2004: welcome to the year of the partnership!
Last year when Apple announced the partnership with IBM for the g5, it was a bit surprising, but expected. And now HP and Apple have joined teams in the digital music space. HP and Apple
I love the direction the year is taking. 20 years ago apple decided not to liscense the Mac OS to other hardware makers...which of course lead to lower market share. This year Apple linked with the largest PC manufacturer to resell and bundles Apple's tech. Looks like we won't be repeating history in the digital music space.
g5 xserves: supercomputers and server farms here we come.
Pay for ilife: but more added value! Excellent...hey even Microsoft charges for the Digital Photo Suite, it is fair.
What's next: full exchange support in Entourage?
OS X on IBM desktops? 3d Studio max on OS X? Apple branded ACID killer?
What's next in terms of interesting partnerships?
I love the direction the year is taking. 20 years ago apple decided not to liscense the Mac OS to other hardware makers...which of course lead to lower market share. This year Apple linked with the largest PC manufacturer to resell and bundles Apple's tech. Looks like we won't be repeating history in the digital music space.
g5 xserves: supercomputers and server farms here we come.
Pay for ilife: but more added value! Excellent...hey even Microsoft charges for the Digital Photo Suite, it is fair.
What's next: full exchange support in Entourage?
OS X on IBM desktops? 3d Studio max on OS X? Apple branded ACID killer?
What's next in terms of interesting partnerships?
Comments
Originally posted by jade
What's next in terms of interesting partnerships?
Apple: Alow Motorola to make the original iMac but with todays Specs ? lol
Originally posted by jade :
What's next: full exchange support in Entourage?
OS X on IBM desktops? 3d Studio max on OS X? Apple branded ACID killer?
What's next in terms of interesting partnerships?
What's NeXt?
1). Replacement of Exchange by Lotus Notes/Domino
2). Maya complete on OSX along with Design Studio
3). Apple branded ACID killer? = Garageband
4). Microsoft Office for life? ~ Only until AppleWorks X
Originally posted by jade
What's next: full exchange support in Entourage?
There is nothing Apple can do about that in 2004 or any other year. Microsoft has been the one's pounding their pud and not developing Entourage to the point where Outlook 2001 was 3 years ago. Get off the pot, Microsoft, and release the f***ing thing already! And to watch Roz Ho pump the pitiful crap that Office 2004 will have, made me want to purge my lunch all over my monitor as I watched the webcast.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
There is nothing Apple can do about that in 2004 or any other year...
Right, if Microsoft wanted the Mac to have full Exchange capability they would have given it to us long ago. This is why I propose that Exchange be replaced by Lotus/Notes.
IBM has plenty of incentive to break the Exchange stranglehold that Microsoft has on shared data, both for Linux and the Macintosh.
I think we will see Apple license OSX-x86 to HP and IBM.
Steve has said that OSX can run on any platform.
Steve has said Apple has no intention of making an x86 machine.
Steve never said Apple would not license OSX.
Steve never said Apple was against licensing OSX.
Apple could make money off licensing.
Steve would demand it was done right and not soil the brand.
Apple doesn't want to deal with every possible x86 configuration.
IBM Hp have issues with MS, don't want to be too dependent on MS.
MS has security issues.
MS is hard to administer, costly, blab, blab, blab.....
MS has lots and lots of bad will.
Hp and Intel have collaborated.
Intel doesn't want to be too dependent on MS.
Corporations, Governments, Individuals don't want to be too dependent on MS.
Hp and IBM could offer OSX -x86 and MS can't do too much about it.
MS is somewhat weakened by the courts, can't be as blatant as in the past.
super-bowl OSX on x86
Then, the rumors with McDonald's
OS X on x86 is a bad idea! Don't piss M$ off! Keep the Mac OS where it belongs, 68k & PPC! Seriously with the new IBM chips backing Apple up, there is no logical reason for Apple to move to x-86, it would tear down the barriers that make it so unique. Now if it was a IBM 970 blade, that would be excellent for Apple.
Originally posted by Leonis
That would be interesting if IBM Blade could run OSX SERVER
At the risk of repeating myself from other thread of Jade's, a similar partnership as HP & Apple just announced between Apple and IBM would shake the IT world, and AAPL stock would double overnight if:
Apple announced that it was re-selling IBM's Blade Center and blades under the Apple logo (just a new front panel in brushed aluminum with the Apple logo), and a cross licensing of OSX server to IBM.
This is the partnership I am hoping for.
I love the direction the year is taking. 20 years ago apple decided not to liscense the Mac OS to other hardware makers...which of course lead to lower market share. This year Apple linked with the largest PC manufacturer to resell and bundles Apple's tech. Looks like we won't be repeating history in the digital music space.
I think you're right. Apple's learned from past mistakes.
They're changing the rules of engagement. They're stealthily taking the fight to the enemy.
HP want to look hip. So they're buying that hipness in. It's easier than doing it all themselves. (As Dell have shown, heh...)
People said Apple wouldn't clone again. How wrong they were and now are. But it's 'HOW' they're wrong. Apple is making the clones for HP. The Apple logo is there at startup. It's clearly an iPod 'clone' and it's using Apple software. And HP bundle iTunes on millions of PCs...probably more than PC downloads so far? And no doubt Apple takes its cut from hardware/software sales.
IF Apple keeps this up? They'll be the 'M$' of music market. The Apple/HP team up is a serious tweak on the nose of Redmond. Apple/HP. That's one hell of a powershift.
Out of all the announcements in the last seven days...including the umpteen stuff shown at the keynote...it is this press release that has sent shockwaves across the I.T community. The news links are everywhere!
The shareprices of both companies responded.
HP/Apple. The ramifications of acceptance, mindshare for Apple in Wallstreet and in PC land in general are thought provoking to say the least. What are Apple up to?
The iPod trojan horse...I wonder...in a year's time...will we start to see some correlation to increased Mac share from iPod owning PC owners and non-PC owning iPod owners?
What next? IBM 'X' servers? IBM branded Apple G5 workstations/desktops/laptops? IBM branded X-Serves?
Walk into an Apple store and pick up...all the big (P)PC names...?
An HP PPC branded iMac in HP blue?
A Dell branded Mac consumer desktop? A Dell headless tower PPC?
A Gateway PPC AIP/tower or iMac running 'X'?
If the deal is anything like the iPod one with HP...then...why not?
Cloning on Apple's terms and conditions?
ie half of something is better than the nothing Apple gets currently from HP-Dell-Sony-IBM. If Apple could use their 'name' to reach the broader PC community of millions upon million of buyers per quarter...to allow PC users to buy and be aware of the (P)PC then if all those PC companies sold a reasonable amount (P)PCs then Apple's profits would rise significanlty. What do the PC makers get in return? Decent margins. 15% for them and 10% for Apple? The ability to sell something new to a jaded audience that have the illusion of choice. The Mac is something new to them. They get the change to sell something really new. The Mac. They also reduce dependence on M$.
Eventually, under this kind of model, if the plan went alright and Apple's keeps pumping out software at the rate they are doing then Apple would be less dependent on their 'own' hardware revenue anyhow.
If Dell, Gateway and HP/Compaq want to buy in some cool on ever thinning margins...it would be ironic that they take responsibility for ordering in a million PPCs and it's up to them to sell them. Apple takes a cut out of what they sell. PC sellers get better margins even taking half of Apple's generous margins...
That would be quite something to increase marketshare.
The iPod has shown Apple is indeed prepared to 'Think Different'.
What this means for the 'Mac' and Apple's 'X' long term is anyone's guess.
If the Mac market could reach the magic 10% mark...then maybe Apple would consider implementing a similar strategy to the Mac desktop/laptop that they seem to have started with HP and the iPod?
2004 has only just begun and the doors have been bloody blown off the van.
Apple have shown they still play ball on their terms...the Clones have returned!
...but in a radical way.
Lemon Bon Bon
Sony CEO cites respect for, differences with Apple
By Peter Cohen [email protected]
March 11, 2003 12:00 pm
"But you know Steve, he has his own agenda," said Idei, laughing. "Although he is a genius, he doesn't share everything with you. This is a difficult person to work with if you are a big company. We started working with them, but it is a nightmare."
His comments were later echoed by Sony Corp. of America Chairman and CEO Sir Howard Stringer, who added that Sony and Apple are adversaries, not allies. He suggested that trying to get the two companies to partner together would be "a waste of time."
It's not all bad news when it comes to a possible collaboration between Sony and Apple. Idei compares Ken Kutaragi, the head of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. -- the group that makes the PlayStation video game console -- to Jobs. Noting the mutual respect between the two industry leaders, Idei added, "So maybe if we can get them both together then they could figure out how the PlayStation and the Mac can work together."
I'm sure that Apple wants better cooperation with Sony because Apple has a lot to gain from that cooperation. Everything from component integration and communication to content. But Apple is not able to hold these talks with Sony on "equal" footing because of Sony's massive reach. It sounds to me like Apple may have tried to get Sony onboard, but couldn't.
An alliance with HP, as well as many other companies, on what is essentially the Walkman for the new millennium should help Apple sell more of them and reach a larger audience, especially with iTunes pre-installed on all HP computers. Let's face it this is basically a battle of file formats. The winner could win big (especially if they can tag on a small fee for every song and or player sold) and the looser will have to adapt or step out of the market. The winner will also have a step ahead in the video arena as technology advances allow this media to move into internet delivery. And the Trojan Horse, each of these computers will also have QuickTime installed on them, since it is required for iTunes. This gives apple better "raitings" in the media player standings.
I don't believe that we will see "Mac's" by another name anytime soon unless Apple changes their business model to rely more on software sales than hardware sales OR Apples market share and demand for OS X computers reaches a level that Apple can't meet. However, I think that an IBM branded OS X computer, especially in the server arena, would be good for Apple as long as IBM is not selling OS X based computers outside of the enterprise market.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I think you're right. Apple's learned from past mistakes.
They're changing the rules of engagement. They're stealthily taking the fight to the enemy.
HP want to look hip. So they're buying that hipness in. It's easier than doing it all themselves. (As Dell have shown, heh...)
So,in a nutshell, Apple has finally decided to leaverage their "design-shed-for-the-industry" status (software and hardware), by offering their services, and actually getting paid by the copy cats for a change.
Well, why not? Rather than simply getting copied in a half assed way, why not provide the real goods, take a cut, and make the competition dependent on your expertise? They know they can't do it themselves (and now, so will their customers!).
I'm sure there's a downside here someplace, but ya gotta look real hard to find it.
Welcome to the era of the sucking kinder ipod
oh, ****,
wait,,,
Originally posted by @homenow :
... I don't believe that we will see "Mac's" by another name anytime soon unless ...
In preparing for the day that demand for OSX powered computers outstrips Apple's ability to supply them, Apple has no farther to look than IBM. They make the chips that OSX runs on after all. IBM is no Dell, their products already demand a premium, so the price undercutting that the Apple "clones" inflicted on Apple won't happen there.
IBM is currently preparing Linux desktops to fill the void that will be created by Longhorn's implosion, due in 2006 (or 2007) when Microsoft, in it's last gasp of megalomania, releases Longhorn with it's bloated hardware requirements and oppressive built in DRM customer lock-down. Coupled with "Software Assurance 7" extortion for the enterprise, there will be mass defections from the Windows platform.
Longhorn hardware requirements shows that Microsoft just doesn't get it, and their arrogance in shoving Software Assurance 6 down customer's throats has revealed their greed, once they believe they have achieved lock-in.
IBM has already poured millions into Linux getting ready for this, so why should they want to bother with the Macintosh? For the same reason HP agreed to sell iPods? Or possibly for the same reason they are into Linux, support and service contracts? Back-up plan for the unlikely event that they lose the SCO lawsuit?
If IBM is contemplating any of the above a good first step would be to reach an agreement with Apple in the server space. IBM would make money on OEMing the Blade Center and blades to Apple (just like Apple will make money OEMing the iPod to HP) and make even more money providing support for enterprise accounts choosing OSX (just like they do with Linux). Everybody wins (except Microsoft) in this scenario so I don't see how it can't happen.
Originally posted by squareback
I think the HP Apple deal announced today is just the start.
I think we will see Apple license OSX-x86 to HP and IBM.
Steve has said that OSX can run on any platform.
Steve has said Apple has no intention of making an x86 machine.
Steve never said Apple would not license OSX.
Steve never said Apple was against licensing OSX.
Apple could make money off licensing.
Steve would demand it was done right and not soil the brand.
Apple doesn't want to deal with every possible x86 configuration.
IBM Hp have issues with MS, don't want to be too dependent on MS.
MS has security issues.
MS is hard to administer, costly, blab, blab, blab.....
MS has lots and lots of bad will.
Hp and Intel have collaborated.
Intel doesn't want to be too dependent on MS.
Corporations, Governments, Individuals don't want to be too dependent on MS.
Hp and IBM could offer OSX -x86 and MS can't do too much about it.
MS is somewhat weakened by the courts, can't be as blatant as in the past.
super-bowl OSX on x86
And Apple is a hardware company.