Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Former General Electric CEO Passed on Buying Apple for $2 Billion in 1996
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually not a myth. MS made a symbolic cash infusion to Apple.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/20/what-ever-became-of-microsofts-150-million-investment-in-apple/
No, Amelio started the iMac. Jobs' first project was killing several product lines (clones, printers, cameras, Newton-things, etc.) and terminating the software effort Taligent/Pink/Copland.
Last edited:
Ha! I knew that lol I was just having a conversation with someone about Mac OS X, which came out in March of 2001. Thank you though.
It was the public portion of a much larger settlement of a lawsuit brought by AAPL against MSFT and INTC. If you want to call it a "symbolic cash infusion" that's fine, but it's still a myth.
As I recall, Jack Welch also thought David Letterman was just a fad that wouldn't last long in the 11:30 pm TV slot. Meanwhile Letterman outlasted 2 incarnations of Jay Leno on The Tonight Show and GE lost a fortune on NBC.
As a somewhat recent "ship jumper" of Capital. All I have to say is: "Good." Apple would have been driven into the ground by Welch's GE, not to mention Immelt's.
As others have said, the Apple of today would not even resemble what it is now had that happened -- and possibly not even be around.
As others have said, the Apple of today would not even resemble what it is now had that happened -- and possibly not even be around.
None of what the DoJ was pursuing under the antitrust laws had any connection to Apple's 1997 partnership with Microsoft. In fact if the myth that Microsoft had life-or-death power over Apple was true, it certainly would not have given Microsoft any cover in an antitrust investigation (more like just the opposite). The deal never came up as an issue in the DoJ's case because the case was about entirely different issues and they were totally unconnected. In reality, in 1997 Apple and Microsoft were settling a longstanding patent and copyright suit, which Steve was leveraging for everything it was worth in terms of positive PR for Apple. The later linking of it to the Microsoft antitrust case is more than untrue, it is pretty ironic, actually.
[doublepost=1459467725][/doublepost]
The myth is that this investment saved Apple. The myth is Microsoft did it to give themselves cover in an antitrust investigation.
[doublepost=1459467814][/doublepost]
And OpenDoc, which I thought was a crying shame (having seen what it could do).
Scary but probably true. The iPhone will probably go down as one of the greatest inventions of the 21st century.
And if GE had bought Apple they would have run it like GE and Apple today either wouldn't exist or would be in the shape of BlackBerry.
Exactly. All these click-bait articles about these what-if scenarios miss the whole point - the phenomenon of Apple happened because of Steve and the freedom that he got. If GE, or some other company bought Apple, there's no way to tell what would've happened. Most likely though, it would've been a footnote in history.
It is interesting that when you look at it on the surface, you'd think "Man, GE blew that, they could have tripled the current value of their company for a measly $2B", but the reality is that if they'd made that purchase there's basically zero chance that Apple would be anything even vaguely resembling what it is today, and the chance of the buy paying off significantly would have been low at absolute best.
The Mac might have survived or even done okay as a brand/product line, but the smartphone industry would not look anything like what does today unless something wacky had happened to NeXT that put it in a very different position than where it was headed prior to the Apple buy.
The Mac might have survived or even done okay as a brand/product line, but the smartphone industry would not look anything like what does today unless something wacky had happened to NeXT that put it in a very different position than where it was headed prior to the Apple buy.
There is something called hindsight that makes some think they are geniuses
[doublepost=1459484692][/doublepost]
Or guess
[doublepost=1459484977][/doublepost]
Dude, relax. His management theories are probably running
GE doesn't understand the culture of the vibrant companies that it buys. It virtually kills everything it touches.
It's not relevant as Apple under GE would have morphed into something else, highly likely into nothing. The key was having a visionary like Steve Jobs back and let him do his magic. It's highly unlikely a mega old school corporation like GE would offer anything remotely close.
Sun and Oracle were both thinking about it at the time (Ellison was buddies with McNally and Jobs). Larry said if he bought Apple, he'd just give it back to Steve. Think 2 billion was too much at the time.
I never argued that the cash infusion 'saved' Apple - that is conjecture on your part, rather it is my contention that the settlement was a gesture which served Microsoft in their legal battle with Netscape, et all. Of course my opinion with respect to the MS cash injection is based on inference, but at least it is supported by facts and not just a confederacy of dunces:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/22/business/microsoft-and-the-question-of-monopoly.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 21— The judge in the Microsoft antitrust trial asked the company's expert witness on economics a series of skeptical questions today, suggesting that the Microsoft Corporation may have a difficult time with one of its defenses -- that it does not have a monopoly in the market for personal computer operating systems.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson interrupted when a Microsoft lawyer was questioning Richard L. Schmalensee, an economist and dean of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, about the price Microsoft charges for its industry-standard Windows operating system. Mr. Schmalensee was explaining his view that the modest price Microsoft charges for Windows, typically less than 5 percent of the cost of a personal computer, indicated a company concerned about current and potential competition instead of the predatory monopolist the Government has tried to paint for the court.
But Judge Jackson cut in to ask if there could be sound business reasons that even a monopolist might charge less today ''in search of larger glory at some later date.''
To illustrate his point, the judge spoke of the hypothetical case of a cigarette company that might keep its prices low to hook generations of future smokers and customers.
''There isn't any indication,'' Mr. Schmalensee replied, ''that Windows is that kind of addiction.''
Judge Jackson seemed unconvinced. ''Do you have kids?'' he asked Mr. Schmalensee.
Yes, the M.I.T. dean replied, ''but not all kids use Windows, Your Honor. Some use Macs,'' a reference to Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh machines, which run the Mac operating system.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson interrupted when a Microsoft lawyer was questioning Richard L. Schmalensee, an economist and dean of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, about the price Microsoft charges for its industry-standard Windows operating system. Mr. Schmalensee was explaining his view that the modest price Microsoft charges for Windows, typically less than 5 percent of the cost of a personal computer, indicated a company concerned about current and potential competition instead of the predatory monopolist the Government has tried to paint for the court.
But Judge Jackson cut in to ask if there could be sound business reasons that even a monopolist might charge less today ''in search of larger glory at some later date.''
To illustrate his point, the judge spoke of the hypothetical case of a cigarette company that might keep its prices low to hook generations of future smokers and customers.
''There isn't any indication,'' Mr. Schmalensee replied, ''that Windows is that kind of addiction.''
Judge Jackson seemed unconvinced. ''Do you have kids?'' he asked Mr. Schmalensee.
Yes, the M.I.T. dean replied, ''but not all kids use Windows, Your Honor. Some use Macs,'' a reference to Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh machines, which run the Mac operating system.
Central to Microsoft's strategy was to argue that it wasn't a monopoly. Again from the article:
Whether Microsoft has a monopoly in the market for personal computer operating systems is not directly at issue in this case. The Justice Department and 19 states are not suing Microsoft for having a monopoly but for illegally using its market muscle to defend and extend the reach of its monopoly.
Still, if Microsoft can convince the court that it is not a monopoly, the Government's case collapses.
Still, if Microsoft can convince the court that it is not a monopoly, the Government's case collapses.
Last edited:
Amelio was frantically searching for a MacOS successor. WinNT, Solaris and BeOS were all part of his and his CTO's consideration. Until finally they approached NeXT. SJ then "engineered" a coup to oust Amelio after Apple had acquired NeXT. The iMac was started under Jobs' lead unless you consider Amelio laying the ground work for NeXT's acquisition as a start. However, few people know that it wasn't Steve that came up with the iMac name or the Think Different campaign.
Google "Ken Segall".
If not for him, we'd all have MacMans on our desks and maybe PhoneMans
Besides, this GE story has little merit. Hindsight is always 20/20, but facts often get confused.
The iPod created the halo effect that lead to increasing Mac sales and laid the base for the iPhone. It was most definitely not Steve's first project, nor was it his invention, but I guess most people never read up on Apple's history or have lived thru it.