"Changes in Windows 3.0 and 3.1 came about not because Microsoft was copying Apple but because it saw how Apple did things with the Mac and knew that it had to change Windows to be competitive."

Hmmm... If you watch what somebody does, and think you need to change to be competitive, isn't that a type of copying? This sentence from the doctor seems like an oxymoron to me.

Would anybody actually buy one of these?

Knock off parts, even in name brand PCs. (How is Gateway still in business?)

Add the monitor. You're right back into the $1,200 range anyway. Hmm. I can get an equally performing eMac with 512 mb of Ram and combo drive and not susceptible to the everyday MS patch and pray regimen for under $1,000.

Where's the better bargain?

Although a bit dated, "Steve Jobs, the Journey Is the Reward" by Jeffrey S. Young is a great look into the early days of Apple and Jobs. This title sets straight a lot of the FUD about the early days of the Mac. For example, it gives the facts concerning the myth that Apple simply "stole" their UI from Xerox. Jobs actually set up a visit to PARC, and made the following deal with Xerox: You let us in and look around, and we'll let you invest in us in case we come up with something commercially successful. Looking at how PARC consistently came up with cool stuff but couldn't manage to make it commercially successful, it sounds like this was a great deal for both parties.

[Edit: Added link to Amazon for the book - Bryan]

Thanks for setting the record straight with such an interesting article.

Good point, John. I didn't want to go off on too much of a tangent in the column, but there is a LOT more background history on these subjects, including the things John mentions.

There's also the back story on exactly how and why Mr. Gates was able to put Apple in the position of signing that 1985 agreement. It's covered in Apple Confidential 2.0 fairly well, for those interested.

The pivotal points on which the tech industry has turned are fascinating, IMNHO.

Quote

Then again, it was also Mr. Gates who tried to get Apple to license the Mac OS to other manufacturers. Mr. Gates went so far as to line up (big) companies that were ready to sign a licensing agreement with Apple, but he was ignored by then-CEO John Sculley, whose execs wanted to keep the Mac OS proprietary. Mr. Gates loved the Mac, and wanted his company to make a ton of money making Mac software. So while he may have used brilliant business negotiations to rob Apple of its "crown jewels," he first bent over backwards to help Apple do what he thought it would take to make the Mac platform the preeminent platform on the planet.

Seems like it must have been an eternity since the likes of Bill Gates would have wanted the Mac to be the preeminent OS. Given his kool-aid induced dribble about how great Windows is, it's kinda spooky to think of how things could have been. The Mac with a 98% market share!

Dude

The Mac with a 98% market share!

===

Yeah, but can you imagine what it would be like? Nowhere near as nice. Probably no iMac. When you can buy a MacOS at Radio Shack on a Tandy then why spend more on well-designed apple hardware?

And with such a large market share, why spend so much time innovating? I'd rather have 5% of the people using fantatic Macs than 98% of us using poorly made Macs.

1.5% / 98% - This is not healthy by any stretch of the imagination.

How about the following hypothetical 40/60 scenario:


The same economic model for Apple that the MS/Intel/AMD world has:

Apple will be providing the OS and other popular software, basically the way MS does it. And I believe there will always be a market for Apple Branded hardware.

Do you think Apple would be losing out by providing the OS for 40% market share of the world’s computers; no they would have 40% of the fabulous wealth that MS enjoys. 40% of fabulously wealthy is still fabulously wealthy. If Apple never made another computer, but just supplied the OS for the 40% market share they would be fabulously wealthy company!

Major chip makers like Via, NVIDIA, etc, will provide chip sets and motherboards, just like they to for PC’s.

Intel, and maybe even Motorola, have found their cash cow a healthy market for processors, lots of extra funding for R & D no more these chronic delays and setbacks trying to eke out a living on 1.5% market share.


The quality, availability, and price that would result from a 40/60 scenario are unfathomable. No more of that waiting for the WWDC / MWSF and all that high anxiety crap. A continuous stream of new innovative hardware coming down the pike. OSX would already be 64bits native and fine tuned beyond your wildest dreams!

40% of Dell’s sales would be Apple Compatibles. To go into an Apple store purchase a mother board for a $150, a custom case with all the drive bays, and perhaps a liquid cooling kit to make it quiet. A dream comes true!

Apple’s monopoly and the control freak that runs it is standing in the way of WHERE APPLE SHOULD BE!!

Apple should be at 40% market Share!

You guys better wake up and let’s do something about it!

Just thing of the quailty that would result even for Microsoft's products...we would certainly all benefit.

Also excuse my poor writing and grammer..but I hope you can look beyond it and catch my drift....For Apple to grow some drastic changes have to take place in Apple's management and marketing..

"Microsoft got Apple's crown jewels, and Apple got shafted. Not since British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler with the Munich Pact of 1938 had the world seen such a fine demonstration of negotiation skills."

Am I to take it that the point being made here, through the analogy with the Chamberlain's meetings with Hitler culminating in the signing of the Munich Agreement, is that there is considerable ambiguity and debate surrounding the benefits to Apple in making this agreement with Microsoft?

If not then I can only assume that the author is making an ill-informed and sweeping judgement, which ignores all revisionist arguement on the matter, regarding the effectiveness of Neville Chamberlain's handling of diplomatic relations between the Third Reich and Britain during the months preceding the declaration of war.

I wonder whether, had I access to the full text from which the excerpt was taken, there would be be any enlightening elaboration on this point.

Frank Morrow

I am really sick of people saying Apple stole from Xerox. Apple paid Xerox in valuable stock options (worth millions) for the privilidge of going to PARC and checking out what it was working on. Xerox let Apple do this because the big wigs at Xerox did not see the merits of what its people were working on. This is somewhat similar to what Microsoft did with DOS and IBM. Microsoft bought DOS from some guy for something like $50, 000 dollars. IBM allowed Microsoft to keep the license to the OS because it was foolish enough to believe the OS was worthless without its PC. However, IBM at the time did not know Compaq would figure out how to come up with its own PC's that would run DOS, allowing MIcrosoft to sell to companies like Compaq as well, turni IBM into just another PC maker (as opposed to the inventor).

Apple however, did great work. It did not recieve any code from Xerox. All it got was a peak at a GUI running on a mainframe. Apple had to reporduce this on a personal desktop, and had to come up with plenty of ingenius stuff to do this. Microsoft in ripping Apple off didn't have to do any work, as Apple gave Microsoft access to the whole OS, thinking it would only make Mac applications. By the time Apple figured out what Microsoft was up to, it was to late. Apple's biggest mistake was not having good lawyers, and being a bit arrogant.

Go away!

Yes, first off all i would like to say what a great article. Ok i will get right down to it. I've always heard the rumor about bill Gates steaLing the idea for software and then paying the guys that he stole it from with shares.

yes first of all i would like to congratuljate you on a great article. Ok i will get doown right too it. My question is did bill gates steal the idea for software.

I said at the time, and still maintain that the deal struck by Apple with MS was a mistake. Sculley basically gave MS license to do what they had already done, (ie: rip off many aspects of Apple's GUI) and were already in the process of marketing. That is when MS pulled out the "We are not going to support a Mac version of Word any more." It was a threat that sent Sculley on his knees to Bill begging for continued support; which MS granted in return for license to keep what they had stolen.

Had someone with a little intestinal fortitude been in charge of Apple at that time, MS would have been told "Fine, don't support Mac any more. See how many copies of Office you sell when the only platform you support has to wait 7 years for GUI."

It is obvious that Apple would have won their suit had the license agreement not been made. Where MS would be now had they been told to take Word and stuff it is anyone's guess, with one exception: the market ratio would be significantly different.

@Zewazir, it's all about CEO. If it had been Jobs, Apple will be ok. Unfortunately, is the guy who know only how to sell sugar water.