Slashdot Mirror
Daring to Dream: Apple & IBM
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."
Apple & IBM Dreamteam
First?
This is laughable.
Can you imagine? The instabilities you've always wanted (on a Mac) but never thought you could afford?
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
I just had a weird waking dream. Charlie Chaplain, on roller skates, was brandishing his cane at the Big Brother screen in the 1984 commercial.
I need more coffee...
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Didn't IBM manufacture that machine for Apple?
I think the first thing that would happen if such a merger took place would be that all the copies and references to the "big brother" superbowl commercial would somehow mysteriously disappear.
Apple + IBM = mmmmm....
so should I buy apple or IBM stock?
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!
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
IB-Applep le
i(B)Apple
Apple'BM
iAppleBeMe
BeMiAp
?
Who's the bride? The apple users?
IBM: traditional Intel house
Apple: traditional Motorola house
Can this mixed marriage work?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Seriously, how implausible would this have sounded 15 years ago?
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Most of the Apple hardcore loyalists would drop Apple like it had a big nasty worm.
I doubt Jobs would sell Apple. And IBM getting rid of their PC division because it has no profit potential. I doubt they would be able to better manage Apple than Apple can by itself.
I say this is a speculative unlikelyhood.
cfs
Do people not remember Taligent?
Apple gets the actual driver source code from nVidia and ATi for graphics cards. This might mean that Linux users might finally gets 3D graphics capabilites on PPC and maybe even some decent Radeon support on x86 for the 9500 series and up.
Not only are the companies' cultures VASTLY different and would never mesh well, there isn't a feasible synergy among the two. It would not make business sense I believe.
If Apple's going to say anything, they'll prolly do it at MWSF, or whatever their next conference/gathering of the faithful is.
Can anyone actually see Mr. Jobs actually going for this? I think that this rumor has as much credence as the old saw about Apple switching to an Intel/AMD processor for new Macs.
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.
I think it's odd that they're saying that Apple isn't signed up on the PowerPC "consortia." I was under the assumption that IBM was going to provide the G5's, as Motorola proved to be inadequate for the task; since Motorola was having trouble making enough G4's or whatever. Well, that would be interesting. I mean, personally, I think IBM and Apple make the best laptops around. Both are sturdy and reliable; they both just work.
Isn't that ironic.
IBM is selling it's computer division to a chinese company, getting out of the personal PC business.
While such a "marriage" (read: merge?) would provide benefits for both companies, Apple could lose it's "cool" image that has helped it dominate the digital music market. IBM isn't known to be hip. Although us geeks know they are way cooler than MS, the general public envisions men in business suits when they hear IBM mentioned.
-- n
You mean the condoms, kind bud, and etchings? Just talk to that guy in the black turtleneck.
From the Steve Jobs Collection of products. It's a good thing.
They've been partners for many, many years. Long before IBM started producing the G5 for them. The G3 that Apple used in their iBooks were IBM CPUs and Apple, IBM, and Motorola were joined in the PowerPC consortia at the birth of the architecture.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
IBM would be competitive with Apple in the desktop PC market so they'd have to sell....WAIT A SEC....
IBM sells...
If this happens I'd like them to do a remake of the famous lemmings commercial. And I'd like it to be honest: if Apple and IBM can merge, how was such an enormous gulf spanned over time?
Ali-G would call it "AIBM"
The basis of this whole story is that Apple is absent from the PPC Consortium roster? Yikes!
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.
[Owner/Operator of iBook G4 and Dell 5150]
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I remember back in the late 80s there was a time when DEC and Apple were talking. DEC haveing never built a "PC" or home computer that cought on. Apple haveing no Server class systems.
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.
That's about all this is.
Mark my word, it ain't gonna happen.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
IBM exists to serve corporate customers. Large corporations are not clamoring for apple (I say this as the happy owner of an iBook).
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.
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.
Mesh? Feasible? Synergy?! Higher than 10% buzzword-to-intelligence ratio. Post ignored.
do not read this line twice.
IBM has very little to lose considering it's size and product diversity. IBM will open a whole new market for apple and if apple is the target of a takeover it will command a premium, thus the value of the stock will go up.
I do not know and I do not care what Apple does vis a vis IBM. All I care about is that they continue to put out the best portable and desktop computers on the planet.
For shits and giggles, I tried to stress test my (fantastic) new iMac G5. I set a fullscreen background image from my iPhoto library. Then I ran a fullscreen DVD on top of that. Then I ran a 90% sized quicktime video on top of that. Then I placed a mostly-transparent Terminal on top of that with a half-second top update rate.
And nothing hitched, stuttered, garbled, or in any way misbehaved.
And this was at 1600x1200x32bpp. On the second monitor. Off of a single 1.8Ghz G5.
Show me any software stack or hardware solution or WHATEVER that works even remotely as well as this fantastic machine, and I'll buy somewhere else. Until then, viva Apple and IBM. I don't care who buys what or whatever, just keep selling this platform and millions will come around.
Yeah, Apple will finish talks with Big Blue as soon as it finishes merging with Sony, Palm, Disney, and HP (in that order).
An old game for MacOS 6 and 7... the IBM logo would pop up all over the screen; the goal of the game was to click on the logo before the next one would pop up. Failiure meant that your mac's screen was filled with those evil IBM logos... ah, how times change.
I think I speak for all of us when I say Fish use electric power to destroy mass media!
If this was to occur this would be one of the best mergers in recent time. This would give IBM one of the best quality product lineups in the portable / fad market. If this merger went through it would also allow IBM and Apple to boost the PPC system. Perhapse even adopt the AMD-64 as people have reported in the past but its very unlikely. Go For it!
Got a question about UNIX ask it here : Unix/xBSD Forum
Q. What to you get when you combine Apple and IBM?
A. IBM.
Shamelessly stolen from Apple Confidential.
so why on earth would they want to get involved with Apple?
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.
...is an iBook with a trackpoint.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
And I'm sure that this rumor has nothing to do with the news that IBM is trying to sell it's "Ibm PC" business. Could it be that it sees more margin in Apples than PCs?
Actually, IBM will buy Google, which in turn will buy Apple.
The combined company will be called "Garbble".
Who here remembers rumors about Apple merging with Sun back in the early 90's? Didn't happen...
IBM gains little by playing favorites with Apple. Apple is great at user experience - but at a premium. How does this help IBM? I don't think companies have such long term resentment - it's all about money. Does it help them to add a 3rd major UNIX-like OS to their portfolio? Remember their Linux investments in RedHat and SuSE? Does it help IBM to partner with Apple, who has a weak web services strategy? Remember those web services alliances with Microsoft and webMethods? A move like the one you described would place a big strain on those partnerships and leave analysts scratching their heads for no good reason.
I think that this recent dumping of the PC division is a repositioning in order to clobber Sun in the upcoming "Solaris vs. Linux in the datacenter" war and also to become the world's first true mass market grid computing utility company.
Earlier we read a story on /. where IBM was selling their Computer side of business...
WHy would they get involved with Apple if they are planning on selling?
Maybe Apple is looking to buy?
--E
--E--
Sorry, people. Computers are ho-hum commodity items. No serious person really gives a damn about the latest "fastest pc in the world" anymore. Sure, there are your righteous reality distortion field types and your "you can't get fired buying IBM" droids, but they are dying breeds.
... now ... computers.
In business investing, the cutting edge eventually turns out to be a sinkhole: railroads, airlines and
Clearly, IBM is exiting that business. Given that the iPod is taking off while Apple desktop market share remains tiny, Apple's direction is becoming clear. The computer business is becoming a drag on the stock, tying up too much capital without generating revenue in proportion. At some point, Apple will probably sell off its computer business and become an entertainment products company.
That might have something to do with IBM's near incompetence dating back years. They've never been able to supply the # of chips Apple needs to meet demand for systems. High end G5 systems have been trickling out the door because there simply aren't enough processors from IBM to satisfy demand. IBM always drags their feet with the latest mhz bump, and the delivery rate is probably because of yield problems on the higher speed chips.
Please help metamoderate.
IBM and Apple merger would be interesting, especially in light of the fact that there are talks about IBM selling off their PC division ...
http://www.theregister.com/2004/12/03/ibm_pc_jv_le novo/
Apple becoming part of ibm would be bad for everyone. Apple and IBM are so different in culture, so forget about a good marriage. But IBM selling Apple desktops and building software to manage the desktops is where IBM wants to go. If you haven't looked recently windows on the corporate desktop is a bad idea. IBM could sell on CIO fear about virii and spyware.
You're saying that Apple owners are jerks?
Or is this just Apple's way of taking over everything that start with the letter I? Ipod, Imac, IBM.....
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
IBM is about doing everything for you. Apple is about stroking your ego. Thery're totally incompatible ideals.
Granted, I think both companies have brilliant ideas, and spinning off PCs is a great idea for IBM, since they care more about a few $1 billion contracts than several million sales in which they made all of $20 profit.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
You'd think that by now, more people would've figured out a basic trait of Steve Jobs: he's got his own will, and he'll hit eject before he compromises it. A lot of people think that means he has a huge ego, and maybe he does, but that's not the point - he's spent an awfully long time trying to make the world see things his way, and he's not going to stop just because someone offers him a pile of cash.
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.
every good
Apple is one of the original three to develop the PowerPC architecture in the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) alliance in the first place. I would imagine that their membership/input would be defacto in IBM's eyes. The fact that they aren't on the list to sign up doesn't mean they aren't already involved in this group, and it isn't really compelling evidence that Apple and IBM are set to merge.
Don't get me wrong, I think that'd be pretty cool and may happen. I just don't see this as very good evidence given the circumstances surrounding PPC and Apple's seminal involvement in the architecture.
`which fortune`
A great company taking over a crappy one. No matter how you wrap it, sh*t is still sh*t.
... of being able to use my iBook as my primary workstation at work...
This is just speculation to get attention, as near as I can gather. "IBM and Apple should merge!" sounds neat if you don't look at any of the context, but if you look at the actual products they sell it doesn't make really much sense at all. IBM targets almost exclusively corporate customers. Apple targets almost exclusively consumer customers. There's no good way to tie these two things together at all, especially since the existing product lines of each have no particular relevance or connectivity to one another. Okay, yeah, like the article mentions, IBM doesn't have a presence in the "lifestyle"/enduser demographic. Why is this a problem? That's just not their market.
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 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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
... but still not very likely at all. As others have said, IBM is all about services now, and linux in general and free software specifically allows greater IBM/industry and intra-IBM communication. Why would they go backwards to Apple's OS?
Also...why, after exiting one consumer business, would they do an acquisition that puts them back in that same place, but in a small niche? Doens't make sense.
The higest profit margin side of hardware is servers. Not iPods or G5s.
It's like, When Harry Met Sally!
Speaking of Meg Ryan romantic comedies, in You've Got Mail, the bitter business rivalry was echoed in their choice of computers: Joe used an IBM, and Kathleen used a Mac.
This would be a sensible match; probably because of the culture differences, but also the similarities.
The easy, "what's different?", part first.
East vs West coast external cultural differences aside what is left is b2b and b2c (business, consumer) channel differences. The "standard" IBM business model for the PC helped to spawn an industry, Apple differentiated itself through the human element and ease of use aspects in order to survive in an extremely cut-throat industry.
Desktop publishing as such did not exist, except in that most arcane of markup languages, TeX.
Then came a usable page descriptive language (PostScript), a nice user interface from the Xerox Palo Alto Research establishment and the ability of Apple to produce first the Lisa, and then the Mac.
DTP was the killer app for that platform, just as Visicalc was for the Apple II. (and indirectly, IBM and the PC)
This value-added benefit makes Apple a lively contender in introducing new technologies with sufficient margin to support a dealer channel to the consumer.
And the similarities?
Both IBM and Apple are known in their respective fields for dependable, "boring" products and services.
Both have inculcated unique corporate cultural elements (belonging) in their employees.
Both have memorable CEO's with some idea of where the better opportunities are liable to present themselves.
Whatever direction they take, both organizations can learn from each others best practices.
Whether they choose to do this, or not, depends on the ability to spin^h^h^h^h convince the Corporate Investors that this would be a Good Thing, and lead to more Return on Investment aka Profit.
Money will Boldly Go, where Egos Fear to Tread.
This is progress?
Actually, I would say that anything that is "wildly speculative" is definitely improbable.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Apple is famous for their design skills. But since IBM is no longer (or will shortly no longer will be) selling any personal computers, where could that be applied? Giant all-white mainframes?
Chip H.
This just in: Rush Limbaugh recently used the phrase "Cunning Linguist" on national talk radio today, about 12:45PM EST. We now return you to your /. discussion already in progress.
The x86 still dominates and other architectures are not that often being used for anything other then specialised jobs. When an average joe needs a new computer, he goes an consults the "experts" at a near by electronics store and ends up buying a P4 HP or a Dell.
Most people where I live see IBM and Apple as companies with potentian but still on the sidelines as compared to the x86 where Indel and AMD dominate. And I don't think IBM wants to compete for the x86, they have been there before...
An Apple and IBM marriager would make things interesting. One the one side, they have been dealing with eachother for quite some time now. And on the other they are not really compeating with eachother as both compete for different market shares.
I think that they are already working closely.
Would it really make a difference? I don't think it would.
After spending the day trying to figure out how to port a JBoss (LGPL) application to WebSphere (IBM closed source) all of a sudden I have no simpathy left for these closed source entities. They can fight each other, they can pretend to be on our side but they still remain the same old themselves.
Many people describe experinces going from non free to free and say it's not all that rosy. I can assure you that going the other way is a lot worse. Gives you a new feeling of what the FSF stands for.
As the companies are consolidating we are approaching a world where we will be free to choose only between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola in an IT sort of way.
Taligent
--
make install -not war
I agree with the assessment, but will play the devil's advocate. Under one circumstance, this makes sense. The return of the data center to the center of the computing universe. Almost everything we do now is network facilitated on a consumer level. Music, video, information... The ipod is nothing if not a terminal with storage. Mobiles are arguably the next level of the computing space.
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!
Rather than a merger of companies, a merger of interests. Darwin/AIX.
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.
Merger or not, imagine IBM Power5/Power6/whatever servers running OS X. Wow -- IBM pumping R&D money into OS X.
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.
IBM doesn't have to buy Apple to sell Apple products.
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.
Since we're all in the wild speculation mode, what about this as another possiblity: IBM licensing Mac OS X and working with Apple to produce business-class OS X systems with IBM branding. (sort of like what HP did with the iPod)
/iMac sales.
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.
"IBM."
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
The cultural hell that was the merger of IBM and Lotus would be nothing compared to this.
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
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
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.
You're missing the point. The grandparent post was talking about goals. You are talking about capabilities.
What you want to do is buy a company that does something that you aren't good at. What doesn't make as much sense is to buy a company that does something that you don't do. That is what IBM buying Apple at this moment would be. IBM isn't good at what Apple does right now. But it isn't trying to be good at what Apple does right now, either, and becoming good at what Apple does right now wouldn't help the things IBM does do.
The article, like you, mistakes selling different things for being a natural compliment. "Natural compliment" assumes that putting these two things together would make them stronger than the sum of the strength of the two as separates. Instead IBM and Apple merging would fit together like oil poured on water; yeah the boundary between the two would be nice and clean, but you might as well just keep them in different containers.
Of course this is an unfounded rumor. We all know that Sony is buying Apple. Duh!
Just think how many positives for IBM such a marriage would provide. IBM would give the same credibility to the Macintosh computer, and its Microsoft-beating operating systems as it provided for the PC in the first place, thereby opening the flood gates of corporate demand.
That is about the biggest load of shit I have seen since Biff crashed into a manure truck in Back to the Future.
Of course it would be nice to have an Apple on my desk at work, but I think this guy is doing more coke than Tony Montana.
And then there is Apple. Could the Icon of Counter Culture ever merge with THE Corporation. Nah!
I don't know anything about this guy except his short bio, but he definately does not understand the Apple business model.
Hitching up with Apple would provide IBM with a real inroad into the fast growing 'lifestyle' market, something the men and women in blue suits kind of missed.
They didn't miss it. They just didn't have the right brand image to take advantage of it. The IBM iPod. Come on. It could have been the coolest thing ever and it wouldn't have made dollar one. The only thing people know about IBM is, well, IBusinessM. I can't think of the last consumer popular product IBM created. DOS? Who wants an MP3 player from International BUSINESS Machines. I think I would be more likely to buy one from Nike.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
As the other poster noted, it could be supporting evidence. I'm sure IBM would like to sell more computers that make use of the PowerPC chip.
While I don't think there would be a merger, look at the older story about future Cell processors arriving. It would be good for Apple and IBM if Apple sold some cell processor computers, and also could make inroads into the enterprise market to have nice Apple corperate desktops.
I'm not entirely sure about that though since it would seem to go against IBM's investment in Linux.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Think EBCDIC"
Can we start the IBM+Apple jokes now?
I'll start:
IBM iPod: the exact size of a brick. programmed over serial port.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
They actually do have a sub-$1000 computer - it's called the eMac.
Basically though I agree with the point you are making.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While a merger did not happen, there is significant support for Sun from Apple in terms of a great degree of Java integration into OS X. A similar partnership between Apple and IBM could yield some good stuff for both companies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
IBM rumored to be selling their PC business....
IBM rumored to be "merging" with Apple......
IBM rumored to be ready to deploy Cell processor by 2005....
Hrmmm....I am beginning to think these Cell processors kick some mighty big ass and IBM needs an established consumer avenue to distribute them.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
1 down, 1 to go.
cool, maybe if this happens I can transfer from the boring IBM job to a cool one at apple...
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!!! ;)
...is merger.
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?
Hello, they're based on 970s.
So if the dream's fullfilled they will be referred to smothing more feminine?
I really don't get it. Would Apple buy IBM, or would IBM buy Apple?
:-)
While the latter is possible, it would be rather pointless for both, like a zebra trying to mate with an emoe.
Interesting maybe would be some sort of closer cooperation with Darwin, or Apple buying the PC part of IBM, or having closer cooperation there. It would maybe get some cheaper "business machines" out running OS X. and give Apple a boost in Server sales.
All pretty far-fetched, but hey, it's the season to be jolly
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Remember about several months ago there was a strong rumour that Apple would start using AMD-64 chips in it's product line?
Considering IBM is making a bunch of those chips AND gave AMD the 90nm process on a golden platter, I think this new story fits nicely with a possible x86-64 move by Apple.
Disclaimer: I don't like Macs, and I don't like how the UI is a candy-coated, spoon-fed, bile that is forced upon the users who use them.
I think the hardware and capability of Macs are awe-inspiring. I remember unpacking my brand-new 386DX-40, and seeing my buddy use his Mac to edit full-motion video as if it were a VCR+camcorder.
I suspect that PC's are just now getting to the level of capability that Macs have honed in on years ago. All we need now is a UI.
IBM: OS/2 Runs DOS better then DOS & Windows better then Windows (But got royally screwed when win32 code started showing up.) RIP
OS/2 Tight, efficient, secure.
Mac-OS?? Tight, secure, (and for most efficient)
Linux: only OS with a hope of dethrone'ing MS
Imaging the market-share potential of an x86-64 operating system plus a Macs "fit & finish", plus open-source roots.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
maybe if disney gives eisener's spot to steve, and steve abandons apple (how many companies can you CEO at once?), then maybe this could happpen. otherwise, no way. jobs would never go for it. evil geniuses dont like to share.
just as well in my opinion. IBM would homogenize apple. it would be like the gil amelio days all over again.
I posted the same dream right here on this forum just a couple of days ago. Where's my lawyer......
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
IBM ["and Apple"] would have to drop support for one of them.
Otherwise they are competing with themselves, which tends to be bad for business, as you bad mouth one for the other.
how good mac os x would run on a cell processor..../ 2332221&tid=137&tid=136&tid=10 )
(see http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/05
nahhh, ain't gonna happen...
There is a second point to which I don't see addressed either. The Corporate policies in place at Apple actually fly in the face of IBM's corporate policies. Apple encourages freedom of thought open spaces and believes in making the workplace fit the worker. IBM is about Thinking inline with Engineering and linear thought, utilizing space to it's maximum and making the employees walk in step to the corporate tune. Neither of which I am saying is bad or good. Just that the two styles are so opposed that it would be like anti mateer and matter colliding. The two could never exist together. One would certainly destroy the other's ability to produce new work in their established manner.
According to Bloomberg, Jobs owns 5 million shares currently. 1.244% of all shares outstanding...
Look up Taligent and Pink, circa 1993. IBM/APPLE has been working together now for over a decade.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
That would be amusing to say the least.
I'm late to this story, but it seems that all the posts above assume a merger between IBM and Apple, and rightly dismiss the idea. And even though the Reg piece is based on a flimsy foundation, there's every reason to assume some kind of reseller or cooperative marketing agreement between the two.
Most people here will agree to the soundness of OS X as a desktop machine (forget about servers for a minute). So when a customer asks IBM to help it review its desktop strategy, why shouldn't IBM recommend OS X? It's solid as a rock, virus free, easy to use, and *nix based -- meaning it plays well with others, i.e. the other OSes IBM markets.
Maybe IBM will even become an authorized reseller just like HP resells iPods. In fact, I've been wondering about this since OS X came out; it just makes perfect sense to me for IBM, Sun, and others who concentrate on the server room to recommend/resell Apple for the desktop. It's certainly more ready for primetime than Linux.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Check IBM's latest financial statement.
The Personal Systems Group generates much more revenue and gross profit than IBM's entire Technologies Group (which includes microprocessors). It's not even close.
Now, if you're talking percentage PTI, you probably have a point.
Ruger
Basically IBM would change the plastics to black and focus on selling to corporations.
I will be first in line for a iBM 17" PowerBook(black anodized aluminum).
ok just imagine this went down and apple had the capital and market push to again drop something revolutionary. after all, the parts seem to be coming online over the last few years:
the iHome. for slightly more than the price of a high-end pc you get a home server (xserve without enterprise stuff) , a few dumb terminals (imacs with no guts), airport, airtunes, and 1-3 mini-ipods. it all runs from a tricked out pre-installed OS X server and all the ical/isync/iapps goodness. also includes an apple-ized X10 control program complete with apache served web interface so you can monitor and adjust your house from work. maybe a few starter X10 interfaces with links to more.
all pakaged and run through the apple human interface and industrial engineering teams so it ends up in pretty apple box with quality apple instructions. at compusa for under $5k. THE yuppy and high-tech family must have.
apple's engineers should be given a green light, good things will happen if so. but selling to IBM is huge, i can't say i'm a fan of it. i'd rather see apple pull off the iHome on their own.
12" iBook: $999.
and itz teh leet.
To make a blanket assertion that computers are "ho-hum" commodity items, and that "no serious person gives a damn about the fastest pc" is an error.
Firstly, most ordinary business computing needs can and should be met by ho-hum commodity computers. But I work with people that do buy the fastest machines and they are very serious and rational about their choices. It is really a balancing act between the cost of capital and the incremental cost of paying people. Artists of many kinds cost businesses so much money that the suits will do almost anything make their days more efficient. That can mean buying the latest G5 monster that would be wasted on the front office types that really only need an AMD K6 level machine. It's really a cold blooded choice, not a pecker contest. If the suits are smart.
Sure, there are the nuts that thrive in the Jobs righteous reality distortion field, and will buy his junk just because, but there are many, including myself, that don't.
I run Windows 98 for gaming and just installed Fedora Core 3 at home, but you'll have to bludgeon my skull into a paste to get my G5/OS X goodness away from me for work purposes, and I have absolutely no emotional or financial investment in Apple/Jobs whatsoever. For my purposes, it's that important.
Secondly, computers may look like ho-hum commodity machines, and they really should be, but they aren't. Quality and durability still matters. eMachines may put a Pentium IV screamer in their boxes, and old Farmer MacDonald can put a gold ring in his pig's snout, but that doesn't change the essence of the beast. I just can't go along with the assertion that computers are commodities.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
I personally like...
IBAM!
International Business and Apple Machines.
"I suspect that PC's are just now getting to the level of capability that Macs have honed in on years ago. All we need now is a UI."
Uh, for 100% of computer users, the UI *IS* the computer. What are you doing with yours? Reading memory dumps over serial?
And candy-coated spoon-fed bile? Have you even been NEAR a macintosh in the last four years?
"I think the hardware and capability of Macs are awe-inspiring. I remember unpacking my brand-new 386DX-40, and seeing my buddy use his Mac to edit full-motion video as if it were a VCR+camcorder."
Oh, I guess not. Macintosh System is dead. It is LONG dead. Deader than your beloved OS/2. Most of the OS conventions and implementation has changed.
And OSX isn't going to x86-64, period. Face it... your PC simply isn't going to run a quality OS or application stack in this decade or the next. Try a Mac or stop spouting.
If Apple, IBM, and Sony would all team up, we might actually see a drop in windows market share-but thats only if they can converge nicely into a streamlined unit providing desktops, servers, services, and game systems unbeatable in the wintel world.
This theory seems to bring together several loose threads floating around. First, were the rumors last week that IBM was selling it's PC division to some firm in Asia. Next, was the fact that these new cell Processors will be amazing, but Windows doesn't like anything but x86. IMHO, it seems that IBM is planning on selling their wintel PC division, and own the PC market later with cell processors run a new improved Mac OS. Think about it, the only reason Macs never caught on were because people didn't use them at work (didn't want to learn something new for home), and they were too expensive (Apple couldn't take advantage of Economies of Scale the same way Dell can). IBM will make Macs rollout well in large enterprises. People will be able to buy them for their home. And they will be orders of magnitude faster than their Wintel counterparts which are stuck on x86. I don't want to say it, but the combination of a new hardware platform(Power Cells), and a viable alternative in the corporate and home enviroment [IBM/Mac], and the server market [IBM/Linux] may spell the end of the Windows monoculture. Or I may just be getting my hopes up. I'm allowed to dream, aren't I?
IBM branded Apple hardware like HP branded Ipods?
Try this experiment:
Unplug your mouse
Walk to the nearest mac, Take your mouse with you.
Unplug the Mac's mouse.
Plug yours in.
It works doesn't it? and the wheel, too. No reboot needed. So, yes, they already did this. You just need to provide the mouse.
Steve Jobs walks on water! (see article on pg.2)
Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
It doesn't really matter which you buy as long as you promote it on slashdot with a story that has at least a modicum of believability.
PC or Mac compatible? Or both?
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
Didnt i read a few days ago that IBM was looking to sell there small PCs for a couple billion. For more cash for apple or to get rid of small pcs for macs???? I may have to do the same...
IBM is NOT going to buy Apple. Apple is not going to sell out to IBM. BUT that doesn't mean that they could not work out a cross-marketing/cross-licemsing deal.
Apple would design the IBM products, which would run on PowerPC platforms (NOBODY's got more experience) and kick-ass. IBM would get the products built by whoever (like, do you really see IBM making CELL based games to run on a Sony box? I thought not.) and would market them as IBM branded boxed 'solutions.'
This would be a good thing.
Steve Jobs is not an issue. He's a collaborator designing great IBM PowerPC boxes which are made by whoever.
IBM makes $
Apple makes $
We get cool shit
(and, incidentally, we get rid of M$, who's stuck on 64 bit boxen.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
after decades of IBM buys Apple stories, could this be an Apple Buys IBM story? At this moment in history the two companies could link together. interesting times. I have just sold my very large collection of Mac stuff to a single collector and I'll end up with a single g5 iMac, after years of collectiing. 13 straight years of developer CDs, only missing 6 from the set. All gone... And now Apple and IBM may faux merge... I'm sure that the end of the world is neigh
There was an unknown error in the submission.
M$ should buy IBM PC Division so they can be a total solution provider for WinTel platform. They could try to be what Apple is on a grand scale and be the ones to bring order for rapid technical advancement on the WinTel architecture/platform.
talk about the hate and fear that would generate for M$,
that Motorola still supplies chips to Apple as well. I can't see this happening, EVER, especially since Apple's primary customer is the end-user, and IBM's is other companies.
Neither developers nor customers will stand for yet another such change, just as things have finally settled down. Besides, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to switch, except possibly for parts availablity. They don't have enough market share to need that many more parts, and they already have 64 bits without 20 years of x86 instruction set baggage, thank you very much. You have failed to produce any reason why Apple would switch other than that it would make AMD fanboys like you drool about being able to run OS X on the l33t g4m1ng b0x they already have.
Even if Apple did go x86, they wouldn't use a PC BIOS. They'd use Open Firmware, and the disks would use the same disk partitioning that Apple has used since before 1990. It would not run on an ABit board from Fry's, and Apple would make no effort for it to be easy to do so, nor would they sell boxed OS X for non-Apple computers.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Intelligent - Intel = ligent
Put them together, and it's close enough if you squint. "Talent without Lent" doesn't manage quite the same pith.
GOTCHA! Geesh, we love you guys, but you are so predictable it just makes us laugh our asses off.
...
Myself & Ian were at the pub last night saying we post this whole speculation thing.... Apple.. IBM... blah blah blah, and we would watch the mac heads go nuts over it. You guys are just so gullible!
But we love you anyway. Ian, I owe you a pint of the Guiness old man! You were right - they are completely hopeless!
That joke was more ironic in the 90's, when I was working at Kaleida (a joint venture of IBM and Apple).
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
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?"
ABM
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
scott mcneally, bill gates and steve jobs all become best friends and go golfing together every thursday; osama bin laden admits that george bush is really a nice guy; and aliens really did abduct elvis, now he's back, and he's going on tour... when did /. become the national enquirer?
a polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate change.
Is apple teaming up with Sirius radio for a satelitte ipod?
http://engadget.com/entry/1234000547022729/
...IBM.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/06/1 445209
It was never a "strong rumor" that Apple would use AMD chips. It was a quack analyst, Enderel I think, that speculated that in a column. Anyone who's read any of his musings on Apple knows he's a quack and his comments are, to date, always wrong.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Sorry folks, this would be an unmitigated disaster. If you've spent any time with employees of IBM and Apple (in a professional setting) you will know that the cultures are wildly different.
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.
If you're referring to being fucked up the arse, I think Windows users are the ones lubing and bearing the buttocks every time they start their PC.
G. Poster was referencing the book 1984, where "Big Brother" comes from, and the practice of denying that alliances ever shifted... "we have always been at war with Eurasia", etc.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Okay, look, I *really* don't mean to troll here. This would NEVER happen. EVER. AAPL right now has a P/E of 95--it's the stock's highest valuation since the bubble, and it's above the consensus price targets according my little friend Bloomberg over here. This means that IBM would have an extremely difficult time getting a decent return out of such an acquisition, and you can trust me (if you can trust an M&A banker at all -_^)--IBM doesn't like to pay huge multiples.
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.
Read jack phelps dot net
Do news organizations usually draw up a wild hypothetical situation, go on wildy about "the benefits to everyone", and call it news without one shred of evidence or citation. Where is the leaks of backdoor meetings?. ...the quotes from analyst anticipating the move? ...Apple announcing its yet again allowing Mac clones or selling its hardware unit? Comon...something!!! This belongs on a rumor site where they do this every day.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Dump OSX and replace it with OS/2 Warp PowerPC edition! ;-)
Yeehaw, good by aqua, presentation manager here I come.
""The Register has a comment piece of the marriage (speculative) between IBM and Apple.
Good luck getting around that massive ego named Steve Jobs. I'm thinking an AOL-TimeWarner style meltdown, personally.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Since we've entered the wildly speculative zone this kind of thing makes a lot of sense.
This might explain why IBM is exiting the PC businesss. IBM seems PC's as low growth product.
Are they dumping PC's to make room for Apple? This would take IBM compatible to a whole new level!
What would happen if a corporation could lease their (OS X) PC's with IBM legendary service, and support. also what would happen if IBM server applications were ported over to OS X. imagine IBM offering a Business based version of an imac but at half the price. not only would you be free of MS but it would be possible for lower end mass produced OS X based computers to be purchased.
So if IBM buys Apple, would that pave the way for IBM to buy Sun?
...make IBM mean "I Buy Macintoshes"! ;-)
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
once they realized it was used to switch people from Windows to *X for good ?
When asked about this, he said something like, "Once Apple builds a better machine, I will buy it."
Other rumors like this had Jobs booting up OpenStep and using Omniweb instead of MacOS 8-9.x.
I tend to believe these rumors. Jobs has always been the idea man. Holding to an ideal as a challenge for his engineers to outdo him seem right.
Anyway, earlier posts saying that contracting with IBM so that Big Blue can sell machines using its own PowerPC chips instead of Intel/AMD stuff does make sense in a way. Maybe such a deal would be contingent on IBM increasing PPC production, who knows.
IBM could ship servers running some *Nix variant (maybe even based on Darwin [yes, now I am dreaming]) that is optimized for interplay with MacOS on the desktop. End users, get Photoshop and MS Office on their Macs, IT guys get *Nix security, IBM sells its chips, I don't see a loser here.
Perhaps this rumors might be based on what new products Apple has shown IBM.
If Apple has a killer home video delivery system about to ship...
The unit sales from the 10-K are as follows:
Of all of these product lines in FY2004, only the Power Macintosh and iMac G5 models use IBM microprocessors. The Power Macintosh line is only 21.5% of the entire Macintosh unit sales. Furthermore, the iMac G5 is a small fraction of the total year iMac unit sales because it was only introduced in August. The Q404 results statements show that there were 229k iMac units sold that quarter when the iMac G5 was introduced, but does not differentiate between iMac G4 and and iMac G5 sales. Even if all the iMac unit sales in Q404 were counted as iMac G5 (which they can't be because it was only introduced in August and Apple's Q4 ended on September 25), the vast majority of iMac sales were iMac G4, and therefore not using IBM microprocessors. The same handwaving can be done about the iBook G3 -> iBook G4 in October 2003, but there were no shortages of iBook G4 as scandalous as IBM's inability to deliver G5 microprocessors.
I would say Apple is strongly PortalPlayer because the total iPod unit sales is
4416k (and PortalPlayer has 100% of Apple's market), which is greater than the 3290k units for the entire Macintosh product lines put together.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
International Business Fruit
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
See http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040520. html for the article where I found the Steve Jobs quote.
runs on just about every cpu you can think of.
Why should Cell be any different?
If Cell is the future of IBM hardware maybe the rumours are more to do with IBM/Apple co-operation on starting the port process. Ie Aple looking forward to when G5's aren't the bees knees.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
I see a lot of people talking about possible reasons for this news to be true. IBM wanting to get rid of Microsoft, IBM being so corporate focused, etc. I also see reasons why there is "a snowball's chance in hell" that IBM would want MacOSX. Such as IBM could just repackge BSD or use their own AIX. BUT, there is something that nobody has mentioned yet.
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.
...but I'm on the side of Big Blue. If this does indeed happen, I hope they dont nix their RS/6000 line or make it anything like the Xserves. I dont mind dropping 10k on a machine, but I dont want to pay 10k to get the Apple glitter, philosophy or operating system. I'll take my robustly built machines, the operating system "made by aliens", SMIT and make things work.
Until I see Apple supporting something like the GXT6500P or come out with something glitter free, they might as well not exist. The merger might make at least one of those things come true, and I'm betting on the glitter.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I've always said that Apple would do a lot more business with Fortune 1000 companies if IBM could make a buck partnering with Apple some way. IBM still is a powerful marketing force in large companies. Look at how they promote a free operating system, Linux. They wrap all kind of services around it and make billions (note the B) each year from it. Big company's I.T. still love IBM and will buy what they sell and recommend. In fact they think if IBM doesn't endorse or sell a product, what good is it? For example, our company uses Lotus Notes Mail --- I like to say that its the best email product money can buy...from IBM.
IBM has more revenue per day that many world economies. Apple cannot buy IBM as a manufacturing arm.
Also, Manufacturing is becomming a commodity item to be done in countries that are growing out of the developmental stage and into the technology one. Its a step in the growth of a country's economics.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Last week it was MicroSoft and Sun as lovey-dovey partners. This week it is Apple and IBM. Breakups and marriages all the time. You'd think we were on daytime TV or high school :-)
How about Rampage World Tour for the GameCube (also originally on the N64)? No "remembering" needed.....
As a side note there have been "Rampage" titles for:
Commodore 64, Atari 2600, Atari 7800, Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Sega Master System, GameBoy Color, Sony Playstation, Nintendo 64, PC, Sega Saturn, Atari Lynx, Amiga, Amstrad CPC, and Arcade. (I may have missed one or two)
Additionally there have been spin-offs, like Rampage puzzle games, and Jurassic Park-Rampage Edition....
But a great rampage style game in a modern context is Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee
Maybe IBM can see past the music phenomenon. High guys and drunk guys can both appreciate music. The iTunes music store is not going anywhere and will not be easily superceeded by Microsoft. Multiply the branding of Apple to a netflix type movie service in the next 3 - 5 years will have little brother looking like big brother when it comes to paid content. All that digital content has to be hosted somewhere, and while Apple could do it their ownership of the Quicktime standard provides and enviable large scale growth opportunity.
Its not about boxes anymore. In 10 years Apple's entire computer operations (MOBO's chip selection) will probably be outsourced with only the design of the cases coming from Cupertino. How many people know that CompUSA is owned by a mexican conglomerate.
IBM is going to divest itself of it's somewhat profitable but evidently declining PC division to acquire a consumer electronics darling?
While Apple's Personal Computer division is doing well enough with regards to $$$$ (if not market share) how would this improve IBM's bottom line?
Sure, they have the iPod and it's a 'hot' product (mostly because of the coolness factor) but the corporate clash would be something like Quaker Oats taking over Snapple. That went over well, didn't it?
I don't see why IBM wants to make a splash in the "living room" when they already make a killing in the "board room" (and the Server room) and selling their services and hired 'guns'.
Besides, how is owning Apple (and ongoing competition in hardware and media formats) going to foster their close relationship to Sony and the Cell processor?
The sheer numbers would dictate that their relationship with Sony / Toshiba would be much more important to their bottom line than some pipe dream that would end up alienating Mac devotees anyway.
"And how long would Microsoft support Office on OS X once they realised it was used to switch people from Windows to *X for good?" quoth an anonymous coward.
This is a very good point indeed, and becomes even better when you consider the following:
Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac does not support most of the new XML-based "secure" document formats that were introduced in Office 2003 for Windows. The only one it supports is the new XML-based Excel spreadsheet format.
I'm not sure to what extent these new formats have gained acceptance among actual users of Office 2003, but if they do gain significant traction, then all Microsoft needs to do is refuse to add support for them to Office for Mac OS X and Apple is in serious trouble.
...and even if the marriage never takes place, the casual relation of the two companies is most likely to grow. All spelling trouble for microsoft while making a lot of penguins happy on the way.
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
Thats like saying cats and dogs are currently under dealegations to join together as the same species. All landmarks of what is a PC and what is a MAC would be inexplicably scewed. I cannot say I look forward to something like that. ~Distortion
- ThinkPod (listen different)
- iBMac (consumer business mac)
- PowerPad U2 (G5 powerbook, red backlit trackpad)
- 30th anniversary macIBMosh (eminem special)
innovations:
- one-button-trackpoint-keyboard (use trackpoint-triple-click-up for B)