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 $75 billion high tech company with a worldwide workforce of over 14,000 that uses Mac OS X as an enterprise wide platform: Apple Computer, Inc.
By the way, Gartner, Apple Macs can also run Windows natively, along with Mac OS X, so Apple Macs are actually the most suitable enterprise wide platform ever developed.
Some companies use SAP as their enterprise solution. It runs on Windows, company is based in Germany. If it has plans to run SAP on OS X, that would greatly affect the market for Macs in the big companies. SAP customers are locked into Windows. Tell me I’m wrong.
Are you being obtuse just to be obtuse?
No, are you?
For example, on the Macs, we use Safari and/or Firefox instead of IE. We use Mac OS X Mail instead of Outlook. We use iChat AV to communicate in real time.
– We use Keynote instead of PowerPoint.
Those are all small dollar and software only. Seriously, Safari? Keynote? I’m afraid I’m talking about a completely different league. If our only problem were what web browser to install on what OS, we’d be on easy street. As it is, our very worst problem is a testing system that runs on OS/2 (if you can believe it) and whose programmer died and the manufacturer no longer supports it because they didn’t maintain the intelligence in any system other than the human that died. And our poor maintenance engineer has to figure out how to double its testing capacity on his own. The equipment the OS/2 system drives cost close to 3/4 of a million when purchased and new hardware would be about 380k. Maybe I should suggest he just get a Mac?
As far as the IT world goes, how do you think MDN can say what they say? Probably because they’ve seen IT shops up close and personal. I have. They are chained to Windows; they are patchers; they are the very definition of hidebound, scared, and robotic drones. That is why a M$ shop needs so many people to keep the machines working. Think about it! 50 years on, we’re still serving the machines instead of them serving us.
Sometimes MDN seems to confuse OS X and Mac computers.
The article was talking about OS X not being suitable for enterprise-wide use, and then MDN lamely counters by saying, oh yeah, well Macs can run Windows too so they’re better! But the article wasn’t comparing Macs and other PCs. It was comparing OS X and Windows.
Enlightened IT Manager,
I can only wish that you worked in the same company I do. You have my sincere congratulations and appreciation. Keep up your good work as the people in your company enjoy a far better work environment for it.
Parallels offers the ability to run windows and osx at the same time. It’s possible that this could be another way for companies to start integrating macs into their windows environment.
For this to be feasible everything will have to work on the windows partition. Any problems and the IT guys will have a fit!
Why anyone would choose Desktop Linux over Desktop Mac is beyond me, except in those cases where someone already has an x86 box and needs to install a low-cost OS on it. Mac has it all over Linux on the desktop. An attractive, broadly consistent UI (none of this KDE vs. GNOME stuff), loads of commercial apps, open source support, sophisticated development tools, UNIX stability, a great Internet experience, etc. Life is too short.
Just curious, what does Apple use for calendar management/sharing for those 14K employees? Exchange/Outlook?
“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.”
effwerd,
I’m not sure you get it. So you have this chained OS/2 system, and probably others. OK. but what about your office computers. Why not begin changing them as you rotate them out. Hedge your bets so to speak, you do not ever have to run OS X on them if you don’t want, but you leave open the possibilities. Everything has to start somewhere..
If the obsolete OS/2 softawre product is important to your business and the company no longer supports it because the product knowledge died with one of their employees. Your companies answer is to have the poor sys admin try to double it’s capacity? Are you kidding me, what kind of decision making matrix do you folks use there? Seems to me the logical next step would be to begin development of it’s replacement like yesterday. If it is vital to business and obviously a dead end, why continue to funnel time, money and energy at it. seems rather self defeating if you ask me. What happens when it breaks and your guy can’t fix it and the only guy who can is dead? Seems to me your business is dead..
MDN word: Value – As in Macs bring more VALUE..
And what are they using for their ERP system? Short of an entirely custom piece, the big three there are Oracle, PeopleSoft (properly a subset of Oracle, but a distinct product in it’s own right), and SAP. None of which, as far as I know (definite possibility of ignorance on my part), have development/customization environments for OS X.
Your companies answer is to have the poor sys admin try to double it’s capacity? Are you kidding me, what kind of decision making matrix do you folks use there? Seems to me the logical next step would be to begin development of it’s replacement like yesterday. If it is vital to business and obviously a dead end, why continue to funnel time, money and energy at it. seems rather self defeating if you ask me. What happens when it breaks and your guy can’t fix it and the only guy who can is dead? Seems to me your business is dead..
Heh. We need to double testing capacity due to expansion. We need to put time into it because the testing is vital to production. And we are expanding so we have to be able to expand our production capacity.
Oh yeah, getting a brand new machine would only increase our testing capacity by 50% so we would need to buy two (which would give us an increase of 200% rather than the 100% we want), which the bosses don’t want to do since we’re also getting other equipment (in the millions of dollars range) and they don’t think they can leverage an extra 760K into the budget. So the bosses solution is to use their available assets, the existing equipment, which can have its capacity doubled, and the engineer, who is quite brilliant and very well may come up with a solution.
We’re only half of the larger plant, and not as profitable as the other side. And we’re only one plant among half a dozen (twice the size we were two years ago). And since we are already more productive and profitable than all the other plants, no one is really motivated to spend any more than they have to on us.
So no, our business isn’t dead. And yes, sometimes the choices the big bosses make can seem wrongheaded. We still manage very well.
Apple uses Meeting Maker and iCal for internal calendering. They also use SAP with custom front ends written in house. Sun is another company that does not use any MS products.
Spluh! There’s no doubt at all.
All you need to do is customize a Mac OS X image for your company. Yes the Mac has a lot of consumer level software included but it can all be removed or disabled for enterprise deployment. Apple does not sell 20 different versions of the OS at different price levels like MS!
The hardware costs are coming down and are competitive but I would like to see Apple go head to head with Dell and HP in the enterprise with maybe a stripped down lower cost Mac for business use.
Apple is making mistakes but is making tons of Mac sales. Whatevah. If anything, they are listening to it’s customers and Leopard looks to be killer and is geared even more for business with iCal, Wiki, and iChat, Spotlight servers.
Apple will start taking market share away from Windows next year in the enterprise.
Oh yeah, almost forgot…Mac OS X has NO VIRUSES!!!
Yet another Gartner report that shows how clueless they are about Macs. Apple’s revenue from selling its OS is relatively small, unlike Microsoft. Yet this report treats the situation as Mac OS X versus Windows. Apple’s motivation is to sell Macs (the hardware), not copies of Mac OS X. The situation is Apple versus Dell/HP/Gateway/etc.
Apple doesn’t care if you buy a Mac and install Windows on it. And Microsoft would certainly appreciate an enterprise customer who bought a Mac and a license for Windows. The enterprise customer can use Mac OS X for most things (and benefit from lack of malware, better usability, and superior reliability) and also run Windows for those necessary “enterprise” apps that are Windows-only.
That’s a win-win-win situation… Apple, Microsoft, and the enterprise customer. What better position can Apple be in than it is right now!
Gartner is not as dumb as they appear.
I hate to sound like a consipiracy nut-case, but the blogosphere and some allegedly professional web sites are filled with anti-Apple commentary. Even the pro-Apple sites get this trash commentary in their discussion sections. The whole thing comes off to me as a tactic by Microsoft, in the guise of first amendment rights.
When I visit the pro-MS sites (channel 9, channel 10, et. al.), its a lovefest.
The negativity is irrational and ignorant, but it does foster FUD and free distribution of anti-Apple ideas through Google searches.
This may not be a popular response, but I believe that Gartner was trying to say (unsucessfully) is that there is a lack of applications to support large enterprise companies. Yes, 14,000 employees is a large company, but the really large ones, the “leaders” have upwards of 80,000 to over 100,000 employees. These companies use software such as MS Exchange. While I don’t particularly care for Exchange, it can handle 100,000 users, and I know of no software package running on MacOS X that can do that. This is not Apple’s fault, but it is a lack nonetheless.
If you read the full Gartner article, they go on to say, “Firstly, Apple does not licence its operating system to third party manufacturers, which is a disadvantage because large companies do not like depending on a single hardware supplier: “Many companies dislike procuring PC hardware when there is only a single provider. At this point, Apple does not intend to allow other vendors to build Mac OS-compatible PCs”.
The glaring problem here is that SunOS, OpenVMS and HP-UX to name a few also only run on hardware that is provided by a single company. While they are not as pervasive as they used to be, they are still used in larger “enterprise” companies. So are IBM mainframe and I don’t see clones of these either. So their point here is moot.
They also state, “Finally, because Apple has a consumer focus, it provides OS X with various applications that could raise legal issues and reduce worker productivity.
Most companies try to minimise the amount of consumer software they load on their users’ PCs to reduce legal and licensing exposure, limit the time users spend on non-work-related tasks and minimise support costs.”
The issue here is that companies that actually care about this will create an install image that will have iLife and other apps with a “consumer focus” removed. They then install that image onto a system before it is deployed to an end-user. (Yes, I work for a company that does just this with the PCs they give us and I’d bet that if we had Macs, they’d do the same.)
Just my $.02, make of it what you will….
Mike.