Hacker News Reader

Comment by hospitalhusband | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla is almost entirely funded by half a billion dollars a year from Google. They are a vassal.

I can compare it in a way when Rage Against the Machine signed with a major label conscious that the tradeoff was worth it.

>"Evil Empire" entered the Billboard charts at No. 1, which reflects the broad audience the band has built. "I personally never thought that we'd ever sell a single record," Morello recalls, but it looks as if signing with Epic has worked. "True, we are a major-label band," he concedes. "But we're using the mechanism of the record label to spread revolutionary propaganda." [1]

[1] RAGE: CO-OPTING THE MACHINE (1996)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/08/16/...

Your point being? The fact that it probably isn't sustainable doesn't negate all the good they do.

So was apple once.

I wonder how things would be different if Microsoft never gave them that life-line when they needed it.

I imagine that Apple would have been bought by HP or IBM and you can guess how that would have turned out.

Microsoft needed an OS competitor to have any viable antitrust defense.

... one which they also made a nice little profit of. $150M in the non-voting stock they bought in 1997 turned into $550M in 2003 when they sold most of it.

Ouch. They must've wished that they kept that stock for a few more years.

If Microsoft had held onto it, their investment in Apple would have been more profitable than anything else Microsoft did in the past 20 years.

On the face of it that sounds like a burn on Microsoft, wisely found by studying the finances, but... by the nature of Apple being the best performing stock in the world for multiple years isn't the same true for most companies, that they could've made more money investing in Apple than in themselves?

Heck, maybe investing hundreds of millions in Apple today would, in X years, be worth more money than spending marketing money / development budgets for new features for their own products; or worth more than investing in OpenAI and related products - but it's not exactly something anyone would suggest Microsoft should do (in terms of just becoming a shareholder, of course there could be collaborations without changing this point).

> isn't the same true for most companies

Technically yes, but not really. It’s specifically valid to observe with regards to Microsoft because Microsoft did in actual fact hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Apple stock for a decent stretch of time. Most companies did not.

Microsoft chose to sell their Apple stock in 2003. This was entirely their choice. They didn't have to. They could have sold it in 2005 and made an additional billion dollars. They could have sold it in 2007 and made another ten billion dollars. They could have sold it today and made a hundred billion dollars.

Microsoft never gave them any lifeline. Microsoft was caught shipping stolen Apple Quicktime code and quietly settled with Apple to the tune of $150mil and shipping Apple versions of Office/IE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_...

"the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million."

"Intel gave this code to Microsoft as part of a joint development program called Display Control Interface."

"Canyon admitted that it had copied to Intel code developed for and assigned to Apple. In September 1994, Apple's software was distributed by Microsoft in its developer kits, and in Microsoft's Video for Windows version 1.1d."

MS buying Apple stock involved a pretty complicated deal that also involved settling a number of court disputes between the two companies, Apple agreeing to ship Internet Explorer for Mac (rather than Netscape) and MS agreeing to ship Office for at least 5 more years.

At the time and subsequently it was absolutely seen as a lifeline.

For example:

> Providing the biggest sign of hope yet for ailing Apple Computer, Microsoft today announced it was forging a new era of cooperation with its longtime rival that includes an investment of $150 million. [snip] News of the alliance sent Apple's stock up $7 a share, or 35 percent

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19970806&slug...

And “their new alliance” was to keep shipping Office for the Mac like they had done for the past decade…

Yes and/but there was real concern then that they'd stop supporting it which would have killed Mac use in corporate environments where specific version of office compatibility was a huge issue (As anyone who remembers the Office 2.0 vs Office 6 update on Windows will remember).

Unclear why people are disagreeing with this. It's outlined in the DoJ "finding of fact":

> Recognizing the importance of Mac Office to Apple's survival, Microsoft threatened to cancel the product unless Apple compromised on a number of outstanding issues between the companies. One of these issues was the extent to which Apple distributed and promoted Internet Explorer, as opposed to Navigator, with the Mac OS.

> At the end of June 1997, the Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office, Ben Waldman, sent a message to Gates and Microsoft's Chief Financial Officer, Greg Maffei. The message reflected Waldman's understanding that Microsoft was threatening to cancel Mac Office:

> The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory response have certainly frustrated a lot of people at Microsoft. The threat to cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously

[snip]

> Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

from https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... paragraph 345 onwards.

Jobs' deal with MS fixed this problem.

> As anyone who remembers the Office 2.0 vs Office 6 update on Windows will remember

I think you're misremembering or mistyping the numbers, unless Wikipedia is wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Office

Ah it was Word 2.0 vs Word 6.0 (which was roughly Office 3.0 vs Office 4.0)

Word 2.0 shipped on a lot of Windows NT computers with Office 3.0 and these were the days when there weren't forced updates and you had to pay so it hung around for ages.

Makes sense!

Fun fact: Steve borrowed my friend's cell phone for this call which became the cover photo.[0]

[0]https://infostory.com/2013/08/18/steve-jobs-thank-you-bill-g...

Well seeing that never happened…

When Microsoft invested a paltry $250M in Apple, Apple had already secured a line of credit of $4 Billion.

On top of that, Apple turned around a spent $100 million the same quarter to buy out PowerComputing’s Mac license. Apple lost way more than $150 million before they became profitable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com