91–100 of 267 posts
"I’d argue that this is probably the single most important tech acquisition of all time." However, it was not Apple's first choice. They first attempted to acquire Be Inc. (BeOS) but Jean-Louis Gassée held out for $275 million and lost the deal in a surprise move when Apple, instead, bought NeXT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is demonstrably false. MacOS Copland was scrapped in favor of a descendant of NeXTSTEP that became MacOS X. Hundreds (thousands?) of API calls in both Desktop iOS development are prefaced NS_ ... that is NeXTSTEP
This is ridiculous pedantry, but the "NS" prefix actually means "Next / Sun". It was introduced in OpenStep [1], which was supposed to become Sun's GUI layer on Solaris until Java happened. Before the OpenStep revamp, the class prefix used in NeXTSTEP was "NX". I think there are still some lingering NX* classes/functions you might see in AppKit stack traces. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep
It would be great if someone wrote an article about the alternate histories where Apple chose other strategies. For instance, what an Apple-Be merge would have resulted in, what kind of products and tech. And how NeXT would have lasted without Apple.
Wow, I haven't heard someone mention BeOs in over a decade. That was a pretty OS, but I'd take that black NeXT case any day. Those NeXT boxes were so cool.
My father's most regretted financial move is ignoring his weird thought to buy 10 shares of Apple stock at this time.
I bought a bit of Apple stock in 2001, when it was in a rut after the dot-com crash... The next year, I sold the stock to buy a frigging 10GB iPod, of all things! That might have been the world's most expensive iPod.
You mean Apple bought back Steve Jobs, right?
Considering the contributions NeXT technology has made to OS X and iOS, no that's an oversimplification.
If only Scott Forstall had started a visionary company, that could be acquired revitalize Apple.
I read that the NeXT, let's call it, "adventure", is the reason Apple went with a Linux distribution as basis for their new OS and thus, we're all using OSX now?
NeXT is the reason Apple went with a UNIX-type OS that evolved into OS X, yes.
Linux is also a UNIX-type OS, but is not an ancestor of OS X.
Linux is so popular now that it's easy to identify it with UNIX but historically it's only one of several implementations that work in roughly similar ways.
Other replies are telling you which code OS X was actually descended from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought a bit of Apple stock in 2001, when it was in a rut after the dot-com crash... The next year, I sold the stock to buy a frigging 10GB iPod, of all things! That might have been the world's most expensive iPod.
Egh. You're alright. I've a friend who paid 80 bitcoin for a pizza once.
Worst thing is that my reasoning was solid. Limited stock of a thing people might want = it'll probably go up.
Actually, no. Worst thing is that I sold them for very little, not long after, probably to buy beer. That is an expensive beer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
macOS (and older OSX releases) are UNIX (see http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3627.htm for certifications). Linux is not UNIX (its not certified - not many are - see http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/index.html ) and could best be described as POSIX like.
Thanks for the explanation. I thought Unix and Linux had something to do with eachother, but looking at the downvotes, I was wrong :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It actually reads like a solid fiction book, except that it isn't. You can skip a few dozen "romance" pages here and there and then it's really worth your while.
Thanks. Maybe I can get to it over the Holidays.