4 ms·

Responding before the horde of Jobs fanboys claim the underlying OS didn’t matter. They like to forget that NeXT alone didn’t matter, nor did PowerPC Mac’s or t

Responding before the horde of Jobs fanboys claim the underlying OS didn’t matter. They like to forget that NeXT alone didn’t matter, nor did PowerPC Mac’s or the initial scroll wheel iPod’s all under Jobs stewardship. The company was saved by the following: - transition to x86, and Bootcamp fallback. - iPhone, with decent touch interface and native (non Java) API and open AppStore - iPad at right time. Without this trifecta, Apple would be extinct like SGI, Sun, and the others. BeOS was what the geeks wanted. It was modern, multi core, C++ based, and with the backing of a big company, would have seriously dominated the desktop computing landscape. I’d be willing to state that Apple would have had a bigger market share with BeOS rather than NeXT.

samatman 7y ago
Apple was robustly profitable by 2003, when I purchased my first Mac running OS X and a third-generation iPod. They turned that corner in the beginning of 1998 in fact[0]. They sold 50 million iPods in 2007. [0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/461234/today-in-apple-history-apple-is-back-in-the-black/ https://www.cultofmac.com/461234/today-in-apple-history-appl... It wouldn't be a trillion-dollar business without the iPhone, sure. I've no reason to think it wouldn't still be in business, and you haven't given any. It's certainly possible that Apple would have thrived with a next-generation Mac based on BeOS. Personally, I wouldn't have switched; I was tired of dual-booting Yggdrasil Linux and Windows, and the prospect of buying a (relatively) affordable Unix workstation was exciting to someone who cut his teeth on SparcStations. I'm not the median customer, then or now, however. Back then she was probably in desktop publishing; BeOS would have been just fine.
- pavlov 7y ago
  Apple wasn’t consistently profitable since 1998. For example they lost $195M in 1Q2001 with revenue down a stunning 57% YoY: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2001/01/17Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Results/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2001/01/17Apple-Reports-First... The iPod + iTunes Music Store was the real turnaround. Before that in 2001 it seriously looked like Apple might not make it, Jobs or not.
- rvz 7y ago
  Well most people have chosen to forget the fact that either way for Apple's NeXT vs BeOS decision, Apple was close to being bankrupt anyway, had it not been for Microsoft bailing them out for $150 Million due to competition rules. The decision and terms was up to Microsoft. [0] So Apple was very 'lucky' for this generous investment, without it would have seen them join the local museums and nostalgia meet-ups, like Amiga, OS/2 and BeOS. [0] https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech-0806/ https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech-0806/
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Apple wasn't leveraged back then, like we're used to companies being now, like, say, Tesla is. I think this is the disconnect between common assumptions and the way it really was.
  - samatman 7y ago
    It was more than luck; Apple was involved in a long-running lawsuit against Microsoft, one which they might have had to settle, and were running the serious risk of losing. Microsoft was also doing a decent business selling Office to Mac users, which they would lose if Apple went out of business. Last but not least, Apple stock was trading for a buck a share in August of 1997. If Microsoft held on to those shares, that $150 million investment would be worth almost 49 billion dollars today. Not bad.
perl4ever 7y ago
This sounds to me like someone who didn't live through the period or wasn't paying attention, because it dismisses/leaves out the iPod and iTunes store. When the iTunes store opened, that was the exact moment at which Apple was clearly a different company that was going to skyrocket. I did not have or maintain faith in Jobs, unfortunately for me. But that was the moment of "take all your money and buy call options". As evidence of my opinion, you could look at the discontinuity in the stock price and how it proceeded to break out of the cyclical range it had been in for years and years.

samatman 7y ago

Apple was robustly profitable by 2003, when I purchased my first Mac running OS X and a third-generation iPod. They turned that corner in the beginning of 1998 in fact[0]. They sold 50 million iPods in 2007. [0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/461234/today-in-apple-history-apple-is-back-in-the-black/ https://www.cultofmac.com/461234/today-in-apple-history-appl... It wouldn't be a trillion-dollar business without the iPhone, sure. I've no reason to think it wouldn't still be in business, and you haven't given any. It's certainly possible that Apple would have thrived with a next-generation Mac based on BeOS. Personally, I wouldn't have switched; I was tired of dual-booting Yggdrasil Linux and Windows, and the prospect of buying a (relatively) affordable Unix workstation was exciting to someone who cut his teeth on SparcStations. I'm not the median customer, then or now, however. Back then she was probably in desktop publishing; BeOS would have been just fine.

pavlov 7y ago
Apple wasn’t consistently profitable since 1998. For example they lost $195M in 1Q2001 with revenue down a stunning 57% YoY: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2001/01/17Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Results/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2001/01/17Apple-Reports-First... The iPod + iTunes Music Store was the real turnaround. Before that in 2001 it seriously looked like Apple might not make it, Jobs or not.
rvz 7y ago
Well most people have chosen to forget the fact that either way for Apple's NeXT vs BeOS decision, Apple was close to being bankrupt anyway, had it not been for Microsoft bailing them out for $150 Million due to competition rules. The decision and terms was up to Microsoft. [0] So Apple was very 'lucky' for this generous investment, without it would have seen them join the local museums and nostalgia meet-ups, like Amiga, OS/2 and BeOS. [0] https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech-0806/ https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech-0806/
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Apple wasn't leveraged back then, like we're used to companies being now, like, say, Tesla is. I think this is the disconnect between common assumptions and the way it really was.
- samatman 7y ago
  It was more than luck; Apple was involved in a long-running lawsuit against Microsoft, one which they might have had to settle, and were running the serious risk of losing. Microsoft was also doing a decent business selling Office to Mac users, which they would lose if Apple went out of business. Last but not least, Apple stock was trading for a buck a share in August of 1997. If Microsoft held on to those shares, that $150 million investment would be worth almost 49 billion dollars today. Not bad.

perl4ever 7y ago

This sounds to me like someone who didn't live through the period or wasn't paying attention, because it dismisses/leaves out the iPod and iTunes store. When the iTunes store opened, that was the exact moment at which Apple was clearly a different company that was going to skyrocket. I did not have or maintain faith in Jobs, unfortunately for me. But that was the moment of "take all your money and buy call options". As evidence of my opinion, you could look at the discontinuity in the stock price and how it proceeded to break out of the cyclical range it had been in for years and years.