Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

My revert

Perhaps this will prove unpopular, but given all the reverting and changes happening, I thought it best to revert to the version that existed before the first edit by Graham contested by MathStatWoman. Hopefully everyone can discuss this edit in peace without this constant reverting. --C S (Talk) 12:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an eminently sensible idea. Graham 12:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the editing history of a WP article be used as proof of a statement in the article? :-) I'm still not clear on who is saying what, but I can offer a few observations. First, while it's certainly possible that Apple people refer to Mac fans as "the crazies", I don't think it's that common. In fact, there are large numbers of rabid Mac fans working in all parts of the company (which, if you think about it, is a good thing!) In a way, Mac fans are good in that their devotion gives you a lot more leeway to experiment with changes. Tough to say anthing verifiable though; perhaps the various books on Apple (most of which I haven't read, actually) can be quoted. The now-shortish Cult of Mac or a similar page seems like a better place to develop the material. Second, as one of Apple's "open source people", I have a lot of personal experience with the subject, and I think people should be wary of any claims for a general policy on open source (I suppose it would be breaking confidentiality to confirm or deny :-) ). Apple is a big company, and like any other big company, it has people on all sides of every issue. Again, the trick is to find factual material - while I could aver that Apple is much more interested in open source than it was in 1990 when I was porting GCC 1.33 to Macs, that's true of every big technology company in the same timeframe, and how are you going to prove whether Apple was above-average or below-average in its stance? In the interests of keeping this article focussed, I suggest an Open source at Apple to go into more depth on the relevant facts and claims. Stan 13:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I really really hate editwarring, and my participation here is contingent on people refraining from the back-and-forth reverting. Stan 14:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would really rather not myself. However, here's the line that made me put a change in in the first place, that seemed to kick the whole thing off:

Apple has spent a large portion of its marketing budget building this fanatical loyalty.

This isn't true. Apple doesn't go out of its way to actively market to its already loyal customers, and never has. The loyal fans have come about regardless, for whatever reason. The statement above would tend to suggest that Apple actively tries to create the Cult of Mac around it as a marketing device, but there's no evidence for this, and it certainly doesn't ring true. So I removed it (and have, again). Then I was drawn to the statement that preceeded it, where the superiority of the Mac is advocated (or somesuch). I changed this to something like "their belief in the perceived superiority..." which is a much more NPOV-friendly way of expressing what it is that the devoted Mac fans feel about the product. At present it is stated as if this were axiomatic, which is obviously ridiculous. I then went on to suggest, in an NPOV way, why this Cult of Mac might exist, based on what I know about it, which is a fair bit I think. It was this that seemed to open the floodgates of the edit war, and from my perspective it seemed as if in trying to present this in a neutral way, a Mac fan who felt strongly about it might see it as being too weakly worded, and not advocative enough. We have certainly had many people attempt to push their own Mac fanaticism into the article in the past. Certainly the initial change to my text would suggest that the user who made the change does indeed feel this way about the Mac, and wanted a more advocative POV. Well, I'm sorry but I stand by my original edit, it's very NPOV, it reports what some Mac users feel about the product, and removes the highly advocative current text. The remark about "crazies" may or may not be warranted, but it helps to put the other statement in some sort of context; and besides I have heard this term used on a number of occasions by Apple staff, at least in Europe (Munich) and the UK. A quick google for 'apple macintosh crazies' will throw up a number of other references; the term appears to have some currency. The ensuing edit war took out another passage about open source which is not something I contributed, and another about Carbon vs. Cocoa advocacy, which I did originally contribute, months and months ago - that text has stood uncontested for a very long time, so why get all upset about it now? Besides, at the time of writing, it was the prevailing opinion among many, many developers - actually things seems to be less adversarial these days, though I'm doing less work in that area than I was, so might just be out of the loop. All in all, a few very benign and improving edits seemed to cause an apoplectic fit in a certain user. I am (and was) merely trying to defend my edit, since in fact I don't feel all that strongly about the topic itself, but could (and can) clearly see that a more NPOV phraseology is needed. Graham 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of marketing budget Apple spends on developing loyalty, but it would be nigh-impossible to get a verifiable source in any case, that kind of information being considered company confidential. Apple evangelists are well-known of course, and are on record as having a goal of promoting fanatical loyalty, although as Guy Kawasaki puts it, it was "something that was stumbled upon" [1]. Stan 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Apple seems to have a brand loyalty that most other companies can only dream about. That might be worth saying if we can quote someone notable or something saying it. In the meantime I have changed the other statement I am having issues with to be NPOV, firstly by correcting the grammar - from 'Apple customers often...' to 'Some Apple customers...' - is it me or does the sight of the term 'often' in WP articles make you want to hurl? 'Often' implies a frequency, whereas in this case we are talking about a particular group. So far so uncontentious, one would hope. Secondly I changed 'stridently uphold the superiority of...' to 'stridently uphold their belief in the perceived superiority of...'. This should be obvious. In the first case, it is written as if a) the products are indeed superior, and b) that this superiority is self-evident. I don't believe either is the case, though personally I definitely do prefer Macs - so it's not as if I'm simply trying to be anti-Mac here, I simply want the statement to be neutral. The change reports the feelings of the group, it does not advocate it. I believe the above, about evangelism, and the reference, would make a valuable addition too - it might go a little way to put the phenomenon into some sort of context. I'll do that, if you are OK with it. Graham

I've now fleshed that out a little, using the quote and reference given. Perhaps you (and others!) could take a look and see if it's acceptably NPOV, while giving some context and reporting the thing. Hopefully another skirmish can be avoided if we just work through it like this. Graham 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New article

See Talk:Apple-Intel architecture#New article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to Paul about Apple Stock

I did that because of what happened when I added a few words about the stock's history into the article on Apple Computer, since I thought it was about the company, and it did belong in the article. I also wanted to talk about Apple's marketing idea of selling the Macintosh to students and faculty at universities before the Macintosh had a name; I thought it would be interesting and an indication of Apple's marketing style at that time, 1983. But, a Wikipedia senior editor kept taking out my additions, no matter what I wrote. So I tried another route. But that senior editor sent me strange, angry, and rude messages, so I stopped contributing. He told me I was annoying people by contributing to the article, so I stopped. DeveloperFrom1983 03:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That editor was me. If I appeared rude I apologise, not my intention. However, the edits were coming thick and fast, and much of what was written was inappropriate, but before that could be corrected yet more were added, and yet more (by different people)... so it became a flood that needed a firm hand. There is an ongoing project to tidy up all of the Macintosh-related articles and generally raise them to a much higher editorial standard. It would be a good idea to take a look at the master page for that effort so that some idea of how we are trying to tackle things can be obtained - it will be then much more obvious where a valuable contribution can be made. If we all direct our efforts in the same direction, then rearguard firefighting can be avoided, which is time consuming and ultimately not terribly helpful. Now, the Drexel uni stuff is of interest, but it's not about the company, it's about the machine, possibly. The seeding of early Macs to unis is interesting, but I'm not sure it counts as marketing per se - I think the idea was to get students keen on programming it so that there would be a pool to draw on for future developers, and a ready supply of shareware/freeware for the machine. I certainly remember a lot of that software being around in the early days. However, being realistic, in the overall scheme of things of the Mac as a platform, this warrants little more than a minor footnote, as it had no real impact on the machine's popularity or otherwise, though it is interesting to speculate whether this did somehow seed some of the early Mac fandom that persists to this day. However, speculation isn't appropriate either! The addition of material about Apple stock is about the company, but was in a form that is not very useful to an encyclopedia article. I have expanded on this in the section above. Linking to an external site with stock information is entirely adequate - for those that are interested in this, it will yield far more pertinent information than a general article should. As you appear to be new, I really recommend that you take a little time to read and understand what this whole project is about, rather than diving in too soon. The thing we are trying to avoid is becoming a repository for everyone's favourite piece of random trivia. That is why sometimes tough editorial decisions are needed. Above all remember, it's never anything personal. Graham 06:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a short addition to the history section, or perhaps the History of Apple Computer article, mentioning the stock info is inappropriate. Developerfrom1983's edit wasn't the best, but it's certainly worth mentioning that Apple stock became a hot commodity due to iPod success. There's already a short paragraph on the success of the iPod. Going more into it by mentioning how it affected Apple would seem highy relevant, something along the lines of

The iPod's success turned Apple stock into a hot commodity. In fall 2003, one share was valued as [not sure, but I think it was about 20 bucks], by February 2004 it had risen to [something], and by February 2005, the stock had split. This rapid increase of value attracted attention from the media at large [cite some sources and quotes maybe from the WSJ for example], leading some to say [something like "Apple isn't dead, but alive and kicking" etc. Plenty of quotes like that exist]

Really, after looking over the article (and the history article) it seems that the whole iPod thing isn't really described very well. It's fair to say that the iPod really is Apple's flagship product now, and has proven to be (even now) an important part of its history. Anyway, obviously my suggestion needs a lot of work, but I think it's got potential for a good addition. --C S (Talk) 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRAHAMUK (talk • contribs) .

Sigh, I thought you were commenting on my proposed addition! :-) I still think it's a good idea. --C S (Talk) 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, about the article ;-) I agree with your proposed text, it looks fine. In fact I think the recent stock boost is notable provided it is put in its proper context. I know that just before the iTMS was launched the stock price was about $17, but I seem to recall it its lowest it hit about $13 - that was some while before, during the dark days. God how I wish I'd invested then - I even told a bunch of people at the time of iTMS launch it was sure to rise a lot! Only time I ever got it right and I didn't have the courage of my own convictions... ah well! Anyway, iTMS and iPod are the main reason, but perhaps we could mention something of the so-called "halo effect" which might start to make some significant difference to Mac sales this year (though we should probably keep clear of adding speculation). If the stock split needs mentioning, then this link should suffice - there is no need to explain here what it means. Graham 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's no need to define terms like stock split! Anyway, it struck me that the whole reorganization of the company with an iPod division is certainly relevant and interesting. The success of the iPod and the subsequent restructuring should be the main focus, with a minor focus on Wall Street stuff as I mentioned above. It might not be even necessary to mention stock splits as just mentioning a very rapid increase in value is enough to suggest that. Hmm...article is kind of getting long again. Well, I guess we should just see what we come up with and summarize and move stuff to the history article if necessary. --C S (Talk) 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a picture of Apple HQ in the main article?

Someone moved out the huge History of Apple Computer section a few months ago into a separate article. I suppose that's all right, but they also moved out the picture I took of the Apple HQ in Cupertino! Shouldn't we also display that in this article? --Coolcaesar 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Stan 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Done.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coolcaesar 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

*laughs*--HereToHelp (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

link

Added minor link to other article with auxiliary information. Hope to maintain that article with other information on AAPL as a stock and as a company, since it was not considered appropriate for the main article. Assume that was all right with everyone. DeveloperFrom1983 08:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There is an article on AAPL(NASDAQ) which appears to be a fork. I don't really care what the history is, if there is verifiable information in that article it surely belongs here in some form. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

[The following are critiques on the article itself, not on the section in the article with the same name.] The following was posted to a mailing list earlier today (not written by me, I might add):

" On July 9, 1997, Gil Amelio was ousted as CEO of Apple by the board of directors after overseeing a 12 year record low stock price and crippling financial losses, despite an outstanding decade of innovation. Jobs stepped in as the interim CEO and began a critical restructuring of the company's product line."

It's well-established that Amelio had already started much of the restructuring, but due to resistance at all levels, was not having much success. It leaves off the fact that the entire board, including Markkula was replaced when Steve took over, a critical step that enabled Jobs to have the support he needed.

Regarding the original iMac, and its later generations: "... a new design that eliminated most Apple-standard connections like SCSI and ADB in favor of two USB ports"

And a modem, and a 100Mbps Ethernet port.

It leaves out everything between 2001 and 2005.

--JohnDBuell 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that the original iMac didn't have a 56k modem, it did have a 36k modem initially and I believe this was upped to a 56k when it first shipped in 1998. The modem was eventually removed with the latest iMac G5 in 2005. Regarding the ethernet port, I'm pretty sure the original shipped with a 10/100 port but it may have come with the second revision. Also, what mailing list are you referring to? -Paul^C/_T+ 15:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

John, can you explain what you want us to do about it? I can't tell from your message whether you're referring to problems about this article, or something else, nor what it is you'd like to see changed or fixed.Graham 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The author of the message was pointing out problems with a couple of the Apple related articles here on Wikipedia. (This one and Mac OS X Server). He could have just as easily corrected them, but chose not to. I didn't do it myself, because I have very few hardcopy references at my disposal for Apple corporate/product history. To get the details back in their context, it's archived at http://lists.apple.com/archives/macos-x-server/2006/Jan/index.html - look for the thread that started out for Wikibooks (and has that word in the message subject). --JohnDBuell 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism, again

I removed some recently added stuff in the criticism section that simply repeats some old chestnuts that are widely believed, but are mostly incorrect. Besides, those remarks are about the Mac, so they do not rightly belong in a section about criticism of the company. The 'high prices' comment is untrue, if you compare similarly spec'ed machines using the same quality of parts. This comparison is frequently asserted, but careful analysis shows that Apple's prices are competitive with, or perhaps only marginally higher than a similar quality PC. A claim that OS X is 'overly complex' would need to be backed up with a reputable source - as far as I'm aware the prevailing opinion is the opposite. The comment about lack of games is valid, but needs to be placed in its proper context - there are plenty of Mac games, but obviously far more PC games, but in any case the Mac isn't a games machine and isn't marketed as one, or to gamers, so where is the relevance? At risk of being labelled a Mac zealot by this editor for removing this, I should point out that I'm happy to see reasonable and justified criticism, and in fact a good deal of what is already in that section I contributed. But simply mouthing these old chestnuts as if they were self-evidently true is not doing the article any favours. Graham 10:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How dare they criticize our beloved company? Well done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.212.81 (talk • contribs) .

Wall Street Journal et al

Could we please add the info that Wall Street Journal (at least twice) called the Mac the "gold standard" of PC's? They provided evidence (e.g. virtually no viruses) e.g. *[http://ptech.wsj.com/solution.html} and other such comments, either here or on Mac page? MathStatWoman 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way that varying reviews of Apples and Macs could be incorporated into articles or given an article of their own without us sounding like MacDailyNews? ;) There should be about thirty years of press/consumer reaction to work with, could be interesting. --JohnDBuell 07:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, really. Shall we do it? SIX times NINE does indeed equal 42, and that is the answer to life the universe and everything (as you already know I am sure). MathStatWoman 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

One slight problem with the WSJ comments is that they are always made by Walter Mossberg, who is known as a Mac fan and somewhat biased. Obviously his opinion counts for something, but perhaps not as much as it might have done if he were known for more objectivity! On the other hand, Apple.com have a comprehensive 'hot news' section that always lists everything of this nature, so I would have thought that a link to that would provide enough current information, and we don't need to worry about whether it's NPOV. Historic press reaction could be interesting for sure, though we must be careful to report it objectively and not clutter up the article too much. Graham 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You could always fork such a thing into a sub-article. "Press and popular reaction to Apple Computer" or something like that. --JohnDBuell 05:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

APPLE PHONE

Should we have something about the Apple Phone? I thonk so. --Daunrealist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.68.150 (talk • contribs) .

That's a fan-created mockup, and so far there's nothing other than speculation regarding a future Apple phone. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How popular are iMacs?

Hi there, I expanded the description of iMacs a bit. I kept the bit about them being "widely popular", even though I'm personally not sure how valid a claim that is. Does anybody really know how well they sell? I'm a little concerned that if the article has too many positive words about Apple/Apple products, it will be seen as biased and it won't be taken seriously. --Tachikoma 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tricky one. Obviously they are only as popular in real terms as Apple's market share numbers indicate. However they are very visible, and people may be more likely to notice an iMac rather than an anonymous PC type box, so they may appear more popular as a result. In fact judging from the number of times you see them on TV or in the movies, Steve's RDF has a very wide reach! I agree though, these insidious little adjectives that keep getting slipped in need to be watched, it's POV by the back door. I suggest just changing it to "popular" though even that is pretty meaningless without numbers. On the other hand, littering the article with numbers to back up every claim is going to make it very dull and far less readable. It's a trade-off. Graham 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I ended up dodging the whole question of how popular iMacs are by framing it along the lines of "popular enough to save the company". --Tachikoma 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the iMac sold roughly under 1 million in its first year in 1998, I think sales have significantly dropped since then but they've always been popular. Yes, the iMac did pretty much save Apple. — Wackymacs 08:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Apple's difficulties in the 1990's

Hi all, I've tried to add a bit to the section about the difficulties that Apple faced in the 1990's. The thing is, I'm not that familiar with the ultimate legal outcome of Apple vs. Microsoft, so I didn't want to say much.

Another thing is that I was trying to express how Apple made all sorts of Macs and other things, as if the company was unsure of what it should be making. Again, I'm not so familiar with what exactly Apple was making at the time. I remember that Apple had Quadras and Performas and that there was a time when models would be introduced and withdrawn in rapid succession.

I think it would be worth mentioning something about how Apple wanted to retool its operating system (remember Taligent/Copland/Star Trek/BeOs/NeXT?), but I don't want to just redo the whole Mac OS article.

I also think that the "Powerbook and decline" section is getting pretty big and that maybe it should be split for readibility's sake.

Any thoughts on any of this? --Tachikoma 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you, Apple made a number of products in the early-mid 90's including: cameras (Apple QuickTake), scanners (Apple OneScanner and Apple Color OneScanner), keyboards, mice, printers (LaserWriter), remote controls, CD players, software, a very complex line of personal computers (Macintosh Performa, Macintosh Quadra, Power Macintosh models, Macintosh Centris, PowerBook line and a few others such as the Macintosh LC line. Apple also made a line of PDAs, the Apple Newton and eMate. Hope that helps. — Wackymacs 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that helps a whole lot! Thanks! --Tachikoma 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Current products suggestion

OK, I've extensively reworked the whole "1990 to 1997 - Powerbook and decline section" and split it into two sections.

While rereading the article, it struck me that in the "Current products" section, there are two or three paragraphs that are basically lists of products. Wouldn't it be better to list these products in columns, in order to make the article more readable? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to do what I have in mind (two parallel columns listing the products). Thanks in advance. --Tachikoma 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the aim is to have the products in paragraphs to have a proper flow. There are already sub-articles for lists of Apple products. See List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU, List_of_Macintosh_software and List_of_products_discontinued_by_Apple_Computer. — Wackymacs 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Apple Logo and reference to Alan Turing

has Apple ever made a statement regarding the link made between their logo and the believed suicide of Alan Turing? Just curious if anyone knows. BadCRC 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Industry Standard"

I believe that this article uses the phrase "industry standard" a little too often. I think that this and other promotional phrases ought to be reduced. Surely apple has not been the only computer company to set "industry standards" and I feel as if that phrase should be used if some company develops on some idea that has become adopted all across the industry. If otehr companies contribute to that ideal, though, then it is incorrect to continue saying "apple has set an industry standard." Don't get me wrong--I like apple, but I just feel that this phrasing promotes unnecessary and unwarranted bias.

Thanks you for your concern.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I

What is it with Apple and "i"?

• iPod
• iMac
• iBook
• iSight
• iLife
• iWork

etc.

Mr. Quertee 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, it's called marketing. Next question...? Graham 05:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that. I meant, does it stand for anything or did the people at apple just decide that "I" is a cool letter? Mr. Quertee 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it originally stood for "internet", as first used on the iMac, which was marketed as a turnkey solution for getting on the 'net. This followed on the heels of the previous initial fad, which was 'e', as in 'electronic' (eMail, eMate, etc). While some products such as iPhoto and iTunes retain internet connectivity as part of their feature set, I think the point got stretched beyond snapping point on many of the others, and it merely became a way to forge a (marketing) coherency among the various software suites. Graham 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve Jobs was also referred to as an iCEO (meaning interim) when he was first brought back to Apple in 1997 (around the same time that the iMac was announced. Paul^C/_T+ 14:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

iSee Mr. Quertee 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Current Products

Apple is no longer selling the eMac, nor are they manufacturing iMac G5's or PowerBooks. Also, it seems a bit misleading to say that both the iBooks and the PowerBooks will be replaced by the MacBook Pro. Nobody knows for sure whether or not this will happen, Apple could theoretically keep the iBook moniker and just have the MacBook Pro and iBook. Though this is unlikely, until we know for sure, it's probably not the best idea to speculate. Hope this is helpful.

Apple's still selling the eMac, it's just gone back to being education-only. They're still making 12" and 17" PowerBooks. By the end of the year, the iBook will likely be replaced with the MacBook (considering they have that name trademarked) and the other PowerBooks with their own respectively sized MacBook Pros. They have the name MacBook trademarked, so I doubt they'd waste it when they've already used the MacBook Pro name. thenewbf 06:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

History

The History section of this arrticle is about as long as its main article, "History of Apple Computer." The History section should be shortened to more of a summary than it is now, mainly because there is already the parallel article that handles the bulk of the historical stuff, or at least it was put there to. "History of Apple Computer" was supposed to be there to keep this article from being cluttered up with information. Unfortunately, that never happened. So, now both articles have overlaps and similar content. Either "History of Apple Computer" be merged into this article's History section (which I don't recommend), or the History section on this article be summarized to a few paragraphs long.

--Crimsonfox92 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

suggestions

First off, this article is getting there - so good work guys :). We've already got Microsoft featured as a pretty good and comprehensive article - it would be nice for this one as well. I think this could use another peer review though when you guys are ready to help point out what needs cleaning up etc..

As a suggestion from me though I think those lists in Corporate should be either culled, written out, or something - for example as an explanation like in done Microsoft. Also, I think Apple is big enough that criticims probably deserves its own section :). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Microsoft own a part of Apple

Hello!

Is it true that Microsoft bought an important part of Apple's shares? When was it and how much exactly? Should'nt this be said in the article? --CutterX 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an often repeated myth, but it is just that - a myth. Microsoft bought just $150 million worth of shares as part of a PR exercise just after Jobs returned to Apple - the point was to show that Microsoft had some commitment to the platform and to shore up the rapidly declining sales of Macs at that time. Note that this was as much Microsoft's benefit as Apple's, since if Apple had gone under, the anti-trust situation would have got a lot worse for MS, and would probably have led to them being forcibly broken up. With Apple still around they couldn't be accused of being a complete monopoly. The shares MS bought were just ordinary non-voting stock, so in no sense did MS "own" any part of Apple just as you or I wouldn't if we bought similar stock. MS sold these shares a few years later, and probably made a tidy profit. It might be worth a small mention in the article, but my own view is that it's of so little importance in the longer run that any mention at all is likely to lend it an importance it doesn't deserve. Th eonly reason to mention it is maybe to dispel this common myth, but hey-ho, I've just done that. Graham 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. --CutterX 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that the movie about Apple/Microsoft, Pirates of Silicon Valley, ends with a statement that "Microsoft now owns a part of Apple", or words to that effect. I came to the site today looking for this answer, and I'm glad to get it, Graham. I would only point out that even non-voting stock implies ownership to a certain (limited) degree.

Well, you can't believe everything you see in a movie... You're right that shareholders "own" part of the company in a sense, but $150M was a tiny, tiny part even then. Graham 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)