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.
No way will IBM buy Apple or any part of it. They don't need to. All they need to do is license OSX for their servers and workstations. Apple would be smart to allow IBM to build a "bMac" and license OSX without the iApps for business use.
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.
I heard about an expanded agreement between IBM and Apple over a year ago, but had thought that my source may have been misinformed until I saw that IBM was selling off the PC division.
There's the possibility of IBM manufacturing Macs, though most of the stuff on IBM's end deals with OSX on several of their servers. IBM might rebadge Apple stuff, ala the HP iPod.
Honestly, I'm not sure how far any deal would go. IBM is very interested in expanding the grasp of the PowerPC - as is pretty evident to anyone who follows the news. They have a great interest in expanding the Mac's marketshare. To what extent they would become involved, I really don't know. I do know that there was discussion on this when Apple and IBM worked on the 970. I also wouldn't be surprised if HP considered Macs in the future. Not as the only solution they offer, but as a part of their catalog.
I'll echo Amporh's sentiments, although I'd be ecstatic for an alliance or some sort of partnership, wherever that would be directed. But let's say that IBM acquires Apple but lets Jobs have his way. That would not be a guarantee of anything when Jobs eventually leaves the company, however that were to happen. Someone at IBM could always tighten the noose on Apple Computer in the future.
That said, there could be even a very tight alliance, but I for one would not trust IBM handling a consumer-oriented company. IBM pushing Macs on business is nice and all, but IBM was not exactly inviting to people in my lifetime.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to highlight the words speculation and opninion in that article.
You're absolutely right. This is NOT what we call a "rumor" at AppleInsider, it is "speculation". Rumors are based on (supposedly) leaked info, not completely made up stuff.
Regarding the story, I was astonished when IBM spun off Lexmark. Lenovo as the purchaser of the PC division makes sense - they would get the highly valued ThinkPad brand.
IBM buying Apple makes little sense. Apple's valuation is too high, and they have big cash reserves. Buying them would be the biggest transaction in the computer industry history. Stranger things have happened, of course.
It would be silly for IBM would buy Apple. Above all, Apple is focused on consumers, not corporations. But this is precisely why IBM MIGHT seek to buy and sell an Os X box.
First, Apple's underlying technology is at home with consumers and organizations. It's amazing that the essential hardware and OS behind Virginia Tech's supercomputers ever is also one of the easiest for the average joe to use.
Second, corporate adoption of Os X is hardly the radical step it once was. Apple hardware can be installed on existing networks and everyone can still use Microsoft Office.
Third, the very act of announcing such a partnership would benefit IBM and Apple by taking wind out of Microsoft's sails.
Fourth, as the supplier of the PPC 970, IBM has a vested interest in increasing Apple sales.
With the above in mind...imagine you are IBM and are considering options to Microsoft XP. You have two choices... Linux or OSX. Right now Apple wins the generic corporate battle hands down with the availability of Microsoft Office. Moreover, if the tides change, you could easily install Linux on Apple hardware.
Now imagine you are Apple and would like to break into the corporate world. Who but IBM could give Apple instant credibility amongst management?
Accordingly, suppose IBM specifies a corporate box from Apple. Moreover, suppose IBM commits to purchasing a sufficient number to make it worthwhile for Apple to design and launch this corporate box. Further, IBM itself would adopt the box as well as contracting to distribute and service further corporate installations.
Such a move would involve risk to Apple and IBM, but I suggest such a gamble could payoff. Apple gets the opportunity to make dramatic gains in market share and IBM would have the opportuntity to put a crack in Microsoft's armor.
Apple and IBM might never team up to attack the corporate market. But their common interests are such that I'm sure the possibility has been investigated.
Here's a very logical article from the Register with another theory on the IBM/PC anouncement. In a nutshell, they say that IBM is getting out of the PC biz to not directly compete with HP and Dell and others in this space, thus makeing it easier to move forward with these companies as Power.org partners. IBM also made a statement about Apple and Freescale not anouncing there involvement "yet" for 'various reasons" like the logistics getting worked out. All sounds logical to me.
Here's a very logical article from the Register with another theory on the IBM/PC anouncement. In a nutshell, they say that IBM is getting out of the PC biz to not directly compete with HP and Dell and others in this space, thus makeing it easier to move forward with these companies as Power.org partners. IBM also made a statement about Apple and Freescale not anouncing there involvement "yet" for 'various reasons" like the logistics getting worked out. All sounds logical to me.
HP and Dell are not members of Power.org, and maybe IBM would like them to go there. Dell is in Intel's pocket (they won't even sell AMD processors), so they probably wouldn't join anyway. Compaq and Dell were previously members of the MIPS-processor alliance (I forget what it was called).
The new hardware guy is the guy that formally headed UMAX I heard from the vine or maybe that was factual. Maybe Apple wanted him because they knewhow good he was from competing against him, or maybe they wanted his savvy a the Apple cloning market. He may be very great at designing computers, and he also could advise Apple about how to structure a cloning deal. Apple server on IBM hardware. Apple would want to structure this deal in such a way that IBM would not be taking the desktop market and the enterprise market. If there was a deal to be worked out between Apple and IBM I am sure from Apples last experience that they would not want to start seeing IBM desktops and laptops being advertised in MacWorld. Apple wants to make sure that the deal will only serve to expand the Mac market. It seems that IBM would want to be able to push a very mature easy to use and administrate OS like OSX. This looks like IBM getting rid of a division, that is not going to grow into a big revenue stream. The money and market is in servers for IBM.
...Apple server on IBM hardware. Apple would want to structure this deal in such a way that IBM would not be taking the desktop market and the enterprise market. If there was a deal to be worked out between Apple and IBM I am sure from Apples last experience that they would not want to start seeing IBM desktops and laptops being advertised in MacWorld. Apple wants to make sure that the deal will only serve to expand the Mac market. It seems that IBM would want to be able to push a very mature easy to use and administrate OS like OSX. This looks like IBM getting rid of a division, that is not going to grow into a big revenue stream. The money and market is in servers for IBM.
I agree and would imagine that the clones of the '90s are not going to come back. Rather, as others have stated, IBM wants to push the Power architecture. The biggest ally at the moment is Apple, so why not push PowerPC based PCs made by them (similarly to the Apple/HP iPod deal)?
It is weird, but IBM makes little fanfare about the AIM (or AM) alliance just now. Maybe it is because of Apple, but they rarely specifically mention Apple as a major user of the architecture. This might just signify a more robust (and tighter) alliance to push Power as an alternative to x86 and IA64. IBM has admired Apple's elegance and may just start pushing them as the low cost alternative for personal computing (with IBM themselves providing the powerful stuff).
Apple as IBM's little brother. Both Powered. (Kind of thing.)
But (re Apple/IBM) didn't the AIM group of yore fail precisely because Apple didn't cooperate with the other members? The CHRP/PREP thing? And then Steve Jobs called the compatible-makers "leeches" and killed off their license agreements with tactics of dubious legality?
If I were HP, or anyone else FTM, I would be extremely reluctant to join any group with Apple as a member. We may like their machines, but their corporate behavior is inconsistent, irrational, and arrogant.
(edit) and don't waste time trotting out those tired old rationalizations of Apple's behavior. We've heard them many times before, and that's not the point of this thread.
I agree and would imagine that the clones of the '90s are not going to come back. Rather, as others have stated, IBM wants to push the Power architecture. The biggest ally at the moment is Apple, so why not push PowerPC based PCs made by them (similarly to the Apple/HP iPod deal)?
It is weird, but IBM makes little fanfare about the AIM (or AM) alliance just now. Maybe it is because of Apple, but they rarely specifically mention Apple as a major user of the architecture. This might just signify a more robust (and tighter) alliance to push Power as an alternative to x86 and IA64. IBM has admired Apple's elegance and may just start pushing them as the low cost alternative for personal computing (with IBM themselves providing the powerful stuff).
Apple as IBM's little brother. Both Powered. (Kind of thing.)
For the record the clones were a failure for two reason
1. The only companies to license the OS were small startups. Instead of trying to expand, the carved the Mac market up into little pieces.
2. Apple really didn't offer anything over the clones or PCs for that matter.
Under the right circumstances a licensing deal with a single well established maker (say HP) could work if the maker were to target their products at the switcher market.
Comments
Originally posted by vinney57
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.
Is it?
Black Macs= IBM Branded
2004: welcome to the year of the partnership
No way will IBM buy Apple or any part of it. They don't need to. All they need to do is license OSX for their servers and workstations. Apple would be smart to allow IBM to build a "bMac" and license OSX without the iApps for business use.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
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.
If this were to happen...
Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.
I hope you're right, i like Apple as it is.
Originally posted by xflare
Perhaps it would be appropriate to highlight the words speculation and opninion in that article.
Pshaw. CONFIRMED!!!
There's the possibility of IBM manufacturing Macs, though most of the stuff on IBM's end deals with OSX on several of their servers. IBM might rebadge Apple stuff, ala the HP iPod.
Honestly, I'm not sure how far any deal would go. IBM is very interested in expanding the grasp of the PowerPC - as is pretty evident to anyone who follows the news. They have a great interest in expanding the Mac's marketshare. To what extent they would become involved, I really don't know. I do know that there was discussion on this when Apple and IBM worked on the 970. I also wouldn't be surprised if HP considered Macs in the future. Not as the only solution they offer, but as a part of their catalog.
That said, there could be even a very tight alliance, but I for one would not trust IBM handling a consumer-oriented company. IBM pushing Macs on business is nice and all, but IBM was not exactly inviting to people in my lifetime.
Originally posted by xflare
Perhaps it would be appropriate to highlight the words speculation and opninion in that article.
You're absolutely right. This is NOT what we call a "rumor" at AppleInsider, it is "speculation". Rumors are based on (supposedly) leaked info, not completely made up stuff.
Regarding the story, I was astonished when IBM spun off Lexmark. Lenovo as the purchaser of the PC division makes sense - they would get the highly valued ThinkPad brand.
IBM buying Apple makes little sense. Apple's valuation is too high, and they have big cash reserves. Buying them would be the biggest transaction in the computer industry history. Stranger things have happened, of course.
First, Apple's underlying technology is at home with consumers and organizations. It's amazing that the essential hardware and OS behind Virginia Tech's supercomputers ever is also one of the easiest for the average joe to use.
Second, corporate adoption of Os X is hardly the radical step it once was. Apple hardware can be installed on existing networks and everyone can still use Microsoft Office.
Third, the very act of announcing such a partnership would benefit IBM and Apple by taking wind out of Microsoft's sails.
Fourth, as the supplier of the PPC 970, IBM has a vested interest in increasing Apple sales.
With the above in mind...imagine you are IBM and are considering options to Microsoft XP. You have two choices... Linux or OSX. Right now Apple wins the generic corporate battle hands down with the availability of Microsoft Office. Moreover, if the tides change, you could easily install Linux on Apple hardware.
Now imagine you are Apple and would like to break into the corporate world. Who but IBM could give Apple instant credibility amongst management?
Accordingly, suppose IBM specifies a corporate box from Apple. Moreover, suppose IBM commits to purchasing a sufficient number to make it worthwhile for Apple to design and launch this corporate box. Further, IBM itself would adopt the box as well as contracting to distribute and service further corporate installations.
Such a move would involve risk to Apple and IBM, but I suggest such a gamble could payoff. Apple gets the opportunity to make dramatic gains in market share and IBM would have the opportuntity to put a crack in Microsoft's armor.
Apple and IBM might never team up to attack the corporate market. But their common interests are such that I'm sure the possibility has been investigated.
This is a must read article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/1...sell_off_power/
Originally posted by mikenap
Here's a very logical article from the Register with another theory on the IBM/PC anouncement. In a nutshell, they say that IBM is getting out of the PC biz to not directly compete with HP and Dell and others in this space, thus makeing it easier to move forward with these companies as Power.org partners. IBM also made a statement about Apple and Freescale not anouncing there involvement "yet" for 'various reasons" like the logistics getting worked out. All sounds logical to me.
This is a must read article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/1...sell_off_power/
Link is messed up.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12...ell_off_power/
HP and Dell are not members of Power.org, and maybe IBM would like them to go there. Dell is in Intel's pocket (they won't even sell AMD processors), so they probably wouldn't join anyway. Compaq and Dell were previously members of the MIPS-processor alliance (I forget what it was called).
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...na_ibm_sale_dc
We should see something soon with Apple if the rumor is true.
Does Cormac = Kormac? hmmmmm
<scratch head>
Originally posted by Brendon
It is official...
Indeed.
Originally posted by Brendon
...Apple server on IBM hardware. Apple would want to structure this deal in such a way that IBM would not be taking the desktop market and the enterprise market. If there was a deal to be worked out between Apple and IBM I am sure from Apples last experience that they would not want to start seeing IBM desktops and laptops being advertised in MacWorld. Apple wants to make sure that the deal will only serve to expand the Mac market. It seems that IBM would want to be able to push a very mature easy to use and administrate OS like OSX. This looks like IBM getting rid of a division, that is not going to grow into a big revenue stream. The money and market is in servers for IBM.
I agree and would imagine that the clones of the '90s are not going to come back. Rather, as others have stated, IBM wants to push the Power architecture. The biggest ally at the moment is Apple, so why not push PowerPC based PCs made by them (similarly to the Apple/HP iPod deal)?
It is weird, but IBM makes little fanfare about the AIM (or AM) alliance just now. Maybe it is because of Apple, but they rarely specifically mention Apple as a major user of the architecture. This might just signify a more robust (and tighter) alliance to push Power as an alternative to x86 and IA64. IBM has admired Apple's elegance and may just start pushing them as the low cost alternative for personal computing (with IBM themselves providing the powerful stuff).
Apple as IBM's little brother. Both Powered. (Kind of thing.)
But (re Apple/IBM) didn't the AIM group of yore fail precisely because Apple didn't cooperate with the other members? The CHRP/PREP thing? And then Steve Jobs called the compatible-makers "leeches" and killed off their license agreements with tactics of dubious legality?
If I were HP, or anyone else FTM, I would be extremely reluctant to join any group with Apple as a member. We may like their machines, but their corporate behavior is inconsistent, irrational, and arrogant.
(edit) and don't waste time trotting out those tired old rationalizations of Apple's behavior. We've heard them many times before, and that's not the point of this thread.
Originally posted by DaveLee
I agree and would imagine that the clones of the '90s are not going to come back. Rather, as others have stated, IBM wants to push the Power architecture. The biggest ally at the moment is Apple, so why not push PowerPC based PCs made by them (similarly to the Apple/HP iPod deal)?
It is weird, but IBM makes little fanfare about the AIM (or AM) alliance just now. Maybe it is because of Apple, but they rarely specifically mention Apple as a major user of the architecture. This might just signify a more robust (and tighter) alliance to push Power as an alternative to x86 and IA64. IBM has admired Apple's elegance and may just start pushing them as the low cost alternative for personal computing (with IBM themselves providing the powerful stuff).
Apple as IBM's little brother. Both Powered. (Kind of thing.)
For the record the clones were a failure for two reason
1. The only companies to license the OS were small startups. Instead of trying to expand, the carved the Mac market up into little pieces.
2. Apple really didn't offer anything over the clones or PCs for that matter.
Under the right circumstances a licensing deal with a single well established maker (say HP) could work if the maker were to target their products at the switcher market.