Makes a bit of sense to me too. Granted, that's never been much of an indicator for what will actually happen. If it does come to be so... Apple would be a completely different company.
Well, I don't think its going to happen but there would be some interesting possibilities. IBM makes barrels of loot out of its enterprise server software and middleware services, and bugger-all out of PC's; being able to offer nicely integrated Mac desktops would be cool and a major corporate win for Apple. IBM would extend its reach downwards with Apple's really rather good XServe boxen integrated into the IBM middleware universe. IBM would also hope that a bit of that Cupertino 'lifestyle' magic would rub off onto their suits. The two companies are so different that there's a strange logic to it all. IBM certainly won't be buying Apple but some sort of deal could work.
Lots of sizzle, but little steak. What are we (or is he) actually/functionally talking about?
A big show, an exchange of shares, but little deviation from the status quo? (The most likely or least radical)
Apple iPods & IBM eMacs/Powermacs (Who would get the baby? -- Quicktime)
Apple-designed PCs (and Thinkpads!?) and mid-level servers running Darwin? (in addition to the Mac line -- this would be a big Fuq-U to the x86-switch-fanatics)
Actually, I like that last one. It leaves the Apple's lines untouched and gives them a huge reach into the corporate sphere under the cover of the IBM/*nix moniker past the anti-Mac buffoons.
I don't know. To me, it really made more sense for IBM to offer 970 based versions of its thinkpad, thinkcentre, and intellistation with OSX as an option to their business clients as a package deal with OSX server based Power or PowerPC servers. Apple and IBM have a good working relationship, but I think IBM's utilitarian mindset and Apple's free-spirited attitude would clash if put under the same roof.
APPLE -IBM would be a marriage made in Heaven. There is no doubt that BIG Blue is able to put more OSX machines on corporate desktops than Apple ever will. It would certainly give Apple and OSX greater credibility. It would not however address in the short term the poor support given to OSX by third parties.
Everyone from USP to Barclays Bank provide corporate software which is still windows only compatible, The real problem is that Windows is becoming institutionalised by Governments. The German government is compelling people to submit tax returns using a Windows only programme.
Despite all of the above, I can't see it happening. Who would be in charge? What would Apple do if IBM could not keep up with Intel etc.
Right now it make utter sense, but what about the future, I'm not so sure.
Maybe, some kind of virtual exchange? Like Apple licenses OS X Server to IBM for use in high-end servers and IBM makes PPC970* processors exclusively for Apple. That would be another reason why IBM no longer needs its PC division.
But buying Apple is an insanely expensive deal. I'm almost sure IBM isn't going to.
I don't think Apple will either be bought by IBM nor would it "clone" its Macs for IBM. If something along these lines were to happen, it would simply be a partnership where IBM would recommend Macs in its enterprise installs, probably sell or include some of its tools with OS X server or vice-versa, and they would share some revenue from the deal.
AT&T Wireless, in its pre-AT&T incarnation, was a dynamic, innovative, successful company. Once the AT&T suits started taking over, it went downhill, and now it's being bailed out by Cingular.
I can't honestly imagine Steven P. Jobs, IBM employee. Even if he did find a way to avoid wearing the blue suit, he'd just be a cog in a fairly ruthless machine, answering to people who very well might not understand or appreciate his approach to running Apple.
Now, I can see Apple working with IBM. I consider it no less likely, however, that IBM has some other idea based around their PPC Linux, which is still being integrated into the IBM world (the idea is that eventually the tools across all UNIX-y platforms will be identical).
The Apple option actually seems more likely to me, upon reflection, simply because it's finished and shipping. And I can easily see Apple's stock jumping if IBM rolled out the red carpet for enterprise sales of Macs. But IBM doesn't have to own Apple for that to happen. I think (and hope) that both companies respect their differences enough to realize that.
I can't honestly imagine Steven P. Jobs, IBM employee. Even if he did find a way to avoid wearing the blue suit, he'd just be a cog in a fairly ruthless machine, answering to people who very well might not understand or appreciate his approach to running Apple.
But...what if Apple just sells IBM the Mac division? No Steve Jobs. Apple remains as a company...focused on iPod, etc.
IBM wants to sell more PowerPC chips. Macs are a major way to do that. IBM could sell more Macs than Apple ever has. IBM is getting out of the PC business because of its razor-thin, cut throat margins. The reason for these is the lack of any (significant) differentiation between PC vendors, other than price. Mac could solve this problem for IBM.
Think about it. Not as far-fetched as you might think.
All I can think of is that scene from "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Jobs tears that guy "Who had also interviewed at IBM" a new arsehole. "Are you a virgin?!? Well, are you!"
I don't think Jobs would fit well at IBM. I also don't know how long Apple could survive not building computers. I mean, they have a good thing going with the iPod, but if they don't come up with another hit appliance, what will happen to them?
Apple won't sell the Mac division, that's just plain silly. The 'Pro-Apps' strand is just as important as the iPod strand and neither of them make any sense without Apple Macs.
This rumor just hit the front page of Slashdot, too. Perhaps a fun mental amusement, but little else.
As I understand it, IBM's PowerPC consortia is all about people adding their own bits of circuitry to the PowerPC chips. While Apple certainly designs some of their own chips, I don't think they do the sort of CPU customizing the consortia is targeted at.
Oh, and the iPod was/is successful because of iTunes and the iTunes Music Store. Without OS X to debut on, I don't think iTunes/iPod would have been as big a hit. Apple leverages their control of the OS (and CPU hardware) to provide great app software - and then integrate it with their own peripheral hardware. If MSFT did they same thing, we'd all be screaming illegal monopoly, but because Apple is such a small player, they can get away with it. And they need to to stay relevant.
What IBM does for companies is simple. Mr dumbass CEO of XYZ company sees IBM's business services commercial, and calls them up.
IBM says "well, you're a big dumbass so we'll tell you what systems to buy, how many, what operating system to get, how to train your employees, who to get to train your employees, and of course, the price of these services. We'll also set all this crap up for you and give kickbacks to bandwidth companies in the form of referrals."
Dumbass CEO is happy cuz he didn't have to figure it out what to do, and by upgrading/establishing computing, it'll help the company in the long run even if IBM charges them way too much. IBM is happy because they just made way too much money off some dumbass.
Microsoft does this, IBM does this, and many others do as well. This is a HUGE business that DRIVES the industry.
So what happens if IBM picks Apple as their main recommendation? IBM gets profits on the processors AND the systems markup all in the same deal, and they can do it with simple stock systems from Apple. Apple gets to double its systems sales.
Then come the media. They'll have no choice but to recommend IBM and these App-pul machines due to their lower cost of ownership and miles-ahead-of-M$ operating system.
The industry will have no choice but to migrate. I for one would switch to a non M$ bank as soon as possible. I could even foresee banks with "Secured by IBM" stickers in the front window, in much larger print than "member FDIC".
It is the natural course of monopolies to fail, this visionary move, if it happens, could change the whole industry.
Comments
I'm dreaming. :-)
- A big show, an exchange of shares, but little deviation from the status quo? (The most likely or least radical)
- Apple iPods & IBM eMacs/Powermacs (Who would get the baby? -- Quicktime)
- Apple-designed PCs (and Thinkpads!?) and mid-level servers running Darwin? (in addition to the Mac line -- this would be a big Fuq-U to the x86-switch-fanatics)
Actually, I like that last one. It leaves the Apple's lines untouched and gives them a huge reach into the corporate sphere under the cover of the IBM/*nix moniker past the anti-Mac buffoons.Screed
Everyone from USP to Barclays Bank provide corporate software which is still windows only compatible, The real problem is that Windows is becoming institutionalised by Governments. The German government is compelling people to submit tax returns using a Windows only programme.
Despite all of the above, I can't see it happening. Who would be in charge? What would Apple do if IBM could not keep up with Intel etc.
Right now it make utter sense, but what about the future, I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by jwdawso
And Steve Jobs would become the IBM CEO... (just speculating
You're nuts! Absolutely crazy! Steve will be way too busy as the CEO of Disney!
But buying Apple is an insanely expensive deal. I'm almost sure IBM isn't going to.
If this were to happen...
Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.
I can't honestly imagine Steven P. Jobs, IBM employee. Even if he did find a way to avoid wearing the blue suit, he'd just be a cog in a fairly ruthless machine, answering to people who very well might not understand or appreciate his approach to running Apple.
Now, I can see Apple working with IBM. I consider it no less likely, however, that IBM has some other idea based around their PPC Linux, which is still being integrated into the IBM world (the idea is that eventually the tools across all UNIX-y platforms will be identical).
The Apple option actually seems more likely to me, upon reflection, simply because it's finished and shipping. And I can easily see Apple's stock jumping if IBM rolled out the red carpet for enterprise sales of Macs. But IBM doesn't have to own Apple for that to happen. I think (and hope) that both companies respect their differences enough to realize that.
Screed
Originally posted by Amorph
I can't honestly imagine Steven P. Jobs, IBM employee. Even if he did find a way to avoid wearing the blue suit, he'd just be a cog in a fairly ruthless machine, answering to people who very well might not understand or appreciate his approach to running Apple.
But...what if Apple just sells IBM the Mac division? No Steve Jobs. Apple remains as a company...focused on iPod, etc.
IBM wants to sell more PowerPC chips. Macs are a major way to do that. IBM could sell more Macs than Apple ever has. IBM is getting out of the PC business because of its razor-thin, cut throat margins. The reason for these is the lack of any (significant) differentiation between PC vendors, other than price. Mac could solve this problem for IBM.
Think about it. Not as far-fetched as you might think.
Sorry, when I considered the thought of Apple without Macs, I almost swallowed my tongue. What a travesty that would be!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
*choke**chortle**gasp*
Sorry, when I considered the thought of Apple without Macs, I almost swallowed my tongue. What a travesty that would be!
No doubt there were people that thought the same about Apple without the Apple II many years ago too!
I don't think Jobs would fit well at IBM. I also don't know how long Apple could survive not building computers. I mean, they have a good thing going with the iPod, but if they don't come up with another hit appliance, what will happen to them?
As I understand it, IBM's PowerPC consortia is all about people adding their own bits of circuitry to the PowerPC chips. While Apple certainly designs some of their own chips, I don't think they do the sort of CPU customizing the consortia is targeted at.
Oh, and the iPod was/is successful because of iTunes and the iTunes Music Store. Without OS X to debut on, I don't think iTunes/iPod would have been as big a hit. Apple leverages their control of the OS (and CPU hardware) to provide great app software - and then integrate it with their own peripheral hardware. If MSFT did they same thing, we'd all be screaming illegal monopoly, but because Apple is such a small player, they can get away with it. And they need to to stay relevant.
- Jasen.
What IBM does for companies is simple. Mr dumbass CEO of XYZ company sees IBM's business services commercial, and calls them up.
IBM says "well, you're a big dumbass so we'll tell you what systems to buy, how many, what operating system to get, how to train your employees, who to get to train your employees, and of course, the price of these services. We'll also set all this crap up for you and give kickbacks to bandwidth companies in the form of referrals."
Dumbass CEO is happy cuz he didn't have to figure it out what to do, and by upgrading/establishing computing, it'll help the company in the long run even if IBM charges them way too much. IBM is happy because they just made way too much money off some dumbass.
Microsoft does this, IBM does this, and many others do as well. This is a HUGE business that DRIVES the industry.
So what happens if IBM picks Apple as their main recommendation? IBM gets profits on the processors AND the systems markup all in the same deal, and they can do it with simple stock systems from Apple. Apple gets to double its systems sales.
Then come the media. They'll have no choice but to recommend IBM and these App-pul machines due to their lower cost of ownership and miles-ahead-of-M$ operating system.
The industry will have no choice but to migrate. I for one would switch to a non M$ bank as soon as possible. I could even foresee banks with "Secured by IBM" stickers in the front window, in much larger print than "member FDIC".
It is the natural course of monopolies to fail, this visionary move, if it happens, could change the whole industry.