Richard Davies wrote: The UK has a good crop of technology pioneers in cloud computing - for example ElasticHosts, FlexiScale, Flexiant, OnApp - and also some strong government initiatives such as G-Cloud.
We will have to see whether this kind of technical leadership converts into swift mass-market adoption or not.
When, at the beginning of 2004, with Apple's stock price in
the low twenties, rumors swept through the Mac Forums, the scenario was a simple
buyout (IBM's stock at that time was in the region of $90).
But a year is a long time in i-Technology, and today - with Apple at $65 and
IBM still at only $97 - the rumor mill no longer talk of how IBM, once divested
of its PC division, is going to swoop on Apple and buy it outright. Now the
speculation is of a close collaboration...albeit possibly very close.
The fuel for the latest round of speculation was an article by New York Times
reporters John Markoff and Gary Rivlin in which they claimed IBM is considering
selling its entire PC division to a Chinese company, Lenovo, for a reported $1
billion to $2 billion.
First the oddity of selling a $10 billion business for just $1-2 billion was
discussed, and then came the inevitable thought that it would perhaps be a
prelude to a swoop on Apple.
Questions abounded in the message boards, however: "Why would IBM scrap PCs
altogether only to dive back into the mix through Apple?" - "Wouldn't it be a
disaster for Apple to fall under the auspices of this behemoth with no style,
the least creative, in terms of Industrial Design and UI, company on earth?" and
so on.
Nonetheless media pundits seem to find the idea has all sorts of advantages.
Take Computer Business Review, for example:
"IBM could use a large injection of cool and an understanding of
consumer electronics that it has, perhaps with the exception of the venerable
ThinkPad, been sorely lacking in. Apple may have had its ups and downs, but
except when the company was going nuts after it fired Steve Jobs a decade ago,
it has generally been cool."
Or The Register:
"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."
Newburyport, MA-based provocateur Cormac O'Reilly, who authored the latter
piece, continues that, in his view, 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."
He adds:
"Perhaps most of all, it would be a way for IBM to get even with
Microsoft for all that bad blood over the early versions of Windows, which IBM
partnered in, and apparently accidentally part-funded. Remember that what IBM
got out of that for its money was an operating systems that chairman Gerstner
famously named Warp, which turned out to be the speed at which it hurtled into
oblivion."
Now, equally inevitably, the speculation will move
swiftly to the Question of All Questions, namely can IBM by munching on Apple
finally get a leg-up on arch enemy Microsoft?
Not suprisingly the Slashdot community in general scoffs at such a scenario,
pointing out that the only thing that is ever going to out-Microsoft Microsoft
is not IBM but Linux. A typical comment: " Apple will never kill Microsoft or
grow to be anything more than a niche OS. If any OS does it, it will be various
distributions of Linux as it provides no lock-in to a single distribution, it's
free and can accomplish all of the same tasks. Apple products have the same
lock-in that MS products do with very little advantage."
A more interesting thought has also emerged on Slashdot, which is that the PC
division sell-off is a prelude to a revival of the old IBM/Apple/Motorola
alliance:
"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 story is likely to go on and on....and on. We will as ever try and keep
you posted on what's being said and thought and written about it. Meantime, this
interim report finishes with the "obligatory joke" (provided by one Slashdotter
as light relief to all the speculation):
Q. What to you get when you combine Apple and IBM?
About Jeremy Geelan Jeremy Geelan is President & COO of Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences both in North America and overseas. He is executive producer and presenter of Cloud Expo's "Power Panels" on SYS-CON.TV.
Reader Feedback: Page 1 of 3
#41
bubba451 commented on 8 Dec 2004
What if IBM just buys Apple's (computer) hardware division?
Apple's already separated things out nicely so that things like the iPod and the Airport Express are in their own division. And unlike the hardware division, the iPods have amazing market share.
They've also been trying to increase their revenue from software (frequent releases of OS X, iLife, pro software like Final Cut).
If Apple's no longer a hardware company, who knows, maybe they might be more willing to ship OS X for other platforms.
Stranger things have happened.
#40
unfortunateson commented on 8 Dec 2004
IBM won't buy Apple if it has to bid against HP.
1) Apple's stock price is inflated because of the iPod
2) HP won't want to give up their marketing of the iPod, or the perceived loss of control if IBM snatches up Apple
3) A bidding war between HP and IBM for the whole of Apple's biz would benefit neither, only Apple shareholders.
So my conclusion is that IBM isn't going to buy up Apple, unless it was silly enough to have a deal planned to spin off the iPod/iTunes unit to HP, and that's quite a cash cow to give up.
The biggest side benefit of that might be that it could diffuse the Apple Corp. (Beatles) lawsuit, if Apple Computer is no longer the owner of a music-related product. A spinoff might be the only way to end that suit (Apple or whoever owns them would still have to cough up a big chunk of bullion to Yoko and Sir Paul, but it would end the long-term problems).
Say Linux goes a bit more mainstream, Opensource apps increase in numbers, especially for powerpc, both IBM and Apple win, Intel and Microsoft lose.
This is more true of servers than desktops... for now. IBM can take the server share (cheapest pseries now is $6k, with very few under $10k, Apple the desktop share). They both have been depending more and more on opensourced apps and OSes, and have had past alliances (PReP machines), that worked. Both created successful computer lines and are confident in doing the same again. Both have been highly marginalized by Wintel Inc.
IBM is pretty much getting rid of x86 on desktops, keeping only the x86 on servers. With AMD as a good option, they really dont need Intel for anything now, havent been relying on Microsoft either for much beside xSeries OSes (online catalog shows SLES and Redhat AS as options alongside Win2003).
The whole industry, at least the bigger players are moving away from the wintel alliance, and we can expect a showdown. Wintel wants the entire market to itself, everyones threatened. Sun, SGI, Novell have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, no reason for them not to join. Apple and IBM must do something while they still have the kick.
Tell me if I'm way off my base here. I have a premonition of a tech sector mortal kombat with entire vertical architectures against each other, x86+win32 and other arches+other oses. I see IBM moving away from x86, at least from Intel... Athlon64 is too good a deal to turn down.
Am I wrong or is the Intel+Microsoft alliance just not that threatening?
"It's official. According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, and confirmed by Reuters reports from both San Francisco and Beijing, China's personal computer giant Lenovo Group Limited today signed an agreement with IBM to take over the latter's personal computer business for $1.25 billion. Lenovo will move its HQ from Beijing to New York, a change that the new Lenovo CEO - who comes from IBM - says marks the creation of the world's "first genuinely global Chinese-American company."
No way would steve let it happen. Do you know how stupid IBM is? I worked for IBM as a PC tech, although I am really a Mac tech, but anyway, the company I was placed at was going to buy a Mac for their print center and they wanted quotes from outside vendors for support. To my dismay, I was told IBM does not support Macs. Well, I had over 10 years Mac experience, etc, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I left. It's kind of like the stories you hear about the army when they drafted people. They'd get a cook and put him in the motor pool. IBM is that dumb. It would never happen and if it did, it would never work out.
I think what may be in the offing is a strategic partnership with IBM.
An "enterprise alliance" (ala the NeXT days) and the licensing of Mac OS X to IBM for manufacture of IBM branded Macs for the enterprise and perhaps Mac OS X Server for some of IBM's servers. Perhaps even an investment by IBM into Apple's Macintosh division.
I doubt anything more.
Apple's main competitor is Sony these days...and if any merger acquisition were in the cards, it would be with a consumer electronics company like Sony.
#34
Greg commented on 7 Dec 2004
The point of apple's strategy is to avoid the quality control nightmare that the PC industry is now. Why then would Apple port OSX to x86? That is pre-Jobs. He won't water down the brand, brand is life. Look at AOL, funny how the giants that got out early are having a hard time keeping their brands in place.
AOL = slow + not savvy
Microsoft = clunky + controlling + standard
#33
Daniel Wallace commented on 7 Dec 2004
How does one talk back to a harware giant
when one is dependant upon the giant's
future hardware designs and is subject to
its hardware patents?
#32
Neverland commented on 7 Dec 2004
IBM isn't stupid they can clearly see Microsoft is OVER and only the deluded are still hanging onto their virusware OS.
Microsoft is never over. Never over, never out. IBM just wishes. It's just a pipedream.
#31
jack commented on 7 Dec 2004
Q. what to you get when you combine Apple and IBM?
A. a bunch of IBM execs running around in flares
#30
MACMSB commented on 7 Dec 2004
Doesn't anyone see how this could affect Apple??? Could you imagine bigger/better hardware at par with developments from the PC world? Cheaper Apples?!?! Anywho... just imagine...
#29
Clue Giver commented on 7 Dec 2004
What do you get when IBM buys out Apple and keeps Steve Jobs?
Apple run by Steve Jobs thats bigger than IBM and 25 billion $ in Steve Jobs pocket.
Just like when Apple bought next.
Steve has final say on any sale of Apple, a real reverse poison pill, you die but Steve owns your assets and gets paid what their worth to own them as well.
IBM isn't stupid they can clearly see Microsoft is OVER and only the deluded are still hanging onto their virusware OS.
#28
Joshua Cohen commented on 7 Dec 2004
It's not going to happen, but it would make more sense for Apple to buy IBM's PC division and apply the same high-style they do with Macs to PCs. This would put Apple back in the top 5 as a personal computer vendor and it would be it good excuse to finally port OS X to the Intel platform.
#27
Greg Stein commented on 7 Dec 2004
Actually, my company did an extensive evaluation of the actual cost of purchasing out right and supporting an all Apple workplace, and the comparison was very surprising.
In our situation we had creatives already working on several Apple workstations, a small Xshare network that was central to our core business (television), and linux based servers for feeding content to our video uplinks. Our IT department said that they were having issues supporting a mixed network, and their recommendation was to get rid of the Apples. We decided to research the issue more closely. We logged support time and FORCED our IT department to research system capabilities to see if there were quantitative differences in the abilities of the systems. What we found out my not be completely applicable to all situations but it was most interesting.
1. Support time on Macs was fractional (1/10th) when compared to networked PCs, and the Macs were able to provide a much larger number of capabilities default. Where large scale upgrades would have been necessary to get the same from our PCs.
2. Apple's inroads into professional grade media solutions makes it very enticing when you look at licensing and supporting comparable PC workstations. Final Cut/Logic workstations were a very enticing part of this.
3. Xserve was perfect for our server needs as well, and it hand shakes nicely with the Linux servers that we decided to keep.
Overall, even after considering the higher cost of the workstations themselves we found that we could convert the entire company to Apple (including support and training) for less than the costs of one years support for the companies PCs. That blew all of us away... even the Mac supports were surprised, because their main angle for supporting the change was that they prefered the work environment and their work was our main product.
Just goes to show, you never can tell.
I can give more specific detail if you would like, bu it really isn't germain.
Not sure I would like to see IBM buy Apple, think they make great partners though.
-g
bubba451 wrote: What if IBM just buys Apple's (computer) hardware division?
Apple's already separated things out nicely so that things like the iPod and the Airport Express are in their own division. And unlike the hardware division, the iPods have amazing market share.
They've also been trying to increase their revenue from software (frequent releases of OS X, iLife, pro software like Final Cut).
If Apple's no longer a hardware company, who knows, maybe they might be more willing to ship OS X for other platforms.
Stranger things have happened.
unfortunateson wrote: IBM won't buy Apple if it has to bid against HP.
1) Apple's stock price is inflated because of the iPod
2) HP won't want to give up their marketing of the iPod, or the perceived loss of control if IBM snatches up Apple
3) A bidding war between HP and IBM for the whole of Apple's biz would benefit neither, only Apple shareholders.
So my conclusion is that IBM isn't going to buy up Apple, unless it was silly enough to have a deal planned to spin off the iPod/iTunes unit to HP, and that's quite a cash cow to give up.
The biggest side benefit of that might be that it could diffuse the Apple Corp. (Beatles) lawsuit, if Apple Computer is no longer the owner of a music-related product. A spinoff might be the only way to end that suit (Apple or whoever owns them would still have to cough up a big chunk of bullion to Yoko and Sir Paul, but it would end the long-term problems).
Ghazan Haider wrote: Add up these facts:
Apple is powerpc
IBM is powerpc
Apple is OSX based on FreeBSD
IBM spent $1 bil on Linux last year
Apple competes with Intel and Microsoft
IBM competes with Intel and Microsoft
Microsofts apps depend on Intel (Wintel)
Intel Sales depend on Microsoft OS and apps
Intel is a monopoly (they still are, declining)
Microsoft is a monopoly
IBM and Apple are losers in these monopolies
IBM has been releasing apps for Linux on pSeries
Apple has been pushing apps for UNIX on PPC
IBM supports OSS community, increasing free apps
Free apps can be compiled on any arch.
Making sense now?
No?
Say Linux goes a bit more mainstream, Opensource apps increase in numbers, especially for powerpc, both IBM and Apple win, Intel and Microsoft lose.
This is more true of servers than desktops... for now. IBM can take the server share (cheapes...
Done Deal wrote: This report has just appeared, also at LinuxWorld.com:
"It's official. According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, and confirmed by Reuters reports from both San Francisco and Beijing, China's personal computer giant Lenovo Group Limited today signed an agreement with IBM to take over the latter's personal computer business for $1.25 billion. Lenovo will move its HQ from Beijing to New York, a change that the new Lenovo CEO - who comes from IBM - says marks the creation of the world's "first genuinely global Chinese-American company."
Jim Lagnese wrote: No way would steve let it happen. Do you know how stupid IBM is? I worked for IBM as a PC tech, although I am really a Mac tech, but anyway, the company I was placed at was going to buy a Mac for their print center and they wanted quotes from outside vendors for support. To my dismay, I was told IBM does not support Macs. Well, I had over 10 years Mac experience, etc, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I left. It's kind of like the stories you hear about the army when they drafted people. They'd get a cook and put him in the motor pool. IBM is that dumb. It would never happen and if it did, it would never work out.
Ravi wrote: I think what may be in the offing is a strategic partnership with IBM.
An "enterprise alliance" (ala the NeXT days) and the licensing of Mac OS X to IBM for manufacture of IBM branded Macs for the enterprise and perhaps Mac OS X Server for some of IBM's servers. Perhaps even an investment by IBM into Apple's Macintosh division.
I doubt anything more.
Apple's main competitor is Sony these days...and if any merger acquisition were in the cards, it would be with a consumer electronics company like Sony.
Greg wrote: The point of apple's strategy is to avoid the quality control nightmare that the PC industry is now. Why then would Apple port OSX to x86? That is pre-Jobs. He won't water down the brand, brand is life. Look at AOL, funny how the giants that got out early are having a hard time keeping their brands in place.
AOL = slow + not savvy
Microsoft = clunky + controlling + standard
Daniel Wallace wrote: How does one talk back to a harware giant
when one is dependant upon the giant's
future hardware designs and is subject to
its hardware patents?
Neverland wrote: IBM isn't stupid they can clearly see Microsoft is OVER and only the deluded are still hanging onto their virusware OS.
Microsoft is never over. Never over, never out. IBM just wishes. It's just a pipedream.
MACMSB wrote: Doesn't anyone see how this could affect Apple??? Could you imagine bigger/better hardware at par with developments from the PC world? Cheaper Apples?!?! Anywho... just imagine...
Clue Giver wrote: What do you get when IBM buys out Apple and keeps Steve Jobs?
Apple run by Steve Jobs thats bigger than IBM and 25 billion $ in Steve Jobs pocket.
Just like when Apple bought next.
Steve has final say on any sale of Apple, a real reverse poison pill, you die but Steve owns your assets and gets paid what their worth to own them as well.
IBM isn't stupid they can clearly see Microsoft is OVER and only the deluded are still hanging onto their virusware OS.
Joshua Cohen wrote: It's not going to happen, but it would make more sense for Apple to buy IBM's PC division and apply the same high-style they do with Macs to PCs. This would put Apple back in the top 5 as a personal computer vendor and it would be it good excuse to finally port OS X to the Intel platform.
Greg Stein wrote: Actually, my company did an extensive evaluation of the actual cost of purchasing out right and supporting an all Apple workplace, and the comparison was very surprising.
In our situation we had creatives already working on several Apple workstations, a small Xshare network that was central to our core business (television), and linux based servers for feeding content to our video uplinks. Our IT department said that they were having issues supporting a mixed network, and their recommendation was to get rid of the Apples. We decided to research the issue more closely. We logged support time and FORCED our IT department to research system capabilities to see if there were quantitative differences in the abilities of the systems. What we found out my not be completely applicable to all situations but it was most interesting.
1. Support time on Macs was fractional (1/10th) when c...
Penguinista3 wrote: I don't believe all those rumors that IBM will buy Apple. Why? IBM bought Pricewaterhouse cooper for consulting business, they bought Tivoli, Rational, Lotus etc. All their brain power are gear towards serving the enterprise. And their support of Linux indicates that their strategy is to serve the business market.
Apple is about digital lifestyle. Their computers are increasingly becoming an accessory to Ipod--a gateway to digital lifestyle. Apple is a digital designer company. They are for consumer to use, not for business. Business is about cost, efficiency and standards. Anyone who knows business will not in their right mind would recommend Apple.
As for Linux beating Microsoft, that is a difficult battle. Linux will continue to grow in areas such as servers, back office tasks, devices etc. I don't see it happening on the desktop. How do I know this?
As a sales person in...
Mikey T. wrote: IBM may be selling off its PC business because they want to do away with Wintel altogether. Selling the division is a good/easy way to completely get rid of it including the support. This will then allow IBM to concentrate on making desktops with its PowerPC line. And perhaps they may strike a deal with Apple to license OS X. And/or maybe get Apple to build a low cost, headless system for corporate America that would only be sold through IBM.
Steama wrote: If IBM is getting out of the PC business it does make not much sense to bob for Apple. If it did happen I would just laugh. I does not seem like a very smart move for IBM.
Maintaining Apple (OS development and everything else) would be a big expensive job for IBM. I can't see any advantages to it for anyone.
Brian wrote: Not to take sides here, but the only reason Macintosh is not nestled with Spy/Ad/Malware and Viruses is simply due to its standing as a solid number 3 in the OS market.
IBM = Toughbooks
Mac = Cute computers
If a machine is rated by the exterior case and display, than by all means, IBM should buy Mac. However take the business route and stick to your guns (Linux) where you won't make a fatal business decision. Can you imagine your company being outfitted with Mac's at every desktop. There's your entire budget.....gone!
mike robson wrote: I don't get this one.. you're comparing stock prices to compare the sizes of the companies?? wow..
IBM makes some insane amount of revenues each year like.. 40B.. while Apple is about to crack 10B.. comparing stock price like that is just ditzy
Swisscom, the Swiss telecom, is going into the cloud business.
Its subsidiary Swisscom IT Services AG has signed up with Red Hat as a Certified Cloud Provider and launched a public cloud Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud targeting enterprise-class customers primarily in ...
Apache Deltacloud, the Red Hat-contributed ReSTful API that abstracts differences between clouds so services on any cloud can be managed – provided of course there’s a driver – has graduated from the Apache Foundation’s incubator and is now a full-fledged Top-Level Project (TLP)....
In a surprise move on Tuesday, January 10, Oracle wheeled out its Big Data Appliance.
That’s the one it said in October would be ready sometime in the first half. Only nobody believed it meant early in the first half. Heck, it’s not even clear anybody thought Oracle could make ...
Rackspace Hosting, the service leader in cloud computing, on Thursday announced its acquisition of SharePoint911, an industry leader in SharePoint consulting, training, and "JumpStart" services within SharePoint. The unification of both companies provides capabilities to deliver ...
CloudLinux, Inc., on Thursday released CafeFS 3, a virtualized file system for shared hosters that cages each customer within its own virtualized file system.
CageFS becomes part of CloudLinux OS at no additional charge. CloudLinux OS, the only commercially-supported Linux OS m...
About Newsfeeds / Video Feeds
.gif)
When, at the beginning of 2004, with Apple's stock price in
the low twenties, rumors swept through the Mac Forums, the scenario was a simple
buyout (IBM's stock at that time was in the region of $90).
Swisscom, the Swiss telecom, is going into the cloud business.
Its subsidiary Swisscom IT Services AG has signed up with Red Hat as a Certified Cloud Provider and launched a public cloud Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud targeting enterprise-class customers primarily in ...
Apache Deltacloud, the Red Hat-contributed ReSTful API that abstracts differences between clouds so services on any cloud can be managed – provided of course there’s a driver – has graduated from the Apache Foundation’s incubator and is now a full-fledged Top-Level Project (TLP)....
In a surprise move on Tuesday, January 10, Oracle wheeled out its Big Data Appliance.
That’s the one it said in October would be ready sometime in the first half. Only nobody believed it meant early in the first half. Heck, it’s not even clear anybody thought Oracle could make ...
Rackspace Hosting, the service leader in cloud computing, on Thursday announced its acquisition of SharePoint911, an industry leader in SharePoint consulting, training, and "JumpStart" services within SharePoint. The unification of both companies provides capabilities to deliver ...
CloudLinux, Inc., on Thursday released CafeFS 3, a virtualized file system for shared hosters that cages each customer within its own virtualized file system.
CageFS becomes part of CloudLinux OS at no additional charge. CloudLinux OS, the only commercially-supported Linux OS m...
