Native Instruments file for insolvency...

[fedexnman]

Maybe Fender ?

[Sascha Franck]

Yes, it's stupid to liquidate good products with paying customers....

Not in case you run a competing business.

[Sascha Franck]

To answer your question: Apple for one. They could easily buy NI as a whole.

Sure. And make it Apple-only.

Someone already pointed out Yamaha. For Kontakt in particular? Arturia. Jesus the list is huge. That you are arguing against any of this and seemingly that it is impossible for Kontakt to survive is bizarre at the least.

I'm not arguing against any of that. But I'm arguing against your statement of Kontakt to certainly survive. Because that's just not a given.

Besides, as said before: Sample library developers will likely try to leave the ship anyway - one way or the other. Simply because it's just not clever to have all your work relying on a format you have zero control about.

[machinesworking]

Not alone he didn’t. Without that $150 million investment Apple would’ve had to file for bankruptcy, thus microsoft did save apple even Steve Jobs himself publicly thanked Bill Gates on multiple occasion's for doing so. https://www.econotimes.com/How-Microsof ... go-1683628

That $150 million investment is what allowed Steve Jobs to restructure the company, cut out all the waste and get Apple back on track. Steve Jobs just showing back up is not what saved them from Bankruptcy.

The 150 million was essentially a settlement. After the Macintosh came out Gates asked for deep near kernal level access to Mac OS to "make Word the best he could" etc. For almost two decades afterwards Apple was in lawsuits with Microsoft for code theft. Gates and Jobs agreed to a 150 million investment in stock with stipulations against possible stock fixing etc. Gates the time was being investigated for monopoly law violations, and Jobs was trying to fix Apple. In other words Gates is shady as f**k and never loses if he can help it. It wasn't a loan or a gift and obviously the stocks were worth much more by the time he could sell them.

[machinesworking]

When Jobs first saw an experimental computer with a Graphical User Interface, he immediately recognized the potential, licensed the tech and hired key engineers that were involved in the original design.

I know its pedantic but...It wasn't an experimental computer - it was a soon to be released commercial product from Xerox, he didn't license anything, he copied it, but as Picasso said "Genius is theft", I'm not aware of Apple hiring any of the ParcPlace engineers (where this all got invented), but they may have, Palo Alto is just down the road from Apples HQ. (Parc is an acronym - Palo Alto Research Centre - owned and run by Xerox)

Pedantic is good. The Alto shipped, but Xerox only shipped 120 units. So I would argue calling it experimental is justified.

Jobs paid Xerox stock options just to be allowed to look at the computer.

One of several engineers who moved from Xerox to Apple is Larry Tesler. He invented cut, copy and paste. He invented the first object oriented programming language. He invented the first word processor with a GUI.

There are many interesting stories about the developments at PARC - including that Xerox management thought that using a device called a "mouse" with a computer was just too weird.

Xerox didn't invent anything either. The mother of All Demos was in 1969, showing a mouse, windows, pretty much the modern computer well before Jobs went visiting Xerox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos

People seem to forget all this, but obviously it's the whole cult of personality thing that for some reason is so pervasive. The fact that Jobs and Gates are household names, but hardly anyone know about Douglas Engelbart is just a testimony to how messed up this planet is.

[stratology]

When Jobs first saw an experimental computer with a Graphical User Interface, he immediately recognized the potential, licensed the tech and hired key engineers that were involved in the original design.

I know its pedantic but...It wasn't an experimental computer - it was a soon to be released commercial product from Xerox, he didn't license anything, he copied it, but as Picasso said "Genius is theft", I'm not aware of Apple hiring any of the ParcPlace engineers (where this all got invented), but they may have, Palo Alto is just down the road from Apples HQ. (Parc is an acronym - Palo Alto Research Centre - owned and run by Xerox)

Pedantic is good. The Alto shipped, but Xerox only shipped 120 units. So I would argue calling it experimental is justified.

Jobs paid Xerox stock options just to be allowed to look at the computer.

One of several engineers who moved from Xerox to Apple is Larry Tesler. He invented cut, copy and paste. He invented the first object oriented programming language. He invented the first word processor with a GUI.

There are many interesting stories about the developments at PARC - including that Xerox management thought that using a device called a "mouse" with a computer was just too weird.

Xerox didn't invent anything either. The mother of All Demos was in 1969, showing a mouse, windows, pretty much the modern computer well before Jobs went visiting Xerox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos

People seem to forget all this, but obviously it's the whole cult of personality thing that for some reason is so pervasive. The fact that Jobs and Gates are household names, but hardly anyone know about Douglas Engelbart is just a testimony to how messed up this planet is.

I literally mentioned Douglas Engelbart in the post you quoted from me.
Engelbart worked at Xerox at the time Jobs saw the Alto.

Jobs had a talent for spotting promising technology and people.

Another example: when he returned to Apple, Jony Ive had already been working there for some time, and had created the designs that lead to the Bondi iMac - which management had ignored. Jobs recognized the talent, Ive changed the industry several times after that with his designs.

Jobs also held around 1000 patents in his name - more than Gates, Musk and Zuckerberg combined.


At the time Jobs was CEO, Apple also did not have a single lobbyist in Washington.

[machinesworking]

I literally mentioned Douglas Engelbart in the post you quoted from me.
Engelbart worked at Xerox at the time Jobs saw the Alto.

Jobs had a talent for spotting promising technology and people.

Another example: when he returned to Apple, Jony Ive had already been working there for some time, and had created the designs that lead to the Bondi iMac - which management had ignored. Jobs recognized the talent, Ive changed the industry several times after that with his designs.

Jobs also held around 1000 patents in his name - more than Gates, Musk and Zuckerberg combined.


At the time Jobs was CEO, Apple also did not have a single lobbyist in Washington.

Don't see Engelbert mentioned not that it's important, mostly I just get sick of the the whole Xerox as the inventor of windows and the mouse, it was the Stanford Research Institute, just like a lot of great inventions, tied into a college non profit. You see this silly debate all the time, that it was Xerox, and Apple "stole it", then Microsoft did etc.

Yeah, that's one thing I really miss about Jobs VS Cook, no lobbyists, privacy in their DNA. Jobs was product driven, that's one thing that differentiates him from other CEO's I get the impression the success wasn't the important part, it was more a confirmation that his ideas were right. Not a moral or ethical thing, just personal vision, no wonder libertarians like him, he's pretty much Ayn Rands wet dream, including the lack of empathy.

Ives and Jobs are also responsible for iphones that lost reception if you held them like a normal person holds a phone. They demanded the antenna be a thin band right where you hold the phone. I suppose they learned from that.

[DCrown]

It is funny to see how Jobs is always considered a hero, well, that's the tumor of Western civilization and only a few see how he caused damage to the world (society, business, culture, music) that can not be repaired any more.

At least Jobs was not a sex pest who is all over the Epstein files like Gates, but you go ahead and have your delusions that an actual self made man was the reason capitalism is bad now...

The view on capitalism by someone who is brainwashed by capitalism of course obviously is good and success is measured by money, omg.
The topic why his innovations are rather bad would go too deep and Kvr is the wrong place.
But just one example:
Apple's Steve Jobs is widely credited with creating the modern, mainstream smartphone with the release of the iPhone in 2007.
You can't say smartphones didn't/don't have a big influence on society, on interacting with each other, on daily habits, on intelligence, on progress, on business, on relationships, even on health.
And I suppose you only see a good side.
I am in the mood for one more different example more music related:
Wealthiest Musicians (Overall Net Worth - 2026 Estimates):
Jay-Z ($2.8B - $4B)
Taylor Swift ($1.5B - $1.6B)
Rihanna ($1B - $1.4B):

Jay Z ( who is Jay Z??? do I know one song? Have to check), Swaylor Twift and Rihanna, ok. Are they the best musicians? Is their music important? Did their music add any artistic value? or aren't they just using capitalism and tools of capitalism to make money?! It is all just about money.
Influence, value and creativity and positive effects don't matter at all - the real important things.
Money is the main reason for NI's situation.
Yeah, capitalism really is the gold standard to aim for lol
Money money, money!

[machinesworking]

The view on capitalism by someone who is brainwashed by capitalism of course obviously is good and success is measured by money, omg.
The topic why his innovations are rather bad would go too deep and Kvr is the wrong place.
But just one example:
Apple's Steve Jobs is widely credited with creating the modern, mainstream smartphone with the release of the iPhone in 2007.
You can't say smartphones didn't/don't have a big influence on society, on interacting with each other, on daily habits, on business, on relationships, even on health.
And I suppose you only see a good side.

I'm just not filled with enough cognitive dissonance to be posting about how Jobs helping to make smart phones common is bad on a forum that you've no doubt looked at on your smart phone. It's never the technology that's bad, it's how you use it. A drone can deliver food to the elderly, keep a kid happy, or be a weapon of war.

I'm not worried about most of what you are with smart phones, it's more about the way the internet itself is going and the lack of actual moderation on social media. I've reported flat out nazis dozens of times posting openly racist things in comments on Facebook, Youtube etc. and they never find fault with them, i.e. it's just an AI response, and they don't care. It's obvious that there are bots, paid bad actors from Russia, Israel, China etc. flooding the narative along with actual white supremacist groups. Propaganda and subterfuge has been made cheap and easy to produce. This is the real downfall, plus the rabid commercialization and homogeny of it all.

The smart phone isn't the problem, the thing is amazing, if just for GPS. It's the media that is fed to us. It's the same with AI, we're watching them completely ignore every dystopian sci fi story ever written. Grok is producing CSAM, thinks it's Mecca Hitler and ponders that Mush may be more important than Jesus.

Blaming computers for what sells on the internet is just weird. We should be blaming Zuckerberg, Musk, and the unnamed bad actors that exploit their idiotic mediums.

[SoftSynthLover99]

It is funny to see how Jobs is always considered a hero, well, that's the tumor of Western civilization and only a few see how he caused damage to the world (society, business, culture, music) that can not be repaired any more.

At least Jobs was not a sex pest who is all over the Epstein files like Gates, but you go ahead and have your delusions that an actual self made man was the reason capitalism is bad now...

You can't say smartphones didn't/don't have a big influence on society, on interacting with each other, on daily habits, on intelligence, on progress, on business, on relationships, even on health.

The iPhone/SmartPhone is a brilliant piece of technology to be fair. It’s just most humans are too stupid and moronic to use it correctly. Current the iPhone is a mini computer, professional DSLR camera, book/audiobook reader, hi-res music and video player, DAW and recording device, GPS for traveling, etc etc. All of which enhance our daily lives.

But because humans are so stupid, we go get ourselves addicted to social media apps (which Steve Jobs did not create) and all the free porn + every other distraction our little brains can find (again which Steve Jobs had nothing to do with).

So whose fault is it really that we get so distracted and disconnected? Nobody forces you to install social media and youtube and all the other distracting apps.
It’s easy to blame Steve Jobs for these things, but the truth is much simpler. Most humans are stupid and have no self control. Therefore any technology that can enhance our daily lives, you better believe we will figure out a way to abuse it and turn it into something negative.

We all have the choice to ignore propaganda and marketing and all the negative aspects of the modern internet. But will most people do that? I don’t think so.

[vurt]

It is funny to see how Jobs is always considered a hero, well, that's the tumor of Western civilization and only a few see how he caused damage to the world (society, business, culture, music) that can not be repaired any more.

At least Jobs was not a sex pest who is all over the Epstein files like Gates, but you go ahead and have your delusions that an actual self made man was the reason capitalism is bad now...

The view on capitalism by someone who is brainwashed by capitalism of course obviously is good and success is measured by money, omg.
The topic why his innovations are rather bad would go too deep and Kvr is the wrong place.
But just one example:
Apple's Steve Jobs is widely credited with creating the modern, mainstream smartphone with the release of the iPhone in 2007.
You can't say smartphones didn't/don't have a big influence on society, on interacting with each other, on daily habits, on intelligence, on progress, on business, on relationships, even on health.
And I suppose you only see a good side.
I am in the mood for one more different example more music related:
Wealthiest Musicians (Overall Net Worth - 2026 Estimates):
Jay-Z ($2.8B - $4B)
Taylor Swift ($1.5B - $1.6B)
Rihanna ($1B - $1.4B):

Jay Z ( who is Jay Z??? do I know one song? Have to check), Swaylor Twift and Rihanna, ok. Are they the best musicians? Is their music important? Did their music add any artistic value? or aren't they just using capitalism and tools of capitalism to make money?! It is all just about money.
Influence, value and creativity and positive effects don't matter at all - the real important things.
Money is the main reason for NI's situation.
Yeah, capitalism really is the gold standard to aim for lol
Money money, money!

well if you search for richest artists, don't be surprised when money is the bench mark

[stratology]

Swaylor Twift and Rihanna, ok. Are they the best musicians? Is their music important? Did their music add any artistic value? or aren't they just using capitalism and tools of capitalism to make money?! It is all just about money.

There is no correlation whatsoever between how successful a musician is, and how 'good' they are. Taylor Swift is one of the best musicians around. She can enter a room with just a guitar, and make everyone cry.
Gaga is extremely successful, and an extremely good musicians.

Allan Holdsworth is considered by many as the best guitarist who ever lived, and never had any commercial success.


That being said: there is actually no such thing as a 'good' musician. There are no objective criteria considering what 'good' means.

'Good' is always selective: 'good' classical musicians often have a terrible sense of time and groove, 'good' Indian musicians play music that has literally zero value in terms of harmony (no chord progressions at all), etc.

Susan Rogers, who worked for years as a sound engineer for Prince and later became a neuroscientist, wrote a truly enlightening book about music perception, called 'This is what it sounds like'. For me, it was an eye opening read...

[stratology]

Don't see Engelbert mentioned

You can see the full quote by clicking at the small arrow next to the poster's name, or by clicking the word 'post', which I hyperlinked to my full previous post.


Bottom line - your and my point of view are really quite similar. Credit where credit is due, which is often little known individuals, not someone like Jobs, who recognized their ideas, and made them into widely available products.

You are also completely correct that a lot of innovation happens at universities. I hinted at that when I mentioned Jobs and the iPhone - there was a publicly available video of a research project with the same type of touch screen and physical interactions as on modern smartphones. A year before the iPhone. The device was table sized, but the fundamentals of the tech were there.

Add Jeff Han to the list of true innovators.

[digitalboytn]

There is no correlation whatsoever between how successful a musician is, and how 'good' they are.

'Good' is always selective...

Susan Rogers, who worked for years as a sound engineer for Prince and later became a neuroscientist, wrote a truly enlightening book about music perception, called 'This is what it sounds like'. For me, it was an eye opening read...

The majority of people listen with their eyes