> “Amelio now admits that Apple overpaid for NeXT” Really? The result seems to have been worth the price to Apple shareholders.
It's from a book in 1999. As of 1998, the share price hadn't soared as much as they'd hoped.
The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
11–20 of 43 posts
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#12This is a good story (it contains some details that I don't think were publicly revealed back in 1996) but the title is misleading since NT plays a very minor part. Edit: I'm not sure which embarrasses me more; the fact that this old story got 30 points or that my trivial comment got 16 points.
Indeed, this might at least be better titled "The Day They Almost Decided To Put BeOS On The Mac Instead Of OS X" But that's a genuinely fascinating alternate-history concept -- Windows NT was never likely, but from the story, it seems as if Be almost made it, foiled only by its founder's hubris. What if Jean-Louis Gassée had settled for one of Apple's numerous offers? It seems he had it in the bag for months, holdin…
>We'd have no iPod, no iPhone; Apple in 2010 would be either a Sun or an SGI.
And why in your hypothetical alternate universe where Apple went with Be instead of NeXT is this a given? You don't know that there'd be no iPod or iPhone, and you don't know that Apple would end up like SGI or Sun. Why do you assume that Jobs and NeXT are so important?
Surely history turns on small hinges, but that doesn't necessarily mean the decision to go with Be would have doomed Apple to failure. Things would probably be much different today with the actual products, but there's no reason to believe that Apple wouldn't have released an MP3 player or a phone, or that it wouldn't be stylish.
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, this might at least be better titled "The Day They Almost Decided To Put BeOS On The Mac Instead Of OS X" But that's a genuinely fascinating alternate-history concept -- Windows NT was never likely, but from the story, it seems as if Be almost made it, foiled only by its founder's hubris. What if Jean-Louis Gassée had settled for one of Apple's numerous offers? It seems he had it in the bag for months, holdin…
>We'd have no iPod, no iPhone; Apple in 2010 would be either a Sun or an SGI. And why in your hypothetical alternate universe where Apple went with Be instead of NeXT is this a given? You don't know that there'd be no iPod or iPhone, and you don't know that Apple would end up like SGI or Sun. Why do you assume that Jobs and NeXT are so important? Surely history turns on small hinges, but that doesn't necessarily mean…
Jobs, and the team he hired, including Jon Ive, were the driving force behind the iMac, iPod, and iPhone designs.
If Apple felt no need to hire Jobs because they had Be, why would it be reasonable to presume they would still create the same game-changing products that were primarily created by the team Jobs hired, who were not employed at Apple prior to his arrival?
Even Tim Cook, Apple's widely respected COO, was hired by Steve in 1998.
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, this might at least be better titled "The Day They Almost Decided To Put BeOS On The Mac Instead Of OS X" But that's a genuinely fascinating alternate-history concept -- Windows NT was never likely, but from the story, it seems as if Be almost made it, foiled only by its founder's hubris. What if Jean-Louis Gassée had settled for one of Apple's numerous offers? It seems he had it in the bag for months, holdin…
>We'd have no iPod, no iPhone; Apple in 2010 would be either a Sun or an SGI. And why in your hypothetical alternate universe where Apple went with Be instead of NeXT is this a given? You don't know that there'd be no iPod or iPhone, and you don't know that Apple would end up like SGI or Sun. Why do you assume that Jobs and NeXT are so important? Surely history turns on small hinges, but that doesn't necessarily mean…
> there's no reason to believe that Apple wouldn't have released an MP3 player or a phone, or that it wouldn't be stylish.
I agree completely, and I have no doubt there was plenty of good talent at Apple before the Jobs II era. But it's that certain, genuinely rare element that Jobs brought to the company that turned its experiments from good products into iconic successes.
To take this fun exercise down the rabbit hole: I'd even suggest that Jobs-less, Be-powered Apple would have had a Newton Phone on the market a good deal earlier than 2007, maybe not long after Palm's first Treo. Maybe a little iffy at first, it would have gone through a few revisions and could even occupy a spot on the market next to Palm today. I'm sure it would have been a nice product. I don't think it would have been an iPhone.
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#15> “Amelio now admits that Apple overpaid for NeXT” Really? The result seems to have been worth the price to Apple shareholders.
Yep, in 1996 I hired on with an oil co in Scotland. One of my first tasks was to migrate everything from gawdawful Performa 6100s to Windows 95 boxes and laptops.
Being in IT, I was lumbered with one of said Performa's. It was awful. Unstable, slow. It was sad, since 4 years before in 92, I'd had a dream box Mac IIcx on my desk. Pre-Internet of course.
Thank goodness for NeXT and NeXTStep. OS X has done nothing but get better and better with every release.
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, this might at least be better titled "The Day They Almost Decided To Put BeOS On The Mac Instead Of OS X" But that's a genuinely fascinating alternate-history concept -- Windows NT was never likely, but from the story, it seems as if Be almost made it, foiled only by its founder's hubris. What if Jean-Louis Gassée had settled for one of Apple's numerous offers? It seems he had it in the bag for months, holdin…
>We'd have no iPod, no iPhone; Apple in 2010 would be either a Sun or an SGI. And why in your hypothetical alternate universe where Apple went with Be instead of NeXT is this a given? You don't know that there'd be no iPod or iPhone, and you don't know that Apple would end up like SGI or Sun. Why do you assume that Jobs and NeXT are so important? Surely history turns on small hinges, but that doesn't necessarily mean…
Or, looking at it the other way, why assume that Apple is so important? Couldn't Jobs have made the NeXT iPod?
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#17This is a good story (it contains some details that I don't think were publicly revealed back in 1996) but the title is misleading since NT plays a very minor part. Edit: I'm not sure which embarrasses me more; the fact that this old story got 30 points or that my trivial comment got 16 points.
Indeed, this might at least be better titled "The Day They Almost Decided To Put BeOS On The Mac Instead Of OS X" But that's a genuinely fascinating alternate-history concept -- Windows NT was never likely, but from the story, it seems as if Be almost made it, foiled only by its founder's hubris. What if Jean-Louis Gassée had settled for one of Apple's numerous offers? It seems he had it in the bag for months, holdin…
I remember this time period fairly distinctly as I almost purchased a BeBox. I decide to wait since it was probably all just going to end up in some future Apple product anyways, so the BeBoxes were already obsolete.
There was quite a bit of press concerning Gassée's and Apple's desire to tie the knot, but history turned out all different in the end. And I remember thinking that it was a huge failure for the world all caused by Gassée's desire for more money.
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#18To be honest, if Windows NT had lived up to its promise it would have been the greatest OS of all time.
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, this might at least be better titled "The Day They Almost Decided To Put BeOS On The Mac Instead Of OS X" But that's a genuinely fascinating alternate-history concept -- Windows NT was never likely, but from the story, it seems as if Be almost made it, foiled only by its founder's hubris. What if Jean-Louis Gassée had settled for one of Apple's numerous offers? It seems he had it in the bag for months, holdin…
>We'd have no iPod, no iPhone; Apple in 2010 would be either a Sun or an SGI. And why in your hypothetical alternate universe where Apple went with Be instead of NeXT is this a given? You don't know that there'd be no iPod or iPhone, and you don't know that Apple would end up like SGI or Sun. Why do you assume that Jobs and NeXT are so important? Surely history turns on small hinges, but that doesn't necessarily mean…
Apple at the time was heading fast for the way of Commodore. Tied to past greatness and completely unable to move their technology into the present.
The OS was being left behind, the systems had all the stylish elegance of a car battery, and all efforts were focused on turning Apple, a great place for artists and designers, into IBM. In short, Apple was failing fast.
Jobs came in, and after wrestling with quickly increasing, unsellable inventory of crap computers (the increasing inventory numbers headlines lots of news during this time period "35 days unsold inventory!" "60 days unsold inventory!"), gave us the original iMac which quite literally restarted Apple's heart.
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMac_Bondi_Blue.jpg
Replaced This: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Power_Mac...
This: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/PowerBook...
Replaced This: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Powerbook...
Re: The Day They Almost Decided To Put Windows NT On The Mac Instead Of OS X
#20This is a good story (it contains some details that I don't think were publicly revealed back in 1996) but the title is misleading since NT plays a very minor part. Edit: I'm not sure which embarrasses me more; the fact that this old story got 30 points or that my trivial comment got 16 points.
I agree. Sensationalist title that isn't even the real title of the article.
Dunno, that's the real title of the article up at the top of the page.