Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rmendis · Apr 24, 2003, 09:42 AM

(Repost of a slightly reworded poll)

If given the choice of seeing Apple partner with one of IBM, HP, Sun or SGI to produce high end Mac OS X workstations and/or servers, who would you prefer?

1. Sun => Mac OS X for SPARC or AMD64.
2. HP => Mac OS X for Itanium
3. SGI => Mac OS X for Itanium (or even PowerPC 970/G5)
4. IBM => Mac OS X for POWER/PPC or Itanium

What is for sure is that Sun nor HP would choose to specially develop PowerPC systems just for an emerging/new market for Mac OS X high end workstations and servers.

SGI on the otherhand is small enough and has similar enough markets to Apple to warrant building a potentially third line of workstations and servers based on PowerPC. On the otherhand what would be the point of Apple licensing Mac OS X to SGI just to produce PowerPC systems. Apple could do that.

As for IBM, there will always be problems with strategic deals with IBM. Look at NeXT-IBM deal or even Taligent. The only thing to blossom out of the 80's Apple-IBM partnership was the PowerPC.

It would be IMHO simplest for Apple to purchase SGI outright and produce its own Mac OS X workstations (SGI branded of course) either on Itanium or even PowerPC G5 for the short term.

So who would you prefer and why?

dettociao · Apr 24, 2003, 01:09 PM

What can I say, I love Sun.

clarkgoble · Apr 24, 2003, 01:12 PM

I personally think Sun is going down and going down fast. I think IBM is the way to go. Of course IBM looks after their own, so that can be dangerous as well. SGI is a pale shadow of what they were now. I don't think they are quite that significant. HP/Compact are definitely in the clone market and would be suicide for Apple.

What I'd like IBM to do is start shipping OSX workstations.

Bobby · Apr 24, 2003, 01:59 PM

I think most people are saying IBM for a couple main reasons...

Since they have worked together, there is already room for partnership...

IBM still designs chip architectures from the ground up, many of which get utilized by Motorola...

And, similar to Apple, IBM is overall a fairly large innovator... Of coarse not at the level of Apple, but they do make some eye catching stuff (most notably processor architecture)...

rmendis · Apr 24, 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
I think most people are saying IBM for a couple main reasons...

Since they have worked together, there is already room for partnership...

Unless IBM were to purchase Apple and run it as a wholely owned subsidiary (like Lotus) i doubt the long term viability of IBM support of Mac OS X on any of their servers.

As it is they have Windows XP, Linux and not to mention their own server OSs running on their hardware. Mac OS X on a server is potentially a small one. There is much potential for conflict of interest. Something unlikely to please Steve Jobs nor IBM in the long term.

A similar argument bodes for Sun.
They sell a commercial OS - Solaris.
There would be conflict of interest here as there was when Sun sold NEXTSTEP on its SPARCstations years back. Which would it push - Mac OS X or Solaris?

HP though not selling a commercial OS, is in dire need of consolidation of its hardware as a result of aquisitions from Digital and Compaq. It hardly needs to add to it's diversity.

On the otherhand a partnership/aquisition of SGI could lead to high end Mac OS X workstations targeted at Apple's key markets in video, imaging and graphics. Also as a wholely owned subsidiary of Apple, there would be no conflict of interest with SGI. No licensing, as SGI would be owned by Apple.

And for $250 million, SGI is a bargain - apart from the SGI brand, customers (including key customers in govt., forces & research) the price tag also includes Alias|Wavefront (producers of Maya) and loads of other high end OS technology like its NUMAflex architecture, XFS, single image OS technology which could help Mac OS X Server penetrate the mid-high end server market. Although SGI is at a low ebb and many say that it's days are numbered (like was said of Apple just before Steve Jobs returned) i'm sure under Apple ownership and Steve Jobs' guidance, the confidence imbuied in the SGI brand can be ressurected.
With innovative new workstations based on Mac OS X, SGI would be in quite a unique position capitalizing on Apple's Mac market and user base.

SGI could be to Apple what Porche is to VW, Jaguar is to Ford and MG is to BMW.

DeathMan · Apr 25, 2003, 12:55 AM

If apple were to buy SGI for the resources, they'd have to restructure the way they do things. It seems that SGI is sort of in the same sinking ship as other titans of that age. They used to be so far beyond what consumer gear was capable of, they could fetch the higher prices. Now with these high speeds and more advanced architectures, consumer stuff is replacing this high end hardware, running Linux to boot.

I'm not saying Apple couldn't turn SGI around, if anyone could, it would be Steve, but I'm just not sure that they care. They could gain some contracts, but then they'd have a whole new batch of headaches, supporting all that stuff.

rmendis · Apr 25, 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I'm not saying Apple couldn't turn SGI around, if anyone could, it would be Steve, but I'm just not sure that they care. They could gain some contracts, but then they'd have a whole new batch of headaches, supporting all that stuff.

What is for sure is that i expect Apple will partner with one of IBM, HP, Sun or SGI to broaden Mac OS X's market and to support another platform. (Maybe even as soon as this year).

So they will inherrit some sort of 'headaches' or legacy stuff in the process.

On the other hand this can be a challange.
Apple has successfully migrated Mac OS 9 user base to a new operating system Mac OS X. It could do the same for SGI's IRIX/MIPS customers as well.

In fact, Apple produces software for IRIX - Shake to name one.
And we know that SGI's Alias|Wavefront produces Maya for Mac OS X.
There is almost certainly an intersection between Apple and SGI already that is not obvious but still strong. At NAB many of the demonstrations of new technology were on collaborations on SGI and Apple hardware.

So if Apple were to purchase SGI and migrate it's legacy MIPS/IRIX systems onto Mac OS X systems (instead of Linux/Itanium) there would be a greater degree of seemlessness and coherence of such solutions.

There is nothing stopping Apple from producing a SGI branded 4-8 PowerPC 970 Mac OS X workstation and selling it to it's high end Mac users and SGI's workstation and visualization customers. The very same ones who use 'tools of the trade' like Shake and Maya. Certainly the HyperTransport interconnect on the PPC970 would allow for SGI's NUMA multiprocessor topology.

SGI's technology in clustering and single image OS could help Apple enhance it's Xserve machines to become powerful single image multi-processor machines, etc...

The advantage of SGI is it is within Apple's budget to aquire - unlike Universal Music say

DeathMan · Apr 26, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:

On the other hand this can be a challange.
Apple has successfully migrated Mac OS 9 user base to a new operating system Mac OS X. It could do the same for SGI's IRIX/MIPS customers as well.

You have a good point about Apples newlyfound IRIX experience.

But migrating SGI users to Mac is going to be a whole different ballgame than upgrading an already loyal userbase to the next stage of the ineveitable mac evolution.

SGI users are more elitest than Mac users. It would be like asking a diehard mac users to downgrade to windows 98. We just wouldn't stand for it. If Apple did pick up SGI (and Maya with it), I think they would have to maintain it as SGI for quite a while, and let it be its own dog. They could use the same guts for a Mac, and an SGI workstation, but the body would have to look different (like the VW Passat, and the Audi (a4 is it? I can't remember, one of those Audi's has the same guts as the passat).

Maybe eventually, once enough things are shared between the two platforms, they might be able to merge, or at least be totally interoperable. Now wouldn't that be sweet? You'd probably see Mac users moving over to SGI at that point. Sort of like graduating.

Back up 15 and punt · Apr 26, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Bobby:
I think most people are saying IBM for a couple main reasons...

Since they have worked together, there is already room for partnership...

IBM still designs chip architectures from the ground up, many of which get utilized by Motorola...

And, similar to Apple, IBM is overall a fairly large innovator... Of coarse not at the level of Apple, but they do make some eye catching stuff (most notably processor architecture)...

IBM is far more creative than people will ever give them credit for. If you look at their R & D expenditures, you will find that they spend more than the rest of the combined industry. They have creations in their labs that probably will never see the light of day. And I will predict that if Apple is ever able to significantly increase their market share, say 10 percent or more, then IBM will buy them and probably run them as a subsidiary.

rmendis · Apr 26, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
You have a good point about Apples newlyfound IRIX experience.
But migrating SGI users to Mac is going to be a whole different ballgame than upgrading an already loyal userbase to the next stage of the ineveitable mac evolution.

SGI users are more elitest than Mac users. It would be like asking a diehard mac users to downgrade to windows 98. We just wouldn't stand for it.

I dare say that Apple and SGI have the technology to produce a special version of Mac OS X on SGI, if they so wished.
That is a theme/icon set for SGI platform.
This is technology that started off looking like NEXTSTEP, then Windows98 and Mac OS Platinum, then Aqua

In fact if it were really seen to be an issue, with a little rework, Mac OS X + X11 could be customized to produce a modern version of IRIX for SGI's new servers. It would still have Cocoa, Carbon (and X11) compatibility - though not Classic. The motivation would be to migrate (stubborn) IRIX developers and users.

However I am in favour of keeping it as Mac OS X.

If Apple did pick up SGI (and Maya with it), I think they would have to maintain it as SGI for quite a while, and let it be its own dog.

Oh, absolutely

SGI must be maintained as a separate entity, even though as whole owned subsidiary of Apple. Just as Alias|Wavefront will become a whole owned subsidiary of Apple.

In fact i would go a step further and say they ressurect the Silicon Graphics moniker/trademark for it's workstations. e.g: naming them Silicon Graphics O2 instead of SGI O2. Keeping the SGI brand for the company.

rmendis · Apr 26, 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Back up 15 and punt:
IBM is far more creative than people will ever give them credit for. If you look at their R & D expenditures, you will find that they spend more than the rest of the combined industry. They have creations in their labs that probably will never see the light of day.

Well, yes IBM pioneered SQL and relational database technology, but who ran with that? Oracle.
IBM also pioneered and developed RISC technology, but who ran with that? Sun.

The problem with IBM is the bureaucracy.

And I will predict that if Apple is ever able to significantly increase their market share, say 10 percent or more, then IBM will buy them and probably run them as a subsidiary.

Well for the very reason mentioned i think IBM aquiring Apple would be a bad idea - unless of course they made Steve Jobs CEO

rmendis · Apr 27, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I personally think Sun is going down and going down fast.

I couldn't agree with you more.

SPARC will fade away into irrelevancy and perhaps so will Solaris.
Itanium and Linux are taking Sun on head on it seems and Sun's market share and profits have shrunk as a result.

It's a shame though, cos Sun have innovated with Java and stuff like Java2D, etc...though they really cocked things up with EJB's and all sorts on the enterprise - once lapped up by the enterprise market, i think they soon became aware of J2EE's complexity and shortcomings and hype and realized that solutions like WebObjects are far more powerful though very much understated.

Actually, if IBM purchases anyone in the comiing years, i expect it to be Sun, if only for Sun's Java technology. SPARC and maybe even Solaris will eventually be phased out in favour of POWER, Itanium and heaven forbid IBM's Linux and enterprise OSs.

Brass · Apr 27, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by rmendis:
A similar argument bodes for Sun.
They sell a commercial OS - Solaris.
There would be conflict of interest here as there was when Sun sold NEXTSTEP on its SPARCstations years back. Which would it push - Mac OS X or Solaris?

Although Solaris is available for FREE for single CPU systems (or just minimal media costs), or for x86 systems.

Sun is, like Apple, largely a hardware company.

rmendis · Apr 28, 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Brass:
Although Solaris is available for FREE for single CPU systems (or just minimal media costs), or for x86 systems.

Indeed. So what sort of a market would exist for Mac OS X on SPARC?
Also is it worth Apple's and Sun's investment to support SPARC as it may not even be an architecture that is around in a few years time.

It's doesn't really make sense for Sun to offer Mac OS X and Solaris (which is free anyway) on either SPARC or AMD64.