The IBM-Apple agreement seems to answer a few questions. The answer to the question "Which Mac-like interface will IBM put on its Unix?" is, apparently. "Apple's." The Macintosh interface itself will be grafted onto AIX.
The answer to the question, "Which RISC chip will Apple use in future computers?" is, apparently, "IBM's." Apple will use the IBM Power Chip, a Motorola/IBM single-chip implementation of RISC System/6000 technology.
The answer to the question, "How will IBM respond to Apple's lead in multimedia technology?" is, apparently, "By acquiring rights to it." Apple and IBM will jointly develop platform-independent multimedia software.
It's not so apparent what question is answered by IBM's and Apple's agreement to agree to form a jointly-owned software company to develop an object-oriented operating system capable of running software developed for the Mac, AIX, and OS/2, but the deal as a whole certainly answers the question, "What can Apple do to draw attention away from layoffs and slipping profits?"
Of course, the primary function of such machinations is not to answer questions, but to raise them, keeping the computer press busy with such puzzles as: Does the RISC alliance hurt workstation vendors such as Sun Microsystems or the Advanced Computing Environment group? If IBM gives the nod to Motorola, what gesture is it giving to Intel? Whither OS/2? Is all this legal?
In the present political climate, Apple and IBM probably don't have to worry about the legality of their agreement as long as they don't put any quotas in it, but most of the other questions, while worth asking, are not yet answerable. Apple and IBM have only signed a letter of intent. An actual agreement could take until Christmas, and any products that come of the agreement could be four or five years off. Then, too, IBM could decide to live up to the letter of the agreement while putting its real efforts into something else entirely; it is a company capable of doing several incompatible things at once, such as ten years ago when, after having commissioned Microsoft to develop the operating system for the original PC, it offered its customers a choice of three operating systems.
About the only thing that everyone is sure of is that this deal is not good news for Microsoft. It chips away at the Masters of the Universe image that Microsoft had built up. Back in March, I presented on this page an alternate-world version of Lord of the Rings, in which Bilbo kept the ring of power and was consolidating his position as absolute ruler of Middle Earth. It was intended as a straightforward description of the present state of the personal computer industry. Six months and one letter of intent later, Bilbo seems to have dropped the ring.
It was probably to be expected; in fact, Dave Winer expected something like it when I talked with him this summer. Speaking of Microsoft's hegemony, he said, "They can't hold onto that indefinitely. It's got to swing back the other way. Microsoft is too hot. Everybody is taking aim at them."
Winer's view then was that Microsoft could make life very tough for Apple by making all the right improvements in Windows and DOS in the next versions, and that Microsoft probably would do just that. The same strategy could still be the best one for Microsoft, keeping them competitive, if not dominant. In fact, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer characterized his company's focus in the wake of the Apple-IBM pact as "Windows, Windows, Windows." Of course, future versions of Windows might have as much to do with Windows 3.0 as Visual Basic has to do with Basic. Surely, Microsoft's object linking and embedding technology will be a part of a future Windows, or it will have no chance against this IBM-Apple operating system. If IBM and Apple actually get together to produce an operating system, I think we all hope there will be an alternative. Maybe it'll be Microsoft's. Forget the Lord of the Rings analogy; think of Darth Vader joining the rebel alliance.
But Microsoft is no Darth Vader, either. Throughout its involvement with IBM, Microsoft has, to a remarkable degree maintained its integrity and steered its own course. Will Apple do as well?
Copyright © 1991, Dr. Dobb's JournalSpeaking of Microsoft...