decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Comes 1677A ("MS Apps on multiple RISC platforms") | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Comes 2887 ("Summary of meeting with Steve Jobs")
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2887.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2887<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Ben Waldman<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 23, 1998 3:07 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Eric Rudder<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: Summary of meeting with Steve Jobs
</p>

<p>
Oops, forgot to include you
</p>

<p>
-----Original Message-----<br />
<b>From:</b> Ben Waldman<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 23, 1998 2:35 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Bill Gates; Paul Maritz; Bob Muglia (Exchange);
Jon DeVaan; Greg Maffei; Rich Tong; Dennis Tevlin<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Jodi Granston; Richard Craddock; Don Bradford;
Rick Powell; Jim Murphy<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Summary of meeting with Steve Jobs
</p>

<p>
<b>SHORT VERSION:</b>
</p>

<p>
Yesterday, I and several others met with Steve Jobs and
others at Apple for about 3 1/2 hours, primarily
discussing two issues:
</p>

<p>
1) Apple's new OS plans, and Steve's desire to get MS's
public endorsement at Apple's May developer
conference<br />
2) Apple's plans for ClarisWorks, including their plan to
bundle it on their new consumer machine, our views of
this, and ways to
mitigate our concerns.
</p>

<p>
The bottom line is that<br />
1) Based on what we've heard so far, I think their OS plan
(effectively killing Rhapsody, and making MacOS a
pre-emptive
multitasking OS w/protected memory) is exactly the right
thing for them to do, and, pending some more detailed
information, I
think we should endorse this and announce plans to develop
Office and IE for it. My biggest concern is getting the
appropriate
tools support, since there will likely be a change in
runtime model and exe format. As to whether we want to get
something back
for this endorsement, I think that we can get a few minor
issues dealt with, but I don't think that we will get
something major out of
them for an endorsement. I discuss several ideas below.
Unless there are any strong concerns, I'd like to go ahead
and get back
to Steve early next week.
</p>

<p>
2) Apple will bundle Clarisworks (renamed "AppleWorks") on
their new sub-$1000 machines, but, honestly, I don't see
how they
have much choice, given the inclusion of Works products on
Intel machines targeted at the same market. They claim
they don't
want to be competing with us on Office, and so won't
advertise the product, and will agree to Include "upgrade
to Office" incentives
of our choosing with the machines, including coupons, a 3
MB QuickTime moving promoting Office, etc. Again, I will
discuss several
ideas below.
</p>

<p>
3) Steve is waiting to hear a proposal from us on close
internet collaboration in exchange for our QuickTime
support.
</p>

<p>
4) Apple's NC plans have been shelved for now (Steve
claims this is for marketing, not technical, reasons,
citing a lack of
understanding of how to sell servers, clients, and
software -- let the Intel guys pioneer this, he says).
</p>

<p>
5) I think they've heard my concerns about their lack of
enthusiasm for IE, and I hope to see improvements here.
</p>

<p>
Ideas on what to ask for:<br />
1) Commit to ship an IE for their new OS on day one, in
exchange for very vocal support for IE as well as steps to
encourage
increased usage.<br />
2) While accepting their need to ship ClarisWorks on their
consumer machine, limit Clarisworks' impact on our
business by<br />
a) working to ensure Office attach on these machines, by
including Office upgrade incentives on machine, or working
with
resellers to achieve similar goals. JodiGr is driving
this.<br />
b) seek to reduce Apple's development and marketing
efforts on ClarisWorks
</p>

<p>
I don't think we should link endorsement of this new OS to
further support of MS's direction on the Internet (other
than Mac IE).
</p>

<p>
Thx<br />
BenW
</p>

<p>
<b>LONG VERSION:</b><br />
Last week Steve Jobs invited me to come to Apple to meet
with him and others to discuss Apple's new OS plans, which
he plans to
unveil at the Apple developer conference next month.
</p>

<p>
<b>Apple attendees:</b><br />
Steve Jobs, Chairman and CEO<br />
Avle Tevanian, Sr. VP. Engineering -- avie@apple.com
(heads all product dev, works for Steve)<br />
Phil Schiller, VP. of worldwide product marketing --
schiller@apple.com (heads marketing worldwide, works for
Steve)<br />
Steve Naroff, Dir., Mac Runtime and Tools --
snaroff@apple.com (also responsible for all of Apple's
Java work)<br />
Bertrand Serlet, Sr. Dir., Platform Tech. --
bertrand_serlet@apple.com<br />
Ken Bereskin, Dir., Mac OS Technologies product
marketing -- bereskin@apple.com (a fool)<br />
Scott Forstall, Mgr. Applications Frameworks --
forstall@apple.com<br />
Jim Batson, QuickTime Architect -- jim@apple.com<br />
Mike Kellner, Lead Engineer, Advanced Mac Toolbox --
mkellner@apple.com<br />
Rick Holzli, Mgr., Microsoft Partnership --
holzli@apple.com
</p>

<p>
<b>Microsoft MacBU attendees:</b><br />
BenW
Dick Craddock, Product Unit Manager, Mac Internet Product
Unit<br />
Jodi Granston, Mac Office marketing lead<br />
Jim Murphy, a development lead on Mac Office (filling in
for Rick Powell, Mac Office Development Manager)
</p>

<p>
Apple is effectively cancelling Rhapsody, and focusing
on "modernizing" the MacOS, by placing it on top of a Mach
3.0 kernel, having
apps run in separate, protected address spaces and be
pre-emptively multi-tasked, and eliminating fixed-size
memory partitions.
Though old-apps continue to run, in order to gain the
benefits of the new system (pre-emption, protected address
spaces, etc.),
apps need to be modified (to a far smaller extent than
Rhapsody, since this is still MacOS), and recompiled for a
new runtime
architecture and executable format. They are referring
this as MacOS X ("Mac OS 10").
</p>

<p>
Of course, this won't be positioned as Rhapsody
cancellation -- they‘ll say that you'll still have
OpenStep/Yellow Box, and be able to
run it on Windows, and on MacOS, except that will be one
year later, and that Apple will do the "right thing" and
preserve peoples'
investment in MacOS, whlle still providing an advanced UI
runtime for people who want it (and it will still be
accessible from Java).
While Rhapsody required developers to do a lot of work to
get pre-emption and protection, in this scenario, Apple
does "95% of the
work." Later, however, in a smaller group, I asked Steve
point blank if he'd ever believed in Rhapsody, and he
said "no," adding
something about his duty being to NeXT shareholders.
(After that, we briefly discussed Amelio, and his book,
and Steve said that
Amelio "had <em>[Ed: language]</em> up everything he did,
except hire Fred Anderson as CFO." He said that if you
looked at all of this year's
California graduating high school classes, anyone in the
top 10% could have run Apple better than Amelio. I told
him that I was
amazed at 1) Amelio blaming his subordinates for problems
and 2) his "appreciation" that BillG was "nice enough" to
stay for a
technical discussion held by subordinates after he and Gil
had talked about general details).
</p>

<p>
We discussed technical specifics, and then they demoed
ClarisWorks running on this machine.<br />
Specifics:
<ul>
<li>Underlying OS is the Mach 3.0 kernel</li>
<li>It's MacOS, but certain APIs are no longer supported.
In some cases, this is because they are trying to remove
older APIs that
have been supplanted by new ones, and in others,
because underlying implementation changes prevent them
from supporting
low level APIs even though they can still support high
level ones (e.g. networking). They are also dropping
support for stupid
things like publish and subscribe. Their analysis of
our apps shows that 90% of the APIs we use are
implemented, though after
I pointed out that some of the non-supported stuff was
important to us, they noted that they could make
changes</li>
<li>Apps need to be recompiled and the exe format is
different, meaning that one needs to provide 2 exe-s --
one for MacOS 8,
and one for this OS. I told them that it's OK if they
change they exe format if this allows them to make
important
performance improvements -- their whole runtime model
today is very stupid, requiring extra indirection, a lot
of data fixups at
boot time, and forcing them to load all global data at
boot. I said that it should work like NT. Avie and his
team completely
understand this and agree, but apparently, there is
religion at lower levels about pure code (he asked if he
could quote me on a
piece of paper and paste it all over their engineering
hallways). The big issue here is that <u>this requires
new tools</u>.<br />
Metrowerks has already gotten their tools to work, but
we either have to move to Metrowerks, or have our tools
group rev our
toolset (compiler, linker, debugger, lego, etc.)</li>
<li>They deal with "global state" dependencies in APIs
(like QuickDraw) by keeping such state around per thread.
Though they
still claim that context switching will be fast,
RichCrad notes that IE and OE perf are very dependent on
efficient thread
switching, and today's stuff is so lightweight that
any changes may adversely affect perf.</li>
<li>Memory management APIs don't need to change, unless
app wants to use new functionality (but old APIs and old
functionality
work better than today).</li>
<li>New APIs for shared memory and synchronization based
on Mach 3.0.</li>
<li>Hardware requirements: all G3 machines, may support
604 chip, but probably not earlier. Target 32 MB, "but by
then, 64
MB may be standard anyway."</li>
</ul>
</p>

<p>
Schedule
<ul>
<li>They've been working on this for the last 9
months</li>
<li>Announce in May 1998</li>
<li>Final APIs and developer release later this year</li>
<li>Beta release in January 1998</li>
<li>Ship in Summer 1999</li>
</ul>
</p>

<p>
They demo-ed Clarisworks 5.0 running (just re-compiled, no
source code changes). They also demoed protected address
spaces,
by having one app trash the system.
</p>

<p>
Frankly, this is what I always believed that Apple should
have done, so it's good to see them doing this. My
concerns are:
<ul>
<li>Lack of specifics that enable us to understand how
much work we need to do (i.e. which APIs not there). We
may need to redo
a lot of the networking code in IE.</li>
<li>For Office, we need to touch multiple code bases to
get even one app working -- the apps, the Office DLL, VBA,
OLE, etc. (ot to
mention converters, filters). IE, I think, will be
easier.</li>
<li>Lack of a clear understanding of all the work they
need to do, and how far they are on their schedule, so I
can independently
assess their schedule. It's the 90/10 rule of
course.</li>
<li>We face similar problems to the 68K --> PowerPC
transition, e.g.
<ul>
<li>need to have 2 executables for every app means
additional dev work and a lot of additional test work</li>
<li>lots of tools issues</li>
<li>Tying our schedule to theirs, i.e. I think that we
need to target Office 2000 for this OS, not 98, but if
we're done before
they are, we have fulfillment issues and
associated costs.</li>
</ul></li>
<li>What are we going to do about tools -- this will
require either an investment in tools on our side, or a
move to the Metrowerks
compiler, which we cannot do for various reasons, at
least for the MacOS 8 exe (PCode, Lego)</li>
</ul>

<p>
On the plus side, this will help upgrade people from Mac
Office 98 to Mac Office 2000. Apple talked about this new
OS being an
upgrade opportunity for developers, but I told them that I
didn't think we could charge (at least not much) existing
customers for
the same version on a new OS.
</p>

<p>
2) ClarisWorks
</p>

<p>
<em>[Ed: The following three paragraphs have a handwritten
note pasted over them, which reads, "Most of the value of
Office is in Word"</em>
</p>

<p>
Sometime this summer, Apple will ship
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
machine
contains a 1024x768<br />
monitor, CD-ROM, 32 MB RAM, and a
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
upgrade
the home and education<br />
markets -- Steve estimates that there
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
on last
year (double this to get<br />
worldwide numbers). These machines
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
them.
This new machine is<br />
designed to get people to upgrade. Th
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

cannibalization, except to note that<br />
these machines would be slower and h
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
or
PhotoShop users); analyst<br />
Michael Kwatinetz argued the same th
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
of the
cannibalization that PC<br />
vendors have seen (other than the de
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
last
year). They want to ship 250K<br />
in the July-Sep quarter and hope to
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
They
expect this machine to be<br />
available through their national reselle
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
directly
from them to educ (Apple<br />
sells direct to education, w/7000 acco
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

</p>

<p>
I have been pretty vocal with Apple a
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I have
sald that ClarisWorks is THE<br />
Office competitor, and that we are tar
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
d
indirectly, as we target the<br />
education market. When asked abo
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
ditional
resources, and that I was<br />
sure my headcount requests would be
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
ere
pretty nervous, and so after the<br />
OS discussion, Steve, Phil, Jodi, and I
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

</p>

<p>
Apple plans to ship ClarisWorks (rena
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
t they
need a productivity solution<br />
on this machine in order to compete
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
r offer
Office to them at a low<br />
enough price (this is true -- a) we ta
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
about
this, saying that it's too new,<br />
and he can't afford to invest the $ to
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
should do
it; b) internally, we<br />
thought about whether we could give them Office at a low
price on this machine, but were afraid of cannibalization,
and since most
of the value of Office is in Word, we couldn't give them
just Word at a low enough price).
</p>

<p>
When I pushed them to just ship nothing, they insisted
they needed something to compete with Intel machines, and
frankly, this
makes sense to me. They also argued that we OEM Works on
a lot of Intel machines, and that we're not afraid of
losing Win Office
sales. I said that it was different, because a)
ClarisWorks has been positioned against Office on the Mac,
by Apple and by press
and customers (and this has been successful in a few
segments) b) empirical data show us that people with CW
are less likely to
move to Mac Office, and c) the market at which CW is aimed
is a much larger percentage of the overall Mac market than
is the case
with Works on Windows.
</p>

<p>
But they insist that they are not aiming to compete with
Office. They said they wouldn't advertise ClarisWorks.
They said they'd
include any upgrade incentive we wanted with the machine,
i.e. a coupon or QuickTime movie advertisement (adding
that they
viewed this as a value add to the machine, not just a
favor to us, which is true). They also talked about us
doing an Office Lite to
ship on this machine, and I rejected this, pointing out
that in addition to the dev cost, I thought people with
Office Lite were even
less likely to move to the real Office than ClarisWorks
users (for example, they'd already have the ability to
read and partially edit
their work documents).
</p>

<p>
So I think the best option is to acknowledge that they
need to ship something on their machine, and figure out
how to minimize the
effect on us, by working with apple and/or resellers to
increase office attach on these machines.
</p>

<p>
3) So what do we do?<br />
Assuming that their OS plans hold up on further scrutiny,
I think we need to endorse and target their new OS in
order to have a
successful Mac Office business.
</p>

<p>
Some thoughts:<br />
1) Offer them IE for their new OS on day one, in exchange
for very vocal support for it, and further steps to
encourage use of this
over competitors. I actually think they may remove
Navigator from the hard disk in this summer's OS release
("Allegro" = Mac OS
8.2). It seems reasonable to ask that they don't ship any
other browser that's not MacOS 10 "savvy" with the machine
at all.
</p>

<p>
2) We will seek to increase Office attach on their
consumer machines, either by working with resellers, or
including incentives with
the machine itself. We will need to understand if this
madiine is cannibalizing other Mac sales (where we are
already attaching
Office at higher price points), or if it is truly
expanding apple's reach to new segments where our
penetration is weak. JodiGr is
driving this.
</p>

<p>
3) we could ask them to Ship MS Works rather than
ClarisWorks, even giving them MS Works for free. I don't
think this will work
-- we actually still generate revenue from MS Works sales
(I need to better understand where that is coming from),
and though I
think that an MS Works user would be more likely to
upgrade to Office than a CW user (mainly because MS Works
is not as good), I
don't think that Apple would go for it, because the
product is several years old, with no Internet
support/awareness.
</p>

<p>
4) Get commitment not to bundle CW on any machines other
than the consumer machines -- this seems reasonable to me.
</p>

<p>
5) Ask them not do do ClarisWorks for their new OS --
unlikely they'd agree.
</p>

<p>
6) Ask for no further development work on ClarisWorks
other than a port to the new OS -- maybe.
</p>

<p>
7) Ask them to end retail sales of ClarisWorks -- hard to
see them agreeing to this; more likely is an agreement to
include Office
upgrade incentives in the ClarisWorks box.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2869A ("Microsoft OS & Digital Video Computing Platform Update")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2869_A.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2869A<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>Subject:</b> Fwd: Microsoft OS &amp; Digital Video
Computing Platform Update<br />
<b>Date:</b> 3/24/98 11:08 AM<br />
<b>Received:</b> 3/24/98 11:14 AM<br />
<b>From:</b> Mitchell Weinstock, schlepper@apple.com<br />
<b>To:</b> Larry Lowe, llowe@apple.com<br />
Steve Bannerman, steve@apple.com<br />
Carolyn Goates, goates@apple.com<br />
Phil Schiller, schiller@apple.com<br />
Peter Hoddie, hoddie@apple.com<br />
Tim Schaaff, tims@apple.com
</p>

<p>
---------------- Begin Forwarded
Message ----------------<br />
<b>Date:</b> 03/24 6:35 AM<br />
<b>Received:</b> 03/24 8:39 AM<br />
<b>From:</b> Richard Doherty,
RDoherty@envisioneering.net<br />
<b>To:</b> Mitch Weinstock, schlepper©apple.com<br />
Fiona Lee, Flee@apple.com<br />
<b>CC:</b> Rick McEachern, mceachern.r@apple.com
</p>

<p>
Market Development Counsel - Technology Transfer -
Competitive Assessment<br />
The Envisioneering Group<br />
3864 Bayberry Lane. Seaford, NY 11783-1503<br />
Phone: (516) 783-6244 Fax: (516) 679-8167<br />
Email: envisioneering@envisioneering.net<br />
March 23, 1998<br />
Mr. Mitch Weinstock<br />
Ms. Fiona Lee<br />
Apple Computer, Inc.
</p>

<p>
Subject: Microsoft OS &amp; Digital Video Computing
Platform Update
</p>

<p>
Dear Mitch &amp; Fiona;
</p>

<p>
We are pleased to update you with the latest Windows OS
and platform roadmap from our recent Microsoft management
meeting in New York and Hanover, Germany at CeBit.
</p>

<p>
Microsoft Client Computing is based on Two Models<br />
Lots and Lots of CE Devices<br />
WinTerm Thin Clients
</p>

<p>
Bill Gates (and Nathan Myrhvold and Craig Mundle) prefers
the WebTV/CE Video (LAN Adapter - 10BaseT, Broadcast
Tuner, cable Tuner, DSL Adapter) model for the long run.
Steve Ballmer prefers the Microsoft IS subscription
model -
sell repeated updates to NT &amp; Hydra as well as for
existing servers, PCs, Workstations, NetPCs, Handhelds,
Mobile &amp;
THIN clients..ancient PCs.
</p>

<p>
Working against this is how stubborn Steve Perlman has
become at migrating the MIPS based WebTV PLus to an all CE
model by summer. Also, Perlman has a track record for NOT
working well with hardware or software IHVs and ISVs.
This is confounding the CE Video rollout, as WebTV
networks in Palo Alto has become the default Windows
consumer
video research lab.
</p>

<p>
Palo Alto is NOT doing the Jupiter "Win Book" low cost
gray scale and color screen CE notebook Pcs designed for
consumers and educational markets. However, WebTV is at
the hub of nearly every digital video CE design, and their
enthusiasm seems to peak and wane with the timetable of
visits from Bill G himself.
</p>

<p>
Gates truly wants CE and Consumer DSL to become the
universal consumer platform, accepting content from
hundreds
of thousands (it not millions) of NT Hydra "screen
servers" which will push content and centrally registered
site
license applications "screens" to each client. Gates is
passionate about this, so much so that the has not stopped
to
verify that his DirectShow and NetShow competencies will
allow his this streaming media and screen control. He
wants
it. Most server makers believe he will pull it off.
</p>

<p>
Compared to this trio of support for CE, Steve Ballmer
prefers the huge opportunity of the Windows Everywhere
terminal mode with a ferocity that would likely trigger
antitrust complaints should he ever be compelled to
testify in
Washington. He wants hundreds of millions of users
updating Windows each year, afraid to do business, or to a
lesser
degree, consumer gaming &amp; entenainment, without the
latest monthly or quarterly upgrades.
</p>

<p>
This will ensure guaranteed income from thin clients for
years, guaranteed subscription updates to make sure the
Hydra servers can best be administrated and can most
efficiently deliver just the screens a client is entitles
to.
</p>

<p>
Hydra Servers (usually,but not always NT 5.0 servers) will
be used to push graphic screen "solutions" to client
terminals.
</p>

<p>
Microsoft Cable Box Status<br />
We enjoyed lengthy discussions with Nick Conte, who works
under Craig Mundie in Broadcast PC business development,
and Microsoft NT Hydra (media and terminal server)
managers in Europe.
</p>

<p>
Conte came to New York just to brief Envisioneering,
Gartner Group and Link Resources. Conte wound up pumping
Envisioneering when we seemed to know more than they did.
The upshot:<br />
1) Just a few HUNDRED CE based TCI boxes might be made
this year and in operation by year's end despite the
hoopla
over 5 to 11 million systems.<br />
2) No spec exists for the box. NO delivery dates. NO
financing.<br />
3) John Malone keeps denouncing Intel as having NO chance
for the box design win. This appears to b just negotiating
ploy.<br />
4) TCI Has NO intention of allowing the boxes to be sold
at retail, despite agreements with GI, Sony and the 1996
telecommunications act ordering retail "convergence cable
box" versions be made available.<br />
5) Malone does NOT understand the PC model or the Internet
despite his Doctorate.<br />
6) Malone also does not want to relinquish control of
conditional access to enyone..least of all Microsoft or
Intel. (Big
mistake).<br />
7) Malone does not want boxes that can be expanded with U
DSL, Satellite, Broadcast or DVD adapters. ie..why should
there be any port save an infrared one?
</p>

<p>
In other words, John wants control, despite Open Cable,
despite the 1996 Telco Act, despite the investments in
Comcast and GI by Microsoft, despite Sony's investment for
what they were told would be RETAIL boxes.
</p>

<p>
A real mess. This will likely break within the industry
(if not the FCC and Wall Street) within the next six
weeks.
</p>

<p>
Microsoft Hydra "Screen Projector"<br />
NT Hydra is designed to essentially pump parallel
processed power application screen images down to the
lowliest of PC
screens (386, 486 based), handhelds, cable boxes, the
works. Thin, thin, thin clients. Screen images at VGA and
SVGA
resolutions.
</p>

<p>
While Hydra was earlier presented as a purely NT 5.0
solution, at CeBit managers said there is a good chance
that NT
4.0 code will be made available;ie. This might be
delivered on a large dedicated account basis.
</p>

<p>
We believe this is a bonafide QuickTime image delivery
enhancement opportunity for these thin clients, as there
exists
NO DEMONSTRATED means of delivering rich graphics,
animations or video to these thin clients. The question is
whether to partner with Citrix, do an end run around
Redmond, or cut a deal with Microsoft.
</p>

<p>
We will have several people at WinHEC in Orlando, and
provide immediate updates to your group as needed.
</p>

<p>
Please call with any questions you may have. On behalf of
all of us at Envisioneering, until we speak next, I
remain,
</p>

<p>
Very truly yours,
</p>

<p>
Richard F. Doherty, Director
</p>

<p>
----------------- End Forwrded Message -----------------
</p>

<p>
"Apple's QuickTime is our delivery vehicle of choice for
multimedia. Strata is probably one of the biggest
supporters of
QuickTime and we use it in all our products. We're
looking forward to the new QT 3.0 and plan on supporting
much of
its new functionality in our upcoming releases of
VideoShop and MediaPaint."
</p>

<p>
Jim Boyd, Strata, Senior R+D Engineer<br />
<em>[Ed: Quoted e-mail signature for Mitchell Weinstock
omitted.]</em>
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2896A ("Quicktime-Netshow")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:26 AM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2896_A.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2896A<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Quicktime-Netshow<br />
<b>Date:</b> 5/1/98 10:32 AM<br />
<b>Received:</b> 5/1/98 10:01 AM<br />
<b>From:</b> Philip Schiller, schiller@apple.com<br />
<b>To:</b> Steve Jobs, sj@pixar.com<br />
<b>CC:</b> Tim Schaaff, tims@apple.com<br />
Sina Tamaddon, sina@apple.com<br />
Peter Hoddie. hoddie@apple.com<br />
Avie Tevanian, avie@apple.com
</p>

<p>
Steve,
</p>

<p>
I like Oracle as a partner. They have good technology
(from a marketers point
of view anyway), good customers, good channels. But in the
streaming web
server space I never hear about them.
</p>

<p>
Maybe Oracle will change this but they have talked about
it for years and I
don't see the effect in the market - ask any customer who
they have talked to
about their streaming server needs and all I consistently
hear is MS and Real
(and a spatering of smaller players that are getting
bought up - Vivo, etc.)
</p>

<p>
Steve Jobs wrote:
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 2px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
How about Oracle?
</p>
<p>
Steve
</p>
<p>
Begin forwarded message:
</p>
<p>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:14:27 +0800<br />
From: Philip Schiller &lt;schiller@apple.com&gt;<br />
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 (Macintosh; I; PPC)<br />
To: Tim Schaaff &lt;tims@apple.com&gt;<br />
Cc: Steve Jobs &lt;sj@pixar.com&gt;, Sina Tamaddon
&lt;sina@apple.com&gt;, Peter Hoddie
&lt;hoddie@apple.com&gt;, Avie Tevanian
&lt;avie@apple.com&gt;<br />
Subject: Re: Quicktime-Netshow
</p>

<p>
I think the problem is simple: companies that make a lot
of money on server
side products put a direct sales force out in front of
customers to spin the
messages and win the sales.
</p>

<p>
We don't have a big server side business and don't have a
large direct server
sales force out talking to the customers. (Unless we turn
the WebObjects team
into a QT team and develop a wealth of server products for
them to sell).
</p>

<p>
Solution: we need to partner with a company that has a
server side business
and direct server sales force. There are only two
successful ones today (IMHO)
Microsoft and Real. So, our strategy to win server
business and better market
our QuickTime format to large we sites should be to
partner with Real on QT
and their servers.
</p>

<p>
We've met with Real, they are open to it but we still both
have competing
format and player strategies. I continue to think we need
to solve this to be
successful in the long run (or invest $10OM building the
products and team to
fight head to head with MS and Real).
</p>

<p>
Phil
</p>

<p>
Tim Schaaff wrote:
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 2px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
Steve,
</p>

<p>
For every technical shortcoming Microsoft assigns to
QuickTime, Apple can
claim one in NetShow. The problem we face is that
Microsoft is out there
marketing against QuickTime. Apple is not actively talking
to these
companies, telling our story, and debunking the Microsoft
FUD.
</p>

<p>
The author of the e-mail admitted he didn't have time to
verify whether
the statements made against QuickTime are true. We have
seen Microsoft
misrepresent what QuickTime can do for years. It won't be
any different
with streaming. But it we're not out there telling our
story, aren't we
going to lose?
</p>

<p>
Although I share your concerns about Real Networks'
client-side ambitions
and the risk to QuickTime, perhaps it would be less risky
to work with RN
and get them promoting QuickTime with their products.
Right now we are
being out-marketed by both companies. Six months from now,
we might be in
better shape marketing-wise, but it's pretty tough going
right now. We
may not have time to wait.
</p>

<p>
Another alternative might be to get a serious development
partnership
around streaming going with Oracle. Mark Porter's team
seems pretty
smart and generally does not appear to have significant
client-side
ambitions.
</p>

<p>
We definitely need some help on the big-iron server side.
</p>

<p>
Tim<br />
----------------------------<br />
Steve Jobs 4/28/98 1:58 PM
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 2px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
Begin forwarded message:
</p>
<p>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:24:32 +0100<br />
From: Hussein Yahia &lt;yahia@worldnet.fr&gt;<br />
Subject: Quicktime-Netshow<br />
To: Steve.Jobs@apple.com<br />
X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0
</p>

<p>
Dear Steve Jobs,
</p>

<p>
I am writing to you after having paid attention to
some conferences in France about video servers and
Microsoft's Netshow
offer.<br />
After some discussions with industry and research
professionals in France
interested in the various problems of video indexing and
high performance
video servers on the Internet,
it appears that, as this seemed quite surprising to me,
many video
professionals are considering Netshow as an efficient
alternative to
Ouicktime for
streaming and other video synchronization problems.<br />
I am convinced, as a strong Apple supporter, that
Quicktime is the best
offer for video professionals in many aspects.<br />
But what they say is that Netshow is much better in terms
of streaming
and synchronization. More precisely, they argue that the
Netshow library
offers functions for synchronization and positionning that
lack in
Ouicktime. I don't know if that is true, I didn't have
time to check. And
many seem to reconsidering the software platform they
want to use for these reasons.<br />
Television superhighways and video servers seem to be an
important
stake for the future of video and TV professionals.
Microsoft is preparing
some important alliances, for example in Singapore on
these matters.<br />
The professionnals I was talking about these matters are
involved
in the building of indexed data bases for real-time video
manipulation.
They may still hesitate to promote the netshow plateform,
but they insist
on these so-called lacks of quicktime for streaming.<br />
I take the opportunity to write to you about these matters
because
many important decision-makers are talking about it in
France, and
probably elsewhere. I hope it is still time to convince
these people to use
QT, either by showing them that QT offer the same
synchronization
functionalities that NetShow, or to fill the gaps that QT
may suffer w.r.t.
netshow.
</p>

<p>
Yours sincerely,
</p>

<p>
Hussein Yahia<br />
<em>[Ed: Signature omitted.]</em>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 1677A ("MS Apps on multiple RISC platforms")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01677_A.p
df

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1677A<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Paul Maritz<br />
<b>To:</b> Ron Hosogi; Candace Grisdale<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Steve Wells<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: MS Apps on multiple RISC
platforms<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tuesday, May 25, 1993 7:03PM
</p>

<p>
We need to find out from HP ways in which we could
quantify the benefit. Candace - can you:<br />
1. Ask them to give us some idea of how they would be
really supporting Windows - ie. would they commit
to train certain % of their sales force, set equal
compensation structure. They are probably planning to do
this anyway, but if they could make some reasonable
commitment, we could help sell internally.<br />
2. Would they be willing to consider bundling MS Apps on
the HP PA CD for a promotional period (say
firstyear).
</p>

<p>
You should run this by them in a non-threatening way,
saying that our apps group is sceptical that they can
get any direct benefit, so we need some ways to convince
them that the benefit would be real.
</p>

<p>
----------<br />
<b>From:</b> Bill Gates<br />
<b>To:</b> Mike Maples; Paul Maritz; Pete Higgins<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Jeff Raikes; Jonathan Lazarus; Roger Heinen;
Steve Ballmer<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: MS Apps on multiple RISC
platforms<br />
<b>Date:</b> Friday, May 21, 1993 8:52PM
</p>

<p>
I talked with Pete about the cost/benefit of this this
afternoon.
</p>

<p>
To do this well we might end up with as many as 5 people
for each of Word and Excel. This would allow us
over time to do a very good job covering multiple RISC
chips. It would be mostly testing. I pushed back on
this saying - the C compiler would be working fully
because NT would use it and the testing should be
automated. Localized versions should just be copying over
an architecture independent file just read at
runtime like a lot of our competition and our own
Proiect - this would avoid viewing instruction
set/langauge
as a multiplier. Each situation needs to be looked at to
see if there are any funny requirements like some
kind of data exchange or document format. Personally I
think its more like 3 but that is not the key issue. I
told Pete he could think of this as extra headcount if we
manage to figure out the benefit side.
</p>

<p>
The key issue is what kind of benefit can we get from the
customer. In HPs case can we win back the
internal business we lost to LOTUS? Can we get them to
bundle on a certain number of machines - say
20k at $200 per machine (word and excel) for each of 3
years? Can we get away with not doing everything
(Access, Powerpoint, VB3) and just using emulation? Can we
avoid their asking us to do anything on their
UNIX including its WABI? Are they serious about NT? Would
the C compiler really be solid? DO we have all
features in these portable products (probably not)?
</p>

<p>
I would really like to see this work out since I think it
positions our applications as more "open" or "flexible"
and makes it harder for LOTUS to say we are not meeting
requirements. It would be a PR boost and would
help the systems group. Pete agreed to pick someone to be
Paul's partner in thinking this over and making
an effort to work it out.
</p>

<p>
I do see RISC becoming important over the next 3 years and
would like to get in early.<br />
----------<br />
<b>From:</b> Paul Maritz<br />
<b>To:</b> Bill Gates; Mike Maples; Pete Higgins<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Jeff Raikes; Jonathan Lazarus; Roger Heinen;
Steve Ballmer<br />
<b>Subject:</b> MS Apps on multiple RISC platforms<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wednesday, May 19, 1993 2:22PM
</p>

<p>
I spoke with Peteh on this topic yesterday. To be fair to
Peteh, he was very sceptical that:<br />
1. there would be any real benefit to the MS apps business
("shades of New Wave") - the sales forces of
these large OEMs (DEC, HP, IBM) simply do not "push"
apps,<br />
2. there is a real and significant cost to doing multiple
platforms - at a minimum it disctracts from important
goals.
</p>

<p>
Peteh - please correct me if this is not accurate summary.
</p>

<p>
We need to come to a position on this soon (before June
7), as HP (with PA) is waiting for our answer. In
due course, so will DEC (with Alpha) want an answer, and I
hope that IBM (with PowerPC) will be in the
same situation before long.
</p>

<p>
I think it is reasonable in all these cases to assume that
we can specify that the RISC vendor produce and
support an MS compatible C compiler for their platform
(rogerh is gearing up to license these guys the
VC+ + environment so that they can bolt their backends
into it).
</p>

<p>
The issue then becomes what is the incremental cost to MS
to get an MS app onto a new Win NT RISC
platform, and what is the real benefit - given that not
all of these RISC arhictectures can get to high
volume.<br />
I have asked Peteh to nominate a technical person who can
work with a system tech person to give some
initial reading on what the technical cost would be (what
mods if any need get made in code, what is retest
cost likely to be). I hope we can at least hear their
respective views by next week.
</p>

<p>
But we need to decide:<br />
1. Are we going to do this,<br />
2. If so how (should we do it ourselves, can we have the
vendor do the port, can we outsource the port,
etc.)<br />
3. How much will it cost &amp; how should the cost to
Peteh be covered?<br />
4. How should distribution be handled?
</p>

<p>
I will try to get us together next Friday if possibe.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 5780 ("Apple meeting")
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_5780.pdf

<p>
Plaintiff's Exhibit 5780<br />
Comes V. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> Joachim Kempin<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tuesday, June 25, 1996 6:43 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Bill Gates<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Apple meeting
</p>

<p>
thank you this would be a huge win for both of us and it
would spill over to their OS licensees. Over time that
would be
able to sell NT to corporate. I would not be surprised if
they would want a MAC UI on their version- if feasable. We
will go
ahead and ask them again for their stand on an NT license.
</p>

<p>
----------<br />
<b>From:</b> Bill Gates<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 25. 1996 4:33 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Joachim Kempin<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: Apple meeting
</p>

<p>
I should have copied you on this mail.
</p>

<p>
----------<br />
<b>From:</b> Bill Gates<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 23, 1996 10:24 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Paul Maritz; Brad Silverberg<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Pete Higgins; Don Bradford; Ben Waldman; John
Ludwig<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Apple meeting
</p>

<p>
Last Tuesday night I went down to address the top Apple
executives. I explained our strategy, discussed our
applications work with Apple, discussed how they should
work with us on Browser and Windows NT and took
questions.
</p>

<p>
I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple
relationship - 1) Maintain our applications share on the
platform and 2) See
if we can get them to embrace Internet explorer in some
way. This mail will focus on item 2 exclusively. It would
require some real effort to get a deal but I think it is
possible. We would have to decide that Apple endorsing
Internet
explorer is a big deal.
</p>

<p>
Apple is trying to decide whether they should work with us
or not on platform software. Their instincts tell them it
might
be a mistake. However they are tempted to get involved
with Windows NT server and how it integrates with
Macintosh. They would be tempted to be able to focus their
R&amp;D efforts.
</p>

<p>
My proposition to them was that once they decide the areas
they want to be different and better than Windows then
we will know all of the other areas and those are places
where we can cooperate.
</p>

<p>
The current HTML rendering code in Cyberdog is not good
enough to compete. Apple would like to be able to plug in
code from Netscape or Microsoft. They know we are doing
good work on the Mac. They wonder whether we can get
decent share in the Windows market, they wonder if they
can trust us and they wonder how they could take our work
and fit it into their Opendoc strategy. If they don't work
with us they will probably have to get closer to Netscape
or else
their browser will always look stupid. Apple is just
realizing that what we are doing with Active Desktop and
making the
page and link metaphor central is critical to having a
decent OS.
</p>

<p>
Ike Nassi sat at dinner with me and enthused about how
they had just gone on an Opendoc press tour and it was
great. The press loved multiple active objects. We haven't
convinced anyone that Opendoc doesn't have technical
advantages. Unless the new head of development want to
demoralize a lot of people the best I think we can do is
get
Opendoc redefined over time to be more compatible with our
approaches. I want to sidestep this issue a little by
getting them to ship todays internet explorer (including
our updates) while they take it and do whatever
Opendocizing
they think is needed. Ideally they can do this without
breaking the ActiveX support. I am confused about how
'interoperable' Opendoc is with ActiveX and how flexible
Apple might be to fix problems here. I told them that they
can't be religious over plumbing issues.
</p>

<p>
I explained to Ike that his R&amp;D costs to keep up with
us in areas that aren't points of differentiation will
exceed his
budget by a lot and that he will always be perceived as
incompatible. I tried to make the point on the browser but
we
kept getting hung up on opendoc so I made the point by
using our security software work. That example got him
agreeing that he would love to have that work and be able
to incorporate into the Mac Os.
</p>

<p>
I proposed that we swap technology including source code
with no restricitions. The deal would look like this:
</p>

<p>
Apple gets:<br />
Internet explorer source code including updates<br />
Security software and other definable pieces we can turn
over to them [I need more ideas for this category - things
that are separable enough we can turn them over to Apple
to save them R&amp;D and get our approach endorsed]<br />
Blessing by us of Quicktime as a cool cross platform thing
where apple looks good and we align our strategies
[this wouldn't have to mean much in practice. We are
already planning to read Quicktime formats]
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )