PDA

View Full Version : NFT: Apple stock up again...


Rausch
11-29-2004, 03:36 PM
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-index

Just saying... :)

Braincase
11-29-2004, 03:41 PM
Congrats, they finally found a winner with the Ipod.

HC_Chief
11-29-2004, 03:46 PM
Did they finally get around to correcting that little problem w/ the Ipod batteries?

bobbything
11-29-2004, 03:48 PM
Congrats, they finally found a winner with the Ipod
Doesn't Bill Gates own about $150 mil in Apple stock?

Rausch
11-29-2004, 03:50 PM
Did they finally get around to correcting that little problem w/ the Ipod batteries?

No idea. What was the problem?

Rausch
11-29-2004, 03:50 PM
Doesn't Bill Gates own about $150 mil in Apple stock?

No.

Pants
11-29-2004, 03:50 PM
Did they finally get around to correcting that little problem w/ the Ipod batteries?

I think the new 40 Gig have removable/changable batteries. Not completelly sure. I hate iPods. That battery thing was such a bitch move by Apple.

Pants
11-29-2004, 03:52 PM
No idea. What was the problem?

The batteries only last a year and half. And since they are polymer (sp?), or molded into the iPod itself, one cannot remove them. Owners would have to send them back to Apple and pay around $180 for a battery change.

Logical
11-29-2004, 03:55 PM
No.Wrong

http://www.bible-prophecy.com/gates.htm
Bill Gates Buys $150 Million Apple Stock
On August 7, 1997 the computer world was stunned by the news that Bill Gates had infused new life into Apple Computer Corporation by agreeing to a $150 million non-voting investment in the troubled company. A fascinating aspect of the story was the fact that Steve Jobs, one of the original co-founders of Apple had asked Gates for the favor. Jobs left Apple in 1985, and was recently brought back to help reorganize the company. The announcement was made at the Macworld trade show in Boston, amid boos from Apple loyalists who have been conditioned over the years to consider Microsoft's co-founder, Bill Gates, their enemy.

Bill Gates, who is the richest man in the world, is also the most powerful person in the world of computers. Steve Jobs is also an incredibly potent influence in this industry which affects all of us. Neither of them appear to have an interest in Christianity. Jobs, who has sought for spiritual enlightenment in India, set the price of his original computer, the Apple I, at the symbolic price of $666.66. Today Jobs juggles various hi-tech interests, including Apple, and his latest creation: Pixar Inc., the computer animation studio that produced the film "Toy Story." Together, Gates and Jobs are a force that bears watching. The Microsoft infusion of cash into Apple Computer is a typically brilliant strategy by Gates. Experts say that, technically, it thwarts Justice Department anti-trust action against Microsoft by preserving its the existence of its chief competitor, while, actually, buying a large measure of unofficial control in Apple. One of the agreements between Apple and Microsoft is to use Microsoft's Internet browser, giving them a considerable advantage over Netscape, their advancing competitor.

Braincase
11-29-2004, 04:03 PM
Doesn't Bill Gates own about $150 mil in Apple stock?

That figure is a little low.

bobbything
11-29-2004, 04:04 PM
No.
He did up until a year ago.

HC_Chief
11-29-2004, 04:04 PM
Vlad - I think he sold the majority of it... IIRC.

Rausch - what Metrolike said: they sealed the units with batteries that have a short lifespan. They could not be replaced other than shipping back to Apple for an overpriced replacement by 'Apple techs'. Reminds me of the old 980 systems.... charging $150 for a gawddamn 3.5" floppy drive!!!! :grr:

Or, even farther back, when they put fuses on the mobo. Simple fuse that cost 20 cents at Radio Shack, they'd charge $200 to replace. Bastards.

Last time I dealt with Apple 'technical support' (I was a tech support guy back in the day) was in regards to Appletalk and TCP/IP.... I needed to know which protocol encapsulated the other for communications over an integrated network. I got bumped all the way up to their 'premeire technical engineering group'... they had no idea what protocol encapsulation meant. :spock:

Needless to say, I've been soured on Apple.

However I wouldn't turn down one of their new 64-bit multi-processor systems. I do CGI work.... Apples are great for graphics work. (of course, that would mean I'd have to get the Apple copies of all my software.... )

jcroft
11-29-2004, 04:16 PM
If I'm correct (and I'm pretty sure I am), the latest iPod still ahve non-removable, non-replaceable batteries, but they are *supposed* to have a much longer life. Of course, no one has had the latest generation for long enough to tell for sure, but that's what they're telling us...

Rausch
11-29-2004, 04:28 PM
He did up until a year ago.

Exactly...

This was addressed in one of the Apple Expo's by Jobs but for some reason I can't find any info on it.

jcroft
11-29-2004, 04:35 PM
Exactly...

This was addressed in one of the Apple Expo's by Jobs but for some reason I can't find any info on it.

That whole thing was made WAY too big a deal of, anyway. Jobs bribed Gates into buying the stock (and into continuing to make Office for Mac) in exchange for Jobs not going back to court with Microsoft over trademark infringment. $150 million was small change to Apple, which was about an $11 Billion company at the time. And, of course, it was VERY small change to Gates and MS. The media painted it as if Gates swooped in and saved Apple from the brink of extinction, or something. If I had a penny for every time someone has said Apple was on their detah bed...

bobbything
11-29-2004, 04:35 PM
This was addressed in one of the Apple Expo's by Jobs but for some reason I can't find any info on it.
The $150 mil was an agreement between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft would develop Office software for Apple and Apple would drop their "likeness" lawsuits.

The contract was for 5 years and ended in early 03. So, Jobs sold the stock (he could do so because it was a non-voting option that Gates invested in). Basically, it was a $150 million loan.

Logical
11-29-2004, 04:38 PM
The $150 mil was an agreement between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft would develop Office software for Apple and Apple would drop their "likeness" lawsuits.

The contract was for 5 years and ended in early 03. So, Jobs sold the stock (he could do so because it was a non-voting option that Gates invested in). Basically, it was a $150 million loan.

That clears that up, sorry Brad.

Rausch
11-29-2004, 04:48 PM
That clears that up, sorry Brad.

I'll **** something up in the next hour, no worry...

unlurking
11-29-2004, 06:36 PM
That whole thing was made WAY too big a deal of, anyway. Jobs bribed Gates into buying the stock (and into continuing to make Office for Mac) in exchange for Jobs not going back to court with Microsoft over trademark infringment. $150 million was small change to Apple, which was about an $11 Billion company at the time. And, of course, it was VERY small change to Gates and MS. The media painted it as if Gates swooped in and saved Apple from the brink of extinction, or something. If I had a penny for every time someone has said Apple was on their detah bed...
ROFL

Yeah, Jobs out-played Gates. :shake:

The move buy Gates was PURELY business. At the same time it happened they announce Mac Office. Boom, M$ profits. Then they dump a boat load of cash in to Apple, and Apple begins a fast upsurge in sales.

All of a sudden, this VERY small change amounts to HUGE DOLLARS in the M$ monopoly court case because they once again have a thriving competitor and simply get slapped with fines rather than being split up.

I'm not saying Apple was on its death bead, or even close, but to say M$ didn't make out like gang-busters is incorrect. To deny the success brought about by the "collaboration" efforts (Jobs plans, Gates $$$), is to seriously overestimate where Apple was at the time.

Rausch
11-29-2004, 06:41 PM
I'm not saying Apple was on its death bead, or even close, but to say M$ didn't make out like gang-busters is incorrect. To deny the success brought about by the "collaboration" efforts (Jobs plans, Gates $$$), is to seriously overestimate where Apple was at the time.

Gates, once again, found a way to make money off of Apple. But by no means was that investment "gang-busters."

Hell, Gates pockets more after taxes than the entire worth of Apple...but you're right about it helping his court cases.

unlurking
11-29-2004, 06:48 PM
Gates, once again, found a way to make money off of Apple. But by no means was that investment "gang-busters."

Hell, Gates pockets more after taxes than the entire worth of Apple...but you're right about it helping his court cases.
That's what I'm referring to. The potential losses if the court found M$ guilty of a monopoly would have been absolutely astronomical.

Hell, there were rumors about M$ moving 150 miles north into Canada if that happened.

Also at the time was the Corel/Novell back and forth with their java-based Office client. Mac Office helped solidify a monopoly within a monopoly.

Jenny Gump
11-29-2004, 08:30 PM
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-index

Just saying... :)

Mac humpin' show off.

jcroft
11-29-2004, 10:33 PM
ROFL

Yeah, Jobs out-played Gates. :shake:

The move buy Gates was PURELY business. At the same time it happened they announce Mac Office. Boom, M$ profits. Then they dump a boat load of cash in to Apple, and Apple begins a fast upsurge in sales.

All of a sudden, this VERY small change amounts to HUGE DOLLARS in the M$ monopoly court case because they once again have a thriving competitor and simply get slapped with fines rather than being split up.

I'm not saying Apple was on its death bead, or even close, but to say M$ didn't make out like gang-busters is incorrect. To deny the success brought about by the "collaboration" efforts (Jobs plans, Gates $$$), is to seriously overestimate where Apple was at the time.

Oh, you're completly right and I don't disagree with you at all. I don't think I said anything that would contradict this, either (you act like you're talking to a Mac bigot, which I most definitely am not).

My only point was that $150 Million investment was then, and still is now, painted by the media as the "day Microsoft saved Apple." That is so absurd, but that's the way it was seen. Apple needed Mac Office. Gates needed to avoid a court case. They made a deal that benefited both sides. Simple as that.

unlurking
11-29-2004, 10:43 PM
Oh, you're completly right and I don't disagree with you at all. I don't think I said anything that would contradict this, either (you act like you're talking to a Mac bigot, which I most definitely am not).

My only point was that $150 Million investment was then, and still is now, painted by the media as the "day Microsoft saved Apple." That is so absurd, but that's the way it was seen. Apple needed Mac Office. Gates needed to avoid a court case. They made a deal that benefited both sides. Simple as that.
True.

Rereading my response I was a bit harsh, sorry about that.

I've been wondering what the world would be like today if Apple never got into bed with M$.

Rausch
11-29-2004, 10:46 PM
True.

Rereading my response I was a bit harsh, sorry about that.

I've been wondering what the world would be like today if Apple never got into bed with M$.

There would be no microsoft as we know it today...

duncan_idaho
11-29-2004, 10:58 PM
I still wonder what would have happened if Apple had allowed IBM to license its OS back in the mid-80s... when Apple turned IBM down, Big Blue turned to Windows... and the rest is history.

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2004, 11:02 PM
You can't play Half-Life 2 on a Mac.

Ha-ha! /Nelson

Rausch
11-29-2004, 11:05 PM
I still wonder what would have happened if Apple had allowed IBM to license its OS back in the mid-80s... when Apple turned IBM down, Big Blue turned to Windows... and the rest is history.

You also have to look at Apple's deal with IBM/Motorola for it's processors. If those processors were in IBM's today instead of a Mac, IBM would be leading the market and Apple would be out of business...

penguinz
11-29-2004, 11:06 PM
The batteries only last a year and half. And since they are polymer (sp?), or molded into the iPod itself, one cannot remove them. Owners would have to send them back to Apple and pay around $180 for a battery change.This is totally wrong. You can replace the batteries in ipods.

http://www.ipodbattery.com/

Pants
11-29-2004, 11:19 PM
This is totally wrong. You can replace the batteries in ipods.

http://www.ipodbattery.com/

That's nice. But Apple doesn't sell those, I'm guessing those are unofficial. If you do that (open up the iPod on your own) and screw up, Apple is not responsible for it, so you'd have to purchase a new one.

I've listened to an actual recording of a person speaking to an Apple tech support and he said they'd have to send the iPod in to replace the battery.

I guess it costs $99 to replace a battery after a year of using the iPod.

http://www.apple.com/batteries/replacements.html

Let me see if I can find the link to the conversation.

I guess they were wrong about the polymer battery, unless it was on the old models, hmm.

Found the link, judge for yourself whether that's real (it was made a long time ago)... idk.

http://www.ipodsdirtysecret.com/

bobbything
11-29-2004, 11:38 PM
Rausch, I like your "Mac" mentality.

Without Apple, there's no Microsoft.

(I'm serious)

Valiant
11-30-2004, 01:25 AM
Wrong

http://www.bible-prophecy.com/gates.htm


Wow, bill gates is the reason apple is doing good now.. the shame.. looks like the apple users will have to find another bill gates free system..

Valiant
11-30-2004, 01:30 AM
dont ye hate when you dont read a whole thread... ROFL