XServe G5 From Apple + IBM, I can see the ads now. Honestly I don't pretend to know anything about the situation, so I may be way off base here. But it seems to me that apple isn't fond of letting their OS onto any platform that they don't have strict control over, remember Power Computing? And this, to me, is a very good thing as far as stability is concerned. A partnership with IBM could mean either something similar to what I stated in the beginning of this post, or a shift in that policy to allow OS X or OS X compatible features to current server products. Or possibly even more PC friendly features to OS X server software. There are too many people out there who rely on the Mac being a small niche community, and I think that Steve knows that, he's not about to mess that up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM/Apple Deal?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually the biggest thing IBM does internally now is make sure it's technologies all work with multiple other systems and platforms. If they carried that over to Apple it'd mean things like iPods working with every music store, iTMS selling to all music players, iTunes on Linux, Appleworks/WordPro/Lotus1-2-3 for Mac/Windows/Linux, Cocoa for Windows and Linux. Etc.mdetry said:
(snipped your #4 and #5, I don't see Marklar).TEG said:
#1 - If IBM partners with Apple and sells MacOS X, why wouldn't IBM make their own computer to do it? They could sell their computer with Linux or MacOS X.
#2 - That's interesting. Still, IBM has quality servers of their own. I'd be nice to have IBM and Mac teaming up on the technologies to serve Windows and Mac machines with more consistency and compatibility.
#3 - Ain't gonna happen. IBM has so much stuff outside of the PC arena. Maybe Steve being in charge of a "consumer technology" division of IBM that's significantly bigger than Apple is now?
They could do some cool things with their middleware.Jaz said:
I doubt there's much too all this. It makes sense that IBM doesn't want to sell Intel computers (both as supporting a competitor, and a low profit market), and IF they wanted to sell PowerPC computers then MacOS X would be a good way to do it. Would Apple try that willingly? I don't know but I doubt it. If there was a buyout, I'd love to see Mac OS X and Apple's lifestyle appliances take off, but I'd also like tosee Apple following IBMs strategy of success through working with everyone.
It's a worry that this story starts off with this "audacious speculation", and finishes by calling it "this rumor". Now people are saying "this news"!
DavidCar said:
The hammer should break a blue screen with some writing in white in the middle...
Speculative
Exactly. It all seems like a wild bit of speculation to me; fantasy football. Probably wanted to write something provocative so people would read it. I do not agree that it is necessarily the best thing for Apple. What would it look like? Would Apple HAVE to use only IBM chips. That would suck. They already have a partnership of sorts with IBM. What if IBM hits another wall in producing chips? What if Motorola suddenly came out with a much better design (dual core or whatever).
2A Batterie said:
Exactly. It all seems like a wild bit of speculation to me; fantasy football. Probably wanted to write something provocative so people would read it. I do not agree that it is necessarily the best thing for Apple. What would it look like? Would Apple HAVE to use only IBM chips. That would suck. They already have a partnership of sorts with IBM. What if IBM hits another wall in producing chips? What if Motorola suddenly came out with a much better design (dual core or whatever).
Why assume that IBM is getting out of selling PC's
If IBM trys to sell their PC business to another company, why should we assume they are not going to sell the same PC's? They would just buy them from the company they sell the division too. Maybe they realize they don't like the production side of lower end and lower profit PC's, and want to focus on the things that are more important - Global Services (4x greater rev), Services/Systems group (20% more rev) and software (also 20% more rev).
Of course, maybe Sam woke up one morning and didn't like the incongruency of making one kind of chip and making around 13% of their revenue selling equipment based on another.
If IBM trys to sell their PC business to another company, why should we assume they are not going to sell the same PC's? They would just buy them from the company they sell the division too. Maybe they realize they don't like the production side of lower end and lower profit PC's, and want to focus on the things that are more important - Global Services (4x greater rev), Services/Systems group (20% more rev) and software (also 20% more rev).
Of course, maybe Sam woke up one morning and didn't like the incongruency of making one kind of chip and making around 13% of their revenue selling equipment based on another.
LimeiBook86 said:I could see this happening...Maybe IBM to sell machines that run Apple's OS X? Maybe...OS X on x86?...only time will tell
This man is clearly not paying attention. IBM is all but ending its use of anything of or pertaining to the x86 architecture, and as a final slap in the face of intel and AMD, it has foremd Power.org, a 15 company consortium charged with the promotion of its PowerX architecture. Who can tell what the future will hold for this blessed union of the most innovative technology with one of the most well known and established. But I will say that we should all look for things to get vert exciting her in the next couple of months.
Well said
Very true, my company has an IBM service contract we mostly use IBM hardware and employ a phalanx of service engineers to maintain the desktops & laptops which are slow and unstable.
Going with more std hardware will enable lower servicing costs for IBM while their fixed contracts keep the $'s coming in. One major issue with corporations would be migrating off of Lotus Notes unless this changes to go web only or OSX too.
John
asif786 said:
Very true, my company has an IBM service contract we mostly use IBM hardware and employ a phalanx of service engineers to maintain the desktops & laptops which are slow and unstable.
Going with more std hardware will enable lower servicing costs for IBM while their fixed contracts keep the $'s coming in. One major issue with corporations would be migrating off of Lotus Notes unless this changes to go web only or OSX too.
John
Step away from the crack pipe, sir!
First of all, IBM has been a partner with Apple since about 1991. Remember the AIM consortium (Apple-IBM-Motorola)? Admittedly, this deal hasn't exactly been very vibrant, but it shows a history of cooperation.
But the thing that really makes me think this is insane is IBM's enthusiastic embrace of Linux. If they really had designs on Apple and OS X, they certainly wouldn't have made such huge investments in a similar competing system.
Had this rumor been circulating in the Gil Amelio days, I'd be excited, but now Apple's doing well enough that they don't need a deep-pocketed savior. Now, if IBM wants to make a high profile announcement that they'll market clusters of Xserves running OS X, that would be great, but no merger is needed for that.
First of all, IBM has been a partner with Apple since about 1991. Remember the AIM consortium (Apple-IBM-Motorola)? Admittedly, this deal hasn't exactly been very vibrant, but it shows a history of cooperation.
But the thing that really makes me think this is insane is IBM's enthusiastic embrace of Linux. If they really had designs on Apple and OS X, they certainly wouldn't have made such huge investments in a similar competing system.
Had this rumor been circulating in the Gil Amelio days, I'd be excited, but now Apple's doing well enough that they don't need a deep-pocketed savior. Now, if IBM wants to make a high profile announcement that they'll market clusters of Xserves running OS X, that would be great, but no merger is needed for that.
This is pretty interesting. I live not too far from the IBM East Fishkill plant where the G5 chips are manufactured. There is a GIANT building being added to the already huge IBM complex there, whose mission is shrouded in secrecy. There was a Page 1 article in the local newspaper not too long ago, speculating on what IBM might be up to, as Dutchess County is an IBM driven economy.
Apple is hot and IBM has changed. Who knows?
Apple is hot and IBM has changed. Who knows?
No IBM - Apple partnership. IBM mostly like Power PC & Linux
I highly doubt that IBM and Apple are going to create a partnership where IBM sells computers with Mac OS X. I really don't see this happening at all.
It IS very likely that they were just getting rid of the Intel compatible CPUs and will be building and selling computers based on their Power or Power Cell technologies with Linux as the OS.
I highly doubt that IBM and Apple are going to create a partnership where IBM sells computers with Mac OS X. I really don't see this happening at all.
It IS very likely that they were just getting rid of the Intel compatible CPUs and will be building and selling computers based on their Power or Power Cell technologies with Linux as the OS.
Okay, I have read about half of the messages in the thread.
I agree with the poster that pointed out IBM has > $60B sales and Apple about $9B.
I see the partnership opportunities in the small server market since Apple hardware is BETTER that most IBM bladecenters.
So adding Apple SKU's to the Big Blue sales force is a good value especially since Linux is not working well for them due to lack of user friendliness and high service issues (read customer dissatisfaction). OSX is compatible with 95% of vertical market unix products.
IBM powers Ebay and other database transaction products. Apple has a sensational transaction handling rate product in X-serve. They use IBM chips.
The main problem I see is IBM can't make these chips fast enough. Maybe they would make them faster if it was in their self interest.
Rocketman
I agree with the poster that pointed out IBM has > $60B sales and Apple about $9B.
I see the partnership opportunities in the small server market since Apple hardware is BETTER that most IBM bladecenters.
So adding Apple SKU's to the Big Blue sales force is a good value especially since Linux is not working well for them due to lack of user friendliness and high service issues (read customer dissatisfaction). OSX is compatible with 95% of vertical market unix products.
IBM powers Ebay and other database transaction products. Apple has a sensational transaction handling rate product in X-serve. They use IBM chips.
The main problem I see is IBM can't make these chips fast enough. Maybe they would make them faster if it was in their self interest.
Rocketman
I like the idea of IBM and Apple working to geather, but im scared to death of apple being bough out by IBM.
I don't really see one or the other BUYing each other. In fact I wouldn't really want to see that, but I can imagine their partnership will grow. This would probably be good for Apple, another way to get their name out and possibly more respected as a computer company among the masses, versus that fruit company that makes iPods.
This is clearly rumour and speculation without any hard facts.
I don't think many people would seriously imagine that one company will buy the other, so if anything comes of this story, it would have to be an alliance rather than a merger.
The benefit for Apple would be to gain credibility in high-end business installations.
What's the benefit for IBM ?
Some say that it will grow their chip manufacturing business, but Apple are currently being hobbled by insufficient supplies of G5 chips from IBM and insufficient speed on the range too. IBM would certainly need to completely solve those problems.
There might be an argument for running OS X instead of Windows as it's a proven stable and secure OS, but I wonder how readily businesses will accept change of that magnitude ?
Has anybody got any other theories about what IBM might gain from such an alliance ?
I don't think many people would seriously imagine that one company will buy the other, so if anything comes of this story, it would have to be an alliance rather than a merger.
The benefit for Apple would be to gain credibility in high-end business installations.
What's the benefit for IBM ?
Some say that it will grow their chip manufacturing business, but Apple are currently being hobbled by insufficient supplies of G5 chips from IBM and insufficient speed on the range too. IBM would certainly need to completely solve those problems.
There might be an argument for running OS X instead of Windows as it's a proven stable and secure OS, but I wonder how readily businesses will accept change of that magnitude ?
Has anybody got any other theories about what IBM might gain from such an alliance ?
The things I think could happen:
- Apple purchases IBM's PC division. Dunno what to do with it though...
- Apple and IBM create a tighter alliance for some better hardware support by IBM.
- Apple licenses IBM to make Mac clones.
- Apple merges with IBM. Not likely, nor do I want to see it.
I'm sure all of those ideas have been named already.
But, if IBM and Apple were to do something together, I want to see it happen. I think it'll be worth taking the risk.
- Apple purchases IBM's PC division. Dunno what to do with it though...
- Apple and IBM create a tighter alliance for some better hardware support by IBM.
- Apple licenses IBM to make Mac clones.
- Apple merges with IBM. Not likely, nor do I want to see it.
I'm sure all of those ideas have been named already.
But, if IBM and Apple were to do something together, I want to see it happen. I think it'll be worth taking the risk.
Or perhaps Apple could buy IBM's PC business.
For a couple billion dollars, half of their savings or less with stock that is at an all time high, they can buy the 3rd largest PC supplier. That would give them a market share of roughly 10%.
For the next few months they ship the IBM's machines as is, while Jonathon Ives works on the makeover. (Much like they've done with Logic and Shake.)
Then next summer they release the new Apple Thinkpad and PowerBook running Tiger. And they can sell Mac OS X for existing IBM hardware owners.
Apple is hardware company which makes its money from hardware. The reason they don't release Mac OS X for Intel is that shifts them to be a software company. Their hardware business would dry up for Macs as they licensed their OS.
But what if they were also the 3rd largest PC company? They could legitimately have servers, desktops, and laptops using Intel, AMD and IBM chips running the same Mac OS X with Ives great industrial design.
--Sebastian
For a couple billion dollars, half of their savings or less with stock that is at an all time high, they can buy the 3rd largest PC supplier. That would give them a market share of roughly 10%.
For the next few months they ship the IBM's machines as is, while Jonathon Ives works on the makeover. (Much like they've done with Logic and Shake.)
Then next summer they release the new Apple Thinkpad and PowerBook running Tiger. And they can sell Mac OS X for existing IBM hardware owners.
Apple is hardware company which makes its money from hardware. The reason they don't release Mac OS X for Intel is that shifts them to be a software company. Their hardware business would dry up for Macs as they licensed their OS.
But what if they were also the 3rd largest PC company? They could legitimately have servers, desktops, and laptops using Intel, AMD and IBM chips running the same Mac OS X with Ives great industrial design.
--Sebastian
I do not get it, IBM will be selling they consumer PC business and pick up another even with a joint venture with Apple.
I can see them focusing more on the PPC for desktop. server and other devices however not start selling Apple machines. This is good however since it means more focus on the PPC.
Whatever happens will happen in due time.
I can see them focusing more on the PPC for desktop. server and other devices however not start selling Apple machines. This is good however since it means more focus on the PPC.
Whatever happens will happen in due time.
StarbucksSam said:
Why not? Apple is a publicly traded company and as such is as likely or not as any company to be bought.
Indeed, Apple would be an extremely attractive proposition these days.
LimeiBook86 said:I could see this happening...Maybe IBM to sell machines that run Apple's OS X? Maybe...OS X on x86?...only time will tell
Yes, it would make a lot of sense for the current prime mover of the PowerPC world to buy an OS designed for PPC then convert it to the ISA of its biggest rivals. Not.
m a y a said:I do not get it, IBM will be selling they consumer PC business and pick up another even with a joint venture with Apple.
I can see them focusing more on the PPC for desktop. server and other devices however not start selling Apple machines. This is good however since it means more focus on the PPC.
Apple would be in a position to use Intel, AMD, or IBM chips. Whichever is fastest or cheapest for what it wants to do. Much like they use ATI and NVIDIA.
--Sebastian
I've just dug out an old posting of mine (05-15-2003) from inside the PowerPC 970: Part II thread, were I claimed:
This time IBM will also be using this 970 thingermebob, I bet it will only be a matter of time before IBM brings out its own OS X machine (probably part of the deal, why else would they have shoehorned in the altivec unit? IBM doesn't need it in it's blade servers).
This would have the automatic effect of immediately increasing Apple's share of the market, people would then be using OS X at work and then be more inclined to buy it for home as well. The knock on effect.
Another thought, maybe the iTunes song shop is just a marketing gimmick and really there just to raise the profile of Apple, after all when it reaches the other 97% it will be an "in your face" Apple app. How many TV ads and banners is that worth, particularly if its making you a modest amount of money at the same time!
How prophetic!
Well, thinking about the this latest rumour, the fact that Apple shares have gone through the roof and that fact that Gartner predicts that 3 of the top 10 PC manufacturers will get out of the market by 2007, I would be suprised if IBM and Apple didn't have something up their corporate sleeves.
Apple has the expertice and more importantly the profile/image for it to be very profitable for both companies.
The Wintel Market is over saturated, there are no profits left, the only place to go is with a new "flavour".
The laws of economics demand that a company go for ever higher profits because the only alternative is ever lower profits, and I don't see either company getting into the soda market anytime soon to placate it's responsibilitys to it's shareholders.
This time IBM will also be using this 970 thingermebob, I bet it will only be a matter of time before IBM brings out its own OS X machine (probably part of the deal, why else would they have shoehorned in the altivec unit? IBM doesn't need it in it's blade servers).
This would have the automatic effect of immediately increasing Apple's share of the market, people would then be using OS X at work and then be more inclined to buy it for home as well. The knock on effect.
Another thought, maybe the iTunes song shop is just a marketing gimmick and really there just to raise the profile of Apple, after all when it reaches the other 97% it will be an "in your face" Apple app. How many TV ads and banners is that worth, particularly if its making you a modest amount of money at the same time!
How prophetic!
Well, thinking about the this latest rumour, the fact that Apple shares have gone through the roof and that fact that Gartner predicts that 3 of the top 10 PC manufacturers will get out of the market by 2007, I would be suprised if IBM and Apple didn't have something up their corporate sleeves.
Apple has the expertice and more importantly the profile/image for it to be very profitable for both companies.
The Wintel Market is over saturated, there are no profits left, the only place to go is with a new "flavour".
The laws of economics demand that a company go for ever higher profits because the only alternative is ever lower profits, and I don't see either company getting into the soda market anytime soon to placate it's responsibilitys to it's shareholders.
VIIGemina said:
If Apple wanted to do this so badly, why would they have to wait for some sort of putative partnership/merger with IBM?
If they're so hot for AMD or Intel processors, all they have to do is rewrite the OS for them. They're in a position to use Intel or AMD whenever they choose. Either company will be more than happy to sell them processors.
Perhaps the biggest argument against this happening in the future is the fact that it isn't happening now.