2 ms·

No. That's what you are doing. Apple didn't buy Next for 400 million $ to get their hands on 'WebObjects'. In fact that played very little role. They valued th

No. That's what you are doing. Apple didn't buy Next for 400 million $ to get their hands on 'WebObjects'. In fact that played very little role. They valued the OS and Jobs. The reality is Apple had spent 10 years trying to make an OS and failed. Next was only really had one potential buyers and they had been losing value and losing money for a long time. So their value shouldn't have been so high. That said, one could make the argument in the other direction, Apple needed an OS. BeOS was much, much cheaper but also less complete. Arguable just in terms of OS still the better value. Switching to something Solaris is what they arguable what they could have done instead for far less money. In the end they had to put huge amount of work in anyway, so its not even really clear what Next really added that they couldn't have done based on Be, Copland or Solaris. And in terms of WebObjects, the problem with the whole 'WebObjects' is gone drive value is that literally everybody was trying to sell some something like that. Every company and many knew ones were getting into that game and few of them were successful. And even those that were successful aren't worth 400 million $. A company starting to use some Web framework stuff in 1996 doesn't necessarily stick to it forever. In fact historically many didn't.

WoodenChair 2y ago
> No. That's what you are doing. Apple didn't buy Next for 400 million $ to get their hands on 'WebObjects'. In fact that played very little role. I never said Apple bought NeXT for WebObjects. I said that NeXT had value outside of the deal in the marketplace because WebOjects was starting to get traction. In fact, NeXT was planning to IPO into the .com craze on the strength of WebObjects. Here's a whole Computer History Museum article about that: https://computerhistory.org/blog/next-steve-jobs-dot-com-ipo-that-never-happened/ https://computerhistory.org/blog/next-steve-jobs-dot-com-ipo...
- panick21_ 2y ago
  My point was that Apple paid to much, and I do stand by that. Yes during the biggest bubble in computing history they might have been able to IPO and that might have given them enough money to survive. Sure, great, but that doesn't mean there is inherent long term value in a web framework that made the company worth almost 900 million $ in today's money.
taylodl 2y ago
Let's not forget that the World Wide Web, as it was known at the time, was developed on NeXT machines. For the record, I was on my 12th year of my career in 1996 - so I know this time well. Like you say, 'WebObjects' was called 'programmer's heroin' at the time. GUI development on NeXT was lightyears ahead of Windows and OS/2. Oh, I hope you hadn't forgotten about OS/2! Also, I think everyone is forgetting about a certain client NeXT had that then became Apple's client and gave Apple considerable cachet, especially in the late 90's. Do you remember the entertainment company Steve Jobs started when he started NeXT and who famously used NeXT computers in making their blockbuster animated films? A company so big that Disney bought them in 2006? Of course I'm talking about Pixar. Don't forget Apple was also buying Pixar's business and the public perception that went with that. There's a reason Apple went from a stumbling, bumbling company that was all but forgotten to being one of the most valuable companies in the world and one of the most recognized brands in the world. They bought NeXT. In case you thought the reason was because Steve Jobs came back, consider that Jobs has been out of the picture at Apple for 14 years now. Hindsight informs us it was their acquisition of NeXT that made all the difference. Well, that and Apple's involvement in creating ARM, but that's a tale for another day!
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > Let's not forget that the World Wide Web, as it was known at the time, was developed on NeXT machines. Pretty irrelevant. The same could have been done on any Unix Workstation from the time period. NeXT machines weren't magic. > Like you say, 'WebObjects' was called 'programmer's heroin' at the time. That's a waste overestimation. > I hope you hadn't forgotten about OS/2 Not sure how that's relevant. Just another example of an OS that by itself wasn't all that valuable. In fact it was a money loser. > Also, I think everyone is forgetting Non of the things you say are relevant to the discussion. NeXT wasn't making hardware anymore and Pixar also used other Unix workstations as well. > Hindsight informs us it was their acquisition of NeXT that made all the difference. Yes 'hinsight'. What we are talking about is if NeXT was worth 400 million $ at the time. To say 'the bought Next and then 20 years later they are super valuable' isn't an argument about if NeXT was worth 400 million $ back then. They were lucky that Jobs despite not being that successful for the last 20 years had the right combination of ideas and luck to save Apple. This was very unlikely to happen based on Jobs record.

WoodenChair 2y ago

> No. That's what you are doing. Apple didn't buy Next for 400 million $ to get their hands on 'WebObjects'. In fact that played very little role. I never said Apple bought NeXT for WebObjects. I said that NeXT had value outside of the deal in the marketplace because WebOjects was starting to get traction. In fact, NeXT was planning to IPO into the .com craze on the strength of WebObjects. Here's a whole Computer History Museum article about that: https://computerhistory.org/blog/next-steve-jobs-dot-com-ipo-that-never-happened/ https://computerhistory.org/blog/next-steve-jobs-dot-com-ipo...

panick21_ 2y ago
My point was that Apple paid to much, and I do stand by that. Yes during the biggest bubble in computing history they might have been able to IPO and that might have given them enough money to survive. Sure, great, but that doesn't mean there is inherent long term value in a web framework that made the company worth almost 900 million $ in today's money.

taylodl 2y ago

Let's not forget that the World Wide Web, as it was known at the time, was developed on NeXT machines. For the record, I was on my 12th year of my career in 1996 - so I know this time well. Like you say, 'WebObjects' was called 'programmer's heroin' at the time. GUI development on NeXT was lightyears ahead of Windows and OS/2. Oh, I hope you hadn't forgotten about OS/2! Also, I think everyone is forgetting about a certain client NeXT had that then became Apple's client and gave Apple considerable cachet, especially in the late 90's. Do you remember the entertainment company Steve Jobs started when he started NeXT and who famously used NeXT computers in making their blockbuster animated films? A company so big that Disney bought them in 2006? Of course I'm talking about Pixar. Don't forget Apple was also buying Pixar's business and the public perception that went with that. There's a reason Apple went from a stumbling, bumbling company that was all but forgotten to being one of the most valuable companies in the world and one of the most recognized brands in the world. They bought NeXT. In case you thought the reason was because Steve Jobs came back, consider that Jobs has been out of the picture at Apple for 14 years now. Hindsight informs us it was their acquisition of NeXT that made all the difference. Well, that and Apple's involvement in creating ARM, but that's a tale for another day!

panick21_ 2y ago
> Let's not forget that the World Wide Web, as it was known at the time, was developed on NeXT machines. Pretty irrelevant. The same could have been done on any Unix Workstation from the time period. NeXT machines weren't magic. > Like you say, 'WebObjects' was called 'programmer's heroin' at the time. That's a waste overestimation. > I hope you hadn't forgotten about OS/2 Not sure how that's relevant. Just another example of an OS that by itself wasn't all that valuable. In fact it was a money loser. > Also, I think everyone is forgetting Non of the things you say are relevant to the discussion. NeXT wasn't making hardware anymore and Pixar also used other Unix workstations as well. > Hindsight informs us it was their acquisition of NeXT that made all the difference. Yes 'hinsight'. What we are talking about is if NeXT was worth 400 million $ at the time. To say 'the bought Next and then 20 years later they are super valuable' isn't an argument about if NeXT was worth 400 million $ back then. They were lucky that Jobs despite not being that successful for the last 20 years had the right combination of ideas and luck to save Apple. This was very unlikely to happen based on Jobs record.