The two barriers that tablets have to replace laptops/desktops is computing power and enterprise software integration. With the A7 Apple has broke through the computing power barrier. A quad core A8 could replace 90% of the laptops/desktops in the workforce right now. With this IBM collaboration they have address the enterprise software integration issue.
Yeah, something like what you posted was triggered in me. Right now, Intel enjoys the privilege of manufacturing CPUs for Apple's desktops. But all the volume is with mobile gear. Lots of companies have old Dells being used for small tasks but everyone wants to bring in their iPads and iPhones.
Intel often hampers Apple's update schedule for their desktop hardware and I'm sure Apple has a long view that perhaps all their stuff should run on Ax chips. We are at the A8 now and perhaps in 5 years, the A14 will be powerful enough to run whatever Apple can make.
Apple would now control it's future completely. iOS and OS would run all the same apps. Enterprise would delink from mobile and we could get excited about Apple desktops joining the party as well.
Maybe most importantly, while I'm commenting on AI, I could at least be making plays on WWF. I hate that I have to take my hands off the keyboard, pick up my iPhone.....................
I still don't know if this really represents the kind of tectonic shift some people here are expecting though. Cook said iOS devices are already in use at 98% of Fortune 500 companies. That doesn't sound like a product line that needs help penetrating enterprise markets. Obviously it's better to partner with IBM than not, but I don't see this changing the world. That won't happen until we see Macs in Fortune 500 cubicles!
Maybe this is a step towards that.
Apple's current role in business is more of a luxury item, IBM's vertical applications will make it more of a necessity.
The difference is between using off the shelves software that are not critical to your business versus using business specific vertical applications that your company can't live without, that every employee has to use every day and all the time.
This will make corporations leverage Apples other products in a big way. (iPhones, iPads, Macs, AppleTV, iTunesU, iBooks, AppleMaps, Mobile Payments, HomeKit and HealthKit etc...)
Here'a an interesting parse/translation of Satya Nadella’s recent message to the troops -- by Jean-Louis Gassée:
[QUOTE] Satya Nadella’s latest message to the troops – and to the world – is disquieting. It lacks focus, specifics, and, if not soon sharpened, his words will worry employees, developers, customers, and even shareholders.
As I puzzled over the public email Microsoft’s new CEO sent to his troops, Nicolas Boileau’s immortal dictum came to mind:
Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.
...
With all this in mind, let’s see if we can restate Nadella’s message to the troops:
This is the beginning of our new FY 2015 – and of a new era at Microsoft. I have good news and bad news. The bad news is the old Devices and Services mantra won’t work.
For example: I’ve determined we’ll never make money in tablets or smartphones.
So, do we continue to pretend we’re “all in” or do we face reality and make the painful decision to pull out so we can use our resources – including our integrity – to fight winnable battles? With the support of the Microsoft Board, I’ve chosen the latter. We’ll do our utmost to minimize the pain that will naturally arise from this change. Specifically, we’ll offer generous transitions arrangements in and out of the company to concerned Microsoftians and former Nokians.
The good news is we have immense resources to be a major player in the new world of Cloud services and Native Apps for mobile devices. We let the first innings of that game go by, but the sting energizes us. An example of such commitment is the rapid spread of Office applications – and related Cloud services – on any and all mobile devices. All Microsoft Enterprise and Consumer products/services will follow, including Xbox properties.
I realize this will disrupt the status quo and apologize for the pain to come. We have a choice: change or be changed.
"In use at" is not the same is "used exclusively by all employees of".
Fair enough. Apple will control the mobile side of any company IBM serves. That's awesome.
It's probably also reasonable to expect that a system from IBM will increase the number of mobile devices in use by their customers. Also good.
I wonder why IBM partnered with Apple for mobile but not the desktop? I'm sure a healthy number of desktops will wind up being replaced by iPads, but desktop machines are still gonna make up the lion's share of hardware in just about any corporate environment (try giving your bean counter an iPad instead of a big screen with a real keyboard and see what happens!). If people were introduced to Macs at work, imagine what would happen to consumer demand!
Apple won't dislodge Microsoft from the enterprise by partnering with IBM. I think the lesson from the past few years is that it takes some kind of disruptive hardware change to dislodge software monopolies. It was the switch from desktop to mobile devices that caught MS flat flooted in the consumer space. It wasn't years of effort on Linux. Likewise in the server room: MS got there in the first place when rack mount commodity servers displaced Big Iron. IBM can win that space back, but they will need some kind of new server room hardware disruption. Not necessarily going back from rack mount to mainframes, but *something*.
IBM probably think that enterprise does not want to remove MS from the server room because of how well it integrates with their corporate desktops. So if they can use Apple to dislodge the desktops, more chance of them getting back in the server room. But this strategy does not seem all that good to me: it's too easy to counter. All Microsoft have to do is launch their own iPad enterprise push. In fact this whole software alliance is the wrong side of the coin. Steve Jobs taught us you don't fight software with software, but with hardware. IBM should be working with Apple's hardware designers (the same ones who just reinvented the workstation) to see what a disruptive new server might look like.
Apple won't dislodge Microsoft from the enterprise by partnering with IBM. I think the lesson from the past few years is that it takes some kind of disruptive hardware change to dislodge software monopolies. It was the switch from desktop to mobile devices that caught MS flat flooted in the consumer space. It wasn't years of effort on Linux. Likewise in the server room: MS got there in the first place when rack mount commodity servers displaced Big Iron. IBM can win that space back, but they will need some kind of new server room hardware disruption. Not necessarily going back from rack mount to mainframes, but *something*.
IBM probably think that enterprise does not want to remove MS from the server room because of how well it integrates with their corporate desktops. So if they can use Apple to dislodge the desktops, more chance of them getting back in the server room. But this strategy does not seem all that good to me: it's too easy to counter. All Microsoft have to do is launch their own iPad enterprise push. In fact this whole software alliance is the wrong side of the coin. Steve Jobs taught us you don't fight software with software, but with hardware. IBM should be working with Apple's hardware designers (the same ones who just reinvented the workstation) to see what a disruptive new server might look like.
You know that IBM sold their Intel desktop and server business to Lenovo right?
You also know that VMWare and Linux are taking on Microsoft in the Data Center.
Surely you know that the IBM deal is not Apple's only angle here.
Microsoft does not have the vertical business applications nor the global support that IBM has.
Microsoft is struggling with its mobile devices that still want to be desktop PCs.
Just wondering, though. Is IBM as skilled as HP in taking some nice innovative outsider's tech and then completely destroy it? Not in this case, IBM just becomes a sales channel for Apple and Apple (iOS) becomes the ultimate front-end for IBMs big data. Seems like a good match.
Apple won't dislodge Microsoft from the enterprise by partnering with IBM. I think the lesson from the past few years is that it takes some kind of disruptive hardware change to dislodge software monopolies. It was the switch from desktop to mobile devices that caught MS flat flooted in the consumer space. It wasn't years of effort on Linux. Likewise in the server room: MS got there in the first place when rack mount commodity servers displaced Big Iron. IBM can win that space back, but they will need some kind of new server room hardware disruption. Not necessarily going back from rack mount to mainframes, but *something*.
IBM probably think that enterprise does not want to remove MS from the server room because of how well it integrates with their corporate desktops. So if they can use Apple to dislodge the desktops, more chance of them getting back in the server room. But this strategy does not seem all that good to me: it's too easy to counter. All Microsoft have to do is launch their own iPad enterprise push. In fact this whole software alliance is the wrong side of the coin. Steve Jobs taught us you don't fight software with software, but with hardware. IBM should be working with Apple's hardware designers (the same ones who just reinvented the workstation) to see what a disruptive new server might look like.
Maybe they could do something with the PowerPC chip
I don't think Steve's vision was to remain an underdog.
You are right. Steve's vision was to make insanely great products, and that is what I meant. But I don't remember him wanting to be the uber-dominating tech company like Bill Gates' Windows everywhere and in everything philosophy. "Stay hungry, stay foolish."- isn't that what underdogs do? Isn't that the point of the "1984" commercial?
I don't think Steve's vision was to remain an underdog.
You are right. Steve's vision was to make insanely great products, and that is what I meant. But I don't remember him wanting to be the uber-dominating tech company like Bill Gates' Windows everywhere and in everything philosophy. "Stay hungry, stay foolish."- isn't that what underdogs do? Isn't that the point of the "1984" commercial?
[SIZE=10px]/Philosopher mode off[/SIZE]
I think it's a matter of validation ... and of circumstances
I think Jobs' NeXT would have done an IBM deal like this.
The IT guys LOVE IBM reps and tolerate Microsoft reps, so when the IBM reps pulls out his order pad and says," How many IBM/iDevices do you want?" IT will respond with, "How many you got?"
I'm sorry, but this is not always true. As I've seen it, IBM is often seen as cumbersome and overpriced. Their software and hardware tools are seen as very expensive, bloated and not always good, and their reps are often seen as only pushing stuff to get revenue & lock-in, not really interested in what the customer needs. Microsoft often has good relations with larger customers and a close relation, especially when infrastructure is concerned. They are generally trusted by IT.
Apple and IBM are both companies that are in it for the long term : no gimmicks or making a quick buck : both quality operations.
After hearing about this alliance, I can't help speculating as to when the idea was first mooted. Steve Jobs once famously promised to wage thermonuclear war on Google. Could this announcement be the first sign that this war is finally about to break out? To keep up the military metaphor ... could the ranks of Apple and IBM be drawing up in battle formation for the big showdown.
One one side, tried and trusted search algorithms. On the other, the ownership of the mobile human-internet portal * plus a body of knowledge that was gained from very extensive A.I. research.
Aaah ... We live in very interesting times.
*or at least the ownership of the mobile human-internet portal that is used as such and not watching TV programs, playing games etc. etc.
In case anyone is interested, here' what our favorite analyst Gene Munter's take:
[QUOTE]Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster led the chorus of shrugs at news of the pact: "In terms of the benefit to Apple, we do not expect the partnership to have a measurable impact on the model given that Apple has already achieved 98% iOS penetration with Fortune 500 companies and 92% penetration with Global 500 companies," he wrote in a note to investors:
[It] is unlikely to be the make or break factor for a large corporation in utilizing iOS. We note that if half of the Fortune 500 were to each purchase an incremental 2,000 iPhones and 1,000 iPads above what they were planning to purchase as a result of the IBM deal, it would mean about a half a percent to CY15 revenue. [/QUOTE]
Well there is Apple's first point of influence on IBM - there is no way that page was written by the same guy responsible for the rest of IBMs web site it is Apple through and through.
Comments
The two barriers that tablets have to replace laptops/desktops is computing power and enterprise software integration. With the A7 Apple has broke through the computing power barrier. A quad core A8 could replace 90% of the laptops/desktops in the workforce right now. With this IBM collaboration they have address the enterprise software integration issue.
Yeah, something like what you posted was triggered in me. Right now, Intel enjoys the privilege of manufacturing CPUs for Apple's desktops. But all the volume is with mobile gear. Lots of companies have old Dells being used for small tasks but everyone wants to bring in their iPads and iPhones.
Intel often hampers Apple's update schedule for their desktop hardware and I'm sure Apple has a long view that perhaps all their stuff should run on Ax chips. We are at the A8 now and perhaps in 5 years, the A14 will be powerful enough to run whatever Apple can make.
Apple would now control it's future completely. iOS and OS would run all the same apps. Enterprise would delink from mobile and we could get excited about Apple desktops joining the party as well.
Maybe most importantly, while I'm commenting on AI, I could at least be making plays on WWF. I hate that I have to take my hands off the keyboard, pick up my iPhone.....................
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
...
I still don't know if this really represents the kind of tectonic shift some people here are expecting though. Cook said iOS devices are already in use at 98% of Fortune 500 companies. That doesn't sound like a product line that needs help penetrating enterprise markets. Obviously it's better to partner with IBM than not, but I don't see this changing the world. That won't happen until we see Macs in Fortune 500 cubicles!
Maybe this is a step towards that.
Apple's current role in business is more of a luxury item, IBM's vertical applications will make it more of a necessity.
The difference is between using off the shelves software that are not critical to your business versus using business specific vertical applications that your company can't live without, that every employee has to use every day and all the time.
This will make corporations leverage Apples other products in a big way. (iPhones, iPads, Macs, AppleTV, iTunesU, iBooks, AppleMaps, Mobile Payments, HomeKit and HealthKit etc...)
[QUOTE]
Satya Nadella’s latest message to the troops – and to the world – is disquieting. It lacks focus, specifics, and, if not soon sharpened, his words will worry employees, developers, customers, and even shareholders.
As I puzzled over the public email Microsoft’s new CEO sent to his troops, Nicolas Boileau’s immortal dictum came to mind:
Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.
...
With all this in mind, let’s see if we can restate Nadella’s message to the troops:
This is the beginning of our new FY 2015 – and of a new era at Microsoft.
I have good news and bad news.
The bad news is the old Devices and Services mantra won’t work.
For example: I’ve determined we’ll never make money in tablets or smartphones.
So, do we continue to pretend we’re “all in” or do we face reality and make the painful decision to pull out so we can use our resources – including our integrity – to fight winnable battles? With the support of the Microsoft Board, I’ve chosen the latter. We’ll do our utmost to minimize the pain that will naturally arise from this change. Specifically, we’ll offer generous transitions arrangements in and out of the company to concerned Microsoftians and former Nokians.
The good news is we have immense resources to be a major player in the new world of Cloud services and Native Apps for mobile devices. We let the first innings of that game go by, but the sting energizes us. An example of such commitment is the rapid spread of Office applications – and related Cloud services – on any and all mobile devices. All Microsoft Enterprise and Consumer products/services will follow, including Xbox properties.
I realize this will disrupt the status quo and apologize for the pain to come. We have a choice: change or be changed.
Stay tuned.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/07/13/microsofts-new-ceo-needs-an-editor/
via Gruber
"In use at" is not the same is "used exclusively by all employees of".
Fair enough. Apple will control the mobile side of any company IBM serves. That's awesome.
It's probably also reasonable to expect that a system from IBM will increase the number of mobile devices in use by their customers. Also good.
I wonder why IBM partnered with Apple for mobile but not the desktop? I'm sure a healthy number of desktops will wind up being replaced by iPads, but desktop machines are still gonna make up the lion's share of hardware in just about any corporate environment (try giving your bean counter an iPad instead of a big screen with a real keyboard and see what happens!). If people were introduced to Macs at work, imagine what would happen to consumer demand!
Apple won't dislodge Microsoft from the enterprise by partnering with IBM. I think the lesson from the past few years is that it takes some kind of disruptive hardware change to dislodge software monopolies. It was the switch from desktop to mobile devices that caught MS flat flooted in the consumer space. It wasn't years of effort on Linux. Likewise in the server room: MS got there in the first place when rack mount commodity servers displaced Big Iron. IBM can win that space back, but they will need some kind of new server room hardware disruption. Not necessarily going back from rack mount to mainframes, but *something*.
IBM probably think that enterprise does not want to remove MS from the server room because of how well it integrates with their corporate desktops. So if they can use Apple to dislodge the desktops, more chance of them getting back in the server room. But this strategy does not seem all that good to me: it's too easy to counter. All Microsoft have to do is launch their own iPad enterprise push. In fact this whole software alliance is the wrong side of the coin. Steve Jobs taught us you don't fight software with software, but with hardware. IBM should be working with Apple's hardware designers (the same ones who just reinvented the workstation) to see what a disruptive new server might look like.
Apple won't dislodge Microsoft from the enterprise by partnering with IBM. I think the lesson from the past few years is that it takes some kind of disruptive hardware change to dislodge software monopolies. It was the switch from desktop to mobile devices that caught MS flat flooted in the consumer space. It wasn't years of effort on Linux. Likewise in the server room: MS got there in the first place when rack mount commodity servers displaced Big Iron. IBM can win that space back, but they will need some kind of new server room hardware disruption. Not necessarily going back from rack mount to mainframes, but *something*.
IBM probably think that enterprise does not want to remove MS from the server room because of how well it integrates with their corporate desktops. So if they can use Apple to dislodge the desktops, more chance of them getting back in the server room. But this strategy does not seem all that good to me: it's too easy to counter. All Microsoft have to do is launch their own iPad enterprise push. In fact this whole software alliance is the wrong side of the coin. Steve Jobs taught us you don't fight software with software, but with hardware. IBM should be working with Apple's hardware designers (the same ones who just reinvented the workstation) to see what a disruptive new server might look like.
You know that IBM sold their Intel desktop and server business to Lenovo right?
You also know that VMWare and Linux are taking on Microsoft in the Data Center.
Surely you know that the IBM deal is not Apple's only angle here.
Microsoft does not have the vertical business applications nor the global support that IBM has.
Microsoft is struggling with its mobile devices that still want to be desktop PCs.
You mean iBM.
Yes. That's a lowercase "i".
LOL Really good.
Just wondering, though. Is IBM as skilled as HP in taking some nice innovative outsider's tech and then completely destroy it? Not in this case, IBM just becomes a sales channel for Apple and Apple (iOS) becomes the ultimate front-end for IBMs big data. Seems like a good match.
Maybe they could do something with the PowerPC chip
$97.44 up $2.12 2.22%
IBM $192.20 up $3.71 1.97%
I don't think Steve's vision was to remain an underdog.
You are right. Steve's vision was to make insanely great products, and that is what I meant. But I don't remember him wanting to be the uber-dominating tech company like Bill Gates' Windows everywhere and in everything philosophy. "Stay hungry, stay foolish."- isn't that what underdogs do? Isn't that the point of the "1984" commercial?
/Philosopher mode off
I think it's a matter of validation ... and of circumstances
I think Jobs' NeXT would have done an IBM deal like this.
I don't think Jobs' Apple would have done this.
It is revealing that Cook's Apple has done this!
It'll be fun to watch the ripples in the pond ...
The IT guys LOVE IBM reps and tolerate Microsoft reps, so when the IBM reps pulls out his order pad and says," How many IBM/iDevices do you want?" IT will respond with, "How many you got?"
I'm sorry, but this is not always true. As I've seen it, IBM is often seen as cumbersome and overpriced. Their software and hardware tools are seen as very expensive, bloated and not always good, and their reps are often seen as only pushing stuff to get revenue & lock-in, not really interested in what the customer needs. Microsoft often has good relations with larger customers and a close relation, especially when infrastructure is concerned. They are generally trusted by IT.
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1989/10/09/72567/index.htm
Apple and IBM are both companies that are in it for the long term : no gimmicks or making a quick buck : both quality operations.
After hearing about this alliance, I can't help speculating as to when the idea was first mooted. Steve Jobs once famously promised to wage thermonuclear war on Google. Could this announcement be the first sign that this war is finally about to break out? To keep up the military metaphor ... could the ranks of Apple and IBM be drawing up in battle formation for the big showdown.
One one side, tried and trusted search algorithms. On the other, the ownership of the mobile human-internet portal * plus a body of knowledge that was gained from very extensive A.I. research.
Aaah ... We live in very interesting times.
*or at least the ownership of the mobile human-internet portal that is used as such and not watching TV programs, playing games etc. etc.
[QUOTE]Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster led the chorus of shrugs at news of the pact: "In terms of the benefit to Apple, we do not expect the partnership to have a measurable impact on the model given that Apple has already achieved 98% iOS penetration with Fortune 500 companies and 92% penetration with Global 500 companies," he wrote in a note to investors:
[It] is unlikely to be the make or break factor for a large corporation in utilizing iOS. We note that if half of the Fortune 500 were to each purchase an incremental 2,000 iPhones and 1,000 iPads above what they were planning to purchase as a result of the IBM deal, it would mean about a half a percent to CY15 revenue.
[/QUOTE]
Hey Gene, stick with the TV predictions.
Well there is Apple's first point of influence on IBM - there is no way that page was written by the same guy responsible for the rest of IBMs web site it is Apple through and through.
I doubt they have much up and running yet. There are no obvious job openings in IBM for iOS developers.