OttawaGuy said:Bill Gates announced Thursday afternoon he will step down as CEO of Microsoft Corp. and company President Steve Ballmer will take over the CEO role. The changes were to take effect immediately.
Not true. Ballmer's been the head of MS for years now. I see you posted this lie in the other thread as well.OttawaGuy said:Bill Gates announced Thursday afternoon he will step down as CEO of Microsoft Corp. and company President Steve Ballmer will take over the CEO role. The changes were to take effect immediately.
Apple would have very likely collapsed if Microsuck had not bought out a large part of the company in the '90s. The stock has mostly expired, but there was a bad clause in the deal that allowed Microsoft to 'borrow' the look and feel of the Mac OS, therefore scuttling a Antitrust (I think) lawsuit filled by Apple around '96-ish.Blue Velvet said:
Misinformation Police! Feet back and spread 'em!skoker said:Apple would have very likely collapsed if Microsuck had not bought out a large part of the company in the '90s. The stock has mostly expired, but there was a bad clause in the deal that allowed Microsoft to 'borrow' the look and feel of the Mac OS, therefore scuttling a Antitrust (I think) lawsuit filled by Apple around '96-ish.
Not quite. I've been playing whack-a-mole with this myth for so long, I developed a cut-and-paste response:Peace said:MS NEVER bought out a large chunk of Apple in the 90's..Bill Gates gave Steve Jobs/Apple Computer $50,000,000 (or something like that) in exchange for adding internet explorer on the Mac desktop...
On August 6, 1997 Steve Jobs announced that Microsoft would be investing $150 million in Apple and was committing to producing Microsoft Office for the Macintosh for at least five more years.
Q: The deal included a technology sharing agreement between the companies. What was that all about?
A: The driving force in this deal was the resolution of a long-standing dispute over patents.
Q: The investment was in non-voting stock, which Microsoft was committed to holding for a minimum of three years. If the investment was a "gift" on Microsoft's part, why the three year minimum term?
A: Because it wasn't a gift -- this is how the companies worked out their legal differences. Additional cash was quietly exchanged behind the scenes. How much was not disclosed.
Q: Microsoft committed to Office for the Mac for five years. If this commitment was completely voluntary, how can the five year term be explained?
A: It can't be explained that way, because it wasn't voluntary. These were the agreed-upon terms.
A few of most common myths about the Microsoft-Apple deal debunked:
Myth 1: Without Microsoft's investment, Apple was doomed.
Reality: Apple had lost over $1 billion in the 18 months before the investment, but in August 1997, they still had $1.2 million in cash on-hand and annual sales of around $7 billion. The $150 million investment did not "save" Apple, though arguably the positive publicity did.
Myth 2: Microsoft was acting to preserve their market for Mac Office.
Reality 2: A nonsensical argument. Was the Mac's 5% market-share worth $150 million to Microsoft? If Apple went out of business, would Apple's former customers revert to yellow legal tablets and pocket calculators before they'd buy a Windows computer and Office for Windows?
Myth 3: Microsoft invested in Apple to give them "cover" in the on-going federal antitrust investigation.
Reality 3: This assumes Microsoft's commitments were essential to Apple's survival. If this is so, does Microsoft's ability to issue a life or death sentence over their only competitor make them look MORE or LESS like a monopoly? In fact, within weeks of the announcement, the deal was investigated by the Department of Justice. If this move was intended to give Microsoft breathing room in the antitrust case, then it certainly didn't work. It didn't, because it wasn't.
Myth 4: This deal was a "big win" for Bill Gates.
Reality 4: Apple gained at least $150 million, Microsoft's public endorsement, and a lot of positive press. What did Microsoft gain? Bill Gates appeared on a big screen at MacWorld, where he was roundly booed by the audience. They also got Apple to call MSIE the Mac's "default" browser, even though Apple would still be distributing Netscape. This fabulous deal only cost Microsoft $150 million, and then some.
Myth 5: Microsoft owns a big part of Apple.
Reality 5: At the time it occurred in 1997, the $150 million investment amounted to roughly 5% of Apple's market capitalization, but was held in a special class of nonvoting shares. According to the terms of the deal, Microsoft was allowed to liquidate these shares in three years, which they've almost certainly done by now.
None of this makes any sense at all.JackSYi said:Heres my 2 cents on Bill Gates. He is a brilliant Businessman. But he does not try and change the world in ways Steve Jobs strives to do. I feel like Bill Gates only wants to make money and does not care about the user experience.
I am just rambling on because I see Steve Jobs as my first idol and its angers me that he does not get recognized in ways that Bill Gates does. There is no way people would stand in line at 3am to see Bill Gates speak about upcoming Microsoft products.
Ok, sorry if what I said angers some of you, but I felt like I needed to say something about Bill Gates.
(Edit: Wow, that didn't make any sense.)