AudioGoGo.com has published its predictions for 2005, where, as we have seen with other tech media outlets, Apple figured prominently. The magazine had five major predictions concerning Apple, including Apple having a big year for the Mac, Apple losing iPod market share, Apple upgrading the audio quality of the iTunes Music Store, and the Sony PlayStation Portable usurping the iPod as the fad gadget. The most interesting prediction, however, is that IBM will license Mac OS X from Apple.
According to AudioGoGo, a big part of IBM having sold its PC division to the Chinese was to make room for Mac clones.
"After finding the X86 market a blood bath," wrote Ken Hoffman, editor of AudioGoGo, "it would be very happy to sell a line of machines whose only competition would be a company that has always protected its margin."
Mr. Hoffman called Intel's inability to move forward to a 64-bit architecture a possible opening for Apple and IBM to make inroads into the Wintel hegemony.
"OSX, with its current nearly virus free history and BSD undercarriage, backed by IBM might make business in-roads where Apple's nearly cultish market may have been a turn-off," wrote Mr. Hoffman
Check out the rest of the article for AudioGoGo's predictions.
I have long been thinking that IBM would make an excellent licensee for Apple, especially if it limited its market to Enterprise and other corporate markets. While Apple has made significant inroads into these spaces, it is a small-time player, especially compared to the likes of IBM.
I have no doubt that Apple will continue to build momentum in this market on its own, but the reality is that IBM could sell more Macs in its first year of licensing to the business world than Apple could sell to the same market in the next five. IBM has the clout, IBM has the infrastructure, IBM has the experience, IBM has the business plan, and IBM has the reputation to do everything today that Apple wants to do tomorrow.
The last time Apple tried licensing, an era I call the Clone Wars, it was done without any structure. Apple found itself out-competed by smaller, more nimble competitors that simply danced circles around the company.
The Apple of today is one of the most controlled companies in the tech world, with everything dancing to the tiniest pull and adjustment of the strings from Steve Jobs.
Having seen what happened when Apple couldn't control the shots, you can bet that Steve Jobs' Apple would only allow cloning when it was in a market where Apple wasn't truly competing. By most definitions, that includes the corporate market.
So, Apple could conceivably sign up IBM as a licensee as long as it was very, very clear in which markets IBM could compete.
On the other hand, IBM itself would need one very powerful tool to make it work, something akin to a non-rescindable license for a period of at least 10 years (give or take a bit). Otherwise, prospective corporate customers, at least the smart ones, might fear that Apple would pull the rug out from IBM like it did in 1997, the last time it canceled Big Blue's license.
Put both of those checks in place, however -- the inability for Apple to cancel IBM's license for a goodly, long time, and strict controls on when and where IBM can sell and market its IBM-branded Macs -- and you have the makings of a great partnership.
There are lots of other reasons for IBM and Apple to go this route, too. IBM makes the G5 processor, and it behooves Apple to have the maker of its processor want to maximize development of that processor, and it behooves IBM to do anything it can to broaden the market for its processor.
Plus, I think Mr. Hoofman's points are excellent ones. The PC business is a no-profit business unless you are Dell or Apple. Dell is profitable because it has turned the Windows PC into the equivalent of a toaster -- and Dell makes the cheapest toasters -- and Apple is profitable because it can sell Macs at a healthy profit, and use that profit to fund R&D expenses.
IBM, on the other hand, was merely one of the many companies that found it hard to make a profit selling desktop PCs, but that doesn't mean the company wouldn't like to be able to make that profit. With Apple as its partner instead of Intel and Microsoft, you can (again) bet that profit margins will be maintained. That has enormous value, especially when the rest of the PC industry is so stagnant.
Yep, it's a marriage made in heaven, and I have been hoping for the last two years that something like would happen. Maybe it will someday. If not 2005, then maybe 2006.
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
IBM reported that it lost 3 1/2 million the last few years in the PC market. They sold that money-losing operation because of that. They are not going back into that market, even with OS X. Dell is so dominate that every pretender that comes to the plate is globbered. HP is not making money in the PC market either. 99% of their consumer profits come from printer sales. IBM will continue to make chips and sell busness solutions. People don't realize that IBM makes most of their money contracting with companies to service their computer systems. An interesting but flawed hypothesis in my opinion. As far as iPod losing market share in hard drive basis players, well that's a no-brainer. But Apple isn't going to stand still. I don't think AudioGoGo factored in that Apple may enter the flash-based market.
Again IBM doesn't want the consumer end of the PC business based on analyst comments and the direction they are going in.
I think the article has a point that this would be the only way Apple might consider doing Mac-clones, but that fact alone does not mean it would happen.
But IBM would not be going back directly into the PC market. According to ElReg the new HQ of Lenovo will be at Armonk and will be run by an ex-IBMer. so it is perfectly feasible that IBM could license OSX, subcontract the design to Apple and the manufacturing to Lenovo's Chinese plants, whilst keeping control of the overall direction.
If these units were to be sold only into Fortune 500 companies - where Apple has no traction whatever - then everybody wins.
Don't misunderstand me, IBM-Apple sounds great; technically
speaking Mac offer business advantages over traditional Windows companies... advantages which I believe IBM could explode incredibly. IBM could build bridges never explored between Windows base PC and Mac and the professional services to help customer during transition and so on, just like HP has been able create tighter nuts between Windows and iPod. But my doubts comes from IBM-Lenovo agreement.
IBM set from day one, its PC business model and at least to me, was very clear that Lenovo would be its partner of choice.
IBM took control of Lenovo. The deal was no way a simple buy/sell trade as mostly portrayed in the media. IBM has maintained control whilst selling the risk - very clever.
Part of the risk is the X86 chip market, it's finally reached the end of the line. Intel are under severe pressure, losing the speed race with AMD, losing customers to rival IBM.
I doubt IBM will go Mac OS X, they aren't in the retail market, Linux desktops are best for IBM's corporate business.
HP is more likely to adopt Mac OS X for their retail business, with Intel languishing and no new Windows OS to drive the market for at least 18 months the medium term Wintel market looks very weak. HP unlike IBM does have a large retail PC business and customer base to sell in to.
HP's PC business is struggling to earn profits, the reseller margin for iMacs is a better earner. All HP needs to be confident of is that they can attach a printer sale to enough HP-Mac sales.
IBM clones would run rings around Apple just like the last cloners and Jobs would find a way to shut it down. Wake up Mac dreamers, there's no way to limit clones to certain markets. This has to be the lamest prediction of 2005.
I doubt IBM will go Mac OS X, .......... Linux desktops are best for IBM's corporate business.
IBM makes its money off services. If the customer wanted OSX then that's what they would get, with Big Blue offering support and backup. Its whether IBM sees a potential demand and if SJ would go for licensing. Don't forget this is not like old style cloning, as others have pointed out it's more like the deal with HP.
As for Wintel dying I think it's simply in a state of transition. The real test will come when LongHorn arrives and has to run on old hardware. The base demand is for a dual core chip with ram and HD space to match. Moving to Longhorn means upgrading all the hardware and it's at that point that corporates may think OSX is worth a look, particularly if IBM/Apple can offer a cost effective box.
I was never really looking at this from the perspective of the clone companies. I keep thinking of this more like the HP iPod. That is, the X-serves continue to be designed by Apple, but IBM takes on the job of selling and supporting them. This would allow IBM to sell hardware with nice margins and also play into their professional services market. I think Apple has enjoyed the lack of support costs associated with iPods sold through HP, so they might enjoy having IBM take the reigns for penetrating the enterprise space.
Biff wrote: I was never really looking at this from the perspective of the clone companies. I keep thinking of this more like the HP iPod. That is, the X-serves continue to be designed by Apple, but IBM takes on the job of selling and supporting them.
That does make much more sense. I could see it happening that way.
That only leaves one question: Will the X-serves then come with printable labels so you can change their color?
That is part of the agreement for selling it - including the use of the IBM name. A direct license is not possible for another 5 years.
What is possible is IBM and Apple working together in areas of compatibility for computers larger than the x86. How? Don't have a clue, but there is an opportunity, especially in areas like life sciences, to work together in the market and then expand to business areas if the venture proves successful.
My comments said 3 1/2 million. That is incorrect:
From MacCentral:
IBM Corp.'s personal computer business racked up US$965 million in losses between Jan. 1, 2001, and June 30, 2004, the company said last week in a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, detailing the planned sale of the business to China's Lenovo Group Ltd.
A big player like IBM is too dangerous a partner to take on. Any company that large could see a relationship like this become a permanent installment of their own company (ie corperate takeover/big blue eat little fish). That would be dangerous waters for Apple.
...spells out a non-compete clause for five years. But that only covers desktop PCs, and IBM really wants to concentrate on servers and services to big corporate clients. Apple has a fantastic product, the XServe, which isn't doing too well because Apple isn't so good at selling to corporate clients. They should just turn this product over to IBM for them to sell, and guarantee continued development of the Power line of processors. Not only that: suddenly OSX is everywhere in the corporate world without anybody realising it, and then they can start the pitch to get Macs on the desks at those companies. Just talk about how a desktop with the same OS as the servers would integrate so well. The anti-Mac IT guys (and it's mostly the desktop support people in IT departments who are anti-Mac; the server and mainframe people understand Unix) cannot win the argument this time, especially if Apple is offering a business (G5) version of the rumored headless Mac at a low price.
Why would IBM agree? It's out of the PC business, so who cares about that. It's in bed with Linux, but that coexists with OSX. It probably doesn't like selling X86-based servers anyway, when it makes a better chip in-house. And IBM also has a lot of expertise to scale the XServe bigger and better. But most importantly, somewhere in their corporate memory, they remember how Microsoft gained control over the direction the PC market would take back in the 80's, when IBM was relegated to be a supplier of commodity hardware. It also remembers all the dirty tricks Microsoft did to kill OS2 Warp. And this could be payback time.
This might be the one single decision Apple makes that couldlead it to just market share gains but absolute dominance over Microsoft. Will they make it? And will they make the hundreds of follow-up decisions that will keep them on the right track? No idea. Ask Steve.
Guest wrote: Not only that: suddenly OSX is everywhere in the corporate world without anybody realising it, and then they can start the pitch to get Macs on the desks at those companies.
Hmm... unless IBM was selling and supporting corporate desktops, this would cause a split in technical support between the server room (Macs bought from IBM) and the end user (those bought from Apple). I must ponder this further...
CloseViewName:MacePosts: 9015Joined: 07 Aug 2003 Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:42 pmSubject:
AudioGoGo makes a few predictions that I sort of agree:
- IBM to license OS X. Agree but only for server and five years later for desktop too. I see IBM transiting their low- to mid- level servers to PowerPC architecture running Linux and Mac OS X. Initially, Apple Xserve from IBM would be a good idea.
- MP3 players that support subscription music will take marketshare from iPod. Agree if Apple do not add subscription music or satellite radio capabilities into iPod. I expect an iPod satellite radio in later half of 2005.
- $250 - 4GB Flash Players Will Arrive by Late Summer 2005 I expect iPod mini is transiting to being a flash-based iPod starting off with a 1 Gbytes version to be released during MacWorld SF Jan 05.
- PlayStation Portable will totally redefine the portable entertainment market Agree if Apple is slow to market the iPod movie. Hence, I expect Apple to launch a 80 GBytes iPod movie during MacWorld SF Jan 05. Apple has to start selling iPod movie now and then quickly bring down the price of all iPod variants throughout the year. Apple needs to lower profit margin to maintain marketshare in 2005.
why are you still here? shouldnt you be posting even more nasty posts about the asian tsunami? shouldnt you be packing your bags and finally moving out of mommies garage?
no one here really give a PHUCK ABOUT YOU!!! PLEASE LEAVE AND GO PLAY ON A BUSY FREEWAY...PHUCKING FOOL!!!!!
IBM has said it believes the future of business computing to will be monitors and keyboards at each cubicle attached directly to the network and not PC's.
IBM clearly wants to push Linux and Power PC. The only this can happen is with a radical change. Linux is not prepared to be a desktop OS. Right now X is the most advanced and usable Unix based Power PC Operating System.
It’s true IBM cannot sell competitor computers for awhile but I’m sure that does not include the OS. And IBM could license OS X.
A void can be filled for both IBM and Apple. IBM manufactures the chips that run OSX and that most of the hardware work right there, IBM just needs the OS.
IBM has also discussed manufacturing chips for Apple that can run multiple Operating Systems. I can see an IBM package for business for running Linux on the back end servers, and OSX on the front end for usability. Using OSX as a gateway will enable IBM to wean business onto Linux and Power PC.
- PlayStation Portable will totally redefine the portable entertainment market Agree if Apple is slow to market the iPod movie. Hence, I expect Apple to launch a 80 GBytes iPod movie during MacWorld SF Jan 05. Apple has to start selling iPod movie now and then quickly bring down the price of all iPod variants throughout the year. Apple needs to lower profit margin to maintain marketshare in 2005.[/quote]
I don't think Apple will make a Video iPod. Something like that is too small for Apple they would make something more functional.
If they go that route it will be a hand held tablet computer, running full OSX.
Anonymous wrote: I don't think Apple will make a Video iPod. Something like that is too small for Apple they would make something more functional.
If they go that route it will be a hand held tablet computer, running full OSX.
Allow me to clarify. iPod movie is more of a storage device for movies than a movie playback device. Full featured movies would be watched in a bigger screen or TV. iPod movie can be used to scan for the right movies/shows and watch video clips/music trailers.
CloseViewName:technoguy100Posts: 47Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:48 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: [SPAM DELETED]
Why is TMO allowing this spam in the discussion boards? I get enough of this crap in my email box!
[Edit: You posted this as we were deleting the original spam post. We delete this stuff as fast as we can; also, this is one of the many reasons that you have to click on Guest posts to see them. Spam has been increasing in the forums of late, and we're stepping up our efforts to control it. Thanks for the note! - Bryan]
This could be fantastic for both companies, but not with IBM making clones, but rather using OSX for the line it didn't sell-- the POWER5 high end stuff, which now comes with AIX or Linux. Wouldn't a high end box be more appealing if it could run OSX in addition-- so it coud be used to crunch any task generated on the desktop (remember IBM is designing their chips to run multiple OSs at once)? With OSX the os of the IT guys wouldn't that smooth the way for Apple to sell the laptops and desktops? Wouldn't life become much easier... one os seamless from the laptop to the big iron, no viruses, no spyware... a potential paradigm shift
Apple gets to sell OSx on high end boxes where it doesn't compete now.
If this leads to apple making a big gain in the enterprise market IBM gets to sell the chips for desktops and laptops, where it no longer competes (stealing Intel and AMDs biz ain't s shabby ambition).
CloseViewName:BiffPosts: 1479Joined: 08 Apr 2004 Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:43 pmSubject: Oy
Quote
Guest wrote: IBM has also discussed manufacturing chips for Apple that can run multiple Operating Systems. I can see an IBM package for business for running Linux on the back end servers, and OSX on the front end for usability. Using OSX as a gateway will enable IBM to wean business onto Linux and Power PC.
I must assume the first two sentances are completely unrelated. What do you mean "front end"? You mean a desktop computer? Please you must understand that "multiple operating systems" does not have to mean DIFFERENT operating systems. The value for large enterprises is in being able to run multiple instances of the SAME OS on the same server. This is especially true if IBM is pushing the thin client approach again because then you could have 1 super powerful machine running various configs of OS X set up for different users in a company.
I think you are onto something but not quite the way you've spelled it out. IBM has promised workststions using Sony's Cell chips soon BUT apple's OSX can run on the cell. I think Big Blue wants to put Mac's OSX on these workstations, rather than any Linux distrubutions, which will work also. I hope this becomes a reality...
Hmm, so what were essentially looking at is different than Apple-HP, right? We're looking at IBM machines that run PPC architecture and OSX, but are not Apple boxes. Is that it?
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:58 pmSubject:
You mean a desktop computer? Please you must understand that "multiple operating systems" does not have to mean DIFFERENT operating systems.
[quote="Biff"]
I’d met someone who works at a NASA facility and she said they run this same set up: Linux in the servers, OSX on the desk top. They have a small IT team, because frankly they have little probem.
From what’s been reported it doesn’t seem IBM is overly interested in pushing OSX as a large business solution, from reports they are far more interested in Linux for that. Unless they make a change in strategy the best chance for IBM using OSX is an intermediary for Linux.
And why not run OSX/ Linux as simultaneous Operating Systems. OSX can be the more closed and stable interface, while Linux can pretty much be whatever you want it to be since it doesn’t have the same structure of a closed OS. Together I think they would be far more functional than Window’s by itself.
I bought a Japanese version and they are nice, but they won't outsell the iPod for awhile. Sony somehow still can't figure out how to keep up production with demand. They are worse than Apple. Remember the PS2 launch? People were paying close to 800 bucks for them. Japan is SOLD out of PSP's with the little that are left in the retail channel are selling for 2X their original retail cost. Apple has been pretty sucessful in keeping the ipod available with the exception of the last couple of weeks of Xmas when all of the slackers wanted to buy them. The other day I was at Target and they had most of the models they carry in stock.
I doubt you will see a PSP until June even if they do make their March release date. Just take my advice, they're cool but not worth 500 bucks.
The fact that the PSP is huge and uses crappy memory sticks and has poor battery life and that it just plain sucks will keep it from making an impact on Apple or (more relevently) Nintendo.
Don't get me wrong, I mean much like those all in one super uber video all media ultimate portable phone pda computer do everything devices, the PSP certainly seems cool. But, just as with those other gadgets, in practice it does everything poorly and nothing right.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:46 pmSubject:
>I’d met someone who works at a NASA facility and she said they run this same set up: Linux in the servers, OSX on the desk top. They have a small IT team, because frankly they have little probem.<
If OSX was available for the server I'd sure be tempted by a seamless top-to-bottom solution featuring both the world's best OS and the world's best chip.
Should make Intel's and Microsoft's knees knock.
For example, I've had a g-5 tied up since 6:00 yesterday proccessing a single command (generating a 3-d terrain model from an xyz text file)... if I could just shift such tasks to the big iron, that would be the iron I'd buy.
Why shouldn't IBM offer OSX? It already offers a half dozen other os's and OSX is better and is the only one that inherently sells more POWER processors.
An Apple-IBM collaboration makes little sense from IBM's side.
IBM's strategy is to run Linux across its server line (including PowerPC-based servers). The servers are managed in the same way and customers can recompile to move an app from one processor architecture to another. IBM has no interest in introducing a new OS like Mac OS X, which is based on Darwin. (And Apple has no interest in replacing Darwin with Linux.)
Also, IBM is a huge company and any new product line would have to have a multi-billion dollar potential for it to be considered, and I don't see OS X or XServer falling into that category.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:10 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: An Apple-IBM collaboration makes little sense from IBM's side.
IBM's strategy is to run Linux across its server line (including PowerPC-based servers).
Also, IBM is a huge company and any new product line would have to have a multi-billion dollar potential for it to be considered, and I don't see OS X or XServer falling into that category.
Running OSX accros the line seems like a better strategy. If smart they have changed course. End result: IBM & Apple take Intel's and Microsoft's biz. That is not multi-billion?
AN APPLE BUYOUT OR A THICKENING OF THE FAMILY TREE?
OPINION
By James Saldana
December 3rd, 2004
With all the speculation over an IBM buyout of APPLE, I think increasing cooperation between the two, considering IBM's recent selloff of its PC division. This is my take on it.
IBM is moving to a POWER Everywhere [1] strategy from supercomputers to mainframes, desktops to home entertainment centers, and game devices, right on down to phones and other embedded devices. With the exception of supercomputers, mainframes and servers, IBM won't actually be selling all of these systems fully configured, rather a unified POWER (RISC) architecture from top to bottom. The benefits of this strategy are obvious, especially now that IBM has apparently cleared lead over INTEL in system performance (POWER 5) [2].
With this in mind, a INTEL based PC division that runs primarily on MS software or LINUX makes little sense in the POWER everywhere strategy. But what can run POWER based systems from Supercomputers to embedded chips in the smallest of devices, like phones? The obvious choice is UNIX or LINUX, something that IBM is already familiar with. But again, servers, desktops, and even entertainment devices would not be well served without a highly polished GIU interface.
This is where Apple comes in with OS X and its UNIX (DARWIN) core. Apple's DARWIN can drive supercomputers right on down to embedded devices in one form or another, but more importantly it can provide a well define framework for a GIU almost everywhere strategy, especially in products like servers, desktops, and entertainment devices and phones. POWER Everywhere as well as UNIX and OSX where needed would break IBM's long dependence on the WINTEL monopoly[3], which it dumped when it sold its PC division off to China, where it was going one way or another (outsourcing).
Now I know Linux fans are probably screaming bloody murder, since Linux has plenty of advanced GIU's, but lets face it, none of them are anywhere near the spit and polish that Apple and OS X can supply. Not to say Linux is out of the game by any sort, its just a matter of diversity and having the right tools for the right tasks.
In any case, such a collaboration does not require a buyout or for control of the Macintosh platform to leave Apple; something that Steve Jobs would never allow. He's not known for his willingness to share power, only take it. Some would say that this would leave IBM dependent on Apple for a big part its OS support, true, but Apple is already dependent on IBM to produce microprocessors for its Macintosh platform and Motorola is unlikely to change that equation, based on its lackluster record thus far.
But what does Apple get? In this codependent relationship Apple would get open access to the POWER Everywhere chip-set, probably a break on chip prices for its devices and continued input in to chip development. This would be mighty helpful to Apple as they continue to move into consumer electronic spaces and low-end server & SANs markets.
This rings well with recent rumors of a joint Moto-Apple phone, being that Motorola also uses and develops RISC chips for the consumer space already. Although oddly enough, neither Apple which depends on POWER chips or Motorola which makes RISC chips has committed to IBM's homegrown Power Consortium(*4), which Sony and Red Hat have joined, not to mention that future versions of Xbox and PlayStation will be running chips from IBM.
James Saldana
Multimedia, Graduate Student
Southern Illinois University
We delete this stuff as fast as we can; also, this is one of the many reasons that you have to click on Guest posts to see them. Spam has been increasing in the forums of late, and we're stepping up our efforts to control it. Thanks for the note! - Bryan]