The history of Apple.

[G wizz]

I need some things clearing up due to some arguement I have on another forum so I wonder if you chaps could clear this up.

1) Did Apple purchase the sole rights to there operating system from Xerox, and did Microsoft also purchase the same rights from Xerox.

2) Why did Steve Jobs get kicked out of apple, and then asked back.

3) Did microsoft inject a huge amount of cash into apple, and why?.

4) Did Apple take legal action against mircosoft, if so why.

Here is what I have heard,

1) Yes Apple did purchase the sole rights to the OS from Xerox.And that Microsoft copied the idea.

2) Because the new Director (From Coca Cola) and Steve did not see eye and
kicked Steve out. The share holders then asked him back because Apple were in trouble.

3+ 4) I understood Apple were going to take Microsoft to court for copying the OS and calling it windows, and that the injection was cheaper than going to court and losing windows.

Thank you in advance for you answers.

 

[iGary]

http://www.apple-history.com

 

[robbieduncan]

1) Yes Apple did purchase the sole rights to the OS from Xerox.And that Microsoft copied the idea.

2) Because the new Director (From Coca Cola) and Steve did not see eye and
kicked Steve out. The share holders then asked him back because Apple were in trouble.

3+ 4) I understood Apple were going to take Microsoft to court for copying the OS and calling it windows, and that the injection was cheaper than going to court and losing windows.

Thank you in advance for you answers.

1) No. They purchased the right to walk around PARC and check out what was going on.

2) Basic facts: It was PEPSI! He was not asked back as such. He sold his new company NeXT to Apple. As he was a member of NeXT staff he became a member of Apple staff again. Apple is now mostly controlled by NeXT staff!

3/4) Apple did take Microsoft to court. They lost. MS later bought non-voting shares in Apple to keep them afloat before the release of the iMac. They have since sold these shares.

 

[AppleMatt]

3/4) Apple did take Microsoft to court. They lost. MS later bought non-voting shares in Apple to keep them afloat before the release of the iMac. They have since sold these shares.

As part of the deal they committed to developing Mac software for 5 years, and the other day they announced they will develop Office:mac for another 5 years from now.

AppleMatt

 

[G wizz]

Thanks, links make interesting reading.

 

[IJ Reilly]

3/4) Apple did take Microsoft to court. They lost. MS later bought non-voting shares in Apple to keep them afloat before the release of the iMac. They have since sold these shares.

Sorry for being such a nit-picker, but you're conflating a couple of different and distinct events here. First, Apple did sue Microsoft over violating the Mac "look and feel" in the Windows UI. The case was ultimately dismissed if only because Apple had signed an agreement (in 1985 IIRC) with Microsoft to license certain Mac interface elements. As the story goes, Microsoft threatened Apple with stopping development of Microsoft software for the Mac if they didn't agree. Apple contended that this agreement only covered the earliest versions of Windows but they lost that argument.

Second, the Microsoft investment in Apple was not to keep Apple afloat. Apple was losing money at the time, but the company still had plenty of liquid assets. This investment was the visible part of a larger settlement of long-standing patent disputes, most of which remained below the waterline, so we the general public will probably never know which horses were actually traded. Apple did seem to come out on the long end of the deal, though.

 

[robbieduncan]

Sorry for being such a nit-picker, but you're conflating a couple of different and distinct events here. First, Apple did sue Microsoft over violating the Mac "look and feel" in the Windows UI. The case was ultimately dismissed if only because Apple had signed an agreement (in 1985 IIRC) with Microsoft to license certain Mac interface elements. As the story goes, Microsoft threatened Apple with stopping development of Microsoft software for the Mac if they didn't agree. Apple contended that this agreement only covered the earliest versions of Windows but they lost that argument.

Second, the Microsoft investment in Apple was not to keep Apple afloat. Apple was losing money at the time, but the company still had plenty of liquid assets. This investment was the visible part of a larger settlement of long-standing patent disputes, most of which remained below the waterline, so we the general public will probably never know which horses were actually traded. Apple did seem to come out on the long end of the deal, though.

I was merely answering the questions posted. I never said that the events were related. I also never said that the MS investment was to keep Apple afloat, although this is a widely held belief.

 

[LethalWolfe]

MS later bought non-voting shares in Apple to keep them afloat before the release of the iMac.

I also never said that the MS investment was to keep Apple afloat, although this is a widely held belief.

Lethal

 

[robbieduncan]

Lethal

Oops. I was fairly sure I had not said that as the amount MS bought would hardly keep anyone afloat! My mistake.

 

[XNine]

Also, let's not forget that most of the code written for the original mac GUI was written before Jobs even went to Xerox.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Also, let's not forget that most of the code written for the original mac GUI was written before Jobs even went to Xerox.

Exactly. Xerox tends to get too much credit, IMO. They didn't really "invent" the GUI, they were just the first to implement it, based on the earlier work of some of the academics they hired. And the only product they ever sold with (arguably) a GUI was the STAR. It was seriously dumbed down, too expensive, marketed half-heartedly -- and it flopped miserably.

As Jef Raskin said before he died, he arranged the Xerox visit in order to give Steve Jobs some idea of what he was trying to accomplish with the Macintosh project. He needed Steve to buy in, which of course he did in a big way. That's the real significance of the event.