Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, $7.50 in 1996 dollars is apparently worth $11.67 today in 2016. $32,000 doesn't sound like too bad a return.
Forgot about the $546 it nets you in dividends each year.
Good point.
20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
131–140 of 267 posts
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
10 shares of AAPL in 1996 isn't that large of a windfall today. The stock has had 3 splits 2:1,2:1,7:1 in that time frame. 10 shares in 1996 would have had a cost of $7.50 and a present market value of ~$32,000.
Well, $7.50 in 1996 dollars is apparently worth $11.67 today in 2016. $32,000 doesn't sound like too bad a return.
It's meaningless what amount of currency needed for the equivalent value in 1996. You're trading that day.
The percentage increase in value is astronomical 426500% increase, but "Not buying 10 shares in 1996" is hardly missing out on 'fuck-you' money.
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#133I 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?
As far as I know, Apple has never used Linux for anything in any capacity. OSX's kernel is XNU, and it's a hybrid of BSD code and Mach.
Apparently a Linux-based system was a contender for iPhone OS:
> Around 2005, Jobs faced a crucial decision. Should he give the task of developing the device’s software to the team that built the iPod, which wanted to build a Linux-based system? Or should he entrust the project to the engineers who had revitalized the software foundation of the Macintosh? In other words, should he shrink the Mac, which would be an epic feat of engineering, or enlarge the iPod? [1]
When this article first came out, I made the assumption that this statement meant iPod OS was Linux-based---also feel like I heard that somewhere else---but I have not found any sources to confirm this. Anyone else know?
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-12/scott-for...
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#134My father's most regretted financial move is ignoring his weird thought to buy 10 shares of Apple stock at this time.
10 shares of AAPL in 1996 isn't that large of a windfall today. The stock has had 3 splits 2:1,2:1,7:1 in that time frame. 10 shares in 1996 would have had a cost of $7.50 and a present market value of ~$32,000.
That $0.75/share price is already adjusted for the splits. So the stock price back in 1996 would have been around $20/share. So that's $200 in 1996 that would be ~$32k today. A 15000% return is still nothing to sneeze at and that's before you count the dividends they started issuing after Jobs died.
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#135Earlier 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
Richard Stallman announced that he was working on a Unix clone on September 27, 1983. [1] This was the GNU Project from GNU's Not Unix.
Stallman was a prodigious programmer and wrote GCC (GNU C), a debugger and Emacs. He also created the GPL and founded the Free Software Foundation (from which the "open source" movement split off).
GNU was most of an OS by 1990 but didn't have a proper kernel (which was intended to be the ambitious Hurd).
In an unrelated move, Linus Torvalds used Stallman's tools to write a mini-OS and released it under Stallman's license in 1991. It naturally got incorporated into what some people (including Stallman) then called GNU/Linux. It was, in code terms, roughly 97% GNU and 3% Linux.
The naming is arguable because Linux was never a GNU or FSF development. However, Stallman's GPL allowed Linux operating system packagers (eg Debian) to use things that had been developed by or adapted for GNU.
Otherwise, Stallman told me he wouldn't have bothered with GNU if he'd known that BSD Unix was going to be available as free software. Unfortunately, FreeBSD wasn't released until 1993.
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
The totality of Nextstep (kernel, os, obj-c runtime/component model, frameworks, gui layer, tooling, expert teams who built and maintained these things, etc, etc) was much greater than Palm or QNX, let alone something yet unbuilt 'based on Linux'.
Speaking of NeXT, I've yet to read a good history that explains how that came together. There's so much innovation there -- the NeXTStep kits (which became Cocoa, among other things), Objective-C, the fact that they used a Unix kernel. It was a lot of great ideas, but I don't think I have heard about who designed it. It's interesting to note, for example, that NeXT didn't invent Objective-C; they licensed it from the…
Yes! Maybe eventually something like a NeXT version of folklore.org will emerge since the stories one hears from old NeXT hands easily give Andy Hertzfeld's a run for their money.
(incidentally it wasn't just a Unix kernel but also the Mach microkernel. Interface Builder? Display Postscript? Sticking a DSP in the original machine? Lots of design decisions with potentially interesting history)
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#137Your comment is not relevant or appreciated. Not only are you not adding to the discussion, this comment is simply a personal opinion coupled with an undependable generalizations about "many people" without even addressing the topic of discussion.
Isaacson's book is not generally accepted as the de facto Steve Jobs biography. That is all.
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
To an extent... but their swansong vision of portable OPENSTEP was quickly shut down by Apple, which is a crying shame because if OPENSTEP was still around it would be keeping Microsoft competitive on the desktop front - instead of today's languished desktop developer story which remains frozen in 1998 (for Win32) or 2005 (for .NET). Now that Swift is open-sourced, I wonder if we'll see a good Cocoa port to Win32 and…
I happily used an openstep-inspired (or directly derived?) desktop environment named WindowMaker in Linux somewhere around 1999. I also remember LiteStep for Windows being available around that time. So there were attempts at using that approach on other platforms. (Funnily, my current Xfce setup still visually resembles my OpenStep-like setup of that time.)
I used Window Maker for years - still have it installed as the desktop of choice on older machines. It's fast, simple, reliable and direct.
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#139I copy from a comment of mine from last week. In case you wanna procrastinate on a fascinating story about how Apple transitioned to NextStep's stack without completely annihilating their already weak developer base, here's a few links:
You get a corporate drama, a human drama and a tech drama all wrapped up in one series of presentations:
Jobs' return (as a consultant) 1997, promoting technologies from NeXT. Watch basically everyone asleep at the wheel except Jobs, the man with a plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrX047-v-s
WWDC Q&A - 'the art of saying no'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iACK-LNnzM
Jobs' hostile takeover in July by doing a (probably illegal?) stock dump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Amelio#Apple_Computer
Announcing a Deal with Microsoft as de facto CEO in August, booed by the crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOs6hnTI4lw
Internal meeting in September 1997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMQhOm-Dqo
iMac introduction 1998 - Apple is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxwmF0OJ0vg
Macworld 1998 - Apple is essentially saved as a company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdYiqVzPjAc
OSX Strategy reveal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5dWDg6f9eo
1999 - OSX Server launch
https://youtu.be/NuCYHrSig94?t=48m40s
2000 - OSX launch
Re: 20 years ago, Apple bought NeXT
#140Your comment is not relevant or appreciated. Not only are you not adding to the discussion, this comment is simply a personal opinion coupled with an undependable generalizations about "many people" without even addressing the topic of discussion. Isaacson's book is not generally accepted as the de facto Steve Jobs biography. That is all.
Your comment is not relevant or appreciated. Not only are you not adding to the discussion, this comment is simply a personal opinion coupled with an undependable generalization about what "many people" consider relevant or appreciate without even addressing the topic of discussion.