Ibexx & All,
I agree. The alliance is clearly greatly beneficial to both parties, one being previously on life-support. [And perhaps for now it is less like marrying than shacking up.]
The local Silicon Valley rag, the San Jose KneeJerky News, just about filled its front section with the story and commentary thereon. The KneeJerk, which is against all potential monopolies except its own, didn't quite know how to react to Apple's decision. It was as if they had discovered their sister, the nun, turning tricks on the side - and bragging about it! Their solution - just bash Microsoft a little now, and then presumably revert to bashing it more heavily later. [And scream bloody murder to the Feds when Microsoft and others really start undermining the local newspaper monopolies, through Sidewalk and its competitors.]
Regarding Larry on the Apple board: he and Jobs are friends anyway, so putting up with his unpredictable tantrums is presumably worthwhile for Jobs, inasmuch as it helps Jobs' effort at control. Since Oracle is going great guns on NT, Larry is certainly in no position to vote against the major Microsoft initiatives that Apple will be engaged in. Also, having him on the board is good from a legal standpoint regarding antitrust considerations (independence of board). I assume that is why Bill went along.
IMHO
Best regards,
Arno
[P.S. A mother-in-law joke? Ibexx, I thought you were a contemporary man? < g >] |
