4 ms·
I commented, perhaps over-enthusiastically, in the other thread, about what a great move this was for both parties. I stand by that, although I am definitely th
by robert_tweed 12y ago
I commented, perhaps over-enthusiastically, in the other thread, about what a great move this was for both parties. I stand by that, although I am definitely thinking about what it means in the longer term, not just the immediate impact of the deal.
The points that seem to be getting widely missed (including by Cringely) are that:
(a) Apple is clearly making a serious move into enterprise, where they have not fared well against Microsoft for a long time and, since the return of Jobs, positioned themselves as a primarily consumer-brand to avoid fighting that losing battle. This move demonstrates that they are now serious about being not just a consumer brand. Clearly, they really want to take some enterprise business away from the incumbents, which primarily means Microsoft.
Partnering with IBM gives them a ton of credibility that they did not have last week. The fact that it's a "partnership" is important. This is not just IBM building some apps and Apple taking a 30% cut. They don't need a partnership for that.
(b) It should be obvious to most people on HN regardless of what they think of the brand, that Apple isn't run by a bunch of idiotic short-term thinkers. Clearly this is part of a long term strategy. Getting iOS deeply embedded into enterprise is just the first move in making Apple part of the enterprise ecosystem. Selling more iPads is nice, but selling iPads, and OSX Servers, and cloud services, and apps at 30% markup per seat are all even nicer. Finding ways to lock those enterprise clients, with their huge budgets, into the Apple ecosystem for 10+ years is nicer still.
Of course IBM benefits from this as well, but as others have pointed out, IBM is mainly a consultancy service that deals with lots of partners, so this doesn't have much strategic value for them - they are just following where the money is going. The strategic importance to Apple however, is immense.
- MCRed 12y agoI think it is kind of spectacular, really. IBM used to own and control platforms, but morphed itself into a service company that didn't need to own hardware or OS platforms. Now Apple, a platform company, that does good applications only as a sideline to sell the platforms... has just partnered with IBM. If it's a real partnership (sometimes these things end up just being nothing more than a Press Release when new management takes over or the teams can't work together)... this could be really huge.
- throwawayaway 12y agoThere is no such thing as an OSX server. You mean a mac mini with OSX server edition on it? There's basically nothing that IBM does that will work on an iOS device, nevermind well. This deal is hot air, Cringely is right. Microsoft make their money on office and exchange, as much as it pains me to point the obvious. [0] No port of IBM software to work on an iOS device is going to make a dent in that. No IBM software will be exclusively iOS, it will be java based and available on windows and linux first, then OSX as an afterthought. http://www.tannerhelland.com/4993/microsoft-money-updated-2013/ http://www.tannerhelland.com/4993/microsoft-money-updated-20... [0] see operating income rather than revenue.
- clauretano 12y agoThere isn't even really OS X server edition anymore. It's literally just OS X with an code to download Server.app (a $19.99 app) from the App Store.
- fpgeek 12y ago> Finding ways to lock those enterprise clients, with their huge budgets, into the Apple ecosystem for 10+ years is nicer still. No, it's not. And if there's anyone at Apple thinking that (I'd bet there isn't), they'd be guilty of idiotic medium-term thinking. Locking a customer into Apple for 10+ years means tying Apple to that customer for just as long. Gather up enough of them and they'll be deadweight holding Apple back whenever they most need to change. These are exactly the chains that prevent Microsoft from doing anything other than continuing to steer the "good ship Windows" right into that iceberg. If Apple really is voluntarily putting them on... then they really have lost their way.
- mbreese 12y agoI don't know... by partnering with IBM, they deflect a little of the weight from those customers to big blue. Apple is still a consumer focused company. Apple tried (and failed) to move Mac OS and Macs into the enterprise. I doubt they'll let iOS become beholden to it. One example of this is how long the iPad 2 was available. That was the first form factor that was adopted by enterprise for particular vertical applications (kiosks, custom apps, etc). Even though Apple kept coming out with new models, they still kept selling the old version, and made the new iOS versions as compatible with the iPad 2 as much as possible. But it didn't limit what they did with their new models. I see this going in much the same way, but with IBM acting as an intermediary between enterprise customers and the consumer-focused Apple.
- gress 12y agoThat assumes that Apple will be beholden to enterprises and forced to stop innovating the way Microsoft did. Given the enterprise market is much smaller than the consumer market, that isn't going to happen.
- robert_tweed 12y agoIBM gets lock-in through support contracts. Apple gets lock-in through their proprietary ecosystem. Those are two very different things. There is no need for Apple to be beholden to any particular client.
- Tloewald 12y agoIt's a trap. Apple's always been the company whose products people want to use. Going for enterprise lock-in runs the risk of turning Apple into another company whose customers have no choice.