<p>Does apple have a core team which scouts around for possible acquisitions? How is this process done today.</p>

Posted by: Navneet 11 Sep 2010

<p>Thank you Jean Louis Gasse!!!</p>

Posted by: Gary 23 Aug 2010

<p>"What many don't realize, however, is that the deal came very close to never happening. Amelio's first choice of an acquisition target was Be Inc. The company's BeOS was in many ways a perfect fit for Apple. Had Be founder Jean Louis Gassee not stuck to his guns and demanded top dollar for the company, Apple might very well have never even entered into discussions with Jobs and the company would look very different today. In fact, Apple might not even be around today."</p> <p>How long is the media going to hype this myth? Who is the source of this claim: Jobs? Amelio?</p> <p>Is there a reason you don't delve into the details as to why NeXT was a superior choice to Be? What were the possible reasons Be would have actually been a better choice: if any?</p> <p>I would like someone to expose this myth as nothing other than a smoke screen: as it appears to be.</p> <p>The more likely reason why Apple acquired NeXT would be found in the origins of the NeXT spin off: how was Jobs able to bring (most?) of the original Macintosh team with him (I realize it has been mentioned that a number of the key members of the team did not go with Jobs?) i have heard yet another spin that the NeXT was the Lisa IV - so, the team that was dormant while the Macintosh was gaining traction.</p> <p>But how much is true about the comparison between the Lisa and early NeXT Cube?</p> <p>The magnitude of the properties that NeXT brought to Apple is exponential compared to what was known publicly of Be's properties or ideas manifest in reality.</p> <p>Imagine the transformation from WebObjects to iTunes Music Store: using a very expensive, over-the-counter web app environment to sell billions of songs with one installation, reiterated across the Globe.</p> <p>As read at the time, another myth(?) as to what killed the Be deal was as trite as: a lack of printer drivers for the Be. I don't know if that was true or accurate but it was mentioned.</p> <p>it is interesting however to see another article surface after a long period of time referring back to NeXT and its founders and talented engineers' visionary greatness, an homage to simplicity and transparency.</p> <p>I would like to see someone do a comprehensive study and report, for public consumption, on how Apple and NeXT have evolved, as the NeXT technology acquired has become greater, different, and how the changes are representative of the changes in platform, hardware, software and network technologies that evolve along side; how various ideas that originated at Apple have also matured with the spectrum of technology originally from each company - or the abstractions as they have become better:</p> <p>and speculate on the real NeXT steps in store from Apple based on the inevitable, despite Apple's insistence on secrecy and deception.</p> <p>It used to be fun to speculate - now, it is considered a routine, waste of time, as Apple has both regulated, scheduled their announcements and the utilitarian nature of each product ratcheting can be dull.</p> <p>But, when a simple product like the Magic Trackpad can turn a mac mini into a 55in iPad we see how Apple humbles itself.</p> <p>It all does come down to simplifying the experience for the end-users, which the Mac OS, NeXTSTEP and (OpenStep) have and the Mac OS X and iOS continue to suggest.<br /> I ask myself often why certain steps in a given process on the Mac or iPhone (iPad) are not even more simplified, then I step back and realize that an unmanageable kluge is likely to result.</p>

Posted by: Jim Nemerovski 22 Aug 2010