Do Microsoft really own over 90% of Apple

Status
Not open for further replies.

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 24, 2009
8,785
211
UK
I'm just really curious, because I think I am beginning to see the merger of two operating systems here. I'm sure I heard somewhere that m$ saved apple in the days of Windows 3.11/95. Don't ask me where the figure 90% came from, it's just one that has stuck in my mind...
 

MrCheeto

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2008
2,966
0
90%? Not even. In about 1996 Microsoft contributed to Apple by purchasing several hundred NON-VOTING shares that they agreed to hold onto for at least a certain number of years.

All it is is shares, Microsoft theoretically does own part of Apple but so does every share holder, it's a publicly traded company.
 

ziggyonice

macrumors 68020
Mar 12, 2006
2,386
1
Rural America
Easiest answer: No. Back in the day, Microsoft had bought some Apple stock, just like you and I can. Technically, when you and I buy stock from Apple, we own a part of the company. The same could be said when Microsoft bought Apple stock.

But it doesn't matter anymore anyway because Microsoft no longer has that stock. So no, Microsoft doesn't own any bit of Apple.
 

eawmp1

macrumors 601
Feb 19, 2008
4,137
8
FL
Only in an dark, ugly alternative universe. If they did, it would be one of the very few bright spots in an otherwise currently poor business model. If i were a company that owned 90% of Apple, I would have done better than the Zune. And those Mac vs. PC commercials would be like shooting myself in the foot.

The way I heard it was that Apple owns 90% of Microsoft after the deal made for the GUI patent lawsuit over Windows. That way Apple can have the "ugly copilot" in Widows and score big on the "dating" scene. ;)
 

mcpryon2

macrumors 6502a
Dec 12, 2008
505
88
The way I heard it was that Apple owns 90% of Microsoft after the deal made for the GUI patent lawsuit over Windows. That way Apple can have the "ugly copilot" in Widows and score big on the "dating" scene. ;)
I heard that Xerox owns 90% of both Microsoft and Apple. And the guy who first used the :) emoticon actually gets 90 cents per instance it's used, but traded that trademark for 90% of all of the companies.
 

MrCheeto

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2008
2,966
0
Let's not forget that the letter "i" IS the intellectual property of Apple. Thus every keyboard manufactured that includes this letter pays up to guess who?

Yeah and considering the number of times a day each person says it...phwew!

*this post alone cost me over $346*
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,692
3,383
Easiest answer: No. Back in the day, Microsoft had bought some Apple stock, just like you and I can. Technically, when you and I buy stock from Apple, we own a part of the company. The same could be said when Microsoft bought Apple stock.

But it doesn't matter anymore anyway because Microsoft no longer has that stock. So no, Microsoft doesn't own any bit of Apple.
Obviously there may be some Microsoft employees who sold all their MSFT at the right time and used the money to buy AAPL and these guys are really happy now. Of course they can't tell their boss why they are happy. (There was one ugly event of corporate bullying a while ago when Ballmer found out that a Microsoft employee had dared to buy an iPhone).
 

MrCheeto

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2008
2,966
0
Microsoft reminds me of North Korea.

Kim Jong Il is so jealous of the whole world that he bans any of their media in his country and rules by fear.

You know your country sucks when you have to force your people to stay...
 

nick9191

macrumors 68040
Feb 17, 2008
3,271
2
Britain
Microsoft bought $150 million in non voting shares in 1997. Non voting basically means that the investor has little or no say in corporate matters (so Microsoft had no control over how Apple was run). $150 million was an absolute drop in a bucket of water though as Apple, even in its darkest year still raked in around $7bil in sales, Apple did not need this money to survive. The investment was merely to show Microsoft's commitment to the Mac platform. All shares have now been sold.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,824
7
If it were true it would value the Windows/Office/Zune/Xbox/BackOffice business itself as worth less than $40bn, meaning Microsoft as a going concern rather than a holding company would be worth less than RIM, the makers of Blackberry.

So no. It's not true. Not unless you see Windows etc. as completely worthless :)
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Microsoft reminds me of North Korea.

Kim Jong Il is so jealous of the whole world that he bans any of their media in his country and rules by fear.

You know your country sucks when you have to force your people to stay...
Or when it controls everything you can do.

Kind of like carrier-locking a phone.

Or censoring to only allow maker-approved apps.

And not allowing too much personal customization.

:rolleyes:
 

MrCheeto

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2008
2,966
0
Yeah, kdarling, that's real cute until you consider the practical applications of such moderating.

In North Korea you are killed for watching foreign programming or studying anything not approved by the state. What good does this control do? Nothing, it's control for the sake of control and spite.

In America you are punished for such things as slander and harming someone. What good does this do? It protects the people.

Why would Ballmer not allow his kids and employees Apple products? If you think it's because he thinks they suck, think about this. Would you let your kids buy a cruddy MP3 player? I wouldn't mind it, I'd just warn them that it's not a good investment. It's clearly because he doesn't want his kids or employees minds to leave his cloak of ignorance or for his kids to look up at him some day and say "daddy...your software disappoints me...I'm ashamed to be a Ballmer".

Why would Apple not allow certain Apps on your iPhone? Because if it simulates a function the iPhone is already capable of, the default app is probably better-integrated to the OS and other default apps. Also, I feel 100% safe that every app in the app store will not harm my iPhone. Therefore it's 100% malware free. As for secure...I didn't say that <.<

Edit: Also, carrier-locking is simply done because they have an agreement with a single carrier in the USA. The agreement stipulates AT&T will eat part of the iPhone's cost if Apple will allow it exclusivity. Maybe they're in talks with other companies, or maybe other companies just said no...either way they're doing what they can.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Yeah, kdarling, that's real cute until you consider the practical applications of such moderating.
You compared a CEO making fun of an employee with a competing device, to someone being executed for disobedience. I don't care two bits for Microsoft, but that's a ridiculous analogy.

In North Korea you are killed for watching foreign programming or studying anything not approved by the state. What good does this control do? Nothing, it's control for the sake of control and spite.
I was a NCO in an intelligence unit on the DMZ, and I've had troops beheaded by North Korean infiltrators. I know more than a little about the DPRK and why they do things.

Both North Korea (and for that matter, South Korea) jam each other's signals. It's illegal in either country to listen to the other's broadcasts, although the death penalty hasn't been used in decades in the South.

It's not done just for spite. Propaganda is a problem for both countries. Many North Koreans have defected because of accidentally seeing South Korean soap operas and thinking that everyone owns a Mercedes. South Koreans have given away secrets. They're still two countries ideologically (and physically) at war with each other.

Why would Apple not allow certain Apps on your iPhone? Because if it simulates a function the iPhone is already capable of, the default app is probably better-integrated to the OS and other default apps.
Or not. Apple's policy of rejecting "duplicate functionality" is inconsistent at best, and about fear of losing control at worst.

Also, carrier-locking is simply done because they have an agreement with a single carrier in the USA. (...)
I'm talking about the fact that ATT will unlock every other phone for overseas usage.
 

MrCheeto

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2008
2,966
0
You seem to not understand the point to be made. Kim Jong Il wants absolute power and won't tolerate anything that goes against his words. In the same way Ballmer forces his own spite onto other people and doesn't tolerate "defection".

Also: You don't think I've read up on North Korea? You think I think those people actually WANT to follow him? I know better and I thought I made that clear in my original post:

"You know your country sucks when you have to force your people to stay..."
 

anjinha

macrumors 604
Oct 21, 2006
7,271
62
San Francisco, CA
I'm talking about the fact that ATT will unlock every other phone for overseas usage.
I find it very unlikely that it's because of Apple that AT&T won't unlock the iPhone since other carriers (in Europe, for example) will unlock the iPhone on demand (sometimes for a fee).
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,777
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
I'm going to close this thread for the following three reasons:

1) The original question was amenable to a straightforward answer (which is being overly generous) that has already been provided.

2) If you really need to discuss Kim Jong Il, do it in the PRSI. You know better.

3) The completely reasonable discussion of the technological politics of iPhone unlocking, which has little to do with the completely-lacking-in-reasonable-precedent of the question of whether Microsoft really holds a controlling stake in Apple, is fine to be re-born in the iPhone forum, either in one of the existing threads on the topic or in a new one.

Thanks for your understanding. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.