Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple buys Sun?

Tommy Wasabi

Tommy Wasabi

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 10, 2003
86
0
Chicago
Putting this out there for comment - think about it and give me your opinion.

What if Apple would buy Sun?

Advantages - would be a BIG WIN for Apple ito gain inroads into the corporate market. Installed base, established relationship with world class enterprise vendors (Oracle, SAP, Siebel, Peoplesoft, etc) consulting staff in place, sales force, etc. it would be a big win.

From a hardware point of view - Sun is struggling to keep even on the radar - it costs way too much money and takes way too much time to produce new processors and machines. Why not adopt the Power strategy from IBM and put OSX or Solaris on that? Smarter move.

From a Software point of view - there might be some challenges, but hey - it's unix - I'm sure they'll figure it out. Solaris as a GUI is a joke but the enterprise support it provides is outstanding. Why not put Aqua on solaris (or on W2003 for that matter <grin>.

Java - need I say more.

Just a thought - does anybody else think this might be a good idea? Positive and negative thoughts are welcome! (OK - just don't make fun of me too much if you think this idea is whacked - just tell me why the idea is whacked)
 
Tommy Wasabi said:
Putting this out there for comment - think about it and give me your opinion.

What if Apple would buy Sun?

Advantages - would be a BIG WIN for Apple ito gain inroads into the corporate market. Installed base, established relationship with world class enterprise vendors (Oracle, SAP, Siebel, Peoplesoft, etc) consulting staff in place, sales force, etc. it would be a big win.

From a hardware point of view - Sun is struggling to keep even on the radar - it costs way too much money and takes way too much time to produce new processors and machines. Why not adopt the Power strategy from IBM and put OSX or Solaris on that? Smarter move.

From a Software point of view - there might be some challenges, but hey - it's unix - I'm sure they'll figure it out. Solaris as a GUI is a joke but the enterprise support it provides is outstanding. Why not put Aqua on solaris (or on W2003 for that matter <grin>.

Java - need I say more.

Just a thought - does anybody else think this might be a good idea? Positive and negative thoughts are welcome! (OK - just don't make fun of me too much if you think this idea is whacked - just tell me why the idea is whacked)
Click to expand...

It's a great idea in the abstract, but Apple doesn't have the money to buyout Sun and McNealy and Jobs could never work together in a merger.
 
Sayhey said:
It's a great idea in the abstract, but Apple doesn't have the money to buyout Sun and McNealy and Jobs could never work together in a merger.
Click to expand...

I'd challenge the first - they could find it if they needed to.

I would completely agree with the second. With Jobs view of the world, there can only be ONE God and it's him. But hey, McNealy is a wimp, the press hates him so it wouldn't be a big loss. But, if Jobs wanted to throw a bone - put him on the BOD or let him run the enteprise business. It would be great if it worked, I just don't see McNealy reporting to Steve - ain't gonna happen.

It would be totally funny because at one time Sun was going to buy Apple.
 
Tommy Wasabi said:
It would be totally funny because at one time Sun was going to buy Apple.
Click to expand...

And before this twice Apple was going to buy Sun! Sun was much smaller back then though...

I think it would be great if Apple could buy Sun though. Sun technology could give Mac OS X a place in enterprise that only Solaris has had before it.

Hopefully Apple would also completely open Java so that C# cannot effectively replace it. Sun is very stupid refusing to open Java.
 
Yeesh, there's an article on macbytes about the 10-year Micro$uck+Sun agreement. The Micro$uck deal effectively kills any possiblity of an Apple takeover :( .

Woulda been cool, though- to see where Apple-Aqua and the Sun- Looking Glass would go if put together.
 
wordmunger said:
Apple is *still* smaller than Sun. Sun's Market Capitalization is $16.7 billion. Apple's is $10.46 billion.
Click to expand...

Really? I would have thought both were far larger. I recently saw information about the annual sales of each company, though. Apple sells just under $10 billion per year (Steve Jobs statement), while Sun sells about $3 billion (Wired Magazine). The companies' market capitalizations, I would have guessed, would be some multiple of annual sales (and expected future sales).
 
zamyatin said:
Really? I would have thought both were far larger. I recently saw information about the annual sales of each company, though. Apple sells just under $10 billion per year (Steve Jobs statement), while Sun sells about $3 billion (Wired Magazine). The companies' market capitalizations, I would have guessed, would be some multiple of annual sales (and expected future sales).
Click to expand...

market capitalization is based on the share price. also apple's total revenue for 2002-2003 is $6.2 billion and is trending up whereas sun's total revenue for 2002-2003 is $11.4 billion and is trending down. as of market close today, sun is worth $16.4 billion whereas apple is worth $10.4 billion.
 
Not to kill the what if scenario, but I think it would be more likely that IBM would buyout Sun before Apple. IBM has been pushing Linux and Java lately, so they would take ownership of Java and gain more leverage in the server market by adding Sun's clientel to their install base.
 
kingjr3 said:
Not to kill the what if scenario, but I think it would be more likely that IBM would buyout Sun before Apple. IBM has been pushing Linux and Java lately, so they would take ownership of Java and gain more leverage in the server market by adding Sun's clientel to their install base.
Click to expand...

that is a good point, but you have realize Sun sales are going down because specific adoption of linux by compaines like IBM and Dell, which showing to be a better solution over proprietary Unix at the moment. i think ibm over the last 4-5 years have put over 4-5 billion dollars (1-2 billion/year) in linux. i think they are gaining leverage on the server market already. http://news.com.com/2100-1010-5069581.html

so why gain extra cost in maintence of other servers, when you can just beat them in the free market with you own verison of linux which are you partnered with many of the major distro to help you push linux anyways. personally i think ibm, is pushing towards opensource on the server market, this will give them an edge on security, because they will benefit from the entire linux community rather than soley on internel programmers having to fix exploits found by external people. with the other model, idealy someone could find exploits write a fix and it be deployed and the patch examed by everyone in the community and fix again and again etc. this is basically what apple has done with open darwin.
 
Sun is going to continue to decline in the near future as a result of this agreement with Microsoft. Interoperability is the main benefit for both parties but Microsoft will likely gain even more market influence and sales as a result. Sun will not gain much advantage in comparison. Therefore Microsoft will be able to steal more sales from Sun than Sun can hope to get from Microsoft. Linux will continue to steal sales away from both of them.

It seems that both Apple and IBM passed on this opportunity for a merger. In the long run I suspect Windows is doomed and Microsoft will struggle. Thirty years from now open source operating systems and core applications will probably dominate the market. I believe integrated solutions such as those offered by Sun and Apple could continue to survive through innovation and aggressive marketing. If Sun and Apple continue to allow Microsoft to steal their ideas and dilute their efforts both innovation and marketing will be difficult. Working in close cooperation with Microsoft is simply giving up.
 
Sun is Setting for a reason, IBM & HP

Linux is not a technology aimed at SunOS, not by IBM, not by Dell. Linux---and all the other Unix-like O/S suites---is aimed at Microsoft. IBM's investment in Linux is all in its Intel-based server line, a line that formerly depended on Microsoft's O/Ss. Linux is no threat to IBM's Unix O/S, nor to their chief competitor in that market, HP. Don't everyone have a cow---Linux is a fine O/S, and is perfect as a competitor to Microsoft O/Ss---but that is it's only market. Linux is not robust enough, nor does it have the technological strength, to perform in the high-end server market. For IBM & HP, Linux is a gift, and one with its edges pointed right at Microsoft's heart. Microsoft exists on its plethora of proprietary O/S packages (all called Windows something-or-other), and Linux is positioned to replace them in many important areas, particularly in commercial transaction processing and in middleware application service.

Merging with, buying, or partnering with, Sun would be foolish for Apple. Sun's technology is decayed and decaying, and Apple has at last chosen to stick with a foray into the Unix-like universe; Sun would drag Apple down, not bouy it up. Apple's best move, in terms of "strategic partnerships", is to rebuild its relationship with IBM. IBM and Apple share core technology---Linux, in one flavour or another---and present each other with a number of opportunities for product integration, hardware & software. Working with IBM brings Linux in the server world, and Linux in the desktop world, together in commercially viable ways. Microsoft is Apple's competitor, and all its actions must be taken with that competitor firmly in the corporate sights.
 
Wow - Some Great Insight!

ranya said:
Merging with, buying, or partnering with, Sun would be foolish for Apple. Sun's technology is decayed and decaying, and Apple has at last chosen to stick with a foray into the Unix-like universe; Sun would drag Apple down, not bouy it up. Apple's best move, in terms of "strategic partnerships", is to rebuild its relationship with IBM. IBM and Apple share core technology---Linux, in one flavour or another---and present each other with a number of opportunities for product integration, hardware & software. Working with IBM brings Linux in the server world, and Linux in the desktop world, together in commercially viable ways. Microsoft is Apple's competitor, and all its actions must be taken with that competitor firmly in the corporate sights.
Click to expand...

However, partnering with IBM doesn't satisfy Apple's lack of presence in the Enterprise (where they need to go if they are going to increase marketshare). Don't get me wrong, I think your analysis is spot on. I am challenged by what would IBM gain by a relationship (other than give less money to M$). Apple does not have a sales force that is capable of selling into the enterprise - nor do they have ANY KIND OF professional services that would be necessary to support these products. If we follow this train of thought, the only thing Apple might be able to gain would be perhaps some additional iMacs sales to large companies but nothing to move it up the scale to make a dent.

I come from Enterprise IT and Apple (at least in these quarters) is a joke. For me to recommend a Mac solution would be political suicide. (Even if it is better at most core office applications AND less expensive to support than their Windows brethern). Companies have mind share invested in M$ - and until a killer app or cost saving is introduced - it will be difficult to unseat them.

Of course, if M$ continues to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to licensing, who knows what would happen. Linux was only invented to rid the world of M$ domination. Maybe at the server level it is making some inroads - but on the desktop - I think Apple even has a larger marketshare <grin>.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back