It is my understanding that Apple needs to find a way to increase OSX market share independently from their hardware market share to both keep and attract new developers. IBM on the other hand has spent the last couple years promoting different flavors of unix and linux for it's servers (none of which have really caught on for any length of time) while producing very good PPC desktop chips that it has been unable to sell in the desktop market (G3's).
My solution to these problems is as follows....Apple could license OS X server to IBM to use as an option to windoz and linux on their entire line of servers. OS X server I think would be a mature, stable, and cost effective server OS that is easy to administrate and already has many applications. Better yet, besides the 1U market there would be virtually no overlap between IBM and Apple server hardware.....Apple could push it's OS into the enterprise market with no harm to it's hardware sales. This should also represent an influx of interest, $$, and technical skill from IBM.
As for increasing OS X on desktops....Apple could license a stripped down "enterprise" addition of OS X without the iApps to run on inexpensive, G3 PPC based desktops aimed at secretaries and cubical personnel who do word processing all day. Before people start talking about eating into Apple hardware sales.....I'm talking about G3 based computers with integrated graphics, small hard drives, and limited ram capacity that could never substitute for even an eMac in the home desktop market. Better yet they could only sell these desktops to corporations though their business unit. Bundle Microsoft Office with these computers and you have a very stable and useable Wintel alternative for the corporate masses that would help IBM reduce their reliance on Wintel and give them a way to increase PPC sales in the desktop market.
Basically I see Apple and IBM as each having 1/2 of a solution that each desires.....Apple needs a way to increase OS market share independent of their hardware (they have been trying to drive up market share with hardware for years now and it doesn't seem to be working) and IBM needs a stable and user friendly server OS...not to mention a way to decrease their reliance on Wintel and to make their microchip division more profitable.
My solution to these problems is as follows....Apple could license OS X server to IBM to use as an option to windoz and linux on their entire line of servers. OS X server I think would be a mature, stable, and cost effective server OS that is easy to administrate and already has many applications. Better yet, besides the 1U market there would be virtually no overlap between IBM and Apple server hardware.....Apple could push it's OS into the enterprise market with no harm to it's hardware sales. This should also represent an influx of interest, $$, and technical skill from IBM.
As for increasing OS X on desktops....Apple could license a stripped down "enterprise" addition of OS X without the iApps to run on inexpensive, G3 PPC based desktops aimed at secretaries and cubical personnel who do word processing all day. Before people start talking about eating into Apple hardware sales.....I'm talking about G3 based computers with integrated graphics, small hard drives, and limited ram capacity that could never substitute for even an eMac in the home desktop market. Better yet they could only sell these desktops to corporations though their business unit. Bundle Microsoft Office with these computers and you have a very stable and useable Wintel alternative for the corporate masses that would help IBM reduce their reliance on Wintel and give them a way to increase PPC sales in the desktop market.
Basically I see Apple and IBM as each having 1/2 of a solution that each desires.....Apple needs a way to increase OS market share independent of their hardware (they have been trying to drive up market share with hardware for years now and it doesn't seem to be working) and IBM needs a stable and user friendly server OS...not to mention a way to decrease their reliance on Wintel and to make their microchip division more profitable.
