Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dingosity 1711 days ago
I think money wasn't as big a problem as it's been reported.

Take this snippet from the wikipedia:

"Apple CEO Gil Amelio started negotiations to buy Be Inc., but negotiations stalled when Be CEO Jean-Louis Gassée wanted $300 million;[11] Apple was unwilling to offer any more than $125 million. Apple's board of directors decided NeXTSTEP was a better choice and purchased NeXT in 1996 for $429 million, bringing back Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.[12]" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS ]

It seems to me that BOTH $300M and $429M are greater than $125M and $429M is greater than $300M.

Having been both a NeXTStep and BeOS developer, I can assure you that NeXTStep was a MUCH more mature product than BeOS. Was it money? maybe. a little. Was NeXTStep better value for money? maybe. probably.

I rankle every time I hear the story about Gassée being greedy. He might have been asking for more than Apple wanted to pay, but I think it's simplistic to say it was only about money. NeXTStep morphed into Rhapsody and MacOS reasonably quickly. And the MetroWerks compiler for BeOS was DEFINITELY buggy.

I think there was no discount Gassée could offer that would make up for the longer time-to-market for a BeOS based next-gen Mac OS.

1 comments

What's missing from this is what each OS brings to the table. It's entirely possible that they considered BeOS to not have as many desired features as NeXTStep delivered. Whatever the perceived relative value of each, I don't think it makes sense to consider them equivalent, as Apple apparently didn't. In other words, obviously $300 million wasn't too much for Apple to buy an OS for, but they seemed to consider too much to buy that OS for.