by - January 3rd, 2005
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.