> I don't really understand this comment.
I was trying to reconcile the various statements in your previous comment:
"the biggest botch was JLG asking for too much money"
"Steve ended up asking for 4x as much"
"it had so many flaws, missing features and shallow implementations, OSX would certainly never have shipped"
If Jobs asked for 4x as much as JLG, and Apple went with Jobs, then clearly the ask by itself was not the problem.
And if the Apple board of directors had concluded that BeOS would never work for Apple, then my question would be, why would Apple pay anything for it?
I wasn't aware of this:
> What isn't commonly discussed, is there was an option for both acquisitions to happen
What would be the purpose of acquiring both? Was the idea to acquire Be only for the talent and not for the OS?
I was trying to reconcile the various statements in your previous comment:
"the biggest botch was JLG asking for too much money"
"Steve ended up asking for 4x as much"
"it had so many flaws, missing features and shallow implementations, OSX would certainly never have shipped"
If Jobs asked for 4x as much as JLG, and Apple went with Jobs, then clearly the ask by itself was not the problem.
And if the Apple board of directors had concluded that BeOS would never work for Apple, then my question would be, why would Apple pay anything for it?
I wasn't aware of this:
> What isn't commonly discussed, is there was an option for both acquisitions to happen
What would be the purpose of acquiring both? Was the idea to acquire Be only for the talent and not for the OS?