Pirates of Silicon Valley-Microsoft steals from Apple

peestandingup asked:

Here is the true story of when it all goes down. This is the part when Steve Jobs & Apple find out that Bill Gates & Microsoft have stolen Apple’s OS, changed some things around & are calling it their own (Windows). *Clip taken from the TNT movie Pirates of Silicon Valley starring Noah Wyle & Anthony Michael Hall, directed by Martyn Burke.

Related Posts

bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark


  1. 00012938 Says:

    Windows hardware? since when does Windows make hardware?

  2. aoclarkejr Says:

    apple is #1…haha let me see you custom build your own mac like you could a PC and than play Crysis on it with Very High Settings

  3. JoDoGonzales Says:


  4. ShellyDrift Says:

    Apple is #1

  5. ian4serena Says:

    osx is always better than windows tho apple hardware fails offten and is expensihve while windows hardware is more relable and chaper.

  6. jdroker Says:

    bill gates scares me

  7. chrisbarretto Says:

    Yeah, a good call. OS 10.6 will have built-in Exchange support, but Apple is still making no marketing effort for enterprise which frankly astounds me.
    As for fanboism, it definitely goes both ways, but for some reason it’s the militant Apple kids that piss me off more. Guess I’m part of the jaded old crowd. :P

  8. themarman Says:

    haha… DX on Zune. I won’t be surprise though, if its not already there, MS is game enough to try anything once :) They are not afraid to be called uncool, thats for sure.

  9. themarman Says:

    Its not just licensing fees per device because you still have support contract. Its the most lucrative sector of the market. You can’t dis the enterprise bro… that is where Apple needs to go to get to the top. Its the enterprise that gives computing products its economy of scale. They should dump this militant religious fanaticism propaganda and just do business. Stop using unsuspecting users as evangelist for their wares. Not you, I hope :) , you seemed pretty switched on. But I’ve met enough.

  10. chrisbarretto Says:

    DX on a Zune? Hot damn. Keen for some Gears? :D :P

  11. themarman Says:

    Come now, you know there is a fiscal crisis all over the planet, but like it or not Xbox is doin’ the deed.
    About OpenGL, it was already a mature library which dominated the gaming industry when DX was still on the drawing board. Compare their user base now. OpenGL is a great spec but it just handles graphic subsystem while DX is a complete game development library (graphics, sound,network, input, etc) and most of the time bleeding edge hardware only have support for DX… next stop the Zune :)

  12. chrisbarretto Says:

    It doesn’t matter how profitable Win Mo is in its present state. The iPhone is still a relatively new product, and already it has exceeded Win Mo’s marketshare. That’s not even mentioning RIM. How long has Win CE been around again? 2002 I think? Talk about growth. Win CE is getting sidelined pretty bad, and it doesn’t matter whether enterprise customers are buying them or no because MS is just licensing the OS to manufacturers and earns the same fees either way.

  13. chrisbarretto Says:

    Of course I believe what I say is true, or we wouldn’t still be at it :P . Yeah, the 360 is doing so well their xbox division only recently started to turn a yearly profit (which means it’s still overall totally unprofitable for MS). MS has laid off their flight simulator team and Ensemble studios. Last I checked, the Wii was owning. But to bring it back to the original point, it seems the Xbox, intended to replace OpenGL with DirectX in the console market, has totally failed in its aims.

  14. themarman Says:

    Then Windows Mobile, admittedly you don’t see them in the hands of teenagers. But they got enterprise mobility pegged. Mobile data devices are running Windows Mobile and they are the one that pay big bucks. So while Apple is squeezing thousand dollar revenue for every thousand iPhone sold to the public. Windows Mobile is making hundreds of thousand for every hundred sold in licensing fee. Man you are watching the game but you sure are not getting it.

  15. themarman Says:

    Sore spot? Sure cause I own the joint. You say your piece as if they are true :]. All of those products that you called out have a story on their and your lumping them together as if it should mean something in this discussion. Lets take the XBox, they where a late comer on the market now their console only lags behind Nintendo. Profit is not impressive yet but they knew it will be a stiff climb. There are more games for Xbox 360 than PS3 and Wii on the shelves.

  16. themarman Says:

    All CISCO has to prove is that they were not forcing their customers to buy a service system in order to get critical patches. Which is clearly not the case with most modern commercial OS. Yes when Apple hit that proverbial market share they will be forced to strip down their offering. The point is each of this corporation will protect their turf as far as legally possible.

  17. chrisbarretto Says:

    And how are those products not relevant? Because they don’t represent MS’ fantastic business strategy? Must have hit a sore spot. :P The point is that MS abused their monopoly position to stifle competing to Windows and Office, but that when they enter are new market and are forced to actually *compete* the market consistently rejects their poor products. Monopoly is not a strong business model, and Apple ably demonstrates this by running circles round them these days.

  18. chrisbarretto Says:

    That sounds like one amazing codec. It must crack the iPod’s hash, which would be contrary to the iPod’s EULA. Not relevant. CISCO successfully defended antitrust litigation based on the argument that their products won out on their merits, so there’s no point waiting for Apple to hit an arbitrary marketshare for them to become a ‘monopoly’.

  19. themarman Says:

    There is always a level of coercion in business. Apple takes control of every facet of their products. Mac is bundled up tight, the only reason the anti-trust is not stepping in is because they do not yet have critical mass. Try selling a proprietary audio codec that will allow iPod to play any audio format and Apple’s legal will be on your behind before you can spend your first sale. I know enough to say that every product and technology you mentioned here are being invoked out of context.

  20. chrisbarretto Says:

    iPods succeeded based on their relative merits in a competitive free market. MS succeeded by locking consumers into Windows through exclusive OEM deals and using its monopoly to try to kill its competition (eg OS/2, Java and the Web, Quicktime, OpenGL, Linux), artificially locking any upstarts out of the market. The Zune, Mira displays, Spot Watches (and other things you may never have heard of), Xboxes and Windows mobile are examples of MS totally failing when consumers have a choice.

  21. themarman Says:

    I’m the retard because I’m the one who makes logical leaps in my argument, are you able to make sense of the world at all? RIM was there first so blackberry sales being higher than iPhone is not surprising but on the computer side Apple was there before MS.
    And Gdrive? Seriously corporations love people like you, you lap up the hype, don’t bother with the details and can be called to arms if need be, what a perfect little consumer. Try a critical thought once in a while might do you some good.

  22. themarman Says:

    I was not drawing any conclusion in my last statement, I was just answering your question.
    If a company can loose money in so many front and still remain top honcho what does that tell you about their business model? Market share and profitability are not mutually exclusive to businesses in this scale.
    I find it curious however that when Apple is a market leader, like in the case of the the iPod, the number argument is deemed sensible but when MS is a market leader it doesn’t. Double standards?

  23. chrisbarretto Says:

    Apple’s main profits are from its iPods. The market totally rejected the MS Zune which was expressly positioned as an ‘iPod killer’. MS did participate in the music player market, even if they bombed. Consider other markets MS has failed to profit from – watches and video gaming come to mind. Apple seems to have more free market success as a leaner company.
    I take your point about saturation. But your conclusion doesn’t follow. Is their business better because of market share or profitability?

  24. keriah17 Says:

    wat i was saying retard is since M$ force all of their stuff explorer etc together in a package and ship with differnt companies hp dell toshiba etc oviously they will sell more and not because their products is better, its like blackberry and the iphone there’s 2 iphones and zillionz of crackberry so oviously they’ll outsell the iphone, anyways back to OS all of M$ crap will end now that google will put out their Gdrive.

  25. LessthanJake14 Says:

    Why Macintosh?! Why is it named after a type of coat?


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment