Palm + Microsoft: Second Sign of the Apocalypse
September 26th, 2005 | by Rob Enderle
Palm + Microsoft: Second Sign of the Apocalypse
There were four things in the technology industry that were generally seen as impossible: The first, was a shift to Intel by Apple, the second, a shift to Microsoft by Palm, with the third, being a shift to Microsoft by Sun and the fourth, a shift to Microsoft by Apple. We could argue that there is now a fifth: A shift to Open Source by Microsoft. Of these five, two have now happened and three, are related to Apple (Palm, spun off of Apple). It is interesting to note, that Sun is now getting along with Microsoft and Microsoft is leaning more and more towards an Open Source model over time.
The power of being flexible shouldn't be lost on anyone. The one product line that Apple has which is dominant in its space, runs on Windows (iPod) and Apple has been, over time, making their PC platform more and more interoperable with Microsoft's which has helped it survive. It is interesting to note, and few seem to remember, that Microsoft helped Apple write the first MacOS under a project code named "sand" http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm over two decades ago, but, like most Apple partnerships, this one ended badly.
As Palm was largely founded from Apple's Newton group, it is interesting to see that the company maintains its dominance, despite taking an alternative path to that followed by Apple themselves. First, spinning off its OS group which, after failing to protect Sony or grow its vendor base, recently sold its name and lost its independence. The second, partnering with Microsoft to go after markets neither Palm nor Apple are equipped for.
Palm + Microsoft + Verizon
Palm, like Apple, has had a strong small business and consumer base of customers but has been unable to penetrate through to larger companies. Microsoft, has been unable to get a hardware partner to build a communicator as compelling as the Treo or the RIM. The combination of these two, coupled with what is arguably the strongest of the US telecom providers, creates a powerful partnership which will be very hard to match. Slated to appear on Palm's next generation product in a few months, this demonstrates the kind of power that should have been seen on the recent Motorola/Apple iTunes phone, but wasn't.
Going forward, given the advancements in technology, this Palm/Microsoft communicator, should not only provide a strong alternative to the phones and portable computers many now buy, but will also come equipped with media capability, potentially exceeding the iPod. With a Palm user experience which rivals Apple's, that being no surprise given Palm's Apple roots, this could be the next big thing.
Challengers
However, it won't enter the market unchallenged. HP has improved their own device, which, whilst having a strong industrial design and an improved user experience, is more of a corporate offering right now. The new Motorola RAZR smart phone is predominantly a consumer offering, but has a stunning design and is a vastly better joint product then the ROKR shared with Apple. RIM clearly won't go down without a fight and this will make for an interesting year, particularly because I think RIM is the long shot now.
For individual buyers, it will come down to a choice between the Palm/Microsoft Treo and the Motorola/Microsoft RAZR, assuming of course that they move to this class of product. It is to be noted, that Microsoft wins regardless; by showcasing the power of partnering: A path that Apple could have, but chose not to travel upon.
Post Your Comment...Comments
RX8 on Sep 27th, 2005 at 6:25 AM:
Where did he say that? I did not get that impression.
buddyL on Sep 27th, 2005 at 8:33 AM:
I know MS was contracted to write office software for the Lisa and that relationship required MS to have a prototype for development. Miraculously, Windows appeared shortly thereafter. You do the math. Apple didn't "steal" from Xerox. Apple made use of technology that Xerox gladly demo'd but saw no practical use for. There's a great book out there called Fire in the Valley...
OoTLink on Sep 27th, 2005 at 2:31 PM:
"It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly."
Look at that closely RX8 ;)
I think I might have just caught that as a typo or something -- maybe he meant for the first MacOS or something..
And yes, buddyL, you are right. Windows did come in that fashion, and could have very well "borrowed" -- I'm not surprised if it did, however the early versions looked (embarrassingly) bad to me lol. If anything, they ran with the idea and produced a really bad ripoff, that I will agree about. Then again, windows got popular due to its existence on the x86 platform, not its quality.
My apologies for going nuts on that first post, and feel free to correct me, but I still haven't heard of MS writing the first MacOS heheh.
Anon E. Mouse on Sep 27th, 2005 at 3:05 PM:
Palm was spun off of U.S. Robotics. It was never owned by Apple, in part or in whole.
TechFreak on Sep 27th, 2005 at 5:32 PM:
To Anon, he says the Newton group, I assumed he referred to the people that were in the group, not Apple itself. Perhaps the Newton group left Apple?
BTW why is everyone trying to attack Rob with corrections rather than trying to understand the big picture he is trying to show us?
RX8 on Sep 27th, 2005 at 5:37 PM:
Thanks for pointing it out and patronizing me OoTLink. Have any proof Microsoft didn't do that for Apple?
Anon E. Mouse on Sep 27th, 2005 at 6:13 PM:
No, he says in paragraph 1:
> (Palm, spun off of Apple)
Anyways, I typed too fast. U.S. Robotics sold Palm to 3Com who spun off Palm with an IPO in the early dotcom days.
The story of the writing of the MacOS is pretty well documented. Microsoft was completely uninvolved except that Jobs mistakenly showed Bill Gates and other MSers an early prototype and they went back and started their own version.
There are hundreds of books that describe this from first hand accounts. Hell, most of the parties are still alive. Getting the backstory right helps with your arguments tremendously.
Anon E. Mouse on Sep 27th, 2005 at 6:34 PM:
One more thing (noticed by someone else, I won't take credit for this one) Motorola has two new phones coming out. The Motorola Q uses Windows Mobile 5.0 Smartphone (the non-touch screen flavor), and the Motorola V3X (the follow on to the RAZR) which doesn't use a Microsoft OS and isn't a smart phone at all.
This article really wasn't researched very well.
TechFreak on Sep 28th, 2005 at 1:10 AM:
Wow I guess so, thanks for pointing this out. Good thing this is an opinion piece under the commentary section, otherwise I would have held Designtechnica in contempt!
Shaking Head on Sep 28th, 2005 at 3:02 PM:
Sigh. Oh my, is this guy a moron or what? Over and over he writes this kind of poorly researched, inaccuate and sometimes downright wrong crap and people KEEP paying him to write more? I am incredulous.
Bambi Hambi on Sep 28th, 2005 at 3:08 PM:
Wow!
" It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly."
I've never ever heard or read anything to resemble that. Come on, Rob, fix that error.
Here's another...
"With a Palm user experience which rivals Apple's, that being no surprise given Palm's Apple roots..."
What Apple roots? Can you say, US Robotics, Rob. Not Apple.
Rob, you need a vacation. Really. You're watching too much FoxNews.
Bambi Hambi
Mac360
rob on Sep 28th, 2005 at 3:18 PM:
alright. i've read your non-sensicle dribble long enough. this one takes the cake.
"It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly" WTF are you talking about, you two bit f*&%ing moron?!!?
Jeff Raskin of APPLE wrote the macintosh GUI. The original Apple OS was written by APPLE Emplyees. Get your facts straight. Microsoft BOUGHT DOS. BILL GATES AND MICROSOFT WROTE NO CODE!!!!
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099...
How the hell are you still employed as a Tech writer??!!??
"Shortly after the release of the Apple II in 1977, it was realized that a disk drive was imperative for th computer. Wozniak created a brilliant design for a floppy disk drive, the Disk II, and thus there wa need for a disk operating system (DOS). Apple's first version of a DOS was released as Apple DOS 3.1 i July 1978
Note that this was unrelated to Microsoft's popular MS-DOS. During a time when it was a luxury t have disk drives, and for an operating system to support them, many such "disk operating systems had the term DOS in their names
The first release was called 3.1 and not something like 1.0 because one of the implementers, Pa l Laughton, incremented a revision counter x.y every time he recompiled the source code: t started with x = 0, y = 1, and every time y reached 9, x was incremented by 1. Apple DOS w s beta tested as version 3.
V-Train on Sep 28th, 2005 at 3:32 PM:
The amount of wrong information in this article is just amazing. Since the "Microsoft created Mac OS" BS has already been covered, I will focus on another area:
"As Palm was largely founded from Apple's Newton group"
"that being no surprise given Palm's Apple roots"
Well, that's interesting considering Palm was founded in 1992, before the Newton was even released. Palm was founded by Jeff Hawkins & Donna Dubinsky, neither of whom had ANYTHING to do with the Newton.
Jeff Hawkins was the lead inventor of the Pilot and Palm OS. He has NEVER worked for Apple, and certainly not on the Newton. So where exactly are these "Apple roots"?!
Bob Endlessly on Sep 28th, 2005 at 3:48 PM:
Not even Steve Balmer would try to suggest MS wrote MacOS! If this was a typo, then sack the editor!
Though in Rob's defence he does not claim Palm was ever actually part of Apple, only that many of the Newton team were involved in it. This is as far as I know correct.
The "big picture" - everything is changing. But then isn't it always? The sky isn't falling...yet.
When Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get up on stage together and announce "We've found the future of computing, and it's Linux" then I'll be shocked. Though not as shocked as I would have been six months ago.
Peter Taylor on Sep 28th, 2005 at 4:19 PM:
Rob,
Like the Republicans,you can say ANYTHING, but that doesn't make it true.
You give every tech writer a bad name.
Andrew Pingrey on Sep 28th, 2005 at 4:31 PM:
Quote: "It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly."
Just to clear this up... Rob Enderle is obviously thinking of OS/2. It was a major coup for Microsoft since they could port much of their project work into Windows NT while letting IBM foot the bill.
Just to refresh your memory... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
Bruce Chapman on Sep 28th, 2005 at 4:38 PM:
Tech Freak "BTW why is everyone trying to attack Rob with corrections rather than trying to understand the big picture he is trying to show us?"
I agree entirely. We at the Discovery Institute prefer to start with an idea of what the big picture is and then find or or modify the evidence to support it. The true proof of a theory's strength is it's elegance, and when a few facts need to be reorganized then so be it.
M. T. MacPhee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 4:56 PM:
"...few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago...."
Hey, Rob. Count me in. I am one of the many that doesn't remember that. Possibly you could furnish some references for us? Thanks, Rob.
Mike
M. T. MacPhee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 4:56 PM:
I believe Rob may have been concussed by a tipping iMac G5.
Mike
Marvin Price on Sep 28th, 2005 at 5:11 PM:
Is this what it has come to?
Poor beleaguered Microsoft has a can of worms in their OS, so beyond repair that all their supporters can do now is claim that MS wrote the Mac OS?
Computing Historian on Sep 28th, 2005 at 5:34 PM:
Mr. Enderle:
You are either hopelessly misinformed or deliberately trying to revise history to suit your own (misinformed) conception of how things happened. Either way, dude, you're misinformed.
Microsoft wrote *application* software for the original Mac OS, which was developed by Apple.
Microsoft wrote Microsoft Word for the Mac. It was available on the Mac for a couple years before Windows even hit the market. In the meantime, the only operating system Microsoft had to offer was MS-DOS.
In order to write applications for Mac OS, Microsoft obtained a copy of operating system under NDA (non-disclosure agreement).
They saw the potential in Apple's Mac OS and in the application they had just written for it. They realized that they were about to miss the boat.
Miraculously, the first version of Windows appeared a few years *after* Mac OS was well-established.
Figure it out, you ignorant putz. Bill Gates and is the DARTH VADER in this story, not LUKE SKYWALKER. Microsoft is the EVIL EMPIRE and you are a s#$t-spouting minion.
T Thompson on Sep 28th, 2005 at 6:24 PM:
It's really great that so many people have so well pointed out all of the guesswork, misinformation, lack of research, etc. in this piece. Personally, I had a hard time even getting to the point of the article because of the lack of writing skills or even knowledge of basic grammar! English teachers, take this as a case in point of what happens when you don't teach your students how properly to puncuate! I guess Enderle gets paid by the comma...
MacFhearghaijle on Sep 28th, 2005 at 7:22 PM:
Hard to believe the guy gets paid for this kind of drivel. What a pin head. If I invested on Rob's advice I would be broke in short order.
fungku on Sep 28th, 2005 at 8:40 PM:
For those of you who dont believe Microsoft was helped not only develop a piece of the MacOS, but was critical in developing applications for it, read the link in the article:
http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft...
In 1977:
- Microsoft's flat fee of $21,000 for what becomes Applesoft BASIC seems like a good idea at the time, until Apple sells more than a million machines with BASIC built in. Put your calculators away; it works out to 2 cents per copy.
In 1978:
- Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak wrote Integer BASIC, the first language available for the machine. But it was quickly supplanted in popularity by Microsoft Applesoft BASIC.
- Microsoft developed its first 6502-based BASIC for the Commodore and sold the source code to Apple.
- Introduced in 1977 and licensed to Apple, Applesoft BASIC offered a richer set of programming commands as well as floating-point arithmetic, allowing for the development of the first generation of business-oriented applications. Applesoft BASIC was first made available on tape and disk, then provided in ROM on the popular Apple II Plus. In addition, the company offered the Applesoft Compiler for customers who wanted the faster performance possible with compiled code.
1980:
- 4/2/80Softcard and Apple II Microsoft SoftCard -one of the company's first hardware products- made it possible to run programs designed for the CP/M operating system on the Apple II.
Microsoft announces the Microsoft Z-80 SoftCard, a microprocessor on a printed circuit board that plugs into the Apple II computer and allows owners to run thousands of programs available for the 8080/Z-80 class of computers with only minor modifications. Microsoft will provide BASIC, FORTRAN, and COBOL languages for the Z-80 SoftCard. (A version for the ill-fated Apple III was also available.) SoftCard was an enormous success in early-day computer terms, and Microsoft sold more than 100,000 units between 1977 and 1982.
1984:
- Microsoft takes a leading role in developing software for the Apple Macintosh computer. The company ships Microsoft BASIC and Microsoft Multiplan simultaneously with the introduction of the Macintosh. Microsoft also announces that Word, Chart, and File will ship soon.
Microsoft's original software development work for Macintosh was code-named "SAND" for "Steve's Amazing New Device".
- Bill Gates attended the introduction of the Apple Macintosh computer on January 20, 1984, and appeared in the original Macintosh brochure standing alongside Mitch Kapor of Lotus and Fred Gibbons of Software Publishing.
- SAND was a fitting tribute to Apple's Steve Jobs, who oversaw the Macintosh project. Excited by the possibilities of a commercially viable machine with a graphical user interface, Microsoft made an early and major commitment to Macintosh development and has consistently been among the most successful of all software companies in development for the Macintosh marketplace. The company shipped two products -BASIC and Multiplan- on the same day the Macintosh was introduced, followed closely by Word, Chart, and File.
- Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh, Microsoft is positioned to be the leading developer of applications for the machine, offering BASIC, Multiplan, File, Word, and Chart.
I'd have to say Microsoft was a major contributor to not only the early Mac operating systems, but provided a ton of functionality for the users.
Tantrum on Sep 28th, 2005 at 8:43 PM:
hahhaa fungku owned you all
fungku 1
Apple Zealots 0
Aurélien on Sep 28th, 2005 at 10:03 PM:
It is interesting that even the "source" the author quotes doesn't even corroborate what he is saying about the relationship between Apple and Microsoft. And the website quoted can barely stand as a reference.
Tantrum on Sep 28th, 2005 at 10:06 PM:
To Aurelien,
http://www.thocp.net/ appears to be a pretty legit site to me. I think you just don't want it to be since you are drinking the Apple koolaid.
;)
Aurélien on Sep 28th, 2005 at 10:50 PM:
kungfu, not only the article you quote nowhere says Microsoft helped in any way writing the Mac OS, but this article has no authority whatsoever and could have been written by anyone. Read the disclaimer at the end of the article.
SAND was apparently the codename for developping Applications FOR Mac OS, and not Mac OS itself. Read http://www.folklore.org to read how it was developped, this is actually written by the guys who wrote the first Mac OS.
Try quoting relevant stuff.
Tantrum on Sep 28th, 2005 at 10:54 PM:
Aurélien, you just sound sore homie. No one cares about your precious Apple, well ok, maybe 1% of the people out there ;)
M. T. MacPhee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 10:58 PM:
"Microsoft's original software development work for Macintosh was code-named "SAND" for "Steve's Amazing New Device"."
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Microsoft's original name for the *Macintosh* was SAND (Steve's Amazing New Device).
Here is a factual reference:
"After an invite for a site visit from Apple, Microsoft was able to glimpse this brand new future of Graphical User Interfaces, particularly embodied by what was phlegmatically code-named SAND by Microsoft, (Steve's Amazing New Device,) the glorious
Macintosh. Microsoft were shown this technology early on, as it was a significant player in the microcomputer software industry, whose application software support was eagerly sought by Apple, to help cement the availability of business apps for the fledgling PC-killer."
Now doesn't that make a lot more sense?
For more go to:
As for you fungku and Tantrum (and Enderle), please, please go take a computing science course or two (as I have) so that you can understand the difference between an "Operating System" such as MacOS, compared to a computer language such as BASIC, or a business application such as Multiplan.
Every early Mac user knows that Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel were developed for the Mac. Yes. Microsoft wrote some applications for the Mac. NOT THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
Revised Score:
Tantrum -5
Enderle and fungku Ejected from game for incompetence.
Mac Zealots: 2 (1 for the original mistake,
1 for making it worse.)
M. T. MacPhee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 11:00 PM:
That link again:
< http://www.cyber.com.au/users/conz/the_penguin_and... >
M. T. MacPhee on Sep 28th, 2005 at 11:02 PM:
OK. Lets try this for the link:
< http://tinyurl.com/cxbh6 >
Tantrum on Sep 28th, 2005 at 11:07 PM:
Yeah but I still win because I have 99% of the computing world backing me ;)
The Apple doesn't fall too far from the tree I guess eh guys? BTW This Mac OS is pretty nice on my Intel based system! Looks like I get an OS for free and still get to keep Windows for REAL work tsk tsk. You fault forever and STILL lost your precious OS and hardware - how dumb.
Tantrum -2
M.T. - 1 (I gave you a point for trying)
Enderle - 1 (He's got balls, give him credit for that!)
themotie on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:52 AM:
To fungku:
No one has ever denied that MS wrote software, including basic, for apple's computers. That has nothing to do with the MacOS, which had no MS input whatsoever.
To Tantrum:
No, you do not have 99 % of the computing world behind you. Windows (sadly) "has" about 90 % of the computing world, but even most windows users would agree that you are out on left field on this one. Platform evangelism and historical facts are two separate things, you know.
Apart from that, you can whine all you like, but I know a superior platform when I see one ;)
As to Bob, the best I can hope for (for his sake) is that he doesn't see the difference between the Apple II and the Mac, since MS's involvement in the Apple II was somewhat more conspicuos. But even there it is stretching it a bit, to say they helped to write the OS. I'm not surprised though. It's truly mindboggling how often Bob is so wrong, especially when it comes to things Apple. Sometimes he is nice to Apple, mind you, so I don't bash him for being anti-Apple, which he really isn't. He is just plain wrong. And I can't take that as anything else than that he truly doesn't know and/or understand what he is talking about.
Tantrum on Sep 29th, 2005 at 1:49 AM:
To themotie
"Apart from that, you can whine all you like, but I know a superior platform when I see one ;)"
And who cares what you think? Are you a person of importance? I think not.
90%, 99% whats the difference? Apple still loses in the market share game. Get real, you are defending a minority. If it was better, more people would have an Apple computer. Ever think about that?
Let me guess, the superiority of the Apple is a little secret ;)
csimmons on Sep 29th, 2005 at 3:30 AM:
Tantrum,
I know I'm stating the obvious, and I'll probably get banned for saying this, but you're pretty stupid.
CrayMan on Sep 29th, 2005 at 4:14 AM:
I have just TWO words for Mr. Enderle, DRUG TEST. This non-researched dribble you author is ridiculous. Clearly, you are on the MicroSoft payroll.
What's next, Seymour Cray stole the supercomputer from Microsoft??
I've taken the liberty of forwarding several of Mr. Enderle's outlandish 'articles' to WSJ and others who might consider publishing his work, with proper documentation to demonstrate how fictitious this crap really is.
btw, It appears Mr. Enderle may need the services of an attorney real soon. First Amendment doesn't protect his form of 'journalism'. But, it should not be a problem with those big checks coming in from Microsoft, right?
Dan on Sep 29th, 2005 at 6:11 AM:
This is the problem with journalism today. No fact checking. He may be trying to get a bigger picture across, but if he can't get even the most basic facts straight, I can't believe his big picture is even correct. Today's journalism=sad. :(
David on Sep 29th, 2005 at 6:15 AM:
Wow.... so many great stories but do you have any facts.
First Microsoft writing MacOS.... The Mac team sure enjoys this.
Palm and Apple not hardly..... As a beta tester for Graffitti, Palm made it an add-on for Newton. Palm did great when Newton died and made a great OS and product of the second generation of the PDA.
Oh bye the way.... Apple is still seeing great demand for its G4 and G5 computers....even if Mr. Enderle said demand was drying up in August.
Sean on Sep 29th, 2005 at 6:25 AM:
" It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly. "
What has Enderle been smoking?
fungku on Sep 29th, 2005 at 9:07 AM:
Sean,
What crack are you smoking? It says Microsoft "helped" write the OS.
If you all missed my posting above, and to those that have and said I was still wrong, I'll quote this fact again:
- Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh, Microsoft is positioned to be the leading developer of applications for the machine, offering BASIC, Multiplan, File, Word, and Chart. Organizationally, Microsoft separates its systems and applications groups and creates a hardware and peripherals division. Work continues on Windows, but May, September, and year-end dates all slip as product definition and development go through constant evolutions and reevaluations.
Please note "Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh, Microsoft is positioned to be the leading developer of applications for the machine."
If you think MS could write AppleSoft Basic and not work with Apple, and Apple work with them, with components of the OS so that their products could work so that they could be shipped on the SAME day as the OS, you all are mighty blind.
Taking a couple CS classes does not make you a expert at computer history. I dont claim be an expert at computer history either, but I do know how to read.
I have been in the software business for 7 years, with my first two at Microsoft. I have installed and played with Windows 1.0 (let me tell you, its not pretty.) If you think a company can product something as significant as Basic AND a code to run compiled Basic programs on an OS without having a two way road of communication with the makers of the OS at the juncture of the MacOS, then there is nothing anyone can say to prove your thoughts wrong.
I've owned various Apple computers, etc. The difference is I have an open mind. I dont drink the MS coolaid, and I dont drink the Apple coolaid.
WhtKnight on Sep 29th, 2005 at 9:31 AM:
Rob, you are a moron! And moron's shouldn't be writing. Microsoft never wrote the first Mac OS. Man you are such a douche!
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 10:38 AM:
To fungku:
I don't know what you've been smoking, but nowhere in your argument do you support your contention that Microsoft "helped write the Mac OS." In fact, the sequence of events would suggest quite the opposite.
Rob, pay attention. This is how good journalism is done. First you research your material.
Read the early Microsoft timeline at
http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft...
Prior to 1980, Microsoft was a language publisher. They were completely immersed in establishing themselves as the predominant language vendor, and everything they did revolved around BASIC, FORTRAN and COBOL.
Microsoft didn't have an operating system in 1980. They had never written an operating system before, and they didn't write MS-DOS.
MS-DOS was originally called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System). It was written in four months in early 1980 by Tim Paterson, to be used on an 8086 computer kit being marketed by Seattle Computer Products.
In December 1980, Microsoft purchased a nonexclusive license to redistribute QDOS from Seattle Computer Products for $25,000. Microsoft did some very minor work on it, repackaged it as PC-DOS and marketed it to IBM.
In July 1981, one month prior to the IBM PC's introduction, Microsoft purchased all rights to QDOS for $50,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QDOS
At that point, Microsoft was all about the command-line interface. They didn't have a *clue* that there was any alternative. Quoting directly from the "Microsoft company history":
"In mid-1981, Steve Jobs of Apple visits Microsoft to give a sneak preview of the revolutionary Macintosh computer. Microsoft becomes the first major company to develop products for the Mac."
[ Note that the word is "products", not "operating systems." ]
"11/10/83 Microsoft unveils Microsoft Windows, an extension of the MS-DOS operating system that provides a graphical operating environment. Windows features a window management capability that allows a user to view unrelated application programs simultaneously. It also provides the capability to transfer data from one application program to another."
[ Wow. Imagine that. Two years *after* that preview, where Apple contracted Microsoft to write application software for the Mac, Microsoft reveals that it's stolen the family jewels, grafted them onto MS-DOS -- another product that MS *didn't write* -- and intends to release them as commercial software. ]
"Bill Gates attended the introduction of the Apple Macintosh computer on January 20, 1984, and appeared in the original Macintosh brochure standing alongside Mitch Kapor of Lotus and Fred Gibbons of Software Publishing."
"11/20/85 Microsoft announces the retail shipment of Microsoft Windows, an operating system, which extends the features of the DOS operating system. Windows provides users with the ability to work with several programs at the same time and easily switch between them without having to quit and restart individual applications."
---
It was nearly *two years* after the Apple Mac hit the market before Windows 1.0 shipped.
Microsoft wrote *applications* for the Mac. They did not help write the Mac OS. They *stole* the idea of a graphical operating system from Apple.
Try this link: "The Mac Turns 20" http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114418,0...
"In 1984, three leading software CEOs pledged to support the new system. Mitch Kapor of Lotus promised a spreadsheet for the Mac, while Software Publishing's Fred Gibbons said the company would port its many popular applications to the new platform. But it was Bill Gates who delivered the most. Microsoft launched its Excel spreadsheet on the Macintosh, and released the first graphical version of Word for the Mac platform. It originally produced Multiplan, Word, and File for the Mac."
"The Macintosh marked the beginning of Microsoft's dominance of applications," Raburn says. "Windows is not the reason Microsoft dominated applications, it's because [Microsoft] had the head start of developing graphical apps on the Mac."
jo jo the dancer on Sep 29th, 2005 at 11:42 AM:
to fungku (and anyone else who didn't notice)
the line in contention has been changed. on 9/26 it stated "that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago ..."
now it clearly states " that Microsoft helped Apple write the first MacOS under a project code named "sand" http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft... over two decades ago ..."
now he's linking to a site which neither shows that microsoft created macOS, or "helped" create macOS.
this is not about the platform wars, this is about accountability in journalism. and as far as giving enderle credit for "having balls", he doesn't seem to have the cojones to admit when he's wrong.
fungku on Sep 29th, 2005 at 11:51 AM:
Microsoft was in the apple game way before 1980. You referenced the same site as I did for the information. How could you miss text stating
"Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh"
How can it get any clearer?
Hmm.. how about:
[Microsoft] provided [AppleSoft Basic] in ROM on the popular Apple II Plus.
No where does it say Microsoft wrote the OS, and according to Rob's article he isnt saying that. He said they helped Apple write the first OS. It doesnt mean they wrote 90%, 80%, 20%, or even 5%. It just means they collaberated. They HAD to if:
"The company shipped two products -BASIC and Multiplan- on the same day the Macintosh was introduced..."
How can you ship languages for an OS thats never been shipped before if you dont collaberate with each other? Do you think that during that time they didnt help each other? Do you think Microsoft just wrote basic blindly hoping that it would run? Dont you think Apple was very eager to get software that was ready to ship the same day, and would work those developers, taking suggestions from them to add things to the OS, fixing bugs they find, etc?
You truely are ignorant.
GoCatGo on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:35 PM:
fungku says: "You truely are ignorant."
That has to be one of the funniest things I've read in quite some time. Oh, the irony.
GoCatGo on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:35 PM:
This thread is simply another example of how our language is crumbling away. It has come to the point that so many words have lost their meaning -- or had their meaning confused or distorted -- that people can't communicate properly.
fungku says: "How could you miss text stating 'Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh'"
"During" does not equal "on."
The information flowed in the opposite direction you imply. Apple made information and code available to Microsoft to assure that the apps Microsoft was creating would run.
RX8 on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:41 PM:
Why is everyone focusing on a small mistake instead of trying to understand what the writers message is?
"There were four things in the technology industry that were generally seen as impossible: The first, was a shift to Intel by Apple, the second, a shift to Microsoft by Palm, with the third, being a shift to Microsoft by Sun and the fourth, a shift to Microsoft by Apple. We could argue that there is now a fifth: A shift to Open Source by Microsoft. Of these five, two have now happened and three, are related to Apple (Palm, spun off of Apple). It is interesting to note, that Sun is now getting along with Microsoft and Microsoft is leaning more and more towards an Open Source model over time."
I think that these Apple fans need to calm down and stop the personal attacks, I mean seriously. This discussion has gone downhill. I am really ashamed of my fellow Apple users.
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:49 PM:
To fungku:
> Microsoft was in the apple game way before 1980. You referenced the same site as I did for the information.
You're right, and I did so deliberately, so that everyone could see the spin that you're trying to put on its content in order to try and justify yours and Rob Enderle's distorted viewpoint.
You think that Microsoft is the be-all/end-all and the savior of modern society, and you distort every known fact in order to support the pathetic delusion that Microsoft did it first, was there first. I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.
> How could you miss text stating
> "Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh"
> How can it get any clearer?
What's clear from this statement is that Microsoft worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh. Period. Since Apple *already had* the Macintosh when they approached Microsoft to write *application software*, I would interpret this sentence to mean that Microsoft worked closely with Apple *to develop application software* during the development of the Mac.
Nothing that has been published *anywhere* indicates that Microsoft had any involvement whatsoever in the development of the actual Macintosh OS.
> Hmm.. how about:
> [Microsoft] provided [AppleSoft Basic] in ROM on the popular Apple II Plus.
That's a language, not an operating system. We've already established that in 1981, when Apple approached Microsoft to develop applications for the Mac, Microsoft was just getting around to *licensing* QDOS so they could sell it to IBM.
Get this through your head: when Apple went to Microsoft, MS was a *language vendor*. They had absolutely no experience writing operating systems. They had to purchase their first one from someone else! How can you blindly leap from that fact to asserting that Microsoft was suddenly so skilled that they were able to help Apple write a *graphical* operating system — something MS had never even *considered* until Steve Jobs demoed it for them?
Remember, this is all happening in 1981. MS is midstream in procuring the license to QDOS so they can get a stranglehold on IBM, and all of a sudden Steve Jobs shows up with the Mac and says, "Hey, check this out. Wanna write an application or two for this?" And Gates and company say, "Oh, f*#k. This thing is gonna blow IBM right out of the water. Now what are we gonna do? I know: we'll write a couple applications for it, and we'll learn everything we can and steal what we can't, and then we'll come out with our *own* version!"
> No where does it say Microsoft wrote the OS.
That is true. Nowhere except here in Rob Enderle's column does *anyone* claim that Microsoft wrote the Mac OS.
> according to Rob's article he isnt saying that. He said they helped Apple write the first OS.
Actually, yes, he did say that. Then he changed it to say that they had *helped* Apple write the OS.
> How can you ship languages for an OS thats never been shipped before if you dont collaberate with each other?
Let me put it this way. If I design a car — a totally new design — and then I contract you to build a radio for the car, does that mean that you helped me design the car? No! It means that you built the radio for the car! Nothing more, nothing less! I might have had to let you see the blueprints, maybe give you a working dashboard so that you could make sure the radio fit as it was intended, but does that mean you helped build the car? No!
Microsoft was contracted to build *application software* for the Mac. The fact that they had BASIC and MultiPlan available on the first day the Mac shipped simply means they met a deadline. I'm sure APPLE was very happy about that. I, too, would be happy if I didn't have to wait six months for you to deliver my car radio.
> You truely are ignorant.
Spoken like a true dropout. Learn to spell.
rsf on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:53 PM:
I don't know why I'm bothering, but here I go, lord help me...
fungku: "What crack are you smoking? It says Microsoft "helped" write the OS."
Fungku, the article has been modified since it was originally posted. You're referring to the *modified* version of the article. The original version stated "... Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago ...", which is patently incorrect under any interpretation of that phrase, as anyone with a slight knowledge of the history of microcomputers would know.
The current wording, "... Microsoft helped Apple write the first MacOS under a project code named "sand" ...", is only slightly less incorrect, as others have pointed out.
No one is denying that Microsoft was an important early Macintosh developer and supporter -- no one could, because that's a historical fact -- but that's not what Enderle said, either time. And if he can't support his argument with plainly written and accurate points, how are we supposed to take his conclusions seriously?
He *could* have written this: "... few seem to remember that Microsoft helped Apple launch the Macintosh by writing the some of the first important software applications for it over two decades ago ..." -- which would have supported his point as well as being factually accurate -- but he apparently wasn't able to do so.
[But that wouldn't have supported his ultimate thesis -- that Apple is a failure because it didn't license the Mac OS (see the last sentence). Of course, this is the thesis of *every* Enderle article on Apple. It must be killing him that Apple's stock is at an all-time high this week.]
Oh, and fungku -- re: "I have been in the software business for 7 years, with my first two at Microsoft" -- That's nice, son. I worked for the company that developed Macintosh Pascal, under contract to Apple, in 1984-85, at the time the events we're discussing took place. I would guess that you were in preschool then. So don't try to teach the history of microcomputing by quoting a single web page when people who were actually there know better.
Tantrum on Sep 29th, 2005 at 12:56 PM:
No offense RSF but you are an old timer. I think only 2 people ever used Macintosh Pascal, you and your mom. And if you are sticking with the Mac even now, chances are that you are unemployed since no one actually uses these machines.
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 1:01 PM:
To RX8:
It's not a personal attack, it's about journalistic integrity and accuracy.
Despite his twisted and illogical reasoning, Rob may actually come to a valid conclusion every so often. But he distorts, slants and skews known history to conveniently support his conclusions at every step along the way.
It's Rob Enderle's complete lack of accuracy -- and the fact that he doesn't bother to check his information before he makes these blatantly wrong assertions -- that I disagree with.
If you read an article asserting that it was the United States who killed 6 million Jews, not Nazi Germany, you'd be outraged, right? Why? Because that's *not what happened*!
I rest my case.
RX8 on Sep 29th, 2005 at 1:06 PM:
To Computer Historian:
Who cares? Its a flipping commentary piece, he can write whatever he wants. Check out some of the commentary pieces at www.news.com they are just as bad. If you don't like Rob, don't read his articles. There is a reason why is on the advisory board for so many companies - he must be getting something right!
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 3:25 PM:
To Tantrum:
Nobody uses Macs, huh?
Check out this tradeshow expose on the real power behind the Xbox 360:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i...
Sorry, dude... *almost* nobody uses Macs.
Norsk on Sep 29th, 2005 at 3:54 PM:
This is the biggest pile of 'stuff' I have ever read from this guy. Enderle is very rarely right except when he is Microsoft speaking since he is one of their major 'schills'. This is his worst offense ever. He can't be serious unless he is deliberately doing this to generate hits to this site.
Microsucks was hired by Jobs to write an application called 'Multiplan' for the original Mac that was rolled out in January of 1984. This was the first point and click GUI spreadsheet program. In 1985, Microsucks renamed it 'Excel' and within the same year rolled out an app called 'Word'. And those are the hard cold indisputable facts Jack. They, M$, had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the original MacOS. In fact, they stole it and Apple had them in court for six years. When the case arrived in front of the US Supreme Court...Apple lost the case once and for all. Due to a very vague working agreement with Microsoft for the creation of those original Mac OS apps for the original 128k Mac. Eleven years before the rollout of the first commercial version of Windows 95 based on those elements stolen from Apple's GUI. Enderle is a total idiot!! Enderle is to the world of technology as Ted Kennedy is to the world of politics. TOAST!
Tantrum on Sep 29th, 2005 at 4:04 PM:
Oh gimme a break, so now an Xbox 360 is the same as an Apple PC? Its just the processor bro.
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 5:10 PM:
Hey, you're the one who said no one uses Macs any more.
I show you proof that Microsoft plays a shill game -- they use Macs but claim it's an Xbox 360 so you'll think that's the quality you'll get when you buy an Xbox 360, and now you cry "Foul?"
Tantrum on Sep 29th, 2005 at 5:51 PM:
Its not a freaking MAC!! It uses an IBM processor. Apple doesn't own it at all. Nice try old timer.
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 6:39 PM:
Hey Tantrum,
You're just totally lost, aren't you? This conversation get a little too abstract for you? Maybe it's past your nap time?
What I showed you, after you claimed that no one uses Macs any more, is that none less than your precious Microsoft uses Macs to show off how their wondrous Xbox 36o will look when (if) it ever gets to market.
And apparently they aren't too proud of it, either, since they went to great pains to hide the Macs and make the showgoers think they were actually playing on an Xbox. Where's the honesty in that?
What's wrong with using a real Xbox? Is the problem that it's a poorly-designed, bug-ridden, virus-infected piece of crap that doesn't work well, just like every other Microsoft product out there? Or is it just that it doesn't work at all?
Apple builds great hardware and has led the way for Microsoft and other copycats in operating system development for 20 years. Microsoft doesn't innovate -- it appropriates. As in, it takes.
Tantrum on Sep 29th, 2005 at 7:26 PM:
Wow you are totally out of it. 1% are Apple users and you find ONE single instance where Microsoft used an Apple machine to make a point that EVERYONE uses Apple. Get with the program pal, you stand for the minority.
Eric on Sep 29th, 2005 at 7:27 PM:
I talked with the man who invented GUIs for personal compuers a while back. Bill Atkinson. He actually wrote the code that made it possible for the Mac (and later Windows by taking the idea and running with it - along with what they got from Xerox) to draw the pixels on the screen to simulate the desktop - the first commercial GUI. He wrote it for the LISA and then for the Mac. This was a major breakthrough. He even developed Apple's first mouse. The Mac team had lots of other innovations that, if you watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley" you'll see that Bill Gates was having a cow wanting to have what the already working Mac prototype was doing when it arrived in Redmond. (And don't tell us the movie is just Hollywood fantasy, Steve Wozniak has confirmed it's basically correct in most of the facts about how things went.)
But Bill would laugh in Endrele's face to hear him say that Microsoft helped Apple write the MacOS. That is such a ludicrous notion in the face of the documented history of how the Mac OS developed. Check the facts, you'll see.
What MS did was write the BASIC OS that Apple licensed for the Apple II. Not the Mac.
Bottom line, it's a coward's way out to add the world "helped" when what you should have done is correct it and hearken back to when MS actually did something for Apple with BASIC. That's a perfectly legitimate point.
But it was Apple that created the personal computer OS that lead the way to what we all use nowadays. And to insult the developers of the MacOS by implying that they couldn't have done it without Microosoft's help is sad and pathetic.
Computer Historian on Sep 29th, 2005 at 8:19 PM:
Tantrum,
I think you're worse than Enderle. Maybe you ARE Enderle. You take every legitimate point that I've made and tried to turn it around to mean something other than what I said.
You aren't worthy of any more attention.
Tantrum on Sep 29th, 2005 at 9:13 PM:
LOL you act like you control this situation and as if your facts are right. Fungku and Enderle (a professional analyst and THE MOST quoted analyst in the world I might add) have both shown proof and you discount it by linking to absurd sources. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen old man.
OoTLink on Sep 30th, 2005 at 1:14 AM:
He modified it.
I win!
J Powell on Sep 30th, 2005 at 5:00 AM:
Actually, Rob E, you should read the page you hyperlinked to more carefully. If you do, you'll notice that project "Sand" refers to Microsoft's early development of Mac-based applications, not the MacOS, itself.
Rick Schallack on Oct 3rd, 2005 at 5:18 AM:
Um, Rob, did you even read that history you link to? I don't think you did. Yes, Microsoft wrote some important programs for the Mac and they worked with Apple to get their programs right, but Microsoft does that every day with their partners. I don't see you writing " helped Microsoft write Windows" From that article:
"Having worked closely with Apple during the development of the Macintosh, Microsoft is positioned to be the LEADING DEVELOPER OF APPLICATIONS for the machine, offering BASIC, Multiplan, File, Word, and Chart." (my emphasis)
Do you see "Microsoft helped develop the MacOS"? No, you don't. Just like Microsoft's partners don't contribute to the design of Windows (except from a user/suggestion perspective, remember: Microsoft puts in what features they see fit to add), Microsoft did NOT help design the Mac OS.
I have to think you were under the influence of mind-altering medication when you wrote this article.
Rick Schallack on Oct 3rd, 2005 at 5:18 AM:
Also, just to show that I read the whole article, what exactly is Rob Enderle "trying to show us"? Is he saying that the new Palm + Microsoft partnership will make Palm a major player ... in a market ... somewhere. He seems to think that people will magically turn away from things like computers and iPods to devices that embrace "convergance".
The problem here is that PDAs are a niche market. Phones are not. Unless you already use a PDA, a PDA/cell phone is not compelling for the price. Adding media players to the mix just illustrates how inferior the Treo is compared to a dedicated unit. I mean, does anyone who owns a Treo say "Wow, a camera too, I guess I don't have to buy a digital camera". Of course not. You wouldn't use a Treo to take photos of your next family outing and print them out. Convergance devices will be niche devices for the forseeable future: Until the convergance device can equal the quality of the stand-alone device. And this may never happen.
Would I buy a Treo? Maybe. If it were priced more like a phone. And did not have a camera, mp3 player, etc.
V-Train on Oct 5th, 2005 at 4:47 PM:
So Rob, you "fix" the Microsoft "inaccuracy" but you still have your contrived links between Apple and Palm. I already pointed out that "As Palm was largely founded from Apple's Newton group" is a false statement, why haven't you fixed it?
Personally, I think it's hilarious how you don't even have the guts to respond to any of the comments, which are clearly more well thought than your article, which is still riddled with stuff you made up.
RX8 on Oct 6th, 2005 at 6:07 PM:
I wouldn't call it "guts" V-Train, I would call it professionalism. I don't know of any journalists that wold sink down to the level of flame this thread has turned into.
Guru on Oct 12th, 2005 at 10:13 AM:
My God.
I have direct knowledge within Palm at the time that Enderle is talking about.
Palm hired maybe 5 or 6 developers from the Newton team. They were *good* developers, but *they* came to work on an already-established product. There were other former Apple developers that worked at Palm, but it was the same situation for them. They certainly didn't come as a spin-off from Apple, nor did they bring anything from Apple other than personal opinions. The Legal people wouldn't have tolerated anything else.
Other than that, there was absolutely *no* connection between Apple and Palm.
Mr. Enderle, I now know from first-hand information that your articles consist mainly of poorly-researched drivel and wild conjecture; unfortunately, I have no time for writing such as this so I will be avoiding your tagline in the future. Your loss.
V-Train on Oct 21st, 2005 at 10:32 PM:
RX8, how is it professional to basically make up information to support your position?
Is there flaming in the comments? Sure. But there are also plenty of thoughtful posts that directly contradict Enderle's baseless contentions.
oh Boy on Dec 9th, 2005 at 1:47 PM:
Folks,
1. Apple I, II, II computers (not equal) Macintosh computers
2. PPC Processor (not equal) Macintosh computers
3. Creating applications (not equal) creating an Operating System
4. Providing a programming language (not equal) creating an Operating System
5. Providing applications and programming languages (not equal) Helping create an Operating System
6. Palm (not equal) Apple spin off
I have no qualm with Enderle. Don't know him, heard of him but haven't read much of his stuff. As a columnist in America he is, of course, free to write what ever he wants.
As reader, I expect facts presented in an article - even opinion pieces - be true. Especially if they are used as supporting elements of an argument or examples of the "big picture" that the article is supposed to be about.
Correcting a statement in an article with information that is still inaccurate is disappointing and poor journalism.
Martin Scheffer on Dec 29th, 2006 at 10:41 AM:
Apple was collaborating with hundreds of developers, giving them access to documentation (Inside Macintosh), answering question about the API etc.
Microsoft was probably one of the earliest to get developer support, but that's all.
by the way, Multiplan was NOT released in januari 84, but almost a year later.
the original mac only had Mac Paint and Mac Write.
i don't see how that fact can be transformed into "Microsoft helped Apple write mac os" (after the edit), or, Microsoft wrote mac os.
astonishing.
Steve H on Aug 11th, 2008 at 11:08 AM:
Interesting to read this some three years later. In addition to a major flaw in Rob's historical section, no surprise at all. In addition, take a look at the genius behind his vision. Microsoft has produced a few flops since then, probably none so large as Vista. They have produced a huge loser in the Zune, Apple has done a few things with the iPod, and yeah, they have this thing called iPhone. They also have a bit larger share of the market than they sued to.
Between Enderle and Tantrum, where are they now?
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.

OoTLink on Sep 27th, 2005 at 4:48 AM:
You're delusional. Nowhere, anywhere, are there any sort of records that Microsoft was contracted out by Apple to write their OS.
I've heard the "Apple stole from Xerox", and "Microsoft stole from Apple" myths many times before, but this one's outrageous.