Daring to Dream: Apple & IBM 523
Anonymous writes "The Register has
a comment piece of the marriage (speculative) between IBM and Apple. Although wildly speculative, it is not improbable. With IBM already supplying PowerPCs to Apple and Apple having not signed up to IBM's PowerPC consortia, there are hints in this get-together. Apple would also supply IBM with the "lifestyle" side of things. If it does happen, it would be most interesting."
Can you imagine? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Can you imagine? (Score:5, Funny)
When you put it like that, it does sound a bit fishy.
Re:Can you imagine? (Score:3, Funny)
Whoof (Score:5, Funny)
I need more coffee...
Re:Whoof (Score:2)
.... I need more wodka
Re:Whoof (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whoof (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I doubt it could do that, but that isn't the point. Huge as it is, one of the reasons IBM is (allegedly) getting out of the PC hardware business because the margins aren't big enough to make being in it wort
Re:Whoof (Score:3, Insightful)
That is exactly a problem with LINUX's incompatible versions that only a geek can use. An ordinary user cannot go and buy off the shelf or order off the 'net many programs that will run on all versions of LINUX. Until the LINUX community standardizes as well as Windows or the Mac, LINUX will always be a system for professional expers, like most
Re:Whoof (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right in saying that the defection by IBM from the Wintel market would in no way "kill MS", but then I doubt anybody is seriously suggesting that it would. MS is HUGE afterall. On the other hand, if you had read the article, you would know that IBM are in the process of selling off their PC business. Once they have done that they will have precious little reason to want to continue selling MS products. Consider these points;
1) IBM are one of the most active
Linux-on-server evangalists in
vendorspace.
2) IBM continues to harbour extreme
bitterness over they way they were
shafted by MS during the OS/2 fiasco.
3) IBM surely desire to sell more of
their own PPC chips, which are not
supported by the MS OS, but are
supported by both OS/X & Linux.
Add these things together and I find it hard to imagine that IBM would either need or want to continue selling MS products. They might continue to offer some limited MS Server products with their low-end x86 server range alongside the Linux on PPC that they will be undoubtably pushing, just to maintain a "complete" product range but you can bet your bottom dollar that this will be a shrinking business for them and the sooner it dies the better it will be from their perspective.
A marriage with apple would be VERY attractive to IBM. They could for the most part ditch Microsoft altogether and by doing so build up their own PPC CPU business. Apple would become their defacto PC arm, and with IBM pushing Mac OS/X on PPC into businesses you had better believe that a lot of PHB's would stand up and take that seriously as a viable desktop platform. You have the "business cred" of IBM coupled with the "cool factor" of apple and you have a force to be reckoned with.
Big Brother (Score:4, Funny)
buy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:buy (Score:3, Insightful)
Short neither (Score:3, Informative)
Re:buy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:buy (Score:3, Informative)
Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is a company focused on growing its services biz and Apple has none.
Apple is primarily a B2C company and IBM is B2B.
Cultural differences make east vs west like the definition of homogenized
Steve Jobs and his amazing ego
Yeah, except for a few trivial things, it could happen. Hey, frogs could grow claws and live in toilets too!
Re:Except... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cool! That would be akin to my lifelong dream of an asteroid passing the planet and infecting all bears with some kind of mutation that would make them as big as godzilla and give them a taste for people filled buildings. Life is too boring without that kind of thing happening more often.
In other news... didn't Jobs market the Mac as being anti-suit, anti-corporate, anti-business, anti-IBM originally? Oh well, if we had republicans voting for Kerry and deomcrats voting for Bush this past election, ANYTHING is possible.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Err... isn't that part of the whole idea? Why would you merge or buy a company for something you are already good at? The article is based around the fact that the two companies are a natural complement to each other, and these points you make merely support that hypothesis.
Data (Score:5, Insightful)
The old Moto/Apple/IBM alliance of mobile device platforms with services for consumers would supply the platform for extending the iTunes style of services through the computing environment. I spent Sunday getting my girlfriends router back up, and a couple of days a few months ago rebuilding her adware infested Dell into a clean terminal for writing, communicating via email, and surfing. Why?
The world is ripe for change, and these three supply the basics for rebuilding the consumer computing space. Apple provides a clean consumer environment with such very useful technologies such as ZeroConf for transitionaing between home, work, and the road (cell/wi-fi/wired networks). IBM can supply the scalable data services, and Moto the cellular technology.
This makes more sense than the rumors regarding Sun and Apple!
Re:Except... (Score:4, Insightful)
To take them out of the game (although this isn't really applicable in this situation).
Re:Except... (Score:3, Insightful)
To take them out of the game (although this isn't really applicable in this situation).
Correct. That's what's happening in the ORCL vs. PSFT case. It's called a hostile takeover. Watch the poison pill [mergerforum.com] court case, since this will indicate how merger-friendly the rest of the market will be. It could be a massive change in corporate legal defnse against mergers if poison pills are allowed to be removed for expedience.
Re:Except... (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM growing it's services biz and apple not having one is okay, they compliment each other. Apple has a reputation for building easy to use interfaces on top of *nix hardware/software. I'ved used OS X server and it makes running apache/mysql/etc. a lot easier for a *nix novice.
I've been a long time apple fan and I would be cautious of this merger. I'd hate to see apple's "style" or whatever you want to call it formed into the mainstream by the behemouth that is big blue.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Except... (Score:4, Interesting)
I found a giant tree frog in my toilet one morning. When I tried to fish him out, he retreated down the hole and I had to get to work. He wasn't there when I got home. About a month later, moving a desk, I found his mummified body.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Funny)
2. Show him the text of the parent post
3. Ask him to guess in which front-page slashdot story this bizarre comment was actually relevant
Hilarity ensues.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Funny)
Do you also have a tiny Egyptian tribe living in your toilet?
Re:Except... (Score:5, Funny)
I have just overcome my fear of sharks in the toilet. I hope you realize you've just ruined my life.
-Peter
Enterprise/business sales (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would IBM do this? For one reason: customers are asking for it. Maybe IBM is seeing a lot of customers who want to migrate from Windows. IBM can't sell anything to them because IBM doesn't have a lot of other options. Desktop Linux is a joke (sorry). Nobody wants to wait for it to mature.
If IBM signs on as an Apple reseller, then suddenly there's a viable Windows desktop replacement that IBM can sell.
What does Apple get? Sales, lots more sales. IBM becomes a large business channel partner, and Apple can keep ignoring the business market (which is pretty much what it's doing now). Apple tries to make enterprise plays, but it really doesn't have the infrastructure or mentality needed to succeed in the enterprise space.
What are the problems with this scenario? There are a bunch:
* It's unclear that Apple could meet the increased demand.
Apple has problems getting enough inventory to feed its own demand. This apparently is due to IBM's poor G5 yields.
* Apple doesn't understand the needs of business computer people
There's no on-site service, no guaranteed turnaround time, no dedicated support line for businesses. IBM would take care of this.
* Apple's product designs are created with no input (as far as anyone can tell) from customers.
This is a problem. Business computers have different needs than personal computers. They don't need a monitor,and need management tool integration (ARD is nice, but it needs integration with at least Tivoli, CA, and BMC).
* Apple's product cycles are too fast
The buying cycle for business computers is months. Apple's product cycles are a bit too fast, and they'll pop a new box out before the sales cycle is done, requiring readjustment of the sales contract. It's silly, but this is a logistical problem that needs to be fixed. At a minimum, older product needs to be available for shipment/purchase if newer models are released.
* Apple hasn't successfully run a channel operation before
Well, the edu channel was OK, but got whacked recently. Their dealer channel is competing with the Apple store. And basically, Apple may not be able to run a channel very well, being a consumer company.
Don't get me wrong, the benefits to Apple would be huge. The benefits to IBM, the business world, and humanity would also be huge. But it's one thing to float an idea, and it's another to make it successful.
Re:Enterprise/business sales (Score:5, Informative)
* Apple's product designs are created with no input (as far as anyone can tell) from customers.
This is a problem. Business computers have different needs than personal computers. They don't need a monitor,and need management tool integration (ARD is nice, but it needs integration with at least Tivoli, CA, and BMC).
I have met with many product managers, marketing managers, etc. and have been asked very specific questions about existing products, such as suggested improvements to existing products (down to, is it worth $100 to have X integrated, $50, $etc.) or known issues keeping us from achieving our goals (such as advanced IT training). In most cases, the majority of our requests were actually met, albeit in later products, or non-free "upgrades" to products (the same case with most proprietary software, unless you have a maintenance contract).
So, to say that they don't listen is overblown. True, Apple is focused on the consumer/prosumer markets. But, I have been flown in to Cupertino twice to specifically address our needs. The first time, I was not expecting much. But when I saw most of our needs met by the next invitation, I was really pleased with the changes. Having just met with their Pro Apps product manager and sales director, I'm confident that they hear our message and might even do something with it.
Apple has sucked in the past, but they suck less now...
Re:Enterprise/business sales (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I got some bad crack or something, but I think it's a good idea....
Re:Enterprise/business sales (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I can say that your wrong on that point. I purchased an xServe from apple for my company, and I also got a 3 year support contract with it. lets see what it covers:
Yes, i have had to have my xServe serviced, and they were there in the allotted time, And I also get excellent detected phone support. That was all for my own personal business. I also work for a school:
Maybe you have not had the opportunity to work directly with Apple's education channel, but it's a little more then ok, and far from whacked. For the last 5 years, I have been purchasing computers for my program directly through the education channel and am pleased with thier service. I have an education sales agent assigned to me that helps me coordinate all my purchases, and an educational consultant to help me build solutions to work in my special environment. They've even provided me with possible funding sources for certain purchases.
Re:Enterprise/business sales (Score:3, Insightful)
It was for xserve, and "they didn't have the parts in-stock."
Doh!
Re:Enterprise/business sales (Score:3, Funny)
1.) IBM's iPod will be Black and blue.
2.) It's going to have a baby-tie around it. And you can never take it off!
3.) It'll come with a case that looks like a business suit.
4.) It won't be called iPod anymore. I'll just have a serial number.
5.) iPod will be resized to fit in a T-shirt chest pocket only.
6.) It'll play some monotone corporate tune everything it turns on.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remind me again why Cisco bought Linksys? Oh yeah, to capture the small business and consumer market to complete their large business product line.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is primarily a B2C company and IBM is B2B.
Cultural differences make east vs west like the definition of homogenized
Steve Jobs and his amazing ego
Both are overrated. IBM and Apple had to overcome their cultural differences dozen years ago when their founded the PowerPC joint effort. Even then it turned out to be surprisingly easy, although there is an anecdote about IBM engineers wearing jeans and T-Shirts and their Apple counterparts wearing business suits on their first meeting - both sides wanted so badly to please the other side. It's been a long time since then, Apple is no longer a bunch of jolly hippies, IBM is no longer a deadly serious behemoth. Whatever they do together, they do it pretty well, and they did many things together since founding PowerPC platform - to name the powerbook 2400 outsourced to IBM Japan and PowerMac G5. Steve's ego also was no obstacle in striking a deal with Disney, striking a deal with Apple (to buy him back), striking a deal with RIAA to start iTunes Music Store. So I thik all the obstacles you mention actually do not exist at all.
Re:Except... (Score:3, Insightful)
The real burning question of utmost importance is what do you call the beast?
Re:Except... (Score:5, Funny)
That's like buying a new Ferrari and replacing the seats with milk cartons and repainting it with spray paint.
Re:Except... (Score:3, Informative)
Apple: Black turtlenecks and Levi's (don't forget the Birkenstocks)
No, more like:
IBM: Denim workshirts embroidered with the IBM logo, dark blue jeans.
You've got the Jobs uniform down, however.
IBM: Atlanta (ewww) Apple: Cupertino (ewww)
No, IBM is in Armonk, NY.
They're both stubborn. Your point is?
IB-Apple (Score:5, Funny)
i(B)Apple
Apple'BM
iAppleBeMe
BeMiAp
?
Re:IB-Apple (Score:5, Funny)
i(B)Apple - Too mathematic
Apple'BM - Too scatalogical
iAppleBeMe - Too narcissitic
BeMiApple - Too valentine-y
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, how implausible would this have sounded 15 years ago?
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not at all - this was being touted 15 years ago. The whole Pink/Taligent/Magic thing was an Apple and IBM alliance (I may get some codenames mixed up, anyone who knows the ones I'm looking for please jump in). I can remember reading this on the long since defunt UK weekly New Computer Express.
It was actually more plausible then too. IBM were still a major power in the PC world, and Windows dominance hadn't completely taken over.
Cheers,
Ian
Taligent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Taligent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Taligent (Score:5, Interesting)
I do. I worked there. I was one of the system administrators.
You should have seen how the Apple developers (the biggest portion of the developers were from Apple) responded when they all got RS/6000 machines on their desks! They hated them. It was a big honkin' square boxy machine with a clicky keyboard, and a command line. And though the monitor was color, when it booted up, the console looked like a green screen. But it was a PowerPC machine, which they did like. (We used IBM RS/6000 Model 250 machines, which were pizza box shaped 66 MHz PowerPCs. Some of the very first PowerPC machines ever made, I believe.)
Anyway, after a while, sometime in 1994, IBM sent over a bunch of developers. They mixed with the Apple people OK, but they were definitely from two different worlds. The IBM people all brought OS/2 machines with them, and they were just as devoted to those OS/2 machines as the Apple people were to their Macintoshes. Plus they all dressed differently and thought differently. But not entirely differently. They managed to get some work done and build some cool stuff together.
Re:Taligent (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway, one important thing has changed since then: Macs used to be based on OS 9 - very nice GUI with almost no technical merit. Now they run OS X, which, while still sporting a nice GUI, is technically the most advanced OS shipping. large parts of it are written in a dyna
Re:Taligent (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't recall the dates of Steve Job's absence from Apple. Maybe all the Taligent drama played out while Jobs was off conceiving the Next Big Thing. The cultural differences and Mr Job's, uh shall we call it management style, are certainly impediments to a merger. If you think Apple won't be App
Yawn - next rumor, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely NO way that Steve would let this happen. Apple is EXACTLY where they want to be - they may occupy a niche in the PC market but they are trying -- and succeeding -- at being the BMW/Porsche of personal computing rather than GM. They are making money hand over fist, increasing shareholder wealth at a nice pace, and doing all of this with some kick-ass products. Going to IBM would flark all of that up quicker than fast.
Good for IBM, not so good for Apple? (Score:2)
-- n
Apple & IBM (Score:2)
Re:Apple & IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there are all the software ventures they've worked on together. Apple and IBM have been pretty tight for a good decade now.
IMO working together as separate companies, each doing what they do best in the way that works best for them, is a much better fit for both com
Change from RUMOR to WILD SPECULATION (Score:5, Interesting)
For all we know, some editor could have forgot to put Apple's name in there. Or maybe Apple is still sitting on the fence about it, who knows. But this isn't even a "rumor" yet.
There was a time when DEC and Apple were ... (Score:2)
There were wispers of Vaxen as BIG MACS or MAC as a little VAX.
My contact at the time (VP level if I remember correctly) would not talk about it in a mammer that suggested that there was something to it.
Microsoft hater's wet-dream.. (Score:2, Funny)
Mark my word, it ain't gonna happen.
ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM has to have compelling reasons to think it can make money by convincing either (1) corporations to buy macs or (2) consumers to buy from IBM.
Let's look at the price tag. Since Apple's current market cap is $25 billion dollars, IBM would have to pay something in that range to purchase Apple.
To put things in perspective, IBM is expected to receive $1-2 billion from the sale of its existing PC business. IBM has about $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Does IBM have the money? Only by issuing more debt (IBM has about $22 Billion in debt already) OR by purchasing Apple using IBM stock which would dilute shareholder value.
Does IBM have the will and/or stupidity to pursue such a deal? NO.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also far more likely that this a join venture rather than an take over would happen. Apple licenses the OS to IBM, IBM creates business-oriented Mac-compatibles complementing Apple's home-oriented lines. IBM and Apple get to point at each other as a second source (the main advantage x86 PC vendors have over Apple or IBM trying to sell POWER/PowerPC kit).
Re:ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
Still, I think IBM could pull it off ( IFF Steve Jobs wanted them to ), technically. IBM's [yahoo.com] market cap is something like 6 times Apple's [yahoo.com]. What such a move would do to IBM's stock price is an interesting question.
Still, until Steve Jobs starts knocking on doors looking to sell Apple, it's just silly to talk about stuff like this- it's just not going to happen u
Re:ridiculous (Score:3, Funny)
Considering Steve has his iTunes and iPod business going great guns, perhaps the Mac business isn't as important to Apple as it once was.
Maybe Steve is looking to sell his PC division, too!
the new chic (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see teh future of IMB/APPLE laptops being the new chic. High class execs and those that want the style and performance of IBM/APPLE will buy these. Hot damn, I can picture this being the downfall of Microsoft. Now I'm not one to point a finger at anything *nix or not and proclaim the death of MS, but with this I can see it actually happening within the better half of a decade.
I'd buy it.
Very, very old, obligatory joke (Score:5, Funny)
A. IBM.
Shamelessly stolen from Apple Confidential [nostarch.com].
Re:Very, very old, obligatory joke (Score:5, Funny)
IBM selling PC division (Score:3, Interesting)
Its all about return on capital and as the Ipod thing fades (at least from a margin standpoint) Apple once again reverts to a niche player without great prospects for increased return on assets or equity.
This is not to say that Apple wont make money or continue to evolve, it just doesn't make sense financially for IBM to be involved.
New logo (Score:3, Funny)
Or is this just Apple's way of taking over everything that start with the letter I? Ipod, Imac, IBM.....
Re:New logo (Score:3, Funny)
Another Load... (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of industry writers don't seem interested in understanding Apple's motivation (which of course means trying to understand Steve), so they ascribe standard corporate motives, and we end up with wild-ass rumors like this. But of course that doesn't work, and they're wrong a lot (they're right sometimes too, but how many crazy rumors have you heard?), and so the industry looks at Apple like they're the crazy unpredictable man-child of computing. Who happened to get lucky once or twice with the iMac and maybe the iPod. Won't happen again.
But the thing is, they don't want to be on par with other manufacturers, and they don't want to beat them at their own game. Apple wants to change the rules and beat the others at Apple's game. That's the approach they've taken for a long time - iPod being probably the best example. It's also why Apple won't release a sub-$1000 machine, even though it might mean huge market share.
So in short, the article's another load of poorly thought-out crap. The idea that IBM could/would buy Apple is like saying that when you hit the lottery, your boss will be cleaning your house - the transaction has to go both ways, and as willing as IBM may be (and I'm betting they're not), Apple won't bite.
One correction - sub $1k computer is eMac (Score:5, Informative)
Basically though I agree with the point you are making.
I don't see it. (Score:5, Informative)
About the only obvious place the products could tie together is if IBM wanted to sell macs as corporate desktops. But as far as I'm aware when IBM sets up corporate desktops, it's just to sell their server infrastructure and such-- that is, IBM's push isn't "we'll sell you all this infrastructure stuff and give you better corporate desktop machines as well!" it's "we'll sell you this infrastructure stuff and it will work with the corporate desktop machines you were going to sell anyway!" In fact as far as I'm aware despite IBM's great use of Linux in the server space they have yet to use anything but Windows on the desktops their solutions people set up-- they're transitioning [nwfusion.com] to Linux desktops internally, but haven't shown signs that they want to try to change the general corporate-desktop status quo. Given all this, it would seem from IBM's perspective suddenly springing "and you should switch to macs for your desktops!" on their customers would make things a lot harder to sell. So I don't think that Apple's systems have much relevance to IBM. Conversely, I don't see IBM selling DB2 en masse to the end-user consumer market.
Meanwhile the article's support for itself is full of nonsense, for example:
Then of course there is Darwin, Apple's version of BSD Unix at the heart of its Mac OS X operating system, which would nicely provide IBM with a non Linux semi-open source alternative, and one that is focused on its on benchmark beating P (sorry G) 5 microprocessor
Why on earth would IBM want a non Linux semi-open source alternative? First off IBM has been making lots of money out of actually just selling Linux; second off if they needed an alternative to Linux they sell several "real" UNIX derivatives themselves; third off Darwin is very highly specialized for the needs and APIs of OS X, and many of the design decisions therein don't make really a lot of sense except in OS X's context. If IBM wanted to repackage BSD they'd have done it themselves by now.
I could maybe see it making sense if IBM tried to integrate their products better with Apple's-- I.E. trying to twist things so that XServes can be dropped into a IBM infrastructure package, or trying to sell packages of G5s as modeling boxes and IBM hardware as a render farm to places doing industrial graphics work. That would be neat, and definitely wouldn't hurt the situation for either company. However I don't see there being some kind of "missing puzzle piece" either Apple or IBM could fill in by working with the other the way the article seems to imply, and the article doesn't give me good reason to think there is one.
Re:I don't see it. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS Office. The main reason you aren't seeing IBM-made POWER/PowerPC workstations in offices is that they don't run MS Office. If they did, then they would be a lot more popular. There is no version of MS Office for Linux or AIX (I'm not counting Crossover, since it's not supported by MS - something important to corporate customers). There is for OS X.
Not a merger, how about partnership? (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM has wanted to get rid of Microsoft for the last 20 years or so without much success. Microsoft takes a big chunk of the profit in the low margin corporate PC business which does not leave much money on the table for HW vendors. IBM is a company that built its brand recognition on (at least perceived) quality, reliability and security of its products. Being forced to rely on a Microsoft OS as the most user visible part of a corporate IT solution is a disaster. The latest round of security problems with Windows XP and IE over the last year may have pushed IBM over the edge.
For the server side of the corporate IT market, IBM can rely on Linux or internal IBM OS variants. For desktops and notebooks there is really no option to Microsoft since the death of OS2.
If IBM chooses to offer Apple desktops and notebooks as part of their corporate solution portfolio, this will immediately make Apple products more acceptable from the perspective of CIOs. OSX user interface is easy to learn and use and OSX already supports the Microsoft Office suite, which is pretty much the only desktop (un)productivity suite used by most corporate customers.
A better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM currently has in AIX an operating system that they've invested a lot of development time in, but aren't getting much traction with. Partly because of that they've been focussing more on Linux.
Apple has a relatively recent server line, and an operating system based on an open license, Darwin. If IBM put it's AIX and Linux technology in to Darwin, they'd have a OS with a much wider user base, and Apple would get a server OS with a much stronger reputation behind it.
IBM sells more chips, Apple sells more servers, and both get an upgraded OS (IBM would probably not use OS X/Aqua, just Darwin) with a lot of tried and true capabilities. Win/win.
I have no problem with this concept (Score:3, Interesting)
Or high-end Macs being sold through IBM, just like iPods are now being sold through HP.
This doesn't seem like such an absurd reality to me.
Another alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
As has been stated here often enough, Apple does not really have what businesses need in a machine: inexpensive (relatively) headless machines that can be dropped into an office cubicle. And there's a good reason for that. An Apple workstation for $800 or so would cut into their Power Mac
However, if IBM were to release one only available to businesses it might satisfy this need while allowing Apple to protect their core business. IBM could then add their own software or add-ons to integrate with their server line. Maybe even ship the systems with Office pre-installed for businesses.
Whether corporate America would buy into it or not is another story, but it makes for an interesting thought.
unmitigated disaster (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Apple is the ultimate end-user oriented company. They sell, talk, and work directly to the end user desktop. IBM has proven over and over that they've great at mass manufacturing new technologies at great expense and even more great at inventing new ones. The stink, however, at direct customer interface. The smaller the point of contact the worse they are.
IBM did great with Fujitsu and Dell -- selling components for PC's (in Dell's case, tons and tons of Travelstar and Deskstar drive) but try to go buy one directly from IBM yourself. Its very hard. They just don't know how to do deal with people.
This isn't the kind of company that could absorb those skills from Apple either. Apple would dissapear with the great IBM universe and never be the same.
no, Apple works best as a swift and lithe innovator. Let IBM make the guts, let the Apple folks package it and sell it.
-- ME
Mmmmm Pot & Beer (Score:5, Funny)
How has no one yet brought up the old adage:
IBM was created by guys who drank beer.
Apple was created by guys who smoked pot.
Careful when mixing substances!!! ;)
Re:Mmmmm Pot & Beer (Score:3, Funny)
Apple was created by guys who smoked pot.
I think you may be slightly off...
/whoa, look at all the pretty colors...
It think the problematic word here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Did Apple and HP merge? No.
HP is selling iPods. Not a merger, a stretegic partnership.
IBM and Apple could never exist under the same management but they could sell the same products to different people (i.e. HP iPod.) Apple isn't letting anyone build competing hardware but it is letting them sell the same hardware to groups of people that it can't reach alone, in the case of HP that would be windows users, in the case of IBM it would be businesses.
Apple has clearly shown how to impliment open source in their business practice (please feel free to bash on this point, but they are a profitable company integrating open source concepts into their business strategy with success) which IBM is surely interested in, and it isn't windows.
Did anyone read the article on CELL processors? [slashdot.org]
Hello, they're based on 970s.
Its been done already (Score:3, Informative)
Enjoy,
IBM would become iBM (Score:4, Funny)
iMac in Black! (Score:5, Funny)
I will be first in line for a iBM 17" PowerBook(black anodized aluminum).
if only sony would get in the picture.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, All the news is starting to make sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Q: What do you get when you cross Apple and IBM? (Score:3, Funny)
That joke was more ironic in the 90's, when I was working at Kaleida (a joint venture of IBM and Apple).
-Don
Only an idiot thinks Apple is up for sale (Score:3, Interesting)
Any one who believes this clearly never worked in a Steve Jobs company.
Nor do they know their history. Back when NeXTSTEP was natively ported to IBM systems it outperformed AIX. That was not cool to the suits so they promptly forced it to run at the interpreter level and buried the joint venture.
Steve never forgets. And to the dickwad that claims his ego is enormous I say, "Feelin' inadequate still?"
What do you get when you cross IBM and Apple? (Score:3, Funny)
Totally different corporate cultures (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM is still all about sales, employing thousands of technical salespeople, they have a whole fleet of techies in each theatre of operation devoted to on-site support, technical "deep dives" and so on. Apple is trying to do the consumer thing, their consumer touch points are the Apple stores and their entire marketing campaign is aimed at young, hip, urban folk.
The marriage of these companies would undoubtedly alienate one or both sets of employees. Jobs could not be on top (running pixar, apple AND IBM??) and Apple could not operate how it does, with micromangers roaming the halls making last minute design changes and changing the direction of projects on the drop of a hat.
Anyway, this seems like wild speculation to me and if it's true, more power to them. But I see very bad things for a marriage of this type.
Ugh, just shut up please (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM could gear up and go all consumer on our asses if it wanted, but it's not going to because the company is committed towards moving away from things it is historically weak in. It could gear its PC unit up-scale and sell value-added, noncommoditized PCs if it wanted, but it doesn't because they're not particularly useful to enterprises.
It would NOT be possible for IBM to suddenly leverage Macs from 5% to 80% market share, and if it tried such a pitch to a valuable customer, well, HP would be up one valuable customer and IBM down one Sales Manager and one Palmisano.
missing piece (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure IBM HATES putting "Intel Inside" stickers on their laptops and machines they use for desktops. Throwing a PowerMac under a desk at a client's operation is a DOUBLE win for IBM. Eats into Microsoft and it doesn't say "Intel" on it anywhere.
IBM and Apple have one major thing in comon. They both sell HIGH quality solutions which come with a pricetag. Sure, Apple has some sub $1000 solutions, but there are venders out there selling sub $300 systems which totally lack quality. Sellings systems with such a pricetag requires consumer confidence and a "NAME". Receiving a product purchased from IBM having a sticker on it that says "Intel Inside" is a HUGE blow to IBM.
I don't know about you, but I was shocked to see the POWERMAC G5 when it was released. My VERY FIRST thought of the Powermac G5 was "This looks like as if Apple had designed a system for IBM." I don't know exactly why I had that thought, maybe it was all the hype around the IBM PPC 970. But if you look at a powermac, it looks like the combination of eligance but the look of power. In otherwords, Apple + IBM.
Re:Intel vs. Motorola? (Score:5, Informative)
IBM makes far more money selling POWER-based machines and their other non-Intel hardware than they do selling PCs.
Apple computers now use chips made by IBM; the PowerPC CPU was a joint venture by IBM, Apple, and Motorola.
Re:Intel vs. Motorola? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, for this to happen IBM would want to jettison their PC business.
Oh, wait...
Re:Wrong...check the financials. (Score:3, Informative)
IBM is not a traditionally Intel-based house.
Apple used Motorola processors for a long time, but many (soon to be all) of the processors they now use are manufactured by IBM, and were developed jointly with IBM and Motorola.
This marriage is not as mixed as TFGeditor [slashdot.org] seems to think. The inference in his original post was that IBM was strongly Intel and Apple was strongly Motorola, neither premise is true today, if either ever was. That p
Re:Intel vs. Motorola? (Score:2)
And IBM has a lot more to offer/Sell than intel products (surely they'd rather sell POWER based anything) and all they are missing is a desktop product... like OS X (the best one out).
Don't forget Cell & BlueGene/L!
Re:A wedding? (Score:2)
Despite popular opinion, I really dislike IBM hardware. I've had to sit back and watch dozens of their shoddy server motherboards give up the ghost in a space of a few months.
One thing that IBM do have which will sweeten the deal for Apple is their R&D
Good point (Score:2, Insightful)
[Owner/Operator of iBook G4 and Dell 5150]
Re:That would make Apple a worthless brand (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM would gain an OS that ran on their own CPUs (no money to Intel) and ran MS Office (important in the corporate world). Apple would gain money from every OS X workstation sold and, perhaps more importantly, a second source - making them more attractive to corporate customers (or, rather, making IBM workstations running OS X more attractive to customers) and the ability to sell expensive service contracts to these customers. Apple would also gain from increasing the volume of PowerPC 970 chips in production, since this would reduce the unit cost. Unlike the clone debacle of the '90s, Apple would not lose customers, since they would be focussing on a completely different market segment to their partner in the join venture.
Of course, this is entirely conjecture.
Re:That would make Apple a worthless brand (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? I've used nothing but Macs (other than my TI 99/4A). What would a merger with IBM have to do with people leaving the Apple platform? If anything, IBM's economy of scale manufacturing should make Macs less expensive. That would be fine by just about every Mac user I know.
Re:IBM + Apple = good news for Linux (Score:2)
Re:IBM + Apple = good news for Linux (Score:2)
I guess they could make a binary driver for it just like they do on x86 linux now though.
you lose it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would never happen... (Score:5, Funny)
By the way, both companies have a heavy-duty nerd culture in the depths, hidden away where no one sees it much. Apple glosses it over with hippie chic. IBM uses yuppie chic instead. Underneath that *ppie chic, they're more alike than anyone wants to admit.
Basically, the only groups that would have to be kept separate would be the marketing departments. And even then, the marketers wouldn't be stepping on each others' shoes, since Apple sells end-user gadgetry and IBM is now a server-room iron and polish vendor.
Even armchair PHB's miss the clue boat. Jeez...
Re:No way. Not with IBM dumping the PC division (Score:4, Insightful)