Totally believable. My grandmother lived though the great depression, wherein she was lucky to get an Orange at christmas. The last few decades of her life she basically was a food hoarder, pantries overflowing with canned goods, and a freezer where you never saw the back.

When I was a kid I did odd jobs, and one of the odd jobs was cleaning out a semi-hoarder’s house after he’d passed away (iirc he’d lived through the Great Depression). Not like you see on TV, with the heaps and heaps of garbage. Maybe like your grandmother, tons of… basically well organized supplies and stuff.

I dunno. Toilet paper, some canned goods, lighters, I guess that stuff all lasts decades if stored properly. Takes up a lot is space, though, and your descendants might have to pay some kid to throw it all away if you don’t use it up in time…

But, some folks wished they were toilet paper hoarders during the pandemic I guess. Wonder what the kids of 2060 will be throwing away as a result of our life-experiences.

> Wonder what the kids of 2060 will be throwing away as a result of our life-experiences.

Likely old computers that could do anything the user wanted.

> Wonder what the kids of 2060 will be throwing away as a result of our life-experiences.

EOL devices(tablets, phones, macbooks, thinkpads, hobby electronics boards, home lab equipments, hdd and ssd full of archive data, swag from conferences, outdated books on product and programming, smart watches etc).

Rats nests of USB cables and power cords, etc., probably.

Same thing with my grandpa, he hoarded everything. Cleaning out his house after he passed was a huge undertaking.

Also, Apple was down to 90 days of operating cash and almost went bankrupt in 1997.

And Microsoft had to invest in Apple, as a bankrupt Apple would have left them with effectively no defense against the antitrust investigation they were undergoing.

The irony in that is pretty funny tbh

It's also proof that antitrust laws are beneficial, if only they were enforced (a lot) more seriously and frequently and uniformly.

The jury's still out on this case. When historians look back a hundred years from now, will they consider it beneficial that Apple survived? Or will they see it as an unfortunate reprieve for a company that wrought unfathomable destruction upon our society via the creation of the smartphone and the attention economy that soon followed?

It's really hard to argue counterfactuals on this one. Perhaps the smartphone would have been built by Google anyway. I can't really imagine how, given the state of the mobile phone market at the time of the iPhone's release.

I would keep enjoying my Maemo or Symbian Belle probably, who knows.

The only way that differs "any corp" is that in most publicly corporations, you want to return that money to your shareholders - and they sit on it for the same reason. IE, this just says Jobs ran Apple as his personal fife. But since he made lots of money, no one cared.

I’m a shareholder, and I would rather that money be used to grow stock price (since it is already at a business known for creating new products and markets).

If I get a dividend, I have to pay tax today. And then I just turn around and buy more stock with post tax income?

If I can sell the share at a higher price when I want the cash, then I can pay the tax whenever I want, possibly under more preferable terms.

This and the Cult of Mac book completely describe it. Leaders are people who can have emotional damage that they compensate for in their business decisions.

It is "easy" to understand why parents would lie to home invasion robbers about whether or not they had a safe in the house. Leaders of companies will readily lie if they believe that the survival of their company is at stake. The rational is "well someone might get mad that we lied but at least the company will still be here."

Alternative/complementary view: traditional software applications business is extremely high-risk high-return. It’s no accident that NeXT (and Microsoft in early days!) almost ran out of money. To balance the risk, you would want to compensate with extremely conservative balance sheet.

Michael Milken published a paper analyzing exactly this issue a while back.

That is why I believe had Steve been alive the App Store would actually be something like 5-10% rather than 30%. They needed the money then, even in 2011 when he passed away. They really dont need it as much now.

Apple now has more money than they know what to do with it. They have spend close to $800 billion stock buy back in total by the end of this year.

They could have lowered the the margin of Mac and gained Market Shares. Which is something Steve said during NeXT era that Apple got greedy. Focusing too much on margin.