Apple and IBM have… Entered into a partnership.
The new IBM MobileFirst for iOS solutions will be built in an exclusive collaboration that draws on the distinct strengths of each company: IBM’s big data and analytics capabilities, with the power of more than 100,000 IBM industry and domain consultants and software developers behind it, fused with Apple’s legendary consumer experience, hardware and software integration and developer platform. The combination will create apps that can transform specific aspects of how businesses and employees work using iPhone and iPad, allowing companies to achieve new levels of efficiency, effectiveness and customer satisfaction – faster and easier than ever before.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of this, so maybe it’s simply fitting. In any case, this stuff isn’t exactly sexy, but it looks like a great partnership for both companies.
Oh no!
This is a capitulation by Apple. And sad because there was a very useful dynamic being created by Apple devices being (i) popular and (ii) non-enterprise.
This dynamic forced enterprise to rethink how it did stuff. It drove “byod” style policies which freed up geat amounts of freedom and flexibility.
It forced “enterprises” to rethink how they managed devices .. they moved from a focus on device management to a focus on application / information management. It forced enterprises to ask “why” and “do we really need to” for many traditional enterprise practises.
The result is, amongst other things,
* it is now not unusual to have a diversity of devices in a corporate
* enterprises now have a spectrum of applications, some needing well-managed devices, others requiring any end point
* enterprises now don’t assume the devices are windows only
* enterprises now think about applications which work across as many devices and form factors as possible (html)
* enterprises now don’t need users to “train” on every device / IT – they’re easy to use just like amazon.com, google, and osnews.com!
* and some even have “self service” models for their IT … driven by consumerised technology
All this was driven in part by the fact that Apple was resolutely non-enterprise.
A sad day for me.
Edited 2014-07-15 22:22 UTC
This partnership isn’t what sealed the deal for Apple in the enterprise. The iPad currently enjoys 90% marketshare for tablets in the enterprise market. All this move does is help grow install base by catering to certain groups who wouldn’t have otherwise even considered Apple. Apple’s continued dominance in and the secure of those latecomers would have most likely happened anyways over time even without IBM.
This just expedites that process.
Edited 2014-07-16 06:18 UTC
I would like to know where those enterprises exist.
Surely not as part of our Fortune 500 portfolio, as very much the likes of the typical Fortune 10, Google, Facebook and friends.
That assumption is wrong. The fortune 500 is exactly where they are:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/watch-microsoft-apple-currently-rules-…
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/17/good-apple-leads-business…
http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-enterprise-sales-unbelievable…
As a matter of fact, the number increases to 98 percent if you look exclusively within Fortune 500 businesses.
They’re MIA apparently.
Apple has key advantages, IBM knows this and wants in as it prepares to combat Microsoft in enterprise infrastructure markets. Loser: Microsoft.
Apple and IBM will subsequently offer a jointly-maintained platform for mobile enterprise users that Microsoft’s cloud-based services and solutions will be able to happily — and securely — play on. Loser: Google/Android.
Edited 2014-07-16 07:21 UTC
I don’t think those numbers mean what you think it means. 98% of fortune 500 corps use iPads does not mean iPads have 98% market share in fortune 500 corps. It does not tell how many iPads they use and how many other tablets they have.
That number was directly quoted from Apple marketing and is specifically designed to be misleading.
98% market share is EXACTLY what the statistic means actually.
You’re confusing market share with install base.
No, market share and install base are confusing because Microsoft, PC manufacturers and the technology press had previously mis-used the terms to purposefully confuse people.
“Market share” is NOT a term that determines the number of one product in use over another product. It is the number of products sold relative to other products within a three month time span.
This misconception was frequently mis understood to make Apple’s user base look smaller than it was even if it wasn’t misleading.
Edited 2014-07-16 15:11 UTC
No, you’re not getting it.
The numbers tells that 98% of Fortune 500 companies are using iPads.
What that means is that out of the 500 biggest corporations, 490 of them are using iPads. “They use iPads” means they have at least one iPad and they use it. It does not tell anything about iPads market share. Maybe those 490 corps have 1 iPad each and 200 surface tablets and the 10 remaining ones only have 2000 surface tablets, which would put iPad’s market share at something like 0.01%. Or maybe those 490 corps have like 1billion iPads and 0 other tablet and the remaining ones have no tablet at all and iPad’s market share is 100%.
Anyway this number, 98% not to be confused with market share, it’s just the number of Fortune 500 companies that use iPads (whatever the number of iPads and other tablets they use). this number is not linked with market share. You can have 98% of companies using iPads AND 100% of fortune 500 companies using Android tablets AND 90% of them using Surface. It you add those numbers you end up with 288% but it does not add. It’s just misleading and I understand why you fell for it. Don’t feel bad about it, anybody could fell for it, they have smart people working 100% of their time to pull out those kind of numbers.
Edited 2014-07-16 16:45 UTC
No, that would be a description of install base. Market share is a statistic that specifically measures units sold in comparison to competitors in the same industry within a three month time frame.
When someone references market share, the correct definition is sales relative to competition in the same industry. As a result, these numbers are indeed market share (assuming that they’re not using the bastardized understanding of market share which is install base. (Units sold of one item category within an industry relative to those sold of its competitors)
Assuming that were the case, then that would be a measurement calculating install-base… not market share. Your analysis might actually be correct. If or when those numbers are ever release we can talk about those. Until then, it’s accurate to say that the iPad’s market share is 98% within four tune 500 businesses.
No, they said that their market share is 98%
Actually no. The number is specifically and exclusively to be associated with market share. You keep assuming market share is the number of products in use rather than number of products sold within a three month time frame.
Yes. It is.
No one would create such numbers and be taken seriously
I understand why you think that way. The computer industry is notorious for mistakenly referring to market share when they mean install base and vise versa… typically when it benefits Windows, PC or Android devices.
Market share and install base however are actually exactly as I referenced them.
To give you peace of mind you can rationalize this to your head by theoretically assuming that a billion android devices were sold one quarter. Sold zero the next while apple sold only 1 to 495 of the fortune 500 companies therefor giving them 98% market share but 0.0001 percent install base. I highly doubt that’s what happened however we don’t have install base stats here so its anyone’s guess.
In the meantime it’s accurate to say Apple has 98% market share in fortune 500 companies and 90% market share in the corporate sector.
Emotions don’t play into this. This is all just facts
On that note, I understand why you mis-associate the terms market share and install base. They’re frequently interchanged when speaking of technology-specific products.
Edited 2014-07-17 00:09 UTC
Man, get over this market share vs install base thing you seem stuck into. I know perfectly the difference between market share and install base.
The number you quote, 98% has nothing to do with either market share or install base. It’s the number of fortune 500 companies using iPads.
Here are the quotes from your own damn links:
The quotes are directly from Tim Cook and they quote each other. He doesn’t talk either about market share or install base. It’s just a random number that means nothing in reality. The smallest Fortune 50 company may have something like 50 000 employees. I expect them to use a lot of different technologies, including iPhones and iPads.
That number is specifically designed to be confused with market share (the way he says it) but it’s not, really.
Edited 2014-07-17 07:07 UTC
Not stuck. Just making corrections as I see them.
If you do, your comments seem to suggest otherwise
Tim Cook said 90 percent of tablet activations in the enterprise are iPads. That’s a very specific statement that makes a comparison relative to competitors. It’s not simply that they have purchased an iPad. This is a measurement of market share… or could theoretically also be a measurement of install base.
I’ll concede one point though… I re-read what he said about the 98 percent number which is that 98 percent of companies in the Fortune 500 are using iPads. This (unlike what I said) is not a reflection of market share but of general adoption rates. You are correct on that point.
As an individual advocating for Apple technology proliferating, I’ll take 90 percent market share/install base of enterprise though. To argue 90 vs 98 is simply to argue semantics as one could easily justifiably conclude that a massive percent of that number is in fact fortune 500 companies.
Edited 2014-07-17 19:10 UTC
Well that’s ok, I understand why you were confused by that number.
I’m not trying to win an argument or anything. I was just trying to dispell the marketing speack magic which affects all of us.
I agree with you iPads probably have a big market share (and even bigger install base) in the entreprise, although it is not as high as they are trying to make it look.
FYI, even the 90% number is not exactly what you think. IDC says 78%, in the US (from your link again)
The real market share (worldwide) is not quoted at all in your link.
Anyway, that doesn’t matter. Whatever the market share or install base, what is more important is that iPads are nice devices. If you are happy with yours, that is all what matters.
They were very specific with their 90% number. Thus far, I haven’t seen anything from research companies or otherwise that would cause me to question that number.
That number *only* reflects the United States. Cook (as did Jobs when he was alive) both clarified US when the numbers warranted it. Because they didn’t, there’s no reason to assume that they’re referring to anything other than a global enterprise statistic.
Perhaps you think they’re lying… which is a possibility. Unless there’s reason to question them, why would we doubt them? (The sheer veracity of the numbers isn’t reason enough… at least to me. If it is to you perhaps you should clarify that.)
It was the worldwide statistics to which the 90% market was speaking to
Edited 2014-07-18 17:41 UTC
Except none of the articles you link are saying that 90% or 98% is actually referencing market-share. So you are pulling this straight out of your anus.
That is what you are saying, not anyone else.
I re-read the article and it would seem that I did get the 98% figure from there. With that said, Tim Cook did say 90 percent of tablet activations in the enterprise are iPads. That’s a very specific statement that makes a comparison relative to competitors. It’s not simply that they have purchased an iPad. This is a measurement of market share or could theoretically also be a measurement of install base.
As an individual advocating for Apple technology proliferating, I’ll take 90 percent market share / install base of enterprise though. To argue 90 vs 98 is simply to argue semantics as one could easily justifiably conclude that a massive percent of that number is in fact fortune 500 companies.
Edited 2014-07-17 19:10 UTC
Sorry to say, maybe you need reading glasses.
The only guys you ever see with no official IT devices, allowed to connect to the internal network, are members from the company board.
As for the rest of your comment, plain marketing fluff.
Edited 2014-07-16 11:05 UTC
“All this was driven in part by the fact that Apple was resolutely non-enterprise.”
And this partnership will allow Apple to stay “non-enterprise” by outsourcing most of the corporate stuff to IBM.
Very clever and pragmatic from Apple: enterprise is not in their DNA and they do not want to modify their DNA, so they found a symbiote: IBM.
As both CEO explained, IBM and Apple are not competitors on any market right now and they are very complimentary in the enterprise market. Clever move for both companies.
Edited 2014-07-16 13:41 UTC
This seems to be one of the key components of the agreement. As you know, IBM has sold many of the less-profitable areas to Lenovo: laptops, PCs, servers. What did they keep? Mainframes! Additionally, IBM extended their “services & consulting” area, so they will probably be able to offer services related to Apple products (in the same way they already support other “foreign” products such as Solaris or HP-UX or even Oracle DB). That way, IBM can stay “enterprise-y” and Apple can stay “elitist” and “creative” without polluting their image by dusty, outdated, stupid, overpriced or boring “feelings” that usually come up in the mind of a user when you say “business” or “enterprise-class”. IBM will enable Apple to enter those markets (where money doesn’t seem to play any important role as long as there’s a contract and an invoice). This is where the really really big money is. And money is never wrong for a business.
IBM, on the other hand, could gather more appeal among non-corporately brainwashed people because they are “hip” now – they also do iStuff! 🙂
It will definitely be interesting to see the further development.
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z12xsdgiqsiuzpyjd04cgpgg0ti…
Apple acquires IBM, re-brands it as iBM.
iBM – apple’s new daily routine?
So core dumps will be enabled by default in OSX now?
Edited 2014-07-16 03:40 UTC
Lol, of course!
Core Dumps? Nah, they are ‘Abends’ in IBM speak.
Absolutely incorrect. Abend is “abnormal ending” of a program. This *may* or *may not* result in core dump.
“By all means, do not use a hammer.” – IBM manual.
Watson, meet Siri.
I think that’s very insightful, it’s been reported that apple is looking to move further away from voice company who provided a lot of tech for Siri.
Obviously it wouldn’t be Watson itself, but perhaps a lot of the tech in a cloud cluster providing more ‘intelligent’ voice use. Sounds like a perfect combination to me.
Apple purchased the company behind Siri, so it’s highly unlikely Apple will move away from Apple.
This sounds like a great partnership to me. Apple was in league with IBM during the PPC days and it’s great to see them go back go them. IBM is a powerhouse
Not even a sledgehammer thrown in its face could take down that powerhouse.
I can’t believe so much is being made out of such a empty announcement. There’s nothing IBM or Apple have announced, that they would not have been doing anyway.