“The company is the undefeated king of cool in the consumer electronics and home computer markets. It is rapidly gaining yardage in the broader personal computing market and is experiencing a resurgence of popularity in traditional Macintosh niches such as education, marketing and creative departments,” Mitchell reports.
“With all of this momentum, you’d think that the Mac might be ready for a come-from-behind win in the enterprise. But on that field of play, Apple remains 1st and 10 at its own 10-yard line,” Mitchell reports.
“That’s ironic, because corporate interest in a broader role for Macs is up dramatically among IT executives, driven by changes in what the Mac has to offer, by Apple’s success in the consumer market and its other niches, and by corporate trends where, thanks to virtualization and a migration to Web-based applications, Windows’ grip on the desktop may be starting to loosen just a bit,” Mitchell reports.
“There’s just one problem. ‘Apple will tell you that they are focused on [the commercial business market], but at the end of the day, it’s not a big priority for them,” says David Daoud, an analyst at IDC,'” Mitchell reports.
“The Mac attraction is easy to understand. On the client side, the Mac’s OS X is relatively easy to use. The addition of new features in the latest Leopard release — such as the slick Time Machine backup utility and Spaces, which lets users create multiple, task-centric virtual desktops — only serves to burnish that reputation,” Mitchell reports. “And Macs are considered more stable than Windows, with fewer spyware and virus problems, which translate into fewer help desk calls.”
“But that’s not what has IT’s attention,” Mitchell reports. “The surge of interest in the Mac is a direct result of two developments from 2006: first, the evolution of more Windows-friendly, Intel X86-based Macs, and second, the introduction of Boot Camp, which allows a full Windows environment and its complement of applications to run natively in a separate hard drive partition on any Mac.”
“Although it’s common for IT to be slow to adopt a new version of Windows, a recent survey of 961 IT professionals working in small, midsize and large companies by King Research — commissioned by desktop management tool vendor KACE Networks Inc. — shows that some organizations may be considering doing what was once unthinkable, abandoning Windows altogether rather than investing the time and money into a Vista migration,” Mitchell reports. “More specifically, 44% of respondents said they would consider an alternative to a Vista migration. Of those, 28% said the Mac would be their first choice. Surprisingly, the results were similar whether respondents worked for large companies or smaller ones.”
Much more in the extensive full article here.
Oh conquer they will, oh yes, conquer they will.
Can Apple Macs conquer the enterprise?
Yes they can, if Apple begins to listen to the needs of enterprise.
But Apple is interested in the consumer market, leaving the enterprise to Redmond.
Just look how shiny, eye catching and sometimes impractical their limited computer line is for the enterprise.
Sure Apple will sell some here and there, but if they seriously want to invade Microsofts turf, they need to listen to their needs.
For instance, Apple does not license a DRM solution, for libraries and such that are allowed to have copyrighted works on their computers, but need to protect it from being mass copied.
Simple things like that Apple just ignores.
So Apple only provides solutions if it makes them money selling hardware.
They need to change that attidude to being a total solution provider.
Another thing Apple fails to do is provide the best customer service.
Sure it’s pretty good, but nowhere as good as it can be.
For instance, unless you prove to the Apple people you traveled 400 miles to drop off your dead Mac for service. They will make you buy Pro Care just to make a appointment three days later. Because they don’t take “drop-offs”.
What kind of Sh*t is that? Why do I gotta pay even more to fix something under warranty?
It’s just stupid.
Apple has very glichy and fancy stores, but there isn’t enough of them spread out enough to cover peoples needs.
That’s a major problem.
Like myself, I’m sure the IT folks suggesting such a change are still finding it difficult to convince the “company dinoczars” that think Macs belong at home and Windows is for the office. It’s even harder when the above-mentioned are family…
Enterprise buys 10-20,000 to 100,000’s of computers at a time.
They might not need to have each machine fully spec-ed out with every feature. Why have firewire when it’s just a dumb terminal? So that’s another thing that needs improvement. As well as a lot larger computer line.
For instance, matte screens.
Glossy is good for consumers, but pros on a machine all day overwhelmingly prefer matte. That why Apple only offers matte in the Pro lines.
Enterprise needs top notch service and Apple doesn’t seem to be able to handle the consumer demand it has created as it is.
Apple is green and growing, they will have to get better at a lot of things fast to meet enterprises needs.
I wish them the best trying though.
Windows is the new Classic, as someone once said.
My office switched to the “Not Sure” OS and we could not be happier.
“Apple has very glichy and fancy stores,”
Sometimes rebooting the store helps.
Apple & enterprise?
that’s like asking your supermodel girlfriend to get married and she says ‘feh, maybe later’ so off you go looking for something else to take care of your needs and dang, don’t that tarted up stripper look good.
Next thing you know, you’re knee deep in the trailer park looking across the table at a psycho bat with one black eye while half a dozen squealing brats running around with no diapers while you’re trying to figure out where your pride went to.
Love apple? sure!
Take care of my needs? ‘feh, maybe later’
For instance, Apple does not license a DRM solution, for libraries and such that are allowed to have copyrighted works on their computers, but need to protect it from being mass copied.
Simple things like that Apple just ignores.
So Apple only provides solutions if it makes them money selling hardware.
They need to change that attidude to being a total solution provider.
What a bizarre idea! Concentrating on solutions that make money. Sounds like the death of Western civilisation as we know it.
The only people who care about Apple conquering enterprise are tech writers. Apple is swimming in cash, enterprise isn’t a concern, keeping the Kool-Aid® flowing to the masses is.
“For instance, unless you prove to the Apple people you traveled 400 miles to drop off your dead Mac for service. They will make you buy Pro Care just to make a appointment three days later. Because they don’t take “drop-offs”.
What kind of Sh*t is that? Why do I gotta pay even more to fix something under warranty?”
And where, exactly, do you go to drop off your Dell? Unless you live in Round Rock Texas, you are shipping your machine for repair. Get over it. Last time I checked, HP didn’t have stores to drop off machines for repair either.
tough for apple to conquer the enterprise.
secrecy around product road maps makes it relatively more difficult for IT managers to plan their investments in what is usually a very big sunk cost. the highly secretive move from PPC to intel, for example.
apple does not yet show signs of “understanding” the enterprise, it just does not have the reach in the ways that large vendors do – things like on the ground sales teams, solutions teams etc. etc.
that said, when Macs do arrive in an enterprise, there is usually a very big user pull to have one…
For instance, unless you prove to the Apple people you traveled 400 miles to drop off your dead Mac for service. They will make you buy Pro Care just to make a appointment three days later. Because they don’t take “drop-offs”.
What kind of Sh*t is that? Why do I gotta pay even more to fix something under warranty?
It’s just stupid.
Or maybe you’re just stupid. If I want to send in a dead Macintosh for service under warranty or AppleCare, I find my nearest Apple authorised service provider. In my case, that’s a massive two miles away. Why do you have to give yours into an Apple Store?
Apple has very glichy and fancy stores, but there isn’t enough of them spread out enough to cover peoples needs.
As opposed to all those Dell Stores or the HP Stores or the Microsoft Stores?
Presumably when people buy HP or Dell, it’s acceptable for them to call customer support representatives several thousand miles away. And when I have a problem with some Microsoft products, my solution appears to be working out which one of the contradictory notes on TechNet I might choose to believe.
BTW, what is glichy?
@ BobWillsIsStillTheKing:
Please stop… I can’t take it… I’m laughing so hard I can’t breath!
I just love the analogy…
@Glossy Hurts Me Eyes!!!
The PCs at my enterprise are full of specs they don’t need. Didn’t stop them from shelling out hundreds of thousands on crap, and more on all the licenses they need to pay for on MS and AV software, the staffing they need to maintain Exchange and the rest of the MS server ailments, and dealing with all the inadequacies of IE. It was demonstrated to me by the head-IT honcho that they would save 2.5 million annually switching to an all-Mac shop.
Mr Wills
Maybe if you got off your ass and went back on the road touring you could afford some diapers.
Death is no reason to stop working…..
Apple has to many hurdles to enter that market. It may be better for them to focus on small and mid size biz.
– Lack of investment and vertical industry expertise (Banking, insurance, health care, and so on)
– Doesn’t have the software partnerships with large enterprise vendors
– Doesn’t have the right products for the enterprise. Most companies don’t want notebooks with cameras built in or iLife.
– Too much investment in windows only customized code that organizations aren’t willing to rewrite for the mac. I’m yet to see a case study of any company that switch to macs so that they can run windows app with Bootcamp/parallels.
– Lack of Apple based content in IT college curriculums .
– IT managers are all MS trained and aren’t that open to switching .
But Apple is a consumer company now with retail as its darling.
Enterprise is less of a target for them every year…. sadly.
companies will switch when they see a competitor cut their IT budget by 70%
It is that simple, all of the above will not matter
once Steve lets the horses run
– windows native code without windows
– continued no client tax
– Corp. Apple Care Programs for clients that
include Apple HR / ACN / 24 hr support
Well they must understand the enterprise somewhat. One of the most successful companies with billions in the bank runs on Apple hardware. Apple!
SHEEEEZZZZZEEE.
Apples play quite nice with PCs. They network well, share drives, etc. Much better than PCs play with Macs.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
So, buy as many dumb terminals as you want, run linux or what ever, and let the people that enjoy quality use the apple machines.
It will mean less work for IT, after all.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
en
The problem is “which translate into fewer help desk calls” does have IT’s attention. That’s why IT doesn’t like them.
Not if Khan Noonian Singh couldn’t do it.
With skin like fine Corinthian leather.
And a little Tatu on his ass.
Enterprise buys 10-20,000 to 100,000’s of computers at a time.
They might not need to have each machine fully spec-ed out with every feature. Why have firewire when it’s just a dumb terminal? So that’s another thing that needs improvement. As well as a lot larger computer line.
Alternatively, if you want a dumb terminal approach, go and do some research on AquaConnect which is effectively Terminal Services for Macintosh running from Mac OS X Server.
Or if you want to learn how to enable the security options in MacOS so that the unit can’t be booted from a CD/DVD or an external FireWire disk, do some research.
For instance, matte screens.
Glossy is good for consumers, but pros on a machine all day overwhelmingly prefer matte. That why Apple only offers matte in the Pro lines.
So buy a Mac Mini and combine it with a display that suits your needs as regards size, quality, refresh rate, finish, I/O connectivity.
Enterprise needs top notch service and Apple doesn’t seem to be able to handle the consumer demand it has created as it is.
Utter crap! I had a problem with a Leopard install (access privileges on external FireWire drives) on one of my systems and a simple phone call to AppleCare landed up with me speaking to someone who fixed my problem in ten seconds on a Monday morning.
Apple is green and growing, they will have to get better at a lot of things fast to meet enterprises needs.
How about Microsoft get better at some things at the same time? How about they stop tying everything to Windows Server, Active Directory and .NET? Why are they so frightened of competition? If Exchange is so good, why not make it available to customers using Mac OS X Server? Why does everything have to be tied together using ActiveX (another proprietary solution)?
If you have a 20,000 seat company, your bill for client access licenses (Windows Server/Exchange/Sharepoint/SMS/SQL Server) is very likely to exceed $7 million every two years. Sounds a little rich for my blood. And that’s before you actually pay the server license costs.
And when we talk about Apple making its hardware more modular, how about Microsoft do the same thing with its software. Why should a SME client with between 100 and 500 seats have to pay for a whole load of “bundled” functionality in Exchange Server that they will never, ever use?
And why does a Windows customer who wishes to deploy more than 16GB of RAM in a server have to pay something like 2.5 times the amount for a license against someone using 16GB or less?
I don’t mind critics holding Apple to a higher standard, what I don’t get is why Microsoft gets a pass to live to a lower standard. Surely software that is late, slow, expensive to implement (and even more expensive to support) whilst delivering little in helping the competitiveness of companies in North America and Europe deserves a little more criticism than whether iMacs have a glossy screen.
.
Not while Picard is in command.
Maybe they should start with a shuttle craft and work up.
@ Ampar
DRAT!!! You beat me to the Star Trek gag.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
Secrecy… yeah,
Since Apple is a innovative company, having code names with new projects in development is similar to Intel. If the corporate worlds IT departments fears secrecy, they need only to look at their own companies to understand things better. Damn, buy machines and replace them every four years. Make some strategy that is comfortable with Apples hardware development release times. Very lame excuse – sorry.
not licensing DRM… like so,
DRM is not for everyone. Apple is against it for music. To license this out, places the protection in a vulnerable position; one that would be broken or misused. I really, can not see this being an issue for IT departments not using the mac platform.
software partnerships… pardon moi,
Apple made several partnerships in software. And today they are fairly healthy. Yet, the dominance of Windows made software developers flee to where the larger market was. Adobe is a good example when they chose to develop for PC first then Mac. The market eroded Apples partnerships due to the amount of sales and interest. Hence, Apple required to develop more of it’s own software to stay afloat. iLife, Safari, iWorks – perhaps Apple doesn’t need to partner with software co. Now, if you are speaking about some custom software developers say for banking. I still don’t see your point.
The corporate IT industry is the problem. As they are the ones to recommend all the options to their offices through research that should all be presented to the corporation. Sure the Co. has final say. And perhaps, all leans to Windows in the end. But the tide for this is changing. Linux is a FABULOUS alternative to IT departments. ANd so should Apple be.
WELL SAID…
“IT managers are all MS trained and aren’t that open to switching “
that is the trouble.
The big problem I have with these articles is explained with the added graph. These people are showing alternatives for Windows and they put down Macintosh with Linux Distros. A Macintosh is a computer not an OS, they should put down Mac OS X or some other replacement names for the linux distros.
I don’t like people mixing up a computer(hardware) with an OS(Software).
C1: I noticed you have a shadow on these threads. Two more and it could get explosive.
Love it…
@MCCFR
” don’t get is why Microsoft gets a pass to live to a lower standard. Surely software that is late, slow, expensive to implement (and even more expensive to support) whilst delivering little in helping the competitiveness of companies in North America and Europe deserves a little more criticism “
Corporations are just WAKING UP my friend.
They have been milked too long. Not saying that Apple wouldn’t get greedy… but they sure do offer a bang for the buck. And the IT guys know it… they just don’t all trust change. Fear.
Now, there are… yes plenty of IT departments adim. MACS.
Many doing both MAC / WIN… then there are the dinosaurs who still trust and accept the cow for the milk.
@bobwills is still king
what are you doing here? its too funny
Capt, Kirk does his best Phil Hartman
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/multimedia/2008/01/gallery_vintage_ads?slide=8&slideView=2
“Surely software that is late, slow, expensive to implement (and even more expensive to support) whilst delivering little in helping the competitiveness of companies in North America and Europe deserves a little more criticism”
Of course it does.
And stop calling me Shirley.
@ Ampar
Hardly even a shadow. More like a fart in the wind.
Apple in enterprise makes no sense today. Why poke a skunk?
Microsoft has bamboozled the industry into monopoly in the “business” category. They sit complacently in that niche and make disatrous forays into gaming, phones, mp3 players, etc. All their profits go down this drain.
If Apple were to go down this path, it would be a bruising battle. Why not just invent a new market for consumers? That is easy foe Apple and impossible for MSFT.
Why poke a skunk?
Apple’s OS is ready for enterprise. Apple’s hardware is not.
Without an expandable mini-tower that fits in between the consumer model (i.e. iMac) and the ultra-powerful model (MacPro) there is no real desktop device that enterprise would consider a optimal buy.
“Why poke a skunk?”
Because you’ve run out of ones and decent tequila?
Many businesses are moving from desktop units to laptops, and can handle all their business needs on laptops. Apple does not need expandable desktops in the product line for average business applications.
As far as the service goes, last week I dropped off a macbook with a dead disk drive at the local Apple store and had it back the next day.
Well, that’s what the bottom-shelf tequila is for. (Hey, we’ve all been there.)
(Props to zero Patriots-bashing in the thread!)
Err, Macintosh is the OS, not the hardware!
Right?!?
We’re running *Mac* Operating System 10, on computer hardware made by Apple.
“Macintosh” the name they gave the GUI the computer runs.
Let me see if anyone has even thought of this:
Does Apple WANT enterprise?
Enterprise customers wants what Apples won’t give, my precious:
• They want road maps.
No company is going to send their IT men down to SF to see the latest shiny new stuff, or base their business decisions on AppleInsider rumors.
• They want appropriate hardware.
Some kind of serviceable mini-tower in between the (non-support-friendly) iMac or the (even-less-support-friendly) mini and the outlandish MacPro for example.
Do you really think IT people want to deal with all-in-one computers or little baby computers you need a freaking putty knife to get into??
Think again.
• They want service.
That means 24/7. Not 9-5 Cupertino time service.
Apple’s ratings are top **among consumers** but they have a notorious ‘screw you’ attitude to business.
Apple needs to dance to IT’s tune, not the other way around.
Nothing they have done (Xserve included) shows any interest whatsoever in enterprise, so why do people still insist it *should* be a goal?
We’re at 23 years or so and counting. Apple has not attacked enterprise so far and I don’t think it ever will.
@ BobWillsIsStillTheKing:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh yeah and HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was awesome!!!!!
And I head an IT Dept. Have a corner office overlooking the mountains and ocean in Vancouver. Huge glass windows. Work all day on a MacBook Pro with a Glossy Screen and it is utterly brilliant. I cannot understand why IT or other workers (short of designers/photographers – I get that one folks) wouldn’t want a glossy screen. Anyways, my two bits! Cheers!
Here is my theory.
Apple is pursuing the enterprise market by not pursuing the enterprise market!
In the dating world, the “hard to get” strategy is usually quite effective in snagging someone you really want. Rather than pursuing a babe, you let them know that you really aren’t interested in them and have other ways you prefer to spend your time. This usually causes the babe or the hunk (for you woman and gay guy readers out there) to not only pursue you, but to put extraordinary effort into pursuing you.
Now while Apple is being real aloof with the enterprise market and seemingly shows no interest in it, Apple is creating a computer universe that will serve enterprise far better than MS. Look at Leopard Server and XServe and ZFS and UNIX certification of Leopard. These are not things needed by the consumer market, but they are critical pieces to conquering the enterprise market.
Apple could be just gathering all the weapons it needs to take over the enterprise market and waiting for the market to come to them. Remember, Apple doesn’t push products (e.g., iPhone and iPod) as much as create something great and then let the market pursue them.
This could be the reason OS X is named after a family of animals that hide in the grass until the time is right and then pounce on its prey.
Stop being such a cry baby
“And Macs are considered more stable than Windows, with fewer spyware and virus problems, which translate into fewer help desk calls.”
It’s good that the tide is turning, but who the hell thinks *ZERO* viruses is “fewer’? Why is it so hard to convince people that spyware and viruses are simply non-existent on Mac OSX? Is the Stockholm Syndrome so entrenched vis a vis Windows that simply won’t believe that a personal computer can remain virus free with no real effort on the users part?
“As far as the service goes, last week I dropped off a macbook with a dead disk drive at the local Apple store and had it back the next day.”
Good for you
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> When you have some experience with enterprise computing (which is what this thread is about) somebody may listen to you.
For instance, Apple does not license a DRM solution, for libraries and such that are allowed to have copyrighted works on their computers, but need to protect it from being mass copied.
What the Hell are you talking about? When did Libraries start ripping music?
Apple and the Enterprise. Here’s the thing. I watched how the Canadian Military bought computers for a decade. All even an Officer ever does with a PC is read email, compose documents, and print things out. No one is making graphics, no one is animating a TV series. Yet the PCs got changed out every year for more and more RAM and faster and fatser CPUs on the whims of the people on top.
If a company decides that Apple has the software and support they want and decides to switch en mass, there will be companies for which a stripped down beige Apple box is not a requirement.
“Look at Leopard Server and XServe and ZFS and UNIX certification of Leopard”
Or you could get a SUN. They have good experience in enterprise, they have a UNIX certified OS and they invented ZFS.
btw they have a great range of servers and headless boxes.
“Why is it so hard to convince people that spyware and viruses are simply non-existent on Mac OSX?”
Thats great but Solaris or any other UNIX or Linux has just the same track record. The figures speak for themselves, nobody wants Apple in the enterprise. Stick to white plastic gadgets.
Good for you When you have some experience with enterprise computing (which is what this thread is about) somebody may listen to you.
But, in more often than not in the Enterprise, a company retains a specialist hardware maintenance company to repair such issues and the specialist companies ensure that their personnel are suitably qualified so that they don’t invalidate warranties.
Given that Apple provides courses so that independent contractors can be authorised Apple technicians, it’s doing exactly the same thing that HP or IBM/Lenovo does for its customers, so your argument is – to be blunt – a canard.
Canard, good one. Lets see which other words of the day you can put in your next argument
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I could argue that the Zune is better than the iPod but you could rightly say “then how come iPods sell 100x more than Zune?”. Linux gained a greater market share than OSX in the enterprise in how long? A couple of years.
The enterprise is owned by HP, IBM, SUN and Dell. That is fact. If Apple has authorised technicians good for them but it doesn’t change the fact that nobody wants them.
Apple WILL take over the Enterprise mkt, in spite of their proclamations that the consumer mkt is their priority. It’s just a matter of time.
Wow, you really are a fount of ignorance.
Canard was a “word of the day” when I was running mini-computers back in the Eighties, so more like a word of the century. Anyhoo…
The fact that you don’t even know that Apple runs technician accreditation tends to imply that you have never really analysed the market or the value that Xserve offers. You’re probably also unaware that Apple sells an optional kit of parts (logic board, power supply and fan assembly) to help keep your Xserve implementation up and running.
Let’s consider this quote…
Xserve is designed for quick serviceability of crucial parts; no special training or certification is required. The AppleCare Service Parts Kit for Xserve lets you keep key modules handy to address the most common hardware failures. When you combine AppleCare Service Parts Kits with an AppleCare Premium Service and Support Plan, Apple experts can often help you troubleshoot and fix your system right over the phone, day or night, so you won’t have to wait for a technician.
Sounds like Enterprise level support to me, but then I’ve only been working in this god-forsaken business since 1984.
Unfortunately, people like you are specifically what’s wrong with the practice of information technology in the enterprise and in government; you fail to understand that the delivery of IT to an entity is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. The commitment that IT practitioners should display is an open-minded commitment to deliver the “biggest bang for the buck”, whether that bang is measured as flexibility, performance or whatever imperative is important to the entity.
If you are deliberately choosing solutions that, even on a capital-cost basis, cost nearly three times as much as an Apple Xserve to implement simply because you have neither the wit nor the intelligence to evaluate the option, you are, at best, intellectually lazy and, at worst, negligent in the practise of your job.
But, to be honest, if that’s your attitude I’m relatively happy: with unlimited CALs, full X/Open certification, and enterprise-level virtualisation and terminal services coming in the next eighteen months (the latter at a cost that make Citrix look like gouging), Xserve is nearly ready for prime-time.
I don’t care if Fortune 1000 corporates choose to throw their money away, because I’m pursuing targets with easier sales cycles where the owner/managers recognise the value offered by Xserve; if I’m right, my customers will spend less money running their IT infrastructures and more money developing a competitive differential advantage (that’s another phrase you might want to look up). They’ll get larger and so will I because I can maintain more customers with less personnel.
So please feel free to cling to your dinosaur-like, walnut-brain thinking as nothing is more interesting than watching Darwinism in action.
Mac’s cannot conquer the enterprise this year… the enterprise are comprised of computers which accountants depreciate over a number of years. And plus having servers and large computers, for most bosses, switching to mac might mean spending more cash on apple experienced specialists, which there isn’t much out there now.
The only group that would look at buying large amounts of computers and xserve would be community groups that have long run without a server and are desperate to looking for a solution, without the lag of existing PCs and windows servers.
Alternatively, it could be a new successful startup company, that doesn’t have any existing servers. That way it’s fresh, to look at options without considering compatibility.
that will take some time though
Can macs conquer the Enterprise? What did Captain Kirk ever to do Apple?!
(Morning, all you argumentative fiends.)
This thread is so funny. All you so-called Enterprise experts. Well speaking from the lofty position of three decades as an Enterprise IT Consultant I can say that most of you have got it wrong and are perpetuating the myths of the media about enterprise computing.
IT would LOVE to cut help desk calls. Proven stats from among about a dozen of my clients who run dual environments with separate communities of Windows users and OSX users shows that the OSX help desk can be about 1/3 the size of the Windows help desk on a per capita basis.
The Enterprise would love to get rid of mini tower style computers. They take up too much space, get in the way of hot desking efficiently, and do not present any advantages at all other than price and that is fast disappearing. The trend at the Enterprise level is to move all users onto notebook computers and last year one of my clients did just that.
Who said that library DRM solutions requires windows? You are out of touch with this field my friend. Most modern corporate library solutions serve the user interface via a web front end. Being fully browser based means the users personal computing platform is not relevant.
BTW: DRM is not just about music as some of you seem to think. It is about protecting any copyrighted work including documents and data.
To win a battle for Enterprise computing required more than just a few shiny gadgets but a concerted offering for the data centre. Apple is moving steadily in this direction but it is not having its agenda fixed by the media. Current server offerings are good and improving. The addition of ZFS once it goes to final release will be vital. I would say look to Apple to make a serious attack on the enterprise platform in about 3 to 5 years and when they do it will be devastating for the opposition. Maybe Apple will buy Sun out of their cash reserve. Unix, ZFS, a broad range of servers that go way beyond the ZServe. Could be interesting.
Partnerships with core enterprise software houses. Lets see the trend at the enterprise level is to go web based for practically every software solution in investment banking, health, retail, etc. Why? Because it reduces the headache of upgrading the underlying platform and not having to worry too much about compatibility and it make the task of cross system interaction easier. If it is web based then the enterprise desktop could be anything even OSX. As for partnerships Oracle, SAP, and many others support OSX. So what was that again?
Happy computing all and here is to the Kool Aid !!!!
Back room + Front office
Big Iron + PeeCee
Razor + Blade
“The Enterprise” migrated to the current model of Big Iron + PeeCee to avoid lock in with Back Office and Front Office hardware and software all supplied by the same company. Apple will join this party only when some VP of IT has the confidence of the CEO and thereby latitude, and also knows enough about all of the hardware and software in question thru ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. If you meet one of those at one of the Fortune5, let me know.
x Back Office and Front Office guy at IBM and a large University.
@fenman:
Great post!
One thing related to web-based software that continues to be a covert hook to MS-based systems in the enterprise market is IE-only applications.
I’m not a developer, but why someone who is interested in keeping the apps and desktops separate, should develop IE-exclusive apps completely escapes me.
For everyone’s edification:
http://www.apple.com/itpro/
The framework is already there. As far as support goes, saw some posts about crappy service provided by Apple retail. Retail experiences are definitely different than enterprise level support. Apple offers AppleCare to the enterprise at 24×7, 1 HOUR response time. That’s pretty damn responsive, if you ask me.
Too hot…
Because people design and build systems with no recognition of the future with the sole intention of enhancing their resumés with the full range of proprietary Microsoft alphabet soup, so they can go and get their next job or contract.
I meant what I said earlier about IT types who treat the service they provide as an end in itself as opposed to it simply being a means by which Acme Inc. manages its business of selling widgets to hungry coyotes; you see it everywhere – little IT people building their little empires (or toyshops, if you want to be less charitable) whilst finding new and exciting ways to obstruct the business from delivering a better service to customers.
Fred went to bed:
You are welcome to your opinion.
@ BobWillsIsStillTheKing
OMG thats effing great! HAHAH!
Well put!
@Too Hot!
Thanks.
As for why so many web application developers still develop for IE only, the answer is easy and generally follows one of these reasons.
a) They are lazy developers and so are not interested in developing to standards because it means they have to plan more carefully at architecture and design time
b) They fail to test their web application against other browsers perhaps assuming incorrectly that if it runs on IE then it complies with standards and will run on anything
c) They have bought into the myth that only IE matters and yes while IE still has nearly 80% of the browser market it has fallen about 10% in market share in the last year or so and continues to decline
d) They have made the mistake of selecting tools for web development that only support IE. This restrictive toolset is rapidly dwindling. You have to be careful that you do not confuse the development IDE environment with the users web application environment. While most MS web tools are IE centric, most will happily allow the users client browser to be anything if you code your application correctly.
At the end of the day I believe that there is no excuse for developing a web application that is restricted to just one browser regardless of whose browser it is. By all means do not support browsers that by dint of age are no longer standards compliant such as IE 4 or early versions of Netscape and so on and good web application development requires that you test for browser type and version so that your code can make appropriate adjustments based on standards compliance and any known issues. So as I said at the top, if your web application only supports IE then you are a lazy programmer and I have no sympathy for you when you Crash and Burn.
BTW: has anyone noticed the entertaining link between the extension use by many Microsoft products on their installation archives and the phrase Crash And Burn (CAB)? Hmmm poetic justice methinks.
@ Glossy Hurts Me Eyes!!!
Apple Stores are not the ONLY place to get service done. I work at an Apple Specialist store here in Madison, WI… we take drop offs… and we also do appointments…. the “little guy” AASPs (Apple Authorized Service Providers) commonly treat you better in service than the Apple Store. That being said, there are some bad AASPs out there… but on the whole, I think they are the better service option. I am biased however since I work at one.
The Dude abides
While watching you all argue semantics is amusing (most of you just don’t get it), none of you have commented on the pie chart and the number of people who chose Ubuntu and Other Linux. I can see why someone would consider Suse, for Novell has been at it for over 20 years. I can also understand Red Hat. But Ubuntu? While it is a nice Linux distro, it is not ready for the enterprise by any stretch.
It is alarming that 27% of the people they polled would consider such an option. And that another 9% just don’t know! Who were these 961 so called IT professionals?
Fenman and MCCFR, you guys get it. Most of the rest of you make me wonder.
I would have liked to read the long winded quote but it was just a bit too long for me.
Anyway from the first few sentences I’ve decided you’re a tool. Apple servers would sell if they were any good, the same with Zunes. Whine all you like but that’s the truth.