3 ms·
This wasn’t a merger it was a reverse takeover. Jobs basically got rid of a large amount of unprofitable projects and merge NextStep with a Mac UX and make a co
by zitterbewegung 5y ago
This wasn’t a merger it was a reverse takeover. Jobs basically got rid of a large amount of unprofitable projects and merge NextStep with a Mac UX and make a compelling computer to use it with.
The result was what Apple needed to compete. A modern OS made of with a modern UI with XNU that had memory protection that can compete with Windows. Also a transition VM for older software.The iMac broke away and showed that computers could look cool.
The iPod showed Apple could make compelling Consumer electronics
XNU got adopted with the iPhone iPad and with what they learned with the iPod.
And moving Apple to Intel and then to Apple Silicon was similar to going from MacOS 9 to 10.
Not many companies can claim so many innovative devices and most get 2 or 3.
- xuki 5y agoYeah, NeXT acquired Apple for minus 400 million.
- User23 5y agoHaha, only serious. And it was a great deal for Apple shareholders.
- KerrAvon 5y agoI think people forget that the iMac really didn’t save Apple in the long term; the iPod did. Money and production knowledge from the iPod enabled the first iPhone. And the iPod was not based on NeXT-derived technology. (Until the iPod Touch, after the iPhone).
- MBCook 5y agoThe iMac saved them from bankruptcy. The iPod rocketed them to massive profit.
- zitterbewegung 5y agoSorry that's a typo the iPod ran on an internally devised software and a mobile CPU but the real thing they were targeting is a large amount of storage.
- giantrobot 5y agoThe iMac and the product matrix it introduced definitely saved Apple. The iPod exploded their revenue but the Mac righted the ship and enabled the iPod's development. Before Jobs came back Apple's product strategy was a shitshow. They were selling the same machine under different names in different markets, selling 68k machines years past their "fresh by" dates, had a just plain confusing naming scheme for products, and were keeping money losing divisions open. Cutting things like the Newton and printers and simplifying the Mac product lines was a huge improvement. The iMac replaced a dozen different confusingly named Performas and PowerMacs all in the same category. The G3 PowerMac replaced all the other higher tier machines. The PowerBook was also rolled into a single model with different upgrade options. Once the iBook was released the 2x2 product matrix was straightforward and sane. The iMac was the most visible part of that process but the other hardware lines were consolidated at the same time and in the same way. Had that all not happened the iPod couldn't have existed. Even the iPod wasn't a runaway success until the third generation that supported USB 2.0. The first two generations were FireWire only and even when Windows support was added still required a FireWire card in a PC which basically only came in Sonys (4-pin FireWire branded i.Link to avoid the license fee). The third generation supporting USB really opened the iPod market to Windows users. The iPod was already making money by then but the explosion of sales starting with the third edition turned it into a money printer.
- coolandsmartrr 5y ago> The iPod showed Apple could make compelling Consumer electronics XNU I don't know if the iPod used XNU. Using the same kernel as OSX in mobile was first adopted with iPhone by the Scott Forstall team in lieu of a custom mobile OS approach by the Tony Fadell team.
- zitterbewegung 5y agoSorry that's a typo. The sentence should have stopped at consumer electronics.