Apple made a big deal with IBM yesterday, which would be radical if it was 1984. But it isn't. It's 2014, 30 years after that lady threw her hammer through the Super Bowl TV ad screen, and Apple needs IBM now.

The idea of an Apple/IBM relationship sends people over 40 into tizzies because back when the earth was still cooling, early-80s Apple styled itself as the radical alternative to IBM's staid, business-centric PC and mainframe business. There's an ancient picture going around with Steve Jobs sticking his middle finger at an IBM logo. That's from 30 years ago.

IBM hasn't competed directly with Apple for a decade; it sold its PC business to Lenovo in 2004. And the two companies collaborated well before then. They spent the first half of the 1990s trying to write an operating system together, in the form of Taligent. And then, from 1994-2006 - so, well after Steve Jobs's 1997 return - Apple and IBM partnered on the PowerPC processors in several generations of Macs. So the idea of this partnership being "unthinkable," as the Wall Street Journal says, is an artifact of the Reagan administration.

Apple pundits like Jon Gruber have been posting quips about how this partnership is about "a new Apple." But it isn't. It's about a new IBM. A great consultancy should be open to all solutions, and engaging with one of the world's major software platforms should be de rigeur.

Been Down So Long, Being Down Started to Bother Them

Apple CEO Tim Cook admitted to the New York Times that Apple is way behind when it comes to corporate installs. "The penetration is low, and the ceiling is so far above us it's unbelievable," Cook said. So anything that increases Apple's legitimacy among IT managers is good for the company. Apple needs an IBM.

This will probably be an iPad play more than an iPhone or Mac play. Most companies currently have "bring-your-own-device" policies that let their employees choose their own phones from an approved list. iPhones may now be on that list, but they won't replace other devices. Apple also still doesn't provide the low-cost, durable workhorse office desktop PCs that IT departments love. Rather, we'll probably now see a flood of iPad-based enterprise solutions in industries like healthcare, transportation, and logistics.

Here's the thing, though: as far as I can tell, this doesn't mean IBM will stop working with Android or Windows. It doesn't mean IBM will produce fewer Android or Windows solutions. This isn't a zero-sum game. Google will probably have to raise its API game if developers find iPads easier to code enterprise programs for, though.

This partnership will increase competition. Competition is good. Competition gets everyone to work harder. But that 1984 lady? She put her hammer down a long time ago. 

For more, check out IBM and Apple Mean Business.