If they do start offering OS X machines, they'll leave those markets to Apple.
Everywhere we talk "Apple-branded IBM's" or "IBM branded Macs" I'd like to point out that it would be almost guaranteed to be Mac OS X _Server_($500-$1000), not the version we all know and love, Mac OS X ($69-129).
By using the OSXServer product, Apple's made it's money. They wouldn't care if Dell(or pick your favorite Apple arch-nemesis) sold boxes that ran OS X... so long as Dell was _paying_for_OSXServer.
In other words: you can't _undercut_ Apple with a Mac OS X _Server_ license. So the "PowerComputing" type of clones wouldn't be happening at all (except for possibly wild niche varients Apple doesn't sell). But the good aspects of cloning would still be viable (The Genesis 4CPU boxes w 6+ slots...). Note that back in the "Death to the Clones" days, PowerComputing et al was (briefly) offered a license renewal - with a higher price tag than the one they'd had the previous year. (I remember it doubled in price, but I wouldn't guarantee any of that.)
All that said, I wouldn't see this as "IBM going retail." I'm picturing Mac OS X Server on pSeries-esque, or rs6000-esque, or perhaps the bladecenters. None of those can really be considered 'mainstream/desktop computing' sorts of things.
The key to any of this would be convincing IBM that OSXServer cheaper to install/upgrade/maintain than AIX or IBM's Linux. Whether it's the netbooting, clustering, auto-updating, or the Server tools (which are quite cool - but I can't say how useful they are), it would have to fit into IBM's "Sell the machine and a 100 year service contract" philosophy.
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
I've often wondered about this ... if Apple allows IBM to sell OSX for stupidly hugely expensive servers that serve no purpose to Apple as a market segment (without any blowback issues - best of luck) then the makings of a potentially great symbiotic relationship are here:
IBM has the corporate clout, and will intall OSX on big honkin' bleeding edge machines that Apple would never build.
Companies discover the Power of managing machines via OSX (huge cost savings etc).
Bleeding edge apps get their bugs worked out - so ...
As processors get faster, these bleeding edge apps that now only make sense in big iron, will filter down to the desktop as mature time tested systems.
There's still huge issues here, hardware and clone and, all the old bug-a-boo's of OSX on intel, but if Apple licences smart to IBM - the two might be able to play ball very nicely.
What if selling the iPod on the Dell store was just the camel's nose under the tent? When I first heard Dell was selling iPods, I immediately thought Apple has something up its sleeve with them.
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
That's just about the most brilliant thing I've ever read here. Seriously. It's perfect on so many levels.
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
And, not coincidentally, it's hiding in another thread where it can't be locked!
Oddly enough there's not a shred of new information in that post.
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM?
All this time I've been hoping that IBM and Apple share a design for the 970 and allow each other's OS's to boot on each other's hardware - eg AIX on the PowerMacs and OS X on the IntelliStation POWERs. Of course, Apple's habit of reinventing the wheel might preclude this, but if they did, it would be like return of CHRP!
My thoughts - I believe that Apple has Mac OS X running on x86 processors. There is a risk associated with PPC processors, and history shows that some have come true - i.e., Motorolla having limited success on G4 improvements, and the G5 being deep sixed. Having IBM as a sole supplier would be a risk. The Motorolla fiasco and the "IBM sole supplier" risk had/has the potential of of putting Apple out of business.
I think comments about IBM's potential lack of commitment to producing PPC processors suitable to Apple ignore an important distinction between IBM and Motorola. This is that Motorola only produces processors for embedded and desktop machines and since the size of the latter market is small in comparison to the former their commitment to the desktop suffers. But IBM make processors for the embedded, desktop, workstation, server, mainframe and supercomputer markets. This is a hugh range from the low to high end of machine types (with processors often crossing over multiple categories) with most of them being compatible with the PPC ISA. This means their commitment to PPC is hugh, covering all their business. They are not going to drop PPC anytime soon.
The 970 is only the latest IBM processor in the desktop and workstation categories with the 604, POWER3 and POWER4 being others, and it also covers an emerging market, namely the blade server. Thanks to pressure/money/whatever from Apple IBM have also added an AltiVec unit to make it suitable to tem. The only question with regard to IBM's commitment to making processors for Apple is "will they always include AltiVec in their desktop level processors"? If Apple keep doing what they did, "Yes". If IBM use it in their blades, "Yes". If they add it to Power5, "Yes". (A small possibility I'm going to start a thread on soon unless disscussed B4. Links anyone?)
IBM will be a reliable supplier for Apple in the future.
If you could sell Macs with an "IBM Inside" sticker on them, a lot of people would probably buy the computer figuring it would work with Windows. It would give precieved credibility to Apple products for people who otherwise blacklist them. (Apple should try this with the iBook to see what people's reactions are.)
I'm not so humble that I won't point out that I've been saying this for over a year now.
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux? They finaly have a way to no longer depend on MS or Intel (Linux & PPC 970). Why would they jump into Apple's arms ?
Perhaps IBM servers running Darwin, but MacOS X server, I doubt. It makes plenty of sense for Apple (who would gain from selling MacOS X server for x86), but not so much for IBM.
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux? They finaly have a way to no longer depend on MS or Intel (Linux & PPC 970). Why would they jump into Apple's arms ?
Perhaps IBM servers running Darwin, but MacOS X server, I doubt. It makes plenty of sense for Apple (who would gain from selling MacOS X server for x86), but not so much for IBM.
Why would IBM sell AIX when they've been pushing Linux?
IBM was really quite proud of the gameplan where OS2 was going to run on everything top-to-bottom... which MS (or MS+IBM) effectively killed. It is quite handy to be able to use a $20,000 workstation to jot notes and do other mundane tasks that in no way require a $20,000 workstation... but people don't like learning another OS to do that. So you need a $20,000 workstation _and_ a PC. That's dumb. Ok, not every workstation customer does this - but it does happen.
So marketing Darwin for RS6000 would be silly. If someone wanted to run an XWindows widget, both Linux and AIX can do that fine. Neither of those have top-drawer Quicktime though.
It doesn't _cost_ IBM anything to do, so it doesn't need to be extremely profitable. It's just another choice.
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux? They finaly have a way to no longer depend on MS or Intel (Linux & PPC 970). Why would they jump into Apple's arms ?
Perhaps IBM servers running Darwin, but MacOS X server, I doubt. It makes plenty of sense for Apple (who would gain from selling MacOS X server for x86), but not so much for IBM.
Go back and read what he said. IBM would sell both. IBM's current primary focus is to provide company wide computing solutions and support. They don't care so much which box they sell and what OS it's running, they just want companies' money to install and support it. Services is where the money's at right now, not hardware. Sure they may recommend one solution over the other; but if they're able to offer multiple solutions, then they can offer services to a wider variety of customers.
Inkhead, that was the most exciting post I've read since I heard Apple might be going after Motorola.
If true, sounds like Panther will sweep all away. Such features would indeed be breathtaking and leave Xp gasping for breath.
I'm awaiting WWDC with great interest.
With 'X' currently 'there' it stands to reason Apple might push the envelope. Could it be that the neXT heritage truly comes home? And Be's file system? A truly hardware agnostic OS? Intel support?
Sounds very exciting...the work of genius. Apple really going for it? All on hot 970 hardware? All wrapped up in a innovative tower case according to macwhispers...
Getting IBM (to make inroads to server land) and Intel (to head up 'x86' penetration) to head up a three prong market share assault on M$ would be an intriguing strategy for future growth.
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux?
It's a different operating system with different strengths and weaknesses, and it adheres to a high standard of quality. That's good enough for IBM.
I can see IBM pushing OS X Server (and Client) as an alternative to Windows (which, of course, they'll continue selling) and to Linux for those customers eager for an inexpensive UNIX but not for Linux's mulish tendencies.
I thought he meant Hugh Grant. However that would mean they were guilty of possessing and using a WMD and that would require a regime change which, in this case, would not be good.
What I can't understand is that IBM stated that they designed the 970 for the *DESKTOP* market too; implying that they might offer desktops. We already know they are doing servers, which is why they are choosing to use LINUX, but I don't buy for a single second that they will be trying to push LINUX to the masses on 970 rigs hoping to compete with Intel and Microsoft in the mainstream desktop arena. In other words, it's highly unlikely that when IBM stated *desktops* they were referring to markets other than *everyday consumer desktops*. So, if IBM wanted a piece of the *consumer* desktop pie they would have to license OS X from Apple -- there just isn't any alternative; in which case they would be *competing* with Apple in that space. Why LINUX won't make it as a consumer OS? Check out my posts here:
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
If they do start offering OS X machines, they'll leave those markets to Apple.
Everywhere we talk "Apple-branded IBM's" or "IBM branded Macs" I'd like to point out that it would be almost guaranteed to be Mac OS X _Server_($500-$1000), not the version we all know and love, Mac OS X ($69-129).
By using the OSXServer product, Apple's made it's money. They wouldn't care if Dell(or pick your favorite Apple arch-nemesis) sold boxes that ran OS X... so long as Dell was _paying_for_OSXServer.
In other words: you can't _undercut_ Apple with a Mac OS X _Server_ license. So the "PowerComputing" type of clones wouldn't be happening at all (except for possibly wild niche varients Apple doesn't sell). But the good aspects of cloning would still be viable (The Genesis 4CPU boxes w 6+ slots...). Note that back in the "Death to the Clones" days, PowerComputing et al was (briefly) offered a license renewal - with a higher price tag than the one they'd had the previous year. (I remember it doubled in price, but I wouldn't guarantee any of that.)
All that said, I wouldn't see this as "IBM going retail." I'm picturing Mac OS X Server on pSeries-esque, or rs6000-esque, or perhaps the bladecenters. None of those can really be considered 'mainstream/desktop computing' sorts of things.
The key to any of this would be convincing IBM that OSXServer cheaper to install/upgrade/maintain than AIX or IBM's Linux. Whether it's the netbooting, clustering, auto-updating, or the Server tools (which are quite cool - but I can't say how useful they are), it would have to fit into IBM's "Sell the machine and a 100 year service contract" philosophy.
Originally posted by Programmer
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
I've often wondered about this ... if Apple allows IBM to sell OSX for stupidly hugely expensive servers that serve no purpose to Apple as a market segment (without any blowback issues - best of luck) then the makings of a potentially great symbiotic relationship are here:
IBM has the corporate clout, and will intall OSX on big honkin' bleeding edge machines that Apple would never build.
Companies discover the Power of managing machines via OSX (huge cost savings etc).
Bleeding edge apps get their bugs worked out - so ...
As processors get faster, these bleeding edge apps that now only make sense in big iron, will filter down to the desktop as mature time tested systems.
There's still huge issues here, hardware and clone and, all the old bug-a-boo's of OSX on intel, but if Apple licences smart to IBM - the two might be able to play ball very nicely.
Hey, it's a thought
Originally posted by Programmer
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
That's just about the most brilliant thing I've ever read here. Seriously. It's perfect on so many levels.
Originally posted by inkhead
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
And, not coincidentally, it's hiding in another thread where it can't be locked!
Oddly enough there's not a shred of new information in that post.
Originally posted by Programmer
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM?
All this time I've been hoping that IBM and Apple share a design for the 970 and allow each other's OS's to boot on each other's hardware - eg AIX on the PowerMacs and OS X on the IntelliStation POWERs. Of course, Apple's habit of reinventing the wheel might preclude this, but if they did, it would be like return of CHRP!
Originally posted by jwdawso
My thoughts - I believe that Apple has Mac OS X running on x86 processors. There is a risk associated with PPC processors, and history shows that some have come true - i.e., Motorolla having limited success on G4 improvements, and the G5 being deep sixed. Having IBM as a sole supplier would be a risk. The Motorolla fiasco and the "IBM sole supplier" risk had/has the potential of of putting Apple out of business.
I think comments about IBM's potential lack of commitment to producing PPC processors suitable to Apple ignore an important distinction between IBM and Motorola. This is that Motorola only produces processors for embedded and desktop machines and since the size of the latter market is small in comparison to the former their commitment to the desktop suffers. But IBM make processors for the embedded, desktop, workstation, server, mainframe and supercomputer markets. This is a hugh range from the low to high end of machine types (with processors often crossing over multiple categories) with most of them being compatible with the PPC ISA. This means their commitment to PPC is hugh, covering all their business. They are not going to drop PPC anytime soon.
The 970 is only the latest IBM processor in the desktop and workstation categories with the 604, POWER3 and POWER4 being others, and it also covers an emerging market, namely the blade server. Thanks to pressure/money/whatever from Apple IBM have also added an AltiVec unit to make it suitable to tem. The only question with regard to IBM's commitment to making processors for Apple is "will they always include AltiVec in their desktop level processors"? If Apple keep doing what they did, "Yes". If IBM use it in their blades, "Yes". If they add it to Power5, "Yes". (A small possibility I'm going to start a thread on soon unless disscussed B4. Links anyone?)
IBM will be a reliable supplier for Apple in the future.
MM
Originally posted by Programmer
I'm not so humble that I won't point out that I've been saying this for over a year now.
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux? They finaly have a way to no longer depend on MS or Intel (Linux & PPC 970). Why would they jump into Apple's arms ?
Perhaps IBM servers running Darwin, but MacOS X server, I doubt. It makes plenty of sense for Apple (who would gain from selling MacOS X server for x86), but not so much for IBM.
Originally posted by *l++
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux? They finaly have a way to no longer depend on MS or Intel (Linux & PPC 970). Why would they jump into Apple's arms ?
Perhaps IBM servers running Darwin, but MacOS X server, I doubt. It makes plenty of sense for Apple (who would gain from selling MacOS X server for x86), but not so much for IBM.
Why would IBM sell AIX when they've been pushing Linux?
IBM was really quite proud of the gameplan where OS2 was going to run on everything top-to-bottom... which MS (or MS+IBM) effectively killed. It is quite handy to be able to use a $20,000 workstation to jot notes and do other mundane tasks that in no way require a $20,000 workstation... but people don't like learning another OS to do that. So you need a $20,000 workstation _and_ a PC. That's dumb. Ok, not every workstation customer does this - but it does happen.
So marketing Darwin for RS6000 would be silly. If someone wanted to run an XWindows widget, both Linux and AIX can do that fine. Neither of those have top-drawer Quicktime though.
It doesn't _cost_ IBM anything to do, so it doesn't need to be extremely profitable. It's just another choice.
Originally posted by *l++
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux? They finaly have a way to no longer depend on MS or Intel (Linux & PPC 970). Why would they jump into Apple's arms ?
Perhaps IBM servers running Darwin, but MacOS X server, I doubt. It makes plenty of sense for Apple (who would gain from selling MacOS X server for x86), but not so much for IBM.
Go back and read what he said. IBM would sell both. IBM's current primary focus is to provide company wide computing solutions and support. They don't care so much which box they sell and what OS it's running, they just want companies' money to install and support it. Services is where the money's at right now, not hardware. Sure they may recommend one solution over the other; but if they're able to offer multiple solutions, then they can offer services to a wider variety of customers.
If true, sounds like Panther will sweep all away. Such features would indeed be breathtaking and leave Xp gasping for breath.
I'm awaiting WWDC with great interest.
With 'X' currently 'there' it stands to reason Apple might push the envelope. Could it be that the neXT heritage truly comes home? And Be's file system? A truly hardware agnostic OS? Intel support?
Sounds very exciting...the work of genius. Apple really going for it? All on hot 970 hardware? All wrapped up in a innovative tower case according to macwhispers...
Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
A chamelion os. 'x' has got that capability. As long as Mac heads can run it 'like a Mac', does it matter?
Some of the ideas and speculation on this thread are pretty out there. If they come true, it will be a mind blowing year for Apple.
My minds racing with the possibilities already...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by *l++
But why would IBM use MacOS X server when they have been pushing Linux?
It's a different operating system with different strengths and weaknesses, and it adheres to a high standard of quality. That's good enough for IBM.
I can see IBM pushing OS X Server (and Client) as an alternative to Windows (which, of course, they'll continue selling) and to Linux for those customers eager for an inexpensive UNIX but not for Linux's mulish tendencies.
Originally posted by MartianMatt:
This means their commitment to PPC is hugh
So basically, they captured a Borg drone to send back to MS and infect the collective?
Screed
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...s&pagenumber=2
--
Ed M.
Originally posted by Ed M.
What I can't understand is that IBM stated that they designed the 970 for the *DESKTOP* market too; implying that they might offer desktops.
--
Ed M.
I interpreted the "desktop" as referring to Apple desktops.