Is this why Apple decided on chips from Intel instead of IBM?

[alfredo]

There's been a lot of discussion on why Apple changed to Intel. We know they have kept up a two platform strategy for OSX. Could the ultimate decision to switch platforms have more to do with IBM corporate culture than Intel's product line?


http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060518.html


Big Blues:
Why IBM Is in Trouble
By Robert X. Cringely

No word this week from Sam Palmisano. The CEO of IBM was strangely silent following my column last week about Google and Microsoft that also touched on the malaise at IBM -- a malaise very much of Mr. Palmisano's making. But the troops inside IBM Global Services DID reply, and uniformly supported my grim news from last week that their company has entered a death spiral of under-bidding and then under-delivering.

Why would a company DO that? Why would they compromise a reputation built over decades? Because decades no longer matter to publicly traded American companies. All that really matter are fiscal quarters.

Much of this began on Lou Gerstner's watch. And while I am generally a fan of Gerstner, who retired from IBM at the end of 2002, Sam Palmisano is generally reaping what Gerstner sowed.

Lou Gerstner was the first-ever outsider brought in to run IBM, and did so at a very dark time in the company's history; John Akers had self-destructed while trying to carry out the vision of HIS predecessor, John Opel. Are we beginning to see a trend here?

Much more about IBM's woes at the above link.

[Deja Q]

1. I thought Apple was taking the cheaper route and saying "we can do it too"

Especially given Max OS X's origins (FreeBSD), easily portable to x86 architecture for obvious reasons...

[xultar]

2. Why because they let sales run the organisation. That's why.

Sales don't know shit about delivery. They make shit up and promise the moon. Unfortunately when the people get in there to do the work they are understaffed and under equiped.

Sad so so fucking sad.

[Systematic Chaos]

3. Interesting freudian slip here:

"IBM began urging its largest customers to switch from leasing their mainframes to buying them outright, which overnight raised revenue from those customers by ten or more times. IBM had a huge sales surge, generating crash that made the company look richer than ever, but also had to be put to use in the business."

Edited to fix italics

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. it's the under-deliver bit

IBM had been repeatedly late, remiss, and misleading regarding delivery of faster, more powerful, and cooler processors.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

6. That's my take on it as well. Apple needed a partner who

could deliver better performance per watt and power efficiency. Oh, and just deliver. IBM's reported "death-spiral" is as tied to their failure to do this as it is their corporate culture, IMO. This just reinforces Apple's decision.

I'm not a fan of Robert X. Cringely's work, especially when he talks about Apple (which he doesn't do in this article). I would like to see other industry writers weigh in on this too.

[Poiuyt]

8. And also Apple couldn't put the G5 chip in their laptops

Laptops have become an important segment for Apple

[AlCzervik]

12. You are correct---

My husband works for apple and my sister works for IBM.

[alfredo]

15. As much as us Mac users liked and supported the PowerPC

architecture, it became apparent that Motorola and IBM just wasn't keeping up. Some people are upset over the move away from the PowerPC, but the move had to be done. This article points out why Jobs had to do what he did.

[meegbear]

5. Becuase PowerPC chips couldn't go any faster and Intel could ...

that's what Steve said at the WWDC 2005 and Steve would NEVER EVER lie ... would he?

[Clovis Sangrail]

7. interesting discussion about it here

IBM makes "real computers". (Servers, mainframes, embedded products, military and aerospace processors, network backbones, etc.) They're not interested in making home computers or "toys", except where such products might overlap with one of their "real" markets. An interesting example of such overlap would be the "Cell" processor, which even before coming to market in the Playstation 3 is being prepped for use in network servers and embedded applications:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29575

Intel's primary focus on the other hand is providing parts for "small computer" (commodity desktop, laptop, and small server) manufacturers It's a huge part of their business, and they spend a *lot* of time and money supporting their customers with technical, design, and marketing support. Apple is basically a home computer and entertainment product manufacturer. Which company does it make more sense for them to work with? Seems pretty obvious, really.

http://www.applefritter.com/node/10621

[alfredo]

9. I think the game market will help IBM.

Still their corporate culture is what is killing IBM, and its been a long slow painful death. The shareholders need to revolt.


BTW, I fully expect Apple to have some ass kicking quads (two duo core) in it pro line. IBM has a good duo core now, but it was too little too late.

[aasleka]

10. processors

Thought we were going to see some quads and plans for more at the last quarter of 06 from Intel?

Whats the deal with the guy with picket signs on (Research Triangle) Davis drive outside IBM these days?

[alfredo]

11. You don't want to roll out major upgrades too fast,

you'll kill the sales of your current products.

I don't know about the picketing.

[Clovis Sangrail]

16. Power6 may breathe new life

If IBM can make good on their claims for the Power6 they aren't going to miss Apple.
It would put them at the top of the heap in the server market.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/07/ibm_power6_show/

The Power6 chip will run between 4GHz and 5GHz, and has been shown to hum away at 6GHz in the lab. IBM reckons that some process technology breakthroughs have allowed it to kick the frequency higher while still keeping heat and power consumption issues under control.

[eggplant]

13. Gerstner was terrible

First off, I must say that Gerstner was a *terrible* CEO for IBM. He was the first "non-IBMer" to take the helm, and he completely destroyed morale within days of his arrival. I know this from his personal replies to emails I sent him when I worked there. He was an asshole of the first caliber who cared nothing of the "IBM way".

As for Apple wanting to avoid an "IBM" chip, that is more complex. PA Semi had been working on an ideal Power-based chip for Apple, which would have greatly simplified their development process, but it was running late. (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/19/pasemi_apple/ for more.)

[alfredo]

14. Moving to a supplier that can keep up with demand, and has a

fairly good record of bringing from pipeline to shelf in a reasonable time removes one worry.

It just seems that Apple has had more than its share of suppliers who have dropped the ball.