[GDC7]

> It's very rare that you see acquisitions work out like this

The acquisition was a normal acquisition.

What made it special was the DOJ stepping in to destroy Microsoft because Bill Gates was essentially too rich and his riches were so talked about that people in DC wanted to show him who's the alpha.

Apple would have gone to zero without Microsoft essentially saving it from bankruptcy, and it would be irrelevant had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft with such vigor.

[dev_tty01]

> DOJ stepping in to destroy Microsoft because Bill Gates was essentially too rich..

That is revisionist. Microsoft got a slap on the wrist. I don't think this gave Apple any tangible benefit. Microsoft's investment was also insignificant. The only thing that really mattered was Microsoft's commitment to continue delivering MS Office for Mac OS. That was a big deal. MS got benefit from Explorer on Mac and for the continued "competition" from Apple to reduce antitrust accusations.

[MBCook]

Spot on. Apple got desperately needed money from the Microsoft investment and more importantly it was a sign that the platform wasn’t “dead“. As Apple had been shrinking big developers had been abandoning the platform. If Microsoft were to stop making office for it it may have killed it.

That investment and commitment helped Apple keep going long enough to get out of the bind it was in.

[GDC7]

> Microsoft got a slap on the wrist

Microsoft gave small users everywhere a free license to use the best GUI OS in the world. Not to mention the browser and the productivity tools

It has always been a free software , unless you are really dedicated and want to pay for it.

It was a really elegant solution, the degree to which you paid for Microsoft products ranged based on each individual user willingness to "look around" for free pirated copies.

And over at Redmond they'd take notice and push the bill onto paying customers such as the Fortune 500 (Exxon, BP, JPMorgan)

If there is one company that the public should love is Microsoft.

[tambourine_man]

> …use the best GUI OS in the world.

> If there is one company that the public should love is Microsoft

Microsoft was a monopolistic and mediocre behemoth in the 90s. We’re lucky computing survived its grip. Mostly due to the open web, which is sadly under severe attack.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Microsoft gave small users everywhere a free license to use the best GUI OS in the world. Not to mention the browser and the productivity tools

> It has always been a free software , unless you are really dedicated and want to pay for it.

The only way I can see for this claim to have any connection to reality is if you are talking about piracy. Yes, Microsoft kind of turned a blind eye to pirates if they stayed small-scale enough. Yes, it was still illegal, and you were still (at least theoretically) running the risk of legal trouble.

If you weren't talking about piracy, then you are simply wrong. Microsoft was never free. (You may have been paying it bundled into the price of a new computer, but it wasn't free.) This goes all the way back to the beginning - see Bill Gates' letter to the hobbyists who were taking a "free license" to MicroSoft BASIC back in the 1970s.

[AnimalMuppet]

> ... because Bill Gates was essentially too rich and his riches were so talked about that people in DC wanted to show him who's the alpha.

That's totally not how that happened. Microsoft was doing things that were legitimately anti-competitive, and legitimately against the law. That got proven, and Microsoft's best option was to take the consent decree rather than flat-out lose and let the DOJ have a free hand to write the rules going forward.

[GDC7]

How can you be anticompetitive when your software is free?

Antitrust laws were made to protect the consumer, the same consumer which was robbing Microsoft blind because they allowed piracy.

[AnimalMuppet]

For the third time: Microsoft's software wasn't free. I have no idea where you get the idea that it was.

[redler]

This user appears to be trolling. Engagement may not be intellectually rewarding.

[AnimalMuppet]

Sure looks that way...

[macintux]

I don’t believe it was the money that really mattered, but the commitment to provide Office for Mac made a big difference.

[superdug]

Wasn't there some language in the deal about Internet Explorer as well as Office?

[MBCook]

Yes. As part of the deal Apple was required to include Internet Explorer on Macs (for some amount of time). IE 5 and 5.5 on the Mac were actually very good browsers.

But Apple was not prohibited from including other browsers as well. For example, years later, Safari.

[mattl]

Yes but Apple shipped both IE and Netscape.

[GDC7]

In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acumen.

The worst thing is that the majority of the American population would have not found themselves competing against Bill Gates for anything, except those in DC who had him as their #1 enemy in order to win their size measuring contest.

Matter of fact the small individual consumer and small businesses were getting away robbing Microsoft blind as they didn't do anything to stop piracy.

Microsoft would just treat it as free marketing or just pass those losses onto big paying customers such as the Fortune 500 companies, thus compensating for piracy losses at the base of the pyramid.

After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time. Irony if you think about how passionate Jobs was about music

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> In any event it was state intervention. When that happens the victory/defeat of a company becomes political , not technical or due to financial or business acumen.

Microsoft didn't win on technical merit, they were winning because they were aggressively anti-competitive.

[GDC7]

How can you be anti competitive when your software is free?

[MBCook]

It’s called “dumping”.

Give away your product for free. Now it’s practically impossible for your competitors to sell enough to keep going when there’s a free product out there.

That’s EXACTLY what killed Netscape.

[macintux]

That’s practically the definition of being anti-competitive. Leveraging a monopoly to fund other products to destroy the companies that make them.

[GDC7]

Anti trust laws were made to protect consumers, not paper-millionaires shareholders of other compenies.

There wasn't an organic hatred against Microsoft, people were teaching courses on how to create a startup aimed at getting acquired by them and retire early.

It was a DC play from people who knew nothing about software but were jelous of what they were reading on Fortune and Forbes.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

By choking out your competitors, since the true cost isn't free. For instance, demanding that OEMs only ship Windows, thus cornering the market, while still charging them (what, you really thought MS was giving their OS away for free, just because the OEM didn't show you the line item?).

[AnimalMuppet]

Microsoft's software wasn't free - except when they were trying to drive someone else out of a market. Even then it often wasn't free.

[fundad]

We all know that they charged the pc manufacturers and forced them to pay a license on computers regardless of what’s preinstalled

[teakettle42]

> After DOJ intervention nowadays we have Apple shipping a 1700$ phone which is completely closed off and out of the box is impossible to charge while listening to music at the same time.

Even the base model iPhone SE ($399) has an external speaker, bluetooth, and airplay, all of which are capable of playing music while charging at the same time.

What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft.

[GDC7]

> What a strange complaint to make, and it’s even stranger to tie it to your even stranger take on the DOJ and Microsoft.

Had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft we'd have a better, more open phone which would also come out of the box with the ability to play music while charging.

iPhones made in 2012 were only barely better than Pocket PCs made in 2005

[AnimalMuppet]

Had the DOJ not attacked Microsoft, we would have had a more open future? That's... let's just call that a minority opinion, unsupported by the available evidence.

[GDC7]

Evidence is Pocket PC

Evidence is also how the iPhone struggle to communicate with Windows PCs and everything which isn't Apple.

Evidence is also the fact that out of the box you cannot charge your 1700$ phone while listening to music at the same time.

[redler]

The persistence of affront at the removal of the headphone port never ceases to impress, even on a time scale of many years.

[macintux]

“Better” is definitely relative to your needs. For most consumers, iPhones in 2007 were easier to use, with a responsive touch interface and (for the time) huge screen.

[jen20]

What exactly are you talking about? My iPhone 13 is simultaneously charging and playing music right this second - while writing this post. Do at least try to keep things rooted in fact, despite your emotions.

[macintux]

I think there's a point there about what comes in the box. If this is your first iPhone, your first Bluetooth-capable device, yes, you're stuck with awkward compromises without spending more money.

Still, for most people it's not their first such device, so they already typically have their own infrastructure of chargers and BT headsets etc.

[eyelidlessness]

Apple has certainly slimmed down what comes with an iPhone, but from the cheapest single port iPhone to the most expensive, they all can charge and play music at the same time without spending or acquiring anything else.

[eyelidlessness]

Bill Gates and Microsoft are surely grateful for you coming to their defense.