4 ms·

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 199

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.
- taylodl 2y ago
  Were you even working in technology in the early 90's? Your comments are off. Also, what you dismiss as "irrelevant" are things businesses pay attention to, which is relevant to this discussion. Your final remark "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" is laughably ignorant, and as such, I'm not going to put much stock in anything else you've said.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    > Were you even working in technology in the early 90's? No as a young child I didn't work in tech. Its a matter of historical record for me. Your feelings from the time aren't relevant. Did you back in the early 90s have detailed financial insight into these matters that are better then what we have now, that books were written on these topics? Did you work at NeXT? > Also, what you dismiss as "irrelevant" are things businesses pay attention to, which is relevant to this discussion. Ok. So please explain it to me, because just saying 'X happened' isn't an argument. Yes, the web was created on NeXT machine. NeXT wasn't selling many more machines because of that, apparently nobody cared. They closed their hardware operation completely. In the years after, NeXT didn't become massively successful as a software company either. They lost more money in that time period. So apparently people didn't buy their software because of it. So please explain, why the valuation in 1996 should be massively impacted by what Tim did years earlier. By that time browsers existed on other platforms. Nothing about NeXT specifically magically created the Web. I get that its culturally significant, but in valuation terms I really don't see it. That's why I said 'irrelevant'. Please show me how the first broswer being written on NeXT machine made them a valuable company. Tim using a NeXT machine impacts the valuation in 1996 how exactly? > Your final remark "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" is laughably ignorant, and as such, I'm not going to put much stock in anything else you've said. Again, you simply make an assertion without an argument. What is your argument. Its unquestionable that luck is involved when becoming the largest cooperating the world. Are you denying that? Are you denying that Apple in 1996 was in a lot of trouble and it wasn't at all clear that they would continue to be a important company. Are you denying that what really changed Apple was not the NeXT base operating system, but rather Jobs changing company strategy? In fact, the most important part making Apple work, happened before OSX was even released. Are you really gone pretend that the NeXT operating system is what turned Apple into one of the largest companies in the world? I really don't know what even your argument is.

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.

taylodl 2y ago
Were you even working in technology in the early 90's? Your comments are off. Also, what you dismiss as "irrelevant" are things businesses pay attention to, which is relevant to this discussion. Your final remark "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" is laughably ignorant, and as such, I'm not going to put much stock in anything else you've said.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > Were you even working in technology in the early 90's? No as a young child I didn't work in tech. Its a matter of historical record for me. Your feelings from the time aren't relevant. Did you back in the early 90s have detailed financial insight into these matters that are better then what we have now, that books were written on these topics? Did you work at NeXT? > Also, what you dismiss as "irrelevant" are things businesses pay attention to, which is relevant to this discussion. Ok. So please explain it to me, because just saying 'X happened' isn't an argument. Yes, the web was created on NeXT machine. NeXT wasn't selling many more machines because of that, apparently nobody cared. They closed their hardware operation completely. In the years after, NeXT didn't become massively successful as a software company either. They lost more money in that time period. So apparently people didn't buy their software because of it. So please explain, why the valuation in 1996 should be massively impacted by what Tim did years earlier. By that time browsers existed on other platforms. Nothing about NeXT specifically magically created the Web. I get that its culturally significant, but in valuation terms I really don't see it. That's why I said 'irrelevant'. Please show me how the first broswer being written on NeXT machine made them a valuable company. Tim using a NeXT machine impacts the valuation in 1996 how exactly? > Your final remark "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" is laughably ignorant, and as such, I'm not going to put much stock in anything else you've said. Again, you simply make an assertion without an argument. What is your argument. Its unquestionable that luck is involved when becoming the largest cooperating the world. Are you denying that? Are you denying that Apple in 1996 was in a lot of trouble and it wasn't at all clear that they would continue to be a important company. Are you denying that what really changed Apple was not the NeXT base operating system, but rather Jobs changing company strategy? In fact, the most important part making Apple work, happened before OSX was even released. Are you really gone pretend that the NeXT operating system is what turned Apple into one of the largest companies in the world? I really don't know what even your argument is.