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
Yeah it was surprising - cc:Mail (which was award winning) + that great calendar Lotus had all got pulled into Notes and lost the simple elegance of the original.sunilraman said:greg, that's like saying that a beautiful timber house has synergy with a clunky chainsaw
...sorry to rant but lotus notes is an absolute rubbish email client...
The only synergy I mean is that they are all software applications running on multiple platforms. If there was a merger (which I don't believe there will be) I'd hope Lotus WordPro etc was given to the Apple software team to do with what they'd like.
GregA said:
no worries
it would be great if IBM-apple could really start to chew away at wintel from both the server-business side and the consumer business side...
and hopefully something catastrophic makes wintel implode, voila, apple-ibm moves to fill that gap
but i am getting nasty now
Divide and Conquer?
Could the new iPod Division be a clue?
Something is definitely brewing at Apple - but it might not be what we are dreaming of.
Could the new iPod Division be a clue?
It's also interesting to me that recently Apple lost it leaders in Hardware and Support - Tim Bucher, who until mid-November ran Apple's Macintosh hardware engineering and Mark Wilhelm, who served as vice president of AppleCare.
Something is definitely brewing at Apple - but it might not be what we are dreaming of.
IBM competes with the X86 architecture. What is all this nonsense about OS X on X86 what are you talking about some people!?
Ok, this is bunk. IBM is getting out of the PC business, not changing horses. Selling Macs isn't going to be a major boon to their chip business. I don't know what the FTC reference was about, but it's not like acquiring Apple would make them a monopoly risk. There is absolutely no benefit to IBM in a move like this-- the author couldn't even come up with anything substantive and while it might boost Apple's cred, it also might very well kill them.
This would also almost certainly hurt IBM's credibility. If Apple was a new wonderkind then someone might listen, but the battle has been fought between MS and Apple and MS won. For a business oriented company to switch now would just be viewed as foolish.
Giving IBM an entry into the "lifestyle" market is ridiculous... Uh... International Business Machines?!
And while I'll grant that OS X is a much, much better OS than Linux for general computing, Linux is the business standard 'nix and there's no reason to change.
I can imagine cross marketing XServes and OS X (maybe), but anything beyond that is bunk.
If this rumor really has been circulating, it was put out by someone who hoped Wall Street might bite and give a brief spike to AAPL shares. Looks like this guy is still trying pull the hook out of his lip...
This would also almost certainly hurt IBM's credibility. If Apple was a new wonderkind then someone might listen, but the battle has been fought between MS and Apple and MS won. For a business oriented company to switch now would just be viewed as foolish.
Giving IBM an entry into the "lifestyle" market is ridiculous... Uh... International Business Machines?!
And while I'll grant that OS X is a much, much better OS than Linux for general computing, Linux is the business standard 'nix and there's no reason to change.
I can imagine cross marketing XServes and OS X (maybe), but anything beyond that is bunk.
If this rumor really has been circulating, it was put out by someone who hoped Wall Street might bite and give a brief spike to AAPL shares. Looks like this guy is still trying pull the hook out of his lip...
Servers.
Apple has a great server OS, but they don't have a good server offering.
IBM has the best servers out there, and they've got nothing like OS X Server.
I imagine that OS X Server would gain great momentum and credibility if it ran on IBM servers. It can easily be ported to the POWER5 architecture.
So here's a couple of possibilities.
IBM starts offering OS X servers. The uniprocessor JS20 PPC970 blade, with the BladeCenter envirornment. The OpenPower 720, with 1 to 4 POWER5 processors, price range 5000$ to 25000$ - and killer storage solutions. Maybe even midrange servers - up to 64 POWER5 processors.
Apple keeps the XServe and XServe RAID - there's no IBM equivalent. But they start reselling IBM-branded or co-branded servers - so now their server offering is a lot bigger, and Apple makes more sense in the enterprise.
IBM starts reselling Apple laptops and workstations, maybe co-branding them. The only PC product line they had that had some cool - the Thinkpads - just got a lot cooler. And they stop buying Intel chips. They now make the chips for their own computers.
IBM might not completely exit the PC market - keeping the IntelliStation workstation line, which starts around 1500$. They might start selling IntelliStation POWER machines that run OS X, who knows. I figure they'd get the ultra-high end: 15000$+ machines, something Apple doesn't have.
So, what does all this mean ? Well, Apple expands their offering to machines way more powerful that what they have. They don't have the will or ressources to deliver higher-end servers by themselves, and unless they do, their enterprise credibility and penetration is limited. Right now, you might consider an Apple server, but what if you need more power ? What if you don't trust Apple's commitment to the server market ? IBM can solve those problems. Build an OS X network, confident that it's backed by IBM and that you can expand it if needed. Apple becomes a lot more credible.
What does IBM get ? Well, they get new opportunities for server sales. And they get a line of laptops and workstations to resell - that are a lot cooler than those they've got right now. And the margin on those is also a lot higher. They don't want to sell low-margin machines anymore. Apple has the product they need. IBM can get away from Windows - which they surely hate - and start pushing OS X solutions; they are a service company first, and if their consultants have Apple/IBM solutions to offer.. Well.. Their clout is enough to move a lot of people away from Windows.
I think this would be a great move for both companies. The immediate effects are interesting, but the long term possibilities are even better. This is an opportunity for Apple to gain so much more market share. And for IBM to deliver a huge blow to Microsoft. Instead of offering solutions that gravitate around Windows, they can finally go all the way UNIX: OS X/Linux/AIX.
Apple has a great server OS, but they don't have a good server offering.
IBM has the best servers out there, and they've got nothing like OS X Server.
I imagine that OS X Server would gain great momentum and credibility if it ran on IBM servers. It can easily be ported to the POWER5 architecture.
So here's a couple of possibilities.
IBM starts offering OS X servers. The uniprocessor JS20 PPC970 blade, with the BladeCenter envirornment. The OpenPower 720, with 1 to 4 POWER5 processors, price range 5000$ to 25000$ - and killer storage solutions. Maybe even midrange servers - up to 64 POWER5 processors.
Apple keeps the XServe and XServe RAID - there's no IBM equivalent. But they start reselling IBM-branded or co-branded servers - so now their server offering is a lot bigger, and Apple makes more sense in the enterprise.
IBM starts reselling Apple laptops and workstations, maybe co-branding them. The only PC product line they had that had some cool - the Thinkpads - just got a lot cooler. And they stop buying Intel chips. They now make the chips for their own computers.
IBM might not completely exit the PC market - keeping the IntelliStation workstation line, which starts around 1500$. They might start selling IntelliStation POWER machines that run OS X, who knows. I figure they'd get the ultra-high end: 15000$+ machines, something Apple doesn't have.
So, what does all this mean ? Well, Apple expands their offering to machines way more powerful that what they have. They don't have the will or ressources to deliver higher-end servers by themselves, and unless they do, their enterprise credibility and penetration is limited. Right now, you might consider an Apple server, but what if you need more power ? What if you don't trust Apple's commitment to the server market ? IBM can solve those problems. Build an OS X network, confident that it's backed by IBM and that you can expand it if needed. Apple becomes a lot more credible.
What does IBM get ? Well, they get new opportunities for server sales. And they get a line of laptops and workstations to resell - that are a lot cooler than those they've got right now. And the margin on those is also a lot higher. They don't want to sell low-margin machines anymore. Apple has the product they need. IBM can get away from Windows - which they surely hate - and start pushing OS X solutions; they are a service company first, and if their consultants have Apple/IBM solutions to offer.. Well.. Their clout is enough to move a lot of people away from Windows.
I think this would be a great move for both companies. The immediate effects are interesting, but the long term possibilities are even better. This is an opportunity for Apple to gain so much more market share. And for IBM to deliver a huge blow to Microsoft. Instead of offering solutions that gravitate around Windows, they can finally go all the way UNIX: OS X/Linux/AIX.
<soapbox>
IBM has paid attention to the rise of Linux, supporting both AIX and Linux on Unix workstations, so that's evidence that they do pay attention to market demands and are willing to consider "not made here" versions of Unix. If they see a demand for Unix-based, less virus-prone personal computers, they might have good reason to look at Macs as the avenue. The existing chip-making partnership is an added bonus.
Nevertheless, I think it's mere guesswork by this columnist, and I don't buy his claim that IBM is looking for ways to take revenge on Microsoft. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, and Larry Ellison often seem to be running their businesses according to their personal beliefs or egos, but to me IBM seems more interested in research supremacy and bottom-line profitability than in holding grudges and settling scores.
</soapbox>
That sounds a lot like what they said back when PCs were considered toys and any sane businessperson would buy a mainframe, or at least a multi-user minicomputer, never a PC. Then IBM started selling PCs and suddenly it was OK to buy PCs for offices. With that analogy, it doesn't seem so silly that a non-Windows personal computer from IBM, even if made by Apple, could find newfound legitimacy in a corporate environment, the happy counterpoint to all the servers IBM sells. IBM is not the 800-pound gorilla it once was, but Windows may not have its lock on the business desktop computer forever. If its hold weakens, positioning in the marketplace is the name of the game.Analog Kid said:
IBM has paid attention to the rise of Linux, supporting both AIX and Linux on Unix workstations, so that's evidence that they do pay attention to market demands and are willing to consider "not made here" versions of Unix. If they see a demand for Unix-based, less virus-prone personal computers, they might have good reason to look at Macs as the avenue. The existing chip-making partnership is an added bonus.
Nevertheless, I think it's mere guesswork by this columnist, and I don't buy his claim that IBM is looking for ways to take revenge on Microsoft. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, and Larry Ellison often seem to be running their businesses according to their personal beliefs or egos, but to me IBM seems more interested in research supremacy and bottom-line profitability than in holding grudges and settling scores.
</soapbox>
hate to be a spoiler on this one but the only way i would see ibm interested in apple (other than chip sales) is the whole "digital-life" initiative apple has nailed. the ipod, itunes, the ilife apps, etc. but c'mon it makes no ****ing sense to go and buy apple or even license mac os x when you consider how much cash ibm has dumped into its linux initiative. ibm makes money on service contracts and patent licensing. the middleware, the linux stuff, is all means to an end. service contracts. a great recurring revenue stream showing good organic growth, year on year. maybe apple could be a hedge against all this IP litigation in the linux world with SCO (read Microsoft) and possible future litigation with Microsoft, but I really doubt anybody at IBM is losing sleep over a possible court room battle with Microsoft.
if ibm can leverage apple's consumer app experience to sell more service contracts then i think you have something there. i mean you've all read (or maybe not) how ibm is putting its pc division on the block for sale. it makes perfect business sense, selling commodity hardware is a losing battle. it is NON-CORE. software and service contracts are CORE. besides leaving the razor-thin margins of the commodity PC biz to companies that can do it better like dell. that is a CORE business to dell.
which should scare DELL because PC's are a dying breed. but don't get me started on that diatribe....hehehe
jaromski
if ibm can leverage apple's consumer app experience to sell more service contracts then i think you have something there. i mean you've all read (or maybe not) how ibm is putting its pc division on the block for sale. it makes perfect business sense, selling commodity hardware is a losing battle. it is NON-CORE. software and service contracts are CORE. besides leaving the razor-thin margins of the commodity PC biz to companies that can do it better like dell. that is a CORE business to dell.
which should scare DELL because PC's are a dying breed. but don't get me started on that diatribe....hehehe
jaromski
Mac hardware is dying. It is a very sad thing to see. Yea, sure, it's getting better, but everything is. Apple needs to step it up on the hardware side.
I know they have the capability to... the Power architecture is good, and Apple is good at making computers.
If IBM was given a license to make workstations that ran Mac OS X, it would be a good thing. They would put workstation quality processors in them and make them good workstation prices. I could use one.
PS Apples portables are pretty strong.
I know they have the capability to... the Power architecture is good, and Apple is good at making computers.
If IBM was given a license to make workstations that ran Mac OS X, it would be a good thing. They would put workstation quality processors in them and make them good workstation prices. I could use one.
PS Apples portables are pretty strong.
this topic has been actively discussed on slashdot.
IBM is destroying its entire x86 line ... good riddance.
I don't think S.J will let anybody buy out Apple .. he will have relations with many 500 companies. I do think it would be wise for Apple and IBM to consider a closer licensing partnership or a merger to bring os x to IBM's products - PPC linux just isn't cutting it , MS Office makes os X a valueable acquisition.
This will be excellent for Apple, in exchange they will probably get more control over chip fabrication and the likes.
Apple-BM?
I-Apple?
I.B.Apple?
edit: the only thing i will be sad to see go is the Thinkpad line...
IBM is destroying its entire x86 line ... good riddance.
I don't think S.J will let anybody buy out Apple .. he will have relations with many 500 companies. I do think it would be wise for Apple and IBM to consider a closer licensing partnership or a merger to bring os x to IBM's products - PPC linux just isn't cutting it , MS Office makes os X a valueable acquisition.
This will be excellent for Apple, in exchange they will probably get more control over chip fabrication and the likes.
Apple-BM?
I-Apple?
I.B.Apple?
edit: the only thing i will be sad to see go is the Thinkpad line...
look at PeopleSoft....
The Lord God Jobs won't have much to say about it - he doesn't own Apple, the shareholders do.
Plus, that $5.5B in the bank just means that Apple would be $5.5B cheaper to buy - after buying Apple you can use the $5.5B to pay off the purchase price.
If IBM wants Apple, they'll get it. If IBM doesn't want Apple, they won't. Steve Jobs hardly counts in the equation, except for the "cult worship" factor....
fr0ntside said:
The Lord God Jobs won't have much to say about it - he doesn't own Apple, the shareholders do.
Plus, that $5.5B in the bank just means that Apple would be $5.5B cheaper to buy - after buying Apple you can use the $5.5B to pay off the purchase price.
If IBM wants Apple, they'll get it. If IBM doesn't want Apple, they won't. Steve Jobs hardly counts in the equation, except for the "cult worship" factor....
With IBM at its side would Apple be single sourced any more?
If you were a large quanity buyer of desktop computing systems would you box your self in by buying products that can only come from a single source?
I think that Apple desktop computing has that problem. There is only one company making Apple Computers and they are notorious for not being able to deliver new designs for months after annoucing availability to the public. Personally I would not put my company in the position of not having an out for getting more hardware if production goes down at one vendor. IBM could also manufacture hardware to Apple specifications.
Apple did something like this once before and nearly died under the pressure of competition. Does anyone remember when Apple had the third fastest G3 machine? Apple needs competition. This time Apple could structure the deal different.
From IBM's point of view they need to manufacture a different kind of PC like they need a hole in their head. But damn, I would like to see Apple hardware become multi-sourced.
If you were a large quanity buyer of desktop computing systems would you box your self in by buying products that can only come from a single source?
I think that Apple desktop computing has that problem. There is only one company making Apple Computers and they are notorious for not being able to deliver new designs for months after annoucing availability to the public. Personally I would not put my company in the position of not having an out for getting more hardware if production goes down at one vendor. IBM could also manufacture hardware to Apple specifications.
Apple did something like this once before and nearly died under the pressure of competition. Does anyone remember when Apple had the third fastest G3 machine? Apple needs competition. This time Apple could structure the deal different.
From IBM's point of view they need to manufacture a different kind of PC like they need a hole in their head. But damn, I would like to see Apple hardware become multi-sourced.
fr0ntside said:Apple-BM?
I-Apple?
I.B.Apple?
edit: the only thing i will be sad to see go is the Thinkpad line...
No, The IBM MacIntosh.
And the PPC Thinkpad. (Apple's painted itself into a corner with the 1" thick metal design - IBM could innovate in several directions. A 2 Kg 10" to 12" super-portable, a 5 Kg 16" desktop replacement....)
Apple selling off to IBM would destroy Apple's credibility for one major reason: it would be too similar to Jobs selecting Sculley to run Apple.
And we all remember what a nice guy Sculley turned out to be.
And we all remember what a nice guy Sculley turned out to be.
hernick said:
Serious question: What do you think OS X Server would offer IBM's customers that Linux (on x86 or PPC), Windows, AIX, OS/400 or z/OS doesn't at the moment? Why would IBM get involved in a 3rd flavour of Unix?
(Not trying to troll...genuinely interested in why you think they might get into OS X Server as well as Linux and AIX).
That'd be stupid if Apple sells off it's computer division. That'd put all the work Apple put into the Apple Stores into waste. What, the whole space just for the iPod? Puh-eeze.
I say partnership of some sort.
I say partnership of some sort.
Well..
First, I don't think z/OS and OS/400 are competing with AIX, Windows and Linux. I'm not even sure AIX is competing with Windows and Linux.
OS X Server is very interoperable. Certainly more than Windows. And to make Linux interoperable to the point OS X is out of the box requires a lot of work. Compare Directory Services in Linux vs OS X Server.
Of all the current IBM server operating systems, only Windows can be considered as 'easy to use'. OS X Server has the strength of being the easiest to manage UNIX.
It runs many commercial applications that don't run on Linux or AIX. Digital production shops may well like having Quad-POWER5 boxes for rendering.
It opens new markets. Shops that currently use Apple servers have to choose another platform if they want high end servers. IBM can give them a choice to stay within the Apple platform.
IBM doesn't have to maintain another OS. Apple develops the OS, IBM sells and supports it. There can be some ressource-sharing between the two companies, but IBM doesn't have to put its entire weight behind a new OS.
It gives IBM the leverage they need to convince Apple to let them sell co-branded Apple machines - giving IBM a high-margin laptop and desktop line to sell.
It's a great move against Microsoft. OS X Server competes strongly against Windows. And with IBM behind it, it's a credible platform.
oingoboingo said:
First, I don't think z/OS and OS/400 are competing with AIX, Windows and Linux. I'm not even sure AIX is competing with Windows and Linux.
OS X Server is very interoperable. Certainly more than Windows. And to make Linux interoperable to the point OS X is out of the box requires a lot of work. Compare Directory Services in Linux vs OS X Server.
Of all the current IBM server operating systems, only Windows can be considered as 'easy to use'. OS X Server has the strength of being the easiest to manage UNIX.
It runs many commercial applications that don't run on Linux or AIX. Digital production shops may well like having Quad-POWER5 boxes for rendering.
It opens new markets. Shops that currently use Apple servers have to choose another platform if they want high end servers. IBM can give them a choice to stay within the Apple platform.
IBM doesn't have to maintain another OS. Apple develops the OS, IBM sells and supports it. There can be some ressource-sharing between the two companies, but IBM doesn't have to put its entire weight behind a new OS.
It gives IBM the leverage they need to convince Apple to let them sell co-branded Apple machines - giving IBM a high-margin laptop and desktop line to sell.
It's a great move against Microsoft. OS X Server competes strongly against Windows. And with IBM behind it, it's a credible platform.
Supply
Talking about credibility. Apple's AWFUL, AWFUL supply mechanism hurts it terribly. They promise delivery dates, and don't deliver on time. They make people wait months for product.
How can you rely on Apple ? You've got to be crazy to do so. Apple has hurt my business by lying about delivery times. They can't reliably deliver. They need help. And were they able to deliver, I bet they Apple market would expand. IBM can do that for them.
I am presently angry at Apple for taking their time with my orders. I ordered a G5 15 days ago, said 3 to 5 days to ship. Now they're telling me it'll ship in 3 days. This summer I ordered a PB. Took a month. I ordered 3 dual G5s - took 2 months !
They've lost some orders because of their unreliability. If they could be trusted to ship quickly, I'd have made a couple more purchases this year. But when you need a machine, and you need it soon - Apple can't.
So that's why Apple NEEDS IBM. I think they need IBM more than IBM needs them. But there's a lot in it for IBM if it makes the jump.
Talking about credibility. Apple's AWFUL, AWFUL supply mechanism hurts it terribly. They promise delivery dates, and don't deliver on time. They make people wait months for product.
How can you rely on Apple ? You've got to be crazy to do so. Apple has hurt my business by lying about delivery times. They can't reliably deliver. They need help. And were they able to deliver, I bet they Apple market would expand. IBM can do that for them.
I am presently angry at Apple for taking their time with my orders. I ordered a G5 15 days ago, said 3 to 5 days to ship. Now they're telling me it'll ship in 3 days. This summer I ordered a PB. Took a month. I ordered 3 dual G5s - took 2 months !
They've lost some orders because of their unreliability. If they could be trusted to ship quickly, I'd have made a couple more purchases this year. But when you need a machine, and you need it soon - Apple can't.
So that's why Apple NEEDS IBM. I think they need IBM more than IBM needs them. But there's a lot in it for IBM if it makes the jump.
History repeating
A few may remember, but there was a time, when Sculley tried to sell Apple to IBM (actually he tried to sell the company to many others as well). This time the deal did not materialise because of the different company cultures.
I personally think that IBM would be a good partner and bad owner. For me it seems that OSX would be nice for any high-end RISC based UNIX station, be it machine from SGI, SUN, HP or IBM. This is the direction towards Apple shall be heading.
A few may remember, but there was a time, when Sculley tried to sell Apple to IBM (actually he tried to sell the company to many others as well). This time the deal did not materialise because of the different company cultures.
I personally think that IBM would be a good partner and bad owner. For me it seems that OSX would be nice for any high-end RISC based UNIX station, be it machine from SGI, SUN, HP or IBM. This is the direction towards Apple shall be heading.
ccuilla said:
I like Cringely, but he's all over the map on this one. In the six months since he wrote it, none of what he predicted has come to pass.