Most people don't know or have forgotten that for years Microsoft, when Gates and Allen were still active execs, supported Apple. Apple was unprofitable, and MS pumped lots of money to keep it afloat. Why? Simple math: The Mac, while a tiny fraction of the overall PC market, was a $600M to $1B a year market for Microsoft software products (Office mainly). Dropping $30M to $60M to keep a $600M market alive is good ROI.
This came up in the anti-trust suit against Microsoft (which BTW microsoft won). Then CEO of Apple was called upon to testify on all the mean things Microsoft had done to Apple. In his testimony he noted that among the evils were investing $30M just that year. Needless to say his testimony didn't help prosecutors.
BTW during the 1990s DoJ was using civil litigation to extort billions from tech companies. Assertions of anti-trust practices were the main lever. Rather than bring criminal charges, which require a burden of proof much higher than civil, DoJ was using civil litigation and in most all cases settlements were reached. The biz logic was simple: the US government has boundless resources and so it will be cheaper to pay now than go to court. And it was sound logic. Microsoft's chief said no to the lawyers who advised settling. He vowed to fight all the way. It was risky. All the experts panned the decision and predicted massive losses for the company. It was Gates who insisted and with support from Allen, the two prevailed. And in the end, Microsoft prevailed in the suits. DoJ lost. To my knowledge, that is the only case of big tech vs US government in which the government lost.
It’s like Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs.
More like your own gun vs. your own foot.
Most people don't know or have forgotten that for years Microsoft, when Gates and Allen were still active execs, supported Apple. Apple was unprofitable, and MS pumped lots of money to keep it afloat. Why? Simple math: The Mac, while a tiny fraction of the overall PC market, was a $600M to $1B a year market for Microsoft software products (Office mainly). Dropping $30M to $60M to keep a $600M market alive is good ROI.
This came up in the anti-trust suit against Microsoft (which BTW microsoft won). Then CEO of Apple was called upon to testify on all the mean things Microsoft had done to Apple. In his testimony he noted that among the evils were investing $30M just that year. Needless to say his testimony didn't help prosecutors.
BTW during the 1990s DoJ was using civil litigation to extort billions from tech companies. Assertions of anti-trust practices were the main lever. Rather than bring criminal charges, which require a burden of proof much higher than civil, DoJ was using civil litigation and in most all cases settlements were reached. The biz logic was simple: the US government has boundless resources and so it will be cheaper to pay now than go to court. And it was sound logic. Microsoft's chief said no to the lawyers who advised settling. He vowed to fight all the way. It was risky. All the experts panned the decision and predicted massive losses for the company. It was Gates who insisted and with support from Allen, the two prevailed. And in the end, Microsoft prevailed in the suits. DoJ lost. To my knowledge, that is the only case of big tech vs US government in which the government lost.