How Bill Gates allowed Apple to live
JohnQ
Apple Computer. This unlikely alliance between the prosperous software
company and the struggling computer manufacturer is both good news and
bad news. Let's sort it out.
First, the facts: Microsoft, the world's largest software company,
is buying $150 million in Apple company stock.
This means Microsoft will be an Apple shareholder and will make
money on this stock if Apple prospers and will lose money if Apple takes
a dive. But Microsoft won't have the right to vote at Apple's annual
meeting and won't get any official say in how Apple is run.
Apple and Microsoft will share each other's ideas on how to make
software. They'll use the same code for the wildly successful Java
programming language -- a big plus for anyone who wants to make sure
Java code will work on the World Wide Web.
Microsoft will come up with an up-to-date Mac version of its latest
office-and-small-business software, and Apple will push Microsoft's Web
browser as the one Mac owners should use instead of the one from
Microsoft's rival, Netscape.
That's it. Officially.
The real story is something else.
Unofficially, Apple was starving and found a 900-lb. gorilla at the
door. The gorilla was carrying bags of groceries and acting real chummy.
Apple let the gorilla in. Apple was smiling and the gorilla was smiling.
They both had a feast.
Fa-groon
(in article <pblhm.70800$nL7....@newsfe18.iad>):
This "news" is certainly at least SEVEN YEARS OLD. Why bring it up? So MS
bought 150 million dollars worth of non-voting Apple stock in exchange for a
couple of technology licenses, so what? At the time, Apple had more than
THREE BILLION DOLLARS in the kitty and no outstanding debt. So, in what way
was "Apple Starving"? That's like me meeting you on the street and giving you
a dollar for a cup of coffee when you have over a thousand dollars in your
wallet! What?
Tim Adams
Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
Older then that - it was 1997 when it happened and MS sold the shares withn a
few years.
> Why bring it up? So MS
> bought 150 million dollars worth of non-voting Apple stock in exchange for a
> couple of technology licenses, so what? At the time, Apple had more than
> THREE BILLION DOLLARS in the kitty and no outstanding debt. So, in what way
> was "Apple Starving"? That's like me meeting you on the street and giving you
> a dollar for a cup of coffee when you have over a thousand dollars in your
> wallet! What?
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
JohnQ
There are some here who are ignorant of the MS/Apple history. There are
also other MS/Apple collaborations that are not as well known. Why was
Apple so eager to get the money if they didn't need it. I find the
story to be quite interesting. I'm sure others do also. Sorry if my
posting annoys you.
Tim Adams
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm sure you can point out where, in the article you linked to, it showed that
Apple was 'eager' to get the money.
Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code. The money was (partially) a payment
to Apple, so Apple wouldn't sue MS, and at the same time keep MS writing Office
for the Mac for a term of (IIRC) 5 years. It also included cross licensing of
several patterns that both companies benefited from.
> I find the
> story to be quite interesting.
It was, 12 years ago when it happened.
> I'm sure others do also. Sorry if my
> posting annoys you.
--
JohnQ
one wonders what all the hostility is about. I am impressed at your
skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
With that in mind, *plonk*.
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-F47BFD.22...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
8/14/09 7:27 PM:
>> There are some here who are ignorant of the MS/Apple history. There are
>> also other MS/Apple collaborations that are not as well known. Why was
>> Apple so eager to get the money if they didn't need it.
>
> I'm sure you can point out where, in the article you linked to, it showed that
> Apple was 'eager' to get the money.
Do you think they were reluctant to take the money?
> Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code. The money was (partially) a
> payment to Apple,
Can you show evidence of this?
> so Apple wouldn't sue MS, and at the same time keep MS
> writing Office for the Mac for a term of (IIRC) 5 years. It also included
> cross licensing of several patterns that both companies benefited from.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
David Moyer
and now Apple has more money than Microsoft, funny how that worked out.
KDT
> Fa-groon wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:04:06 -0700, JohnQ wrote
It wasn't about the money. In fact, Apple was losing $300 Million a
quarter. That $150 Million would have only helped Apple survive half
a quarter if they had needed it. Even more to the point, within the
same quarter Apple bought out PowerComputing's Mac license for $100
million. Apple wanted assurances that MS would provide Office for Mac
and Microsoft wanted Apple to make IE the default browser. Not to
even mention that Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code to make
Windows Media player play acceptably on Windows.
Steve Carroll
> Fa-groon wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:04:06 -0700, JohnQ wrote
I liked Al's other article a few months later:
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/thur111499.html
Maybe we should retitle the thread to better reflect what Gates was up
to at that time... just a thought.
As to Al's contention that Apple was "starving":
"Apple, which ended its third quarter with $1.2 billion in cash..."
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-to-invest-150-million-in-Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html
Here's a bit of a different slant:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html
Fa-groon
(in article <yTohm.131723$qx1....@newsfe04.iad>):
I doubt that you are sorry about anything. Psychopaths like you are never
sorry for their actions. Your post is dishonest because, first of all, it
misrepresents MS' "investment" in Apple. Secondly, by not dating it, you give
those "some here who are ignorant of the MS/Apple history" the incorrect idea
that this is a recent occurrence and that Apple is a "struggling computer
manufacturer" both of which are, of course, quite untrue. So these little
"clues" to your agenda give lie to your quaint notion that you are interested
in enlightening anyone.
Alan Baker
Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
Please: don't degrade the term "psychopath" by applying it to zara.
"Dickweed" is all he'll ever be.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Tim Murray
> With that in mind, *plonk*.
Gee, zara suddenly doesn't want to talk to anyone.
Tim Murray
> Secondly, by not dating it, you give those "some here who are ignorant of
> the MS/Apple history" the incorrect idea that this is a recent occurrence
Zara has a habit of doing that; she'll post old articles and figure no one
will bother to check. She will also snip single, pro-Apple paragraphs from
articles.
Tim Adams
wrote:
What hostilities would those be? Pointing out reality isn't a 'hostility'.
> I am impressed at your
> skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
No re-writing required. Do a little research and you'll find it all well
documented.
>
> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
Yet, unlike you, I do think.
>
> With that in mind, *plonk*.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-F47BFD.22...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/14/09 7:27 PM:
>
> >> There are some here who are ignorant of the MS/Apple history. There are
> >> also other MS/Apple collaborations that are not as well known. Why was
> >> Apple so eager to get the money if they didn't need it.
> >
> > I'm sure you can point out where, in the article you linked to, it showed
> > that
> > Apple was 'eager' to get the money.
>
> Do you think they were reluctant to take the money?
poor little michael glasser, failing to comprehend what was written once again.
>
> > Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code. The money was (partially) a
> > payment to Apple,
>
> Can you show evidence of this?
so sorry you don't know how to use Google since it was well documented at the
time.
>
> > so Apple wouldn't sue MS, and at the same time keep MS
> > writing Office for the Mac for a term of (IIRC) 5 years. It also included
> > cross licensing of several patterns that both companies benefited from.
--
JohnQ
And then the dream ended.
Snit
8/15/09 4:23 AM:
...
>> one wonders what all the hostility is about.
>
> What hostilities would those be? Pointing out reality isn't a 'hostility'.
>
>
>> I am impressed at your
>> skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
>
> No re-writing required. Do a little research and you'll find it all well
> documented.
Ah, so you will not support what you claim to be true. Even when asked.
Gee, what a surprise.
>> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
>
> Yet, unlike you, I do think.
Here are some of your "thoughts":
* You were ignorant about the tilde, as proved here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c7da6ed0a74f3d4b>
* When Sandman admitted his code did not "validate very good", you
chimed in to say it "validated just fine"... and even claimed,
on being shown that quote you claimed, "nowhere does Sandman
say in that quote that his web site did not validate...".
It is not like your "thoughts" are of value, Tim.
>> With that in mind, *plonk*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 4:28 AM:
>>> Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code. The money was (partially) a
>>> payment to Apple,
>>
>> Can you show evidence of this?
>
> so sorry you don't know how to use Google since it was well documented at the
> time.
A simple "no" would have sufficed. OK, you cannot support your claims. So
be it. Not like anyone expected you to.
Prediction: one of your co-trolls will jump in trying to support your claim
and insist I said you were wrong. Count on it!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
I always knew you were stupid. Too stupid to read and understand.
Therefore, *plonk*
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-366641.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/15/09 4:23 AM:
>
> ...
> >> one wonders what all the hostility is about.
> >
> > What hostilities would those be? Pointing out reality isn't a 'hostility'.
> >
> >
> >> I am impressed at your
> >> skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
> >
> > No re-writing required. Do a little research and you'll find it all well
> > documented.
>
> Ah, so you will not support what you claim to be true. Even when asked.
> Gee, what a surprise.
poor little michael glasser, unable to do a simple google search.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company>
>
> >> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
> >
> > Yet, unlike you, I do think.
>
> Here are some of your "thoughts":
idiot michael glasser claims he wants to let old arguement, even those where he
was proved a liar and an idiot die, and he continue to drag them up at every
chance. So sorry you still haven't learned you don't need a tilde in the path
name to locate widgets installed by Apple. and you claim to be a teacher.
~babbling by the idiot michael glasser snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-732B99.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/15/09 4:28 AM:
>
> >>> Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code. The money was (partially) a
> >>> payment to Apple,
> >>
> >> Can you show evidence of this?
> >
> > so sorry you don't know how to use Google since it was well documented at
> > the
> > time.
>
> A simple "no" would have sufficed.
true to form, michael glasser proves once again he can't use a simple search
engine. try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
> OK, you cannot support your claims.
yet they are supported, by many different articles written at the time it
happened - 1997. since you never learned to read, it's no wonder you never heard
about it.
>~more babbling by the idiot michael glasser snipped
Snit
8/15/09 11:08 AM:
> In article <C6AC0873.415C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Adams stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-366641.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
>> 8/15/09 4:23 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> one wonders what all the hostility is about.
>>>
>>> What hostilities would those be? Pointing out reality isn't a 'hostility'.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am impressed at your
>>>> skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
>>>
>>> No re-writing required. Do a little research and you'll find it all well
>>> documented.
>>
>> Ah, so you will not support what you claim to be true. Even when asked.
>> Gee, what a surprise.
>
> poor little michael glasser, unable to do a simple google search.
I asked *you* to support your claims. You. I did not say *I* could not
look for info to support your claims, but, since they are *your* claims, you
get to support them.
Seriously, how could you be so lost as to not understand that?
...
>> Here are some of your "thoughts":
>>
>> * You were ignorant about the tilde, as proved here:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c7da6ed0a74f3d4b>
>>
>> * When Sandman admitted his code did not "validate very good", you
>> chimed in to say it "validated just fine"... and even claimed,
>> on being shown that quote you claimed, "nowhere does Sandman
>> say in that quote that his web site did not validate...".
>>
>> It is not like your "thoughts" are of value, Tim.
>
> idiot michael glasser claims he wants to let old arguement, even those where
> he was proved a liar and an idiot die, and he continue to drag them up at
> every chance. So sorry you still haven't learned you don't need a tilde in the
> path name to locate widgets installed by Apple. and you claim to be a teacher.
Need a tilde for what? Huh? What are you even babbling about? Oh, just
lashing out in anger since I reminded you of how "valuable" your thoughts
are. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 11:10 AM:
>>>>> Apple had caught MS stealing Quicktime code. The money was (partially) a
>>>>> payment to Apple,
>>>>>
>>>> Can you show evidence of this?
>>>>
>>> so sorry you don't know how to use Google since it was well documented at
>>> the time.
>>>
>> A simple "no" would have sufficed.
>>
> true to form, michael glasser proves once again he can't use a simple search
> engine.
What makes you think I have *any* responsibility to spend a second doing
research to help you support your claims?
Oh, that is right, you are so incompetent you claim to need something from
*me* to even change your .sig.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-607BBB.14...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/15/09 11:08 AM:
>
> > In article <C6AC0873.415C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Adams stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-366641.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> >> 8/15/09 4:23 AM:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>>> one wonders what all the hostility is about.
> >>>
> >>> What hostilities would those be? Pointing out reality isn't a
> >>> 'hostility'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I am impressed at your
> >>>> skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
> >>>
> >>> No re-writing required. Do a little research and you'll find it all well
> >>> documented.
> >>
> >> Ah, so you will not support what you claim to be true. Even when asked.
> >> Gee, what a surprise.
> >
> > poor little michael glasser, unable to do a simple google search.
>
> I asked *you* to support your claims.
because you were totally unable to use a search engine. yes we know your reason.
> >
> > idiot michael glasser claims he wants to let old arguement, even those
> > where
> > he was proved a liar and an idiot die, and he continue to drag them up at
> > every chance. So sorry you still haven't learned you don't need a tilde in
> > the
> > path name to locate widgets installed by Apple. and you claim to be a
> > teacher.
>
> Need a tilde for what?
No michael, I said you DON'T need a tilde. That must be your confusion. still
having reading problems.
Fa-groon
(in article <XWzhm.133296$BP6....@newsfe24.iad>):
Oh, I understand perfectly. You are a troll dredging up ancient history in
order to promote your lies. You can "plonk" me if you wish, but that won't
stop me from calling you on your lies, distortions and half-truths. OTOH, it
would shield me from having to put up with your lame and idiotic comebacks.
Unfortunately, I've noticed what others have noticed, you only say that
you're plonking folks, you don't actually do it.
Snit
8/15/09 1:13 PM:
...
>>>>> No re-writing required. Do a little research and you'll find it all well
>>>>> documented.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so you will not support what you claim to be true. Even when asked.
>>>> Gee, what a surprise.
>>>
>>> poor little michael glasser, unable to do a simple google search.
>>
>> I asked *you* to support your claims.
>
> because you were totally unable to use a search engine. yes we know your
> reason.
I refuse to do your work and you lash out like a child. That speaks poorly
of you.
>>> idiot michael glasser claims he wants to let old arguement, even those where
>>> he was proved a liar and an idiot die, and he continue to drag them up at
>>> every chance. So sorry you still haven't learned you don't need a tilde in
>>> the path name to locate widgets installed by Apple. and you claim to be a
>>> teacher.
>>>
>> Need a tilde for what?
>>
> No michael, I said you DON'T need a tilde. That must be your confusion. still
> having reading problems.
Where did you get the mistaken idea I said you needed a tilde? To help
remind you of the quotes of yours I was referring to:
Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in their case
~) /library/widget. NOT the ~/users/username/library/widget as at least
one other person said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
You clearly thought the tilde referred to the hard drive. You were wrong.
YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the name of the
hard drive only.
To bad in your reading, your delusions took over.
Do you see your error now?
With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of the widgets.
With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library there IS NO directory
called widget UNLESS you've installed the malware widget or another self
installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that widgets
were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE ~ AS THE NAME OF
THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH harddrive/user/username/library
Again, see how you were wrong. The article was *not* using the ~ as the
name of the hard drive. You were. You were wrong.
There are more examples if you need them. It was bad you never admitted you
were wrong. It was completely immoral of you to lash out as you did over
your error.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
> >
> > Yet, unlike you, I do think.
>
> Here are some of your "thoughts":
>
> * You were ignorant about the tilde, as proved here:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c7da6ed0a74f3d4b>
>
> * When Sandman admitted his code did not "validate very good", you
> chimed in to say it "validated just fine"... and even claimed,
> on being shown that quote you claimed, "nowhere does Sandman
> say in that quote that his web site did not validate...".
Snit again feels the need to drag up the CSS validation issue from the
past, in spite of claiming that he want to let the issue go.
"starting now I shall not mention it again unless you do."
- Snit
This was a prime example of what my response to that:
"That's pretty messed up. As it is - *I'm* not mentioning it
unless you drag it up. I don't need an agreement to do that.
That's just my level of interest in this matter. Unless you
bring it up, I have no need. That's the entire point of this."
- Sandman
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> In article <C6AC0873.415C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > >> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
>
> > > Yet, unlike you, I do think.
>
> > Here are some of your "thoughts":
>
> > * You were ignorant about the tilde, as proved here:
>
> > * When Sandman admitted his code did not "validate very good", you
> > chimed in to say it "validated just fine"... and even claimed,
> > on being shown that quote you claimed, "nowhere does Sandman
> > say in that quote that his web site did not validate...".
>
> Snit again feels the need to drag up the CSS validation issue from the
> past, in spite of claiming that he want to let the issue go.
Yeah... but in Snit's defense he holds the belief that people are as
stupid as he needs them to be;)
Snit
8/15/09 11:58 PM:
I did not mention our debate about it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-821845.08583716082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/15/09 11:58 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C6AC0873.415C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
>
> >>> Yet, unlike you, I do think.
>
> >> Here are some of your "thoughts":
>
> >> * You were ignorant about the tilde, as proved here:
>
> >> * When Sandman admitted his code did not "validate very good", you
> >> chimed in to say it "validated just fine"... and even claimed,
> >> on being shown that quote you claimed, "nowhere does Sandman
> >> say in that quote that his web site did not validate...".
>
> > Snit again feels the need to drag up the CSS validation issue from the
> > past, in spite of claiming that he want to let the issue go.
>
> > "starting now I shall not mention it again unless you do."
> > - Snit
>
> > This was a prime example of what my response to that:
>
> > "That's pretty messed up. As it is - *I'm* not mentioning it
> > unless you drag it up. I don't need an agreement to do that.
> > That's just my level of interest in this matter. Unless you
> > bring it up, I have no need. That's the entire point of this."
> > - Sandman
>
> I did not mention our debate about it.
Irrelevant.
Fact: You said... "I shall not mention it again unless you do"...
with "it" being "the CSS issue":
"Seriously: I would love to see the back and forth BS just stop. Can
we both
agree to just let the CSS issue *go* and to not lash out based on it?
It
really is silly. How about this, starting now I shall not mention it
again
unless you do." - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0120f49bc4cd7f75?hl=en&dmode=source
I've always wondered why you tell lies that are so easily proven as
lies. I keep telling you... people just aren't as stupid as you need
them to be.
wetpixel
<Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
> There are some here who are ignorant of the MS/Apple history. There are
> also other MS/Apple collaborations that are not as well known. Why was
> Apple so eager to get the money if they didn't need it. I find the
> story to be quite interesting. I'm sure others do also. Sorry if my
> posting annoys you.
Then make it clear that you are posting old news, so everyone is
informed -- rather than assuming you just don't have a clue.
The deal was very public, and the big pice was the guarantee not to
drop MS Office development for Mac -- not this tiny investment in
stock. That was just so no one would claim there wasn't an investment;
neither company would even notice such an amount.
Why you assume Apple was 'so eager' to get this tiny amount of money is
clear; you assumed Apple was the underdog in the story. They were not
-- Apple was the company being generous, and Microsoft was the
supplicant taking Apple's request for a public promise -- something
they wouldn't do in any other circumstance.
So this 'Gates allowed Apple to live" nonsense is borne of completely
having no idea what was going on -- so please stop trying to be so
damnably hyperbolic.
wetpixel
<Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
> one wonders what all the hostility is about. I am impressed at your
> skill in rewriting MS/Apple history also.
>
> I try not to involve myself with limited thinkers such as yourself.
Limited? You invented the roles and the situation in your own post,
ignored or missed entirely the relevant dates, and had no idea how
well-known or simple the real story was -- you just cast it in your
presumptive way and then post it.
Please, if you find a story interesting, post what you learn about it
-- do not add to it, invent misinformation, or make snide implications
to make it bigger or more indicative of something.
Just the facts, Dude.
Mike
Wasn't there also some noise in the media that Apple had actually found Microsoft with it's hand in
the Apple cookie jar of technology(quicktime???) and that was the unspoken club of sorts?
--
Mike
Tim Murray
> Apple had actually found Microsoft with it's hand in
> the Apple cookie jar of technology(quicktime???)
Yep. QuickTime.
wetpixel
<mi...@nononccfaba.org> wrote:
Yeah, that's the well-known story behind it.
And oddly, for an industry rumor, it hasn't been seriously disputed in
any way that I have seen, so I guess it's pretty close to the truth.
The interesting bit is that Apple, rather than go through lawyers, saw
a chance to do a deal for something else they thought would help them;
an agreement. Trade is good.
It would be wonderful for corporations, courts and consumers all at the
same time if deals like that were the norm; that agreement was a
standout.
Unfortunately, people still miss all the important bits.
Someone referring to this agreement once wrote (maybe in here, years
ago!) "Didn't Microsoft buy Apple?"