS has never been licensed to Bill Gates (or Microsoft). So no, can‘t be that Steve Jibs coz this never happened

Mac OS wasn't licensed to Microsoft but Apple did give Microsoft the license to use Apple's menu system in their apps for the Mac and Microsoft claimed that this license allowed them to use the patents on any product they make and hence they could use it on Windows. Apple took them to court and lost. Oops.

 

[DaveN]

Anyone here remember how devastatingly bad the first release of OSX was? It took a very long time for that to get better.

I thought it had rough edges but it had it's benefits over Classic Mac. One huge one was that a program crash didn't bring down your whole computer.

 

[buckwheet]

I thought it had rough edges but it had it's benefits over Classic Mac. One huge one was that a program crash didn't bring down your whole computer.

Indeed... Though the classic Mac OS ran well—and was pretty fast, actually—it wasn't very robust to system errors. I'm a habitual command-S-er to this day (even though some apps "bonk" at me for doing it) because of it. Haha...

 

[ahurst]

Mac OS has never been licensed to Bill Gates (or Microsoft). So no, can‘t be that Steve Jibs coz this never happened

It was, in fact, the vile Steve Jibs who tried to betray the company by licensing MacOS to Microsoft. Thankfully, he was thwarted by the great Steve Jobs before it could go through ?

 

[reyesmac]

I really dislike that they haven't been bothered to update some apps from the Next days. All the power of the mac, and textedit and chess are still the freaking same. I know if it aint broke dont fix it but guess what? There is enough power under the hood to have a freaking toggle switch that can turn the app from the modern version to the classic version. They have no excuse for keeping apps the same and not include new advancements UI design, they have had how many decades now to try? They have so many old apps they can turn into killer apps and they just wont even try. They can change open and save dialog boxes, window and menu designs that actually hurt productivity (compared to the speed of classic OS's, they can completely overhaul apps like imove and remove apps as in the case with the ones that came with iLife, but they can't improve on their imperfect original apps.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Imagine an WHAT IF episode about Steve jobs never returning to Apple…

For starters, this site wouldn’t exist.

 

[Eric5h5]

Immediate changes:
Microsoft gets broken up (remember they gave Apple money to have a competitor)

They absolutely did no such thing. They paid Apple settlement money in the form of buying stock because of a lawsuit that resulted from being caught red-handed copying Apple's Quicktime code. (And then sold it a few years later, oops!) The other part of the settlement was agreeing to provide Office for Macs. These are historical facts; look it up. There was never anything about "having a competitor" and Microsoft would not have been broken up.

 

[ellsworth]

I remember installing a copy of NEXT OS on my Performa that I received with a copy of MacAddict Magazine back in the day. It was beautiful but only had a handful of supported applications so I uninstalled it a few days later. Good times.

 

[Analog Kid]

The biggest advantage for Nextstep was the fact that it was running on various lab computers using multiple different processors. Such as Motorola 68030/68040, IA-32, SPARC, PA-RISC. The ability to have this UNIX variant run on multiple processor types through the years allow Apple to conduct major hardware switches compared to other companies, making it a very unique technology example for technology watchers.

I’m pretty sure BeOS ran on multiple processors as well….

 

[_Spinn_]

Crazy how one decision can have such a major impact on computing history.

 

[Romain_H]

Let us not forget that Steve Jobs was instrumental in getting Bill Gates to invest over $100 million dollars to keep MS out of antitrust court in a secret meeting no one ever knew about and not having Apple testify against them. Without that, Apple would have folded into bankruptcy. Jobs was brilliant at a lot of things that Cook is not nor was Amelio. In fact I would venture to say that Cook and Amelio are pretty similar types except that Cook did like Jobs vision while Amelio could not ever even see it, but I'm still unconvinced that Cook can do similar Insanely Great things. JMHO.

Not true, just a myth repeated over and over.

Quote: “The day before the announcement Apple had a market cap of $2.46 billion, and had ended its previous quarter with quarterly revenues of US$1.7 billion and cash reserves of US$1.2 billion, making the US$150 million amount of the investment largely symbolic. Apple CFO Fred Anderson stated that Apple would use the additional funds to invest in its core markets of education and creative content.“

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Microsoft_deal

„Microsoft's $150 stock investment was the result of a settlement of a lawsuit. In fact, the investment was just an initial payment for other "substantial balancing payments" that would be spread out over then next few years, then Apple CFO Fred Anderson said at the time.“

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/

 

[Romain_H]

It was, in fact, the vile Steve Jibs who tried to betray the company by licensing MacOS to Microsoft. Thankfully, he was thwarted by the great Steve Jobs before it could go through ?

Oh, you are funny. Found a typo? You may keep it ??

 

[Romain_H]

Mac OS wasn't licensed to Microsoft but Apple did give Microsoft the license to use Apple's menu system in their apps for the Mac and Microsoft claimed that this license allowed them to use the patents on any product they make and hence they could use it on Windows. Apple took them to court and lost. Oops.

Did they?

Quote: „Microsoft's $150 stock investment was the result of a settlement of a lawsuit. In fact, the investment was just an initial payment for other "substantial balancing payments" that would be spread out over then next few years, then Apple CFO Fred Anderson said at the time.“

The exact amount of the settlement is still unknown as far as I am aware. I've seen estimates from $500 million to more than $1 billion.“
End quote

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/