Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

In 1985 Bill Gates Proposed Mac Licensing to Apple

applematters.com — In 1985, AppleMatters carried this story, If the Mac has ever had a bigger fanboy than Bill Gates it is unclear who it was. In the days before the release of the Mac, Microsoft had more people working on software for the Mac than Apple had employees. Check this for the text of the memo - http://www.scripting.com/specials/gatesLetter/text.html

Bury

manaskb 2 years 107 days ago, made popular 2 years 107 days ago

969 diggs
digg it

105 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

ThePags, on 10/12/2007, -20/+16I can imagine it now Windows on a Mac........ oh wait.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30you mean, Mac OS on a PC...since that what's the article is about.
- jpt62089, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16You do realize that Macs are technically PCs too? PC stands for Personal Computer. I don't see anything about Microsoft or Windows in there ;)
- nerdofnerds, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Yeah, the whole "MAC VS PC" thing confuses me...is the mac not a personal computer? Or is it just considered extra personal, thus requiring a different name than its beige box counterparts?
  
  can't be X86 vs PPC anymore...Could unification of platforms be just a few years away?
- jpt62089, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9personally I think less experienced users don't realize what PC means and that they are used to refering Macs as Macs and Windows computers as PCs and I think that alone is the only reason why 'Mac' vs 'PC' still exists
- mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yeah, I know what PC stands for. I own an iMac PPC.
  the thing is most people refer to computers outside of Macs as "PCs", and I didn't want to write "Windows PC" because a lot (well enough) people use Linux as well.
- sillygates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@jpt62.....
  
  well Macs are not considered PCs because historically (before the intel macs) they were not built on a platform compatible with the first successful "personal computer" architecture, The IBM PC/AT, hence PC, and those old "IBM compatible" stickers, etc.
  
  now Apples still do not have full PC/AT support because of their lack of BIOS (yeah yeah EFI is better, but its not PC/AT)
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11indeed sillygates, technically any computer not made by IBM under the Personal Computer (tm) name isn't a PC. most home computers are personal computers, just not Personal Computers (tm). it's just that calling it PC Compatible stopped being nessicary once all IBM clones were PC Compatible. for a while some were only partially compatible
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3I use "PC" to refer to a computer you can build from any parts from a wide range of manufacturers; if you don't need a $3000 machine to browse the internet then build a $300 one and install Linux. "Mac" is much like a gaming console where you are limited with the hardware you can use or that home router running in-house developed firmware, and may not play nicely with "PC" parts.
  
  But as obviously stated a million times... Apple is not a software company. Although I don't think they have, they shouldn't complain either that Microsoft has a monopoly when they aren't even competing on the same level.
- SilentPurity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2To comment above me: WTF?
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6To all the pompus idiots above. We all know a Mac is a PC, it is just a simple way to make the differentiation. You could argue for Wintel, but that applies to Macs too.
  
  A Mac = an Apple computer, a PC = those other computers that run Windows and don't bear the Apple badge.
  
  Stop being so jumped up. Everybody knows what is meant by PC.
W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22And now we get to those annoying, bitter, spiteful, sh*t talking commercials
- Scooley01, on 10/12/2007, -19/+42I hate those commercials with a passion. Especially the one where the mac guy is talking about all the "neat things" you can do on a mac, and they make it sound like you can't do anything but pie charts on a PC...
- TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -26/+19Yeah I really dislike those commericials too... Their Arrogant and self toating, not to mention full of lies..... Worlds fastest PC my ass.... PC's can only do pie charts eh?..... Oh well The Apple people in the past 7 years have been nothing but arrogant hippisters in my opinion.... let them have their shiny stuff...
- XxUNDEROATHxX, on 10/12/2007, -17/+25Id like to see MS make commercials combatting the current apple ads with things like unreadability, gaming, software availability, etc...
- Taikun, on 10/12/2007, -22/+12Shiney stuff that scrathes and looks like crap after a short time.
- yellowperil, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24I have a mac, I love my mac. But I dont hate windows. In fact I have a PC as well and I love both machines. I do hate those commercials too. I mean, Im a graphic designer and I kinda sorta need it. However, If I wasnt a designer I would never ever get a mac because of its price point. I hate the way some apple users think they are hip/cool/elite because they have a mac... owning a computer does not make you who you are, its what you do with it and what you do with your own life that makes you hip/cool/elite.
- tim04, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9every time I watch one of those bloody commercials, I feel like offing myself right there and then. I dunno how this makes anybody feel cool...wow guys! I can download those spiffy M-P-3s and podcasts and transfer them to my ultra-hip iPod! cuz of couse, you can't do that a million times better with a PC... at least Microsoft can laugh at themselves with those Microsoft-iPod box design commerical...
- Tux42, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21I think the commercials might be more accurate if the "pc" guy identified himself as "a windows pc"
  How about this. ;)
  
  mac: hi I am a mac
  Winpc: hi I am a windows pc
  Linuxpc: and I am a Linux pc.
  *Winpc freezes
  mac: hello, wake up!
  Linuxpc: Give him a break, you used to do that to.
  mac: (defensively) yeah, but that was a long time ago.
  
  Have a nice day :)
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I say bring back the stoner chick ad.
- brydude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@deanlowe
  
  I'd hit that 3 times
- trevorsm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Tux42
  
  The last computer crash (ie, had to force reboot) I had was in Linux (due to wonky graphics card drivers). In my experience, all of the operating systems have been getting more and more stable, even Windows; it's been a long time since I've had Windows crash on me.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You've kind of missed the point of the commercials then. It's pointing out what a Mac can do "straight out of the box". Technically you can't even do pie-charts on a wintel box (PC), as they don't generally come with Office.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Id like to see MS make commercials combatting the current apple ads with things like unreadability, gaming, software availability, etc..."
  
  Yeah, cos that'd work now Macs can run Windows. It would certainly go a long way to prove Apple's point for them :P
  
  Don't know what the hell you mean by unreadability?
- asmodeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's probably talking about it not cutting out the smoothing on fonts at low sizes, when referring to "unreadability". I never had a problem with it though.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"He's probably talking about it not cutting out the smoothing on fonts at low sizes, when referring to "unreadability". I never had a problem with it though."
  
  No, me neither. But then you can turn off the smoothing for fonts from about 18pt and below.
XxUNDEROATHxX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5geez, that was close....
- asmodeus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1_
  _
dpogni, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4was this to avoid the monopoly?
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Doubtful. Different business philosophies and models.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8actually, jobs gave gates a break. microsoft needed the work. apple gave them a couple macs to work with... gates reverse engineered the Mac OS... until around win2k there was actually jacked mac code in windows. but microsoft made mulitplan and word for apple... which were the first peices of what became MS Office.
- Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8So you are saying that there was Apple code in NT4 that was stolen? Point to it please. what did it do?
  Not saying you are laying. just think you're talking out yer arse.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hmm, might be easier to prove that point one way or another without a court's intervention if windows' code were open....
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"So you are saying that there was Apple code in NT4 that was stolen?"
  
  No, he's saying there was stolen code in Windows 9x, which is unconfirmable, but thought by an ever-growing number of computer historians to be true.
  
  Not that any of that is of any consequences, as the code would have never expressed itself as identifiable as "generic Mac"; Windows is riddled with code from all kinds of sources including Symantec, Veritas, the BSDs, and independent contributers, just to name a few. It's not surprising that the world's largest software magnet outsources some of its work to other companies, simply because at the size of Microsoft, specialization can get lost (the "Right hand doesn't know what left is doing" syndrome; they probably developed the same code themselves, but simply didn't know about it, or it was of inferior quality than code they could simply license for cheaper).
- vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't think that there was any Apple code in NT4.
  
  But Windows 1.0 on the other hand contained similar structures to Mac OS of 1984 and even some of the exact same labels for some APIs/ code structure.
  
  Here's why:
  
  Microsoft created the GUI versions of Word and Excel on the Mac first, starting around 1983 on pre-release Macs they had the privilege to access. That was before/while they created Windows.
  
  When creating Word and Excel they were facing a problem: obviously Microsoft wanted to have a DOS/Windows x86 version of Word and Excel too but Windows itself was almost non-existant at this point in time. If they built Windows in a way that was too different from the Mac OS, it would have been harder to port those apps back to their own platform.
  
  Windows was only being born, so instead of creating/inventing their own Application Programming Interfaces, MS decided to reverse engineer the main Mac OS APIs, using Apple's own developer documentation that MS insisted to have early.
  
  By doing that, porting Word and Excel to the x86 platform from the Mac became easier, and it gave them a cheap way to build an GUI OS without to have to create their own original GUI APIs.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3They both got the GUI idea from Xerox. Didn't you guys see Pirates of Silicon Valley?
  http://imdb.com/title/tt0168122/
- asmodeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@deanlowe
  They're not talking about the idea for having a GUI, we all know that Xerox was doing a graphical system earlier than Apple - they're referring to the large similarity between the APIs Apple created and those provided by the early versions of Windows.
  
  The only illegal code I've previously heard about was from QuickTime. I can't find much information on it, so I don't take it as fact. However, what I have heard is that the developer Apple contracted to port QuickTime to Windows had given some of the code to Intel, who in turn gave it to Microsoft for use in Video for Windows. Apple sued Intel and Microsoft, and Microsoft had to subsequently remove some code from Video for Windows.
- gagravaar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Microsoft did steal Quicktime:
  http://www.roughlydrafted.com/insideitunes2.html
  "The following year, Apple brought a legal suit against San Francisco Canyon, the developer they used to bring QuickTime to Windows. Canyon had resold Apple's intellectual property to Intel, who then provided it to Microsoft for use in Video for Windows. In order to catch up to QuickTime's performance on the PC, the stolen code allowed them to bypass Windows and use QuickTime's architecture instead. Apple later sued Intel and Microsoft directly, and Microsoft was eventually forced to remove some of the offending code."
xshaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"In 1985, AppleMatters carried this story"

Didn't know AppleMatters was around then. Learn something new everyday.
- XxUNDEROATHxX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1What did they carry that story on? The "Interweb?"
- trevorsm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@XxUNDEROATHxX
  
  On paper?
- smilespray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@trevorsm:
  
  AppleMatters didn't exist back then. Didn't you read xshaisu's comment?
TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The funny thing Is that I'm reading this and Gate's basically predicted the future. Gates was a big fan of apple but he saw where they failed (and frankly are still failing today) they need to open up more
- ivko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6he didn't predict, he *was the future
- sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Back when both microsoft and apple were small companies, microsoft needed a programming language, so they licensed it from another small computer company known as apple. Things used to be very different. Watch the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley." It is very informtive, and that I already know a lot of the things that were in it.
Zorkon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3... NORTEL ... ?!

Fer cryin' out loud Bill, they made phone system PBXs back then. I know, I worked for them. I can only imagine what kind of Mac Northern Telecom would have tried to build. You think Apple was charging alot?

(I still laugh when I think about how a Nortel rep tried to get me to buy a 20 MB hard drive for one of their PBXs for $12,000 in 1996)
autok2, on 10/12/2007, -36/+5No, Mac has their monopoly. And their kool-aid drinking fanboys to boot. We're happy you paid $2,000 for a piece of white plastic that plays MP3s..now go away f-tard.
- emblym, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22You are the reason Digg should have an age limit.
- andrebsd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Aww... seems like your just sad because you can't afford the $2,000 piece of plastic.
  
  But surely not all Mac user's are "f-tards"
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well. an age "limit" would keep old people out. You need a minumum age
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@foolfromhell
  
  "Well. an age "limit" would keep old people out. You need a minumum age"
  
  Actually a limit is a constraint, which means it can be minimum or maximum.
- Photar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, what we need is an age range, with a lower bound around 20.
- Alethinos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think we need an IQ range as well.
ogletree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If Mac had just made their OS to work on IBM's they would be MS today or at least MS and Apple would have equal shares. They would be like Coke and Pepsi. The people at Apple have never understood business.
- ScottTheRobot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7those that think apple is a failing business because windows dominates the os world don't understand business
- otherland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Apple has always had it pretty sweet. Windows has to be compatible with thousands of third party and legacy hardware components and devices. The Mac OS works so well because everything in the system isproprietary, designed by Apple specifically to work with their OS. Saves them all the techical grief some Windows users get. If the Apple OS had to work on IBMs and IBM compatibles they'd be as bloated and bogged down as Microsoft is.
- ScottTheRobot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4furthermore, apple is not primarily a software company. they aren't trying to do the same thing as microsoft -- take over the os world. they are a hardware company, and they are incredibly successful.
  
  ever wonder why you don't have to 'activate' your copy of mac os x? because, even if you stole the os, you at least had to buy an apple machine. and that's the business they are in.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"those that think apple is a failing business because windows dominates the os world don't understand business"
  
  I agree, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Being No.1 doesn't make a business successful. It's making a profit that makes it successful.
  
  Apple makes a profit, so they are successful.
- Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is ironic that you say that, since in 1985 Apple's president was John Sculley, the former president of Pepsico. :)
  
  Apple really did drop the ball on this one. Imagine what the computing world would be like today if Gates had convinced them to follow his plan.
disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Perhaps Apple has just always had it in their heads that they would remain on the fringe, a boutique provider to the uber-snobby, who wish to join the Cult of the 2.4%. It's a nice enough idea. Keep supply low, prices high and attitudes and egos higher, and watch what happens. Thank God I'm not forced to purchase software built by a company who thinks they are God's gift to Himself.
- TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5No What the people at apple had in their heads was that their products were so good that people were willing to buy them, no matter the price. And partly they were right, they created some pretty innovative products (relatively speaking) but they failed to see the problem with trying to keep everything under their control and by keeping it closed. By keeping it closed they kept their prices up and they limited ability to innovate (hardware wise, apple has always been a good software innovator) and thus would have less of a comparitive advantage when it came to a price. Imagine you were buying a PC in the mid-80's You could buy an Apple mac with a really cool looking UI but no too much software or cross-platform support for $2000 or a standard pc for half the price with better hardware with a stronger more open software support (because it was a standard the entire industry used)
  
  What killed apple is hubris clear and simple. they thought their products were so good that they would set the standard rather than the consumers (industry)
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8its simpler than that. they had it in there heads to make the best possible computer and make it so anyone could use it. it was always about insanely great. MS people like to think that MS has always been the industry leader. but the truth is that its aways been apple. and the computers they built were and are the best on the market. there is no cult. just satisfied customers.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3> By keeping it closed they kept their prices up and they limited ability to innovate
  > (hardware wise, apple has always been a good software innovator) and thus would have
  > less of a comparitive advantage when it came to a price. Imagine you were buying a
  > PC in the mid-80's
  
  umm... excuse me... but nothing killed apple. they had idealistic goals about everyone being able to use a computer. it was a utopian vision born of the sixty. they kept the vision. i don't know where this idea comes from that apple didn't build good hardware. they did, have and hopefully will continue to do that. by the way... i preordered a mac in 1983. i got one of the first off the line. i have bought many mac since. i been there using them both. i assure you that PC hardware wasn't even close to the same quality. its not even arguable. i paid $4500 bucks for a mac... an imagewriter... word and multiplan.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"What killed apple is hubris clear and simple. they thought their products were so good that they would set the standard rather than the consumers (industry)"
  
  Right. Because, you know, that's exactly why Apple is now considered by a wide variety of sources to be one of the most innovative computer companies producing machines today.
  
  Back when Apple and Microsoft were babies, and there was no computer industry, Apple thought computers should be devices for the Home, whereas IBM ("International Business Machines", emphasis on the latter verbage) thought computers should be Business devices. Apple continued selling their computer systems to home users, and Microsoft and IBM stole the market with machines that would work in the businessplace. And because of technological trickledown, what people used at work, they wanted to use at home; once you get comfortable in an operating system and environment, that's the one you want to use, you know enough about it to set it up the way you like it, etc.
  
  Macs are starting to see a huge amount of growth because computers are finally cheap enough that you can have a computer at work and at home, and it doesn't really hurt your household budget to do so (yes, it's arguable that they were cheap enough years ago, but now when you can buy a computer for $500, or a comparable Mac for $600, about the going price for a new nice television, it's a much better bargain), and have them serve two seperate purposes. Quite frankly, Macs have had an almost opposite reach that Windows machines have had; instead of trickling down to homes, they've trickled up to businesses (but Apple as a whole still mostly caters to home users).
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"who wish to join the Cult of the 2.4%."
  Goes in my quote book-
neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Gates has a really gifted vision, but he lacks the ability to command people to execute his vision. Steve Jobs has a self centered vision, and is really good at Commanding people to do what he thinks is right.
- ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Gates and Jobs should go make a baby.
  
  If it works, we get a person with really gifted vision and excellent leadership qualities.
  
  If it fails we get a person with no vision and no leadership. No big deal.
- fungifred, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Gates? Gifted Vision?
  Like a computer that is too small for a book bag and too big for a pocket so that you can work on an excel document while shopping. That is one of Microsoft's few ideas that they came up with themselves, everything else they got the idea for somewhere else.
  
  Jobs? Self Centered Vision?
  Yeah, because he is the richest man in the world. Oh and probably because he is making a but load on MP3 players that you don't have to buy. (For the record, every geek I talked to about iPods 3 years ago wanted one like mad and now that teenage girls have them, they hate them. They need to grow up.)
- Mag1KaL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
  "If it fails we get a person with no vision and no leadership. No big deal."
  
  So you're saying that we would get another Steve Balmer?
- jpt62089, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2er.. I am a geek and I own an iPod. The only other MP3 player I would get would be the next gen iPod!
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Gates is the richest man in the world. His company is the most profitable and wide-reaching software corporation in the world.
  
  I'd say that he's executed his vision for success in a most grand fashion.
- DrBones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Gates clearly has the ability to execute his vision. I dont think I even need to back up that statement. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs is arrogant and refused to listen to him. Imagine Gates succeeding in convincing Apple to commoditize and open their architecture. Very possibly Microsoft would never have developed windows, and Jobs would be in Gates' position.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So you're saying that we would get another Steve Balmer?"
  
  I, for one, Welcome our new Ballmer overlord.
  
  ..Maybe he'll finally run Microsoft into the ground like he's been trying to since Gates left the CEO position.
FuzzyNaval, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8As past comments have stated, a pretty simple read: Bill Gates, and Microsoft, correctly predicted the market, focused, and reaped the benefits.

Yes, I also hate those commercials, but Apple is still alive and kicking.
- daza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Almost wasn't (alive and kicking) at one stage!
  
  But good for them. The ads are annoying, though.
KnightCrawler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4It's sad that apple only has 3% of the market. If they had more I bet Windows would actually be a better Operating system. They would have to compete harder and they would not have to worry about anti-trust lawsuits.
ivko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3first it was Commodore 64 against ZX Spectrum then Commodore Amiga against Atari ST and now is Windows against Mac. Its sorta whose penis is larger...
- mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8well Microsoft definitely has the bigger penis, they just don't know what to do with it.
  While Apple is smaller, but sure knows how to please the ladies.
tim04, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0...
mdeppi01, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5See...This is why extreme-left liberalism and hippies still exist. The short sided and closed minded calling everyone else...well, you know what I'm saying.

At least I'm man enough to admit I'm closed minded. At least I was until I actually tried a mac for once instead of constantly bashing them. Now I own one and there is no PC in sight.
daza, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Interesting article.

I use Windows and every now and then, Ubuntu. I wouldn't get a Mac simply because of the price point. I was almost thinking about a Macbook or Macbook Pro but the recent trouble with them has really started to worry me. Guess it's back to good old Aldi/Medion laptops from now on :)

At least with bootcamp you can use Windows, though!
- fungifred, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm sick of this mentality of ...
  
  "Now that Macs can run windows, they are actualy good for something"
  
  Anyone that runs around thinking that Mac's can't do anything and people still buy them is an idiot. Do you really think that we are so hindered by our computers not being able to run the 30-40 thousand programs that are avalible for windows when even the most heavily loaded system only has like 100 programs.
  
  Sure there are fewer programs avalible for OS X but they are higher quality and if they are not free, they are generaly worth the money.
  
  Serriously, look around we get just as much if not more done on OS X than the windows comunity does, being able to boot windows does us no good.
- daza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, I'm not saying Mac's are cool now because they can run Windows - I'm saying it makes the transition FAR easier. This way instead of saying, *****, I wish I could do that like I could in Windows - I can actually do that.
  
  I think you really misunderstood my comment..
DrBones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5fungifred clearly you do not work in any case kind of enterprise computing environment. Macs can accomplish everything a PC can for a basic user, and sometimes more for a content creator type.
When it comes to business productivity, software development, databases, etc, windows is clearly the leader. The two operating systems have different purposes, so for some the belief that a mac must run windows to be useful is quite true.
Also, your statement that OSX apps are higher quality is absurd. Some windows apps are crap, as are some mac ones. Period.
- ScottTheRobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3generally though, the need for the average user to have windows is grossly over-exaggerated.
  
  the average user has more need for a computer that is intuitive to use and lets them do what they want it to do easily (and by an intuitive interface by no means do i mean a patronizingly simplified or impotent interface) os x really is built a lot smarter -- the computer savvy and ignorant would agree.
benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Mac certainly has bigger fanboys than bill gates, namely the submitter of this article and the writer of this article.....gates did this 21 YEARS AGO FFS. Things were a lot different back then. Please stop grasping at straws.

And for the record, back then AmigaOS kicked Macs ass. Deal with it.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yay AmigaOS, that ruled.
  
  The Amiga gave so many great ideas and technologies to modern PC world.
cpawl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes we all know that your mom, grandmother, cousin Bruce, and neighbor Charlie all need an OS that they can not understand now to do the simpliest things like LOOK AT A PHOTO or slideshow.

No one needed Windows. People bought it because that is what can in the box on the Walmart computer.
zpok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Jobs had no say in the whole Mac licensing saga. Scully, the guy who ousted Jobs, was at the helm then. And has a year or so ago said that his biggest mistake was not to license the Mac. Not sure he was right though.

BTW all this "macs suck" "windows sucks" posturing was annoying in the eighties and nineties. It really really is old now. Get a grip or at least keep your gripes to yourself.
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2dont know why youre being modded down for speaking the truth
dohidied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1cool story. i'm reminded of similar story with lamborghini and ferrari. :)
ytrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Pirates of Silicon Valley" 'nuff said
vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have a better story:

One day IBM knocks on Bill Gates door:

IBM:"Hi Bill, we need an OS for our Apple II killer, the IBM PC"
Gates:"Oh sure we have one in the works!" he said, lying trough his teeth, knowing that his company wasn't really working on an OS.

Gates then went on buying a badly coded CP/M clone called Q-DOS from a programmer. They paid only 50,000$ without telling him about their IBM deal.

IBM didn't go knock on Apple's door for an OS, because they were their target competitor, and also built the hardware. Microsoft got its place in the tech world mainly with luck and lies.

With a sneaky clause in the IBM deal, MS created MS-DOS and enabled cloning, with the help of Compact's reverse-engineering of the IBM BIOS. One could say that was pure genius, but it was still sneaky. But MS only could take this kind of decision because they had the luck to be in a context where they could. Apple never had this opportunity and who knows what they would have done.

Then, MS created its reputation by using IBM's name, a name know by the masses, reputed for serious business computers, by becoming the company that provided "IBM-Compatibility". By being the only provider of this solution, they had their licensees eating in their hands. MS would dictate strict conditions, and punish licensees who wanted to sell computers with an alternative OS.

Microsoft liked cloning, as they were a software company. Apple didn't like it though. Since they were selling both the computer and the OS, it could only lose sales by allowing cloning. Same for IBM, they didn't want it... they quickly lost market share and sales when clones were released, they were saved by their implication in the high-end market.
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You skipped the part where IBM almost bought 50% of Atari, Inc. in 1980 from Warner Communications so that Atari would design personal computers for IBM. Atari cost too much, and IBM was still under the antitrust investigation from the Justice Department. That's why IBM contracted out the operating system design, the microprocessor manufacturing, and an open architecture, because IBM's divisions could have done all of it themselves with enough prodding. At the time, Intel chips were jokes and used for Coca-Cola vending machines whereas the Motorola 68000 was being used in Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. IBM deemed the 68000 too powerful for a home or office computer. Jay Miner, one of the main engineers of the Atari 400/800 computer line, left Atari over its management disagreeing over his desire to build a computer based upon the 68000. Miner left the Company and went on to work on what became the 68000 based computer known as the Amiga.
sspooner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was a great quote from the pirates of silicon valley that went something along the lines of :

Jobs : But the PC platform is full of bugs and doesn't work...
Gates : You don't get it. It doesn't matter, it's out there.

Microsoft has suffered from this ever since. MS release software that is buggy and doesn't work, Apple releases products that do work, but in a closed environment with limited exposure. Choose your own poison.

I prefer Macs, I'm not so much a zealot as being smug. I know that mac is a superior platform but am glad that it's not too widespread.

I recall one of my engineer buddies mentioning that if it wasn't for all the dumb people in the world we would not be paid so much. I have to agree, if there weren't so many crappy windows machines around, the mac would not be such a massive advance, but there are, so it is.

QED.
- manaskb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sopooner : "I know that mac is a superior platform but am glad that it's not too widespread. "
  
  Why ?
  
  I think irrespective of whether a mac is superior or not, we need a few choices of good and widespread choices for personal computers. Mac is a good choice, unfortunately outside of US very few people even know of Mac. I think the windows mono-culture is not good.
  - Manas
kenthorvath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm glad it never happened. If OS 9 were the standard, I think it would have been harder to may such a radical architecture shift to something like OS X, which is oh so much better. Then there's also the side affect that there would be a lot more unsavory software targeted at the Mac platform. Even scarier, it may have turned Apple into a software only company, and I don't think I'll ever be able to get myself to buy a non-Apple piece of computer hardware again.

Yeah, I've joined the cult.
GABrannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0If you use a mac you are an idiot who paid to much for a slower computer
if you can not use a PC with out getting viruses then you are stupid ( please use a mac until you learn about computers)
I have a challenge for all the Mac fan boys out there

What can a Mac do that a WindowsLinux PC can't do?
Can you Play the latest video games?
can you build your own Mac for $400 or so?
can you buy a new pre-built Mac for under $400?
can you up-grade all of the hardware part by part?
- theemptyset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have 6 PCs and recently bought my first mac. The cost of ownership on my mac is already much lower than all of the cheap PCs that I have because of the time savings. I will happily pay the extra $300 or so for a computer that does not come packaged with a bunch of crap software that I have to uninstall before even using my computer. In addition, when my staff makes a mistake and opens an email that they shouldn't or an attachment, I will not be spending as much time updating virus software and getting rid of viruses.
  
  There are many more time savings that come from owning a mac. The point is, maybe you have the time to spend tinkering around with a machine to get it working right and keep it that way. The truth is, my time is worth money and I would encourage you to add the cost of your labor for doing the work that you mention from the time that you purchase this "WindowsLinux PC" to the time that its useful life is up. I think you will find, if you are worth anything on an hourly basis, that the extra $300 is statistically insignificant.
  
  Also, how do you put a price on convenience? My mac mini uses less power, is basically silent, has a much smaller profile and therefore takes up less space around my desk, and weighs much less so is easier to move if necessary, and to set it up, all I did was plug it in, turn it on, and load office.
  
  With a mac, life is just better.
- Cutter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Each tool serves its own purposes. Some people like to drive different cars for just as many different reasons. Fighting with Windows always made me want to puke, so I use Apple products. Apple has made the film / video industry an empowerment zone for pretty much anyone that wants to slap two pieces of film or video together. Same thing in the music world. If you think Apples innovation hasn't contributed to the ever geometrically increasing power of humans to create art or communicate, you have serious gaps in your perception of reality. I for one am glad to spend my $$$ for the smaller market share that has resulted from not trying to be all things to all people. It has paid off well.
Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I remember back in the day I used to work at Brown University in the CIS department. I always thought it was ironic to work in the Thomas Watson Technology Center and have about 80% of the computers be Macs of various flavors.

The great thing about working there, though, was the exposure to both Macs and Windows PCs on a daily basis. Back then, I think the Mac was the superior system thanks to the GUI, and Micorosft Word and Excel for Mac were overwhelmingly superior to WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 (the major word processor and spreadsheet of the DOS world). At the same time, I always preferred working at the command line level to manage my computers. Ultimately, when I had to buy a computer I had to go with a Wintel PC because the price point for an equivalent (note I can't say equal) Mac system was just too high.

If Apple had gone the route of cloning its OS it would have certainly faced the difficulties that the Microsoft/Intel world has faced since the 80s. However, I also think that it would have made the Mac an affordable option for many more households, and the market share of Apple vs. Wintel would be significantly different.

Of course this is all irrelevantly hypothetical, since there were so many other factors working onthe industry that ANYTHING could have happened. Bill Gates' Microsoft just positioned itself far better than Sculley's Apple.

And what would have happened if Steve jobs' NeXT computer had taken off? So many possibilities....
scmiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And this is surprising how? People, MS is a software company, Apple is a hardware company, of course Gates would sell his software to Apple and still does, selling the right to use SOFTWARE is why he is the richest man in the world.
ogletree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The world would be a much better place if their were a big 2. MS and Apple.
FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1he didn't need them then, and he doesn't need them now.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

In 1985 Bill Gates Proposed Mac Licensing to Apple

Login or register to add a comment