Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 15:09 UTC
Permalink for comment 511826
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-22
IBMs pedigree and achievements stand out on they're own. IBM has contributed far far more to science (if not modern desktop or mobile computing per se) than Apple. No arguments there.
""Apple being the next IBM" is not saying that they will be the "next big thing". It's saying they will be the next "too big" thing. "
That's just my point, i don't see any evidence of Apple being too big just yet. Agree IBM at it's best did far far more than Apple.