Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!bbn.com!nic!kira!news
From: cavrak@kira.UUCP (Steve Cavrak)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Apple talking to IBM
Message-ID: <1991Jun15.114717.6558@uvm.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 11:47:17 GMT
References: <1991Jun11.211857.7834@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Sender: news@uvm.edu
Organization: Univ. of Vermont, Eng., Math., and Bus. Admin. (EMBA) Computer Facility
Lines: 39

In article <1991Jun11.211857.7834@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes:

	A Mr. Ken Flamm (sp ?) from Brookings Institution, talking on
	the radio about the reported Apple/IBM discussions, said that
	"Apple needs IBM's RISC technology to stay competitive". It
	sounds strange, since Motorola also makes RISC chips, doesn't
	it? Not to mention other manufacturers.

	So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole
	explanation baloney?  Just curious.

The explanation may be more mundane.  What was signed was a cross-
licensing agreement.  Apple will be "able" to use some IBM technology,
and IBM will be "able" to use some Apple technology.  There is no
requirement that either actually use the others technology, and this
is where the agreement works best.  Suppose IBM develops its own user
interface that looks a lot like Apple's.  Will the agreement prevent
Apple from entering a "look and feel suit" ?  Probably.  And suppose
IBM decides that some of their patents cover ALL risc technology.
Will this protect Apple ?

Of course, Apple might really want to use the RISC 6000 chip (and they
would certainly be negligent if they didn't evaluate it seriously).
It's got very good floating point, something important in the
engineering market, and a stable supplier.  I'd expect that Apple is
also looking at the HP chips too.

IBM, of course, is always harder to phanthom.  The recent "rediscovery"
of the AT bus with concurrent recommittment to the MicroChannel was
covered by a "The customer is always right but the customer is really
wrong" attitude.  OS/2 has not taken the world by storm, leaving IBM
with some poor alternatives (proprietary but obsolete OS/360 style
things, wide open UNIX, or things like Microsoft or Apple).  The steady
erosion of market share bothers IBM -- even when it's only a few
percent.

See ya
Steve