I read that Steve Jobs in the 80s and 90s was genuinely envious of Bill Gates and Microsoft and said it was a 'perfect' company that he wished he founded. What went wrong?
>>109638469he said that when wallstreet and their ilk started adopting microsoft en mass in the enterprise (datacenter). apple never cornered that market. jobs was more focused on the creativity you could make with a computer. gates was focused on the money. both were obsessed with control and societal change.
>>109638489Soul vs soulless
>>109638469Well, for much of the 80s and 90s Apple was a bit of a failure while Microsoft saw nothing but meteoric growth.
>>109638469Well that was Steve Jobs at his lowest. Thrown out of Apple, by people that were actively killing his creation without even realizing it. Had to go back to the garage and start from scratch.Meanwhile Gates scammed IBM, scammed Apple, and became the richest man in the world by selling what he perceived as a cheap chinese knockoff of a macintosh. He was leading the computer revolution and was the undisputed king of the empire. That said, I bet the feelings were reversed only a couple of decades later. By then, Gates was a retired dinosaur of a bygone era while Jobs reinvented himself and his company and was almost universally seen as a visionary genius with a genuine worldwide cult following. Doesn't matter if it's far from an accurate portrayal, that's what he *was* for the masses. Then he died when Apple was arguably at its peak which fully cemented the myth. On the other hand, Gates is currently remembered as an Epstein-adjacent pedophile obsessed with vaccines for some reason.
>>109638469Microsoft people like Gates sold their soul to the global cabal (see Epstein links) and now they’re paying for the deal with the devil and becoming Jeetified
probably mad that DOS and later Windows actually had games. Wolfenstein, DOOM, Duke 3D, I can go on forever. I was there, Macintosh was a faggot computer that cost 3x an IBM compatible and had NO. FUCKING. SOFTWARE.Imagine if Linux cost 1000 dollars to install. It was worse than that.
Software companies are more interesting than hardware companies
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
Interesting to note that Microsoft's first hardware product was for the Apple II. While most people focus on Windows vs MacOS, reality is that the two companies worked together extensively over the years and the Mac often got Microsoft products before Windows did. Microsoft made lots of money off of selling products for Apple computers and Apple benefited greatly by having Microsoft programs on their platform. That hardware product, the Z-80 SoftCard, was Microsoft's top revenue generator the year it was released.
It must be true if you read it
