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.
I don't think the switcher market is the right target for the HP and IBMs of the world. I'd think more a vertical market where the PC is either a glorified terminal to a more powerful server, or does a very specialized task - order entry, customer support. There's a pretty good market of SOFTWARE that costs $5k+ per seat. In those situations, I don't think the buyer is going to worry too much about the underlying OS being Windows. If IBM works a deal with Apple where they manufacture terminalish Macs for the vertical space, they MIGHT be able to pull it off.
I'd think a good corporate salesperson could really tout Macs' being not-Windows as a Good Thing(tm). Fewer viruses, less tech support hassle, unified hardware & software, SOLID Unix foundation, etc., etc. Apple just doesn't play well with the suits that make these types of contracts; HP and IBM do.
Well, it looks like Lenovo is just going to be selling IBM brand desktops worldwide, so that answers that. When you get a soup-to-nuts IBM solution, the PCs will be made by Lenovo, but branded IBM.
Well, it looks like Lenovo is just going to be selling IBM brand desktops worldwide, so that answers that. When you get a soup-to-nuts IBM solution, the PCs will be made by Lenovo, but branded IBM.
And that's all she wrote.
If I understand correctly, Lenovo must transition from the IBM brand to their own over the next five years. I don't think that's all she wrote, however. IBM will provide all service and financing for their customers, so they get that part of the business. In return, IBM will make Lenovo the 'preferred' source for desktop and laptop PCs. This arrangement opens up a possibility for an Apple arrangement too.
IBM could strike the same deal with Apple, except Apple would not be the 'preferred' supplier of desktops and laptops. IBM could sell Macs to their business customers and provides service and financing. Likely IBM would provide warranty service too in such a deal, so Apple would reduce IBM's cost for Macs to cover this service.
I can't believe some of you actually think that Register article could happen. That article takes one insignificant little event of IBM selling their PC division and makes a bunch of stupid BS assumptions out of it. God, how many times have we heard that Sony or Disney or someone else is going to buy Apple or sell Macs. IBM sold their PC division because it generates very little profit. I think they've pretty well always wanted to get rid of it. IBM kept their server, mainframe, semi-conductor and services divisions because that's where the money is. IBM is not going to sell Macs or recommend them. In fact part of the agreement on the sale of the PC division is that they will will endorse the Lenova brand after Lenova transitions from the IBM brand. IBM is NOT going to buy Apple or partner with Apple beyond the partnership with Apple to produce and desing PowerPC chips. The Register even made some BS comment about IBM getting back at Microsoft, what does IBM have to get back at Microsoft for. The best irony is Microsoft buying IBMs PowerPC chips for it's Xbox. As for IBM giving Apple and the MacOS credibility and standing behind Apple, IBM already does that in that Apple get's to use IBM's name everywhere they say they use the IBM PowerPC 970 or 970FX chip.
Man, what a load of BS that article is. You'll notice AppleInsider was smart enough not to say anything like that.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Holier Than Thou for putting us in our place. Shame on us for having a little fun speculating. After, this is a rumors board. It's just the facts 'round these parts, as it should be.
PS: you might notice not everyone here was talking about IBM buying Apple or selling Apple products anyway.
[Just to make it abundantly clear, I'm just ribbing ya a little. ]
The Register even made some BS comment about IBM getting back at Microsoft, what does IBM have to get back at Microsoft for. The best irony is Microsoft buying IBMs PowerPC chips for it's Xbox.
Maybe you need to brush up on your history of Windows NT and OS/2. That history might help clarify "what does IBM have to get back at MS for" for you.
Yes, IBM may be providing chips for XBox part 2, but it's not on the market yet so IBM isn't making any cash on this yet.
If I understand correctly, Lenovo must transition from the IBM brand to their own over the next five years. I don't think that's all she wrote, however. ...
Yes it is all she wrote, because IBM has a non-compete clause that they can't sell any PCs (other than Lenovo's) for the next five years. Not Apple's or anyone else's. The thread is finished. Last one out turn off the lights.
Just think how many positives for IBM such a marriage would provide. IBM would give the same credibility to the Macintosh computer, and its Microsoft-beating operating systems as it provided for the PC in the first place, thereby opening the flood gates of corporate demand.
All things considered, I think the term "Civil Union" may be safer these days.
That term MARRIAGE seems to get people's skivies in an uproar!
Yes it is all she wrote, because IBM has a non-compete clause that they can't sell any PCs (other than Lenovo's) for the next five years. Not Apple's or anyone else's. . .
Considering IBM's 'Power Everywhere' campaign, why wouldn't IBM wish to promote Macs in business? I'm sure IBM wants to eventually see PPC desktops and laptops commonly used in business environments. Since IBM is out of this part of the hardware business, it makes good business sense to back the only serious PPC contender.
If IBM and Apple are making plans to market Macs to IBM business customers, five years is not all that long to get their business relationship in high gear. For example, Apple has a ways to go before offering a line of hardware that IBM's customers need and want. In the meantime, I don't think there is anything in the contract to stop IBM from offering service and financing for any customer who wants to buy Macs from Apple.
Considering IBM's 'Power Everywhere' campaign, why wouldn't IBM wish to promote Macs in business? I'm sure IBM wants to eventually see PPC desktops and laptops commonly used in business environments. Since IBM is out of this part of the hardware business, it makes good business sense to back the only serious PPC contender....
IBM is and has been pushing Linux worldwide. Could they actually be developing desktop software for Linux to compete with Microsoft, such as an Office Suite?
A more outragous conjecture would be that Microsoft is developing Longhorn to run on both Intel/AMD and PPC. Didn't Windows NT run on PPC for awhile?
I don't have a clue what may or may not happen, but at this time IBM has more options than Apple does. I just hope the option IBM takes is to partner more closely to Apple in some way to extend the market for PPC hardware, but then again I biased because I'm a Mac user.
Considering IBM's 'Power Everywhere' campaign, why wouldn't IBM wish to promote Macs in business? I'm sure IBM wants to eventually see PPC desktops and laptops commonly used in business environments. Since IBM is out of this part of the hardware business, it makes good business sense to back the only serious PPC contender.
They're only out of that part of the hardware business in the sense that GE is out of the appliance business: You can still buy GE-branded hardware, it's just made by someone else.
All they're doing is realizing that they can't make a needed component profitably, so they're letting someone else take a crack at it. Enterprise desktops still require Windows for the most part, and between Windows and Linux you might as well go x86. If this changes, it won't be IBM changing it.
Maybe in five years the SMB push that Apple is just starting will have been successful enough to attract IBM's interest, in a non-exclusive way. Anything can happen in five years. But all I see here boils down to IBM subcontracting to an offshore company.
A more outragous conjecture would be that Microsoft is developing Longhorn to run on both Intel/AMD and PPC. Didn't Windows NT run on PPC for awhile?
NT 3.51 ran on PPC & Alpha (and possibly MIPS as well). I'm not sure but I believe NT 4 ran on Alpha as well, but I'm almost positive PPC development stopped at NT 3.51.
They're only out of that part of the hardware business in the sense that GE is out of the appliance business: You can still buy GE-branded hardware, it's just made by someone else. . .
. . . all I see here boils down to IBM subcontracting to an offshore company.
I don't think Lenovo will be subcontracting for IBM. Lenovo will use the IBM brand for a while, but must transition to their own brand over the next five years. From what I have read, IBM is mostly interested in servicing and financing Lenovo PCs.
True enough that the x86 PC will run both Windows and Linux, so it is an obvious choice for today. Yet, I ask whether IBM is satisfied with the x86 for the future? I don't think so, and I'd bet IBM has plans for getting the PPC into business desktop and laptop hardware.
NT 3.51 ran on PPC & Alpha (and possibly MIPS as well). I'm not sure but I believe NT 4 ran on Alpha as well, but I'm almost positive PPC development stopped at NT 3.51.
Rumble is that some form of Windows will be/is running on G5's for Xbox development. Then again, maybe all Xbox development will be done on G5's running Mac OS X. Not saying that this in any way shape or form would ever ever end up as a salable product.
Please pardon my total ingnorance if this is BS, just something I recently read on the web and we know how reliable the web is.
Comments
Originally posted by BenRoethig
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.
I don't think the switcher market is the right target for the HP and IBMs of the world. I'd think more a vertical market where the PC is either a glorified terminal to a more powerful server, or does a very specialized task - order entry, customer support. There's a pretty good market of SOFTWARE that costs $5k+ per seat. In those situations, I don't think the buyer is going to worry too much about the underlying OS being Windows. If IBM works a deal with Apple where they manufacture terminalish Macs for the vertical space, they MIGHT be able to pull it off.
I'd think a good corporate salesperson could really tout Macs' being not-Windows as a Good Thing(tm). Fewer viruses, less tech support hassle, unified hardware & software, SOLID Unix foundation, etc., etc. Apple just doesn't play well with the suits that make these types of contracts; HP and IBM do.
- Jasen.
And that's all she wrote.
Originally posted by Amorph
Well, it looks like Lenovo is just going to be selling IBM brand desktops worldwide, so that answers that. When you get a soup-to-nuts IBM solution, the PCs will be made by Lenovo, but branded IBM.
And that's all she wrote.
If I understand correctly, Lenovo must transition from the IBM brand to their own over the next five years. I don't think that's all she wrote, however. IBM will provide all service and financing for their customers, so they get that part of the business. In return, IBM will make Lenovo the 'preferred' source for desktop and laptop PCs. This arrangement opens up a possibility for an Apple arrangement too.
IBM could strike the same deal with Apple, except Apple would not be the 'preferred' supplier of desktops and laptops. IBM could sell Macs to their business customers and provides service and financing. Likely IBM would provide warranty service too in such a deal, so Apple would reduce IBM's cost for Macs to cover this service.
Man, what a load of BS that article is. You'll notice AppleInsider was smart enough not to say anything like that.
PS: you might notice not everyone here was talking about IBM buying Apple or selling Apple products anyway.
[Just to make it abundantly clear, I'm just ribbing ya a little.
Originally posted by Leonard
The Register even made some BS comment about IBM getting back at Microsoft, what does IBM have to get back at Microsoft for. The best irony is Microsoft buying IBMs PowerPC chips for it's Xbox.
Maybe you need to brush up on your history of Windows NT and OS/2. That history might help clarify "what does IBM have to get back at MS for" for you.
Yes, IBM may be providing chips for XBox part 2, but it's not on the market yet so IBM isn't making any cash on this yet.
Originally posted by snoopy
If I understand correctly, Lenovo must transition from the IBM brand to their own over the next five years. I don't think that's all she wrote, however. ...
Yes it is all she wrote, because IBM has a non-compete clause that they can't sell any PCs (other than Lenovo's) for the next five years. Not Apple's or anyone else's. The thread is finished. Last one out turn off the lights.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Maybe you need to brush up on your history of Windows NT and OS/2. That history might help clarify "what does IBM have to get back at MS for" for you.
Yes, IBM may be providing chips for XBox part 2, but it's not on the market yet so IBM isn't making any cash on this yet.
IBM itself was responsible for letting OS/2 rot, all Microsoft had to do was sit back and watch it go down the drain.
Just think how many positives for IBM such a marriage would provide. IBM would give the same credibility to the Macintosh computer, and its Microsoft-beating operating systems as it provided for the PC in the first place, thereby opening the flood gates of corporate demand.
All things considered, I think the term "Civil Union" may be safer these days.
That term MARRIAGE seems to get people's skivies in an uproar!
Originally posted by cubist
Yes it is all she wrote, because IBM has a non-compete clause that they can't sell any PCs (other than Lenovo's) for the next five years. Not Apple's or anyone else's. . .
Considering IBM's 'Power Everywhere' campaign, why wouldn't IBM wish to promote Macs in business? I'm sure IBM wants to eventually see PPC desktops and laptops commonly used in business environments. Since IBM is out of this part of the hardware business, it makes good business sense to back the only serious PPC contender.
If IBM and Apple are making plans to market Macs to IBM business customers, five years is not all that long to get their business relationship in high gear. For example, Apple has a ways to go before offering a line of hardware that IBM's customers need and want. In the meantime, I don't think there is anything in the contract to stop IBM from offering service and financing for any customer who wants to buy Macs from Apple.
Originally posted by snoopy
Considering IBM's 'Power Everywhere' campaign, why wouldn't IBM wish to promote Macs in business? I'm sure IBM wants to eventually see PPC desktops and laptops commonly used in business environments. Since IBM is out of this part of the hardware business, it makes good business sense to back the only serious PPC contender....
IBM is and has been pushing Linux worldwide. Could they actually be developing desktop software for Linux to compete with Microsoft, such as an Office Suite?
A more outragous conjecture would be that Microsoft is developing Longhorn to run on both Intel/AMD and PPC. Didn't Windows NT run on PPC for awhile?
I don't have a clue what may or may not happen, but at this time IBM has more options than Apple does. I just hope the option IBM takes is to partner more closely to Apple in some way to extend the market for PPC hardware, but then again I biased because I'm a Mac user.
Originally posted by snoopy
Considering IBM's 'Power Everywhere' campaign, why wouldn't IBM wish to promote Macs in business? I'm sure IBM wants to eventually see PPC desktops and laptops commonly used in business environments. Since IBM is out of this part of the hardware business, it makes good business sense to back the only serious PPC contender.
They're only out of that part of the hardware business in the sense that GE is out of the appliance business: You can still buy GE-branded hardware, it's just made by someone else.
All they're doing is realizing that they can't make a needed component profitably, so they're letting someone else take a crack at it. Enterprise desktops still require Windows for the most part, and between Windows and Linux you might as well go x86. If this changes, it won't be IBM changing it.
Maybe in five years the SMB push that Apple is just starting will have been successful enough to attract IBM's interest, in a non-exclusive way. Anything can happen in five years. But all I see here boils down to IBM subcontracting to an offshore company.
Originally posted by Amorph
But all I see here boils down to IBM subcontracting to an offshore company.
It's gonna take a really powerful earthquake along the San Andreas fault for Cupertino to be "offshore"...
Linky, mouseover for fault names.
Originally posted by rickag
A more outragous conjecture would be that Microsoft is developing Longhorn to run on both Intel/AMD and PPC. Didn't Windows NT run on PPC for awhile?
NT 3.51 ran on PPC & Alpha (and possibly MIPS as well). I'm not sure but I believe NT 4 ran on Alpha as well, but I'm almost positive PPC development stopped at NT 3.51.
Originally posted by Amorph
They're only out of that part of the hardware business in the sense that GE is out of the appliance business: You can still buy GE-branded hardware, it's just made by someone else. . .
. . . all I see here boils down to IBM subcontracting to an offshore company.
I don't think Lenovo will be subcontracting for IBM. Lenovo will use the IBM brand for a while, but must transition to their own brand over the next five years. From what I have read, IBM is mostly interested in servicing and financing Lenovo PCs.
True enough that the x86 PC will run both Windows and Linux, so it is an obvious choice for today. Yet, I ask whether IBM is satisfied with the x86 for the future? I don't think so, and I'd bet IBM has plans for getting the PPC into business desktop and laptop hardware.
Originally posted by Hiro
Especially since Cupertino is on the EAST side of the San Andreas, as is almost the entire populated portion of the Bay Area.
You're right. You got me.
I hate it when those pesky facts get in the way of the message (not that it has been a problem for some leaders of ours...).
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
NT 3.51 ran on PPC & Alpha (and possibly MIPS as well). I'm not sure but I believe NT 4 ran on Alpha as well, but I'm almost positive PPC development stopped at NT 3.51.
Rumble is that some form of Windows will be/is running on G5's for Xbox development. Then again, maybe all Xbox development will be done on G5's running Mac OS X. Not saying that this in any way shape or form would ever ever end up as a salable product.
Please pardon my total ingnorance if this is BS, just something I recently read on the web and we know how reliable the web is.