- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,499
- 10,138
- 136
Some of you may recall my previous thread pondering the feasibility of HP selling OS X-powered PCs. The assumption was that HP and Apple could partner to create an x86-based version of OS X that would be proprietary to HP.
General consensus was that I had lost my mind.
Well now I'm posing IBM as a possible vendor of OS X, one that might even make more sense. In fact, I've been thinking about this combination for awhile, but I wanted to see what y'all thought of an x86 version of OS X first! Probably isn't likely!
But for IBM, it makes a lot more sense! Not as a "PC", but as a server/workstation platform.
- IBM already makes the PowerPC chips. It would be an Apple OS running on IBM architecture.
- Jobs would have fewer objections to this deal. IBM doesn't make PCs anymore, so they are not a competitor. IBM does not sell to consumers, so Apple's existing hardware is not threatened. No x86 version to worry about.
- IBM's customer for such a solution would be research labs, universities, government contractors and other industrial concerns. These are Big Blue's favorite customers. These are people who laugh at Apple and generally don't consider them (who buys X Serve?)
- If IBM can pitch OS X as an alternative to Linux, and increase adoption and respect for the OS. It can also use its Software and Global Services muscle to enhance OS X for this market, ensuring its connectivity with other IBM architectures.
- IBM can use OS X to help launch dualcore/multicore PowerX CPUs into these markets...proving the technology before Apple adopts it for its consumer Macs.
Of course, several things need to happen first--namely OS X needs to get beefier, becoming a true 64bit OS with real-time computing and mission-critical capabilities. IBM can help with this development, as I doubt Apple has the experience to bring this to fruition.
End result is OS X might really threaten Windows and Linux in the server/workstation world for these research markets.
General consensus was that I had lost my mind.
Well now I'm posing IBM as a possible vendor of OS X, one that might even make more sense. In fact, I've been thinking about this combination for awhile, but I wanted to see what y'all thought of an x86 version of OS X first! Probably isn't likely!
But for IBM, it makes a lot more sense! Not as a "PC", but as a server/workstation platform.
- IBM already makes the PowerPC chips. It would be an Apple OS running on IBM architecture.
- Jobs would have fewer objections to this deal. IBM doesn't make PCs anymore, so they are not a competitor. IBM does not sell to consumers, so Apple's existing hardware is not threatened. No x86 version to worry about.
- IBM's customer for such a solution would be research labs, universities, government contractors and other industrial concerns. These are Big Blue's favorite customers. These are people who laugh at Apple and generally don't consider them (who buys X Serve?)
- If IBM can pitch OS X as an alternative to Linux, and increase adoption and respect for the OS. It can also use its Software and Global Services muscle to enhance OS X for this market, ensuring its connectivity with other IBM architectures.
- IBM can use OS X to help launch dualcore/multicore PowerX CPUs into these markets...proving the technology before Apple adopts it for its consumer Macs.
Of course, several things need to happen first--namely OS X needs to get beefier, becoming a true 64bit OS with real-time computing and mission-critical capabilities. IBM can help with this development, as I doubt Apple has the experience to bring this to fruition.
End result is OS X might really threaten Windows and Linux in the server/workstation world for these research markets.
he lives in new york
Facebook
Twitter