I'd like to see Apple buy Parallels or Fusion and incorporate their technology into the MacOS X 10.9 ("Nittany Lion"). That would knock down some of the last barriers to the use of Macs in the Enterprise.
I hope you are joking about the "Nittany Lion" name. The iPhobes would have a field day with the insults about buggery in the shower.
While what you say is true, it isn't a compelling reason to convert your workforce to Macs. I work for a Fortune 50 company, and we've got Dells running XP that do the trick just fine for finance stuff. Most of our programs are web-based like you say, so we'd just be running our apps through Safari instead of IE. I'd certainly love a shiny iMac on my desk, but it wouldn't change what I do at all or make things more efficient. They'd just be...different slightly.
I agree. I think the compelling reason will come as pressure from above. My point was that in 2012, IT departments can no longer make a compelling business case to counter that pressure.
The trend is moving to bring your own device anyway, i believe in that kind of environment, apple will win hands down.
The only Macs I've seen in my (large) business are the ones people buy to write the custom iPad apps everyone's hankering for. I haven't seen them actually used to do day-to-day business, but rather to support the rest of Apple's ecosystem.
Not sure where you work, but I consult with many different companies, large and small, and I see Apple products all the time. There is especially heavy concentration in (a) IT staff that have the ability to bring them in and support them, or (b) for companies that have a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policy, which allows people to bring in personal-choice computers to perform their work.
BYOD (also known as "mobility policy") is an important development for many companies over the past five years, primarily brought on due to the iPhone and iPad permeation in the early days, and this is absolutely where Apple devices will see growth in the enterprise. You'll also see Android penetration as a result of BYOD, but I've also witnessed limited anti-Android policies with BYOD, too (given that 'Droid is an exceptionally easy vector for malware).
Apple will continue to grow like a wildfire in the enterprise space.
why should the company waste money on supporting double problems per person? it makes no financial IT sense to have 400 OSs to support when you only need 200 or 2000 when you only need 1000.
Because the Mac is far easier to support and more trouble-free. If only a small percentage of people need Windows-specific apps (face it, most people use Office and not much more), then running Macs with only the people who really need Windows apps using them could be far more cost effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
exactly... outside of our design stations they also used for app production. why the insignificant 2.9%
anyone that says they would deploy Macs for an entire Enterprise is one of the iOS kids that have never managed a business.
Wrong. I've managed a number of businesses and don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
I think they still need to overcome the entrenched opinions of many IT departments. At my last company, a Fortune 500 company, the IT department would block absolutely anything Apple (no iPhones using the WiFi, no iPads, absolutely no Macs) all on the grounds of "security" and "supportability".
Not knowing the slightest thing about setting up a corporate network, I pretty much trusted what they told me and that it would obviously be costly and difficult to support Macs and PC's. I've since moved to a different company, and have been stunned by how well Macs, Windows PCs, Linux PCs etc. seem to work together.
I'm forced to conclude that either my new company has smarter IT folks, or my old company had lazy IT folks. I suspect the later.
There's a third option - they know better but won't make the change because it's in their best interests to keep Windows around. Either job security or all the perks CIOs get from Microsoft (I know someone who was CIO for a big bank in the 90's and he got a ton of expense-paid trips for him and his wife all at Microsoft's expense. In exchange, he had to listen to half an hour of seminars per trip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonfj
My experience of IT departments in EVERY company I've worked at has been the same. They would rather be sat in their caves playing games/surfing the web/tweaking something than sorting out my problems. And these are the ones that actually HAVE Macs!
Why on earth would these guys want to create work for themselves?! That's crazy talk.
I think you have it backwards. They're worried that if they switch to Macs, they won't be needed (or, at least, not as many would be needed).
Because the Mac is far easier to support and more trouble-free. If only a small percentage of people need Windows-specific apps (face it, most people use Office and not much more), then running Macs with only the people who really need Windows apps using them could be far more cost effective.
IT would have to buy another corporate license for Office for Mac which is a little pricey. They have to become experts in OS X so they look like they know what they are doing to save their street-cred.
They have to get a copy of anti-virus running on it since that is corporate policy.
They have to set up an admin account on the machine and prevent any applications or plugins from being installed and they need to configure the mail client to work with Exchange all of which requires the above stated Mac knowledge.
They have to get the network preferences set up and possibly a VPN account as well.
Plus they need to set up things like network shares and printer drivers, etc, etc.
All for a few Macs, at first. That is why it takes vision from the top management to invest the time and money if they believe it is justified in regard to productivity gains. The IT staff is not going to propose or initiate that program on their own.
It is a lot more involved and costly than many here make it out to be. Sure, once the Mac is set up it is usually trouble free but there are always going to be issues like no MS Access or some other proprietary Windows script or app that is used throughout the organization. Then the Mac needs to have Parallels set up and go through the entire network/printer configuration again. It can get to be quite annoying for IT.
There is one area of business Apple is more than capable of moving into, namely a PoS set-up for retailers. With the iPod Touch, iPad and Mini Server already in place, all it would take is a card-swipe attachment plus software to tie it all together and you would have a perfectly scalable system from single device right up to a big department store. What's more, hand sets and additional server space could be added incrementally as required. With so many of the pieces already in place, it would not take much effort to set up such a system, and of course the potential market is enormous.
That is definitely coming. They are already bridging that gap in their own retail stores. Basically a test bed for unleashing their own POS system or creating standard APIs for developers to use. No more long lines when a store can do away with their four $800 non-upgradeable POS (point-of-sale and piece-of-youknowwhat) terminals with constantly outdated software and instead have 10 associates with iPhones/iPads/iPod Touches for similar or even cheaper pricing getting constant upgrades to the software and having the ability to run on the new and old hardware. Don't need to wire the store to specific areas as all these devices would work over WIFI.
Because the Mac is far easier to support and more trouble-free. If only a small percentage of people need Windows-specific apps (face it, most people use Office and not much more), then running Macs with only the people who really need Windows apps using them could be far more cost effective.
I think you have it backwards. They're worried that if they switch to Macs, they won't be needed (or, at least, not as many would be needed).
I have no problem embracing a mac environment but i (like most IT workers) have no say in what money gets spent on.
But,
i have to laugh. the mac user shows up thinking he/she knows something and can't stand it when it is obvious that they don't (which is anytime they have to put anything other than email address, a logon, and password in at a prompt). Windows users don't know sh*t and are usually quick to admit so.
the real problem isn't Windows or Apple, it's dumb users.
Although this is cited often in finance circles, the application of the Law of Large Numbers to analysis of the AAPL stock and their market share is completely wrong in the first place. That's not what the law is about. Not close.
Thanks for this. The LLN basically say that as you increase the sample size of a given variable, it will tend toward the expected mean. So that for instance if you sample body weight among half a dozen people, you might get wild variations, but if you sample among 1000 you'll start to approach the average weight, with each additional sample moving your figure closer to that mean.
I suppose when it's applied to Apple the idea is that any given company must eventually come into line with economic norms, or something, but even that is wrong way around, being the conceptual equivalent of measuring the same sample over and over again and expecting it to tend towards the mean.
I think what people really mean is just that there are limits to growth, which there obviously are, or that it gets harder for Apple to keep up its growth percentages as those percentages represent larger and larger numbers. If you apply growth curves to anything and give it enough time it becomes untenable, because growth eventually overwhelms the environment within which it is occurring. In Apple's case, that would mean running out of consumers, or having all the money, or both.
However, none of that means that Apple doesn't have plenty of room left for further growth, or that Apple can't continue to grow at a somewhat less torrid pace for a long time to come. Of course, as soon as Apple's astronomical growth curves decrease even slightly, we'll get to hear about how Apple's glory days are behind it and the long slide into irrelevancy has set in.
If the person is more efficient when using one or the other, the additional costs of support are easily overcome.
Study after study for over ten years has shown Macs require less IT support than a PC.
That's the main reason IT is threatened by Macs... job security.
The pressure to bring Apple products into a fortune 1000 company is coming from ABOVE the IT level, and that's what's finally bringing the change about. Mark my words: we will see a study done soon that will say what all the previous studies have said, but this time people will be paying attention for the first time and going, "Oh WoW!!"
With such a small marketshare, even small gyrations can give huge percentages. Was this move statistically significant?
I think you have it mixed up. With a small market share it's like pissing in the ocean and looking for a color change. It takes a boat load of Macs to raise the percentage bar a single percentage point.
1. First, we are seeing multiple percentage points of change.
2. This is the world-wide effect, not the U.S. effect, which is a smaller pool but with a larger percentage change than worldwide.
The small change portends a much larger change to come...
the short sightedness was all on Apple's part. they did nothing to improve the OS for use in enterprise and in fact were in the toilet. they ignored reality and tried to force their own on the world and damn near died. Now, they are doing it again: riding high, imposing their will, telling you what is what, etc. They have enough money now to last a long long time if things start to go south, however, i think Tim Cook is astute enough to see the value in enterprise and we may see some things that we never would have with Jobs at the helm.
Stop trolling, ScreamingFist! You're not welcome here.
Apple should just send new airs to every CEO and CFO in the fortune 500 and the rest will take care of itself.
As long as the CEO gets to have his shiny toys and golden parachute, he will not care what IT does with the rest of the company's employees. And IT knows this, so they will grudgingly let the CEO have a Mac in order to keep him happy. How many CEOs do you know of who care about anything else besides the company's bottom line and upfront costs? But still, the CEO expects the company to buy him the latest gadgets and for IT to support whatever he gets for himself.
I'd like to see Apple buy Parallels or Fusion and incorporate their technology into the MacOS X 10.9 ("Nittany Lion"). That would knock down some of the last barriers to the use of Macs in the Enterprise.
that would be a challenge.
the barriers in the enterprise are IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP. in my twelve (12) years in IT -- six as a software developer and six (and counting) as a consultant, i have yet to see any appreciable footprint of Apple hardware in any corporate data centre in North America, Europe and East Asia. it'll be far more likely for enterprise customers to build a Windows or UNIX server farm than an OS X farm. perhaps things will change in the near future but Apple will need to compete against the services that IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP offer.
the barriers in the enterprise are IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP. in my twelve (12) years in IT -- six as a software developer and six (and counting) as a consultant, i have yet to see any appreciable footprint of Apple hardware in any corporate data centre in North America, Europe and East Asia. it'll be far more likely for enterprise customers to build a Windows or UNIX server farm than an OS X farm. perhaps things will change in the near future but Apple will need to compete against the services that IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP offer.
There is much more to running an IT department than just throwing a Mac onto everyone's desk. I would like to see Apple publish its own case study detailing their entire IT infrastructure worldwide. Apple should include answers to "enterprise" questions such as:
How many employee computers and servers does Apple support worldwide?
What is the size of Apple's internal IT staff?
Does Apple use a directory service for things like user authentication? Are all end user computers connected to this directory service? Is it Open Directory, Active Directory, or something else?
Does Apple implement restrictions on user computers, or are people able to do whatever they want on work computers?
Does Apple run mass remote updates on their end user computers? Is it done using Apple Remote Desktop or something else?
Does Apple do inventory management of their end user computers to track users, computer info, software licenses? What software does Apple use for that?
What hardware and operating systems does Apple use for their DHCP servers, DNS servers, VPN servers, web servers, file servers? What hardware and software does Apple use for their own email, contacts, and calendar servers? What type of storage do each of these servers use, and what type of connections? Do they use a SAN, and what software? How are each of these servers backed up, and using what backup software?
What hardware, operating systems, database server, and web server are Apple's iTunes and iCloud servers running on? What type of storage is used? If they use a SAN, which SAN software is it? Do they use Fibre Channel? iSCSI? 10 gigabit ethernet?
What hardware does Apple use for their company routers and network switches?
What does Apple use for its accounting, CRM, ERP, and HR software? What operating systems do they run on?
There is much more to running an IT department than just throwing a Mac onto everyone's desk. I would like to see Apple publish its own case study detailing their entire IT infrastructure worldwide. Apple should include answers to "enterprise" questions such as:
How many employee computers and servers does Apple support worldwide?
What is the size of Apple's internal IT staff?
Does Apple use a directory service for things like user authentication? Are all end user computers connected to this directory service? Is it Open Directory, Active Directory, or something else?
Does Apple implement restrictions on user computers, or are people able to do whatever they want on work computers?
Does Apple run mass remote updates on their end user computers? Is it done using Apple Remote Desktop or something else?
Does Apple do inventory management of their end user computers to track users, computer info, software licenses? What software does Apple use for that?
What hardware and operating systems does Apple use for their DHCP servers, DNS servers, VPN servers, web servers, file servers? What hardware and software does Apple use for their own email, contacts, and calendar servers? What type of storage do each of these servers use, and what type of connections? Do they use a SAN, and what software? How are each of these servers backed up, and using what backup software?
What hardware, operating systems, database server, and web server are Apple's iTunes and iCloud servers running on? What type of storage is used? If they use a SAN, which SAN software is it? Do they use Fibre Channel? iSCSI? 10 gigabit ethernet?
What hardware does Apple use for their company routers and network switches?
What does Apple use for its accounting, CRM, ERP, and HR software? What operating systems do they run on?
Presicely. We are talking about the company that managed to eff up smb shares and finder search functionality, which is very rudimentary and not fix it by 10.7.3... And they expect anyone to believe they are entering it seriously? They can barely go pro, and sadly they don't seem to care as long as the gadgets keep selling.
Comments
I'd like to see Apple buy Parallels or Fusion and incorporate their technology into the MacOS X 10.9 ("Nittany Lion"). That would knock down some of the last barriers to the use of Macs in the Enterprise.
I hope you are joking about the "Nittany Lion" name. The iPhobes would have a field day with the insults about buggery in the shower.
While what you say is true, it isn't a compelling reason to convert your workforce to Macs. I work for a Fortune 50 company, and we've got Dells running XP that do the trick just fine for finance stuff. Most of our programs are web-based like you say, so we'd just be running our apps through Safari instead of IE. I'd certainly love a shiny iMac on my desk, but it wouldn't change what I do at all or make things more efficient. They'd just be...different slightly.
I agree. I think the compelling reason will come as pressure from above. My point was that in 2012, IT departments can no longer make a compelling business case to counter that pressure.
The trend is moving to bring your own device anyway, i believe in that kind of environment, apple will win hands down.
The only Macs I've seen in my (large) business are the ones people buy to write the custom iPad apps everyone's hankering for. I haven't seen them actually used to do day-to-day business, but rather to support the rest of Apple's ecosystem.
Not sure where you work, but I consult with many different companies, large and small, and I see Apple products all the time. There is especially heavy concentration in (a) IT staff that have the ability to bring them in and support them, or (b) for companies that have a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policy, which allows people to bring in personal-choice computers to perform their work.
BYOD (also known as "mobility policy") is an important development for many companies over the past five years, primarily brought on due to the iPhone and iPad permeation in the early days, and this is absolutely where Apple devices will see growth in the enterprise. You'll also see Android penetration as a result of BYOD, but I've also witnessed limited anti-Android policies with BYOD, too (given that 'Droid is an exceptionally easy vector for malware).
Apple will continue to grow like a wildfire in the enterprise space.
why should the company waste money on supporting double problems per person? it makes no financial IT sense to have 400 OSs to support when you only need 200 or 2000 when you only need 1000.
Because the Mac is far easier to support and more trouble-free. If only a small percentage of people need Windows-specific apps (face it, most people use Office and not much more), then running Macs with only the people who really need Windows apps using them could be far more cost effective.
exactly... outside of our design stations they also used for app production. why the insignificant 2.9%
anyone that says they would deploy Macs for an entire Enterprise is one of the iOS kids that have never managed a business.
Wrong. I've managed a number of businesses and don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
I think they still need to overcome the entrenched opinions of many IT departments. At my last company, a Fortune 500 company, the IT department would block absolutely anything Apple (no iPhones using the WiFi, no iPads, absolutely no Macs) all on the grounds of "security" and "supportability".
Not knowing the slightest thing about setting up a corporate network, I pretty much trusted what they told me and that it would obviously be costly and difficult to support Macs and PC's. I've since moved to a different company, and have been stunned by how well Macs, Windows PCs, Linux PCs etc. seem to work together.
I'm forced to conclude that either my new company has smarter IT folks, or my old company had lazy IT folks. I suspect the later.
There's a third option - they know better but won't make the change because it's in their best interests to keep Windows around. Either job security or all the perks CIOs get from Microsoft (I know someone who was CIO for a big bank in the 90's and he got a ton of expense-paid trips for him and his wife all at Microsoft's expense. In exchange, he had to listen to half an hour of seminars per trip.
My experience of IT departments in EVERY company I've worked at has been the same. They would rather be sat in their caves playing games/surfing the web/tweaking something than sorting out my problems. And these are the ones that actually HAVE Macs!
Why on earth would these guys want to create work for themselves?! That's crazy talk.
I think you have it backwards. They're worried that if they switch to Macs, they won't be needed (or, at least, not as many would be needed).
Because the Mac is far easier to support and more trouble-free. If only a small percentage of people need Windows-specific apps (face it, most people use Office and not much more), then running Macs with only the people who really need Windows apps using them could be far more cost effective.
IT would have to buy another corporate license for Office for Mac which is a little pricey. They have to become experts in OS X so they look like they know what they are doing to save their street-cred.
They have to get a copy of anti-virus running on it since that is corporate policy.
They have to set up an admin account on the machine and prevent any applications or plugins from being installed and they need to configure the mail client to work with Exchange all of which requires the above stated Mac knowledge.
They have to get the network preferences set up and possibly a VPN account as well.
Plus they need to set up things like network shares and printer drivers, etc, etc.
All for a few Macs, at first. That is why it takes vision from the top management to invest the time and money if they believe it is justified in regard to productivity gains. The IT staff is not going to propose or initiate that program on their own.
It is a lot more involved and costly than many here make it out to be. Sure, once the Mac is set up it is usually trouble free but there are always going to be issues like no MS Access or some other proprietary Windows script or app that is used throughout the organization. Then the Mac needs to have Parallels set up and go through the entire network/printer configuration again. It can get to be quite annoying for IT.
There is one area of business Apple is more than capable of moving into, namely a PoS set-up for retailers. With the iPod Touch, iPad and Mini Server already in place, all it would take is a card-swipe attachment plus software to tie it all together and you would have a perfectly scalable system from single device right up to a big department store. What's more, hand sets and additional server space could be added incrementally as required. With so many of the pieces already in place, it would not take much effort to set up such a system, and of course the potential market is enormous.
That is definitely coming. They are already bridging that gap in their own retail stores. Basically a test bed for unleashing their own POS system or creating standard APIs for developers to use. No more long lines when a store can do away with their four $800 non-upgradeable POS (point-of-sale and piece-of-youknowwhat) terminals with constantly outdated software and instead have 10 associates with iPhones/iPads/iPod Touches for similar or even cheaper pricing getting constant upgrades to the software and having the ability to run on the new and old hardware. Don't need to wire the store to specific areas as all these devices would work over WIFI.
Because the Mac is far easier to support and more trouble-free. If only a small percentage of people need Windows-specific apps (face it, most people use Office and not much more), then running Macs with only the people who really need Windows apps using them could be far more cost effective.
I think you have it backwards. They're worried that if they switch to Macs, they won't be needed (or, at least, not as many would be needed).
I have no problem embracing a mac environment but i (like most IT workers) have no say in what money gets spent on.
But,
i have to laugh. the mac user shows up thinking he/she knows something and can't stand it when it is obvious that they don't (which is anytime they have to put anything other than email address, a logon, and password in at a prompt). Windows users don't know sh*t and are usually quick to admit so.
the real problem isn't Windows or Apple, it's dumb users.
With such a small marketshare, even small gyrations can give huge percentages. Was this move statistically significant?
The most recent data point is probably not statistically significant. However, look at the chart included with the article. That trend certainly is.
Although this is cited often in finance circles, the application of the Law of Large Numbers to analysis of the AAPL stock and their market share is completely wrong in the first place. That's not what the law is about. Not close.
Thanks for this. The LLN basically say that as you increase the sample size of a given variable, it will tend toward the expected mean. So that for instance if you sample body weight among half a dozen people, you might get wild variations, but if you sample among 1000 you'll start to approach the average weight, with each additional sample moving your figure closer to that mean.
I suppose when it's applied to Apple the idea is that any given company must eventually come into line with economic norms, or something, but even that is wrong way around, being the conceptual equivalent of measuring the same sample over and over again and expecting it to tend towards the mean.
I think what people really mean is just that there are limits to growth, which there obviously are, or that it gets harder for Apple to keep up its growth percentages as those percentages represent larger and larger numbers. If you apply growth curves to anything and give it enough time it becomes untenable, because growth eventually overwhelms the environment within which it is occurring. In Apple's case, that would mean running out of consumers, or having all the money, or both.
However, none of that means that Apple doesn't have plenty of room left for further growth, or that Apple can't continue to grow at a somewhat less torrid pace for a long time to come. Of course, as soon as Apple's astronomical growth curves decrease even slightly, we'll get to hear about how Apple's glory days are behind it and the long slide into irrelevancy has set in.
If the person is more efficient when using one or the other, the additional costs of support are easily overcome.
Study after study for over ten years has shown Macs require less IT support than a PC.
That's the main reason IT is threatened by Macs... job security.
The pressure to bring Apple products into a fortune 1000 company is coming from ABOVE the IT level, and that's what's finally bringing the change about. Mark my words: we will see a study done soon that will say what all the previous studies have said, but this time people will be paying attention for the first time and going, "Oh WoW!!"
With such a small marketshare, even small gyrations can give huge percentages. Was this move statistically significant?
I think you have it mixed up. With a small market share it's like pissing in the ocean and looking for a color change. It takes a boat load of Macs to raise the percentage bar a single percentage point.
1. First, we are seeing multiple percentage points of change.
2. This is the world-wide effect, not the U.S. effect, which is a smaller pool but with a larger percentage change than worldwide.
The small change portends a much larger change to come...
the short sightedness was all on Apple's part. they did nothing to improve the OS for use in enterprise and in fact were in the toilet. they ignored reality and tried to force their own on the world and damn near died. Now, they are doing it again: riding high, imposing their will, telling you what is what, etc. They have enough money now to last a long long time if things start to go south, however, i think Tim Cook is astute enough to see the value in enterprise and we may see some things that we never would have with Jobs at the helm.
Stop trolling, ScreamingFist! You're not welcome here.
IronTed
Study after study for over ten years has shown Macs require less IT support than a PC.
That's the main reason IT is threatened by Macs... job security.
!"
IT is most certainly not threatened by Macs regarding job security. Many, many already do ONLY mac support.
Apple should just send new airs to every CEO and CFO in the fortune 500 and the rest will take care of itself.
As long as the CEO gets to have his shiny toys and golden parachute, he will not care what IT does with the rest of the company's employees. And IT knows this, so they will grudgingly let the CEO have a Mac in order to keep him happy. How many CEOs do you know of who care about anything else besides the company's bottom line and upfront costs? But still, the CEO expects the company to buy him the latest gadgets and for IT to support whatever he gets for himself.
I'd like to see Apple buy Parallels or Fusion and incorporate their technology into the MacOS X 10.9 ("Nittany Lion"). That would knock down some of the last barriers to the use of Macs in the Enterprise.
that would be a challenge.
the barriers in the enterprise are IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP. in my twelve (12) years in IT -- six as a software developer and six (and counting) as a consultant, i have yet to see any appreciable footprint of Apple hardware in any corporate data centre in North America, Europe and East Asia. it'll be far more likely for enterprise customers to build a Windows or UNIX server farm than an OS X farm. perhaps things will change in the near future but Apple will need to compete against the services that IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP offer.
that would be a challenge.
the barriers in the enterprise are IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP. in my twelve (12) years in IT -- six as a software developer and six (and counting) as a consultant, i have yet to see any appreciable footprint of Apple hardware in any corporate data centre in North America, Europe and East Asia. it'll be far more likely for enterprise customers to build a Windows or UNIX server farm than an OS X farm. perhaps things will change in the near future but Apple will need to compete against the services that IBM, Oracle, Dell and HP offer.
There is much more to running an IT department than just throwing a Mac onto everyone's desk. I would like to see Apple publish its own case study detailing their entire IT infrastructure worldwide. Apple should include answers to "enterprise" questions such as:
How many employee computers and servers does Apple support worldwide?
What is the size of Apple's internal IT staff?
Does Apple use a directory service for things like user authentication? Are all end user computers connected to this directory service? Is it Open Directory, Active Directory, or something else?
Does Apple implement restrictions on user computers, or are people able to do whatever they want on work computers?
Does Apple run mass remote updates on their end user computers? Is it done using Apple Remote Desktop or something else?
Does Apple do inventory management of their end user computers to track users, computer info, software licenses? What software does Apple use for that?
What hardware and operating systems does Apple use for their DHCP servers, DNS servers, VPN servers, web servers, file servers? What hardware and software does Apple use for their own email, contacts, and calendar servers? What type of storage do each of these servers use, and what type of connections? Do they use a SAN, and what software? How are each of these servers backed up, and using what backup software?
What hardware, operating systems, database server, and web server are Apple's iTunes and iCloud servers running on? What type of storage is used? If they use a SAN, which SAN software is it? Do they use Fibre Channel? iSCSI? 10 gigabit ethernet?
What hardware does Apple use for their company routers and network switches?
What does Apple use for its accounting, CRM, ERP, and HR software? What operating systems do they run on?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-...ns-Why-826147/
There is much more to running an IT department than just throwing a Mac onto everyone's desk. I would like to see Apple publish its own case study detailing their entire IT infrastructure worldwide. Apple should include answers to "enterprise" questions such as:
How many employee computers and servers does Apple support worldwide?
What is the size of Apple's internal IT staff?
Does Apple use a directory service for things like user authentication? Are all end user computers connected to this directory service? Is it Open Directory, Active Directory, or something else?
Does Apple implement restrictions on user computers, or are people able to do whatever they want on work computers?
Does Apple run mass remote updates on their end user computers? Is it done using Apple Remote Desktop or something else?
Does Apple do inventory management of their end user computers to track users, computer info, software licenses? What software does Apple use for that?
What hardware and operating systems does Apple use for their DHCP servers, DNS servers, VPN servers, web servers, file servers? What hardware and software does Apple use for their own email, contacts, and calendar servers? What type of storage do each of these servers use, and what type of connections? Do they use a SAN, and what software? How are each of these servers backed up, and using what backup software?
What hardware, operating systems, database server, and web server are Apple's iTunes and iCloud servers running on? What type of storage is used? If they use a SAN, which SAN software is it? Do they use Fibre Channel? iSCSI? 10 gigabit ethernet?
What hardware does Apple use for their company routers and network switches?
What does Apple use for its accounting, CRM, ERP, and HR software? What operating systems do they run on?
Presicely. We are talking about the company that managed to eff up smb shares and finder search functionality, which is very rudimentary and not fix it by 10.7.3... And they expect anyone to believe they are entering it seriously? They can barely go pro, and sadly they don't seem to care as long as the gadgets keep selling.
eWeek has a competing view on Apple, enterprise and what Microsoft may have to say about it. Agree or disagree, still some interesting points.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-...ns-Why-826147/
"10 Reasons Why" by \tDon Reisinger ?
You're joking right?