
IBM and Apple just not that big a deal - ableal
http://www.cringely.com/2014/07/16/ibm-apple-just-big-deal/
======
robert_tweed
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.

~~~
fpgeek
> 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
I 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.

------
jaegerpicker
I still believe that a lot of people are missing a strategic move from Apple
here. IBM is probably the largest player in Healthcare IT. Apple has recently
made a large push into collecting Healthcare data and I strongly believe that
if wearables are to take off, collecting/monitoring health info will be a huge
part of it. I think this partnership is about Apple taking that new healthcare
data and make it easy to share with hospitals. Health care is this GIANT
market that seems to be often ignored from an IT/startup area, I worked at a
mobile healthcare startup for a while and if Apple can use IBM to force their
way into that market it could be a HUGE win.

~~~
JunkDNA
I don't see IBM as a big player in Health IT. I think they _desire_ to be a
big player which is why there's all sorts of noise about Watson and
healthcare. It's marketing aimed at the C-suite.

Epic systems is probably the IBM or Microsoft equivalent in health IT.
McKesson, Siemens, and Cerner are also no slouches.

~~~
jaegerpicker
Hmm, it's possible that my contacts and friends in health IT have led to
selection bias on my part. A quick google seemed to confirm my original train
of thought but lacked any real numbers so it's entirely convincing that it's
all marketing fluff like you say. My personal heath IT experience was aimed at
individual doctors office level systems and the test users tended to tie back
to Watson and IBM cloud services. That said I know A LOT of heath is still
woefully bad at having e-records so it was likely a tiny slice of the market
that we targeted.

------
scottmwinters
Its easy to say that its not that big of a deal from a perspective outside of
MDM. I recently graduated college and started working as a developer for an
MDM provider. Its very hard to say that this news is not that big of a deal.
Most likely, this is completely right and it is not a big deal. Apple will use
it to 'partner' with IBM and sell some more product.

If they do a serious partnership, maas360 could quickly become the leading MDM
provider. This would change the face of a developing industry. This influences
several of the big players in tech. VMWare, Samsung and even google will have
to see where this goes and decide how to react.

------
mariusz79
I think this analysis may not be correct, as the author forgets about one
thing IBM has and Apple needs to compete with Google - Watson.

~~~
jodrellblank
See also Asimov's short story "The Machine That Won The War" \-
[http://www.olivenri.com/machine_won_files/The_Machine_that_W...](http://www.olivenri.com/machine_won_files/The_Machine_that_Won_the_War01.pdf)

------
brudgers
What changes for IBM? They could already write iOS business apps and they
could already sell support contracts for iOS devices. All that's there is the
ability to mention an official relationship with Apple during dog and pony
shows. Still if the client says "What about Android?" the response will be
"Here's a proposal for Android based options".

If I were to hazard a guess, I think this relationship is driven by Apple's
inability to dogfood their logistics infrastructure - Apple can't run the
supply chain Cooke built with Apple products. They're the sort of business
that is likely to be a customer for IBM's systems integration expertise. Apple
needs iPhone apps that help it run its business.

I think, to the extent this relationship is serious, it is desperate on
Apple's part. They are giving up their one market advantage, control in
exchange for entry into a market where calling things "magical" won't cut it.
What matters is vertical integration and Apple doesn't have it on the hardware
side. The only way they can maintain control is to purchase IBM.

------
mathattack
It's amazing how much the markets has moved that this is no longer
significant. Once upon a time, the PowerPC and Kaleida were considered
groundbreaking. In the end they mattered very little in market impact, except
perhaps for introducing smart engineers to each other.

------
abakker
I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that Apple has more Datacenter capacity than
IBM. Can anyone validate that?

IBM owns Softlayer, and had significant datacenter footprint before that
acquisition available through SmartCloud (deprecated).

([http://www.softlayer.com/data-centers](http://www.softlayer.com/data-
centers))

Also, I can't help but feel that this conveniently ignores the fact that this
deal makes IBM able to Procure Apple Devices (iOS and Mac)for their customers,
and more importantly will allow companies to Buy/Finance those devices through
IBM Global Finance. Then, with the extended Applecare, those same enterprises
will be able to have on-site AppleCare fulfillment/repair/replacement for
those devices.

------
Zaephyr
Cringley doesn't seem to assign any value Apple gains by (I'm assuming)
preventing IBM from pushing Android.

This seems to me to as much about countering Android as improving sales into
large enterprises.

~~~
higherpurpose
Since Apple has partnered with IBM, its once arch-enemy, I wonder if Google
will partner with...Oracle, to enter in enterprise. Wouldn't that be funny.

But I'm actually hoping that doesn't happen, and Google has other avenues they
can use to enter enterprise more forcefully anyway.

~~~
mbreese
Did IBM ever view Apple as an arch-enemy though? I mean, sure Apple had the
1984 ad, so it was pretty clear that Apple thought of IBM as an enemy, but was
the sentiment returned? I doubt IBM ever really gave them that much credit.
And by the time that the new Apple came around, IBM was already well on it's
way to being the services giant it is now.

But, boy, would an Oracle/Google partnership be funny to watch from the
sidelines.

------
ksikka
It's a symbolism thing.

It gives Apple more credibility and a better ability to sell products into
enterprise. Value increase right there. And their employees now have to take
enterprise requests (customization, security) seriously, since IBM is a
stakeholder).

It gives IBM an excuse to hire/fire people to meet the quality standards of
Apple. They get to shift their culture and orientation with real business
cause. The employees will look up to Apple now that Ginny's endorsed the
friendship.

It's not just a deal. It's a symbolic partnership as well.

------
jusben1369
There's a lot of talk about MSFT but in some ways this is about greenfields
and removing the last stronghold of RIM. This extends my take away from the
last WWDC. Apple seems really focused on creating a hw/sw platform that other
business build huge businesses on top of. They used to have to do it all but
now they seem quite happy to stop at the shore and watch others sail on their
ocean (big announcements around health care partners, now this enterprise
partner etc)

------
JimmaDaRustla
>I guarantee you meeting those standards will be a problem for IBM, but that’s
not Apple’s problem.

As a company that outsources IBM work, this can not be stated enough.

~~~
moonlighter
He got that completely wrong. Enterprise apps won't go thru the regular Apple
AppStore. They will be provisioned directly onto iOS devices via
[https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/enterprise/](https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/enterprise/)

It's conceivable that, as part of the deal, Apple allows IBM to build their
own 'IBM iOS Appstore' to provision these apps to all iOS devices sold by IBM
via special provisioning certificates.

~~~
JimmaDaRustla
Then what standards these apps will be held to is in question.

------
jgalt212
> Apple can always use new channels, especially if they hold inventory and
> support customers who aren’t price-sensitive.

um, that can for any business.

~~~
gonzo
only... Apple does a good job in not holding inventory.

------
bsder
I see this as an acknowledgement by Apple that consumer device penetration has
saturated. This matches my personal experience.

------
eyce9000
Is Cringly the only person that writes negative posts about IBM or is that the
only thing he writes?

