Gartner: Apple Mac OS X more appealing to enterprise than desktop Linux

Apple’s Mac OS X “is more appealing to enterprises as a desktop operating system than ever before and although it is unlikely to take market share away from Windows, the Mac could reduce the number of Linux-based desktops, according to research group Gartner,” Munir Kotadia reports for ZDNet Australia.

Kotadia reports, “In a report published by Gartner this week titled Enterprise Mac Clients Remain Limited, but Apple’s Appeal is Growing, analysts Michael Silver, Neil MacDonald, Ray Wagner and Brian Prentice, said that administrators will most likely have to prepare for more Mac systems in their environment even though OS X is ‘not a suitable enterprise wide platform.'”

Kotadia reports, “Gartner said that as the penetration of OS X increases, it is unlikely to mean less Windows PCs: “In many instances, Macs are replacing Unix and Linux workstations, rather than Windows PCs”. OS X is a unix-based system.”

Kotadia reports, “The report predicts that Windows will be unrivalled on the desktop for the near future because currently, 70 percent of enterprise applications require Microsoft’s OS. ‘We don’t expect the typical organisation to even reach the point where half of its applications are OS-agnostic until 2011,’ the report said. Gartner went on to say that in some departments, such as graphics and media production, the loyalty of Mac users to their chosen platform is so strong that a corporate migration to Windows could lead employees to seek work elsewhere.”

Full article, which also discusses “a number of mistakes” that Apple is making in courting the enterprise markets, here.
By “not a suitable enterprise-wide platform,” we assume Gartner means in companies that have short-sightedly shackled themselves to some proprietary Microsoft software or use some 15-year-old custom spaghetti-coded Windows-only abomination (or AutoCAD: same difference) for which they demand backwards compatibility ad infinitum. That’s it in a nutshell, folks, the Windows OS’ only real selling point, Windows-only software. What else besides “you need us to run the custom apps that you and others have written” do they have? “We’re less productive,” “we’re unimaginably less secure,” “we’re less reliable,” and “we cost you more” aren’t really winning slogans for Microsoft and their poor imitation of Apple’s Mac OS.

Of course, where forward-thinking exists and there is a world without fences and walls (ie. no forced, artificial need for Windows and Gates), Apple’s Mac OS X is far better-suited as an “enterprise-wide platform” than Windows because it works more reliably and you also don’t have to employ an army of IT half-wits to constantly defend the indefensible Windows OS from viruses, malware, and itself. Of course, the average company’s “Patch Brigade” also usually spends a lot of time developing ways to shackle themselves to Windows even more; it’s a particularly vicious cycle. Nobody loves blinkered IS Directors who doom their companies with Windows-only software more than Microsoft.

Don’t believe Mac OS X is in enterprise-wide use at a successful, large company? Just ask a $75 billion high tech company with a worldwide workforce of over 14,000 that uses Mac OS X as an enterprise wide platform: Apple Computer, Inc.

By the way, Gartner, Apple Macs can also run Windows natively, along with Mac OS X, so Apple Macs are actually the most suitable enterprise wide platform ever developed.

42 Comments

  1. FTA:

    “… the loyalty of Mac users to their chosen platform is so strong that a corporate migration to Windows could lead employees to seek work elsewhere.”

    Yes and the ability to recruit the top students, now choosing Macs in the colleges, will be severely hamstrung by Windows using would be employers.

  2. Gartner: home of Mark Stahlman. He used to be one the the head honchos at Caris & Co who in Spring said Mac sales would never rise, Boot Camp was literally going to drive away OS X users from the Mac and into the Windows camp, that Apple were crazy to go Intel instead of AMD, and that the platform was doomed.

    He also said GOOG was going to hit $2000.

    He also said oil was going to hit $100.

    He said iTunes was going to be wiped out by a mythical new Google Music service that mysteriously never appeared.

    He also famously said: “a phone venture would be a “distraction” for Apple. “It’s so different from what they’ve done to date.”

    He also said Vista would never run on Intel Macs because Tiger isn’t a 64-bit OS.

    Finally, at his new home – Gartner Research – he co-authored the report a few months ago saying Apple should get out of the hardware business and sell OS X to DELL.

    The guy’s a farce. So is Gartner for employing him.

  3. This pisses me off from a another perspective as well. It basically puts the only two real alternatives to Windows at odds with each other [Linux, OS X] – apparently. What a load of crap. The only actual competition Linux and OS X have is Windows – only Windows.

    I dream of a day when there will several companies all competing, equitably, with each other, but we’re not there yet.

  4. A friend of mine is order a new iMac for her work computer — they are completely windows based so she will be running it as a windows computer but at least it is a start. The price is competative for the specs and the lack of a tower will give her more freedom in her desk layout. And yes, I convinced her to buy a MacBook earlier this year for her personal computer.

  5. The company I work for would never switch from Doze to OSX. We use XP, but are still using MS-DOS software for our data base, although we are now trying to move to an XP solution.

    I recently had a problem with Outlook and IT attempted to fix it by Googling (!) the web for a solution. That’s the sorry state Doze has fallen to, or maybe always was.

    The solution is staring them in the face, but we’ll probably go to Vista by, oh, maybe 2009. We’re only state-wide. How hard could a switch to OS X be for us?

  6. By “not a suitable enterprise-wide platform,” we assume Gartner means in companies that have short-sightedly shackled themselves to some proprietary Microsoft software or use some 15-year-old custom spaghetti-coded Windows-only abomination (or AutoCAD: same difference) for which they demand backwards compatibility ad infinitum.

    You really need to get out more. Sometimes it’s a choice between spending 150,000+ on systems that someone else built and programmed or hiring your own programmer and building your own system for much, much more. And it isn’t MS software that people get shackled to, it’s highly specialized vertical apps that run on some flavor of Windows. If all you’ve got is AutoCAD as your cliche example then your lack of imagination only reveals your naivete.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.