Microsoft infamously invested $150 million in archenemy Apple in 1997 as the company was facing bankruptcy right after the return of Steve Jobs, and according to former CEO Steve Ballmer, it was the craziest thing the Windows-maker ever did.
Ballmer spends more of his time on the basketball court now than working on the next big tech ideas, but in an interview with Bloomberg this morning, Ballmer was brought on to talk about the Microsoft’s battle with Amazon. After saying Amazon is not a great place to work, the conversation drifted to Apple and Ballmer actually admitted that “they’ve done a great job.”
Coming from the guy who laughed off the iPhone because he thought the Zune was killer, that’s a hell of a compliment. Watch what Ballmer had to say about Microsoft’s rivalry with Apple below:
Buster Hein is a freelance writer who lives in Phoenix, Arizona. Twitter: @bst3r.
30 responses to “Ballmer: Saving Apple in 1997 was ‘craziest thing’ Microsoft ever did”
I like MS, but monkeyboy Ballmer I NEVER liked. He was the biggest baffoon, I mean mishap that ever happened to MS. He was like a slow death version of the plague.
Do you want to know something really interesting that is worth paying your attention right now,a fabulous online opportunity to work for those people who want to use their free time so that they can make some extra money using their computers… I have been working on this for last two and half years and I am making 60-90 dollar/ hour … In the past week I have earned 13,70 dollars for almost 20 hours sitting ….
Any skills, Degree ,Specific qualification is not necessary for this, just keyboard typing and a good working and reliable internet connection ….
Any time limitations to start work is not required … You may do this work at any time when you willing to do it ….
Do you want to know how I have been doing this?…..….see this {Iink} on my !|profile|!` to know how I am working` on this`
%dd
“Ballmer spends more of his time on the basketball court now than working on the next big tech ideas, …” Ha! Name one big tech idea he had that ever panned out.
“DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS”
“DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS”
Actually, it wasn’t the $150 million that Apple needed… they could have most likely gotten a bank loan for that (or from Sun or Xerox). What they needed was the Microsoft commitment to keep developing Office so that small business users wouldn’t abandon the Mac.
Neither issue alone was a game changer, but the PR value of getting both helped Apple a bunch ….
Stealing patents huh? How does one do that? I’m sure you can actually back up your statements with facts, proof and references instead of sounding like a mindless fanboy. Right?
I’m not sure any company would just give money to a competitor just for the sake of giving them money. You would have to assume that Apple (Jobs) had enough leverage to make the deal appealing for Microsoft.
I remember reading when this deal was going through that it had something to do with NeXT (Steve Jobs) having patents on some IP (intellectual property) that Windows NT was using. Which of course I’m sure Jobs used as leverage.
Then there was the on going previous lawsuits due to Microsoft “borrowing” other Apple IP, which Apple agreed to drop if Microsoft invested in Apple. This probably helped both companies due to the legal fees with these types of lawsuits.
Plus Microsoft’s back was up against the wall due to the DOJ investigating them. They certainly didn’t want to be split up.
Of course Apple’s had more than it’s share of problems. One being not enough cash on hand.
All that (and probably more) is what I think brought both sides to the table to hash out terms of the deal. Did it save Apple? It certainly helped Apple shore up investor confidence. Which I think was ultimately Steve Jobs goal with the deal.
So once again Ballmer is wrong, because Microsoft didn’t approach Apple to be a white knight and save Apple. It was Steve Jobs approaching Microsoft and being able to work a deal with Microsoft that saved Apple.
Isn’t it 20/20 hindsight a bitch?
The reality is that Ballmer, almost single-handedly, nearly sank Microsoft. Apple was on life support and came back stronger and more relevant to the future of computing, no thanks to MS. While Apple was changing the world, Ballmer was counting his billions and acting like an ass.
ballmer FAILS to mention that bailing out apple saved m$ from anti-monopoly legislation in the usa – m$ could then say, with a straight face, that they were NOT a monopoly
I’ll join in on the Balmer hate. He killed the Courier – could have put iPad in it’s place. I do like Windows 8, but not as much as iOS.
Surface is the spiritual successor of the Courier. The Surface line single handedly would’ve killed iPad had they been launched a quarter ahead.
“Surface line single handedly would’ve killed iPad had they been launched a quarter ahead.”
Surface only exits as a panicked response to the iPad There was never any possibility of its launching before the iPad.
No. The Tablet PC was first launched in 2003. The Surface is clearly a technologically much improved and refined version of that.
There were tablet pc’s way before 2003, they filled a niche but failed to become widespread because they ran a desktop os… just like the Surface has failed to sell for exactly the same reason. Win8/10 are just kludges to this problem, and the lack of developer interest in tablet optimised apps for these windows versions just shows how hard they have failed/are failing. The iPad pro would seem to be a response to enterprise demand (the kind of demand that MS can only dream of these days) and no doubt some pressure from IBM, SAP and the other big enterprise vendors (who incidentally have all standardised on iPad, while totally ignoring Surface/Win8/10), that’s all.
The stylus for the iPadpro, from the hands on that we’ve seen, is not really comparable from a technical point of view to the stylus that comes with the MS surface, and I would predict that it is going to be a big hit with artists. The software aspects of the apple version, ie much better latency, os integration etc, not to mention the fact that it offers improved functionality to a demographic already historically entrenched in apple gear, will just rub salt into the $10b MS wound that has been the surface I’m afraid.
The iPadpro keyboard however, I don’t like the look of and Im surprised that apple couldnt come up with a more elegant solution, but to suggest it was somehow copied off the surface is nonsense I’m afraid, as there were many 3rd party iPad keyboard type covers out before the Surface was even announced. You could legitimately claim that the surface copied these 3rd party iPad addons I suppose, but to try and argue the reverse doesn’t make much sense to me.
Both companies had visions of a tablet well before the 1990s. Heck, everybody did. Star Trek TNG depicted tablets (called –rather prophetically– ‘Personal Access Display Devices’ or PADDs) back in 1987.
Of course Apple had a good head start. It had already done the Apple Newton in 1993, on which the GUI of iOS was strongly based, so it was not surprising that their iPad was a well-implemented piece of kit. Microsoft meanwhile was too wedded to Windows –which is also why it rejected the Courier. Windows 8 was a very rough product, but Windows 10 actually works quite well as a desktop/tablet hybrid OS. The problem is that it is late to the party –everybody who wants a tablet already has an iPad or iPad-a-like Android tablet, and everybody who has a laptop/desktop doesn’t need a tablet interface. But as technology progresses tablets (and indeed mobiles) are starting to acquire the power of full-fat computers, so can take on the same functionality, and require a GUI that can handle all their usage scenarios.
In that department ironically Microsoft has a head start. An iPad can only be a tablet. A Surface can also be a PC. Heck, even the new Lumia mobiles can also be PCs, of sorts. Tablets, mobiles and PCs are converging, and we have yet to see how Apple will handle that –although I have no doubt that Apple will in the end come up with a thoughtful and elegant solution.
The tablet PC as envisaged by Microsoft was a nasty mess even MS couldn’t be bothered to market. It took Apple’s genius to perfect the touchscreen OS. There really is no comparison.
Whatever makes you happy. I’m discussing the history of computing, not religious belief (which I appreciate may to some people be almost the same thing. :P ). BTW Apple and Microsoft have had a patent cross-licencing agreement since about 2000. This was a consequence of Apple suing Microsoft over similarities in GUI between MacOS and Windows, only to get sued by Xerox in turn over similarities in GUI between Xerox Star and MacOS.
I’m calling it as I see it, since I have lived through the whole period of home computing from 1979 onwards. If you want to call my viewpoint lying, then perhaps you’re a bit too emotionally overinvested in this discussion and we should just end it here.
You forgot to say: ‘Amen’. :)
It’s cool; you believe whatever you want to believe.
Please remember that Courier NEVER EXISTED. It was VAPOURWARE designed to try and steal some if the iPad’s glory.
Not exactly. The Courier was already on the drawing board in 2008, two years before the iPad was released. Arguably Apple’s Knowledge Navigator was a similar concept (in shape at least), first conceptualised in 1987. Nothing new under the sun…
So how come we only got to hear about and see a mock-up of the Courier after the iPad was announced ? And how come it never actually existed ?
It’s very easy to claim something was better or a precursor when it never became reality…
Although the iPad was in development before 2008 (in fact, it was on the drawing board before the iPhone; the iPhone was basically a downsized iPad rapidly developed when mobile phones started to emerge as the next big thing) it was not actually announced until 27th January 2010 (Apple habitually keeping new products tightly under wraps right until launch). The Courier was first reported on in 2008, and videos of the Courier appeared on the internet 29th September 2009.
I never said it was better. I just refute your claim that it was a response to the iPad. It was never built because Ballmer and Gates did not see the point of it as it didn’t run Office or Windows (long story). The technology wasn’t quite up to it either –its double screen would have almost made it twice the cost and weight of the iPad.
But as I said, the “Who was first” is a moot argument. Microsoft launched a tablet first, in 2004. But both Apple and Microsoft had already floated the idea of a tablet in the 1990’s (as conceptual idea). Microsoft floated the Courier in 2008. Apple’s Knowledge Navigator concept –a very Courier-like device with two screens that opens like a book– was shown in a video in 1987. They also launched the Newton in 1993 –the first proper PDA, with an OS arguably far advanced of iOS, unfortunately not very successful because the technology simply was not up to it yet, a bit like with the Tablet PC in 2004.
Saving Apple was the best thing Microsoft ever did. Nothing gave the computer and mobile industry a much-needed kick up the arse as Apple did. Ballmer, meanwhile, was like a chronic, energy sapping disease.
I type this from my Surface 3 tethered to my Windows Mobile phone, BTW.
everything that’s wrong with humanity, all crammed into one odious, greedy, tiny minded, ugly, fat, sweaty tool of a man… that’s Balmer!!! :o) …let’s not forget though he was appointed by Gates as his right hand man, and Gates remained chairman of MS throughout Balmers ‘reign’ as CEO. IMO getting rid of Gates was this the best thing MS board ever did, the fact that his monkey stooge CEO went first was neither here nor there really.
Very well said. I’m so glad that I’ve lived to see the day Ballmer was forced to face reality.
No. Making Ballmer their CEO was the craziest thing MSFT ever did.
Microsoft enthusiasts appear keen on hypothetical situations in which proposed or ever-forthcoming MS products somehow improve on the real ones made by Apple, so may I float this for discussion?
How much would MS stock now be worth if Ballmer had been fired when either:
a) Mac OS became the predominant system of choice for high end, high margin customers.
b) When MS realised that the iPhone/iOS ecosystem was light years ahead of anything they could produce.
Ballmer and the devisive management practices he encouraged were a disaster for MS, and it will take another decade (if ever) for them to recover.
Last point: the aspiration of all my 15-year old kid’s mates is to own a MacBook Pro. Not one dreams of having a Windows laptop or phone. A small point, but a telling one.
Craziest thing MS did was to to keep Ballmer on board to sink the ship.
No, appointing Ballmer CEO after Bill Gates retired and letting him sit there that long presiding over one fiasco after another (Longhorn, Windows CE, Zune, Kin, Nokia etc.) is the craziest thing Microsoft ever did.
Actually I have to back Lard Vader here. This series of events (including stated quotes) is well-known history to any self-respecting computer geek. I’m really quite surprised that it is news to you.