Why won't IBM make CPUs for the average consumer like AMD

File: IBM zEnterprise EC12 mainframe computer.jpg (106KB, 850x521px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 850x521px

>>62294002
2cool4u

>>62294002
yeah lets spend billions of dollars entering a declining market

>>62294091
Poorfag

>>62294002
Not financially viable

>>62294002

What OS for consumers would it run?

>Why won't IBM make CPUs for the average consumer like AMD and Intel?
>IBM make CPUs for the average consumer like AMD and Intel
>for the average consumer like AMD and Intel
>like AMD and Intel

You answered your own question. Why enter a market where there is already a shitton of competition when corporate clients are ALWAYS better money than selling to the public.

>>62294002
I thought this was a technolo/g/y board. https://www.raptorcs.com/TALOSII/

Future is in servers and online computing where you connect to a server and it does all the highly demanding tasks for you. All you need is a screen, keyboard and connection. Most workplaces and orgs will have this setup.

If you're a normie the companies are marketing this as "Cloud Computing"

>>62294002
They do, see PowerPC. Only Apple used them, and as we all know moved to x86 since then. My RAID card has a PowerPC chip in it though.

>>62294002
IBM can't into any hardware that can run windows or linux out of the box because they'd need to pay royalties both to intel and AMD

File: 3.png (6KB, 410x466px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 410x466px

>>62294682
No, they're just have to make Microsoft care again. Pic related.

>>62294727
it would be extremely difficult to rewrite all the new stuff to support POWER, even if windows's code base wasn't the prime spaghetti code of our time unfortunately

>>62294256
But that would be if IBM made blades. They don't do that anymore, they have retired to exclusively making mainframes.
The servers for IBMs cloud services are all SuperMicro.

>>62294762
>it would be extremely difficult to rewrite all the new stuff to support POWER
Not really. They didnt have that much of a problem porting it to ARM.

>even if windows's code base wasn't the prime spaghetti code of our time unfortunately
That spaghetti you refer to is the legacy code base which was designed to run on all sorts of architectures.

>>62294802
they didn't port it to ARM, they're basically running a fancy emulation with some jury rigged native code on the side

>>62294816
Windows was ported to ARM, its the desktop apps which used x86 emulation. If app vendors cared they could cross compile which is nothing new.

>>62294833
welp, everyday we learn something new

>>62294002
They did, some speculate they bombed out on Apple on purpose. It makes sense that they're only after the enterprise market, they make bank off support.
By the way, PA Semi did make a laptop-capable G5 but by that time Apple had already started the switch to Intel.

>>62294674
My RAID card's PowerPC too, yours is most likely Freescale though, like mine.

>>62294002
Specialization. They don't care about the consumer market. It is not lucrative enough to make them change their enterprise ways. Maybe if workstations become a thing again they'll give it a try.
>>62294727
No point. MS has ARM to worry about already, and RISC-V in the nearish future.

File: PC mag.jpg (995KB, 1280x1871px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 1280x1871px

>>62294091
they could do MIPS, ARM, or whatever cell phones and tablets use now. if they come up with something new, it'd better have an OS and applications ready for it.

>>62294109
IBM was never really market savyy. look at what they did in the PC market. while they didn't have a stranglehold on it, they had a pretty solid reputation in the 808x and 286 days. then they let compaq steal their thunder by being the first one to release a 386 (pic related). after they saw their profits decline with the rise of clones, they tried to proprietize with MCA. while MCA had its merits, making others pay royalties when existing free alternatives exist (EISA, VLB, eventually PCI) is not a good marketing strategy. look at rambus RAM...

>>62295050
that is a reasonable explanation. that'd explain why they (and samsung) exited the hard drive markets. all about profits

also, the patent hoarding needs to stop if they're not going to make useful products for the public at large.