Opinion: I believe this partnership is at a perfect timing for both companies.
IBM in recent years has basically gotten out of the hardware business (except for the high end mainframe market), and has instead transformed itself into a service and solutions provider (majority of that business being in the enterprise).
Apple in recent years has gotten out of the enterprise space (shelving their SMB X-Serve hardware) when it comes to desktop computing. Most of Apple’s efforts in the mobile enterprise area has been providing the necessary mobile deployment software tools in iOS as opposed to a concerted effort trying to sell iPhone’s and iPad’s to the enterprise. Note: I was previously involved with Apple enterprise (primarily OS X Server).
But that hasn’t stopped unapproved Apple (as well as Android based) mobile devices from being brought in and used. Instead, corporate IT has had to deal with the whole BYOD (bring your own device) deal by finding ways to deal with employees bringing and using their own mobile devices (a lot of iPhone’s and iPad’s) in the workplace. Many of those employees are management/executives which IT isn’t going to say no to.
The problem it creates is multifold given that corporate IT is notoriously slow when it comes to rapid change/adaptability due to the old, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it mentality”. I get that because I used to work full time in the industry before. Change is good when there is a well thought out plan but most times, that aspect of corporate IT looks good on paper (the 3-5 year strategic plan), but doesn’t translate well in real life; especially today where changes are happening at an even higher pace.
People need to remember that this whole touch screen phenomena as well as mobile app usage, is still less than a decade old. But it has seen an accelerated uptake as these smart devices get even more powerful, and less expensive (relatively speaking as prior generation devices drop in prices).
Furthermore, the general ease of use (far lower learning curve as well application development that once again requires app designers and developers to think more carefully regarding the usability of their programs) has given rise to a different level of expectation not only by general consumers, but also by corporate employees bringing their own devices into the workplace.
The majority of specialized/vertically integrated application suites (everything ranging from HR to financial management systems), are a mess on the user interface facing portion of those programs. Some of that is a natural outcome of IT app development in a desktop client/server environment.
Mobile app development however has some real constraints (display side, device storage, device memory, device performance) which again forces better design (not that it always happens as I still see some pretty bad iOS apps that still use a desktop influenced UI).
This partnership adds even more validity to iOS devices as enterprise tools given that IBM will be involved with offering tools as well as backing it with the kind of support that enterprise customers are looking for. As I’ve noted here before, Apple was not the best enterprise vendor because their focus over the past decade has shifted to the consumer. They also stop supporting older operating system releases in a shorter timeframe compared to say Microsoft and Oracle (Sun’s Solaris) which places a heavy burden on IT to have to constantly test their apps against newer operating systems.
Additionally, Apple keeping their plans close to the vest goes contrary to the long term planning which corporate IT prefers (the 3-5 year strategic plans). Apple doesn’t even disclose much of what they are doing (when it comes to the full picture) to the vast majority of its own corporate employees (hardware and software engineers only work on parts) until it’s actually close release to OR more commonly when it is released (they learn about it like everyone else).
IBM takes on the bulk majority of that enterprise related stuff while leaving the hardware stuff (as well as the needed software hooks/API’s) up to Apple. IBM will provide the service and solutions for customers who don’t have their own IT staffing for mobile app development, and provide turnkey iPhone/iPad solutions, as well as the service level agreements that the enterprise expects. Apple gets further penetration (as well as a solid stamp of approval) into the corporate environment at least on the mobile front. This partnership also means that it will help IT with the BYOD issue; this partnership should yield far better IT solutions to dealing with mobile device management, security, and deployment which as of current, corporate IT has to deal with in adhoc fashion.
And one big sea of change is that enterprise applications should become less inane and much simpler/easier to use. Complexity for the sake of complex as a means to create job security (i.e. it mandates having IT experts – many which have specialized knowledge), only increases the costs associated with IT not only from a personnel point of view, but just in managing that organizational/functional unit period. That’s one of the dirty secrets of the industry because it spawned an entire lucrative cottage industry surrounding layers of costly training and IT certification in various fields of discipline (system and networking administration/engineering programs like Cisco’s Certified Network Administration/Engineering or Microsoft’s Certified Systems Engineer as examples where there are countless number of books as well as certification preparation classes).
All of this is only related to mobile (iOS) and not Apple desktop computers (Mac and OS X). Whether or not there will be any kind of halo effect where some corporations may entertain the thought of replacing their current non-Apple desktops with a Mac, is something that one can only guess at this point. In many regards, I believe it is going to be irrelevant any way because iPad’s (with the right apps) are turning out to be more than sufficient for many corporate workers anyway.
Apple to date is following a conscious strategy to keep iOS and OS X from a true merge. OS X 10.10 (Yosemite) and iOS 8 bear that out. But they’ve also created a much more seamless integration between the two with tech frameworks like Continuity (where there is proximity awareness between Yosemite and iOS 8 devices where the app you are working with on any device, allows for seamless transition to any one of those other devices).
That’s big because I can be working on an e-mail started on my iPhone, which I can then immediately continue to work with on my Mac. This technology is obviously being put in place for whatever wearable device that Apple is working on. As I’ve written before, I don’t see them trying to put all the bits and pieces of an iPhone onto a wearable device. First of all, the tech shrinkage and associated battery life isn’t there yet. Secondly, display real estate is even more of an issue (there’s only so much you can realistically do in a productive manner). Thirdly, many people are not going to want to talk into their wrists.
But a wearable device that has this sort of proximity awareness can work well with key apps (like it can show notifications, reminders, calendar events, weather information, etc while logging the expected health functions as well as environmental conditions like temperature) and communicating with that iPhone in your pocket. It’s display could also be used as a remote one for an iPhone/iPad (like for self-timer shots or when creating your own videos). I just don’t see Apple including an actual camera on one (to do Dick Tracy style videophone sort of capability) because that it what your iPhone/iPad is for.
The point I’m making is that Apple’s take is that different form factors, work well at certain functionality compared to others. What’s taking them so long to unveil their wearable device is distilling the kind of functions that device will initially have, and refining all the software pieces to make it work with the ease and attention to detail that Apple is known for.
I’ve seen some of the concepts some users have come up with and don’t believe that most of them are even close to what Apple is actually working on. I just don’t see them releasing something that is large and bulky (the square iPod nano in a custom wristband case, is an example of something that was bulky and not something Apple would release as a wearable). The hardware being designed is going to be as thin as possible; where the display face isn’t going to be excessively large (can’t see it being any larger than 2.5 inches which is already pushing the limits when it comes to the amount of bulk on ones wrist).
Most regular watch makers already have decades of data as to what sizes work and what don’t (and Apple has hired some of those folks including those familiar with fashion). It also helps that the process on the hardware side (more system on a chip functionality) continues to get more refined as energy efficiency and performance per watt are going to take on an even more important role.
Finally, the above doesn’t mean that Apple at some point, may decide to provide even more integration (iOS and OS X share a lot in common since they are derived from the same code – just that iOS has unneeded frameworks stripped out, stricter sandboxing, appropriate touch UI layer, and naturally compiled for different target architectures). Apple could allow iOS apps to run on an OS X desktop if they choose but obviously aren’t so as to not muddy the waters. Likewise, they could do a more comprehensive merging (though folks like myself would balk as there is still a lot of specialized areas on the desktop where multi-touch is just not as productive as an actual physical keyboard and mouse).
But getting back to topic, these are some of the reasons why I see this partnership being good at this time. It may not necessarily increase sales of iOS devices – that’s not the whole point. It’s also about bring some sanity to the management of such devices which results in reducing costs for the time spent in having to manage them. And if the actual apps themselves makes most enterprise functionality easier to deal with, it’s an increased productivity issue which again translates into reducing costs as well as wasted time.
