Yeah fair enough. That is my age showing. Enterprise was a very different scene prior to iDevices.
Your are correct.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and IBM Team Up For Major Enterprise Mobility Partnership
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah fair enough. That is my age showing. Enterprise was a very different scene prior to iDevices.
Your are correct.
PowerPC
Just a nit, but the G4 worked out GREAT. It was fast as hell and ran well in Notebooks. The problem was with coming up with the next gen for laptops to succeed the now aging G4. In the end, it was the G5 that doomed the alliance. The G5 was a powerful little hack that IBM came up based off of their high performance server technology that while very powerful was completely unsuitable for laptops. IBM/Motorola couldn't create a chip with the G4's power consumption characteristics that had the G5's computational power. Apple's bread and butter was laptops, not servers. Also IBM promised 3Gz G5s within a year, which never materialized. That didn't sit well with Apple who made a big deal out of this at the keynote. The G5 ran way too hot.
A team at one of Intel's Israeli labs developed the Core chipsets which were actually quite a big step backwards from the latest G5 in terms of performance (and weren't even 64-bit yet like G5) but which ran very well in laptops and demonstrated they could scale them up in terms of performance in time for servers, including creation of 64-bit chips in their roadmap. After a couple of years, the latest Core chips were faster than the now quite old G5 chip that no one was investing in any longer. Even today, IBM has POWER chips that in terms of raw performance beat the pants off of anything Intel has, but who cares if you can't use them in laptops or mobile and need a refrigerator to cool them?
Maybe if Motorola/IBM had invested in creating a new laptop worthy chipset history would have turned out differently, but after having had their clones pulled, I don't think Motorola was going to come through for Apple, and IBM was all about servers, not laptops. Intel had been courting Apple for years and Steve Jobs had made a jump to Intel for NextStep once before, so he was no stranger to the idea of putting a premium OS on commodity hardware. I think he had this idea of jumping right from the beginning, hoping that THIS time it might actually be a good move. It turned out, he was right.
Just a nit, but the G4 worked out GREAT. It was fast as hell and ran well in Notebooks. The problem was with coming up with the next gen for laptops to succeed the now aging G4. In the end, it was the G5 that doomed the alliance. The G5 was a powerful little hack that IBM came up based off of their high performance server technology that while very powerful was completely unsuitable for laptops. IBM/Motorola couldn't create a chip with the G4's power consumption characteristics that had the G5's computational power. Apple's bread and butter was laptops, not servers. Also IBM promised 3Gz G5s within a year, which never materialized. That didn't sit well with Apple who made a big deal out of this at the keynote. The G5 ran way too hot.
A team at one of Intel's Israeli labs developed the Core chipsets which were actually quite a big step backwards from the latest G5 in terms of performance (and weren't even 64-bit yet like G5) but which ran very well in laptops and demonstrated they could scale them up in terms of performance in time for servers, including creation of 64-bit chips in their roadmap. After a couple of years, the latest Core chips were faster than the now quite old G5 chip that no one was investing in any longer. Even today, IBM has POWER chips that in terms of raw performance beat the pants off of anything Intel has, but who cares if you can't use them in laptops or mobile and need a refrigerator to cool them?
Maybe if Motorola/IBM had invested in creating a new laptop worthy chipset history would have turned out differently, but after having had their clones pulled, I don't think Motorola was going to come through for Apple, and IBM was all about servers, not laptops. Intel had been courting Apple for years and Steve Jobs had made a jump to Intel for NextStep once before, so he was no stranger to the idea of putting a premium OS on commodity hardware. I think he had this idea of jumping right from the beginning, hoping that THIS time it might actually be a good move. It turned out, he was right.
Last edited:
Actually
IBM is improving, esp on platforms such as iOS. Lookup "IBM Design Thinking". IBM is making a big investment in adding designers and in improving user experience. This has been happening fast over the past 1.5 years. Major new investments. The people in charge of the new movement LOVE Apple. Granted they have a LONG way to go, but it's been very promising.
----------
Oracle is IBM's biggest competitor; but SAP is a big ally of IBM.
That said, SAP software is really horrible to use and despite "great strides" in recent years, trails the consumer market in terms of ease of use by a huge margin. SAP is definitely trying, but to retain compatibility with old code bases and databases, their efforts to make substantive improvements are like watching a snail move in a race against cheetahs. They just have a very different model of what "ease of use" means
SAP is about selling to a relative handful of CIOs (Enterprise purchases), and as long as those execs keep buying -- sometimes sight unseen (never saw a single screen!) -- huge leaps in usability and design won't be coming.
----------
When Jobs came back to Apple, he ran OpenStep on an IBM ThinkPad. That was his system of choice--not a Mac. I saw a pic so it must be true!
IBM is improving, esp on platforms such as iOS. Lookup "IBM Design Thinking". IBM is making a big investment in adding designers and in improving user experience. This has been happening fast over the past 1.5 years. Major new investments. The people in charge of the new movement LOVE Apple. Granted they have a LONG way to go, but it's been very promising.
----------
Oracle is IBM's biggest competitor; but SAP is a big ally of IBM.
That said, SAP software is really horrible to use and despite "great strides" in recent years, trails the consumer market in terms of ease of use by a huge margin. SAP is definitely trying, but to retain compatibility with old code bases and databases, their efforts to make substantive improvements are like watching a snail move in a race against cheetahs. They just have a very different model of what "ease of use" means
SAP is about selling to a relative handful of CIOs (Enterprise purchases), and as long as those execs keep buying -- sometimes sight unseen (never saw a single screen!) -- huge leaps in usability and design won't be coming.
----------
When Jobs came back to Apple, he ran OpenStep on an IBM ThinkPad. That was his system of choice--not a Mac. I saw a pic so it must be true!
I wouldn't say OS X sucks for Enterprise, it's just that the Enterprise customers are used to Windows and it's just really difficult to get the majority of them to switch.
Power architecture? For Apple? No, that's most likely not going to happen. It wasn't mentioned in any article, so are you just HOPING they are going to do something? As far as I can tell, Apple is committed to Intel for the desktop/laptop market and their own ARM for the iOS devices market and that's pretty much it. Apple simply can't compete on the server side. They have to have a full line of servers and I just don't see Apple doing that on their own. i could believe they might buy another company, but they need a LOT more money to do that, and right now, they are buying back their stock and paying dividends which is sucking up their cash reserves.
IBM is selling more and more Linux based servers/mainframes. http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/
IBM is also selling Unix servers/mainframes. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/features/unix/
IBM is also selling Windows servers/mainframce. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/i/access/windows.html
For those that don't know the software that IBM sells, here's a page for the list.
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/atoz#tab_A-C
What they mentioned was that IBM was going to get their 150 software apps on Apple's platform, but they weren't specific, at least the articles I've read, that discussed which OS they were going to migrate to. OS X server? OS X desktop or just iOS.
So far, there's no mention of IBM doing anything other than selling iPhones and iPads. There's no mention of doing anything with Apple in terms of servers.
IBM is improving, esp on platforms such as iOS. Lookup "IBM Design Thinking". IBM is making a big investment in adding designers and in improving user experience. This has been happening fast over the past 1.5 years. Major new investments. The people in charge of the new movement LOVE Apple. Granted they have a LONG way to go, but it's been very promising.
----------
Oracle is IBM's biggest competitor; but SAP is a big ally of IBM.
That said, SAP software is really horrible to use and despite "great strides" in recent years, trails the consumer market in terms of ease of use by a huge margin. SAP is definitely trying, but to retain compatibility with old code bases and databases, their efforts to make substantive improvements are like watching a snail move in a race against cheetahs. They just have a very different model of what "ease of use" means
SAP is about selling to a relative handful of CIOs (Enterprise purchases), and as long as those execs keep buying -- sometimes sight unseen (never saw a single screen!) -- huge leaps in usability and design won't be coming.
----------
When Jobs came back to Apple, he ran OpenStep on an IBM ThinkPad. That was his system of choice--not a Mac. I saw a pic so it must be true!
Yeah, but Jobs switched to OS X on a Powerbook/MacBook. He was just used to OpenStep until they got OS X out, which took them until 2000 time frame to do it.
IBM not an alley to SAP? BULLCRAP.
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/business-consulting/sap-consulting/
SAP is big in the supply chain software and is used by a bunch of high end manufacturing based companies. Heck, Apple uses SAP, did you not know that? http://worldclasssupplychain.com/how-apple-uses-sap-and-integrates-it-beautifully-with-itunes.php
Who Benefits
IBM likes to differentiate itself by selling complete solutions. Since it no longer makes a lot of the hardware, hawking Apple hardware as part of a premium package of software, cloud and support services, could work well for it since Apple hardware is awesome. It helps make the sell if part of a balanced breakfast. IBM has a massive number of software developers who've been told Mobile First! With IBM Design Thinking being utilized, some of those apps may actually be quite nice. It is still quite new at IBM and not all parts of SWG have fully embraced it. I guess we'll see!
For Apple, they have long had this dream of breaking into the enterprise. Remember Steve selling Next cubes at Business World? And before that, the Lisa -- Priced for Almost None of Us (i.e., for the Elite business market)? Eventually they just gave up---but it really is relatively untapped and fulfills an old hankering. And this time, there is very little risk for them at all.
IBM likes to differentiate itself by selling complete solutions. Since it no longer makes a lot of the hardware, hawking Apple hardware as part of a premium package of software, cloud and support services, could work well for it since Apple hardware is awesome. It helps make the sell if part of a balanced breakfast. IBM has a massive number of software developers who've been told Mobile First! With IBM Design Thinking being utilized, some of those apps may actually be quite nice. It is still quite new at IBM and not all parts of SWG have fully embraced it. I guess we'll see!
For Apple, they have long had this dream of breaking into the enterprise. Remember Steve selling Next cubes at Business World? And before that, the Lisa -- Priced for Almost None of Us (i.e., for the Elite business market)? Eventually they just gave up---but it really is relatively untapped and fulfills an old hankering. And this time, there is very little risk for them at all.
Huh
He wasn't just "used to it" -- he preferred OpenStep to the original Mac. That is why he used it. He was always into the Next Big Thing and after coming back to Apple, Mac Classic wasn't that. When OS X came out, of course he used that instead -- it was the NeXT big thing, built on top of the last Big Thing (OpenStep)...
Huh? I said SAP and IBM were allies. I am looking around the room and can't figure out who you just cursed at.
Yep, knew that. They probably have some backend drones for entering everything for the masses. That is not entirely uncommon. The systems are too darn hard to use except for people who devote their lives to it. Training costs are pretty significant otherwise (training just to use it, not to develop for it). It is hard to find a worse user experience than SAP.
He wasn't just "used to it" -- he preferred OpenStep to the original Mac. That is why he used it. He was always into the Next Big Thing and after coming back to Apple, Mac Classic wasn't that. When OS X came out, of course he used that instead -- it was the NeXT big thing, built on top of the last Big Thing (OpenStep)...
Huh? I said SAP and IBM were allies. I am looking around the room and can't figure out who you just cursed at.
Yep, knew that. They probably have some backend drones for entering everything for the masses. That is not entirely uncommon. The systems are too darn hard to use except for people who devote their lives to it. Training costs are pretty significant otherwise (training just to use it, not to develop for it). It is hard to find a worse user experience than SAP.
IBM still makes quite a lot of higher end servers and mainframes. They've just been dumping the low end crap to Lenovo.
the reason why IBM is doing the deal with Apple is because Apple is getting more traction with Smartphones and Tablets and IBM doesn't make them. Since a lot of IBM solutions are tailored around the backend, it makes sense for them to offer the client devices as part of the solution, but the majority of what IBM is going to be selling are Servers, software, custom software development and other services. iPhones and iPads will be a small part of the actual PO they get on these types of deals. Between the two companies, IBM will make more profit on each deal than Apple will. Apple will just be able to sell iOS devices to more customers and they will be more part of a total solution based sale rather than just selling the device. Apple doesn't do total solution based selling, they pretty much sell the hardware and then they have a few software titles, but they don't really sell and iOS titles anymore since they are giving them away for free.
My mistake. I did also read that you said that SAP was really horrible. It's not. It's widely used supply chain software. Lots of major companies use SAP and IBM implements it.
Oracle is also a business partner to IBM. In fact, IBM is an Oracle Diamond partner, so how is Oracle and IBM competitors? http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/alliances/oracle/
Apple and IBM Team Up For Major Enterprise Mobility Partnership
Pointing out your irrelevance is 'narrowness'? You still have not explained what relevance your comment has to the topic of Apple and IBM forming a partnership.
Pointing out your irrelevance is 'narrowness'? You still have not explained what relevance your comment has to the topic of Apple and IBM forming a partnership.
Last edited:
So, just who is the person / company Tim is crawling into bed with?
http://www.netnetweb.com/blog/ginni-rometty-ibm-failing-fast/
The article linked within the above link is really worth reading.
AAPL is down another 1.5% so far.
Update - closed down 2%.
I wonder if Tim is counting this as a new "product category"?
http://www.netnetweb.com/blog/ginni-rometty-ibm-failing-fast/
The article linked within the above link is really worth reading.
AAPL is down another 1.5% so far.
Update - closed down 2%.
I wonder if Tim is counting this as a new "product category"?
Last edited:
Well, it's obvious that Tim Cook will "crawl into bed" with anyone. Look who's now in upper management. Two people that barely graduated high school. Both are responsible for putting some of the most vulgar, condescending towards women, disrespectful so-called "music" ever created. Dre and Iovine. Both of which I wouldn't want to get in same room with either of these two jokers. Tim Cook's ability to judge character doesn't always work. He's not batting a very high average.
With IBM, I think IBM will probably do well with iPhones and iPads if they really are motivated to go after that business. IBM is not going to treat the iPhone and IPad like some box to push, they will treat as part of a total mobile device solution that has custom software on both the client side and on the server side. They are also going to handle a lot of support, etc.
With IBM's inroads to large accounts with lots of Point of Sale systems, these accounts are going the route of mobile devices and IBM is one of the more reputable companies in that arena. IBM has their Point of Sales systems http://www-03.ibm.com/products/retail/au/products/ I think this is one area of intense interest for IBM to use iPhones and iPads as a POS device. IBM has a LOT of accounts already they can help migrate to iDevices.
I hear what you are saying. I don't think that Apple would have to buy an enterprise player, though, they already pulled off a major coup by signing a partnership deal with IBM. IBM's engineers will have to use Macs in order to produce iOS apps (with Xcode), so I think there would be a use for Xcode Server in IBM's setup (Xcode Server is part of OS X Server now). Also, they will have to run networks of Macs in order to collaborate on this initiative. So, I agree, it is very murky, and Apple has been waffling back and forth on the server issue for a long time. However, Apple would not have to merge OS X with UNIX, since OS X is already UNIX. And, IBM's setup of Macs and OS X Server would provide a testing ground for Mac-based networks. So, the details are not clear, but it does appear that Apple is in a position to become a major player in both client and server setups. We will see, though...
Does that number include Global Services? Global Services has a lot of outsourcing, and it makes up 13.9 billion of the 24.4 billion in revenue that IBM made last quarter (numbers acquired from the quarterly earnings reported on July 17th)
Not all of the revenue from Global Services is based upon wage arbitrage, but a fair amount of it is. I doubt IBM is going to share those statistics with the public.
There's a reason IBM doesn't report numbers affected by RA's every year. That's because they don't want the negative publicity from all of the outsourcing and continual layoffs that result from it.
You sound like the alarmists who flew off the handle when Snow Leopard came out. Here we are years later, OS X is still separate and being developed. Macs are still being developed. Apple likes a two OS strategy. The only way they would do one OS strategy would be to do a "Windows 8" in which the desktop features would still be there anyway (which is obviously highly unlikely). In other words "when" iOS can replace OS X, it would be OS X for all intents and purposes anyway.
The fact that only iOS devices are being mentioned for this partnership is because they are being heavily used in Enterprise (in terms of mobile devices). It wouldn't make sense for the partnership to focus on devices that, in many companies, aren't being used at all.
IPad sales are flat, iPhone up slightly, thats more a cause of the stock price
Yep - it is just part of the story that nothing new has been released even though Tim & Phil & Eddie have been telling us about the pipeline and all the great stuff that will be released Fall 2013 and throughout 2014.
Apple cannot compete with Macs in the enterprise. They are too expensive and it's not worth it. Apple clearly sees iOS as the future. This future may take several years to come, but it will. Tim Cook clearly says he does 80% of his job on an iPad. That's not a great strategy for selling Macs.
If there was one OS in the future, it will be OSX for all devices, supporting mouse and keyboard and touch. MSFT is starting on that track already.
Macs are not too expensive as a business will, perceiving better quality will give them a longer life to match current amortisations.
TC using an iPad 80% of the time? Sure, as he doesn't do anything, he runs the company, making sure the subject matter experts do the real work. Email, scheduling, meetings, all doable on an iPad. That's not the real world for those that are doing the work.
Nor would they be allowed to, at least not under said conditions (to shut it down). That would be in violation of pretty much every market law, rule and code in existence.
----------
You can be quite sure that IBM would be worth much, much more than that if it came to general knowledge that Apple is looking to buy them.
----------
Yes. And US, China, India and every other market as well.
----------
Microsoft is a billion dollar company even though their hardware is a joke.
Certainly not. Their mice and keyboards are great, the Surface tablets are top notch, XBox is a clear winner for them. Sure, there have been some outright flops as well, but in general, MS hardware is really good.
I really don't know.
Yes, they are. A Mac may not be expensive if you need a few quality machines. If you need 1,000+ machines for everybody in your firm, Macs are significantly more expensive and not competitive.
Yes, I agree with you. What I meant is that Tim Cook is not exactly promoting the Mac when he says he uses the iPad for 80% of his work and he encourages people to do the same.
