Will Apple move to the POWER 5 instead of PPC?

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion

    Brendon, I'm talking about a partnership, not a competition for sales. Apple would continue to offer Xserves and possibly offer a blade server for use in IBM's blade center chassis, Which by the way, IBM has recently offered as an "open" spec for third parties to build on.



    IBM would simply offer OSX along with AIX, Linux, and (ugh!) Windows as a supported option on their "iron" both large and small. The first thing this would do is break IBM's dependance on Windows for customers who must have Microsoft Office on their desktops.



    Apple has been reluctant to offer a business class box (headless Mac) so they should just let IBM do it. IBM could build a PowerPC desktop for enterprise accounts (sold by the pallet only) that could take Apple into accounts that they would never be able to crack with iMacs.



    IBM would be able to sell all of Apple's gear as well, as an approved Apple vendor. Powerbooks would be HOT in this environment.



    I see this type of partnering as a "Win" for both Apple and IBM. IBM gets to offer what is the best OS on the market, not to mention the gravy of support contracts for the same, while Apple gets instant and total legitimacy in the enterprise market. This is something it will never get as a "sole source" supplier. Apple sales into businesses large and small would skyrocket as a result of this partnership.



    Let me repeat, in my estimation Apple profits from this licensing of OSX into the enterprise would quickly outstrip profits from the iPod's remarkable popularity.




    I guess I can see only Xserves in this deal, the other way (desktops running OSX) could violate the deal IBM signed with the company that bought their PC division. That is what I meant by servers only, but this is a huge guess. I still think that small and mid size businesses are where Xserve would shine, and that is a market that IBM would love to play more in. Big and huge corps could run Xserve but I think that these folks are happy with Linux and Windows and Sun for their heavy loads, not to say that Xserve cannot rub elbows but it will take lots of time to convince them that Xserve will serve their needs. They will want a partner like IBM so they can run a few Xserve and shake them out.



    I do also think that we are picking nits, because we both agree about the concept but disagree about the details. This area is vague at best for me, so I'll agree that in concept we are both correct.
  • Reply 102 of 121
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brendon

    I guess I can see only Xserves in this deal, the other way (desktops running OSX) could violate the deal IBM signed with the company that bought their PC division. That is what I meant by servers only, but this is a huge guess. I still think that small and mid size businesses are where Xserve would shine, and that is a market that IBM would love to play more in. Big and huge corps could run Xserve but I think that these folks are happy with Linux and Windows and Sun for their heavy loads, not to say that Xserve cannot rub elbows but it will take lots of time to convince them that Xserve will serve their needs. They will want a partner like IBM so they can run a few Xserve and shake them out.



    I do also think that we are picking nits, because we both agree about the concept but disagree about the details. This area is vague at best for me, so I'll agree that in concept we are both correct.




    Without actually knowing what the agreement was on the sale of the X86 PC division one could imagine that IBM wants to start a new PC division. One which uses their CPUs and an OS that they control and integrates better with their larger systems. Apple could integrate into their lineup to fill certain product categories which could benefit Apple as an opening to corporations that would not otherwise give them the time of day.



    IBM has been promoting a standards group for their CPU so that there may be a non-X86 PC movement even outside of IBM.
  • Reply 103 of 121
    Would the production of a "business class workstation"

    violate a non-competitive p/c agreement in theory???
  • Reply 104 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by RBR

    Without actually knowing what the agreement was on the sale of the X86 PC division one could imagine that IBM wants to start a new PC division. One which uses their CPUs and an OS that they control and integrates better with their larger systems.



    Or they are perfectly willing to leave the low-end computer business (i.e. anything sub-$10000) to other parties, as long as they are using their CPUs and/or fabs. If Apple and other (Linux-based, presumably) computer manufacturers pick up the slack at the low end, IBM's solutions teams could buy these units off the shelf and IBM's microprocessor division could supply the guts. There is no requirement that they produce ever single piece of the puzzle themselves.
  • Reply 105 of 121
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Another article about how IBM is screwing Apple and how the Cell will rule. Apparently Sun is our only hope..... A little doom to go with your pre-Macworld hype.
  • Reply 106 of 121
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,424member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Another article about how IBM is screwing Apple and how the Cell will rule. Apparently Sun is our only hope..... A little doom to go with your pre-Macworld hype.



    Heh, sorry but that guy has no clue.
  • Reply 107 of 121
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    how many people use vpc 6/7??? i would love to have a mac/pb to run windows natively because i have one program that i need a dell to run. everything else i use my ibook/ imac dv i would love to get rid of my dell and get a PB to run IE for this net based imaging software.



    also, the big reason MS bought vpc was not to expand the mac access to windows but allow servers to use different window os's



    it would allow mac to expand easier to business (remember the enterprise focus by apple)



    is this at the request of ibm or apple, is apple being pushed this way or is it a joint benefit??
  • Reply 108 of 121
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Another article about how IBM is screwing Apple and how the Cell will rule. Apparently Sun is our only hope..... A little doom to go with your pre-Macworld hype.



    Does anyone read the entire effing story???



    Quote:

    This story was originally published on July 8, 2004, and is brought to you today as part of our Best of ECT News series







    Crap before, still crap now.
  • Reply 109 of 121
    murkmurk Posts: 935member




    I put a in there for a reason.
  • Reply 110 of 121
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    Or they are perfectly willing to leave the low-end computer business (i.e. anything sub-$10000) to other parties, as long as they are using their CPUs and/or fabs. If Apple and other (Linux-based, presumably) computer manufacturers pick up the slack at the low end, IBM's solutions teams could buy these units off the shelf and IBM's microprocessor division could supply the guts. There is no requirement that they produce ever single piece of the puzzle themselves.



    I don't know much about this source, but it is more speculation about the prospects of a new (non-X86) IBM PC. http://www.audiogogo.com/content/view/62/80/
  • Reply 111 of 121
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by RBR

    I don't know much about this source, but it is more speculation about the prospects of a new (non-X86) IBM PC. http://www.audiogogo.com/content/view/62/80/



    It their contract with Lenovo IBM agreed to not build a competing PC (in a quite broad sense) for at least 5 years.



    And.. IBM doesn't care to much for OSX but they do care about Linux quite much.



    However.. IBM might build a PowerPC/Cell based platform for others to build computers on. That would probably not violate their agreement with Lenovo. It would probably not compete with IBMs core business nor Apple's. If IBM did license OSX, and built a PPC plattform on with it could run, they would be back in the Clone Wars again, and that's probably not what Steve wants.
  • Reply 112 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    It their contract with Lenovo IBM agreed to not build a competing PC (in a quite broad sense) for at least 5 years.



    Actually, it jsut gives Lenovo rights to the IBM brand for 5 years.



    But the point is moot, since IBM no longer has a division with which to build and sell PPC workstations. If they really were going to market PPC based PCs, they'd have to startup a new division all over again. Not going to happen.
  • Reply 113 of 121
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown

    Actually, it jsut gives Lenovo rights to the IBM brand for 5 years.



    Then you obviously haven't read page 8 of The Contract (PDF) where it clearly states that..



    IBM agrees and undertakes with the Company, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, that it will not, and will cause its existing and future subsidiaries not to, directly or indirectly anywhere in the world engage in: (A) the manufacture of Personal Computers; (B) sale of Personal Computers; or (C) the licence, sub-licence or other grant to any third party of the right to use the IBM logo on Personal Computers as a primary or shared product name; provided that on and after the third anniversary of the Closing, the term ??Personal Computers?? shall not include ??thin clients??.



    and on page 36 where they define "Personal Computer" as..



    any self-contained, programmable, general purpose computing device in a desktop (including a thin client and a desktop system designed for media distribution for residential use), mobile or tablet platform, generally used by a single local user at a time, consisting of microprocessor hardware architecture, on-board memory, multiple input/output capabilities and a single user desk-top/mobile/tablet operating system, other than Excluded Products
  • Reply 114 of 121
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    Then you obviously haven't read page 8 of The Contract (PDF) [/i]



    Thanks for the interesting reference to the contract. It raises a bunch of questions. I just do not see IBM getting out of the desktop arena altogether.



    IBM is plainly working on something that could be called "PC II" and is working on a standardized architecture for the Power PC (it is one way to increase the sale of their chips). I keep coming back to something along the lines of the Intel/Dell relationship. Intel does much, if not most, of the design of the logic boards and so on and, of course, sells Dell lots of chips. Could it be that IBM is going to have them manufacturing the computers that IBM wants to sell as "PC IIs"? How about the other companies which IBM is attracting to the project. As I understand it, IBM wants the platform to be very Linux/Unix friendly.



    And then there are the continuing rumors of an IBM/Apple relationship beyond its present one.



    Cheers!
  • Reply 115 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    [B]Then you obviously haven't read page 8 of The Contract (PDF) where it clearly states that..



    I stand corrected. This language also seems to shoot down the idea of PPC (or Cell) "workstations" from IBM.
  • Reply 116 of 121
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,424member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown

    I stand corrected. This language also seems to shoot down the idea of PPC (or Cell) "workstations" from IBM.



    Unless IBM simply provides the reference design and licenses it to whichever manufacturer wants it -- much like Intel does.
  • Reply 117 of 121
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    The contract also does not prevent recommendation of other PCs by IBM acting in it's consultant capacity. Just direct selling of PCs. Be sure, IBM is not feeling the least bit constrained in the signing of that deal. There are many ways to skin the cat.
  • Reply 118 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hiro

    The contract also does not prevent recommendation of other PCs by IBM acting in it's consultant capacity. Just direct selling of PCs. Be sure, IBM is not feeling the least bit constrained in the signing of that deal. There are many ways to skin the cat.



    Well, the services group does a huge amount of leasing - not sales. When you need a gazillion machines and know that you'll roll them regularly, you just lease them. IBM can also just broker the transaction between Apple and the client. I can't imagine that this is any way a hindrance - after all, it's not like their services group just stopped working last month.
  • Reply 119 of 121
    The contract wording seems to be fairly clear.



    IBM is prohibited from marketing a competing IBM brand

    Desktop or Laptop for individual personal home use.



    No where do I see any wording that prohibits them from

    manufacturing processors or mainframe servers.
  • Reply 120 of 121
    brendonbrendon Posts: 642member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

    The contract wording seems to be fairly clear.



    IBM is prohibited from marketing a competing IBM brand

    Desktop or Laptop for individual personal home use.



    No where do I see any wording that prohibits them from

    manufacturing processors or mainframe servers.




    So that would leave all of business, and all server markets. There is a reason that Dell and HP and others are after the service market, because there is little money in PCs. Macs are different. So IBM could sell Macs to business, and offer Xserves as well as thier own servers. The real money is not in making the machine the money is int he service contract. A friend of mine is a service guy for a small business. IBM was the only other company that would offer support contract because the business was out in the sticks. The IBM contract would mean that the business would have to buy computers that IBM would sell to them at a 50% mark-up, then if they needed service they would have to pay $150.00 per hour and a minimum of 8 hours per call, that is even if it took them 30 minutes when they got there the business was charges for 8 hours at $150 per hour. The real money is in the contract. If I could sign contracts like this, I don't care who makes the box. By using linux IBM just gets around having to pay MS for server tools and seats.
Sign In or Register to comment.