IBM 970 - Return Of Clones ???

xtreme · October 21, 2002 2:34PM

Just wondering ...

If IBM woulf release their own boxes using this CPU ... wouldn't that effectively be creating a mac clone since it is using PowerPC techonology ...Possibly being able to install MacOS on it too (abeit maybe easier said than done) ???

outsider · October 21, 2002 2:35PM

Apple could always slip a nice proprietary ROM that would be needed for booting MacOS X. I'm sure they will have their bases covers in regards to that.

leonis · October 21, 2002 3:00PM

But I THINK letting OS X Server running on CHRP hardware would be nice.

Let IBM build the high end server and license OS X server from Apple. Both will be happy.

mrmister · October 21, 2002 3:03PM

No. No.

The answer is: No.

The odds are: 0%.

No.

jcg · October 21, 2002 3:16PM

It would not be a Mac clone unless Apple supported the hardware in OS X. There would probably be hacks written to support it, but I doubt that would be much of a threat to Apple's hardware sales. Also, a CHRP system couldnt be marked as Mac compatable without Apples OK, a legal battle would surely follow, and any company doing so would loose that battle.

zo · October 21, 2002 4:55PM

plus, I DONT think IBM will start making and selling hardware that is THAT much (if at all) cheaper than what Apple has to offer.

airsluf · October 21, 2002 6:15PM

dave k. · October 21, 2002 7:25PM

[quote]Originally posted by Xtreme:

Just wondering ...

If IBM woulf release their own boxes using this CPU ... wouldn't that effectively be creating a mac clone since it is using PowerPC techonology ...Possibly being able to install MacOS on it too (abeit maybe easier said than done) ???<hr></blockquote>

And have the IBM clones ONLY available to business/corporate/enterprise customers. This way the clones don't complete with bread and butter customers.

barto · October 21, 2002 7:27PM

There will probably be no difference in the booting system between current Macs and PowerPC 970 based Macs.

If someone has the balls to post Darwin drivers for generic OpenFirmware PowerPCs, I salute you. Until then, we'll all be stuck running X inside Linux.

Barto

programmer · October 21, 2002 8:40PM

I think its entirely possible that we'll see IBM offering MacOS X as an option on their hardware. This would help Apple immensely in their ongoing bid to get into the enterprise & business markets where IBM excels. IBM's margins are larger than Apple's so I don't think we'd see any undercutting or market canabilization. IBM is pushing Linux, but we all know the advantages of MacOS X and I'm pretty sure IBM has figured that out too. I could also see IBM building higher end machines than Apple wants to, thus allowing Apple to get their software into markets that they otherwise couldn't address. It would also give Apple the ability to point to a "second supplier", which is very important in some markets.

This would be a very different arrangement than the cloning disaster of the '90s, and comparing the two is misleading.

@homenow · October 21, 2002 9:07PM

good ponts Programer, it would be an extreamly benefitial move for Apple, but I dont see Steve doing it.

ast3r3x · October 21, 2002 9:07PM

disaster, i have a motorola clone running in my basement and i'll tell you what, it was a nice piece, and still runs 9 just fine

StarMax 4000/200

200MHz 604e

32MB (96MB in, 160Max)

40MHz bus

2.5GB HD

8X CD-Rom (i think)

beige out the wa-zoo

hobbes · October 21, 2002 9:23PM

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

[QB]I think its entirely possible that we'll see IBM offering MacOS X as an option on their hardware. <hr></blockquote>

But who makes the money from the hardware sales from the above scenario? And who has to pay for server software that would otherwise be free?

Still, an interesting scenario.

"Then we'll have options, we and we like to have options."

mr. me · October 21, 2002 9:32PM

[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

Mac's all still contain proprietary boot ROMs, they are just much smaller than they used to be and have been jealously guarded on the legal fronts, unlike the old BIOS that IBM let out of the bag to that Compaq et.al. in the early 80's. Where do you think OpenFirmware lives???<hr></blockquote>IBM did not let anything out of the bag with Compaq. The BIOS in Compaq's computers was reverse engineered to be a functional replacement for the IBM BIOS. However, the IBM PC BIOS was and is IBM's intellectual property.

kidred · October 21, 2002 10:42PM

[quote]Originally posted by Dave K.:



And have the IBM clones ONLY available to business/corporate/enterprise customers. This way the clones don't complete with bread and butter customers.<hr></blockquote>

Then who buys the Xserve?

I don't see it happening. Nope. I just don't see steve giving away sales of the Xserve and 970 beast tower for IBM to sell it's hardware to it's huge market running X. As much as I'd like to see X with 95% of the market, I don't think Steve has the mentality ot let someone else steal his thunder. The only way would be some type of licensing agreement and fee with each OS, a microsoft type of move or a % of each sale or something.

[edit] Or what about a non mac hardware fee? Like buy X in a mac and it's free, buy it with an IBM and it's $350 or something?

[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]

nevyn · October 21, 2002 10:48PM

[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:



But who makes the money from the hardware sales from the above scenario? And who has to pay for server software that would otherwise be free?

Still, an interesting scenario.

"Then we'll have options, we and we like to have options."<hr></blockquote>

IBM has always (or most always) focused on being a service oriented company. As a service oriented company they do charge a bit more for the hardware - but they are really making most of their money out of the service contracts. So IBM would get money for the chip they sold Apple. Apple would get money for the box they designed. IBM would get money for _selling_ the box. And IBM would get a service contract for it. And IBM can sell boxes in places Apple doesn't even know of. If an IBM client demanded Mac OS X on one of IBM's bigger machines... then Apple only gets the cost of Mac OS X out of them. Maybe a little more if Apple gets into a contract of some sort w/IBM.

_IF_ Apple really has made a unix-based OS that is easy to administer, then IBM would be able to make more money out of servicing Mac OS X than out of servicing their AIX guys.

One of the other directions IBM is moving is the whole 'Virtual Linux server' direction. Where a (very) expensive IBM box pretends to be a pile of Linux boxes. It sounds like it could pretend to be a pile of Darwin boxes if there was an interest, doesn't it?

Oh, '...and who pays for the server software that would otherwise be free?' = the customer of course

Mac OS X Server uses a LOT of common and free/OS tools. The value added part is the easy configuration, the easy maintenance, and the access to a mainstream desktop OS at the same time.

The key thing is that this is all 'unlimited clients'. Practically the motto of everyone not based in Redmond WA.

smircle · October 22, 2002 4:33AM

Originally posted by AirSluf:

[quote]Mac's all still contain proprietary boot ROMs, they are just much smaller than they used to be and have been jealously guarded on the legal fronts, unlike the old BIOS that IBM let out of the bag to that Compaq et.al. in the early 80's. Where do you think OpenFirmware lives???<hr></blockquote>

However, it is worth to notice that OpenFirmware ist an open standard that is used by sun and possibly others as well as Apple. So, whoever wanted to build a clone would need a licence for OF which should be relatively easy to obtain and a modified Darwin. Because Darwin is essentially OpenSource it would be easy to make it run on a PPC-based mainboard if you provided some drivers for your ASICs, 3-button mice and other off-the-shelves PC hardware. Then you might need to do some severe hacking to prevent the Apple installer from overwriting the existing Darwin but essentially it should be much easier to build X-only clones than Sys8/9-capable ones.

programmer · October 22, 2002 10:35AM

Keep in mind that IBM hardware would likely be more expensive than Apple hardware. If people want a good deal and hardware made by the OS vendor, they go to Apple. If they want stylish digital hub stuff, they go to Apple. If they want IBM, well then they go to IBM... and those people wouldn't have gone to some fruit company in the first place.

Rampant cloning cannot happen because Apple would simply prohibit its sale with unauthorized hardware. Sure hardware hacks and geeks hand build systems and then buy Jaguar (or whatever) to run on it... but that is tiny little market, and being able to do that kind of stuff would actually attract more geeks to the platform, which is a good thing. No company could stay in business selling PPC boxes with the OS pre-installed, and the vast majority of the market wants exactly that... along with the support that a company like Apple or IBM provides. The clones are dead and they'll stay that way because Apple simply won't allow their OS to legally run on any hardware that they don't approve -- at least in any volume that matters.

airsluf · October 22, 2002 1:04PM

airsluf · October 22, 2002 1:19PM

mrmister · October 22, 2002 1:50PM

This is all very entertaining, so long as people remember it is total fantasy and will never occur.

IBM 970 - Return Of Clones ???

Comments