That explains IE on Apple between 1997 to 2003. Sheesh, suddenly I have a very bad taste in my mouth... Must be because I drink too much coffee or something.
hash
· 2 years ago
This explains why Macs started to get good again about 2003... :)
PXLated
· 2 years ago
I've always thought people make much too big a deal of this. During that same period Microsoft invested $200M in Best Buy, a larger investment than in Apple. And it certainly wasn't to save Best Buy as it wasn't in Apple's case either. $150M is pretty paltry in the scheme of things.
Al
· 2 years ago
Microsoft sold all of their Apple stock in 2003. Caused a significant price drop. That is when I should have mortgaged the house and bought as much as possible.
Kim Mitchel
· 2 years ago
This little bit of FUD has been shovelled out to the masses for over a decade, how Microsoft saved Apple. PURE BULL SHIT! At the time Apple had billions in the bank and Microsoft saved nothing but it's on ass.
At this time Apple had about three dozen slam dunk lawsuits against Microsoft, that Microsoft was going to lose, which would further illustrate they were an illegal monopolist. Microsoft desperately needed to settle and Apple couldn't afford a long lawsuit so they settled for several billions in cash paid by Microsoft over the next few years. The settlement gave Apple free use of any previous Microsoft patents and any they would gain over the following five years. Apple also could charge any rate they wanted for any Apple patented stuff already stolen by Microsoft or to be stolen in future. Also Microsoft would have no rights to sue as would Apple for specified infringements. Apple also gained complete access to all Microsoft APIs and documentation at NO cost. No real value as demonstrated by their licensing of same APIs has been a complete failure.
The Five years of office development and $150,000 no voting stock was also an 'Apple condition of settlement' to show Microsoft's faith in Apple's survival since all the morons were forecasting Apple's demise. The non-voting stock Microsoft was forced to buy was ALL sold the first day it was eligible for sale, three years later and Microsoft quadrupled their money, something that can't be said for Microsoft shares.
This FUD, 'Microsoft saved Apple', has been floated out by Microsoft apologists for a decade. Microsoft's stock is flat-lined and every area where Microsoft has to compete, they fail, continually losing tens of billions per year trying to use their illegal thuggery to eliminate legitimate competitors. This IS the definition of an illegal monopolist and is why they keep losing their antitrust battles.
Meanwhile Apple stock continues to skyrocket up fifteen fold in just the past few years while Microsoft has no new ideas, never has had, and continues to extort outrageous sums from the stupid with equal lack of vision. Microsoft has been dead for the better part of a decade and it will take a long time for the stench to go away especially if the stupid continue to shovel cash at their abysmal software.
Floyd
· 2 years ago
Apple was NOT on the verge of collapse. At the time of the Microsoft $150 million investment, Apple had nearly $4 billion in cash and very little debt on it's balance sheet. The important part of the agreement was that Microsoft would continue development of Office for the Mac. Apple agreed to drop any outstanding litigation regarding the Windows interface. The $150 mil investment was a good faith gesture at best and did not save Apple as has been widely misreported.
Kelly McNeill
· 2 years ago
It's important to stress that those shares bought back then were "non voting shares" which makes this whole discussion rather moot.
Paul Jacobson
· 2 years ago
Somehow I am not too concerned about this ...
Thomas Carley
· 2 years ago
This happened a decade ago, and is not news unless your a retard. Talk about slow news days, who cares.
Kelly McNeill
· 2 years ago
You call him retarded and you say, "your a retard"
It seems Mr. Hartman's shoddy journalism skills are not limited to just getting the facts dead wrong - he also can't spell right.
(but thanx nonetheless to the two posters who point out the healthy state of apple's balance sheet at the time as well as the undisclosed patent settlement microsoft paid to apple - which was at least an order of magnitude greater (ie 10X) than the publicly disclosed & trifling small equity investment of $150M, as one can infer from analyzing the P/L income statements of the period).
In mr. hartman's own profile on this web site he writes that he is expecting the "arrive" of a new son - whereas what he meant to write is "arrival".
A man who can't even be bothered to proofread the basic facts about his son's existence is not likely to be a journalist capable of simple fact-checking!
Perhaps "new media" strategists should be required to demonstrate some proficiency with "old media" before they are allowed to start hawking their wares?
Justin Hartman
· 2 years ago
Thanks to everyone who left a comment to this post. I honestly didn't expect much of a response to it but I'm really happy to see that even 10 years after the issue people still feel passionate about this.
Thank to you to the people who helped clarify the facts, I have amended the original article where necessary. I have to admit finding the facts on this topic was not as easy as one would imagine. Seems that while the actual event is pretty well documented, what happened to the shares and what that meant to each company is not really public knowledge.
@zahadum: Just to clarify - I am not a journalist. I may work for a newspaper but I'm involved in the social media side for the company. Maybe this is not clear but I'm not claiming to be a journalist and this blog is merely a perspective of my day-to-day experiences. While this topic may be 10 years old this post was spurred on because of a meeting I had with one of the Apple executives who gave me this original information.
PS. Thanks for pointing out the grammar mistake - it has been rectified.
Joe S.
· 2 years ago
The only people that believe & spread the MS saved Apple nonsense are MS waterboys. The Untold story:
I remember that time well. Several months prior to the Microsoft investment in Apple and the appearance of Bill Gates on the big screen behind Steve Jobs, I bought 2,000 shares of Apple for $12 a share. They had about $13 per share in cash! Talk about a bargain. With two splits since then, that 2,000 shares is now 8,000 shares at a cost of $3 per share. Why did I buy then? It was an investment in Steve Jobs. He had just taken the helm at Apple and I had utmost faith in this guy. Still do. Guys with his vision and commitment to perfection are extremely rare in business. He is up there with Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and John Rockerfeller. History will show this to be true.
Corey
· 1 year ago
WOW, A bunch of unappreciative apple users!
Splif
· 1 year ago
Wow! Another ignorant Windows user!
DigiJim
· 1 year ago
Boy, ain't that the truth!
Wost
· 1 year ago
Using Daniel Eran to prove your case is akin to trusting a used-car salesman...
All Comments
At this time Apple had about three dozen slam dunk lawsuits against Microsoft, that Microsoft was going to lose, which would further illustrate they were an illegal monopolist. Microsoft desperately needed to settle and Apple couldn't afford a long lawsuit so they settled for several billions in cash paid by Microsoft over the next few years. The settlement gave Apple free use of any previous Microsoft patents and any they would gain over the following five years. Apple also could charge any rate they wanted for any Apple patented stuff already stolen by Microsoft or to be stolen in future. Also Microsoft would have no rights to sue as would Apple for specified infringements. Apple also gained complete access to all Microsoft APIs and documentation at NO cost. No real value as demonstrated by their licensing of same APIs has been a complete failure.
The Five years of office development and $150,000 no voting stock was also an 'Apple condition of settlement' to show Microsoft's faith in Apple's survival since all the morons were forecasting Apple's demise. The non-voting stock Microsoft was forced to buy was ALL sold the first day it was eligible for sale, three years later and Microsoft quadrupled their money, something that can't be said for Microsoft shares.
This FUD, 'Microsoft saved Apple', has been floated out by Microsoft apologists for a decade. Microsoft's stock is flat-lined and every area where Microsoft has to compete, they fail, continually losing tens of billions per year trying to use their illegal thuggery to eliminate legitimate competitors. This IS the definition of an illegal monopolist and is why they keep losing their antitrust battles.
Meanwhile Apple stock continues to skyrocket up fifteen fold in just the past few years while Microsoft has no new ideas, never has had, and continues to extort outrageous sums from the stupid with equal lack of vision. Microsoft has been dead for the better part of a decade and it will take a long time for the stench to go away especially if the stupid continue to shovel cash at their abysmal software.
They make a t-shirt for YOU.
http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/yourretarded
(but thanx nonetheless to the two posters who point out the healthy state of apple's balance sheet at the time as well as the undisclosed patent settlement microsoft paid to apple - which was at least an order of magnitude greater (ie 10X) than the publicly disclosed & trifling small equity investment of $150M, as one can infer from analyzing the P/L income statements of the period).
In mr. hartman's own profile on this web site he writes that he is expecting the "arrive" of a new son - whereas what he meant to write is "arrival".
A man who can't even be bothered to proofread the basic facts about his son's existence is not likely to be a journalist capable of simple fact-checking!
Perhaps "new media" strategists should be required to demonstrate some proficiency with "old media" before they are allowed to start hawking their wares?
Thank to you to the people who helped clarify the facts, I have amended the original article where necessary. I have to admit finding the facts on this topic was not as easy as one would imagine. Seems that while the actual event is pretty well documented, what happened to the shares and what that meant to each company is not really public knowledge.
@zahadum: Just to clarify - I am not a journalist. I may work for a newspaper but I'm involved in the social media side for the company. Maybe this is not clear but I'm not claiming to be a journalist and this blog is merely a perspective of my day-to-day experiences. While this topic may be 10 years old this post was spurred on because of a meeting I had with one of the Apple executives who gave me this original information.
PS. Thanks for pointing out the grammar mistake - it has been rectified.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07...
http://technovia.co.uk/2006/08/why_daniel_eran....
Point out what is not based in fact in the article...I've read Technovia...Ian plays fast & loose with the facts. He calls it an opinion.