IBM began mass adoption of iOS prior to its exclusive partnership with Apple, Inc.

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    gtr wrote: »
    Does anybody else hear Steve Job's voice saying 'International Bozo Machines' whenever they read 'IBM'?

    Never heard that one, but I do remember: IBM = I've Been Misled.

    This time around IBM is much smarter in many ways. However, like always, IBM knows how to take care of clients and make money where most corporations fumble around and give variable service while making less money.
  • Reply 22 of 40
    tundraboy wrote: »
     

    It's also a bit irrelevant to the bulk of buyers who today don't even remember the events you refer to, because of forgetfulness of age, or inexperience of youth. But Bill Gates built a giant company, took his money and got out, with enough time left in life to enjoy the spoils of his business victories.  The Microsoft of today is a different company.  Different people, different products, different goals and different MO.  Just as Apple is a very different company than it was 30 years ago--it is no longer the underdog, it no longer has its founders running the show.  Unfortunately, Mr. Jobs didn't get the same opportunity to enjoy his spoils that Gates did. But that's life and the risk we take.  IBM is different too.  As is HP.  I'm not saying that the companies are any worse now, or better, just that they're different.  They endure beyond their people, as is the nature of a corporation, unless they get bought up. The sands of time will continue to shift.  

    The application of ancient philosophies to describe the situation is just... well out of place, to my thinking.

    Before you object to me anthropomorphizing corporations, be advised that no less than the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that . . .  corporations are people, my friend.  :-)

    Indeed, "corporations are people," brought to you by the same government that declared rabbit meat is "chicken," and that it takes no less than 2.4 cherries per slice of pie, to still be sold as "Cherry Pie."
  • Reply 23 of 40
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post





    Never heard that one, but I do remember: IBM = I've Been Misled.



    This time around IBM is much smarter in many ways. However, like always, IBM knows how to take care of clients and make money where most corporations fumble around and give variable service while making less money.

    Where I've heard that before is not by clients... but by employees, typically around performance review time.

     

    The trade off for this is that most of the rank and file IBM workers are grist for the 'taking care of clients' mill.   

     

    A) Great performers [those willing to sacrifice more than 40 hours a week, family life, etc...] are moved up the chain, 

    B) Poor performers are replaced by offshore

    C) middle of the road, The 'I'm here for a steady income, doing my job' sort of folks are told that their job is now 125% of the former job in the hopes they move into Category C

    D) new hires.

     

    I've lived in IBM company towns, and I've had several friends/relatives relatives work for IBM.  All but one (and he was an A... moving every 3 years, overnight flights from Austin to Toyko to Sao Paulo and back driving a customer critical defect deep into the development team) got out because of how there was no humanity in human resources.

     

    Oh, and that one...  Died of a heart attack at 54... first one in our family to have a heart attack.   Not sayin' ... but just sayin'

  • Reply 24 of 40
    inteliusqinteliusq Posts: 111member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     

    In the web world...  this was the control feature... in the App world, frameworks will still only live at the interface veneer, and it will be some obvious architectural choices made to generalize features or have dual logic stacks to the same end for different platforms.  

     

    My guess is that Android and WinMobile Apps will continued to be developed against the same backend (non corporation wants to be single sourced), but the 1st choice will be iOS, for obvious reasons.  The worst scenarios being the 'code builder' development kits that drive interfaces down to the lowest common denominator (C++,Java, Dalvik, C#, Swift all out of the same metacode with 'interface frameworks' on the client and server side to convert back and forth)


     

    The way you talk, you would be perfect when speaking technobabble on NCIS.

  • Reply 25 of 40
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member

    btw,  Cringely has been pretty much on point on IBM strategy over the last several months...

     

    http://www.cringely.com/2014/07/16/ibm-apple-just-big-deal/

     

    Key point here.  IBM has a new shiny object to sell to execs... "We _KNOW_ Apple"

    That's all they wanted.

     

    Apple gets a huge support partner ("hey, if you don't like the Apple Store, you can always call IBM"), and a channel, but in the end, a couple million new phones a year is almost background noise, and tablets...  if you get half that many, you're lucky (but yes, that's a bigger deal).

     

    The biggest deal IBM focusing on iOS integration into every enterprise (including their own) that lets them.  That's a huge testbed, and huger still lock-in.   

     

    Now I agree with RXC in that IBM software is just one notch above horrid, but it's good enough for people who are paid to be trained, and trainers paid to train.  But no matter.  Enterprise Sales are the 'high ground' you want... you have to sell 2 or 3 people for thousands of seats, and once in, they have to amortize that decision (and all installations, training, skills, software, processes) for 5-7 years, and the next decision round, you're the leader (what's the war adage... it takes 7 times the strength to knock someone off a hill than it does to hold it?   and Corporations using IBM have a strong siege support system [see Lotus Notes...  It should have died 20 years ago... but most corps still use it]).   Apple sees a Win and a lever into the 'long game' , IBM sees a 'not lose' (which for one of the 2 or 3 'original' tech companies [ATT, IBM, and ??? ]  Not losing is #Winning), and together, after 4 or 5 years, there could be some magic.... or not, and not is par for the course in Apple/NeXT/IBM relationships.

  • Reply 26 of 40
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member
    Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.
  • Reply 27 of 40
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    feynman wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.
    As of today IBM's market cap is $194B. How exactly does someone buy them? I suppose they could merge with Apple but partnerships like this make more sense IMO.
  • Reply 28 of 40
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    "The circle is now complete...

    [the learner has] become the Master…"

  • Reply 29 of 40
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feynman View Post



    Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.


    As of today IBM's market cap is $194B. How exactly does someone buy them? I suppose they could merge with Apple but partnerships like this make more sense IMO.

    By offering stock and part of that gazillion dollar war chest Apple has…and maybe a few plum jobs….?

    But seriously, why would they?  At this point, Apple seems to be "getting the milk for free" with this 'synergy'.

    And besides, an everyday anchor would cost so much less, anyway.

  • Reply 30 of 40
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InteliusQ View Post

     

     

    The way you talk, you would be perfect when speaking technobabble on NCIS.


    I've sat through those presentations for years.   ObjectVision, Java, AppCelerator,  I'm getting good at it.

     

    Almost as good as  'client centric solutions and synergies[sssssss]'

     

     

     image

  • Reply 31 of 40
    techguy911techguy911 Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    As of today IBM's market cap is $194B. How exactly does someone buy them? I suppose they could merge with Apple but partnerships like this make more sense IMO.

     

    Neither makes sense.  Apple needs to stay focused on what they're good at and a massive merger or buyout will cause too much chaos.  That's the problem with Google and MSFT, they're always drifting in different directions, searching for another sector to get into, then half-ass it.

  • Reply 32 of 40
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feynman View Post



    Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.

    It would be something.... stupid.

     

    This is a classic risk avoidance strategy... IBM is taking on all the risk.  This is no different than Apple buying a chip foundry.  

     

    Building an running a enterprise sales and support organization is really hard, and integrating with enterprise cruft that's out there is a black magic that requires a lot of hand holding...  We don't want a 3rd rate genius bar organization, Apple execs not minding the store but making sales calls to 'close the deal.'  

     

     

    If the partnership takes off, Apple will sell maybe 3-4 million more phones a year in 3 years. That's hardly a couple weeks of production now.

    Remember, most of these Enterprises don't want to buy another phone for their staff, they want to use the one their employees already own.  And with iPads, the same thing.   The big win here is an open door policy for Mac laptops and desktops, and that will be at best a  5 year transition, and even there, MS still owns most of the enterprise (read: AD), the gains will be slow.

  • Reply 33 of 40
    Where I've heard that before is not by clients... but by employees, typically around performance review time.

    The trade off for this is that most of the rank and file IBM workers are grist for the 'taking care of clients' mill.   

    A) Great performers [those willing to sacrifice more than 40 hours a week, family life, etc...] are moved up the chain, 
    B) Poor performers are replaced by offshore
    C) middle of the road, The 'I'm here for a steady income, doing my job' sort of folks are told that their job is now 125% of the former job in the hopes they move into Category C
    D) new hires.

    I didn't quite understand your explanation on the "C" group. Are you saying that 125% effort is expected out of that group now?

    I have an acquaintance that worked for IBM back in the 1970s and at that time they had a "no layoff" thing going, but when they didn't need him any more he only got offered some shit jobs north of the arctic circle or some such.

    One thing that always impressed me was how IBM was not afraid to ask a shit-ton of money to lease you equipment and services. It would be like asking you to pay $100 a month to lease an iPad...and you go WOW! Where do I sign? ;)
  • Reply 34 of 40
    feynman wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.
    It would be something.... stupid.

    This is a classic risk avoidance strategy... IBM is taking on all the risk.  This is no different than Apple buying a chip foundry.  

    Building an running a enterprise sales and support organization is really hard, and integrating with enterprise cruft that's out there is a black magic that requires a lot of hand holding...  We don't want a 3rd rate genius bar organization, Apple execs not minding the store but making sales calls to 'close the deal.'  

    I totally agree! It's not in Apple's DNA to do that kind of business... While to a lot of people it may seem to be similar, it's a whole different animal. The way I see it, buying IBM and trying to run that kind of business would be like buying McDonald's so you can sell Happy Meals and ask "Would you like some iPads with that?"
  • Reply 35 of 40
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post





    I didn't quite understand your explanation on the "C" group. Are you saying that 125% effort is expected out of that group now?



    I have an acquaintance that worked for IBM back in the 1970s and at that time they had a "no layoff" thing going, but when they didn't need him any more he only got offered some shit jobs north of the arctic circle or some such.



    One thing that always impressed me was how IBM was not afraid to ask a shit-ton of money to lease you equipment and services. It would be like asking you to pay $100 a month to lease an iPad...and you go WOW! Where do I sign? image

    125% compound annually.  (this was the 90s through 2010).  Typically, "write your 1000 lines a code a week, 0 defects"  Next year... 1500/0 + tech docs... year after 2200/0 + tech docs + teach a team in India what you know, year after... supervise team code quality of india team on top of your coding duties (read, you're doing 2nd shift work).

     

    IBM managed services is amazingly expensive, but IBM can through in millions of dollars of "free services" which if timed right, make for a lot of 'heroic' praise, and customer lock-in.  (and a lot of swag, like sheltered seats at the Masters, and box seats at US Open Tennis tournament).

     

    $100 a month sounds about right.  ATT charged a company I consulted at $25 a month for managing their RSA tokens.  Yep.  300 a year for a $25 token, and keeping the RADIUS server up for it to talk to.  

  • Reply 36 of 40
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post





    I didn't quite understand your explanation on the "C" group. Are you saying that 125% effort is expected out of that group now?



    I have an acquaintance that worked for IBM back in the 1970s and at that time they had a "no layoff" thing going, but when they didn't need him any more he only got offered some shit jobs north of the arctic circle or some such.



    One thing that always impressed me was how IBM was not afraid to ask a shit-ton of money to lease you equipment and services. It would be like asking you to pay $100 a month to lease an iPad...and you go WOW! Where do I sign? image

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     

    125% compound annually.  (this was the 90s through 2010).  Typically, "write your 1000 lines a code a week, 0 defects"  Next year... 1500/0 + tech docs... year after 2200/0 + tech docs + teach a team in India what you know, year after... supervise team code quality of india team on top of your coding duties (read, you're doing 2nd shift work).

     

    IBM managed services is amazingly expensive, but IBM can through in millions of dollars of "free services" which if timed right, make for a lot of 'heroic' praise, and customer lock-in.  (and a lot of swag, like sheltered seats at the Masters, and box seats at US Open Tennis tournament).

     

    $100 a month sounds about right.  ATT charged a company I consulted at $25 a month for managing their RSA tokens.  Yep.  300 a year for a $25 token, and keeping the RADIUS server up for it to talk to.  


    Tom Watson's IBM came up in the era when the technology business was more about business and business relationships than technology... ...the roots of their corporate culture were already four decades old when digital computers were first built.



    And even longer before people started yammering about "corporate culture" as a meme.



    My uncle was a salesman there for 40 years.  All through the company song book era.  IBM has always been innovative (sooner or later, and sometimes wonderfully, occasionally woefully), but their whole history of relationships (human networking) in the Enterprise has carried them as far as their tech, management and patent portfolio.



    Apple's a creature of a whole different age and culture, and handled well, IBM can provide them old school entry into this whole arena they'd never have elsewhere, while IBM gets to take advantage of Apple's personal tech and cachet.



    Of course, if this is a successful longish-term collaboration, it will change both companies as they "get" each others' ethos....



     

  • Reply 37 of 40
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    It will be AWESOME when Apple takes over IBM and FORCES people to use OSX at work.

    FREEDOM, becuase AMERICA
    you use freedom then forces? Strange concept of freedom :what:
  • Reply 38 of 40
    This deal is bad because now I have to decipher corporate speak in my Apple news, like: "framework of reusable web-services that can be leveraged by mobile applications," and, "on-boarding devices", to name a few.
  • Reply 39 of 40
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    It would be something.... stupid.

    This is a classic risk avoidance strategy... IBM is taking on all the risk.  This is no different than Apple buying a chip foundry.  

    Building an running a enterprise sales and support organization is really hard, and integrating with enterprise cruft that's out there is a black magic that requires a lot of hand holding...  We don't want a 3rd rate genius bar organization, Apple execs not minding the store but making sales calls to 'close the deal.'  


    If the partnership takes off, Apple will sell maybe 3-4 million more phones a year in 3 years. That's hardly a couple weeks of production now.
    Remember, most of these Enterprises don't want to buy another phone for their staff, they want to use the one their employees already own.  And with iPads, the same thing.   The big win here is an open door policy for Mac laptops and desktops, and that will be at best a  5 year transition, and even there, MS still owns most of the enterprise (read: AD), the gains will be slow.

    Tim Cook doesn't get excited about 3-4 million additional units sold. This deal is a significant collaboration that is not fully understood yet.
  • Reply 40 of 40
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post



     



    It's also a bit irrelevant to the bulk of buyers who today don't even remember the events you refer to, because of forgetfulness of age, or inexperience of youth. But Bill Gates built a giant company, took his money and got out, with enough time left in life to enjoy the spoils of his business victories.  The Microsoft of today is a different company.  Different people, different products, different goals and different MO.  Just as Apple is a very different company than it was 30 years ago--it is no longer the underdog, it no longer has its founders running the show.  Unfortunately, Mr. Jobs didn't get the same opportunity to enjoy his spoils that Gates did. But that's life and the risk we take.  IBM is different too.  As is HP.  I'm not saying that the companies are any worse now, or better, just that they're different.  They endure beyond their people, as is the nature of a corporation, unless they get bought up. The sands of time will continue to shift.  



    The application of ancient philosophies to describe the situation is just... well out of place, to my thinking.




    Before you object to me anthropomorphizing corporations, be advised that no less than the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that . . .  corporations are people, my friend.  :-)




    Indeed, "corporations are people," brought to you by the same government that declared rabbit meat is "chicken," and that it takes no less than 2.4 cherries per slice of pie, to still be sold as "Cherry Pie."

     

    For a long time, 2.4 became known as the average number of children families had in England (lower now, I think), though not in pie - unless you're Hansel and Gretel.

Sign In or Register to comment.