4 ms·

IBM has always pitched availability and throughput for multinational-class computing. This is something Apple has singularly failed at, just look at iCloud whic

IBM has always pitched availability and throughput for multinational-class computing. This is something Apple has singularly failed at, just look at iCloud which is still sluggish and lacking in robustness. It seems to me that Apple user endpoint (terminal?) hardware with IBM service guarantees and availability in the back end works really well. Also while I agree that this is just another IBM partner, it's quite interesting to see how even the mainstream press is giving this partnership announcement a lot of front page visibility, suggesting it will be noticed by the corporate decision makers too.

Daishiman 12y ago
Corporate decision makers give not two shits about public opinion as far as software go; if that were the case the enterprise software wouldn't have the horrendous, dreadful UIs it has. They surely read the excuses of trade magazines in IT, but those will care more about the next version of Oracle Financials or .NET with the same or more importance than a partnership with Apple. Honestly, this is popular just because it suck ups to Apple fans who feel they have something to prove by Apple's involvement in the enterprise.
- _pmf_ 12y ago
  > if that were the case the enterprise software wouldn't have the horrendous, dreadful UIs it has Yeah, god forbid companies developing applications that are more complex than Silicon Valley's ephemeral, featureless und useless Twitter clones where a big button "I'm special" is enough to satisfy all needs of their teenage customers.
  - danudey 12y ago
    It's not a question of 'complexity' vs. 'this app does nothing'. It's a question of usability. I've dealt with a lot of enterprise software which is almost impossible for people to use, and which has features to make life easier that no one knows about because the UI is so inscrutable and nonsensical. It's possible to make complex, enterprise software while at the same time making good software; it just rarely happens.
- sanmon3186 12y ago
  Enterprises carrying half a century old legacy systems can't keep pace with public opinion that changes with changing technologies. It takes a decade to refresh the platforms once built in enterprise and going faster only adds to their legacy.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  I totally agree with the gist of what you are saying. Also to be fair, I think it's the first time the present generation of Apple fans have been the target/victim of IBM's highly effective sales and marketing team - who in my view do a great job. I can remember more than a few occasions where I got swept up by IBM marketing hype and then the terrible disappointment when it came to using the actual product.
- rmrfrmrf 12y ago
  The number 1 most valuable publicly traded company in the world is teaming up with number 24 (and number 4 in tech). Corporate decision makers will be hearing/talking about this for months.
  - Daishiman 12y ago
    That is peanuts when compared to the cumulative value of all of IBM's customers. In terms of plain capital management, the insurers and reinsurers that are have been their customers for the past 5 decades manage amounts of capital that are much greater than Apple's assets, or any other tech company on its own. Seriously, people have no idea of the staggering involvement IBM has in their lives, to a much greater extent than probably any other IT company in the world.
Nursie 12y ago
FYI - I left big blue a couple of years ago now, but there was a slow move towards apple client hardware amongst IBMers underway while I was there, so I reckon the integration of parts you talk about there is probably quite well catered for by now.
threeseed 12y ago
>something Apple has singularly failed at Rubbish. Apple has billions/trillions of iMessages/Push Notifications going through iCloud and how often have they failed ? Rarely. Also they run the world's largest media and app stores (iTunes) which again rarely fail. To say that they have completed failed at international scale web applications is a stretch.
- vegabook 12y ago
  yep I'll acknowledge that, yet iCloud is still sluggish and unreliable. That won't cut it with big business for whom IBM's availability guarantees and service level agreements are much more rigorous. I don't think anybody has ever taken apple seriously at enterprise level robustness, is my point, and pointing to itunes and imessage is not going to persuade anybody who's running a multinational bank (or other mission critical application) that they can bet their terminals on IOS, without a partnership with a player which has proved for over 50 years that it is capable of delivering said reliability. Let's be honest. Imessage and iTunes are not mission critical to anybody in any way and thus do not do much to persuade any responsible corporate IT director, which is the target audience of this agreement.
  - danudey 12y ago
    It would be interesting if part of this were working on more enterprise integration features; for example, self-hosted iCloud sync for enterprise applications (while still respecting the user/corporation divide that they enforce on the device).
- fpgeek 12y ago
  > Apple has billions/trillions of iMessages/Push Notifications going through iCloud and how often have they failed ? Rarely. Well, there was that 2+ year problem with sending messages to people who'd switched away from iOS (has the fix been released yet?). I'm sure most enterprise customers would consider that a serious failure. And there happens to have been a small iCloud Mail outage this week: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/14/icloud-mail-outage/ http://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/14/icloud-mail-outage/ So when you say rarely, I say: Compared to what? As a proportion of total message volume? Perhaps, but I don't think that's the right benchmark. Compared to similar services from other companies selling to enterprises? That's a much higher bar. And one Apple will have trouble with (contrast the reliability of iMessage and SMS, for example).

Daishiman 12y ago

Corporate decision makers give not two shits about public opinion as far as software go; if that were the case the enterprise software wouldn't have the horrendous, dreadful UIs it has. They surely read the excuses of trade magazines in IT, but those will care more about the next version of Oracle Financials or .NET with the same or more importance than a partnership with Apple. Honestly, this is popular just because it suck ups to Apple fans who feel they have something to prove by Apple's involvement in the enterprise.

_pmf_ 12y ago
> if that were the case the enterprise software wouldn't have the horrendous, dreadful UIs it has Yeah, god forbid companies developing applications that are more complex than Silicon Valley's ephemeral, featureless und useless Twitter clones where a big button "I'm special" is enough to satisfy all needs of their teenage customers.
- danudey 12y ago
  It's not a question of 'complexity' vs. 'this app does nothing'. It's a question of usability. I've dealt with a lot of enterprise software which is almost impossible for people to use, and which has features to make life easier that no one knows about because the UI is so inscrutable and nonsensical. It's possible to make complex, enterprise software while at the same time making good software; it just rarely happens.
sanmon3186 12y ago
Enterprises carrying half a century old legacy systems can't keep pace with public opinion that changes with changing technologies. It takes a decade to refresh the platforms once built in enterprise and going faster only adds to their legacy.
throwawayaway 12y ago
I totally agree with the gist of what you are saying. Also to be fair, I think it's the first time the present generation of Apple fans have been the target/victim of IBM's highly effective sales and marketing team - who in my view do a great job. I can remember more than a few occasions where I got swept up by IBM marketing hype and then the terrible disappointment when it came to using the actual product.
rmrfrmrf 12y ago
The number 1 most valuable publicly traded company in the world is teaming up with number 24 (and number 4 in tech). Corporate decision makers will be hearing/talking about this for months.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  That is peanuts when compared to the cumulative value of all of IBM's customers. In terms of plain capital management, the insurers and reinsurers that are have been their customers for the past 5 decades manage amounts of capital that are much greater than Apple's assets, or any other tech company on its own. Seriously, people have no idea of the staggering involvement IBM has in their lives, to a much greater extent than probably any other IT company in the world.

Nursie 12y ago

FYI - I left big blue a couple of years ago now, but there was a slow move towards apple client hardware amongst IBMers underway while I was there, so I reckon the integration of parts you talk about there is probably quite well catered for by now.

threeseed 12y ago

>something Apple has singularly failed at Rubbish. Apple has billions/trillions of iMessages/Push Notifications going through iCloud and how often have they failed ? Rarely. Also they run the world's largest media and app stores (iTunes) which again rarely fail. To say that they have completed failed at international scale web applications is a stretch.

vegabook 12y ago
yep I'll acknowledge that, yet iCloud is still sluggish and unreliable. That won't cut it with big business for whom IBM's availability guarantees and service level agreements are much more rigorous. I don't think anybody has ever taken apple seriously at enterprise level robustness, is my point, and pointing to itunes and imessage is not going to persuade anybody who's running a multinational bank (or other mission critical application) that they can bet their terminals on IOS, without a partnership with a player which has proved for over 50 years that it is capable of delivering said reliability. Let's be honest. Imessage and iTunes are not mission critical to anybody in any way and thus do not do much to persuade any responsible corporate IT director, which is the target audience of this agreement.
- danudey 12y ago
  It would be interesting if part of this were working on more enterprise integration features; for example, self-hosted iCloud sync for enterprise applications (while still respecting the user/corporation divide that they enforce on the device).
fpgeek 12y ago
> Apple has billions/trillions of iMessages/Push Notifications going through iCloud and how often have they failed ? Rarely. Well, there was that 2+ year problem with sending messages to people who'd switched away from iOS (has the fix been released yet?). I'm sure most enterprise customers would consider that a serious failure. And there happens to have been a small iCloud Mail outage this week: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/14/icloud-mail-outage/ http://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/14/icloud-mail-outage/ So when you say rarely, I say: Compared to what? As a proportion of total message volume? Perhaps, but I don't think that's the right benchmark. Compared to similar services from other companies selling to enterprises? That's a much higher bar. And one Apple will have trouble with (contrast the reliability of iMessage and SMS, for example).