The soul of IBM and Apple: product supremacy-IBM, Apple-IT news The soul of IBM and Apple: product supremacy

Compared with Apple's acquisition of Beats, and IBM cooperation is obviously a bigger deal.

Of course, Tim Cook (Tim Cook) thinks so. According to statistics, in the days before earnings call on Cook talk about time 5 times as long as IBM Beats, mostly brought about by the Hon. Key paragraph to read as follows:

"We are covering--almost all Fortune 500 companies, accurately we have covered their 99% as well as 93% of the global top 500 ... (Tablet) in the commercial market penetration rate is very low, with only 20%. Notebook in the commercial market penetration of more than 60%. So we think there will be continued improvement in the commercial market. This is what we consider announces collaboration with IBM last week. We believe IBM will obviously help us better access to the commercial market. ”

In other words, many enterprises are using iOS, but Apple is not an effective way to increase sales.

When it comes to business, Apple is in a very advantageous position: from a product perspective, Apple is the company's best option. BlackBerry has very good ability to integrate, but other products are withdrawn,Android device management, inefficient, and has been hard hit by the fragmentation problem. In addition, the shocking is thatWindows Phone only when the last update added support for basic functions such as VPN.

However, the product alone is not enough, especially in the enterprise. In fact, very few devices are sold as is to the enterprise. Instead, they are considered to be the overall "solution" as part of its total cost several times more than the underlying device. These "solutions" enabled include custom software, installation, training, consulting and service contracts. Each piece is fully customizable for corporate clients, which can be negotiated, for this you need a huge sales force. Ultimately, whether the iPhone is a good product, if there is no sales force and create "solutions" will, in Cook's own words is "true marketing" and that Apple will never fully achieve its objectives in the commercial market.

Problem was, creating so-called sales force too expensive, and not just in money, but it also will have a huge impact on Apple's culture. That, as Steve Jobs wrote in his autobiography:

"Company started to attach importance to the great salespeople because they could affect the company's income group of people, product engineers and designers who fail to do so. So ultimately the salesman in the operating company. John Akers of IBM is a smart, eloquent and charismatic salesman, but he does not understand the product. Same thing happened to Xerox. As a salesman operating company, insignificant product personnel, many of them choose to leave. This happened when Sculley to Apple, this is my fault. Similarly, when Steve Ballmer took over when the same is true of Microsoft. Luckily for Apple, to make a comeback. But I think as long as Ballmer is in his seat one day, Microsoft will not have any change. ”

For jobs, it's a curse. What if Steve Jobs has a firm stance, is that Apple has always focused on creating the best products. If that means giving up lucrative commercial market, it would just die.

So, which is why this partnership so advantageous for Apple. By transfer to IBM (is playing a "value added reseller" (VAR) role), Apple could without nurturing will be able to enter the commercial market, such sales for Apple products in the long run-first philosophy is harmful, product first is Apple's advantage.

Need clear is that although the article is written from the perspective of Apple, but the deal is actually more important to IBM. Like I said before, a VAR "solution" usually several times that of the total cost of the infrastructure and software costs. After all, the equipment is fully integrated into the corporate one is a messy business, but this mess can not only make a lot of money, but also to establish deep and ongoing relationship with clients. In other words, when IBM together different business transactions, iOS devices more like commodities, from the perspective of enterprises providing maximized value of IBM. This is where the risk of Apple: a scenario is likely to occur, IBM dropped iOS for another platform, but Apple is doing anything about it.

Apple certainly knew it, and seen as willing to pay the price (except they may pay IBM for each iPhone or iPad 's Commission in case of uncertain which party leader in cooperation). Apple is entering a market that has long been considered a sanctuary, and they do so without giving up its product-oriented soul.