backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jul 21 at 8:47 AM

Apple and IBM join forces in mobile

Microsoft may have recently announced its intentions to become a “productivity and platform company for the mobile-first and cloud-first world,” but it looks like longtime rival Apple has plans of its own in addressing the needs of enterprise customers and has brought in the big guns.
 
Apple announced today that it has recruited the help of IBM to help further solidify its standing in enterprise mobility and to help build world-class business apps for the iPhone and iPad platforms. Apple will combine its strength in “building a simple experience and in building devices” with IBM’s “leadership in analytics, cloud, software and services.”
 
The partnership should see Apple’s iOS devices flourish with "a new category of mobile apps" that will target “retail, healthcare, banking, travel and transportation, telecommunications and insurance,” among other industries. And of course, these apps will be backed by “IBM’s renowned big data analytics” capabilities. 


IBM CEO Ginni Rometty and Apple CEO Tim Cook
 
IBM’s services won’t replace existing Apple services -- like iCloud -- that are already fully engrained into iOS devices. Instead, they will run side-by-side, with each accessing their own private pools of data.
 
The apps and cloud services integration will rollout with iOS 8 this fall, with the vast majority of integration occurring in 2015.
 
Apple will also introduce its new AppleCare for Business service to specifically cater to the needs of a corporate audience with 24/7 support, while IBM will offer its services when it comes to handling on-site repairs and support for Apple hardware.


What a difference a few decades makes...
 
And as a part of the MobileFirst for iOS Supply and Management initiative, IBM will begin offering packaged iPhone and iPads to its corporate customers complete with IBM’s device management, security, and analytics services enabled.

"This alliance with Apple will build on our momentum in bringing these innovations to our clients globally, and leverages IBM's leadership in analytics, cloud, software and services," said IBM CEO Ginni Rometty. We are delighted to be teaming with Apple, whose innovations have transformed our lives in ways we take for granted, but can't imagine living without."
 
Apple CEO Tim Cook acknowledged that while iOS devices have made large inroads in the enterprise, it needed outside help to further expand its presence. “The kind of deep industry expertise you would need to really transform the enterprise isn’t in our DNA,” said Cook in an interview with Re/code. “But it is in IBM’s.”

Sources: Apple, CNBC, Re/code



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Interesting times
By tonyswash on 7/15/2014 6:28:22 PM , Rating: 1
Remember this :)

(URL edited to elude DT's brain dead spam filter)

https://plus. google.com/app/basic/stream/z12xsdgiqsiuzpyjd04cgpg g0tizgtur1lg0k




RE: Interesting times
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 6:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
"(URL edited to elude DT's brain dead spam filter)"

That is highly irritating. So now, we have to go through this... Copy/paste (and remove the "see more at dailytech BS") - I get nothing... When I remove the space between plus. and google and the 2 small g"s at the end I get it https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z12xsdgiq...

So now LOL, but I am too irritated to LOL. LOL.

Anyhow, Apple does have an advantage in mobile enterprise over others, simply because it is a consistent experience. Take me for example, I often have to recommend a tablet or a phone for users that aren't too tech savvy. Everyone here knows I use and trumpet Android, but on the job for those non tech users, I recommend iPhone and iPad. Why? it's a consistent interface. For simple reasons, that we don't have to say click here for this model, and click that for that model and this one is slightly different bla bla bla.

I personally wouldnt use one. The iPAd 4 I have makes me want to vomit, but for enterprise deployment, it wins. Sorry Google and Samsung. It just does.

With that said, enterprise and mobile still isnt replacing the MS infrastructure. When these people get back to the office, they still have to log on to their Windows laptops and desktops to get real work done. That isn't about to change.


RE: Interesting times
By tonyswash on 7/16/2014 6:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
It’s hard with the data we have to assess the impact of yesterday’s announcement. This article has a video of an interview with IBM Chairman, President and CEO Ginni Rometty and Tim Cook in which we are told that the deal has been in the making for two years and that both company’s have had teams working together on this for some time.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/15/apple-an...

The example they give in the video of the sort of apps in the pipeline (they claim over a hundred specialist apps are coming in the first wave) is an iOS app that integrates with an IBM corporate level fuel management system for airlines. Fuel management is very important to airline bottom lines and now pilots and ground staff can use iPads (and I presume iPhones) to work directly, and securely, with the IBM supplied corporate level systems.

I think this deal has the chance to be big but if in the end it fizzles the worse that can happen is that Apple’ gets a nudge in it’s already pretty healthy corporate sales.

Robert Cringley, long time analyst and critic of IBM, thinks it’s no big deal.

http://www.cringely.com/2014/07/16/ibm-apple-just-...

Horace Dediu at Asymco thinks it could be a big deal

http://www.asymco.com/2014/07/15/catharsis/

Tim Bajarin at Techpinions also thinks it’s big

http://techpinions.com/apple-and-ibm-storm-the-ent...

Watching the video of the interview I was struck that when pressed about Apple’s product pipeline Tim Cook’s response was the same as the recent Eddie Cue response, which was to grin broadly and exude a lot of confidence. They seem to think what’s coming is good.

Part of what’s coming are some sort of Apple wearable products. I don’t use the term iWatch because I think it quite likely that some of these products will not be worn on the wrist, some may not have screens and that they will not be just an attempt to squeeze smart phone functionality into a watch type device.

Tim Bajarin had an interesting article recently musing about Apple’s wearables and connecting it to his experience of using the new Disney wrist band system at Disney-world. I thought his thoughts on this and what it might tell us about what Apple has in the pipeline were very compelling and now with IBM, and their enterprise reach, in the frame the possibilities for such Apple system becomes bigger.

Apple under Cook is turning out to be just as interesting as Apple under Jobs.


RE: Interesting times
By name99 on 7/16/2014 3:01:53 PM , Rating: 3
One thing no-one else seems to be saying:

If IBM and Apple have been talking, I expect CPU design came up in the chats. Apple have done pretty well so far in their efforts, but as they move forward, if they can license relevant IP from IBM (for example NoC design, a NUCA design for their L3-cache, better memory controller algorithms, etc) that all helps them move even faster...

(It's easy to mock IBM's CPU efforts, but the POWER CPUs are impressive devices. They're optimized for something different from Intel's target, which is why they're not the single-threaded monsters that Intel ships, but there's a lot of interesting technology in them. Much of this [especially that related to virtualization] is probably of no interest to Apple today, but there is definitely stuff there of interest today.

Longer term, who knows what Apple's plans are? Intel's stumbling under the accumulated weight of thirty years of poor ideas added to their CPUs opens up interesting possibilities for a company that can move with agility because it's happy to ditch the past.
Apple will likely not be ready to ship an i7 equivalent, and thus a desktop replacement CPU, for at least 3 years, and that's assuming they can maintain the aggressive pace they've kept up since the A4.

BUT an interesting alternative would be for them to start shipping a server chip for use in their own server farms. Such a chip would be a way to prototype performance ideas for the future without the obsessive concern for power that marks a phone chip --- basically split each problem into two halves rather than solve it in one go. It also doesn't require that many units to ship before you're coming out ahead given the cost of Xeons.

There are obvious technical issues that have to be dealt with to make this vision reality, most obviously the addition/creation/invention of a vastly superior uncore to the AMBA-4 that the A7 uses. But that's my point ---- talk to IBM and you can get up to speed on that stuff a lot faster.

The fact that Apple TODAY is not in the server business, and uses Intel desktop chips, doesn't mean that things can't be VERY different five years from now or ten years from now.


What was first again?
By peterrushkin on 7/16/2014 1:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
So whilst other competitors may be focusing on Cloud First, Mobile First, putting the customer first and whatever crap else.

Apple is teaming up with IBM to deliver some serious competition. I mean, do they need to put Cloud First? Nope. Do they need to put Mobile First? Of course not?

Of course, this will be Apples laser focus on quality, ease of use in the UI and being able to get things done plus IBMs resiliency and delivering in the enterprise.

This is bad news for that other guy in the enterprise space. I mean they are putting a my tomy first UI onto every application they can find. Once there is significant competition someone is in trouble and it won't be IBM or Apple!

What was that? First in... First OUT? Muhahaha




By KiwiTT on 7/17/2014 2:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Just like Cisco is the Gold standard for Networking, and IBM for Enterprise, we now have Apple for End-Users. People who do business-IT, want it to work seamlessly and have less interest in the feature-set comparisons, and this has the makings of that goal.




By tonyswash on 7/16/2014 10:52:46 AM , Rating: 1
Larry Dignan at ZDnet ponders how Team Android will respond to the big blue Apple (hint: it involved herding cats)

http://www.zdnet.com/in-ibm-and-apples-wake-what-w...




By tonyswash on 7/15/2014 6:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
After my initial surprise at this announcement my next thought was why didn't Microsoft do this instead of IBM? If they had they would have had to ditch their loss making and non-succcesful mobile OS and device strategy (no great loss) but an alliance with Apple would have gained them a strategic position in the corporate mobile device ecosystem, something they currently lack.

Plus Microsoft could have used an enterprise alliance with Apple to screw with Google which is something they really want to do given that Google is doing it's best to destroy Microsoft's business model.

But they didn't.

Now the IBM-Apple business alliance probably means that Microsoft's enterprise device strategy faces some very fierce competition.


By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 11:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well, IBM is entering this co-op as software company, which complements Apple's hardware division.

MS is already software company, and if they go for enterprise, they will be aiming for integration of (their?) mobile devices into their network infrastructure and software systems.

At the same time, IBM is pulling out of MS turf with sales of desktops/laptops to Lenovo, followed by recent sales of their small servers as well (system x).

I don't see much space for IBM to flourish there..?


By melgross on 7/16/2014 8:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
Most of IBM's sales, and profits, are from software and services. They have been for some time. This will bring them to the two most popular mobile hardware lines in enterprise.

But they will also sell these devices with their own software and services, ans so will benefit from sales of hardware as well.

This can't help but solidify Apple's position in enterprise, and smaller organizations as well, while giving IBM a major stake in two of the fastest growing segments of the market.


By name99 on 7/16/2014 3:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't MS do this?
Horace Dediu talks frequently about the Strategy Tax --- the way a strategy constrains and limits what you can do.
MS is paying the strategy tax is spades because they still think their strategy is all MS everywhere --- living room, phone, tablet, desktop, enterprise, it's all supposed to be MS.

IBM was willing to work with Apple because both sides understand their limits. IBM has no interest in snatching up the consumer/home market; Apple has no interest in writing enterprise back-ends.
Ms, on the other hand, will not accept, against all evidence, that it cannot succeed with consumer. And so it continues to cripple the space where it is actually competent, the enterprise space, in its dream of winning the home. They didn't work with Apple on this for the simple reason that doing so would require admitting that WP is a bust, XBox is a bust, the segmentation is going to be Apple does devices and UI and MS does backend.


By tonyswash on 7/15/2014 6:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He just sketched a few generic diagrams (which never looked like the finished products), told people what he wanted and let them work out the details.


Is that all it takes to turn a loss making marginal tech company into the biggest and most profitable tech company on the planet whilst serially disrupting several large established tech markets? I wish you had told me sooner and then I could who have done it. Come to think of it, if that’s all it takes why didn’t you just do it?

"The difference between genius and stupidity is: Genius has its limits." Albert Einstein


By amanojaku on 7/15/2014 7:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
I always thought you were intelligent. A shill, but intelligent nonetheless. Now, I'm not so sure. I was referring to his TECHNICAL skills, as pointed out in the QUOTES. When people say Jobs' was a visionary, they talk about his supposed ability to design amazing gadgets. Except that he didn't. He was more involved than most other tech CEOs, but his contributions amounted to "I want this!" and "I don't want this!". Look to Ives and Co. to see who the visionaries are, assuming they didn't rip off someone else's work a la the Braun-inspired iStuff.

Bill Gates was an acknowledged programmer, designing and then producing the first Microsoft products. Not only did Gates do the typical CEO duties that Jobs performed, he actually worked on the technology that MS sold. He was more of a visionary than Jobs, but he doesn't get any credit because the people who call Jobs a tech visionary don't understand technology.


By tonyswash on 7/15/2014 8:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
So let's see, Jobs takes over Pixar and steers it towards taking over the film animation business, Jobs takes over Apple and steers it to disrupting the music player, phone and tablet markets, along the way he steers Apple to becoming the most profitable PC business, builds the biggest global digital content business, builds the world's most successful retail business and turns Apple from a candidate for the scrapyard into the leading premium tech brand. And he had no vision? Jeez every time I think I have plumbed the depths of stupidity along comes some doofus and proves that there is literally no limit to stupidity.

BTW you clearly do not know what the term shill means - look it up - you are misusing it.

"The will to be stupid is a very powerful force, but there are always alternatives."
Lois McMaster Bujold


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/15/2014 8:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
shill
SHil/
North Americaninformal
noun
noun: shill; plural noun: shills

1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.
"a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

verb
verb: shill; 3rd person present: shills; past tense: shilled; past participle: shilled; gerund or present participle: shilling

1.
act or work as a shill.
Yep, that's most certainly you.


By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 8:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Sorry Tony, you are cool, but the word shill does accurately describe you.


By amanojaku on 7/15/2014 8:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't Jobs the guy who was forced to resign from Apple?

Wasn't Jobs the guy who made the flop called NeXT?

Didn't Pixar take 10 years to produce its first film under Jobs?

Wasn't Pixar losing money every year until Toy Story was released?

Wasn't Disney the company the created Toy Story and just had Pixar do the work?

Wasn't Jobs uninvolved with Pixar until Toy Story made nearly $400B?

Didn't Jobs engage in anti-competitive practices to establish Apple's digital content business?

The answer to all of the above is "yes". Most profitable PC business? You call me a doofus, but you must not understand the Apple financials you love to throw around - Apple's PC sales are sh*t and always have been.

Shill - Noun
1) "A person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty."

2) tonyswash


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/15/2014 8:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
I vote for the self-profit. No sane person would defend a company like that unless being paid, if he isn't, well, then he has some serious issues.


By amanojaku on 7/15/2014 9:54:57 PM , Rating: 3
You must not know a lot of Apple fanatics. No other technical company has the blind loyalty of Apple. Some of my closest friends and most respected colleagues are Apple fanatics, and just mentioning the company causes a change in them. They loose all sense of reality (damn you, distortion field!) and the bulk of their intelligence.

One guy claims his Mac is far superior to any non-Mac, yet it's in the shop about twice a year for various hardware failures. Internal drives, removable drives (when they were still available), motherboards, power supplies... Meanwhile, I retired my old computer after eight years with only one "defect" - a hard drive that should have been retired after three years.

Another guy complained his Mac's USB ports failed and that Apple replaced the last unit for free, but won't do it a second time. Two failed USB ports in a row, in two years? And this guy uses nothing but Apple-branded parts, so it's not a 3rd party unit causing problems. Here's the kicker: when he told me about it back in 2012 he said "this would never have happened if Steve was still alive!" Yet, those were Steve-era parts with Steve-era support policies. Tim Cook changed nothing, yet he got scorned while Jobs got deified.

People bash Apple fanatics because they just don't deal with reality. Cook taking over has tempered that a bit, but not enough. Windows fans? They'll be the first to crucify Microsoft if it screws up (hello, Windows ME, Vista and 8!). Google fans? They don't get Goolge+, or they complain that Google digs too deep in getting information.

Apple can do no wrong, no matter how wrong. If I remember correctly, tony ignored the whole anti-trust issue, which is clearly illegal. But it was Apple, so it was ok.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/15/2014 10:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I remember correctly, tony ignored the whole anti-trust issue, which is clearly illegal.
He ignores it all.


By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 5:48:17 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If I remember correctly, tony ignored the whole anti-trust issue, which is clearly illegal.

quote:
He ignores it all


Actually worse. He somehow managed in his mind to twist it around and make Amazon the bad guy and Apple the hero for standing up to the mighty Amazon trying to stop them from offering cheaper ebooks. How dare they.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/16/2014 8:23:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually worse. He somehow managed in his mind to twist it around and make Amazon the bad guy and Apple the hero for standing up to the mighty Amazon trying to stop them from offering cheaper ebooks. How dare they.
So fucking true, he sure did.


By Shadowself on 7/15/2014 9:45:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Wasn't Jobs the guy who was forced to resign from Apple?
No. He was removed from any direct duties and control of any projects. He quit and sold all his Apple stock but one share. No one forced him to resign.

quote:
Wasn't Jobs the guy who made the flop called NeXT?
If you call getting Gil Amelio to give him $400 million for the NeXT OS a flop, then (on a purely financial basis) most of us would like to be that kind of a flop. The problem with NeXT is that the company (with Jobs' support) tried to do things that were not practical at the time but became standard much later on: fully object oriented OS and development environment, vector graphics display interface, optical storage device (no floppy), smart computer & drivers and cheap/dumb printers, etc.

quote:
Didn't Pixar take 10 years to produce its first film under Jobs?
If I recall correctly, part of that 10 year period must be laid at the feet of Lucas. Pixar was effectively dying when Jobs invested heavily.

quote:
Wasn't Pixar losing money every year until Toy Story was released?
And what company does not lose money every year until their first hit?

quote:
Wasn't Disney the company the created Toy Story and just had Pixar do the work?
No. Pixar created Toy Story and Disney was the distributor. Pixar did not create Toy Story as contract labor to Disney.

quote:
Wasn't Jobs uninvolved with Pixar until Toy Story made nearly $400B?
The story goes that Jobs was involved, but only loosely so. He checked in with what people were doing, gave his opinion on things here and there, but did not get involved in day-to-day creative decisions on Pixar's films -- even AFTER the success of Toy Story.

quote:
Didn't Jobs engage in anti-competitive practices to establish Apple's digital content business?
Such as? If you're referring to the ebooks case, that is just a stupid rant by the DOJ and judge that don't understand contract law in the first place. Besides, before the case even went to trial the judge publicly stated that she thought Apple was guilty. Apple had lost even before opening arguments. If you're referring to something else, like the anti poaching agreement between several of the silicon valley companies then you need to list a lot of other CEOs too.

Conclusion: the answer to most of your questions is definitely not, "Yes."

quote:
Most profitable PC business? You call me a doofus, but you must not understand the Apple financials you love to throw around - Apple's PC sales are sh*t and always have been.
Apple has a small market share, but it is *very* profitable. AND, Apple's market share has NOT always been "sh*t". Back in the late 80s and very early 90s Apple sold more personal computers than anyone else. At one time across all its personal computer lines (not just Macs) it had a peak market share of 19.2%, larger than any other company including IBM and Compaq. Definitely NOT "sh*t" sales.

One thing about Jobs was that he almost never invented anything himself. Jobs' greatest strength was his ability to see what is likely to become the future once someone else showed it to him. He could look as something with a high percentage of success and say, "That's crap and won't become the future." or "That's great and will be the future." But, note this was *only* after someone else came up with the idea. Jobs had a great "future filter".

Sometimes, like with NeXT, he allowed (and sometimes pushed) things that were too far in the future. Things that were definitely NOT ready for prime time. Sure, he had significant failures (e.g., the Mac cube, the hockey puck mouse, etc.) but his track record of choosing the right path was better than almost anyone else in the industry during that era.

Now as far as him at times being a world class ass... well that's a whole different story.


By amanojaku on 7/15/2014 10:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. He was removed from any direct duties and control of any projects. He quit and sold all his Apple stock but one share. No one forced him to resign.
Actually, Jobs was stripped of all of his duties, assigned to a building with no one else in it, and not given any work at all. They "encouraged" him to resign rather than fire him, in case you're unfamiliar with how companies help executives save face.
quote:
If you call getting Gil Amelio to give him $400 million for the NeXT OS a flop, then (on a purely financial basis) most of us would like to be that kind of a flop...
Apple bought NeXT purely for the OS because NeXT had nothing else worth buying, and Apple needed a new OS because it didn't have a good one. It made sense to use NeXT OS because many of the people involved in its creation were familiar with Macs and could port it easily. NeXT used the same PowerPC CPUs as the Mac, so there wouldn't be a significant change in low-level programming, something that's important for developing an OS.

The problem with NeXT was not the technology, which was actually lackluster (not bad, just not as advanced as everyone mis-remembers). The problem was the pricing. Throughout his career Jobs insisted his products were of the highest quality, which has been disproved on numerous occasions. No one was going to buy a $10,000 desktop, which is what the NeXT was, despite claims that it was a workstation.
quote:
If I recall correctly, part of that 10 year period must be laid at the feet of Lucas. Pixar was effectively dying when Jobs invested heavily.
No. Lucas sold Pixar to Jobs in 1986. Lucas had nothing to do with Pixar afterward.
quote:
And what company does not lose money every year until their first hit?
A fair point. But I was criticizing tony's "Jobs was perfect" drivel, not the floundering of Pixar. Which was still pretty bad because of leadership (cough, Jobs).
quote:
No. Pixar created Toy Story and Disney was the distributor. Pixar did not create Toy Story as contract labor to Disney.
Actually, Disney saw Pixar's "Tin Toy" and negotiated a deal for three movies. Pixar and Disney worked together to create Toy Story, although Pixar did the actual animation, writing, etc... Specifically, it was John Lasetter's project. Steve Jobs was not involved other than providing funding.
quote:
The story goes that Jobs was involved, but only loosely so. He checked in with what people were doing, gave his opinion on things here and there, but did not get involved in day-to-day creative decisions on Pixar's films -- even AFTER the success of Toy Story.
That was the point I was trying to illustrate to tony. Not every success was the result of Jobs. Thank you for clarifying and for making tony look all the more stupid.
quote:
Such as? If you're referring to the ebooks case, that is just a stupid rant by the DOJ and judge that don't understand contract law in the first place. Besides, before the case even went to trial the judge publicly stated that she thought Apple was guilty. Apple had lost even before opening arguments.
Uh, if that's what you believe then there's no point in discussing this. You have evidence proving Jobs' manipulations and you still think it was legal?
quote:
Back in the late 80s and very early 90s Apple sold more personal computers than anyone else.
I'd love to see stats to back that up. A quick check shows that from 1996-present Apple had not broken 7% market share. It must have plummeted when Jobs came back if it was 19% before (I'm sure it wasn't, but if it was it just makes the Jobs myth worse).
quote:
Jobs' greatest strength was his ability to see what is likely to become the future once someone else showed it to him. He could look as something with a high percentage of success and say, "That's crap and won't become the future." or "That's great and will be the future."
False. The list of Apple flops is longer than its successes. For all of Jobs' prescience, he was only successful with the Intel Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Claiming he saw the future is like saying sci-fi writers saw the future. I see myself flying without the aid of a device, but everyone would tell me I'm crazy. I could say they just haven't figured it out yet, and they'd still call me crazy. A visionary doesn't just predict the future, he/she creates the future. Without Jobs we wouldn't have the iMac, iPod, iPhone or iPad, but we would have all-in-one computers, portable music players, smartphones, and tablets, because they predated anything Apple made by 10 years in most cases.


By Shadowself on 7/16/2014 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Actually, Jobs was stripped of all of his duties, assigned to a building with no one else in it, and not given any work at all. They "encouraged" him to resign rather than fire him, in case you're unfamiliar with how companies help executives save face.
A bit of revisionist history. Jobs was not "encouraged" to resign. He actually, explicitly was encouraged to stay on in an advisory role, but with no direct line management capabilities. Jobs was adamant that certain parts of the Mac were being minimized to pump up the gross margin (something at the time Sculley pushed much, much more than Jobs did) to the detriment of the original Mac's capabilities (or so Jobs thought). Also all of Jobs' projects were radically overrunning budgets (often to frivolous changes that had marginal, if any, positive effects on the products). Therefore the board moved to make it so he could not be burning cash in what they thought were hopeless endeavors.

quote:
The problem with NeXT was not the technology, which was actually lackluster (not bad, just not as advanced as everyone mis-remembers). The problem was the pricing. Throughout his career Jobs insisted his products were of the highest quality, which has been disproved on numerous occasions. No one was going to buy a $10,000 desktop, which is what the NeXT was, despite claims that it was a workstation.
Again, a bit of revisionist history. You seem to forget how the industry (and much of the industry media) loudly proclaimed that NeXT was absolutely insane for going with optical media and excluding an optical drive. You seem to forget that virtually everyone said doing Display Postscript for the display interface was absolutely useless and too much of a computational burden. You seem to forget how virtually everyone made snide comments (or worse) about how NeXT put all the smarts for printing in the NeXT cube and did "bit blasting" (as NeXT called it back then) to the printer making the printer as dumb as possible.

Yes, the NeXT box was overpriced, but that could be said of a lot of systems that implement next generation capabilities. One of the major problems with NeXT was that it tried to do too many of them at one time. And, I've read a lot over the years as to whether it was Jobs or his investors that pushed for the ridiculous pricing.

quote:
A fair point. But I was criticizing tony's "Jobs was perfect" drivel, not the floundering of Pixar. Which was still pretty bad because of leadership (cough, Jobs).
So which was it? Jobs was effectively "hands off" at Pixar or Jobs provided bad leadership? You can't have it both ways. (((And, bye-the-bye, no one is "perfect". You shouldn't have to counter anyone who claims an individual is perfect. The statement is patently false on its face.)))

quote:
Uh, if that's what you believe then there's no point in discussing this. You have evidence proving Jobs' manipulations and you still think it was legal?
Yes, I believe there were no illegal actions taken by Apple (or even the publishers) in the eBook case. That does not mean that I believe that Apple or Jobs were ethically above board in the entire deal.

Both the DOJ and the judge decided Apple was guilty before the case even started. The judge even made public statements to that effect before the trial started. It did not help Apple's case that all the publishers decided they'd be money ahead to not fight it and settled. The publishers caved, not because they were guilty, but because it was financially better for them to do so. Just take a moment and get your hands on a copy of one of the original contracts. Each one says that the *publishers* set prices. Apple had zero control over book pricing. Apple relinquished all control over book pricing and availability. How does that constitute Apple conspiring to raise prices?

And what evidence of Jobs' manipulations? The biggest "smoking gun" presented at trial was an email from Jobs to a publisher stating that he understood that the publishers wanted to raise prices and that Apple was not against that. The "evidence" presented from that Jobs biography should never have been allowed in. It was, at best, hear-say evidence which would have been excluded if the judge had had half a brain.

Additionally, all the BS over the "most favored nation" clause is just that: BS. First, as written, it was not a "most favored nation" clause. MFN clauses are proactive. The clause in this case was purely reactive -- very different implementation! The clause, as implemented in the Apple-Publisher eBook contracts, is used in many, many contracts in the U.S. You don't see them being hauled into anti trust litigation over it. AND, do you know who uses that clause more than any other organization on the entire planet? The U.S. Government. Maybe the DOJ should sue the DoD, NASA, NOAA, and a whole set of other U.S. government agencies for using that clause too!

quote:
I'd love to see stats to back that up. A quick check shows that from 1996-present Apple had not broken 7% market share. It must have plummeted when Jobs came back if it was 19% before (I'm sure it wasn't, but if it was it just makes the Jobs myth worse).
Actually, the peak for Apple's market share was the late 80s & very early 90s. The 19.2% overall computer shipment market share was in the third quarter of 1990, if I recall correctly. The radical drop in market share for Apple started in about '91 or '92 and really accelerated with the shipment of Windows 95. By the time Jobs came back to Apple Apple's market share was hovering at less than 2%. Jobs wasn't at Apple for its peak. Jobs wasn't there during the sharp decline. Even thought Apple likes to quote its laptop market share numbers, the overall computer market share is still well under 10% and Apple is likely never to recover its commanding market share it once had.

quote:
False. The list of Apple flops is longer than its successes. For all of Jobs' prescience, he was only successful with the Intel Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad.
Job's successes were more numerous than his failures. Just run a tally of all of them. And, are you saying the PowerPC iMac was not a success? Are you saying the iTunes music store (with fixed 99 cent pricing per song) was not a success?
quote:
Claiming he saw the future is like saying sci-fi writers saw the future.
Did you read what I actually wrote? Jobs invented virtually nothing. He did NOT create the future. What he was able to do was look at something that someone else invented and tell if that was going to be a viable way forward. When he was shown the original iMac by someone else he knew it was going to be the next wave. When someone else showed him the iPod he knew it was the way forward for personal digital music players. When someone else showed him an iPhone mockup he knew it was the next generation phone.

He did that better than anyone else in the industry. No matter what Jobs fans try to say, Jobs did not invent the future, ever. Virtually 100% of the time he had to have other people bring ideas to him.

Jobs did not come up with the ideas, but he was better than anyone else during that era at seeing what was viable and what was not. Yes, he made obvious errors, no one has a perfect track record. But, Jobs had a better track record than any other single person during those times.


By ilt24 on 7/16/2014 12:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
As far as Mac sales go, in 1997, the year Jobs became interim CEO of Apple, they sold 2.87M Macs. In 2011 the year Steve resigns as CEO Apple sold 16.73M Macs. Total PC sales in 1997 were 99.7M, in 2011 they were 352.8M. While the PC market increased 3.5x from 1997 to 2011, Mac sales increased 5.8x; so under Jobs II rein it seems Mac did relatively well especially if you consider how much profit they are able to get out of the PC market vs their competitors.

FYI: the Mac sales numbers came from Apples investor site. The overall PC sales numbers came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share_of_perso...


By amanojaku on 7/16/2014 5:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He actually, explicitly was encouraged to stay on in an advisory role, but with no direct line management capabilities.
And then he was forced to resign. In Jobs' own words he was fired.

theguardian.com/technology/2011/oct/09/steve-jobs -stanford-commencement-address

folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story =The_End_Of_An_Era.txt
quote:
You seem to forget how the industry (and much of the industry media) loudly proclaimed that NeXT was absolutely insane for going with optical media and excluding an optical drive.
A MAGNETO -optical drive that proved to be faulty, under-performing, and expensive, forcing NeXT to abandon it in favor of... a floppy. And talk about ahead of its time - you couldn't even remove the MO-drive without shutting the system down!
quote:
You seem to forget that virtually everyone said doing Display Postscript for the display interface was absolutely useless and too much of a computational burden.
Display PostScript wasn't all that great. It never gained industry traction, and even Apple abandoned it after acquiring NeXT. Partly due to cost, but also due to better technologies.
quote:
You seem to forget how virtually everyone made snide comments (or worse) about how NeXT put all the smarts for printing in the NeXT cube and did "bit blasting" (as NeXT called it back then) to the printer making the printer as dumb as possible.
That was due to the LaserWriter debacle. No one wanted to buy a $7,000 printer again, especially when coupled to a $10,000 desktop! The printer still cost $2,000, though, but laser was never cheap.

And a dumb printer wasn't the panacea you think it was. Processing all of the data in the OS meant higher CPU loads and system-to-printer bandwidth. In those days, I/O was significantly more expensive than processing power. A smart printer was, and still is, better than a dumb printer, especially when the printer is shared over the network.
quote:
Yes, the NeXT box was overpriced, but that could be said of a lot of systems that implement next generation capabilities. One of the major problems with NeXT was that it tried to do too many of them at one time.
Adding a bunch of features that don't work as well as they should (or well at all), but including them because it's good marketing. That's not a vision, that's deceit.
quote:
And, I've read a lot over the years as to whether it was Jobs or his investors that pushed for the ridiculous pricing.
Without facts that's just speculation. Here are some facts:

1) NeXT was founded in 1985 with Jobs' own money
2) The first major investor was Ross Perot, who owned 16% of the company in 1987
3) Canon invests in NeXT in 1989, also owning 16%
4) The first NeXT system sold in 1990 at $10,000
5) Ross Perot resigns from the board of directors in 1991
6) NeXT stops selling hardware in 1993

There were only two major investors on the board, neither of which likely influenced pricing. Perot left because he was too busy to be involved. Canon's only stipulation was that it would be allowed to sell its own NeXT systems in Japan. And it was successful because it priced its systems cheaper than NeXT. Canon alone accounted for 10% of NeXT sales.
quote:
So which was it? Jobs was effectively "hands off" at Pixar or Jobs provided bad leadership? You can't have it both ways.
No leadership is bad leadership, and that it was I was referring to in the last comment. For 10 years Jobs didn't get involved. In the original comment, Tony claimed Pixar was successful because of Jobs. BS. It was Lasetter's "Tin Toy" project that he created own his own that got Disney's attention. Disney's collaboration with Lasetter lead to "Toy Story". Jobs had nothing to do with the company's success.
quote:
Yes, I believe there were no illegal actions taken by Apple (or even the publishers) in the eBook case...
Good God. Please read:

Page 30, section E.
"December 15 to 16, 2009: Apple’s First New York Meetings with Publishers"
Page 37, section F.
"Apple Switches Gears and Presents an Agency Model with 30% Commission".
Page 45, section G.
"Apple’s Term Sheet: All E-tailers to Agency and Pricing Caps"
Page 47, section H.
"Creation of the MFN Clause"

If you read that and still claim Apple didn't do anything illegal...

"Jobs’s final email in the chain indicates that the Publishers need to “move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year. If they don’t, I’m not sure we can be competitive.” "


justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf

Ugh, I'm tired. I don't feel like dealing with the rest of this. I doubt anyone cares, anyway. I just don't like to see misinformation spread.


By atechfan on 7/15/2014 10:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs wanted Pixar to sell CGI boxes. It was Lasseter who made the first animated short by them, meant to be a tech demo, but Disney was impressed enough by it to get Pixar into film making. This was all Lasseter's doing, but in typical Jobs fashion, he stole the credit.

The iPod was what saved Apple from extinction, and that project was just ripping off PortalPlayer, the real makers of the first iPod, and even then, the MP3 player predated that by a few years.

Where is the vision again?


By amanojaku on 7/15/2014 10:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
The first commercial portable MP3 player came from Compaq, of all places. It was the Personal Jukebox. I remember those days, looking for a CD player that could rip discs without errors, slowing everything down to 1x because vibrations killed the ripping process, encoding a song over a few hours or overnight, hosting warez sites... Good times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Jukebox


By atechfan on 7/16/2014 9:13:22 AM , Rating: 2
I learned something. I thought Diamond Multimedia had the first, followed shortly by Creative Labs.


By ilt24 on 7/16/2014 12:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Diamond and maybe Creative labs beat Compaq to the market. Compaq was the first to bring a hard disk based MP3 player to market. This was big since the flash based players of the time were limited to 64MB vs the 4GB+ you could get from a hard disk.

http://anythingbutipod.com/2008/03/10th-anniversay...


By name99 on 7/16/2014 3:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
So essentially your complaint against Steve Jobs is that he surrounds himself with EXTREMELY competent people (whether it's John Lasseter or Avi Tevanian or Eddie Cue or Ives or Cook), then he listens to them and frequently does what they suggest?

OMG!!! That's a ridiculous way to operate!!!

It would be so much better if he followed the Steve Ballmer model of not listening to anyone, just do WTF he thinks is right regardless of the evidence, never change his mind in spite of changing conditions, and keep doing it till the company is run into the ground.


By Fleeb on 7/17/2014 4:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
So you agree with him.


By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 11:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Were all those ideas actually SJ's... or did others present them to him and he saw them valuable enough to proceed?

Because there were quite a few digital music players before iPod, for example. Apple's version. Obviously iPod was the most successful, but idea was hardly original.

Same with smart phones etc. Apple was perfecting concepts more than inventing them. I'm not downplaying importance of this - idea is worth only that much until someone executes it right - but it is a bit different category from where followers like to put SJ.

He definitely had taste that was agreeable with majority of consumers, but how much was it a vision... and was it his vision, or vision of his peers (in which case he had a talent of surrounding himself with capable people)..?


By atechfan on 7/16/2014 9:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
The iPod generation one was built by a company known as PortalPlayer.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jobs takes over Pixar and steers it towards taking over the film animation business


Yeah you're right, he did the animation himself, he wrote the scripts, he even did the voice acting...

That even explains why since his death, Pixar hasn't had a single decent movie!!! Right?

Apple bought Pixar. That's it. Pretending Steve Jobs had a personal hand in it's later success is hero-building of the worst kind.

quote:
along the way he steers Apple to becoming the most profitable PC business


Bill Gates's vision put a PC in the hands of nearly every person. PC's went from a extremely overpriced device aimed at a select few, to a useful appliance for everyone. His vision has created incalculable wealth, prosperity, and an increase in the knowledge-base of mankind overall.

Jobs took the same thing, and made it an overpriced vanity object. That's what Apple does, takes the same crap everyone is using, and convinces you that you need to pay more for it.

Yet somehow you praise this? How is being "profitable" more benevolent than bringing MANKIND into the information age?


By ilt24 on 7/16/2014 1:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple bought Pixar.


Apple has nothing to do with Pixar, Jobs bought it after he left Apple.


By w8gaming on 7/18/2014 10:05:11 AM , Rating: 2
While I dislike Apple sue happy sue everyone tactics, and claiming other people invention as their own, I do think Job is a visionary in the sense that he correctly predicts what the market wants in a product. He is not someone who know how to engineer and produce a product, but he knows what a product needs to be successful and steer his team towards that goal. As a CEO, this is actually more important than the technical skills of brilliant engineers. However, Apple has obviously lost that spark since his passing. If he was still alive I would think he would seen the need of a "phablet" size device much earlier and Apple would have that in the market long ago.


By elleehswon on 7/15/2014 8:43:02 PM , Rating: 1
the only people that care about a companies profits are the shareholders and the board of directors...both are made up of truly evil people that give 0 shits about anything but profitability....have to lay off workers and leave the remaining ones to pick up the slack of those you just fired? cool!!!

in one word...pricks.

wait, you seem to care too....prick..:)


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/15/2014 8:45:52 PM , Rating: 1
Wonder which Tony is, because if I remember right, he claims to have sold all his stock, which I don't believe, and I sure don't believe he is on the board. But yet, he seems to be all about profit since that's one of his main sticking points.

I don't doubt he is being paid to post like he does, there really can't be any other explanation at this point. Most of his posts read like it's scripted PR bullshit.


By tonyswash on 7/16/2014 6:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't doubt he is being paid to post like he does, there really can't be any other explanation at this point.


Jeez - not another sad sap who thinks that the only explanation for someone holding opposite opinions is that they are being paid to do. The hubris (and dopiness) is staggering.


By themaster08 on 7/16/2014 7:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is criticising you for having a differing opinion. People are criticising you because you support every action, idea, lawsuit, acquisition, and opinion of everyone and everything relating to Apple.

It simply confuses people how you can have such a religious attachment to a company.


By tonyswash on 7/16/2014 7:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is criticising you for having a differing opinion.


Actually some idiot just said the only reason I expressed the opinions I do is because I am paid to do so.

As for your criticism that I am relentlessly pro Apple - get back to me when you start to criticise the more numerous posters here who are relentless anti-Apple.

Do you think the balance of opinion on this forum is too pro-Apple?

If not then all I do is try to balance things out.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/16/2014 8:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually some idiot just said the only reason I expressed the opinions I do is because I am paid to do so.
Awww, getting under your skin. How cute. Your defense and actions speak very loudly in regards to this.

quote:
If not then all I do is try to balance things out.
That you honestly believe that, that's sad.


By amanojaku on 7/16/2014 8:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for your criticism that I am relentlessly pro Apple - get back to me when you start to criticise the more numerous posters here who are relentless anti-Apple.
True, this site is totally anti-Apple.

1) MS created Windows 8 and no one complained

2) Google has its hands in everything and no one complains

3) No one laughs at BlackBerry's scrambles

4) No one groans over the latest HTC flop

5) Samsung's Attack-on-Apple ads don't get to be annoying

Who am I kidding? The MAJORITY of DT's posters crap on these companies when they deserve it! Facebook, Beats, HP... it doesn't matter. A screw up is a screw up.

But YOU act like Apple DOESN'T deserve it:

1) Stealing other companies' designs ("shamelessly" from Braun)

2) Lying about inventions (multi-touch, hah!)

3) Writing code to hide product defects (Antennagate)

4) Monopoly tactics (eBooks)

5) False advertising (security claims)

The list goes on and on. And it's fanatics like you who pretend DT's posters just pick on Apple. I guess that's the reason the federal government gave Apple a pardon for violating copyrights. Because we've all been picking on poor, poor Apple and giving everyone else so much praise.

I should point out that the very same critics have given Apple praise when it was due, but you'd never admit that.


By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 4:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Exactly.

Tony really has his head so far into the Applesphere that he cannot see what the rest of the world he is doing. This site and the posters on it regularly complain about every stupid move from every tech company. All TS sees is an anti Apple bias. /shrugs.


By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
Tony, how on earth did you read this: "Nobody is criticising you for having a differing opinion. People are criticising you because you support every action, idea, lawsuit, acquisition, and opinion of everyone and everything relating to Apple. It simply confuses people how you can have such a religious attachment to a company."

And only see this: "Nobody is criticising you for having a differing opinion. "

Clearly the valid point in hos post was "People are criticising you because you support every action, idea, lawsuit, acquisition, and opinion of everyone and everything relating to Apple. It simply confuses people how you can have such a religious attachment to a company."


By LRonaldHubbs on 7/17/2014 7:59:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually some idiot just said the only reason I expressed the opinions I do is because I am paid to do so.

BS. That's not what he said at all. One would almost think you're not very good at English, but the truth is you're just manipulative.

What he actually said:
quote:
I don't doubt he is being paid to post like he does, there really can't be any other explanation at this point. Most of his posts read like it's scripted PR bullshit.

He criticized your manner and style of posting. He never said that your only motivation is money.

You post primarily (though not solely) on articles about Apple or their direct competitors, and to my knowledge you've never missed a single one. Your posts on said articles are also numerous. It's kind of astonishing how much time you must devote to that. Your posts also read like PR statements. They are exclusively supportive of anything Apple does and critical of anything Apple's competitors do.

There are mere fanboys, who eventually run out of steam, and then there are paid fanboys. You've been at it far to long to be unpaid. But that's not to say you only do it for the money, not at all. Only a true believer could endure writing exactly the same crap every single day.


By retrospooty on 7/17/2014 8:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
"BS. That's not what he said at all. One would almost think you're not very good at English, but the truth is you're just manipulativ e."

Bingo, and thus the assertion that he is a shill. He just tries way too hard and obviously does the
"spin dance" way too well for a reasonable person to accept without some motive. It could be a shill, or just an extreme and manipulative fan... Either way it's equally BS.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/17/2014 9:04:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but the truth is you're just manipulative.
That is a sad truth. He takes shit out of context to make it look like he is being attacked and he is the victim. It's sad.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/16/2014 8:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
sad sap
How ironic you should say that. Perhaps you should look in a mirror, that's a sad sap.


By Samus on 7/15/2014 9:41:35 PM , Rating: 3
IBM and Apple have had a business relationship for decades. Look at the PowerPC.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki