[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
Oh? They do? Here's an example for you to ponder: please explain again why you think IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Before I explain why I don't think IBM has the resources to compete with Intel, we must put the argument back into its original context--which is my opinion that
putting a 970 in an Apple PC won't guarantee direct competition with *Wintel*. (of course, it may not be Apple's plan to compete, but that's another thread entirely). Since you've asked me to "elaborate" on this some 80 posts later, I'll do my best to explain my side to you.
A step by step guide, if you will.
1. Consider company fundamenals, as taken from Hoover's:
IBM
Big Blue? Try Huge Blue. International Business Machines (IBM) is the world's top provider of computer hardware. Among the leaders in almost every market in which it competes, the company makes desktop and notebook PCs, mainframe and servers, storage systems, and peripherals, among its thousands of products. The company's service arm is the largest in the world. IBM is also one of the largest providers of both software (ranking #2, behind Microsoft) and semiconductors. The company continues to use acquisitions to augment its software and service businesses, while streamlining its hardware operations with divestitures and organizational shifts.
Intel
Kingpin. Top dog. Leviathan. Intel. Any way you phrase it, Intel is by far the world's top semiconductor maker. Even though archrival AMD has eaten into its market share, and while some of its diversification efforts have stalled, Intel still makes several times as much from chips as do any of its rivals. Though best known for its Pentium and Celeron microprocessors -- about four-fifths of all new PCs have them -- Intel also makes flash memories (where it's also #1 globally) and embedded semiconductors for the communications and industrial equipment markets. Most computer makers use Intel processors; PC giant Dell is the company's largest customer.
2. Recognize the difference between both companies.
IBM is big. Sure. But as I recall, Amorph stated this interesting point:
[quote]
Originally posted by Amorph:
IBM is so vast that they have had identically named divisions selling different solutions to the same market, none of which were aware of the others' existence. <hr></blockquote>
Redundancy within a corporation that does not leverage itself defines *poor management*. This isn't to say IBMs management team isn't top notch, it just means they may be trapped within a behemoth bureaucracy that is blind to the cause. Often within an organization the size of IBM divisions lose focus within its own political system and as a result, situations like redundancy are ever-present.
Although the same could be said of Intel, the fact that they only have one goal--to make semiconductors and flash memory--put them above IBM for resource management in that the whole company is dedicated to one cause. This is probably the #1 reason Intel has been able to surpass all expectations of the x86 ISA (!-see, I used it).
Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. If anyone wishes to point out statements from the press, feel free. (*1* see note below*)
Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further
as it has already achieved critical mass. This means that no matter how far IBM tries to push the 970, Intel will be right behind waiting to take up the slack, if there is any. We have already witnessed this with the G3/G4. There's just not enough consumer market for this architechture to survive.
Now, before one says "hold on, IBM has unlimited resources as well because they're so big"--think again. The fact that IBM is so big means quite the opposite. Risk Management is essential for a company like IBM, whereas Intel can almost take all the risk it needs to--because x86 has achieved critical mass.
There's probably more questions this will bring up, but as you can see from the lengthy explanation, it was easier for me just to say: IBM doesn't have the resources. If I had been asked nicely to elaborate on this rather then get flamed I would have taken the time to do so in the first place.
[quote]<strong>
You've tried, and failed to make that argument. If you are so sure of your argument then please produce a single person who's been following this thread that agrees with you. You can't because your argument is not valid. Just because you've made an argument doesn't mean you've made a valid one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I have not failed to make the argument. I may have, in your opinion, failed to produce the evidence neccessary to support my arguments--but that is objectionable. You need only ask me to elaborate. Otherwise I get cranky and strart getting sarcastic and use a lot of smilies.
2. Producing a single person that agrees with me would not validate my point, nor would it yours. Furthermore, just because no one has stepped forward to agree with me does not dismiss my opinions, make my arguments erronous, fallacious, or invalid.
[quote]<strong>
Because of their superior technology, huge financial resources and marketability, IBM has the resources to kick Intel's ass in the workstation and server markets if they go there agressively. And all indication is that they are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, I thought this conversation was about Apple.
The point people are making is that the 970 will be agressively marketed. The server market is a relationship market--that is, deals are made by top-level decision makers, not the IT guys who think the technology is superior. All I mean by this is--there's more to the deal than the technology. Politics play an important role here. And although IBM is ready to play, so are its competitors. This isn't easy sailing for anyone.
Meanwhile, where does this leave Apple IMO? In the same place it is now--stuck between a rock and a hardplace. We're still losing high-end Apple users to faster machines on the PC side. Speed sells.
*1* -- I realize that IBM has been
positioning this chip as a contender in the desktop arena, but it will take the right business relationships to make this venture profitable. Apple doesn't really offer IBM that much incentive as far as a market is concerned. As IBM is second behind Microsoft in software design, I now doubt the plausability of IBM slapping Aqua into any of its solutions. I also realize that IBM will use the Power4/970 in a great deal of its proprietary solutions, but that does not guarantee production to the scale of Intel/AMD.
--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
