5 ms·

250 out 4000 is non trivial. Office for mac may have been profitable, but it may have been more profitable to not allow Mac to have it.

scarface_74 3y ago
It was $150 after Apple bought PowerComputing’s Mac assets. And how is it not trivial? Can you show me a timeline that Apple would have been bankrupt without the extra $250 million? Also do you realize how much more MS made on an Office license than a Windows license?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  I’m not saying Apple would have gone bankrupt without Microsoft. I am saying 6% of your funding coming from a competitor is very unusual. Doesn’t need to be a proximate cause for bankruptcy avoidance to be non trivial. If windows had not allowed office on Apple computers then Apple computers would have been less successful. Market share on hardware matters more than profits on software.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Guess where Firefox gets most of its revenue? But more relevant, while not 6% of its revenue over 2% of Apple’s revenue today comes from the search deal it has with Google. And yes market share on hardware is important, look how badly Apple is doing now with only 13% of the global market share in smart phones…
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Revenue is not funding. Google’s influence over Firefox is an issue of immense contention. Apple’s relationship with Google is considered by many to be anticompetitive collusion. Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Revenue is not “funding”??? Where do you think business gets money from on an ongoing basis to survive? One reason that for example that Pepsi was spun off from Yum brands was that Pepsi executives had a hard time selling into large franchises because companies didn’t want to send money to competitors. > Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. “Words mean things” - “market share” has a definition. > Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days Are you just making stuff up now? It’s really not hard to look at Apple’s financials to see that “most” of Apple’s revenue comes from hardware sells and not services - where App Store revenue is included.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        No, revenue is not funding. Funding is debt and equity. Revenue can become equity if you retain profits after expenses but the lions share of funding is debt and contributed capital. Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free. The majority of Apple’s contribution margin is coming from sources like that. Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Someone doesn’t know finance. Assets = liabilities + owners equity This formula is like high school finance. When Microsoft bought $250 million in Apple Stock, the Assets increased by $250 million and the owners equity increased by $250 million. This is simple double entry accounting. When Google pays Apple and Microsoft to be the default search engine, you still add the payment to Assets and owners equity. When you borrow money - say the same $250 million - you still add $250 million to Assets. But then you add $250 million to liabilities. You notice that in all three scenarios that Assets increase ? By that simple equation, “Assets” increase by three methods to “fund” the company - through the regular course of business, someone buying into the company and via debt. Again this is simple Finance 101. > Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free Now check your math against the publicly available breakdown of revenue and the overall profit and see how nonsensical your math is. > Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. So which market share are you making up to make your comment logical? > Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware. Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in the phone market??
    - oblio 3y ago
      :-) You're conflating the modern post-iPhone Apple era with the one before. Apple customers weren't greatly exceeding Microsoft customers before. Every manager up to exec level had a Windows desktop or laptop and possibly a Windows "smartphone". The MacOS market wasn't inherently much higher in per-capita value than Windows.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    Not sure if this is the same event,... but microsoft did invest $150M in apple as a part of settlement in a patent lawsuit
oblio 3y ago
Plus "profitable" is a scale. At huge companies even a huge amount such as $100m [1] might not "move the needle", as they put it, therefore making them decide to not do something. [1] Or for modern day companies and inflation, even $1bn.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That’s not how enterprise sales work. If you have a company that has 95 PCs and 5 Macs, it helps a lot to say “we are the one neck to choke across your entire enterprise”. It’s helping you sale 100 licenses. Could any company today that cared about big enterprise go in today without having a Mac solution? The Mac is still a small share of the enterprise market.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    That’s backwards. If you need software that is only available on windows, that’s how you end up with 100 PCs and 0 Macs.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Back then more than now, there was always that one department of “creatives” that insisted on Macs.

scarface_74 3y ago

It was $150 after Apple bought PowerComputing’s Mac assets. And how is it not trivial? Can you show me a timeline that Apple would have been bankrupt without the extra $250 million? Also do you realize how much more MS made on an Office license than a Windows license?

jncfhnb 3y ago
I’m not saying Apple would have gone bankrupt without Microsoft. I am saying 6% of your funding coming from a competitor is very unusual. Doesn’t need to be a proximate cause for bankruptcy avoidance to be non trivial. If windows had not allowed office on Apple computers then Apple computers would have been less successful. Market share on hardware matters more than profits on software.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Guess where Firefox gets most of its revenue? But more relevant, while not 6% of its revenue over 2% of Apple’s revenue today comes from the search deal it has with Google. And yes market share on hardware is important, look how badly Apple is doing now with only 13% of the global market share in smart phones…
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Revenue is not funding. Google’s influence over Firefox is an issue of immense contention. Apple’s relationship with Google is considered by many to be anticompetitive collusion. Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Revenue is not “funding”??? Where do you think business gets money from on an ongoing basis to survive? One reason that for example that Pepsi was spun off from Yum brands was that Pepsi executives had a hard time selling into large franchises because companies didn’t want to send money to competitors. > Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. “Words mean things” - “market share” has a definition. > Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days Are you just making stuff up now? It’s really not hard to look at Apple’s financials to see that “most” of Apple’s revenue comes from hardware sells and not services - where App Store revenue is included.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        No, revenue is not funding. Funding is debt and equity. Revenue can become equity if you retain profits after expenses but the lions share of funding is debt and contributed capital. Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free. The majority of Apple’s contribution margin is coming from sources like that. Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Someone doesn’t know finance. Assets = liabilities + owners equity This formula is like high school finance. When Microsoft bought $250 million in Apple Stock, the Assets increased by $250 million and the owners equity increased by $250 million. This is simple double entry accounting. When Google pays Apple and Microsoft to be the default search engine, you still add the payment to Assets and owners equity. When you borrow money - say the same $250 million - you still add $250 million to Assets. But then you add $250 million to liabilities. You notice that in all three scenarios that Assets increase ? By that simple equation, “Assets” increase by three methods to “fund” the company - through the regular course of business, someone buying into the company and via debt. Again this is simple Finance 101. > Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free Now check your math against the publicly available breakdown of revenue and the overall profit and see how nonsensical your math is. > Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. So which market share are you making up to make your comment logical? > Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware. Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in the phone market??
  - oblio 3y ago
    :-) You're conflating the modern post-iPhone Apple era with the one before. Apple customers weren't greatly exceeding Microsoft customers before. Every manager up to exec level had a Windows desktop or laptop and possibly a Windows "smartphone". The MacOS market wasn't inherently much higher in per-capita value than Windows.
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  Not sure if this is the same event,... but microsoft did invest $150M in apple as a part of settlement in a patent lawsuit

oblio 3y ago

Plus "profitable" is a scale. At huge companies even a huge amount such as $100m [1] might not "move the needle", as they put it, therefore making them decide to not do something. [1] Or for modern day companies and inflation, even $1bn.

scarface_74 3y ago
That’s not how enterprise sales work. If you have a company that has 95 PCs and 5 Macs, it helps a lot to say “we are the one neck to choke across your entire enterprise”. It’s helping you sale 100 licenses. Could any company today that cared about big enterprise go in today without having a Mac solution? The Mac is still a small share of the enterprise market.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  That’s backwards. If you need software that is only available on windows, that’s how you end up with 100 PCs and 0 Macs.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Back then more than now, there was always that one department of “creatives” that insisted on Macs.