August 6, 1997: Microsoft invests $150 million in Apple, guaranteeing that they would make Mac Office until 2002. Litigation between the companies was settled, and Apple agreed to make IE the preferred browser on Macs for awhile. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html
You might still have some kind of a point because Apple didn't adopt a Microsoft operating system their 1997 deal. But you still need to rephrase your statement if you want to be accurate.
Partnerships don't save bad companies. SGI and Palm were running into the ground on their own accord.
I was going to point that one out too. However, I think its success had more to do with Steve Jobs having returned to the helm than anything else. Perhaps they would have been ok without the MS deal, too.
I think dagw's point mostly stands, with Apple being somewhat of an anomaly.
Thinking out loud: Steve Jobs has always been a "man with a plan", and so his deal with MS was one step along the road to recovery, whereas a lot of the other MS deals have been companies that, lacking a coherent plan, started thrashing around grabbing at anything to stay afloat.
Can you name one that isn't Apple? (that's the only one anyone has mentioned so far). Because, I think that Microsoft actually made out better in that deal - they didn't get broken up in antitrust.
Also, Apple really didn't get a 'partner' in Microsoft. Microsoft didn't need them from a technology point of view. They needed them to survive for legal reasons.
Essentially, Apple got an agreement that Microsoft would support the Mac for Office. That was the major coup because that meant that the Mac would be able to keep being seen as a legitimate business computer.
I think that the money was pretty minor in the deal (but I can't remember Apple's cash flow at that point in time).
Intel: Sure, they had clashes over the decades (especially over Intel's forays into software, which Microsoft pushed damn hard to kill, and over NT ports to other ISAs), but these are exceptions.
"Citrix's relationship with Microsoft was key to the company's growth. Microsoft's Windows was exceedingly popular, and Citrix allowed network users to run Windows, even if they used Macintosh computers, which had a completely different operating system. The two companies were deeply intertwined. Iacobucci had known Bill Gates for years, Microsoft was a major investor in Citrix, and much of Citrix's growth was due to the demand for access to Windows. But Microsoft shocked Citrix in 1997 when it announced that it was considering building its own version of Windows networking technology, supplanting Citrix with a home-grown Microsoft product. Citrix's stock plummeted on this news, as it did not seem possible for Citrix to survive without Microsoft. Yet in some ways, Microsoft's new plan didn't make sense. At that point, no one besides Citrix made anything like what Citrix made, so there was no chance of Microsoft licensing the technology from another company. And it would take Microsoft some time to develop a comparable program, probably years. Iacobucci flew to Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Washington, with a crew of advisors and negotiators and prepared for a long stay. The Citrix team camped out in a suite of apartments and hammered out an agreement with Microsoft over a period of months. Finally Citrix announced that it had signed a new licensing agreement with Microsoft, promising Citrix $75 million immediately, and another $100 million spread over several years. Microsoft would endorse Citrix's Windows networking systems for five more years."
Just because a partner is strong doesn't mean they're not a partner.
Yea, I want to make it clear that I'm not blaming MS for the failures of SGI or Palm, just pointing out the symmetry of failing companies grasping at the Microsoft straw and gaining nothing.
