Man, have you seen the schism in the analyst community over Apple's stock today? After a slew of upgrades sent AAPL through the roof in the past few weeks, both Smith Barney and Needham downgraded the stock last week, saying that it just couldn't go much higher. But today, as faithful viewer mrmgraphics pointed out, JP Morgan raised its estimates on Apple's earnings and revenue, acknowledging that "concerns over Apple's valuation are certainly understandable given the stock's rapid rise," but stating that "expectations for the company's revenue and profit growth may still prove conservative." Meanwhile, First Albany also raised its estimates, calling "recent weakness in Apple Computer's share price an attractive investment opportunity," and Bear Stearns reiterated its "outperform" rating (that's good) and raised its target price from $60 to $72.

And yet, Thomas Weisel just sided with Smith Barney and Needham as a Negative Nelly by downgrading AAPL from "outperform" to "peer perform." Someone lock all these guys in a big steel cage and let 'em settle things with their fists. And maybe a few folding chairs.

On the plus side, the stock's, well, on the plus side. It closed today up $3.10, despite the downgrade, but we're not sure whether that's due to the raised targets and estimates, or to the rumors of a big merger making the rounds. Check this out-- you remember last week when the research firm Gartner predicted that three of the top ten PC manufacturers would be exiting the market within three years, right? Well, faithful viewer Derrick noted that about three seconds after we'd mentioned that, IBM was rumored to be selling off its PC business to China's Lenovo. And faithful viewer Adurbe tipped us off to one mother of a related buyout scenario posited by The Register: what if IBM is ditching its PC business in preparation to buy Apple?

Yeah, we know-- Disney, Apple, same difference. Sure, it sounds wacky, but think about it, because The Reg makes several interesting points. For one thing, IBM currently sells PCs with Intel's chips inside; wouldn't it rather sell Macs with IBM chips on the motherboard? And what better way to make a buyout more palatable (antitrust-wise) to the FTC than to divest itself of its existing personal computer business first? On top of that, an IBM buyout of Apple might also explain why Apple is "noticeably absent in the Power.org lineup" announced last week, a consortium of 14 third-party companies forming "a community of Power chip enthusiasts"; if Apple will soon be part of Big Blue anyway, what would be the point? Post-merger, Macs would finally stand a chance in Big Business, while IBM would get to ditch Linux for Mac OS X on its high-end servers, while also riding Apple's coattails into the consumer space. Everybody wins.

Well, everybody except for the Mac fans to whom such a proposition is downright heresy, we suppose, and there's a valid argument there: what happens to the coolness quotient of Apple's products once its employees get assimilated into the overly-corporate corporate culture of a company named "International Business Machines"? Then again, maybe there's nothing to worry about; let's not forget that Apple is largely comprised of ex-NeXTians-- including Steve Jobs himself, of course-- who essentially took over Apple from within when Apple bought NeXT. In other words, even if IBM does purchase Apple, it's far likelier that the original IBMers would start wearing turtlenecks and blue jeans than Steve would start wearing a suit.

So, there-- does that make the prospect of an IBM-owned Apple less gut-wrenching? It doesn't? Oh, well, we tried. And it is just a rumor, after all...