Daniel - I enjoyed the excellent analysis, as usual. I don't think the CEOs would have invested so much public face into announcing this deal if they didn't anticipate it having big returns. I think this may transform business as much as the PC did (I still recall the naysayers claims that "these might be good for some workers, but most are going to stay with their minicomputers").
A nit: In your phrase "What's new is the clearly emphasized exclusiveness of the relationship", I think you want 'exclusivity' instead of 'exclusiveness' --- Exclusiveness - tendency to associate with only a select group (and often used in the classical literature).
Exclusivity - contract term in which one party grants another party sole rights with regard to a particular business function.
IBM is not in the phone/tablet device business, nor do they have their own OS variant. They are in the enterprise and big data business, squarely where Apple has no plans.
IBM isn't even in the PC box business for that matter. They provide to apple instant street cred with enterprise IT and will support iOS devices at an enterprise level. On the flip side, IBM gets an exclusive arrangement with the world's most popular tablet and phone without manufacturing their own or partnering with a company they also compete with.
Yeah, that was a far better explanation. I sorta get it. It's just a bit clumsy and I'm having a hard time seeing how this is as huge as Tim is trying to make it. I'm sure it is big.
I still think in the long view, it would be awesome to have Apple run all their stuff on the Ax chips. Right now, IBM is all giddy about porting all their enterprise software over to the iOS mobile side. It sure would have been great if, say, iMacs could also run that software. Then they would have a choice that includes both the desktop gear and the mobile products.
That's a ways in the future. In the meantime, how about a virtual machine that runs iOS code on our desktop hardware?
I am looking forward to IBM iOS apps that will access Watson. Hopefully they will have a consumer version, maybe a Jeopardy edition . Even better Apple could license the Watson technology and merge it into Siri, then we would be one step closer to the Knowledge Navigator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRH8eimU_20
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> Also I wonder if IBM uses the Swift language to program the apps could they easily make an OSX version as well and further increase Mac penetration in enterprise? </span>
I strongly suspect that IBM Is, or soon will be, writing apps in Swift. My last job at IBM was technical market support for CICS -- IBM's premier transaction-processing development system, AIR, in 1978, IBM had over 3,000 installations of the IBM/360 DOS version -- leased at ~ $3,500 per month (1978 $) ... not too bad back then.
I surfed around to see if I could find the current CICS install base -- no luck. Visited the IBM site -- Public direction statement: Supporting the prior version through 2014; current version through (at least) 2017.
That tells me there's some life in the old boy yet
Back in my day, CICS was used on private LANS or WANS -- you programmed CICS with assembler language -- with hooks for COBoL UI.
That was before the Internet, so I suspect current CICS offerings support a web front end.
My point in all this is that Swift would be great for CICS: development, in-house deployment, web deployment.
So, yes, "they [could] easily make an OSX version as well and further increase Mac penetration in enterprise".
To elaborate, based on a 1-month plus experience with Swift (and 2014-1978 year experience with Apple), I believe that Swift is designed to be [Apple] platform-agnostic. By that I mean it uses abstract constructs such as String, Array, Dictionary -- which, under-the-covers bridge to Objective-C constructs of NSString, NSArray, NSDictionary.
Stepping back a bit, the major naming differences between iOS (UIKit) and OS X (AppKit) are that the names of IOS UI elements start with UI (UITableView) and the names of OSX UI elements start with NS (NSTableView).
I suspect that a planned evolution (next step of Swift will be to abstract these Platform UI naming differences to something like TableView ... Then, based on which platform the App was targeted for, the compiler would select the correct underlying frameworks.
It's a bit more involved than that, but the signals are there -- that you'll be able to write your app in Swift -- then with a checkbox, tell Xcode to compile the app for iOS, OS X or both (maybe even a third option for the web).
I get the strategy, and here's hoping it works, but I just don't see tablets really taking hold for most workers. The form factor just isn't as good as a plain ol' keyboard and mouse with a big screen or two for either looking at stuff or inputting stuff.
Admittedly there are all kinds of opportunities for new applications, like retail floor staff and nurses, but for jobs that don't require carrying a computer around with you, like a travel agent or stockbroker, a tablet is just more hassle to work with than a traditional PC layout.
Maybe if Apple creates some kind of dock (for lack of a better term) that lets users tie it to a real keyboard and maybe an external monitor it could take a real crack at the desktop, but I just don't think a tablet is particularly well suited to cubicle dwellers.
Either way, it'll be fun to see how hardware for the post-PC era plays out, whether the hardware evolves to accommodate working styles besides stab-and-swipe while holding the device, or if people will just adapt to interacting with flat computers.
Lorin, you're limiting yourself. Either you grew up in a tiny cubicle doing nothing but data entry or you have a limited understanding of what other people do. Gone are the days of a stationary employee (except in certain business sweatshops). Employees need to be mobile, not tied to a big keyboard and monitor, so they can perform their work wherever it needs to be performed. Even a travel agent and a stockbroker has times where walking around helps them do their job better and allows more interaction with their customer. Even though I detest more sales people of all kinds, having the ability to instantly make a presentation, including cost, to a customer is a whole lot better than walking back to their crammed office and looking at something on a cheap PC.
Stab and swipe means you haven't figured out how to use a mobile device. By "flat computer" I assume you mean a tablet instead of a clumsy old style desktop PC with more screens than your brain can take in. If you're a broker, I'm done with you because the stock market is simply legalized gambling with very few rules.
Most Microsoft partnerships end in tears. For the other partner.
It is unclear exactly what you are trying to say here. One is left to infer that IBM will screw over Apple. In so doing, you confuse IBM with Microsoft. IBM's faults are many, but it has long been a company that operated with a positive level of integrity. This is not to say that this partnership will not end some day. Afterall, it is a partnership, not a merger. The partnership may even end over a dispute. However, a dispute may be an honest difference between the parties, not an attempt by one party to harm the other.
The AIM Alliance, Apple and IBM's most notable partnership, ended when Apple ended it. I agree with Apple in that dispute and believe that IBM was dead wrong. Apple's fortunes since the split should leave no doubt that IBM was wrong. However, IBM's mistake was to misunderstand the business environment extant. After the AIM Alliance ended, it was IBM that begged Apple to reconsider.
Even if your assertion were true--and it is not--Apple is stronger now that when it switched from PowerPC to Intel.
I have a question: Who's cloud services is Apple currently using? I read it might be Microsoft's Azure cloud services. With Apple's cloud infrastructure on its way to become very large, having a cloud service provider like IBM (HW and SW) might be better in the long run than messing around with PC servers running Azure. IBM is known and used world wide and has a very capable service staff.
Anybody have actual data that says who Apple is using for both hardware and cloud software?
I have a question: Who's cloud services is Apple currently using? I read it might be Microsoft's Azure cloud services. With Apple's cloud infrastructure on its way to become very large, having a cloud service provider like IBM (HW and SW) might be better in the long run than messing around with PC servers running Azure. IBM is known and used world wide and has a very capable service staff.
Anybody have actual data that says who Apple is using for both hardware and cloud software?
I read somewhere, recently, that Apple is a major user of AWS.
I have a question: Who's cloud services is Apple currently using? I read it might be Microsoft's Azure cloud services. With Apple's cloud infrastructure on its way to become very large, having a cloud service provider like IBM (HW and SW) might be better in the long run than messing around with PC servers running Azure. IBM is known and used world wide and has a very capable service staff.
Anybody have actual data that says who Apple is using for both hardware and cloud software?
Mary Jo Foley has directly stated that Apple uses Azure. I believe she got her information from a person who knows this at Microsoft.
IBM is part of the "Big Data" surge. IBM like Dow Chemicals or BASF. You don't know you are using their products daily, but you are. IBM will blend into the background providing services where Apple has weaknesses. You won't know you are using IBM technology unless they tell you.
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses more than one vendor but my original comment still holds, does the IBM & Apple commitment mean Apple would change to an IBM-hosted iCloud? If so, would this benefit users? With IBM's standalone cloud services, it could definitely benefit the enterprise market where they could host their own iCloud for iWork-type services and not worry about data stored on non-corporate servers. This could also benefit government users, allowing them to use all the services iCloud has to offer while still maintaining local security control (my old job). The education environment could use localized iCloud servers to further control outside access of student's work. Apple hasn't supported standalone iCloud instances but with this collaboration, they might.
Well I'm glad Dan wrote this article. I was waiting for it to see if he could explain it without all the corporate jargon. I'm not sure I understand it, even after reading his article. Not a criticism as I sure wouldn't want to wade through the particulars...
That's one thing I really miss about Jobs. Throughout the year, he'd email someone or post something and his touch was always present in announcements and various marketing spots. He would have had a one paragraph summation of this deal that would have made all our our sphincters contract with delight.
Cook did give a good example in yesterday's video. My dad was a captain of Alaska Airlines and they had to carry a large bag full of notebooks that had airport and other navigation information. Now pilots simply carry on their iPads. Even better, an LCD should be built into the aircraft with the relevant data able to display as needed.
So that was one example that I understood. I like that there will be an ability for the pilot to use some app that's tied into a fueling depot database or something and be able to estimate the required fuel given the weather and load and pricing.
Maybe if they had a killer app that showed something, many of us would have been more excited. I wish Cook had that ability to distill things down like Jobs did. Killer analogies were a bonus.
I've never seen so much vapid prose since this deal was announced. It's difficult to read and all the empty phrasing just makes my eyes roll back.
How about we get Craig Federighi on this? I'm a smart guy but I'm flummoxed.
Thanks for that fabulously articulated post. You have just held a mirror to the thinking of a lot of people, vis-a-vis this deal.
I agree that Cook needs to distill it down to something more tangible, and communicate that in a simple, effective way.
This may help -- here's a one-paragraph summation -- one six-word sentence, actually (emphasis mine):
Quote:
An Apple and IBM partnership makes sense in the same way Apple selling its products through Walmart makes sense. Apple defended selling through Walmart by saying “Their stores are where ours aren’t.” The kinds of large enterprises where IBM has a presence are the places where Apple has the least penetration. iPads and iPhones are probably present in the executive offices and the sales force, but less so in other departments where central IT rules with impunity.
IBM is not in the phone/tablet device business, nor do they have their own OS variant. They are in the enterprise and big data business, squarely where Apple has no plans.
Some simple, tangible, vivid explanations and examples would have helped. These articles make it sound like this partnership is not much more than Apple partnering for a corporate sales force. Then why stop with IBM? Why not go after the whole lot, including Oracle, SAS, Cisco, HP,....
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses more than one vendor but my original comment still holds, does the IBM & Apple commitment mean Apple would change to an IBM-hosted iCloud? If so, would this benefit users? With IBM's standalone cloud services, it could definitely benefit the enterprise market where they could host their own iCloud for iWork-type services and not worry about data stored on non-corporate servers. This could also benefit government users, allowing them to use all the services iCloud has to offer while still maintaining local security control (my old job). The education environment could use localized iCloud servers to further control outside access of student's work. Apple hasn't supported standalone iCloud instances but with this collaboration, they might.
Good questions!
Considering the way CloudKit was presented at WWDC, it appears that it could provide:
This may help -- here's a one-paragraph summation -- one six-word sentence, actually (emphasis mine):
An Apple and IBM partnership makes sense in the same way Apple selling its products through Walmart makes sense. Apple defended selling through Walmart by saying “Their stores are where ours aren’t.” The kinds of large enterprises where IBM has a presence are the places where Apple has the least penetration. iPads and iPhones are probably present in the executive offices and the sales force, but less so in other departments where central IT rules with impunity.
IBM is not in the phone/tablet device business, nor do they have their own OS variant. They are in the enterprise and big data business, squarely where Apple has no plans.
Some simple, tangible, vivid explanations and examples would have helped. These articles make it sound like this partnership is not much more than Apple partnering for a corporate sales force. Then why stop with IBM? Why not go after the whole lot, including Oracle, SAS, Cisco, HP,....
To me "Post PC" really means a transition from categories of computing devices that required users to adapt to the needs of the computer (e.g., forcing humans to communicate to computers via a terribly inefficient and arcane contraption called a "keyboard") to categories of computers that adapt to the needs of users (e.g., allowing humans to communicate to computers using natural mechanisms like touch, motion, and voice).
Cool, except that most of the things people do with computers at work are actually more easily accomplished with traditional input methods. Random examples off the top of my head: Touching data field entry forms is actually more hassle than navigating with keys. You see less of your work at a time due to the small screen. The onscreen keyboard has to be constantly invoked and dismissed and covers your work when active. Selecting a line of text to replace is a lot easier with a keyboard and pointing device than it is with touch or voice. Typing is faster, easier and more accurate with a physical keyboard. Your monitor and keys aren't on the same plane making it hard to view and type at the same time. You don't have to recharge a regular computer.
Obviously there are lots of examples of ways that what you describe will make work easier and more efficient. I'm just saying that there are at least as many and possibly more of tasks that better done the old way. The efficiency of existing methods depends on what is being done. There's a reason keyboards and pointing/scrolling devices have survived and evolved over decades beyond lack of imagination: they're the best approach to some kinds of work.
That new set of screwdrivers is really handy, but having them doesn't means you can throw away the pliers.
Cool, except that most of the things people do with computers at work are actually more easily accomplished with traditional input methods. Random examples off the top of my head: Touching data field entry forms is actually more hassle than navigating with keys. You see less of your work at a time due to the small screen. The onscreen keyboard has to be constantly invoked and dismissed and covers your work when active. Selecting a line of text to replace is a lot easier with a keyboard and pointing device than it is with touch or voice. Typing is faster, easier and more accurate with a physical keyboard. Your monitor and keys aren't on the same plane making it hard to view and type at the same time. You don't have to recharge a regular computer.
Obviously there are lots of examples of ways that what you describe will make work easier and more efficient. I'm just saying that there are at least as many and possibly more of tasks that better done the old way. The efficiency of existing methods depends on what is being done. There's a reason keyboards and pointing/scrolling devices have survived and evolved over decades beyond lack of imagination: they're the best approach to some kinds of work.
That new set of screwdrivers is really handy, but having them doesn't means you can throw away the pliers.
It's not for all jobs. my company prints out paper lists to do physical inventory and then manually inputs the numbers back into the system. Imagine if the users just input the numbers directly into the system via the iPad. That would be easier to carry around and use than a laptop. No paper waste, no time wasted writing numbers down twice.
I apologize for being a bit dense today, but I don't see the allusion....
What you, I, most here, Wall Street, etc. would like, is for IBM and Apple to divulge [more detail about, and examples of] their plans before they do whatever they are going to do.
Not going to happen!
Rather, I suspect them to announce a fait accompli around the time iOS 8, Yosemite, Xcode and Swift become available -- or maybe when the public beta of Yosemite, Xcode and Swift become available.
Likely, Apple/IBM are opening the kimono, under NDA, to a few flagship accounts, so they have customer success stories up and running at announce. Kinda' like what Apple does with certain developers who present at WWDC.
There might be some anomalies in what they do announce due to unannounced hardware (TouchID on iPads, Enhanced AppleTV, iPad Pro) and/or missing software/services (IBM apps not ready yet, Cloud services not ready) ...
Once fully exposed, I suspect, that IBM (and the new Apple for enterprise) will make some generalized statements about future directions, a commitment to their current offerings -- to allow their customers to plan and budget.
Either you grew up in a tiny cubicle doing nothing but data entry or you have a limited understanding of what other people do.
No cubicles in my history. I get my own room full of fancy toys that are supposed to allow me to be creative on demand!
As for what other people do, you could well be right. All I have for evaluation is observation of the people I've worked with over the years. For some of them a tablet might be a good alternative, but I don't think it would be welcomed by most of them. It might boil down to whether one's job primarily consists of getting stuff out of the system, for a which a tablet might be good, versus putting stuff into the system, for which a traditional layout might still be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
Employees need to be mobile, not tied to a big keyboard and monitor, so they can perform their work wherever it needs to be performed. Even a travel agent and a stockbroker has times where walking around helps them do their job better and allows more interaction with their customer.
I think you overestimate the degree to which most employees interact with clients, and the relative value of workspace mobility compared to ease of use. Again, speaking only for the places I've worked, the majority of the people using computers are entering data in forms or writing. Neither of those requires going anywhere and both are easier with a laptop or desktop computer than a tablet. You CAN write a report just fine on an iPad, but it's easier on a laptop.
Comments
A nit: In your phrase "What's new is the clearly emphasized exclusiveness of the relationship", I think you want 'exclusivity' instead of 'exclusiveness'
---
Exclusiveness - tendency to associate with only a select group (and often used in the classical literature).
Exclusivity -
contract term in which one party grants another party sole rights with regard to a particular business function.
This is the best explanation I have seen:
http://techpinions.com/apple-and-ibm-storm-the-enterprise/32784
IBM is not in the phone/tablet device business, nor do they have their own OS variant. They are in the enterprise and big data business, squarely where Apple has no plans.
IBM isn't even in the PC box business for that matter. They provide to apple instant street cred with enterprise IT and will support iOS devices at an enterprise level. On the flip side, IBM gets an exclusive arrangement with the world's most popular tablet and phone without manufacturing their own or partnering with a company they also compete with.
Yeah, that was a far better explanation. I sorta get it. It's just a bit clumsy and I'm having a hard time seeing how this is as huge as Tim is trying to make it. I'm sure it is big.
I still think in the long view, it would be awesome to have Apple run all their stuff on the Ax chips. Right now, IBM is all giddy about porting all their enterprise software over to the iOS mobile side. It sure would have been great if, say, iMacs could also run that software. Then they would have a choice that includes both the desktop gear and the mobile products.
That's a ways in the future. In the meantime, how about a virtual machine that runs iOS code on our desktop hardware?
I strongly suspect that IBM Is, or soon will be, writing apps in Swift. My last job at IBM was technical market support for CICS -- IBM's premier transaction-processing development system, AIR, in 1978, IBM had over 3,000 installations of the IBM/360 DOS version -- leased at ~ $3,500 per month (1978 $) ... not too bad back then.
I surfed around to see if I could find the current CICS install base -- no luck. Visited the IBM site -- Public direction statement: Supporting the prior version through 2014; current version through (at least) 2017.
That tells me there's some life in the old boy yet
Back in my day, CICS was used on private LANS or WANS -- you programmed CICS with assembler language -- with hooks for COBoL UI.
That was before the Internet, so I suspect current CICS offerings support a web front end.
My point in all this is that Swift would be great for CICS: development, in-house deployment, web deployment.
So, yes, "they [could] easily make an OSX version as well and further increase Mac penetration in enterprise".
To elaborate, based on a 1-month plus experience with Swift (and 2014-1978 year experience with Apple), I believe that Swift is designed to be [Apple] platform-agnostic. By that I mean it uses abstract constructs such as String, Array, Dictionary -- which, under-the-covers bridge to Objective-C constructs of NSString, NSArray, NSDictionary.
Stepping back a bit, the major naming differences between iOS (UIKit) and OS X (AppKit) are that the names of IOS UI elements start with UI (UITableView) and the names of OSX UI elements start with NS (NSTableView).
I suspect that a planned evolution (next step
It's a bit more involved than that, but the signals are there -- that you'll be able to write your app in Swift -- then with a checkbox, tell Xcode to compile the app for iOS, OS X or both (maybe even a third option for the web).
I get the strategy, and here's hoping it works, but I just don't see tablets really taking hold for most workers. The form factor just isn't as good as a plain ol' keyboard and mouse with a big screen or two for either looking at stuff or inputting stuff.
Admittedly there are all kinds of opportunities for new applications, like retail floor staff and nurses, but for jobs that don't require carrying a computer around with you, like a travel agent or stockbroker, a tablet is just more hassle to work with than a traditional PC layout.
Maybe if Apple creates some kind of dock (for lack of a better term) that lets users tie it to a real keyboard and maybe an external monitor it could take a real crack at the desktop, but I just don't think a tablet is particularly well suited to cubicle dwellers.
Either way, it'll be fun to see how hardware for the post-PC era plays out, whether the hardware evolves to accommodate working styles besides stab-and-swipe while holding the device, or if people will just adapt to interacting with flat computers.
Lorin, you're limiting yourself. Either you grew up in a tiny cubicle doing nothing but data entry or you have a limited understanding of what other people do. Gone are the days of a stationary employee (except in certain business sweatshops). Employees need to be mobile, not tied to a big keyboard and monitor, so they can perform their work wherever it needs to be performed. Even a travel agent and a stockbroker has times where walking around helps them do their job better and allows more interaction with their customer. Even though I detest more sales people of all kinds, having the ability to instantly make a presentation, including cost, to a customer is a whole lot better than walking back to their crammed office and looking at something on a cheap PC.
Stab and swipe means you haven't figured out how to use a mobile device. By "flat computer" I assume you mean a tablet instead of a clumsy old style desktop PC with more screens than your brain can take in. If you're a broker, I'm done with you because the stock market is simply legalized gambling with very few rules.
The AIM Alliance, Apple and IBM's most notable partnership, ended when Apple ended it. I agree with Apple in that dispute and believe that IBM was dead wrong. Apple's fortunes since the split should leave no doubt that IBM was wrong. However, IBM's mistake was to misunderstand the business environment extant. After the AIM Alliance ended, it was IBM that begged Apple to reconsider.
Even if your assertion were true--and it is not--Apple is stronger now that when it switched from PowerPC to Intel.
I have a question: Who's cloud services is Apple currently using? I read it might be Microsoft's Azure cloud services. With Apple's cloud infrastructure on its way to become very large, having a cloud service provider like IBM (HW and SW) might be better in the long run than messing around with PC servers running Azure. IBM is known and used world wide and has a very capable service staff.
Anybody have actual data that says who Apple is using for both hardware and cloud software?
I read somewhere, recently, that Apple is a major user of AWS.
Mary Jo Foley has directly stated that Apple uses Azure. I believe she got her information from a person who knows this at Microsoft.
I read somewhere, recently, that Apple is a major user of AWS.
Mary Jo Foley has directly stated that Apple uses Azure. I believe she got her information from a person who knows this at Microsoft.
dated article from http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/06/08/is-icloud-running-on-microsoft-amazon-cloud-services/ saying they're using both. This article talks about an application called Charles that shows traffic from both. Anyone want to try it and see what they find?
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses more than one vendor but my original comment still holds, does the IBM & Apple commitment mean Apple would change to an IBM-hosted iCloud? If so, would this benefit users? With IBM's standalone cloud services, it could definitely benefit the enterprise market where they could host their own iCloud for iWork-type services and not worry about data stored on non-corporate servers. This could also benefit government users, allowing them to use all the services iCloud has to offer while still maintaining local security control (my old job). The education environment could use localized iCloud servers to further control outside access of student's work. Apple hasn't supported standalone iCloud instances but with this collaboration, they might.
Well I'm glad Dan wrote this article. I was waiting for it to see if he could explain it without all the corporate jargon. I'm not sure I understand it, even after reading his article. Not a criticism as I sure wouldn't want to wade through the particulars...
That's one thing I really miss about Jobs. Throughout the year, he'd email someone or post something and his touch was always present in announcements and various marketing spots. He would have had a one paragraph summation of this deal that would have made all our our sphincters contract with delight.
Cook did give a good example in yesterday's video. My dad was a captain of Alaska Airlines and they had to carry a large bag full of notebooks that had airport and other navigation information. Now pilots simply carry on their iPads. Even better, an LCD should be built into the aircraft with the relevant data able to display as needed.
So that was one example that I understood. I like that there will be an ability for the pilot to use some app that's tied into a fueling depot database or something and be able to estimate the required fuel given the weather and load and pricing.
Maybe if they had a killer app that showed something, many of us would have been more excited. I wish Cook had that ability to distill things down like Jobs did. Killer analogies were a bonus.
I've never seen so much vapid prose since this deal was announced. It's difficult to read and all the empty phrasing just makes my eyes roll back.
How about we get Craig Federighi on this? I'm a smart guy but I'm flummoxed.
Thanks for that fabulously articulated post. You have just held a mirror to the thinking of a lot of people, vis-a-vis this deal.
I agree that Cook needs to distill it down to something more tangible, and communicate that in a simple, effective way.
This may help -- here's a one-paragraph summation -- one six-word sentence, actually (emphasis mine):
This is the best explanation I have seen:
http://techpinions.com/apple-and-ibm-storm-the-enterprise/32784
IBM is not in the phone/tablet device business, nor do they have their own OS variant. They are in the enterprise and big data business, squarely where Apple has no plans.
Some simple, tangible, vivid explanations and examples would have helped. These articles make it sound like this partnership is not much more than Apple partnering for a corporate sales force. Then why stop with IBM? Why not go after the whole lot, including Oracle, SAS, Cisco, HP,....
Good questions!
Considering the way CloudKit was presented at WWDC, it appears that it could provide:
Does Macy's tell Gimbals?
Does Macy's tell Gimbals?
I apologize for being a bit dense today, but I don't see the allusion....
To me "Post PC" really means a transition from categories of computing devices that required users to adapt to the needs of the computer (e.g., forcing humans to communicate to computers via a terribly inefficient and arcane contraption called a "keyboard") to categories of computers that adapt to the needs of users (e.g., allowing humans to communicate to computers using natural mechanisms like touch, motion, and voice).
Cool, except that most of the things people do with computers at work are actually more easily accomplished with traditional input methods. Random examples off the top of my head: Touching data field entry forms is actually more hassle than navigating with keys. You see less of your work at a time due to the small screen. The onscreen keyboard has to be constantly invoked and dismissed and covers your work when active. Selecting a line of text to replace is a lot easier with a keyboard and pointing device than it is with touch or voice. Typing is faster, easier and more accurate with a physical keyboard. Your monitor and keys aren't on the same plane making it hard to view and type at the same time. You don't have to recharge a regular computer.
Obviously there are lots of examples of ways that what you describe will make work easier and more efficient. I'm just saying that there are at least as many and possibly more of tasks that better done the old way. The efficiency of existing methods depends on what is being done. There's a reason keyboards and pointing/scrolling devices have survived and evolved over decades beyond lack of imagination: they're the best approach to some kinds of work.
That new set of screwdrivers is really handy, but having them doesn't means you can throw away the pliers.
It's not for all jobs. my company prints out paper lists to do physical inventory and then manually inputs the numbers back into the system. Imagine if the users just input the numbers directly into the system via the iPad. That would be easier to carry around and use than a laptop. No paper waste, no time wasted writing numbers down twice.
What you, I, most here, Wall Street, etc. would like, is for IBM and Apple to divulge [more detail about, and examples of] their plans before they do whatever they are going to do.
Not going to happen!
Rather, I suspect them to announce a fait accompli around the time iOS 8, Yosemite, Xcode and Swift become available -- or maybe when the public beta of Yosemite, Xcode and Swift become available.
Likely, Apple/IBM are opening the kimono, under NDA, to a few flagship accounts, so they have customer success stories up and running at announce. Kinda' like what Apple does with certain developers who present at WWDC.
There might be some anomalies in what they do announce due to unannounced hardware (TouchID on iPads, Enhanced AppleTV, iPad Pro) and/or missing software/services (IBM apps not ready yet, Cloud services not ready) ...
Once fully exposed, I suspect, that IBM (and the new Apple for enterprise) will make some generalized statements about future directions, a commitment to their current offerings -- to allow their customers to plan and budget.
Either you grew up in a tiny cubicle doing nothing but data entry or you have a limited understanding of what other people do.
No cubicles in my history. I get my own room full of fancy toys that are supposed to allow me to be creative on demand!
As for what other people do, you could well be right. All I have for evaluation is observation of the people I've worked with over the years. For some of them a tablet might be a good alternative, but I don't think it would be welcomed by most of them. It might boil down to whether one's job primarily consists of getting stuff out of the system, for a which a tablet might be good, versus putting stuff into the system, for which a traditional layout might still be better.
Employees need to be mobile, not tied to a big keyboard and monitor, so they can perform their work wherever it needs to be performed. Even a travel agent and a stockbroker has times where walking around helps them do their job better and allows more interaction with their customer.
I think you overestimate the degree to which most employees interact with clients, and the relative value of workspace mobility compared to ease of use. Again, speaking only for the places I've worked, the majority of the people using computers are entering data in forms or writing. Neither of those requires going anywhere and both are easier with a laptop or desktop computer than a tablet. You CAN write a report just fine on an iPad, but it's easier on a laptop.