Apple just might become the successful outlier in enterprise software

“Apple isn’t really known as an enterprise vendor, but rather as a consumer one that people like to use in an enterprise setting. Apple traditionally hasn’t set itself up well to sell into enterprise – they don’t follow the technology enterprise norms,” Ben Kepes writes for Forbes.

“If we look to Oracle as the exemplar (for better or worse) of what it means to be an enterprise company what do we see? Highly paid salespeople, large enterprise pricing approaches and big industry events where industry analysts and media get a preview into upcoming news that can then be disseminated to the masses,” Kepes writes. “Apple does none of this – it sells either via the web, through partners or from stores staffed by fresh-faced disciples. It tends not to ‘do deals’ for enterprise customers, and it is the epitome of a closed shop. There are almost no industry analysts or media who get decent access to Apple and its execs and even fewer who get any insight into product roadmap.”

“So given these facts, it is interesting to see the announcement by Apple in its latest earnings call that they’re going to partner with a number of companies to bring iOS solutions to market for the enterprise,” Kepes writes. “For too long, enterprise iOS apps have been problematic. Small mobile developers are often seen as too risky a bet for enterprises, while larger vendors didn’t have the Apple support to really double down on the opportunity – this change from Apple looks set to turn the tables on the status quo. So can Apple be the only vendor in history to buck the enterprise software norms? Can it continue being aloof and arrogant and still succeed in the heady world of the largest organziations. Something tells me that this real outlier will be able to do so.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: For the sake of the exceedingly well-built and long-lived iPad, let’s hope so!


  1. Kind of off topic, sorry, but I see the most popular combinations of mobile iOS devices as this:
    1) Apple Watch + big iPhone;
    2) small iPhone + iPad.

    (By small iPhone I would prefer 4″ flagman, though Apple most probably is not going to make it this year.)

    There is no iPad in #1 as big iPhone lowers the necessity of it. At the same time, big iPhone is not the thing that you want to pull over 100 times a day as statistics of usage says.

    iPad is more likely buy if user prefers small iPhone; in this case, it is convenient to have big screen device at home. Watch is less necessary as small iPhone is and easier to pull and operate by one-hand.

    But even the second option still leaves chances for buying Apple Watch as there are still benefits to it.

    So my point is that second scenario is the best one for Apple in terms of business. But, again, by not making proper 4″ flagman Apple effectively pushes people to buy huge iPhone since 4.7″ is already significantly bigger than normal one, so people decide “Why not to go all the way to the bigger one” — as result, it undermines iPad sales, besides weakening Apple’s positions in certain markets like Japan, which can not stand huge phones and where Apple’s share significantly fell because the company did not release 4″ flagman last year.

    1. You are exactly right, Apple should get out the larger iPad, and keep the 4″ size and even resurrect the 3.5″ iPhone.

      The greater the size range the happier people will be (with their first choice) and the more devices they will buy (of complementing sizes).

      – 1.1″
      – 1.0″
      – 3.5″
      – 4.0″
      – 4.7″
      – 5.5″
      – 7.9″
      – 9.7″
      – 13″ (?)

      With enough range, Apple can deliver distinct value with 2 or 3 products per person.

      Watch, large iPhone, rumored larger iPad
      Small iPhone, regular iPad

      Heck, Apple should figure out how to make a larger Apple Watch look good. I wouldn’t mind a 2″ watch if it could be made to look good. Once people get used to Apple Watches some of us are going to want more. Its only a style problem!

      1. A 2″ Apple Watch (probably with a different name) is more likely to be useful for Enterprise apps too. Think of all the service people who could get more use out of iOS if they didn’t have to hold a phone.

  2. Someone needs to let this guy know about the Apple/IBM joint effort. Every one of his “issues”, small software developers, lack of industry events, highly paid salespeople are addressed by that team. This writer is OTL.

    1. I agree I assume he was going to talk about how Apple was leveraging the strength of companies like IBM while upping their commitment to them but allowing those companies to do most of the heavy lifting and providing clients confidence based upon size, experience and long term commitment and support to gain serious traction.

  3. The enterprise software I have come across thus far has the most horrific interfaces and staggeringly ineffective, soul-draining functionality. The people who implement these things are generally ecstatic about it, because it fulfils their sense of achieving something and wielding power over others. The people who have to work with it have long since given up protesting, because their large managements never listen anyway. Where I live that is a matter of principle BTW. The only thing that is slowly changing is that more and more people are using Apple gear at home so they now know for a fact that things can be done differently. IBM has gold on their hands if they play it right. I also hope they will see business in providing an Apple friendly back-end for large organisations.

    1. I have been incredibly underwhelmed by most of the enterprise software we have been forced to use at work. The database software in particular looks like it hasn’t been updated since the 60s.

  4. Any company that finds a two year hiatus in reliable IMAP email acceptable should never hope to claim enterprise credibility. Looking at you Federighi and Cook.

Reader Feedback

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