The Alias/Wavefront software division is the "crown jewel" in SGI's remaining portfolio. Now buying this would be a great advance for Apple's plans to dominate in the film/graphics market.
I think Apple's best move is to compete against SGI's core markets by going upscale in the enterprise, thus putting more pressure on SGI's operations then buying Alias/Wavefront when SGI becomes desperate (and hiring some of the engineers).
Also check out Alias' StudioTools modeling software which would give AutoCad a run for the money.
Yes, true that Alias|Wavefront alone would probably be a better purchase for Apple.
However, high end hardware is not such a bad business to be in especially as the margins are higher (than that of commodity desktops and clients).
The strength of the Apple brand works to its advantage and disadvantage too. It is a highly recognised consumer brand. That meant that when Apple introduced the iPod and the iTMS, it found success.
It also meant that Apple's many forays into the business or enterprise markets have failed.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a workstation class machine from Apple do very well (and compete with SGI's MIPS/IRIX workstations). An Xstation? A quad G5 box with workstation class graphics from ATI and nVIDIA.
However, breaking into the high end server space will be very difficult, if not almost impossible. Simply because of the lack of mindshare in that market, lack of sales force, credibility, support and attitude that say IBM has in selling into that market.
... However, high end hardware is not such a bad business to be in ... The strength of the Apple brand works to its advantage and disadvantage too... many forays into the business or enterprise markets have failed... However, breaking into the high end server space will be very difficult ... lack of sales force, credibility, support and attitude that say IBM has in selling into that market.
Quote:
As I said earlier:
IBM's blades and Blade Center chassis are also a perfect fit with Apple's server strategy. No R&D expenses to recover, instant roll-out (MWSF?) and World Class IBM support and service ... Apple can OEM these from IBM and let IBM service and support them. Instant acceptance in the corporate world.
On the software side IBM and Apple could be extremely complimentary. Why wouldn't IBM not want to offer another choice in operating systems? They would make their money from the support and service contracts.
...
A thin client from Apple to compliment the OSX blades in the server room would be a major inducement for both business and educational use. (think Sun Ray).
...
What would Apple lose by allowing IBM to offer OSX server on their big iron? What would they gain?
So would you comment on the possibility of Apple and IBM working together in gaining Industry and enterprise accounts?
Quote:
Originally posted by rmendis
I wouldn't be surprised to see a workstation class machine from Apple do very well (and compete with SGI's MIPS/IRIX workstations). An Xstation? A quad G5 box with workstation class graphics from ATI and nVIDIA.
Oh yes a 4, or even 8 way, "Xstation" would be great for the film industry, and to eat into SGI's turf in Scientific and Genetic studies. And it would give great credibility in the enterprise, but unless the enterprise is in one of the fields mentioned above they won't have much use for such a beast.
So would you comment on the possibility of Apple and IBM working together in gaining Industry and enterprise accounts?
IBM already has too much on its plate already with its AIX, OS400 and Linux OSs in the mid range server market.
To offer Mac OS X Server in addition may not be hugely successful or strategic for IBM - therefore something they are unlikely to persue.
On the otherhand, an Apple SGI aquisition/merger would have the advantage of migrating SGI's customers and developers onto SGI branded POWER/PPC Mac OS X Server platform. The product, market and brand well knit.
I don't see Apple carving a slice of the (mid to high end) server market however hard it tries. IBM partnerships in the past have been short lived and unsuccessful (Taligent, NeXT-IBM deal) because of the company that IBM is - big & bureaucratic. Unless of course, IBM were to purchase Apple outright.
IBM already has too much on its plate .... IBM partnerships in the past have been short lived and unsuccessful (Taligent, NeXT-IBM deal) because of the company that IBM is - big & bureaucratic. Unless of course, IBM were to purchase Apple outright.
Believe me rmendis, there was no bigger fan of an Apple acquisition of SGI then me, especially when I held 500 shares of SGI.
Besides the obvious match-up of Alias/Wavefront with Apple's software ambitions there is the SGI Reality Center's Visualization Engine, but I just don't see an enterprise putting this on every desk:
But less than impressive, is when you take a look at their cash flow which shows a disturbing amount of red ink as portrayed by the numbers in parenthesis. They lost about 50 million last quarter.
For Apple to take on a company whose losses would more than offset Apple's earnings would be a dangerous strategy at this time. Better to wait and continue to chip away at SGI's business from the fringes with their server line.
Once the G5 Xservers, Xserve RAIDs and other products as yet to be announced (blades?) are rolled out SGI's MIPS powered servers will seem rather anemic by comparison. I say compete with SGI, rather than buy them. Apple can begin migrating SGI's customers without buying the list from them.
With regards to what IBM has on it's "plate" we are talking banquet here, not some single serving pot luck dinner. There is plenty of room on the banquet table for tiny Apples.
IBM is working hard to limit the Wintel monopoly's foray onto their turf. Sure they offer Windows and Intel products in their portfolio, but I'm convinced that they would be happy to sell OSX on PPC (their own) based CPU's. Just as they are happy to offer Linux solutions. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, IBM is platform agnostic, but given a choice they would love to offer anything that runs on their CPU's.
From IBM's perspective, why not allow Apple to re-brand their Blade Center products? From Apple's perspective, why not allow IBM to offer sales and support contracts on Apple's high end enterprise hardware?
Can you point out any downsides for either IBM or Apple here?
From IBM's perspective, why not allow Apple to re-brand their Blade Center products? From Apple's perspective, why not allow IBM to offer sales and support contracts on Apple's high end enterprise hardware?
Can you point out any downsides for either IBM or Apple here?
From IBM's perspective it's great, but it's not good business from Apple's point of view. They would be reselling IBM's hardware at a much lower margin than IBM because IBM would be getting their cut. Offering the same product will make them direct competitors and IBM will be holding all the cards. IBM would always be able to undercut Apple, and it would become an immediate issue if IBM and Apple are going head to head for a big installation contract.
I think I said this earlier, but the only reason Apple would consider this is if having a blade offering increases their ability to sell other hardware. But if Apple's really serious about HPC and blades, they'd be better off making their own blade and building on the success of the Big Mac.
In this scenario they probably release 1U G5 XServes at MWSF along with an announcement that the first 1500 of them are going to X university to create the 2nd most powerful supercomputer in the world and 500 of them are going to Pixar. Come out with a bang. Then 6 months or a year down the line they release the XBlade.
The only problem I see with this (or with Apple reselling IBM's blade) is that the HPC market is completely different from the business market that's buying blades. I admit to being no expert of enterprise computing markets, but it seems like blades are bought by business for serving applications, usually a custom app of some sort, to lots of users. They don't make great file servers or web servers, and for HPC you seem to give up too much in processor speed. A HPC center probably has enough space to deal with the slightly lower compute density of a DP XServe vs IBM's blade. I don't know really. The BladeCenter can fit 28 G5s @ 1.6Ghz into 7U vs 14 G5s @ 2.0 (a guess maybe they'll have 2.4s). I guess it is significantly more compute density, but I've just never heard of a major cluster running on blades, there must be a reason. Apple's market is usually file and print servers though, and blades aren't designed for that.
As for the support contracts, that's where the real money is, so why would Apple just give this business to IBM? Partnering with IBM to offer better support services than Apple's capable of could make sense here, but Apple could use anyone. EDS comes to mind.
As for the support contracts, that's where the real money is, so why would Apple just give this business to IBM? Partnering with IBM to offer better support services than Apple's capable of could make sense here, but Apple could use anyone. EDS comes to mind.
In a joint venture IBM could supply the enterprise marketing sales and hardware support, and Apple could clean up on software licensing and software tech support. All Apple needs to do is license OS X server to IBM for use in the Enterprise market with a deal that brings Apple $ for every support contract IBM makes in return for Apple's software tech support. The downside of this is that IBM would want to make and sell their own hardware, so Apple might loose some control of the hardware.
Edit: After rereading your post this is what you are suggesting, a partnership for OS X in IBM's computers.
From IBM's perspective it's great, but it's not good business from Apple's point of view...
... why would Apple just give this business to IBM? Partnering with IBM to offer better support services than Apple's capable of could make sense here, but Apple could use anyone. EDS comes to mind.
Apple would love to be able to offer IBM's support services, it's instant credibility in enterprise accounts. Just like in CompUSA stores your can buy AppleCare or CUSA's TAP, take your pick. If Apple and CompUSA can work this out I'm sure Apple and IBM could too.
Blades are most commonly used with thin clients to eliminate the computer on the desk. The Apple thin client would be used 1:1 with blades, or in the case of NetBooted clients, one blade could service multiple "smart" terminals (the "tMac").
The reasons for this is to keep all the maintenance in the server room, and for reducing support and security issues. These things are important on the enterprise level with perhaps thousands of desktops to service and secure.
Without this or a similar, and equally cost effective, method Apple can't compete with what other enterprise players are offering. The blade center concept is diametrically opposite to Microsoft's vision of a "FAT" client, a NGSCB (Palladium) equipped next generation PeeCee running Longhorn talking to (and sharing secrets with) a Windows server farm deep in the bowels of Redmond.
Right now Apple doesn't have any of this stuff in place. IBM is releasing theirs in March. Apple could announce an Apple branded Blade Center of their own at MWSF 2004 just by placing an order with IBM. The only development work or new hardware they would have to design is a thin client and the "tMac", a trivial exercise compared with say, a G5 Powerbook.
In fact the mainboard of this "tMac" could be built from the same components as the G5 Powerbook. What a great way to develop a portable G5. Test them by the thousands in a small enclosure.
As far as "margins" all of the payback for the R&D of a product comes out of the margin over manufacturing costs. IBM will be happy to have a volume customer for their Blade Centers to spread this R&D cost out. And Apple will be happy to be able to play in this market without any R&D costs. (to speak of).
IBM knows that they won't be challenged by Apple in their major enterprise accounts, because Apple will have their own accounts to pursue. IBM will continue to target the Fortune 500 while Apple will be targeting the Fortune 5000.
The talk about IBM and Apple joint ventures misses a major flaw. Unlike Apple ( with is uber leader ), IBM is really a series of smaller companies, all operating individually to make money. All of the upheaval at IBM over the last couple of decades involved accounting, not leadership. If you look at IBM then you will see that the top level has mandated 'services' as the target. They could care less about whether an individual business group sells windows or intel chips, or uses in house products, as long as the business group is profitable and is contributing to the aim of a service driven company ( basically hourly billing, your product is people, much like lawyers and accountants ).
The impact is this, while the micro electronics group is hell bent on expanding the penetration of the 970 so that it can make more money, there is no reason under the sun to make the PC division build systems around the 970. The same goes for servers, they want to sell service contracts to maintain AS400 systems, and Linux ( because there is market demand ) and AIX. They already have a huge political investment in selling and maintaining these products. There is no space for Apple.
That could change any day. All ( ha ) it takes is someone with vision to get on the ball.
Anecdotally you can see the IBM culture at work with OS/2. OS/2 was driven by a single man ( who's name escapes me ), and the moment he was promoted OS/2 died. There was no internal support for OS/2, except for what he created. With no powerful champion for a coherent product line, running powerpc from bottom to top, it will never happen.
Personally, I expect to see IBM's product divisions get sold off ( just like the hard drive division ). Im not sure who would buy the powerpc guys, maybe Apple, maybe Sun. Real physical things just dont fit IBM anymore.
But less than impressive, is when you take a look at their cash flow which shows a disturbing amount of red ink as portrayed by the numbers in parenthesis. They lost about 50 million last quarter.
For Apple to take on a company whose losses would more than offset Apple's earnings would be a dangerous strategy at this time. Better to wait and continue to chip away at SGI's business from the fringes with their server line.
I think you are right in saying that Apple, SGI aquisition/merger If at all) should wait until SGI was back in black. It seems to me that SGI is still in need of more restructuring.
Perhaps they should get rid of more of their unprofitable server lines? Excess assets, etc. Perhaps it's an opportune moment for SGI to sell Alias|Wavefront to Apple?
Another alternative would be for SGI to sell themselves to IBM. With SGI out of the way, there will be a migration of SGI customers onto new platforms. Apple and IBM in particular can target them.
Quote:
Once the G5 Xservers, Xserve RAIDs and other products as yet to be announced (blades?) are rolled out SGI's MIPS powered servers will seem rather anemic by comparison. I say compete with SGI, rather than buy them. Apple can begin migrating SGI's customers without buying the list from them.
I don't see Apple producing a blade type server in addition to the Xserves. If at all Apple could develop the Xserve into a blade architecture, but what they have now with the Xserve and the Xserve RAID and Xserve node offer very similar functionality.
I'm sure in the context of Apple, "enterprise" refers to large, perhaps non academic accounts.
I have six machines to clone and OSX 10.3 server, I cannot find decent documentation to get me through the entire process. I have 1800 pc's and maybe 100 Macs, I cannot waste days trying to learn how to clone a drive (which is easy) then how to distribute the image using NetInstall. As long as the manual method of installing software on a Mac is quicker than "learning" the automated process, I nor my workers will not invest the resources to do so as there are plenty of other more pending issues to be addressed in the Mac world (AD auth, security ramifications of AD auth, scripting shared resources, etc).
I bought Ghost and had a 30 seat pc lab imaged in 2 hours without training. It took a week to fine tune it but the immediate payoff was enough for me to allocate resources to such a project. My two days wasted on Mac imaging have just given me frustration and I'll put it on the back burner and work on my Windows scripts again since they work and have much better documentation - and I despise Windows.
I am the average IT administrator and Apple still isn't talking my language on many fronts...but this is the latest example.
It's too hard to make a standard image and deploy that?
I have six machines to clone and OSX 10.3 server, I cannot find decent documentation to get me through the entire process. I have 1800 pc's and maybe 100 Macs, I cannot waste days trying to learn how to clone a drive (which is easy) then how to distribute the image using NetInstall. As long as the manual method of installing software on a Mac is quicker than "learning" the automated process, I nor my workers will not invest the resources to do so as there are plenty of other more pending issues to be addressed in the Mac world (AD auth, security ramifications of AD auth, scripting shared resources, etc).
I bought Ghost and had a 30 seat pc lab imaged in 2 hours without training. It took a week to fine tune it but the immediate payoff was enough for me to allocate resources to such a project. My two days wasted on Mac imaging have just given me frustration and I'll put it on the back burner and work on my Windows scripts again since they work and have much better documentation - and I despise Windows.
I am the average IT administrator and Apple still isn't talking my language on many fronts...but this is the latest example.
... Another alternative would be for SGI to sell themselves to IBM. With SGI out of the way, there will be a migration of SGI customers onto new platforms. Apple and IBM in particular can target them.
Now this is an idea that I can get behind as a possibility. IBM could make far better use of the SGI customer list than Apple could (in a purchase scenario).
It's interesting that MIPS, the power behind SGI hardware is a "fabless" Chip company - they only sell licenses to produce their chips, and as we know, IBM has a brand new fab (Fishkill) that they need to use to capacity. With a license from MIPS IBM could continue to build SGI gear without a time consuming and expensive (from an engineering standpoint) across the board transition to PPC processors.
Now, an Apple | IBM partnered buyout of SGI makes complete sense. With IBM taking the Hardware and Software (IRIS) portions of SGI (the major portion) and Apple buying the Alias software division. I don't think that SGI would sell Alias alone, because they are significantly keeping the rest of SGI afloat. You don't get rid of a division or subsidiary that is making money, unless you can find a buyer for the whole enchilada.
Another interesting, if unrelated point, is that this is Alias | Waverfront's 20th anniversary year. They have dropped the "| Wavefront" part of their name and are now named "Alias" and their logo is a "swirl symbol" which looks something like the "at" sign: @ Alias
Quote:
Originally posted by rmendis
I don't see Apple producing a blade type server in addition to the Xserves. If at all Apple could develop the Xserve into a blade architecture, but what they have now with the Xserve and the Xserve RAID and Xserve node offer very similar functionality.
I'm sure in the context of Apple, "enterprise" refers to large, perhaps non academic accounts.
Yes, the Fortune 5000.
I don't see Apple producing a blade product on their own either, for one thing, they would also have to produce a chassis to put it in as well. The engineering and design costs have to be astronomical for developing these things.
That is why I see the OEMing of the IBM Blade Center product as a slam dunk, no brainer way for Apple to offer this type of product. Design a front plate with the Apple logo is about all they would have to do.
All of the work will be to make sure that OSX runs on the IBM hardware. This is software engineering, something that Apple excels at. And Apple and IBM engineers have no doubt been working very closely in getting the 970 into Apple products as the G5. Wonder what those same teams are working on now?
The talk about IBM and Apple joint ventures misses a major flaw... IBM is really a series of smaller companies, all operating individually to make money. ... If you look at IBM then you will see that the top level has mandated 'services' as the target.
The impact is this, while the micro electronics group is hell bent on expanding the penetration of the 970 so that it can make more money, there is no reason under the sun to make the PC division build systems around the 970. ... There is no space for Apple.
That could change any day. All ( ha ) it takes is someone with vision to get on the ball. (emphasis mine}
With no powerful champion for a coherent product line, running powerpc from bottom to top, it will never happen.
Personally, I expect to see IBM's product divisions get sold off ( just like the hard drive division ). Im not sure who would buy the powerpc guys, maybe Apple, maybe Sun. Real physical things just dont fit IBM anymore.
IBM's core business is selling and supporting the "big iron" You expect them to sell off their core and become another EDS? Not likely, they made a significant investment in the Fishkill fabrication plant in order to produce a processor to compete with Intel, who has begun to threaten their core business of selling top end servers.
Sure they offer Intel based systems because it is profitable for them to do so, but the undercurrent motives behind Fishkill and the GPUL family of processors, is that they want to stop the movement of Intel based CPUs into their turf.
The same is true for Windows, IBM's PC line sells Windows based systems, but at the same time, they are making very significant initiatives with Linux.
Ancient Chineese wisdom: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
About IBM's aversion to making joint ventures:
A Google search for IBM joint venture brought up 181,000 hits, here are some from the first page:
"Ericsson and IBM have joined forces to help financial services companies deliver Mobile internet offerings that go beyond today's business-to-consumer services"
"... one of the interesting features of jobs such as this one, is that IBM and AMD will work in East Fishkill as part of the joint venture they now have."
"Finnair and IBM joint venture, IT service provider Aerosystems Ltd began operations August 1, 2002. Finnair owns 40 percent of the new company and IBM 60 percent. "
"IBM China and China Great Wall Shenzhen Co., Limited (Great Wall) today announced a new manufacturing joint venture in China..."
So I don't think that IBM has any significant aversion to setting up joint ventures with either hardware or software companies. Your point about IBM being made up "smaller" companies neglects to consider that any one of these "smaller" companies dwarfs most other corporations, Apple included.
IBM's core business is selling and supporting the "big iron" You expect them to sell off their core and become another EDS? Not likely, they made a significant investment in the Fishkill fabrication plant in order to produce a processor to compete with Intel, who has begun to threaten their core business of selling top end servers.
It's all about what is good business and what isn't.
IBM's hard drive division may have been struggling to produce profits so IBM decided to jettison it, just as it did with it's printing division years back.
I'm sure that IBM and HP have considered offloading their PC business for the same reasons but decided against it. But perhaps in the future, as computers commoditise more, IBM may?
Quote:
About IBM's aversion to making joint ventures:
It's all about good business and business politics.
When it comes to Operating Systems, IBM hasn't been very successful at pedalling anyone else's systems apart fom Windows and now Linux (which is free).
I doubt Mac OS X Server making much of an impact on IBM's bottom line, so I don't see that happening.
It's all about what is good business and what isn't....
I'm sure that IBM and HP have considered offloading their PC business for the same reasons but decided against it. But perhaps in the future, as computers commoditise more, IBM may?
Right rmendis, it's about good business. IBM still has a PC division because they want to offer a wall to wall IBM solution. They are not interested in placing their PC's in BestBuy. They want their customers to stay within their product portfolio.
Once the customer goes to HP or Dell to shop for their desktops and laptops they are exposed to products that directly compete with the IBM bread and butter servers.
HP bought Compaq to let them expand their PC offerings and market. They would hardly have bought Compaq if they gave any thought to getting out of the PC business.
Quote:
It's all about good business and business politics.
When it comes to Operating Systems, IBM hasn't been very successful at pedalling anyone else's systems apart fom Windows and now Linux (which is free).
Not counting Apple's OSX, how many other PC operating systems are there besides Windows and Linux? Of course there was OS/2, but Microsoft forced them to drop that as a desktop system. Talk about business politics! (or revenge)
Quote:
I doubt Mac OS X Server making much of an impact on IBM's bottom line, so I don't see that happening.
The important thing here, from IBM's perspective, is that OSX runs on IBM processors. I'm sure that OSX server could quite easily run on IBM's PPC based blades and servers. That's the synergy that would make IBM offering OSX server as an option to Windows and Linux a good business decision.
The fact that Linux can also run on PPC products was no doubt a factor in IBM's embracing of it. The same is true for OSX. In fact it makes more sense, because OSX server has a retail price, therefore IBM can charge for it. Of course the real money is in the support and service contracts that go along with these products. In this area IBM is platform agnostic, they can make money from anything they offer.
I don't see and downsides here for IBM, or Apple. IBM could simply add OSX to it's offerings. Apple would get an enormous enterprise credibility boost instantly, which would lead to more sales for themselves. They would also get a percentage from IBM's sales.
This is the PARTNERSHIP that would rock the Industry ~ I say both parties should GO FOT IT!
HP bought Compaq to let them expand their PC offerings and market. They would hardly have bought Compaq if they gave any thought to getting out of the PC business.
Actually, HP would have bought Compaq not so for its PC business as for its server and enterprise businesses.
The HP-Compaq merger allowed consolidation of the PC market but that largely benefited HP's and Compaq'a compettitors' Dell, etc.
Quote:
This is the PARTNERSHIP that would rock the Industry ~ I say both parties should GO FOT IT!
I think the relationship IBM and Apple share vis a vis the PowerPC 970/G5 is a much stronger and healthier relationship than any contrived Apple-IBM partnership.
It is becoming clear (as with the focus of this year's MacWorld) that Apple's strategy is shifting. iPod and online music is a positive new focus for Apple with huge growth potential - both for the iTMS as well as the iPod.
For the Mac, I think Apple should try to commoditise it's hardware in line with PCs (Dells' got a $350 PC). Though to keep the business profitable, Apple will continue to keep Macs higher margin products. Growth will be incredibly difficult. Maintaining its current market share will be a challenge.
An Apple-IBM 'partnership' for the enterprise wouldn't mean much anymore.
That is why I see the OEMing of the IBM Blade Center product as a slam dunk, no brainer way for Apple to offer this type of product. Design a front plate with the Apple logo is about all they would have to do.
But the thing is that an IBM logo on a server has more value in the enterprise than one with an Apple logo. So what's the point?
The high end server and workstation market is lucrative (high margin) and has the advantage of being diverse and not dominated by either Intel or Microsoft.
So perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing for Apple to get in on the server business. However, Apple as a brand doesn't and won't IMHO do well in the enterprise space. Hence the suggestion to purchase a server vendor (SGI - an easy target for Apple) to do so.
There's nothing saying that Apple has to purchase SGI outright. It may be that SGI will be in such dire straights that it could sell off assets (SGI, Silicon Graphics logos, selected technologies, skilled workers, Alias|Waverfont) to Apple (support contracts to say IBM) for much less than the $300 market cap of the company.
Apple could on aquisition of SGI assets, ressurect or rejuvinate the Silicon Graphics moniker for media, games and high end visualisation markets - blades, clusters, HPC systems typical of Silicon Graphics/SGI. Now these could even be POWER machines OEMed from IBM with SGI logos running Mac OS X Server.
I think that one of the biggest advantages for an Apple/IBM partnership or Apple moving into the enterprise space is the effect it could have on their consumer market. A lot of people buy computers for home based on what they have at work, which allows them to have the same software at home if they need to bring work home. It would also make people more familiar with Mac software, and encourage developers to make more Mac software.
Resurecting this thread from page five with an interesting and extensive (caution: long article) opinion piece from deep within the IBM enterprise community. "The Four Hundred" newsletter.
Some quotes from "Two Crazy iSeries ideas for 2004"
Quote:
'This is a vast market, and it represents between five and six years of current iSeries shipments (at rates set for 2001, 2002, and 2003)... " So here is what I want to do... Create a 49-bit OS/400 operating system that will run on current 64-bit PowerPC hardware and will support these old CISC-based OS/400 applications in 48-bit mode. Then support this OS/400 on Apple's G5 servers...
Let's assume the smart people at IBM can figure out how to do this. Take a look at the new Xserve G5 server and Xserve RAID arrays from Apple, which were just announced at Macworld two weeks ago...
This is a pretty inexpensive potential OS/400 server and storage array. If 48-bit OS/400 could be created and ported to these machines, IBM and Apple could work together to repackage a two-way motherboard and a RAID array into a tower chassis... AS/400s, a so-called "eServer Xserve" running OS/400--even at a severely degraded performance--would be a killer upgrade for these OS/400 customers... Enter stage left: the IBM-Apple, co-branded eServer Xserve.
What IBM, Apple, and promised way back in 1991 was an integrated Power platform that would run Windows, AIX, Mac OS, and OS/400. They obviously did not deliver on this. But porting Mac OS X to the eServer Power line (which is embodied in the current iSeries and pSeries lines) could fulfill at least some of that promise. IBM and Apple could offer distinct eServer Xserve machines through a common channel for Mac customers. Alternatively, IBM and Apple could simply support Mac OS X partitions within logical partitions on the Power4 and Power5 lines of machines, alongside OS/400, Linux, and AIX. They could do both. They could also deliver G5-based Integrated Xserve Server cards for iSeries machines running Mac OS X, and they could offer Integrated Xserve Adapter cards for linking Macs to the iSeries storage subsystem and Integrated File System, much as IBM's own xSeries Windows servers can do today.
At the right price--meaning something a bit lower than IBM charges at the street level for its pSeries line--Mac shops might take a shining to much bigger Power-based servers than Apple can deliver. And if Apple charges a bit more than the $999 it currently charges for an unlimited user license to Mac OS X Server edition--maybe it can charge two or three times as much to cover machines with two or three times as many users--it works out for both IBM and Apple. The point is, neither IBM nor Apple wants Mac shops to buy big Windows boxes for their bigger jobs. This strategy gives Mac shops a native option on bigger iron, and it helps prop up the entire Power chip ecosystem on which both Apple and IBM depend to a large extent.
As the author says in his article, "This is a vast market" for these older AS400 systems to be upgraded. Could IBM be convinced to re-write it's AS400 system to run on Xserves? Would they want to? I think that it might be a good way to offer this large group of customers a solution that compares well with converting to Microsoft solutions by these customers. Namely IBM would rather lose a client to an Apple hardware solution than to a Dell solution.
This thread is useful in relation to the newer "Thin Client Mac" thread.
The topic "What is Apple planning for the enterprise?" is of cardinal importance for those that would like to see Apple break into the enterprise, so I hope this <BUMP> will cause more consideration of it.
Somebody takes the topic of Macs in the enterprise seriously, in his InfoWorld column, tech writer Ephraim Schwartz talks about Apple's stealth efforts to crack the enterprise nut.
Quote:
Frankly, if Apple did more than dabble, if it went wider and deeper with an enterprise product line, there might be a market willing to put Apple on the short list, if not welcome the company with open arms.
There are a couple of other obstacles Apple faces in selling into larger markets. For one, enterprise customers don?t like to buy version-one products. They need to be tested by time. Well, Apple has a start here with its installed base. The installed base is the version-one market, and they can become reference customers.
Apple also needs to convince the enterprise that its products exist in an ecosystem. The server in itself has less value if the complementary products and applications aren't ported to go with them.
But maybe something is afoot at Apple. Last year, the company hired Oracle's former top sales honcho Sebastian Gunningham. He has a leading executive sales position at Apple.
Why would Gunningham take the spot? Name one other high-powered sales person you know who would be satisfied with making opportunistic sales only.
Apple has also extended Xserve RAID's links; it is now Windows Server- and Red Hat Linux-certified.
In the long run, the enterprise won?t make a commitment to Apple if Apple is unwilling to make one to the enterprise, and to make it publicly. Apple cannot survive by just feeding off its installed base, and the company knows it.
Move ahead or fall back, it?s the way of the business world.
In response to the above article Mr. Schwartz was sent information from a MWSF session about a study conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Labs about Macs in the enterprise and he has published an article based on their findings:
Quote:
The biggest message out of this case study has the following headline:
"Difficulties for Apple -- Apple's needed 'confidentiality' and Corporate It's need of 'road-map' information"
The summary report card gives Apple and LLNL the following grades:
* Security = A
* Integration with Enterprise apps = C
* OS 9 to X transition = B
* Getting help from Apple = C+
The study calls on Apple to have a "Stronger Enterprise focus" and concludes that "die-hard non-Mac users in the IT world slowly coming around to see Macs as an attractive platform."
Obviously security is uppermost in the minds of the folks at LLNL and the LLNL case study notes that "cross-platform applications free organizations from a monolithic OS base that by nature places them at an unacceptably high cybersecurity risk."
That last statement underscores the dangers in living in an all Microsoft world. The last time someone publicly said that, it cost them their job. This time it's being said by one of the most prestigious U.S. research laboratories.
Will this message slowly disrupt Microsoft's domination of an Industry?
A PDF of the Mac World session: "A Case Study: What Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Has Learned about Integrating Macs in our Enterprise"
Comments
Originally posted by Aphelion
The Alias/Wavefront software division is the "crown jewel" in SGI's remaining portfolio. Now buying this would be a great advance for Apple's plans to dominate in the film/graphics market.
I think Apple's best move is to compete against SGI's core markets by going upscale in the enterprise, thus putting more pressure on SGI's operations then buying Alias/Wavefront when SGI becomes desperate (and hiring some of the engineers).
Also check out Alias' StudioTools modeling software which would give AutoCad a run for the money.
Yes, true that Alias|Wavefront alone would probably be a better purchase for Apple.
However, high end hardware is not such a bad business to be in especially as the margins are higher (than that of commodity desktops and clients).
The strength of the Apple brand works to its advantage and disadvantage too. It is a highly recognised consumer brand. That meant that when Apple introduced the iPod and the iTMS, it found success.
It also meant that Apple's many forays into the business or enterprise markets have failed.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a workstation class machine from Apple do very well (and compete with SGI's MIPS/IRIX workstations). An Xstation? A quad G5 box with workstation class graphics from ATI and nVIDIA.
However, breaking into the high end server space will be very difficult, if not almost impossible. Simply because of the lack of mindshare in that market, lack of sales force, credibility, support and attitude that say IBM has in selling into that market.
Originally posted by rmendis
... However, high end hardware is not such a bad business to be in ... The strength of the Apple brand works to its advantage and disadvantage too... many forays into the business or enterprise markets have failed... However, breaking into the high end server space will be very difficult ... lack of sales force, credibility, support and attitude that say IBM has in selling into that market.
As I said earlier:
IBM's blades and Blade Center chassis are also a perfect fit with Apple's server strategy. No R&D expenses to recover, instant roll-out (MWSF?) and World Class IBM support and service ... Apple can OEM these from IBM and let IBM service and support them. Instant acceptance in the corporate world.
On the software side IBM and Apple could be extremely complimentary. Why wouldn't IBM not want to offer another choice in operating systems? They would make their money from the support and service contracts.
...
A thin client from Apple to compliment the OSX blades in the server room would be a major inducement for both business and educational use. (think Sun Ray).
...
What would Apple lose by allowing IBM to offer OSX server on their big iron? What would they gain?
So would you comment on the possibility of Apple and IBM working together in gaining Industry and enterprise accounts?
Originally posted by rmendis
I wouldn't be surprised to see a workstation class machine from Apple do very well (and compete with SGI's MIPS/IRIX workstations). An Xstation? A quad G5 box with workstation class graphics from ATI and nVIDIA.
Oh yes a 4, or even 8 way, "Xstation" would be great for the film industry, and to eat into SGI's turf in Scientific and Genetic studies. And it would give great credibility in the enterprise, but unless the enterprise is in one of the fields mentioned above they won't have much use for such a beast.
Originally posted by Aphelion
So would you comment on the possibility of Apple and IBM working together in gaining Industry and enterprise accounts?
IBM already has too much on its plate already with its AIX, OS400 and Linux OSs in the mid range server market.
To offer Mac OS X Server in addition may not be hugely successful or strategic for IBM - therefore something they are unlikely to persue.
On the otherhand, an Apple SGI aquisition/merger would have the advantage of migrating SGI's customers and developers onto SGI branded POWER/PPC Mac OS X Server platform. The product, market and brand well knit.
I don't see Apple carving a slice of the (mid to high end) server market however hard it tries. IBM partnerships in the past have been short lived and unsuccessful (Taligent, NeXT-IBM deal) because of the company that IBM is - big & bureaucratic. Unless of course, IBM were to purchase Apple outright.
Originally posted by rmendis
IBM already has too much on its plate .... IBM partnerships in the past have been short lived and unsuccessful (Taligent, NeXT-IBM deal) because of the company that IBM is - big & bureaucratic. Unless of course, IBM were to purchase Apple outright.
Believe me rmendis, there was no bigger fan of an Apple acquisition of SGI then me, especially when I held 500 shares of SGI.
Besides the obvious match-up of Alias/Wavefront with Apple's software ambitions there is the SGI Reality Center's Visualization Engine, but I just don't see an enterprise putting this on every desk:
SGI's customer list is impressive.
But less than impressive, is when you take a look at their cash flow which shows a disturbing amount of red ink as portrayed by the numbers in parenthesis. They lost about 50 million last quarter.
For Apple to take on a company whose losses would more than offset Apple's earnings would be a dangerous strategy at this time. Better to wait and continue to chip away at SGI's business from the fringes with their server line.
Once the G5 Xservers, Xserve RAIDs and other products as yet to be announced (blades?) are rolled out SGI's MIPS powered servers will seem rather anemic by comparison. I say compete with SGI, rather than buy them. Apple can begin migrating SGI's customers without buying the list from them.
With regards to what IBM has on it's "plate" we are talking banquet here, not some single serving pot luck dinner. There is plenty of room on the banquet table for tiny Apples.
IBM is working hard to limit the Wintel monopoly's foray onto their turf. Sure they offer Windows and Intel products in their portfolio, but I'm convinced that they would be happy to sell OSX on PPC (their own) based CPU's. Just as they are happy to offer Linux solutions. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, IBM is platform agnostic, but given a choice they would love to offer anything that runs on their CPU's.
From IBM's perspective, why not allow Apple to re-brand their Blade Center products? From Apple's perspective, why not allow IBM to offer sales and support contracts on Apple's high end enterprise hardware?
Can you point out any downsides for either IBM or Apple here?
Originally posted by Aphelion
From IBM's perspective, why not allow Apple to re-brand their Blade Center products? From Apple's perspective, why not allow IBM to offer sales and support contracts on Apple's high end enterprise hardware?
Can you point out any downsides for either IBM or Apple here?
From IBM's perspective it's great, but it's not good business from Apple's point of view. They would be reselling IBM's hardware at a much lower margin than IBM because IBM would be getting their cut. Offering the same product will make them direct competitors and IBM will be holding all the cards. IBM would always be able to undercut Apple, and it would become an immediate issue if IBM and Apple are going head to head for a big installation contract.
I think I said this earlier, but the only reason Apple would consider this is if having a blade offering increases their ability to sell other hardware. But if Apple's really serious about HPC and blades, they'd be better off making their own blade and building on the success of the Big Mac.
In this scenario they probably release 1U G5 XServes at MWSF along with an announcement that the first 1500 of them are going to X university to create the 2nd most powerful supercomputer in the world and 500 of them are going to Pixar. Come out with a bang. Then 6 months or a year down the line they release the XBlade.
The only problem I see with this (or with Apple reselling IBM's blade) is that the HPC market is completely different from the business market that's buying blades. I admit to being no expert of enterprise computing markets, but it seems like blades are bought by business for serving applications, usually a custom app of some sort, to lots of users. They don't make great file servers or web servers, and for HPC you seem to give up too much in processor speed. A HPC center probably has enough space to deal with the slightly lower compute density of a DP XServe vs IBM's blade. I don't know really. The BladeCenter can fit 28 G5s @ 1.6Ghz into 7U vs 14 G5s @ 2.0 (a guess maybe they'll have 2.4s). I guess it is significantly more compute density, but I've just never heard of a major cluster running on blades, there must be a reason. Apple's market is usually file and print servers though, and blades aren't designed for that.
As for the support contracts, that's where the real money is, so why would Apple just give this business to IBM? Partnering with IBM to offer better support services than Apple's capable of could make sense here, but Apple could use anyone. EDS comes to mind.
Originally posted by spankalee
As for the support contracts, that's where the real money is, so why would Apple just give this business to IBM? Partnering with IBM to offer better support services than Apple's capable of could make sense here, but Apple could use anyone. EDS comes to mind.
In a joint venture IBM could supply the enterprise marketing sales and hardware support, and Apple could clean up on software licensing and software tech support. All Apple needs to do is license OS X server to IBM for use in the Enterprise market with a deal that brings Apple $ for every support contract IBM makes in return for Apple's software tech support. The downside of this is that IBM would want to make and sell their own hardware, so Apple might loose some control of the hardware.
Edit: After rereading your post this is what you are suggesting, a partnership for OS X in IBM's computers.
Originally posted by spankalee
From IBM's perspective it's great, but it's not good business from Apple's point of view...
... why would Apple just give this business to IBM? Partnering with IBM to offer better support services than Apple's capable of could make sense here, but Apple could use anyone. EDS comes to mind.
Apple would love to be able to offer IBM's support services, it's instant credibility in enterprise accounts. Just like in CompUSA stores your can buy AppleCare or CUSA's TAP, take your pick. If Apple and CompUSA can work this out I'm sure Apple and IBM could too.
Blades are most commonly used with thin clients to eliminate the computer on the desk. The Apple thin client would be used 1:1 with blades, or in the case of NetBooted clients, one blade could service multiple "smart" terminals (the "tMac").
The reasons for this is to keep all the maintenance in the server room, and for reducing support and security issues. These things are important on the enterprise level with perhaps thousands of desktops to service and secure.
Without this or a similar, and equally cost effective, method Apple can't compete with what other enterprise players are offering. The blade center concept is diametrically opposite to Microsoft's vision of a "FAT" client, a NGSCB (Palladium) equipped next generation PeeCee running Longhorn talking to (and sharing secrets with) a Windows server farm deep in the bowels of Redmond.
Right now Apple doesn't have any of this stuff in place. IBM is releasing theirs in March. Apple could announce an Apple branded Blade Center of their own at MWSF 2004 just by placing an order with IBM. The only development work or new hardware they would have to design is a thin client and the "tMac", a trivial exercise compared with say, a G5 Powerbook.
In fact the mainboard of this "tMac" could be built from the same components as the G5 Powerbook. What a great way to develop a portable G5. Test them by the thousands in a small enclosure.
As far as "margins" all of the payback for the R&D of a product comes out of the margin over manufacturing costs. IBM will be happy to have a volume customer for their Blade Centers to spread this R&D cost out. And Apple will be happy to be able to play in this market without any R&D costs. (to speak of).
IBM knows that they won't be challenged by Apple in their major enterprise accounts, because Apple will have their own accounts to pursue. IBM will continue to target the Fortune 500 while Apple will be targeting the Fortune 5000.
The impact is this, while the micro electronics group is hell bent on expanding the penetration of the 970 so that it can make more money, there is no reason under the sun to make the PC division build systems around the 970. The same goes for servers, they want to sell service contracts to maintain AS400 systems, and Linux ( because there is market demand ) and AIX. They already have a huge political investment in selling and maintaining these products. There is no space for Apple.
That could change any day. All ( ha ) it takes is someone with vision to get on the ball.
Anecdotally you can see the IBM culture at work with OS/2. OS/2 was driven by a single man ( who's name escapes me ), and the moment he was promoted OS/2 died. There was no internal support for OS/2, except for what he created. With no powerful champion for a coherent product line, running powerpc from bottom to top, it will never happen.
Personally, I expect to see IBM's product divisions get sold off ( just like the hard drive division ). Im not sure who would buy the powerpc guys, maybe Apple, maybe Sun. Real physical things just dont fit IBM anymore.
Originally posted by Aphelion
SGI's customer list is impressive.
But less than impressive, is when you take a look at their cash flow which shows a disturbing amount of red ink as portrayed by the numbers in parenthesis. They lost about 50 million last quarter.
For Apple to take on a company whose losses would more than offset Apple's earnings would be a dangerous strategy at this time. Better to wait and continue to chip away at SGI's business from the fringes with their server line.
I think you are right in saying that Apple, SGI aquisition/merger If at all) should wait until SGI was back in black. It seems to me that SGI is still in need of more restructuring.
Perhaps they should get rid of more of their unprofitable server lines? Excess assets, etc. Perhaps it's an opportune moment for SGI to sell Alias|Wavefront to Apple?
Another alternative would be for SGI to sell themselves to IBM. With SGI out of the way, there will be a migration of SGI customers onto new platforms. Apple and IBM in particular can target them.
Once the G5 Xservers, Xserve RAIDs and other products as yet to be announced (blades?) are rolled out SGI's MIPS powered servers will seem rather anemic by comparison. I say compete with SGI, rather than buy them. Apple can begin migrating SGI's customers without buying the list from them.
I don't see Apple producing a blade type server in addition to the Xserves. If at all Apple could develop the Xserve into a blade architecture, but what they have now with the Xserve and the Xserve RAID and Xserve node offer very similar functionality.
I'm sure in the context of Apple, "enterprise" refers to large, perhaps non academic accounts.
Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
I have six machines to clone and OSX 10.3 server, I cannot find decent documentation to get me through the entire process. I have 1800 pc's and maybe 100 Macs, I cannot waste days trying to learn how to clone a drive (which is easy) then how to distribute the image using NetInstall. As long as the manual method of installing software on a Mac is quicker than "learning" the automated process, I nor my workers will not invest the resources to do so as there are plenty of other more pending issues to be addressed in the Mac world (AD auth, security ramifications of AD auth, scripting shared resources, etc).
I bought Ghost and had a 30 seat pc lab imaged in 2 hours without training. It took a week to fine tune it but the immediate payoff was enough for me to allocate resources to such a project. My two days wasted on Mac imaging have just given me frustration and I'll put it on the back burner and work on my Windows scripts again since they work and have much better documentation - and I despise Windows.
I am the average IT administrator and Apple still isn't talking my language on many fronts...but this is the latest example.
It's too hard to make a standard image and deploy that?
Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
I have six machines to clone and OSX 10.3 server, I cannot find decent documentation to get me through the entire process. I have 1800 pc's and maybe 100 Macs, I cannot waste days trying to learn how to clone a drive (which is easy) then how to distribute the image using NetInstall. As long as the manual method of installing software on a Mac is quicker than "learning" the automated process, I nor my workers will not invest the resources to do so as there are plenty of other more pending issues to be addressed in the Mac world (AD auth, security ramifications of AD auth, scripting shared resources, etc).
I bought Ghost and had a 30 seat pc lab imaged in 2 hours without training. It took a week to fine tune it but the immediate payoff was enough for me to allocate resources to such a project. My two days wasted on Mac imaging have just given me frustration and I'll put it on the back burner and work on my Windows scripts again since they work and have much better documentation - and I despise Windows.
I am the average IT administrator and Apple still isn't talking my language on many fronts...but this is the latest example.
I'm not sure which language you speak but there seems to be a variety of languages that Apple distributes what you are asking for...see http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=50525
Also, you may want to check the documentation that came with your OS X Server Software. You will find it useful!
Net-Install imaging is not hard at all and will save you valuable time.
Originally posted by rmendis
... Another alternative would be for SGI to sell themselves to IBM. With SGI out of the way, there will be a migration of SGI customers onto new platforms. Apple and IBM in particular can target them.
Now this is an idea that I can get behind as a possibility. IBM could make far better use of the SGI customer list than Apple could (in a purchase scenario).
It's interesting that MIPS, the power behind SGI hardware is a "fabless" Chip company - they only sell licenses to produce their chips, and as we know, IBM has a brand new fab (Fishkill) that they need to use to capacity. With a license from MIPS IBM could continue to build SGI gear without a time consuming and expensive (from an engineering standpoint) across the board transition to PPC processors.
Now, an Apple | IBM partnered buyout of SGI makes complete sense. With IBM taking the Hardware and Software (IRIS) portions of SGI (the major portion) and Apple buying the Alias software division. I don't think that SGI would sell Alias alone, because they are significantly keeping the rest of SGI afloat. You don't get rid of a division or subsidiary that is making money, unless you can find a buyer for the whole enchilada.
Another interesting, if unrelated point, is that this is Alias | Waverfront's 20th anniversary year. They have dropped the "| Wavefront" part of their name and are now named "Alias" and their logo is a "swirl symbol" which looks something like the "at" sign: @ Alias
Originally posted by rmendis
I don't see Apple producing a blade type server in addition to the Xserves. If at all Apple could develop the Xserve into a blade architecture, but what they have now with the Xserve and the Xserve RAID and Xserve node offer very similar functionality.
I'm sure in the context of Apple, "enterprise" refers to large, perhaps non academic accounts.
Yes, the Fortune 5000.
I don't see Apple producing a blade product on their own either, for one thing, they would also have to produce a chassis to put it in as well. The engineering and design costs have to be astronomical for developing these things.
That is why I see the OEMing of the IBM Blade Center product as a slam dunk, no brainer way for Apple to offer this type of product. Design a front plate with the Apple logo is about all they would have to do.
All of the work will be to make sure that OSX runs on the IBM hardware. This is software engineering, something that Apple excels at. And Apple and IBM engineers have no doubt been working very closely in getting the 970 into Apple products as the G5. Wonder what those same teams are working on now?
Originally posted by mmmpie :
The talk about IBM and Apple joint ventures misses a major flaw... IBM is really a series of smaller companies, all operating individually to make money. ... If you look at IBM then you will see that the top level has mandated 'services' as the target.
The impact is this, while the micro electronics group is hell bent on expanding the penetration of the 970 so that it can make more money, there is no reason under the sun to make the PC division build systems around the 970. ... There is no space for Apple.
That could change any day. All ( ha ) it takes is someone with vision to get on the ball. (emphasis mine}
With no powerful champion for a coherent product line, running powerpc from bottom to top, it will never happen.
Personally, I expect to see IBM's product divisions get sold off ( just like the hard drive division ). Im not sure who would buy the powerpc guys, maybe Apple, maybe Sun. Real physical things just dont fit IBM anymore.
IBM's core business is selling and supporting the "big iron" You expect them to sell off their core and become another EDS? Not likely, they made a significant investment in the Fishkill fabrication plant in order to produce a processor to compete with Intel, who has begun to threaten their core business of selling top end servers.
Sure they offer Intel based systems because it is profitable for them to do so, but the undercurrent motives behind Fishkill and the GPUL family of processors, is that they want to stop the movement of Intel based CPUs into their turf.
The same is true for Windows, IBM's PC line sells Windows based systems, but at the same time, they are making very significant initiatives with Linux.
Ancient Chineese wisdom: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
About IBM's aversion to making joint ventures:
A Google search for IBM joint venture brought up 181,000 hits, here are some from the first page:
IBM | Erricson Joint Venture
"Ericsson and IBM have joined forces to help financial services companies deliver Mobile internet offerings that go beyond today's business-to-consumer services"
IBM | AMD Joint Venture
"... one of the interesting features of jobs such as this one, is that IBM and AMD will work in East Fishkill as part of the joint venture they now have."
IBM | Finnair Joint Venture
"Finnair and IBM joint venture, IT service provider Aerosystems Ltd began operations August 1, 2002. Finnair owns 40 percent of the new company and IBM 60 percent. "
IBM | FatWire Software in Joint Venture
"IBM has formed a UK alliance with FatWire Software, a leading provider of dynamic content management systems "
IBM | Great Wall Joint Venture
"IBM China and China Great Wall Shenzhen Co., Limited (Great Wall) today announced a new manufacturing joint venture in China..."
So I don't think that IBM has any significant aversion to setting up joint ventures with either hardware or software companies. Your point about IBM being made up "smaller" companies neglects to consider that any one of these "smaller" companies dwarfs most other corporations, Apple included.
Originally posted by Aphelion
IBM's core business is selling and supporting the "big iron" You expect them to sell off their core and become another EDS? Not likely, they made a significant investment in the Fishkill fabrication plant in order to produce a processor to compete with Intel, who has begun to threaten their core business of selling top end servers.
It's all about what is good business and what isn't.
IBM's hard drive division may have been struggling to produce profits so IBM decided to jettison it, just as it did with it's printing division years back.
I'm sure that IBM and HP have considered offloading their PC business for the same reasons but decided against it. But perhaps in the future, as computers commoditise more, IBM may?
About IBM's aversion to making joint ventures:
It's all about good business and business politics.
When it comes to Operating Systems, IBM hasn't been very successful at pedalling anyone else's systems apart fom Windows and now Linux (which is free).
I doubt Mac OS X Server making much of an impact on IBM's bottom line, so I don't see that happening.
Originally posted by rmendis :
It's all about what is good business and what isn't....
I'm sure that IBM and HP have considered offloading their PC business for the same reasons but decided against it. But perhaps in the future, as computers commoditise more, IBM may?
Right rmendis, it's about good business. IBM still has a PC division because they want to offer a wall to wall IBM solution. They are not interested in placing their PC's in BestBuy. They want their customers to stay within their product portfolio.
Once the customer goes to HP or Dell to shop for their desktops and laptops they are exposed to products that directly compete with the IBM bread and butter servers.
HP bought Compaq to let them expand their PC offerings and market. They would hardly have bought Compaq if they gave any thought to getting out of the PC business.
It's all about good business and business politics.
When it comes to Operating Systems, IBM hasn't been very successful at pedalling anyone else's systems apart fom Windows and now Linux (which is free).
Not counting Apple's OSX, how many other PC operating systems are there besides Windows and Linux? Of course there was OS/2, but Microsoft forced them to drop that as a desktop system. Talk about business politics! (or revenge)
I doubt Mac OS X Server making much of an impact on IBM's bottom line, so I don't see that happening.
The important thing here, from IBM's perspective, is that OSX runs on IBM processors. I'm sure that OSX server could quite easily run on IBM's PPC based blades and servers. That's the synergy that would make IBM offering OSX server as an option to Windows and Linux a good business decision.
The fact that Linux can also run on PPC products was no doubt a factor in IBM's embracing of it. The same is true for OSX. In fact it makes more sense, because OSX server has a retail price, therefore IBM can charge for it. Of course the real money is in the support and service contracts that go along with these products. In this area IBM is platform agnostic, they can make money from anything they offer.
I don't see and downsides here for IBM, or Apple. IBM could simply add OSX to it's offerings. Apple would get an enormous enterprise credibility boost instantly, which would lead to more sales for themselves. They would also get a percentage from IBM's sales.
This is the PARTNERSHIP that would rock the Industry ~ I say both parties should GO FOT IT!
Originally posted by Aphelion
HP bought Compaq to let them expand their PC offerings and market. They would hardly have bought Compaq if they gave any thought to getting out of the PC business.
Actually, HP would have bought Compaq not so for its PC business as for its server and enterprise businesses.
The HP-Compaq merger allowed consolidation of the PC market but that largely benefited HP's and Compaq'a compettitors' Dell, etc.
This is the PARTNERSHIP that would rock the Industry ~ I say both parties should GO FOT IT!
I think the relationship IBM and Apple share vis a vis the PowerPC 970/G5 is a much stronger and healthier relationship than any contrived Apple-IBM partnership.
It is becoming clear (as with the focus of this year's MacWorld) that Apple's strategy is shifting. iPod and online music is a positive new focus for Apple with huge growth potential - both for the iTMS as well as the iPod.
For the Mac, I think Apple should try to commoditise it's hardware in line with PCs (Dells' got a $350 PC). Though to keep the business profitable, Apple will continue to keep Macs higher margin products. Growth will be incredibly difficult. Maintaining its current market share will be a challenge.
An Apple-IBM 'partnership' for the enterprise wouldn't mean much anymore.
Originally posted by Aphelion
That is why I see the OEMing of the IBM Blade Center product as a slam dunk, no brainer way for Apple to offer this type of product. Design a front plate with the Apple logo is about all they would have to do.
But the thing is that an IBM logo on a server has more value in the enterprise than one with an Apple logo. So what's the point?
The high end server and workstation market is lucrative (high margin) and has the advantage of being diverse and not dominated by either Intel or Microsoft.
So perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing for Apple to get in on the server business. However, Apple as a brand doesn't and won't IMHO do well in the enterprise space. Hence the suggestion to purchase a server vendor (SGI - an easy target for Apple) to do so.
There's nothing saying that Apple has to purchase SGI outright. It may be that SGI will be in such dire straights that it could sell off assets (SGI, Silicon Graphics logos, selected technologies, skilled workers, Alias|Waverfont) to Apple (support contracts to say IBM) for much less than the $300 market cap of the company.
Apple could on aquisition of SGI assets, ressurect or rejuvinate the Silicon Graphics moniker for media, games and high end visualisation markets - blades, clusters, HPC systems typical of Silicon Graphics/SGI. Now these could even be POWER machines OEMed from IBM with SGI logos running Mac OS X Server.
Some quotes from "Two Crazy iSeries ideas for 2004"
'This is a vast market, and it represents between five and six years of current iSeries shipments (at rates set for 2001, 2002, and 2003)... " So here is what I want to do... Create a 49-bit OS/400 operating system that will run on current 64-bit PowerPC hardware and will support these old CISC-based OS/400 applications in 48-bit mode. Then support this OS/400 on Apple's G5 servers...
Let's assume the smart people at IBM can figure out how to do this. Take a look at the new Xserve G5 server and Xserve RAID arrays from Apple, which were just announced at Macworld two weeks ago...
This is a pretty inexpensive potential OS/400 server and storage array. If 48-bit OS/400 could be created and ported to these machines, IBM and Apple could work together to repackage a two-way motherboard and a RAID array into a tower chassis... AS/400s, a so-called "eServer Xserve" running OS/400--even at a severely degraded performance--would be a killer upgrade for these OS/400 customers... Enter stage left: the IBM-Apple, co-branded eServer Xserve.
What IBM, Apple, and promised way back in 1991 was an integrated Power platform that would run Windows, AIX, Mac OS, and OS/400. They obviously did not deliver on this. But porting Mac OS X to the eServer Power line (which is embodied in the current iSeries and pSeries lines) could fulfill at least some of that promise. IBM and Apple could offer distinct eServer Xserve machines through a common channel for Mac customers. Alternatively, IBM and Apple could simply support Mac OS X partitions within logical partitions on the Power4 and Power5 lines of machines, alongside OS/400, Linux, and AIX. They could do both. They could also deliver G5-based Integrated Xserve Server cards for iSeries machines running Mac OS X, and they could offer Integrated Xserve Adapter cards for linking Macs to the iSeries storage subsystem and Integrated File System, much as IBM's own xSeries Windows servers can do today.
At the right price--meaning something a bit lower than IBM charges at the street level for its pSeries line--Mac shops might take a shining to much bigger Power-based servers than Apple can deliver. And if Apple charges a bit more than the $999 it currently charges for an unlimited user license to Mac OS X Server edition--maybe it can charge two or three times as much to cover machines with two or three times as many users--it works out for both IBM and Apple. The point is, neither IBM nor Apple wants Mac shops to buy big Windows boxes for their bigger jobs. This strategy gives Mac shops a native option on bigger iron, and it helps prop up the entire Power chip ecosystem on which both Apple and IBM depend to a large extent.
As the author says in his article, "This is a vast market" for these older AS400 systems to be upgraded. Could IBM be convinced to re-write it's AS400 system to run on Xserves? Would they want to? I think that it might be a good way to offer this large group of customers a solution that compares well with converting to Microsoft solutions by these customers. Namely IBM would rather lose a client to an Apple hardware solution than to a Dell solution.
This thread is useful in relation to the newer "Thin Client Mac" thread.
The topic "What is Apple planning for the enterprise?" is of cardinal importance for those that would like to see Apple break into the enterprise, so I hope this <BUMP> will cause more consideration of it.
Frankly, if Apple did more than dabble, if it went wider and deeper with an enterprise product line, there might be a market willing to put Apple on the short list, if not welcome the company with open arms.
There are a couple of other obstacles Apple faces in selling into larger markets. For one, enterprise customers don?t like to buy version-one products. They need to be tested by time. Well, Apple has a start here with its installed base. The installed base is the version-one market, and they can become reference customers.
Apple also needs to convince the enterprise that its products exist in an ecosystem. The server in itself has less value if the complementary products and applications aren't ported to go with them.
But maybe something is afoot at Apple. Last year, the company hired Oracle's former top sales honcho Sebastian Gunningham. He has a leading executive sales position at Apple.
Why would Gunningham take the spot? Name one other high-powered sales person you know who would be satisfied with making opportunistic sales only.
Apple has also extended Xserve RAID's links; it is now Windows Server- and Red Hat Linux-certified.
In the long run, the enterprise won?t make a commitment to Apple if Apple is unwilling to make one to the enterprise, and to make it publicly. Apple cannot survive by just feeding off its installed base, and the company knows it.
Move ahead or fall back, it?s the way of the business world.
In response to the above article Mr. Schwartz was sent information from a MWSF session about a study conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Labs about Macs in the enterprise and he has published an article based on their findings:
The biggest message out of this case study has the following headline:
"Difficulties for Apple -- Apple's needed 'confidentiality' and Corporate It's need of 'road-map' information"
The summary report card gives Apple and LLNL the following grades:
* Security = A
* Integration with Enterprise apps = C
* OS 9 to X transition = B
* Getting help from Apple = C+
The study calls on Apple to have a "Stronger Enterprise focus" and concludes that "die-hard non-Mac users in the IT world slowly coming around to see Macs as an attractive platform."
Obviously security is uppermost in the minds of the folks at LLNL and the LLNL case study notes that "cross-platform applications free organizations from a monolithic OS base that by nature places them at an unacceptably high cybersecurity risk."
That last statement underscores the dangers in living in an all Microsoft world. The last time someone publicly said that, it cost them their job. This time it's being said by one of the most prestigious U.S. research laboratories.
Will this message slowly disrupt Microsoft's domination of an Industry?
A PDF of the Mac World session: "A Case Study: What Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Has Learned about Integrating Macs in our Enterprise"