Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sun and Apple Could Have Merged

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the getting-friendly dept.

Firmafest writes "The Register is running a story about Sun and Apple almost merging on three separate occasions. The information was revealed at a Computer History Museum event, where Sun's four co-founders spoke about the history of the Sun company. Bill Joy said that the two comp anies almost teamed on three different projects, including sharing a user interface and the SPARC architecture." From the article: "'As far as I know we also almost bought Apple once,' Joy said. 'We almost merged with Apple two other times.' Many Silicon Valley observers have long seen links between Sun and Apple. Both companies make slick, pricey hardware and are counter-punchers in their respective markets. They also have charismatic CEO figures and strong anti-Microsoft streaks"

9 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. It would never have worked. by IAAP · · Score: 3, Insightful
    FTFA [bold was done by me]"There's a pendulum thing where stuff is on the client side and then goes back into the network where it belongs," McNealy said. "The answering machine put voicemail by the desk, and then it went back into the network."

    Apple was founded on being a personal computer maker. It was founded to put control of the machines into the users hands. Yes, networked computers aren't mainframes, but McNealy seems to have thes attitude that computing should be centrally controlled or stored.

  2. I don't think they fit by m50d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Slick" describes Apple perfectly, but isn't a word I'd use to talk about Sun stuff. Sun's hardware is pricey but not because of its looks. It's because it's built like a tank. Apple is all about style, Sun is about rock solid workhorse machines. I think they're both better off as separate companies.

    --
    I am trolling
    1. Re:I don't think they fit by Thrudheim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you ever picked up a PowerMac G5 desktop? Damn, it is one heavy computer! I think "built like a tank" is a pretty fitting description. When you open up the case, moreover, you can see the attention to detail. Everything fits together so well, cables are neatly tucked away, spare screws are provided for an additional drive, it's really nice. It is not just "slick."

  3. Another common factor: by nodnarb1978 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They also have charismatic CEO figures and strong anti-Microsoft streaks Another common factor: Both CEOs have known Reality Distortion Fields. Could two such personalities coexist? I'm reminded of what happened between Jobs and John Sculley.

  4. Still possible? by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do remember the dark days of '97 when Apple was practically begging to be bought out by Sun. Fortunately, then-CEO Michael Spindler faded away shortly afterward.

    The business models of both companies were wildly different, and to some extent still are. But now, I wonder if AAPL should snatch up SUNW for a song.

    Apple wants to be a server company too, but can't quite crack the market, even though they have solid server hardware and a decent server OS. The only thing keeping Sun afloat today is their user base as a server manufacturer. So far, sounds like a match. And Sun shareholders would get a more refined CEO in the bargain once McNealy bolted.

    The biggest challenge though, is probably insurmountable, and that's product line integration. Sun may be gasping, but Solaris still has a strong presence out there. I can't imagine a forced migration to OS X Server would please sysadmins, even if they get to keep their SPARC-based servers. Which server hardware and OS would "Snapple" sell? Would SPARC and Solaris be end-of-life'd in such a scenario?

    So.. I'm not sure. If Sun is in serious trouble, Apple might have a case for rescuing a captive market. But ithe size of Sun's customer base would have to justify the hurdles involved in integrating the acquisition.

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    1. Re:Still possible? by Tony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't imagine a forced migration to OS X Server would please sysadmins, even if they get to keep their SPARC-based servers.

      It wouldn't just not please sysadmins; it would alienate them. Solaris is good. It's solid, scalable, and flexible. OS X is decent, to be sure; but it is still at heart a desktop OS, BSD roots notwithstanding. Sun makes great hardware and damned good software. It's their business that sucks.

      Apple's best bet would be to buy Sun and keep Solaris on their high-end servers, and make some fan-fucking-tastic mid-range servers / high-end workstations based on Solaris + ( OS X - Darwin ).

      Problem is, Apple is currently a consumer electronics company. Their computers are enjoying a renaissance mostly because of the dominance and hip-factor of the iPod, and not because of the superior quality of their hardware and OS -- if people wanted quality, Budweiser would not be the King of Beers.

      I'm not sure what Apple could really bring to the Sun Server market, other than a certain amount of glamour that is currently missing. Although I think if Sun servers had some great case designs, they'd sell more.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    2. Re:Still possible? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Solaris is good. It's solid, scalable, and flexible. OS X is decent, to be sure

      OS X is decent above Core Foundation. Everything below there is clearly designed by theoreticians. There are a lot of design decisions that make the kernel look nice on paper (lots of layers of abstraction, nice separation of policy and mechanism), but kill performance. Recent versions have eroded some of the nice design in favour of performance, leaving a kernel that is neither elegant nor fast. OS X with a Solaris kernel would be a very nice system, especially with a Sun Ray-like system working with Quartz. The only major problem is that quite a few of the higher-level systems make direct use of Mach ports, which would require some emulation (although Solaris STREAMS could easily be used as a substitute, since they have similar features - but with actual performance).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Have I got a crush on you by FishandChips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well the point is they didn't merge (and nor did Apple and IBM), so what else is new.

    This sound more like some kind of hopeless, unrequited longing for a beautiful girl. Apple has style and pizzaz and Sun doesn't, but oh how Sun longs for them! The chairman of Sun recently spoke of having an "iPod moment" around something or other, probably a new line of servers or piece of software. It wasn't, but I think we can guess where he was coming from.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  6. Re:I'll say it again... by Hosiah · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Dollar for dollar, Apple hardware is a bargain.

    Oh, I'm one Linux geek who's always admitted that Apple gives you something for your money. Had a job using Apple machines for a couple years, and I check out floor displays of Apples every time I wander by one. It's just that, to us Linux geeks who dumpster dive for 686 chips and 10-G drives and Dell shells behind dwellings of Windows lusers (who are chucking their old hardware like Kleenex), anything more expensive than "free" is pricey. To be a Linux user is to see it *rain* perfectly good hardware every day! What, people go into stores and *pay* for these things? Heck, I gotta shovel 'em off the lawn!