[Jim S.]

Yowza, I hate to admit that it makes a lot of sense...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12...e_speculation/

[SKMDC]

already a thready

[Henriok]

Actually.. for me it doesn't make sense at all. I can see why IBM want to get out of the PPC business, but why on earth should this be because they want to tie them selves closer to Apple? If they wanted to do that.. then do that! They don't have to sell their PC business and loose a lot of smart people in the process, people who can build cheap computers with good quality. In fact.. if they wanted to do that, it would be really stupid to sell their PC business since they would loose all their potential clients, support, sales and technical staff to some other company. Just stupid!

If IBM would want to build PowerPC based workstations and PCs then why on earth don't they do just that? they don't neeed Apple to do that. Linux is mature enough, they have the hardware, the know how and even the customers. But this have bee true for some time now and I havn't seen any hints from IBM in this direction.. save Cell. And.. that's something completely different.

[Jim S.]

Sorry to start a repeat thread though "Speculation and Rumors" seems to be the appropriate place for this topic.

[SKMDC]

the other thread started just as an ibm selling off it's computer division and when cormac wrote the article about an apple ibm partnership, that thread evolved to that. i just linked to it because cormac's (unappropriate i think, because it's been spreading across the web as something more than just his crazy scheme) column was already linked there and views and opinions were being shared and i thought you might want to go there to chime in.

[Jim S.]

SKMDC, thanks for the link and I will read that thread.

Henriok, IBM has always lusted after Apple's design asthetics and software ease of use. I work at a very large company that is an IBM shop and we are stuck with crap like IBM's Lotus notes on the desktop. IBM knows that Apple could go head-to-head with Microsoft on the OS and (yes) business applications like Microsoft Office. Keynote proved that point and I doubt that Apple is willing to risk losing Microsoft as a developer so they stay low in that market. IBM may be willing to say "bring it on".

It would be VERY interesting...

[Kurt]

Apple is Steve Jobs. It would be a very different company if IBM took over. Steve Jobs could not work for anyone else after being in charge. This is a very silly rumor.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Kurt Apple is Steve Jobs. It would be a very different company if IBM took over. Steve Jobs could not work for anyone else after being in charge. This is a very silly rumor.

I fully agree I think that this is just some random speculation. IF and being a very big IF that IBM and Apple do decide to partner up, Steve would still be calling the shots with the computer and software design. He is why the Mac is the way it is today and IBM knows this. Steve brought us out of the beige era of computers and IBM would want to do the same.

There would be some benefits for both sides Apple would get the massive resources that IBM has and Apple would probably get preferred treatment when it comes to processor selection and other tech advancements. IBM would then get the design and ease of use that is Apple which in my opinion IBM really could use.

I still think the whole thing is BS though.

[FFL]

Yeah, well...
HP didn't have to buy OR merge with Apple, in order to sell iPods with HP logos on them.

[Henriok]

Originally Posted by Jim S. Henriok, IBM has always lusted after Apple's design asthetics and software ease of use.

And IBM is not the only one but why would selling off its PC business make any difference? It makes no sense!

[unixguru]

I don't really think the PC business gets along well with other parts of IBM. It's very different. It's also not profitable for IBM (last I heard). IBM's PC share is dropping. I think the only reason they keep it around is so that companies can be an all IBM shop. When I worked for HP (before the Compaq buyout -- actually the CPQ purchased happened later while I was working there...) we talked about how NSD (HP NetServer Divison) was losing money like crazy and wasn't moving many boxes. But the reason they kept it around was so that customers could do a one-vendor order. They might purchase a few file/print servers along with some big bad HP 9000 UNIX servers. (Ah... the good old days of the rp8400 and SuperDome...)

The relatively small (for IBM) PC business is more of a ball and chain to the rest of IBM. It uses mostly commodity, non-IBM technology hardware, and sells a lot of software from competitors (M$). The rest of IBM sells IBM-engineered hardware (with nearly 100% IBM technology) running (mostly) IBM-engineered software.

On the other hand, Apple uses the PowerPC architecture -- IBM technology. It also is not an IBM competitor -- Apple is not trying to kill IBM, unlike microsoft. I think the two companies having a broader partnership would be excellent for both. I kind of doubt IBM buying Apple though -- it would be a big culture clash.

Apple does have a lot of technology that could be useful to IBM and vice-versa. Apple NextStep 5 a.k.a. Mac OS X is the only UNIX-based OS that is suitable for the average user -- in fact, it's the best desktop OS out there. Apple also has some other neat things in its hardware. IBM has the processor technology, and the "big iron expertise", but it doesn't have a good OS for non-tech types. OS X Server could probably do some really neat stuff on low to mid-range RS/6000 a.k.a. P-Series, if its scalability could be tuned. Who has the engineers that are experts at that kind of stuff? IBM's AIX team. So I think a buyout or broad partnership could have some very interesting benefits for customers.

[Henriok]

Originally Posted by unixguru So I think a buyout or broad partnership could have some very interesting benefits for customers.

You certainly make good points why IBM and Apple should work closer together but no one have made it clear why IBM selling its PC business have anything to do with Apple.

[Jim S.]

Wow, great comments. Here's my thinking

1. I agree that Apple is Steve Jobs but Steve Jobs does not own Apple. So long as Apple is managed as a separate company, Steve is in charge, and Steve gets lots and lots of IBM shares, this could work.

2. IBM's PC business is tied to Intel and Microsoft and the reason for buying Apple would be to take them head-on. That's enough of a reason to sell the PC business but yet another is to raise cash needed for the Apple deal.

3. With PowerPC and OS-X, does anyone doubt that IBM could take on Intel and Microsoft? Corporate America is tired of Microsoft but they do not trust Apple as a long-term supplier. IBM is the huge in corporate America.

4. Don't forget that OS-X can run on Intel... that would be part of the plan and would get OS-X into corporate America. One thing that this would bring is the low-cost headless Mac that many of us have been waiting for.

I'm not sure that IBM needs (or wants) to buy Apple but just buying 10-20% of the shares may be a good move and show long-term commitment to Apple. I see that as a good thing.

[drewprops]

Your number 4 is teh suck. Cloning the Mac is the road to ruin; viruses, spyware and mouthbreathing users.

[El Guardo]

If IBM were to merge with or buy Apple, the senior executives would be shot for doing so when the Apple share price is so high. Then they'd be tortured for aligning with a company that has, at best, five per cent market share. And such an audacious move would have to be progressive if only to appease the analysts that would shit themselves upon discovering that big blue finally did something innovative (excluding, of course, the supercomputer and chip processing subsidiaries).

[Tuttle]

"And IBM is not the only one but why would selling off its PC business make any difference? It makes no sense!"

Isn't the important part not the computer hardware that IBM no longer sells, but the fact that IBM will no longer be selling products running MS OSes.

I don't really know much about the internal structure of IBM, but I've heard the company operates as various self-contained business units. I assume that the pc hardware unit was made up with mostly a lot of pro-MS folk. Getting rid of that unit will give IBM a clarity of purpose: PowerPC + Unix.

If you are looking at Apple from an IBM perspective, I assume you would view Apple as the premier high-end desktop Linux(unix) vendor. Where you would want the rest of the industry to be a few years down the road. Consumer desktop Linux machines running PowerPC chips.

[DMBand0026]

Originally Posted by drewprops Your number 4 is teh suck. Cloning the Mac is the road to ruin; viruses, spyware and mouthbreathing users.

Too true. The "whole widget" concept is one of the biggest reasons that Apple products just work. They design the whole thing from the ground up and they ensure that everything works. You start cloning these things and you introduce a whole new level of uncertainty into the mix. Something that makes me uneasy.

Macs are legendary for their ability to just work and for their usability. I fear the addition of clones would throw that all out the window.

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by Jim S. 4. Don't forget that OS-X can run on Intel... that would be part of the plan and would get OS-X into corporate America. One thing that this would bring is the low-cost headless Mac that many of us have been waiting for.

nay. the whole operating system may, in theory, have the ability to run on intel hardware, but i don't think that its been shown in the wild (aside from emulation). ...in theory, communism works... the kernel {the most basic part of the OS}, and a subset of OSX known as darwin can and does run on Intel; darwin != OSX though. darwin doesn't have all the interface goodiness that we've come to expect from an Apple OS. darwin, basically, is just a command-line version of the OS (there is a GUI available, maybe even in the default install, but its X windows; traditionally used on real unix, gnu/linux, and the bsd systems). nice for geeks, but not really for users.

i think apple would fight, tooth and nail, if ibm wanted to buy them only to put out an x86 version of OSX. you could basically kiss powerpc OSX goodbye. why would anyone create programs for powerpc OSX, when 95% or whatever of the hardware outthere is x86-compatible?

it seems more likely to me that ibm is getting rid of their pc hardware side so they can focus on powerpc/power. in that regard it wouldn't be bad for them to acquire/hookup with apple. apple has a great powerpc OS, in many ways better than gnu/linux; 't makes a very nice compliment to ibm hardware.

[micmoo]

Here's a very logical article from the Register with another theory on the IBM/PC anouncement. In a nutshell, they say that IBM is getting out of the PC biz to not directly compete with HP and Dell and others in this space, thus makeing it easier to move forward with these companies as Power.org partners. IBM also made a statement about Apple and Freescale not anouncing there involvement "yet" for 'various reasons" like the logistics getting worked out. All sounds logical to me.

This is a must read article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12...ell_off_power/

[BuonRotto]

Boy, for one, it paints a fairly dire picture for Intel, but the statement about the scalability of IBM's chip goals potentially fits snugly into Apple's plans on the software (QT, video) and hardware (PowerMac, laptops, iPod?!) side. Still, I get the feeling that Apple is a bit on the outside looking in from that article. While we can be wishful thinkers, it's difficult to argue that Mac OS X or Apple will get in the middle of this whole linux thing or in the middle of IBM's plans. I suspect Apple has plans to sort of tag along in some way, but it will be a struggle.

[Jim S.]

Okay, 24 hours has brought me back to reality. The theory about PowerPC in Linux boxes does make sense and may eventually open the possibility of licensing OS-X to run on non-Apple PowerPC computers.

I do think that IBM could open the doors to corporate America for Apple if some form of alliance could be reached. A lot of consumer sales are influenced by what the person uses at work so Apple could really benefit in this area. One last point about buying Apple stock while it is "high"... imagine what the stock price would be with 30%+ of the PC market. Apple has a huge upside and could be a bargain at this price!

[unixguru]

Originally Posted by Jim S. Wow, great comments. Here's my thinking 4. Don't forget that OS-X can run on Intel... that would be part of the plan and would get OS-X into corporate America. One thing that this would bring is the low-cost headless Mac that many of us have been waiting for.

In a comprehensive partnership or buyout scenario, I doubt IBM would want to run OS X on Intel. IBM doesn't hate Intel as much as M$, but they still don't like them, and they'd want to use Power/PowerPC anyway. In addition, being compatible with all the x86 hardware would be an enormous task. You'd have to get companies to write drivers for the OS (unlikely), or write them yourself (very expensive). Device drivers are one thing that keeps M$ on top. That has been holding Linux back (among other things). It's gotten better, but there are still many devices that don't work with Linux.

Since companies replace their computers every 2-3 years, if compatibilty was good enough, you'd just slip a different box in.

[unixguru]

Originally Posted by thuh Freak nay. the whole operating system may, in theory, have the ability to run on intel hardware, but i don't think that its been shown in the wild (aside from emulation). ...in theory, communism works... the kernel {the most basic part of the OS}, and a subset of OSX known as darwin can and does run on Intel; darwin != OSX though. darwin doesn't have all the interface goodiness that we've come to expect from an Apple OS. darwin, basically, is just a command-line version of the OS (there is a GUI available,

Darwin is the xnu kernel, the I/O Kit, and the BSD subsystem. It doesn't include the Quartz graphics system or anything that runs on top of that, like the AppKit (Cocoa) or any of the Apple-derived technologies that have their roots in OS 9 and related stuff. Darwin does come with X I believe, and you can put KDE and various other desktop systems on it. They aren't as nice as Quartz and AppKit though.

The "whole operating system" WAS available for Intel in the form of Rhapsody DP2.
http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guide...hapsodydr2.png
Rhapsody DP2 was not released with the Quartz graphics engine, and instead used the older Display Postscript engine, but it had quicktime and some other "Carbon" apps, as you can see from various screenshots at that site. This proves that Carbon is platform-neutral.

Really, the kernel is the only hardware-dependent part of OS X. Most of that is written in C, which is portable. The only low-level parts of the OS that aren't portable, like some bootstrapping code and interrupt handlers, have Intel equivalents in the Darwin x86. The rest is written in high-level C++ and objective-C. As long as you code endian-neutral, your Carbon or Cocoa app will compile and run on Intel. And considering how easy it is to make a portable app in OS X, I'm SURE Apple is doing it to leave themselves with more options.

The only part that wouldn't work is "Classic", which runs OS 9 and related apps. I doubt all that stuff is endian-neutral. One option, however, is a binary translator, like the one Apple used in the 680x0->PowerPC transition. Translating to x86 is a bit more work, however, as endianness is different. (Both 680x0 and PowerPC are big-endian.)

Originally Posted by thuh Freak why would anyone create programs for powerpc OSX, when 95% or whatever of the hardware outthere is x86-compatible?

The Mach-O application binary interface (ABI) supports multiple CPU architectures. NeXTSTEP binaries could run on x86, 680x0, PA 7x00 -- all with one "fat" binary. It's technically possible, and it would just requite a "fat" compile. Your build time increases, but as long as you code endian-neutral, there is no extra work required.

Originally Posted by thuh Freak it seems more likely to me that ibm is getting rid of their pc hardware side so they can focus on powerpc/power. in that regard it wouldn't be bad for them to acquire/hookup with apple. apple has a great powerpc OS, in many ways better than gnu/linux;

I fully agree with you on this one. Apple's OS is very good; better in most ways than Linux, especially if you want to develop nice end-user apps.

All that said, I don't see much chance of OS X on x86. But I think OS X on IBM "p-series" (Power) hardware is plausable.

[Jim S.]

For the naysayers there's an excellent transcript of the ongoing negotiations in the 12/7/04 edition of:

http://crazyapplerumors.com/

[Brad]

Even ArsTechnica is laying the smack down on this silly rumor.

Is IBM looking to take a bite out of Apple?

[DMBand0026]

Good riddance. That's exactly the way I felt too. Good article.

I had been wondering though, what would the price tag for Apple be these days, it would have to be too steep for even IBM to snap them up.

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by DMBand0026 I had been wondering though, what would the price tag for Apple be these days, it would have to be too steep for even IBM to snap them up.

its quite easy to figure out. market cap x 51%. so like 12 Billion. usually during a buyout they inflate the price a little, to account for any fluxuations that may occur before the deal is complete. and this assumes that apple is not infavor of the buyout. {jesus christ with a pogo stick. last time i looked at apple's market cap it was around 6B. when the fuck did they quadruple?}

[Enki]

Well, they more than doubled over the last three weeks. That's a pretty good chunk of it right there.

[rickag]

Now it looks pretty much impossible for IBM to offer OS X options.

IBM buying Apple? No dice

The contract posted by Lenovo, however, says no. Page eight says that directly or indirectly, IBM or its subsidiaries agree not to sell or manufacture personal computers for five years.