I don't think Apple and IBM have the same customers typically. It would make sense perhaps to buy a truck load of IBM blades and then maybe sell a 970 Mac as the sysops desktop machine, from which they'd administer the drones.
IBM already supports two OSes, AIX and Linux. AIX is very $$$$. Linux is basically free (though the tools cost). Mac OS X Server fits right in the middle.
The key here is _how_ do you "administer the drones"? If Apple's server tools really are as hot as claimed -> the entire thing can be easier.
The other point is 'ease of use' and $20,000 IBM RS6000 can't be used in the same sentence. You either end up administering your own machine (headache), or paying $$$$ for someone else to do that. With some lost customization opportunities ("No, I won't help you if you turn-on-apache/recompile-library-x/whatever")
IBM sells service contracts. The hardware goes in the 'parts' column.
Even if OS X can't muster the raw performance of Linux, and even if the hardware isn't quite as cheap as the sort of stuff usually used to build Beowulf clusters, do not underestimate the appeal of an Apple-slick, Rendezvous-enabled clustering solution. People have spent money for convenience since the beginning of time, and I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who'd rather spend their time doing science (or, say, 3D artists who'd rather spend their time doing 3D art) and have the machines just work. The huge appeal of Macs in places like NASA and Lawrence Livermore is a testimony to that fact.
Replace 'scientist' with _grad_student_. Professors (or whoever's paying) would probably prefer the "best" solution from pure price, price/performance, or pure performance criteria. The people actually doing the setup want the fastest-to-setup and easiest-to-setup solutions. Sometimes you can actually make it out of the building while the big glowing fusion demonstration project thing is still up in the sky -> good thing.
Customized IBM blades, with OS-X installed. Not a direct licensing per say, because the co-branding would allow IBM to sell their hardware, customized to Apple Specs with OS-X, but the equipment would still be co-branded with Apple's name.
IBM gets hardware, installation and support/service contract sales. Apple gets paid for each copy of OS-X and receives expanded name recognition and expanded market statistical market share. Each company plays to their strengths without encroaching on the others territory. A very symbiotic type relationship that mutally benefits both, without incurring substantial additional expense for either.
<at work now (lunch). These damn dell keyboards are really pieces of crap. Anybody else ever notice that. Don't know how many times I have to retype information or add/remove excess spaces etc. All the speed in the world can't make up for a crappy keyboard.>
Comments
Originally posted by ArkAngel
I don't think Apple and IBM have the same customers typically. It would make sense perhaps to buy a truck load of IBM blades and then maybe sell a 970 Mac as the sysops desktop machine, from which they'd administer the drones.
IBM already supports two OSes, AIX and Linux. AIX is very $$$$. Linux is basically free (though the tools cost). Mac OS X Server fits right in the middle.
The key here is _how_ do you "administer the drones"? If Apple's server tools really are as hot as claimed -> the entire thing can be easier.
The other point is 'ease of use' and $20,000 IBM RS6000 can't be used in the same sentence. You either end up administering your own machine (headache), or paying $$$$ for someone else to do that. With some lost customization opportunities ("No, I won't help you if you turn-on-apache/recompile-library-x/whatever")
IBM sells service contracts. The hardware goes in the 'parts' column.
Originally posted by Amorph
Even if OS X can't muster the raw performance of Linux, and even if the hardware isn't quite as cheap as the sort of stuff usually used to build Beowulf clusters, do not underestimate the appeal of an Apple-slick, Rendezvous-enabled clustering solution. People have spent money for convenience since the beginning of time, and I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who'd rather spend their time doing science (or, say, 3D artists who'd rather spend their time doing 3D art) and have the machines just work. The huge appeal of Macs in places like NASA and Lawrence Livermore is a testimony to that fact.
Replace 'scientist' with _grad_student_. Professors (or whoever's paying) would probably prefer the "best" solution from pure price, price/performance, or pure performance criteria. The people actually doing the setup want the fastest-to-setup and easiest-to-setup solutions. Sometimes you can actually make it out of the building while the big glowing fusion demonstration project thing is still up in the sky -> good thing.
Customized IBM blades, with OS-X installed. Not a direct licensing per say, because the co-branding would allow IBM to sell their hardware, customized to Apple Specs with OS-X, but the equipment would still be co-branded with Apple's name.
IBM gets hardware, installation and support/service contract sales. Apple gets paid for each copy of OS-X and receives expanded name recognition and expanded market statistical market share. Each company plays to their strengths without encroaching on the others territory. A very symbiotic type relationship that mutally benefits both, without incurring substantial additional expense for either.
<at work now (lunch). These damn dell keyboards are really pieces of crap. Anybody else ever notice that. Don't know how many times I have to retype information or add/remove excess spaces etc. All the speed in the world can't make up for a crappy keyboard.>