3 ms·

Apple was on the forefront of computer Video. They founded ATG (advanced technology group) in late eighties and as a result came out with Road Apple Video codec

by rasz 5y ago

Apple was on the forefront of computer Video. They founded ATG (advanced technology group) in late eighties and as a result came out with Road Apple Video codec (Road Pizza) in 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Advanced_Technology_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Advanced_Technology_Grou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Video https://computerhistory.org/blog/quicktime-and-the-rise-of-multimedia/ https://computerhistory.org/blog/quicktime-and-the-rise-of-m... Fun facts: 1 Look up S3TC/DXTC texture compression, S3 copied Apple video codec verbatim and patented it for 3D graphics use. Somehow Apple missed that and didnt fight initial patent, resulting in losing couple iphone court cases 10 years later and purging S3TC from mobile. 2 Microsoft fucked up getting caught conspiring with Intel, paying third party contractor to steal QuickTime code https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_150m/ https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_... Thats the origin of the infamous "Microsoft saved Apple in the nineties" myth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5TdqfNE1QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5TdqfNE1QU

majormajor 5y ago
That 1998 article is the first I'd seen claiming that the 1997 deal was a repayment, versus a purchase of non-voting shares as described at the time and announced by Jobs and Gates at Macworld. https://www.wired.com/1997/08/apple-takes-150-million-from-microsoft/ https://www.wired.com/1997/08/apple-takes-150-million-from-m... The register article quotes a note saying there was a significant MS payment for QT specifically, but doesn't actually claim that the 1997 investment wasn't an investment, as far as I can tell. Saving, of course, was always an exaggeration, as reported in that Wired article from the time too: "For Apple, the cash is symbolic. While the company has been bleeding money, it has about $1.2 billion in cash, according to its last quarterly earnings report, and doesn't need Microsoft's money to fend off immediate starvation." Recommitting to Office was a much bigger thing than the cash, probably,
- philistine 5y ago
  Exactly. A commitment by Microsoft to support the Macintosh was more valuable than 150 million dollars. Such is the power of a good word.

by rasz 5y ago

majormajor 5y ago

That 1998 article is the first I'd seen claiming that the 1997 deal was a repayment, versus a purchase of non-voting shares as described at the time and announced by Jobs and Gates at Macworld. https://www.wired.com/1997/08/apple-takes-150-million-from-microsoft/ https://www.wired.com/1997/08/apple-takes-150-million-from-m... The register article quotes a note saying there was a significant MS payment for QT specifically, but doesn't actually claim that the 1997 investment wasn't an investment, as far as I can tell. Saving, of course, was always an exaggeration, as reported in that Wired article from the time too: "For Apple, the cash is symbolic. While the company has been bleeding money, it has about $1.2 billion in cash, according to its last quarterly earnings report, and doesn't need Microsoft's money to fend off immediate starvation." Recommitting to Office was a much bigger thing than the cash, probably,

philistine 5y ago
Exactly. A commitment by Microsoft to support the Macintosh was more valuable than 150 million dollars. Such is the power of a good word.