Replies

I think it does bother you, look at the size of this post, all trying to defend the idea that MS got their clock cleaned.

You don’t like the numbers take it up with CNet, they’re the ones that said there were 8 million Mac Office users.

I’m not spreading any FUD at all, not anything that even closely resembles FUD. Quote my FUD, go ahead, I dare you. There is not ONE SINGLE DROP of FUD in ANY of my posts.

I never said there was a bail out. Apple WAS having issues at the time, that’s documented, the deal probably helped them, that’s obvious but I NEVER said bail out, that’s YOUR words, your FUD.

As for what Apple gave, remember preferred stock gets dividends before common, it wasn’t just some $5 print job stock has meaning. If they were profitable during the time MS owned that stock MS got some of that money.

I think both sides won. The repair of the strained Apple MS relationship was good for both companies. It helped bolster Mac’s image as a viable platform (something that was in question at the time) and helped solidify their foundation for the modern push, and it made MS a boat load of money and it’s one of the few times MS made a boat load of money without any raping or pillaging. MS very well might have lost had the case would it’s way through court, but that’s immaterial because it was settled amicably to the benefit of both companies outside the courts. Nobody got taken to the cleaners, and only a FUD spreader would say otherwise. Stop the FUD.

You don’t like the numbers take it up with CNet, they’re the ones that said there were 8 million Mac Office users.

You seem to see this from an straight economic point of view when it's not. At the time Microsoft was in the middle of its worst monopolistic practices, doing everything it could to eliminate competition by any means necessary.

Losing Office, by far the best office suite for the Mac, would have been a serious blow to Apple. So Apple used its winning position in the suit to force Microsoft to continue to support Office for the Mac. Otherwise, Microsoft could have easily absorbed those millions in lost potential sales (while saving on the dev staff) in order to hurt Apple. Apple risked Microsoft doing that just to hurt the competition in the first place, and IMHO Microsoft would have dropped Office for the Mac out of revenge if Apple had pushed the case to trial and won

While Apple had a strong legal case and thus won the settlement, it was still vulnerable to the machinations of Microsoft. Thus Apple settled for a relative pittance and allowed a lot of face-saving for Microsoft in order to secure Office and essentially unspoken protection. This face-saving is what makes it not look like an Apple win.

I never said there was a bail out.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" - Bill Clinton.

However, these are YOUR words:

. . . And with good reason, Apple looked pretty seriously hosed for a while there, heck they even needed money from MS.

. . . they rode in for the rescue . . . And there was no rumor spending after the fact it was KNOWN at the time that Apple was losing money hand over fist, their stock was in the toilet, their market share was down, and then in came MS with an infusion of cash but most importantly an agreement to keep making product for Mac.

If it quacks, waddles, swims, and has feathers... a mallard is still a duck, regardless of the word you use.

Other things you have said that were disproved on this thread by refutal from authoritative sources:

Nobody gives up preferred stock for money during the course of a suit. That’s stupid. If you have to give up money because of a suit the other side isn’t going to give you stock for it, and if you have to give up stock in a suit the other side isn’t going to pay for it.

Of course the MS-Apple suit had been over for 4 years at the time, so no the buy was not related to any suit.

and I loved this one, that you tossed off after several of us pointed out that Apple had almost $1.5 billion in cash and liquid assets on hand at the time Microsoft came in with an "infusion of cash:"

. . . while they were losing money they’d developed a serious war chest. . .

Tell me, Discostu, how did Apple do that? They must have been selling something to accumulate $1.2 billion in cash. That's the equivalent of $1.6 billion in 2008 dollars.

While you didn't use the exact words "bail out," your meaning is clear. You want people to believe that Microsoft, charging in like a knight on a white horse, "bailed out" Apple with an infusion of cash from a financial crisis that could have killed the company. I have merely provided the sources that proved this to be a wrong interpretation of what happened. The historical record, the facts, simply don't back you up. You want Microsoft to be squeaky clean and an ethical company... it really wasn't either of those things. That is the real "reality distortion field" that is FUD.

. . . it’s one of the few times MS made a boat load of money without any raping or pillaging.

Yeah, right. Microsoft lucked out. But at the time of the settlement, when NONE of those future profits had been earned, it was Microsoft who paid, not Apple. "History is prologue." It was NOT a brilliant informed choice investment made by Bill Gates to make money... it was an admission that they had screwed up and had to pay. It was Apple who agreed to the settlement, when they did not HAVE to, to give Microsoft an air of plausible deniability which MS quickly turned its spin machine loose with.

You are beginning to remind me of a Liberal who, despite mountains of contrary evidence, still believes that Bush lied in those 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union Address. It seems to be a matter of faith with you. I've been posting facts. You've been making it up as you go or quoting people who were making it up as they went.