Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
You guess wrong.
What the Autodesk example shows is for heavy engineering in enterprise shops it is no longer a risk but a shrewd investment to build on OS X and more importantly build out on 3 major areas of OS X [OS X Desktop/Server, iOS iPads and iOS iPhones/iPods] for your enterprise needs with them being managed in a distributed, but central ecosystem, ala iTunes/Appstore/iBooks/Games Center, etc.
Lol, I guess wrong.
Couple of points....
1 - I am not guessing.
2 - You have not really answered my point and have gone of on a tangent, really talking about something completely different.
To be fair, much of what you said I agree with. There is no reason at all while it cannot be proven to be less of a risk to look at OSX in the enterprise, an utilising some of Apple's end points in that mix. But that does not mean to say it is going to happen, and it certainly does not address my main point in that there are huge holes in Apple's portfolio that simply means they will never be able to have the dominance in enterprise communications that the likes of Cisco and MS already have.
But, to be fair, Apple clearly have no desire to play in this space anyway, at least not at present. If they ever did want to get serious about it though I think acquisition is the only way they can.
It is about risk, in fact it is all about risk. Hence why the last post I replied to was so wide of the mark talking about screen sizes, and battery life - features? anyone really think that multi-million dollar enterprise communication solutions are bought based on features? It is always about risk and there is an old saying in the industry - nobody ever gets fired for buying Cisco.
Anyway, back to my original point, it was quite simple really. If you have already invested in an end-to-end unified communications infrastructure from a single vendor, that includes telephones, desktop applications, video conferencing, instant messaging, desktop video, mobile applications, collaboration and presence. Then when that company released a mobile tablet to allow you to take all of these features outside with you - would you really buy iPad's for your staff instead? Only if you were barking mad would be my answer here.
That was my only point, do not underestimate the role that Cisco and others will play in this market. Whether or not that is a good choice or not is a completely different conversation. But it would certainly not be a bad way for Apple to start dipping their toe into the market by partnering up with some of these companies and offering iOS to them for mobile devices. It is not hard to understand why they are using Android, there is not really much option other than costly development work or acquisition.
The ironic thing of course is that Cisco's own firmware for their switches and routers has always actually been called IOS - I seem to remember some deal was made with Cisco over the name - likewise the iPhone name, which i believe was a Cisco (Linksys) registered name.