It's been 21 long years since Microsoft saved $150 million with his investment AppleAnd although this act is often described as a manifestation of good will on the part of the Billa Gatese, of course he benefited from it except Applol MicrosoftSo what exactly happened?
You could be interested in
For providing the aforementioned $150 million, he received Microsoft block of shares Applu, but without voting rights. Jobs also agreed to implement the Internet Explorer for Mac. A Apple he not only gained money, but also garancand support Office for the Mac for the next five years. Although the Cupertino company had a fairly large amount of dollars in reserves, it was facing financial problems at the time and this investment Microsoftshe helped them.
Steve Jobs a Bill Gates – two personalities from the computer industry:
Gallery
Pro Billa GatesHowever, for him and his company, there was another advantage, perhaps the most important for them. Apple for he promised to withdraw from long-standing dispute, which addressed whether Microsoft for your own Windows copied the look and feel of Mac OS, legally or not. The investment was announced Steve Jobs at the Boston MacWorld Ecpo, where Apple at the same time, it appointed Jobs as the new (interim) CEO.
A deal is always better than nothingonelegal dispute.
…because if he fell Apple , the antimonopoly office could push for the division of MS ... it was in the interest to keep Apple while alive, Gates was not a Ballmer-type primitive (attacks on Linux)
The first heist and then he paid, see the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley".
Jirko - refer to the movie? :-)
It was simply the best solution for everyone at the time.
If that movie charts a similar situation, I don't see a problem with anyone referencing it. On the contrary, even in the past, art was important because it reflected the current situation, even if it showed it in a fictional story. And as far as the deal goes, it was perhaps the best solution for Apple a Microsoft, but that doesn't mean it was the best solution from the perspective of other people - every deal has externalities (the word is a real economic term) that may not be immediately obvious and that the direct participants in the deal often don't care about. I haven't looked into the details of this particular deal, but I certainly wouldn't generally say that a deal between corporations is the best for everyone.