IBM/Apple Deal?

[sigamy]

OK, there is no way that IBM is buying Apple. I can't even believe that some of you are looking at that.

This will be a strategic partnership aimed to grow IBM's chip market share and their backend services. Growing IBM's chip market will directly increase Apple's overall market share because these chips will be in Macs.

The first announcement will be DB2 for Mac OS X. Back in Oct 2002 IBM polled the Mac community on interest. Not sure where that went but they'll soon port DB2.

Then, IBM will license some of AIX's technology to Apple for inclusion in Mac OS X Server. The micro-partitioning feature will be big. This will get OS X Server even more "enterprise ready".

Then IBM will stop support for Linux. IBM was the #1 target in SCO/Microsoft's FUD-based witch hunt with all those Unix patent suits. Are those suits still active? Even though the suits are bogus, IBM wants out of the mess they also want a Unix that will run on PCs as well as servers. AIX ain't that. They orginally thought Linux was the way to go. But now Linux has the lawsuits, the stigma that open source <> "enterprise worty", etc.

IBM knows that Mac OS X is the best choice out there.

IBM ports all of their middleware and services to OS X Server. They start pushing the hell out of Mac OS X Server and then they tell corporate clients "you know you can also run Word and Excel on this same OS".

Mr. Corporate IT guys says, "what? You need Windows for Excel". Mr. IBM suit pulls out a shiny new PowerBook running Word right alongside Websphere and some Shell scripts. IT guy falls over.

Who profits? IBM just sold a bunch of G5 chips and services. Apple just sold a bunch of Macs and Xserves. Microsoft gets Office licenses and a few VirtualPC licenses. Intel gets nothing.

In four years I'm sitting in my office typing on a PowerBook, not a ThinkPad T23.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

OK, there is no way that IBM is buying Apple. I can't even believe that some of you are looking at that.

This will be a strategic partnership aimed to grow IBM's chip market share and their backend services. Growing IBM's chip market will directly increase Apple's overall market share because these chips will be in Macs.

The first announcement will be DB2 for Mac OS X. Back in Oct 2002 IBM polled the Mac community on interest. Not sure where that went but they'll soon port DB2.

Then, IBM will license some of AIX's technology to Apple for inclusion in Mac OS X Server. The micro-partitioning feature will be big. This will get OS X Server even more "enterprise ready".

Then IBM will stop support for Linux. IBM was the #1 target in SCO/Microsoft's FUD-based witch hunt with all those Unix patent suits. Are those suits still active? Even though the suits are bogus, IBM wants out of the mess they also want a Unix that will run on PCs as well as servers. AIX ain't that. They orginally thought Linux was the way to go. But now Linux has the lawsuits, the stigma that open source <> "enterprise worty", etc.

IBM knows that Mac OS X is the best choice out there.

IBM ports all of their middleware and services to OS X Server. They start pushing the hell out of Mac OS X Server and then they tell corporate clients "you know you can also run Word and Excel on this same OS".

Mr. Corporate IT guys says, "what? You need Windows for Excel". Mr. IBM suit pulls out a shiny new PowerBook running Word right alongside Websphere and some Shell scripts. IT guy falls over.

Who profits? IBM just sold a bunch of G5 chips and services. Apple just sold a bunch of Macs and Xserves. Microsoft gets Office licenses and a few VirtualPC licenses. Intel gets nothing.

In four years I'm sitting in my office typing on a PowerBook, not a ThinkPad T23.

Wow, sigamy - that post pretty much captures my vision of how things would ideally work out. That situation would be a huge win for IBM, a huge win for Apple, and a mixed situation for Microsoft - they lose Windows licences, but gain Office licenses.

 

[Frobozz]

IBM won't buy Apple - IBM and Apple will form a stronger partnership, though. That's my gut feeling on this matter.

I agree. I don't think anyone believes that Apple is ripe for a takeover right now, as you clearly point out. They have complimentary business positions and interests. I'd like to add a couple points for discussion.

Both IBM and Apple have a deep interest in PowerPC's success. Without a PC division IBM is left supplying processors for it's server line, and for Apple's desktop PC's. Maybe they don't care about promoting Apple products or the desktop PC space anymore. But what if they are? There is a small emerging market for Linux based PowerPC workstations, including the Sony/Toshiba Cell processor, too. IBM fabricates the Cell processor at it's Fishkill plant.

It's thought provoking. Let's look at what we do know, based solely on the PowerPC issue:

1) Mutual interest in PowerPC success.

2) PowerPC is becoming more prevalent. Case in point is the XBox 2 and Playstation 3. More volume means cheaper prices and further development of the platform.

3) Both have a vested interest in seeing the x86 architecture's dominance decrease, which in turn means desktop AND server systems must be produced with PowerPC. IBM and Apple have complimentary approaches to these computing spaces (server and desktop.)

4) Intel has hit a major roadblock in their processor development. More MHz is no longer yielding faster chips for them, so architectural changes have been made. Case in point is the very PowerPC like changes to the Pentium M, which runs at slowwer MHz but slaps around faster Pentium 4's.

5) AMD, Intel's major x86 competitor, has suceeeded in making Intel adopt it's 64 command set. AMD is a part of the HyperTransport consortium, and essentially a silent partner in the PowerMac G5's success.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I agree. I don't think anyone believes that Apple is ripe for a takeover right now, as you clearly point out. They have complimentary business positions and interests. I'd like to add a couple points for discussion.

Both IBM and Apple have a deep interest in PowerPC's success. Without a PC division IBM is left supplying processors for it's server line, and for Apple's desktop PC's. Maybe they don't care about promoting Apple products or the desktop PC space anymore. But what if they are? There is a small emerging market for Linux based PowerPC workstations, including the Sony/Toshiba Cell processor, too. IBM fabricates the Cell processor at it's Fishkill plant.

It's thought provoking. Let's look at what we do know, based solely on the PowerPC issue:

1) Mutual interest in PowerPC success.

2) PowerPC is becoming more prevalent. Case in point is the XBox 2 and Playstation 3. More volume means cheaper prices and further development of the platform.

3) Both have a vested interest in seeing the x86 architecture's dominance decrease, which in turn means desktop AND server systems must be produced with PowerPC. IBM and Apple have complimentary approaches to these computing spaces (server and desktop.)

4) Intel has hit a major roadblock in their processor development. More MHz is no longer yielding faster chips for them, so architectural changes have been made. Case in point is the very PowerPC like changes to the Pentium M, which runs at slowwer MHz but slaps around faster Pentium 4's.

5) AMD, Intel's major x86 competitor, has suceeeded in making Intel adopt it's 64 command set. AMD is a part of the HyperTransport consortium, and essentially a silent partner in the PowerMac G5's success.

Think about this:
Per point 5, AMD already has a manufacturing relationship with IBM, as does Apple. If Apple works more closely with IBM, Apple will not only help themselves succeed, but also help AMD succeed. This has some interesting implications; one of those is Intel's role in the computer business being vastly reduced (the entire Pentium family goes bye-bye with the possible exception of the Pentium M, the XScale CPU Intel produces is unaffected); another is the knock-on effect the first implication has on Microsoft (without Intel to help them out, their monopoly will go POOF before they know it).

 

[jobutex]

Wow, sigamy - that post pretty much captures my vision of how things would ideally work out. That situation would be a huge win for IBM, a huge win for Apple, and a mixed situation for Microsoft - they lose Windows licences, but gain Office licenses.

With the proliferation of OpenOffice, and other Open Source Software alternatives, it could be a very appealing option for people to rid themselves of Micro$oft trash^H^H^H^H^software after all....

 

[JJTiger1]

Apple "buying" IBM

OK, there is no way that IBM is buying Apple. I can't even believe that some of you are looking at that.
{snippage}

How about the other way around? Apple buying IBM.

How about a big-business precedent?
... Set the controls on the Way-Back Machine for 1989:

Up and coming domestic USA little package delivery company Federal Express merged with World-Wide heavy air-freight Flying Tigers.

Flying Tigers re-invented the air-freight business after World War 2.
Flying Tigers was the forefront of the air-freight business.

Flying Tigers was the big well-known international name-brand.

FedEx was the little name that few people, on the international scene, had ever heard of.

Flying Tigers as an air-freight "name" went away, except for a department within FedEx Express involved with Charters.

FedEx is the premiere named air-freight and small package system.
=-=
Beaming back to the future: 2005.

IBM was the big well-known international name-brand of big and small computers.

Apple was the little name that few people, on the international scene, had ever heard of.

IBM as a computer manufacturer "name" went away, except for a department within Apple involved with specialty (Windows, Linux, etc.) servers.

Apple is the premiere name in big and small personal computers.
=-=
... it could happen. Wait and see.
=-=
About every 5 years or so, another rumor about Apple being bought out.
Who was it last time? Sony?

Sony name: not big and old enough this time.

This time: let's use: IBM.
... Yes !! Yreka !! That's it !! Let's start a rumor that Apple is buying IBM.
=-=
JJ Tiger

 

[Doctor Q]

How about the other way around? Apple buying IBM.

How about a big-business precedent?
... Set the controls on the Way-Back Machine for 1989:

Up and coming domestic USA little package delivery company Federal Express merged with World-Wide heavy air-freight Flying Tigers...

And then there was upstart AOL, flush with cash, trying to merge with venerable Time Warner. Oops - that one didn't go so well! Let's not use that as our example.

 

[silvergunuk]

hmmm interesting

How about the other way around? Apple buying IBM.

How about a big-business precedent?
... Set the controls on the Way-Back Machine for 1989:

Up and coming domestic USA little package delivery company Federal Express merged with World-Wide heavy air-freight Flying Tigers.

Flying Tigers re-invented the air-freight business after World War 2.
Flying Tigers was the forefront of the air-freight business.

Flying Tigers was the big well-known international name-brand.

FedEx was the little name that few people, on the international scene, had ever heard of.

Flying Tigers as an air-freight "name" went away, except for a department within FedEx Express involved with Charters.

FedEx is the premiere named air-freight and small package system.
=-=
Beaming back to the future: 2005.

IBM was the big well-known international name-brand of big and small computers.

Apple was the little name that few people, on the international scene, had ever heard of.

IBM as a computer manufacturer "name" went away, except for a department within Apple involved with specialty (Windows, Linux, etc.) servers.

Apple is the premiere name in big and small personal computers.
=-=
... it could happen. Wait and see.
=-=
About every 5 years or so, another rumor about Apple being bought out.
Who was it last time? Sony?

Sony name: not big and old enough this time.

This time: let's use: IBM.
... Yes !! Yreka !! That's it !! Let's start a rumor that Apple is buying IBM.
=-=
JJ Tiger

Well let's get this rumour going.

As an employee of apple, I was recently rummaging through the rubbish heap outside the cupertino building when I stumbled up on an ibm blade server with the ibm name scratched off and apple written over the top in a blue felt tip pen....more info soon.

 

[Rootman]

Page 1 and a half

If this topic isn't what "Page 2" is for, what is?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

If this topic isn't what "Page 2" is for, what is?

Good question. This is just pure speculation - not even a rumor. This would qualify as Page 3 material if there was a Page 3.

 

[Terra303]

What will the call the new company

IAppleBM
ABM (Apple Business Machines)
???

How about iBM?

(oops... Someone already said that...)

 

[ASP272]

Only for it if it's a collaboration. I don't want anyone owning Apple but Apple. Definitely don't want an ex-personal confuser maker owning our most cherished bringer of simple computing.

 

[Tommy Wasabi]

Oh - You Forgot? Shame on You!

A long time ago I saw Windows running on a PowerPC chip. Native. Apple killed this because of contract issues with IBM.

If IBM sells off the PC division - potential to bring this back without any legal ramifications. Windows XP on a G5 running native.

That would send some goose-bumps up my arm.

Then again, IBM liceses OSX or better yet - pays apple to use Aqua on LINUX.

Oh yummy.

 

[MacNeXT]

This reminds me of the short lived NeXT/IBM adventure in the late eighties, which I read about a while ago. NeXT licenced NeXTSTEP 1.0 to IBM, who ported it to run on top of AIX. OpenStep avant la lettre if you like.

The AIX I'm talking about might have been the equally obscure AIX version for 386 (PS/2), but it might also have been AIX for RS/6000 (Power).

IBM sold it shortly as an alternative OS for their workstations, but it didn't run very well, something about the lack of support for threads in AIX. Also after the release of NeXTSTEP 1.0 for AIX, NeXT brought out NeXTSTEP 2.0, and Jobs wanted another 10 milion for 2.0.

At the time, it was said that this was really unfair so IBM was right to drop the effort.

It would be very interesting if something similar would happen again. A different ending would be nice though.

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

That would be great if osx came standard on ALL computers,windows is to damn unreliable you would think a company with that much money and power would stop screwing its customers with lame running software and use something more secure and solid ie. crashes,adware,spyware,viruses,blue screen of death,updates every 2 hours hmm just my 2 cents sense a little bitterness in there? ah well

 

[DoctorPete]

IBM & Apple - what's the deal?

Doubtless by now you have all heard the rumors surrounding the possible acquisition of Apple by IBM. Here's what makes these rumors plausible:

First and foremost IBM out of the blue (pun intended) puts its PC business up for sale. A move, which most industry insiders consider odd - considering IBM is the 3rd largest PC manufacturer, and it is not doing poorly (roughly $11 billion worth of sales in the past year).

So now we have to question why IBM would make such a move. To understand their reasoning we need to look at IBM’s PC line. Currently the #3 PC manufacturer in the world, IBM’s line (like most of the other PC manufacturers) is based upon the x86 platform. Also like just about everyone else, IBM utilizes processors manufactured by Intel and AMD. Nothing unusual here for a PC maker, except that IBM is one of the largest processor manufacturers in the world. But then, why does IBM utilize Intel and AMD chips when it produces its own processors? Well it all comes down to Microsoft.

As just about everyone knows Microsoft Windows is the by far the dominant operating system line on the market. Originally Microsoft was developing the Windows NT line (upon which Windows 2000, 2003 and Windows XP are based) for a multitude of different chip types, including IBM’s PowerPC line. However, during the production of Windows NT 4.0 Microsoft announced that it was scrapping plans to continue Windows NT support for chips other than those chips based on the x86 architecture – effectively killing IBM’s PowerPC workstation line.

Here’s where we get to Apple issue: Apple computer has a very successful PowerPC based computer line for which IBM supplies the chips. However Apple uses what is at this time essentially a proprietary operating system (ie. Not Microsoft Windows). That being said – some signs have appeared that Microsoft has begun to develop Windows for the PowerPC line again – for it’s Xbox gaming station with the developer systems reportedly consisting of an Apple Workstation with Dual PowerPC chips and running a version of (get this!) the Microsoft Windows XP core. So now Microsoft has a version of Windows XP for the PowerPC?

This has got to be of interest to IBM, especially considering that IBM is getting set to release a ‘radically’ new derivation of the PowerPC – codenamed ‘Cell’. So, now maybe the pieces begin to fall into place:

1. IBM would love to see Microsoft release a version of windows for the PowerPC line – especially with the development of the new ‘Cell’ chip.

2. Apple holds the #1 spot in the PowerPC market.

3. If IBM were to acquire Apple – it would no longer be in the position to require Intel or AMD for the production of its processors and could cut down on costs.

4. If IBM were to acquire Apple – it would suddenly be in a position to put pressure on Microsoft to release a version of Windows for the PowerPC (something that Apple right now has no real interest in doing) – and Windows for the PowerPC would definitely be good for IBM.

Now, let’s say IBM wanted to purchase Apple to take advantage of this situation, there are 2 main things standing in the way of that right now: The very likely possibility of antitrust related issues due to the size the transaction would involve, and the cash availability to manage such a massive transaction…

If IBM were to sell off its PC division it would be getting rid of the part that would cause antitrust pause and it would generate a tremendous amount of cash on hand (estimated at $2 billion plus) – solving both of IBM’s problems.

Does all of this mean that IBM is really likely to acquire Apple? Well, I'm not a mystic... so only time will tell.

 

[slu]

Wow, sigamy - that post pretty much captures my vision of how things would ideally work out. That situation would be a huge win for IBM, a huge win for Apple, and a mixed situation for Microsoft - they lose Windows licences, but gain Office licenses.

I think it is a zero-sum for M$ (at best) or a lose situation for M$ (at worst). They lose windows licenses, but don't gain any Office licenses as the vast majority of people/businesses that are on Windows also have Office installed as well.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I think it is a zero-sum for M$ (at best) or a lose situation for M$ (at worst). They lose windows licenses, but don't gain any Office licenses as the vast majority of people/businesses that are on Windows also have Office installed as well.

slu, I was referring to new Mac users that would buy Office:Mac; my comment had nothing to do with whether or not Windows users had Office or not.

 

[slu]

Doubtless by now you have all heard the rumors surrounding the possible acquisition of Apple by IBM. Here's what makes these rumors plausible:

First and foremost IBM out of the blue (pun intended) puts its PC business up for sale. A move, which most industry insiders consider odd - considering IBM is the 3rd largest PC manufacturer, and it is not doing poorly (roughly $11 billion worth of sales in the past year).

So now we have to question why IBM would make such a move. To understand their reasoning we need to look at IBM’s PC line. Currently the #3 PC manufacturer in the world, IBM’s line (like most of the other PC manufacturers) is based upon the x86 platform. Also like just about everyone else, IBM utilizes processors manufactured by Intel and AMD. Nothing unusual here for a PC maker, except that IBM is one of the largest processor manufacturers in the world. But then, why does IBM utilize Intel and AMD chips when it produces its own processors? Well it all comes down to Microsoft.

As just about everyone knows Microsoft Windows is the by far the dominant operating system line on the market. Originally Microsoft was developing the Windows NT line (upon which Windows 2000, 2003 and Windows XP are based) for a multitude of different chip types, including IBM’s PowerPC line. However, during the production of Windows NT 4.0 Microsoft announced that it was scrapping plans to continue Windows NT support for chips other than those chips based on the x86 architecture – effectively killing IBM’s PowerPC workstation line.

Here’s where we get to Apple issue: Apple computer has a very successful PowerPC based computer line for which IBM supplies the chips. However Apple uses what is at this time essentially a proprietary operating system (ie. Not Microsoft Windows). That being said – some signs have appeared that Microsoft has begun to develop Windows for the PowerPC line again – for it’s Xbox gaming station with the developer systems reportedly consisting of an Apple Workstation with Dual PowerPC chips and running a version of (get this!) the Microsoft Windows XP core. So now Microsoft has a version of Windows XP for the PowerPC?

This has got to be of interest to IBM, especially considering that IBM is getting set to release a ‘radically’ new derivation of the PowerPC – codenamed ‘Cell’. So, now maybe the pieces begin to fall into place:

1. IBM would love to see Microsoft release a version of windows for the PowerPC line – especially with the development of the new ‘Cell’ chip.

2. Apple holds the #1 spot in the PowerPC market.

3. If IBM were to acquire Apple – it would no longer be in the position to require Intel or AMD for the production of its processors and could cut down on costs.

4. If IBM were to acquire Apple – it would suddenly be in a position to put pressure on Microsoft to release a version of Windows for the PowerPC (something that Apple right now has no real interest in doing) – and Windows for the PowerPC would definitely be good for IBM.

Now, let’s say IBM wanted to purchase Apple to take advantage of this situation, there are 2 main things standing in the way of that right now: The very likely possibility of antitrust related issues due to the size the transaction would involve, and the cash availability to manage such a massive transaction…

If IBM were to sell off its PC division it would be getting rid of the part that would cause antitrust pause and it would generate a tremendous amount of cash on hand (estimated at $2 billion plus) – solving both of IBM’s problems.

Does all of this mean that IBM is really likely to acquire Apple? Well, I'm not a mystic... so only time will tell.

Assuming what you said is true, then this makes the most sense to me from IBM's perspective.

There has been much debate about OS X for x86, but not much talk the other way around. If IBM's main goal is to move more PowerPC chips, isn't the easiest and fastest way to do that by making as many OS's as possible compatible with that chip?

But what's in it for Apple? I guess in this scenario nothing, but if IBM can raise the cash to make all the stockholders a nice profit, then there doesn't need to be anything in it for Apple. And the only people that get screwed are people like us (well those of us that don't own Apple stock). That being said, a hostile takeover is very difficult to pull off successfully.

Here's hoping it doesn't happen.

 

[slu]

slu, I was referring to new Mac users that would buy Office:Mac; my comment had nothing to do with whether or not Windows users had Office or not.

Ahhhhhh, now I see what you mean. I guess after reading the entire thread my reading comprehension was not upto snuff

 

[paulsecic]

Hmm... I think this would be a great idea, especially for Apple. It would give them the wider audience that I think they need. The article claims that the guy was just "speculating" though... Can someone shed some light on this for me? How much of this is speculation? Is it just some rumor floating around, or is it a bit more set in stone?

edit: By great idea I mean the two companies merging... Not IBM buying Apple... Sorry, but I just don't trust the buggers with such a meticulous company as Apple... I think IBM would make some mistakes and nosedive them into the ground if they actually purchased Apple.

It's just a rumor for now. I can't see Steve selling out though!

 

[fatbarstard]

All the soothsayers are here!

Well it seems that every soothsayer has come onto this thread to debate what would be the bigegst deal this side of the bacl stump if it were to happen.

My thinking on corporate strategy for both companies is that a strong alliance is formed to 'see how it goes'. There are strong positives for IBM buying Apple but also strong negatives. Apple represents all that the folks in blue suits ain't and there is no better way to destory something than by trying to force it to be something it is not.

IBM cuold build a stake in Apple but keep a minoirty position as a way of strengthening Apple and giving it access to loads of resources - this works in the enterprise space.

Longer term, if it made sense then a merger would be the way to go to extract the value of the relationship that should accrue in a partnership model, but can't be extracted in the short term.

Don't forget fellow crystal ball gazers that there was a loty of heat generated about the idea that Sony would by Apple... not much happening on that front...

Its a useful idea, but the problem for both companies is how to work out how to get the best value out of a partmership / stategic stake without buggering up each others strengths...

 

[paulsecic]

The hammer should break a blue screen with some writing in white in the middle...

Control Alt Del for max power..

 

[rdowns]

Assuming what you said is true, then this makes the most sense to me from IBM's perspective.

There has been much debate about OS X for x86, but not much talk the other way around. If IBM's main goal is to move more PowerPC chips, isn't the easiest and fastest way to do that by making as many OS's as possible compatible with that chip?

But what's in it for Apple? I guess in this scenario nothing, but if IBM can raise the cash to make all the stockholders a nice profit, then there doesn't need to be anything in it for Apple. And the only people that get screwed are people like us (well those of us that don't own Apple stock). That being said, a hostile takeover is very difficult to pull off successfully.

Here's hoping it doesn't happen.

Why would IBM want to own Apple? I hate the term, but little synergy there. Sure, IBM might like an established Power PC PC to hawk so they still have an end to end solution to offer businesses but what about the iPod? OK, they could spin it off into its own company, would make good financial sense. Apple's $5 billion in cash, who wouldn't want that to help finance the acquisition. Apple Stores- what does IBM do with that? Billions of dollars in leases and retail, which they are getting out of.

What if IBM wanted to use a Windows for PPC OS? Surely, anti-trust issues there. That could spell the death of the Mac OS.

Strategic partnership to move Power PC boxes makes a lot more sense. Gets IBM what it may want and none of the other stuff they don't. As for Apple, they finally have invitations into board rooms and conference rooms where they been previously unwelcome.

 

[Mainyehc]

Wow, sigamy - that post pretty much captures my vision of how things would ideally work out. That situation would be a huge win for IBM, a huge win for Apple, and a mixed situation for Microsoft - they lose Windows licences, but gain Office licenses.

Interesting... Wouldn't Microsoft be better off focusing primarily in applications? I mean, seriously, even though Windows is their cash cow, maybe they could give away some of their market share. We are now beginning to understand that a 90+% OS share is completely unsustainable! Think about it: If OS X is not a primary target of malware because it only has a 5 or 6% installed base, wouldn't Apple be in serious trouble if they had a much bigger share, say, 90+% just like Microsoft?? Apple has some monopolistic tendencies, just like M$ (iPod + iTunes, anyone?), the only difference here is that they're (still) doing things right. But comparing OSes and consumer electronics is like... comparing apples to oranges. Still, if you take those tendencies into account, if Apple was the dominant player in the OS market (highly unlikely, due to their close hardware/OS system), they wouldn't be any nicer then Microsoft (or maybe not, that Palladium stuff doesn't smell too good, but anyway...).

Microsoft could take some revolutionary moves, like making Office for Linux or something... That would absolutely kill a lot of Windows' share, but hey, they would be a "cool" company and some of their troubles would go away. AND they would still have Office and other software titles as revenue sources.

Let me put it this way: I'd never consider buying a version of Windows; yet, I can hardly wait for Tiger to be released to shell out some cash to buy it. When products are well designed, people will buy them (and sometimes even if they aren't the best value, like the iPod mini, which also relies on "coolness" besides of quality).

But, you know, expecting Office to be worth buying (oh, Apple, bring up AppleWorks X already! Or... Org, bring up a decent OS X version of OpenOffice already!) would be like expecting Microsoft to turn into an Apple-like company, which is absouletely NOT going to happen (Microsoft developing cool, good quality products? No way!!). Since Microsoft doesn't have the will to rehabilitate itself, then, I'd love to see it explode, or implode, or whatever. They won't be able to dominate the market much longer, and you know, it would be cool to see an alliance between Apple and IBM as the first step towards M$'s demise. However, I definitely wouldn't like to see IBM buying Apple, IMHO. Their respective corporate cultures seem to be too different from each other, and if Apple's "culture" was lost, many, MANY people (including myself) would be very unhappy and disappointed with the tech world.