Apple is interested in the Enterprise only so far as the Enterprise adopts Apple's consumer-centric product lines. Long-term, this may be a great strategy. The transition, however, is painful. We run three rack-mount Apple servers, with XRAID's. First Apple killed off the RAIDS, then the rack mounts. Now you ca run the software off a MacPro, the same MacPro's current rumors have also being killed off soon. (And no, Mac Mini's are not a viable option for 300 users) Final Cut, the AVID killer and new industry standard is now also dead, (barring on-line sales with no guarantee of future supply) in favor of a stripped-down consumer-centric Final Cut that has professional editors up in arms. Now, every machine I buy comes with Lion, and I can't just downinstall to Snow Leopard, I have to do a workaround of creating a separate partition, installing Snow Leopard in target disk mode, etc. And Lion? Read Tim O'Reilly for its shortcomings and incompatibilities. I'm dealing right now with a user's home iMac hiccuping on a Lion upgrade and becoming completely unusable.
Killing off the floppy? Great idea from Apple, as was killing off the optical drive. We can even live without firewire - and for most users - non-solid-state hard drives. But to say Apple is becoming more enterprise friendly is like calling Larry Ellison enterprise friendly because he forces his customers into a turnkey solution that does everything the Oracle way. There may come a time when an entire corporation can run on iOS, iPhones, and iPads. That time is not now, and the curtailing of choices and forced transitions are beginning to pile up in a decidedly un-friendly way.
Very true, and I'd like to add that OSX and iOS needs to become more Smart-Card friendly to support things like gov's CAC cards which are a nightmare on the Mac and do not exist on iOS due to the lack of browser plugins and limited BT API support, but do exist on Android.
I think Apple has proved that the consumer-first approach is the right one now. The Enterprise is an unnecessary gatekeeper. You support the features they need for security and integration, sure, but the solution to selling to the enterprise is to make products so popular with consumers that companies have to relax their policies and allow employees to use whatever they're most comfortable with. And that is exactly what has been happening.
"Enterprise class" has a specific meaning. Redundant power supplies, hot-swappable RAID drives, ECC RAM, etc. Essentially, the machine needs to have a 99.999 % uptime (or something like that).
The xServe was close, but was discontinued. Bringing back the xServe would be a start, especially if it were tweaked to meet all the Enterprise requirements.
That said, there is a near-infinite range of computer requirements for Enterprises. Even a big company might find applications for the Mini or iMac or MacBook Pro or any of Apple's other products. Additional effort in selling to Enterprises might increase sales of those existing products. But none of the current products are truly Enterprise Class - and that needs to be addressed only if Apple is really interested in that end of the market.
Exactly... it's not a matter of whether Apple is able, it's whether they are willing. It's definitely an area that would grow the Mac market, I guess it's just a matter of whether or not Apple wants to spend resources in that area. I can't see why they wouldn't want to expand the enterprise market more because imo it would definitely increase Apple's mobile space as well.
"Enterprise class" has a specific meaning. Redundant power supplies, hot-swappable RAID drives, ECC RAM, etc. Essentially, the machine needs to have a 99.999 % uptime (or something like that).
Enterprise class is nothing more than a marketing phrase and means nothing. What you describe above is the server / back office world which is only a small portion of corporate IT. There is no reason for Apple to even play in that world when IBM or Oracle can do the job.
Quote:
The xServe was close, but was discontinued. Bringing back the xServe would be a start, especially if it were tweaked to meet all the Enterprise requirements.
You can't possible tweak one machine to meet all requirements. Beyond that there are other companies that do a far better job of offering up server hardware. It would be a waste of time to pursue this market.
Quote:
That said, there is a near-infinite range of computer requirements for Enterprises. Even a big company might find applications for the Mini or iMac or MacBook Pro or any of Apple's other products.
The vast majority of computer placements in enterprises are now laptops. Where they aren't a Mini would make for a nice network node.
Quote:
Additional effort in selling to Enterprises might increase sales of those existing products. But none of the current products are truly Enterprise Class - and that needs to be addressed only if Apple is really interested in that end of the market.
This is complete crap! What makes one laptop any more enterprise than any other? You honestly sound like one of the brain washed IT types that frustrate users to no end. A computer is suitable for business use if it gets the job done in an economical manner.
Apple will have to fill the gap in the desktop line up if it wants more Macs in business. Many companies won't touch an all in one.
Yet amazingly, laptops which are all in ones, proliferate.
I don't think the issue is Apple. Also, for decades my Macs easily last twice as long as my PCs.
Quote:
The mini no longer has something as basic as an optical drive. Businesses that still use optical media aren't going to want a add a bunch of external drives just to get a basic necessity.
I'm rather surprised you are buying that many desktops. For years laptops have been trending for us - easily 80% or more of our purchasing are laptops.
The MacBook Air with the Thunderbolt display is an amazing combo. I just got it at work and it's been a smash hit. Best of all worlds and I can see it trending big time. As for optical media - floppies were once "essential". You don't see anyone pining for them now. Optical will go the same way. I don't miss it. It's trivial to use a drive on another machine with CD Sharing (Mac or Windws) or plug in an extrnal drive as needed. Used it once to install Office. But I could have just as easily bought it online and downloaded it (that would hve been my choice but I didn't buy it - oh well)
Quote:
If your client wants an a copy of data they can file away a thumb drive isn't an elegant substitute.
Why not? It's far more stable than burned optical. Typical recordable optical media is hardly archive ready. I shudder to think what will be lost by those who assume their burned CD or DVD safely has their data.
Except for magneto-optical WORM - probably the best long term storage out their aside from an active archive/storage solution like those from companies like Copan that actively validate and rescue data from failing storage.
Had an ugly incident with a post it note ripping off the dye layer of a common CD-R, rendearing it a coaster...
Nope, I won't miss rotating dye-based optical. Not at all...
Apple will have to fill the gap in the desktop line up if it wants more Macs in business. Many companies won't touch an all in one. The mini no longer has something as basic as an optical drive. Businesses that still use optical media aren't going to want a add a bunch of external drives just to get a basic necessity.
If your client wants an a copy of data they can file away a thumb drive isn't an elegant substitute.
I agree that they need a more mainstream desktop but I don't think the optical drive is the issue. Software should be installed over the network, back-ups and archives should be done over the network, etc. Every month that passes, optical drives become less relevant.
I think the mini would satisfy quite a few users, but there is a nontrivial chunk for whom the mini is too weak, the Mac Pro is way overkill, and the all-in-one nature of the iMac is unsatisfying to IT. Dare I say it -- they need to make an xMac.
Exactly... it's not a matter of whether Apple is able, it's whether they are willing. It's definitely an area that would grow the Mac market, I guess it's just a matter of whether or not Apple wants to spend resources in that area. I can't see why they wouldn't want to expand the enterprise market more because imo it would definitely increase Apple's mobile space as well.
I think the reason that enterprise is all Windows is to facilitate interoperability. It is not that Macs are not quality machines, it is that they don't communicate with existing infrastructure. If you have a mixed platform environment you have double the IT support costs because the Windows guys don't know Macs and visa-versa.
IBM did some smart advertising and sales back in the 80s and introduced business to DOS which quickly became ubiquitous and opened the door for Windows. It is just easier to have everyone on the same page.
To mix in Macs and Linux with the Windows network would be like hiring people who only speak a foreign language. It makes communication difficult.
Apple is interested in the Enterprise only so far as the Enterprise adopts Apple's consumer-centric product lines.
Look at Apples laptop line up and explain to me what is wrong with hem in a corporate environment! Really this is so ignorant as to be unbelievable in a forum populated with intelligent readers.
Quote:
Long-term, this may be a great strategy. The transition, however, is painful. We run three rack-mount Apple servers, with XRAID's. First Apple killed off the RAIDS, then the rack mounts. Now you ca run the software off a MacPro, the same MacPro's current rumors have also being killed off soon. (And no, Mac Mini's are not a viable option for 300 users)
Apples desktop line up is messed up for the consumer as it is for the enterprise. However I can't see any reasonable reason why one would go with an Apple server when there are so many other choices available.
Quote:
Final Cut, the AVID killer and new industry standard is now also dead, (barring on-line sales with no guarantee of future supply) in favor of a stripped-down consumer-centric Final Cut that has professional editors up in arms.
Will we ever hear the end of this whine from the entitlement community? Final Cut is only consumer centric because you don't like some of the design decisions made with the recent release. Frankly I don't see a lot of consumers running out to buy Final Cut, probably because it is more of a Pro app than they need.
Quote:
Now, every machine I buy comes with Lion, and I can't just downinstall to Snow Leopard, I have to do a workaround of creating a separate partition, installing Snow Leopard in target disk mode, etc. And Lion? Read Tim O'Reilly for its shortcomings and incompatibilities. I'm dealing right now with a user's home iMac hiccuping on a Lion upgrade and becoming completely unusable.
Lion is a great product. It has it's short comings just like Leopard and Snow Leopard before it.
Quote:
Killing off the floppy? Great idea from Apple, as was killing off the optical drive. We can even live without firewire - and for most users - non-solid-state hard drives. But to say Apple is becoming more enterprise friendly is like calling Larry Ellison enterprise friendly because he forces his customers into a turnkey solution that does everything the Oracle way. There may come a time when an entire corporation can run on iOS, iPhones, and iPads. That time is not now, and the curtailing of choices and forced transitions are beginning to pile up in a decidedly un-friendly way.
Give me a break. What sort of non trivial company runs everything on one platform? Frankly trivial operations can now run on the iPhone or iPad. If you have a DBA it might even make sense to run your business from an iPhone. On the flip side the large corporation I work for has always had a heterogeneous hardware mix in the IT rooms even during periods of excessive control over the desktop.
There seems to be a mind set that says Apple isn't suitable for business because they don't sell item xyz. Sadly that is like saying Haas isn't suitable for business because they don't sell sewing machines. If anything Apples focused line up makes for easier business decisions as they either have or don't have what you are looking for.
It's fine if Apple becomes a little more enterprise-friendly. But I hope Apple doesn't budge on a few fundamental points.
First of all, Apple has never supported legacy technology and they should continue to do so. Enterprise, on the other hand, loves legacy technology. Apple should not compromise on their refusal to support legacy technology.
Also, enterprise doesn't like secrecy. But secrecy has helped Apple be so successful. Forget about creating hype. Secrecy protects competitive advantages that Apple has.
"Enterprise class" has a specific meaning. Redundant power supplies, hot-swappable RAID drives, ECC RAM, etc. Essentially, the machine needs to have a 99.999 % uptime (or something like that).
well, 5-9s really sounds like a myth. i heard ppl talking about it like reciting bible. while while back people worked/lived on connection-oriented network where network has to be up all the time. now in connectionless-oriented network, do we really need 5-9s? a phone operator used to tell me that he can not imagine a million of customers calling in for a broken phone call if his network glitches more than 50ms. in newer generation of network setup, one glitch here might be recovered by relaying the request to adjacent node or network, so strict 5-9s might not be necessary for newer generation of network setup. this does not mean that carrier/enterprise will use crappy hardware. another factor will be cost of making 5-9s carrier/enterprise equipment. carrier/enterprise equipments are low volume, so if equipment can be designed to spread service into various parts, then replacing a single point of failure might be lesser than the cost to have a 5-9s equipment designed.
my understanding is that 5-9s framework is shifting from carrier/enterprise to consumer product. for carrier/enterprise class products, the component quality can be lesser than those on consumer device. take an example on apple or samsung products. if a wi-fi chipset on iphone has higher failure rate, mean time to failure rate, it would translate to million of returned or RMA-ed devices, thus rendering hugh loss for apple. so the margin of errors on design of a consumer device and its components are much much lower because of higher sale volume. just think about smartphone design, it is kinda amazing to see the designer(s) can put so many discrete parts, of some are impacting each other, into that tiny-pity PCB.
I think Apple has proved that the consumer-first approach is the right one now. The Enterprise is an unnecessary gatekeeper. You support the features they need for security and integration, sure, but the solution to selling to the enterprise is to make products so popular with consumers that companies have to relax their policies and allow employees to use whatever they're most comfortable with. And that is exactly what has been happening.
those enterprise policies are man made, not the physical law. think about it, over the past decade, enterprise has been dominated by MS and its cloned devices. with hardware precision advancing so much, why are ppl moving away from MS platform to apple devices which are not qualified for IT support? i do want to give enterprise IT professionals credits for creating such tightly integrated network/service to their users. but did they notice ppl's exodus to apple products? i can not say for sure that the exodus is because of bad IT services. maybe the newer generation IT service in enterprises is changing in a way that end device is not relent. the dependency between service and its end users' device is becoming lesser and lesser important if more services are moving to web base.
Apple has been focussed on the Enterprise for years now. Just because they don't advertise it doesn't mean they have not been hard at work. Their enterprise reps would reach out from time to time to find out how things were going and looking for areas they could improve. I work for an enterprise that has over 60,000 employees worldwide and we get a choice between Mac Book Pros and Lenovo. Any meeting you go to now has at least half of the people there with Macs. At some point in the very near future I suspect IT will flip the community support model from the Mac to the PC and just support the Macs. Engineering was stuck on PCs the longest because of tools, but so many tools are now available there is no reason to stay on the Windows. If someone needs to run Windows exclusively, I still tell them to get the Mac Book Pro and just load Windows with boot camp and ditch Mac OS X. The Apple hardware is certainly nicer than the Lenovos.
I would say the fact that they discontinued their server line at the beginning of this year shows that they are trying to move away from enterprise. Yes, Mac Pro makes for a fine server, we have many of them here at work, but the fact that they got rid of rack-mountable XServe is HIGHLY inconvenient.
Granted though, I do like four drive bays in the Pro vs the three in an XServe....but that's besides the point.
I think the reason that enterprise is all Windows is to facilitate interoperability. It is not that Macs are not quality machines, it is that they don't communicate with existing infrastructure. If you have a mixed platform environment you have double the IT support costs because the Windows guys don't know Macs and visa-versa.
IBM did some smart advertising and sales back in the 80s and introduced business to DOS which quickly became ubiquitous and opened the door for Windows. It is just easier to have everyone on the same page.
To mix in Macs and Linux with the Windows network would be like hiring people who only speak a foreign language. It makes communication difficult.
So are you saying that it's impossible for Apple to make Macs more friendly in this Windows environment?
I think Apple could remove a good deal of that barrier if it wished.
I would say the fact that they discontinued their server line at the beginning of this year shows that they are trying to move away from enterprise. Yes, Mac Pro makes for a fine server, we have many of them here at work, but the fact that they got rid of rack-mountable XServe is HIGHLY inconvenient.
Granted though, I do like four drive bays in the Pro vs the three in an XServe....but that's besides the point.
But that was Jobs. If Cook really is friendlier toward Enterprise customers, it could be changed.
I think Apple has proved that the consumer-first approach is the right one now. The Enterprise is an unnecessary gatekeeper. You support the features they need for security and integration, sure, but the solution to selling to the enterprise is to make products so popular with consumers that companies have to relax their policies and allow employees to use whatever they're most comfortable with. And that is exactly what has been happening.
yep. You know how the enterprise + MS gatekeep works for a developer? Well first after you get access to the local MSDN server you download the helper app, which you use to download the install image for the particular flavor of Visual Studio you are authorized to install (but it took 2 hours, several emails, phone calls and walking around to figure that part out). Then when you run the installer (of your local network provided software) it requires you to burn a DVD!!!!
And then you get to request permission to install the software via DVD. The software which all fit in RAM because you are running on a big bad developer box with more RAM than needed to simulate the Armageddon, with enough RAM to mount several DVD images in RAM (and even have image mounting software on the box already) but the IT guys ad MS refuse you let you install without burning to DVD first.
It took hours -- decrypting, burning, verifying, reading bit by bit off the optical media and then installing -- what should have taken just a couple minutes installing to the SSHD from a DVD image in RAM.
Yes, this is what it takes in the modern world to be considered enterprise supportive. When your crazy tech provider CEO says "Are you nucking futz?", "you want me to screw everyone over like that?", "in the name of being enterprise friendly?"!!! The only reasonable response to that is that the majority of the enterprise IT support folks aren't making the enterprise more efficient and adding business value to the organization. They are only there to ensure job security and are so risk adverse that accepting completely whacky behavior like the above becomes the norm.
Look, people in my position, spending that amount of time, waste almost 50% of the cost of that dev god-box in lost productivity installing the basic MS office and developer suites. If someone wants to counter that a network install would be better, they haven't tried many of those either. I have a 1Gb drop to the desk and 10GB to the building so throughput should be good, but I have to mash buttons on the screen -- while the IT rep is on the phone with me, because the remote control software is now considered a security risk for various reasonable reasons.
Please just give me a corporate key for the Mac App store and let me live with the lack of "industry" pandering support.
But that was Jobs. If Cook really is friendlier toward Enterprise customers, it could be changed.
Apple can be enterprise friendly without providing the servers. NOBODY is going to beat Linux at that game, not even MS. Not with Google, IBM, Oracle and a plethora of other major players all funding Linux server development by having paid staff as part of the Linux community. It just took Apple awhile to realize that.
I do not see any real evidence that Apple has made any major concessions to Enterprise.
It will modernize technology without heavy deference to Enterprise keeping stuff forever, major problem for Microsoft
It will not provide roadmaps to Enterprise, this is too much a competitive advantage - slows down copy cats, SAMSUNG, GOOGLE, Microsoft, DELL, etc.
It will focus on the end user satisfaction not the CIOs, who do not give a lot of concern for end users, their language and measures of success are very different
It will not compete with Enterprise providers unless there is a substantial competitive advantage
It will not troll the cost bottom line at Walmart or Enterprise
These will not change, nor should they. The money to be made is large but the profit is marginal and places Apple in a technology straight jacket.
Comments
Killing off the floppy? Great idea from Apple, as was killing off the optical drive. We can even live without firewire - and for most users - non-solid-state hard drives. But to say Apple is becoming more enterprise friendly is like calling Larry Ellison enterprise friendly because he forces his customers into a turnkey solution that does everything the Oracle way. There may come a time when an entire corporation can run on iOS, iPhones, and iPads. That time is not now, and the curtailing of choices and forced transitions are beginning to pile up in a decidedly un-friendly way.
Very true, and I'd like to add that OSX and iOS needs to become more Smart-Card friendly to support things like gov's CAC cards which are a nightmare on the Mac and do not exist on iOS due to the lack of browser plugins and limited BT API support, but do exist on Android.
Not true... working on it.
"Enterprise class" has a specific meaning. Redundant power supplies, hot-swappable RAID drives, ECC RAM, etc. Essentially, the machine needs to have a 99.999 % uptime (or something like that).
The xServe was close, but was discontinued. Bringing back the xServe would be a start, especially if it were tweaked to meet all the Enterprise requirements.
That said, there is a near-infinite range of computer requirements for Enterprises. Even a big company might find applications for the Mini or iMac or MacBook Pro or any of Apple's other products. Additional effort in selling to Enterprises might increase sales of those existing products. But none of the current products are truly Enterprise Class - and that needs to be addressed only if Apple is really interested in that end of the market.
Exactly... it's not a matter of whether Apple is able, it's whether they are willing. It's definitely an area that would grow the Mac market, I guess it's just a matter of whether or not Apple wants to spend resources in that area. I can't see why they wouldn't want to expand the enterprise market more because imo it would definitely increase Apple's mobile space as well.
"Enterprise class" has a specific meaning. Redundant power supplies, hot-swappable RAID drives, ECC RAM, etc. Essentially, the machine needs to have a 99.999 % uptime (or something like that).
Enterprise class is nothing more than a marketing phrase and means nothing. What you describe above is the server / back office world which is only a small portion of corporate IT. There is no reason for Apple to even play in that world when IBM or Oracle can do the job.
The xServe was close, but was discontinued. Bringing back the xServe would be a start, especially if it were tweaked to meet all the Enterprise requirements.
You can't possible tweak one machine to meet all requirements. Beyond that there are other companies that do a far better job of offering up server hardware. It would be a waste of time to pursue this market.
That said, there is a near-infinite range of computer requirements for Enterprises. Even a big company might find applications for the Mini or iMac or MacBook Pro or any of Apple's other products.
The vast majority of computer placements in enterprises are now laptops. Where they aren't a Mini would make for a nice network node.
Additional effort in selling to Enterprises might increase sales of those existing products. But none of the current products are truly Enterprise Class - and that needs to be addressed only if Apple is really interested in that end of the market.
This is complete crap! What makes one laptop any more enterprise than any other? You honestly sound like one of the brain washed IT types that frustrate users to no end. A computer is suitable for business use if it gets the job done in an economical manner.
Apple will have to fill the gap in the desktop line up if it wants more Macs in business. Many companies won't touch an all in one.
Yet amazingly, laptops which are all in ones, proliferate.
I don't think the issue is Apple. Also, for decades my Macs easily last twice as long as my PCs.
The mini no longer has something as basic as an optical drive. Businesses that still use optical media aren't going to want a add a bunch of external drives just to get a basic necessity.
I'm rather surprised you are buying that many desktops. For years laptops have been trending for us - easily 80% or more of our purchasing are laptops.
The MacBook Air with the Thunderbolt display is an amazing combo. I just got it at work and it's been a smash hit. Best of all worlds and I can see it trending big time. As for optical media - floppies were once "essential". You don't see anyone pining for them now. Optical will go the same way. I don't miss it. It's trivial to use a drive on another machine with CD Sharing (Mac or Windws) or plug in an extrnal drive as needed. Used it once to install Office. But I could have just as easily bought it online and downloaded it (that would hve been my choice but I didn't buy it - oh well)
If your client wants an a copy of data they can file away a thumb drive isn't an elegant substitute.
Why not? It's far more stable than burned optical. Typical recordable optical media is hardly archive ready. I shudder to think what will be lost by those who assume their burned CD or DVD safely has their data.
Except for magneto-optical WORM - probably the best long term storage out their aside from an active archive/storage solution like those from companies like Copan that actively validate and rescue data from failing storage.
Had an ugly incident with a post it note ripping off the dye layer of a common CD-R, rendearing it a coaster...
Nope, I won't miss rotating dye-based optical. Not at all...
Apple will have to fill the gap in the desktop line up if it wants more Macs in business. Many companies won't touch an all in one. The mini no longer has something as basic as an optical drive. Businesses that still use optical media aren't going to want a add a bunch of external drives just to get a basic necessity.
If your client wants an a copy of data they can file away a thumb drive isn't an elegant substitute.
I agree that they need a more mainstream desktop but I don't think the optical drive is the issue. Software should be installed over the network, back-ups and archives should be done over the network, etc. Every month that passes, optical drives become less relevant.
I think the mini would satisfy quite a few users, but there is a nontrivial chunk for whom the mini is too weak, the Mac Pro is way overkill, and the all-in-one nature of the iMac is unsatisfying to IT. Dare I say it -- they need to make an xMac.
Exactly... it's not a matter of whether Apple is able, it's whether they are willing. It's definitely an area that would grow the Mac market, I guess it's just a matter of whether or not Apple wants to spend resources in that area. I can't see why they wouldn't want to expand the enterprise market more because imo it would definitely increase Apple's mobile space as well.
I think the reason that enterprise is all Windows is to facilitate interoperability. It is not that Macs are not quality machines, it is that they don't communicate with existing infrastructure. If you have a mixed platform environment you have double the IT support costs because the Windows guys don't know Macs and visa-versa.
IBM did some smart advertising and sales back in the 80s and introduced business to DOS which quickly became ubiquitous and opened the door for Windows. It is just easier to have everyone on the same page.
To mix in Macs and Linux with the Windows network would be like hiring people who only speak a foreign language. It makes communication difficult.
Apple is interested in the Enterprise only so far as the Enterprise adopts Apple's consumer-centric product lines.
Look at Apples laptop line up and explain to me what is wrong with hem in a corporate environment! Really this is so ignorant as to be unbelievable in a forum populated with intelligent readers.
Long-term, this may be a great strategy. The transition, however, is painful. We run three rack-mount Apple servers, with XRAID's. First Apple killed off the RAIDS, then the rack mounts. Now you ca run the software off a MacPro, the same MacPro's current rumors have also being killed off soon. (And no, Mac Mini's are not a viable option for 300 users)
Apples desktop line up is messed up for the consumer as it is for the enterprise. However I can't see any reasonable reason why one would go with an Apple server when there are so many other choices available.
Final Cut, the AVID killer and new industry standard is now also dead, (barring on-line sales with no guarantee of future supply) in favor of a stripped-down consumer-centric Final Cut that has professional editors up in arms.
Will we ever hear the end of this whine from the entitlement community? Final Cut is only consumer centric because you don't like some of the design decisions made with the recent release. Frankly I don't see a lot of consumers running out to buy Final Cut, probably because it is more of a Pro app than they need.
Now, every machine I buy comes with Lion, and I can't just downinstall to Snow Leopard, I have to do a workaround of creating a separate partition, installing Snow Leopard in target disk mode, etc. And Lion? Read Tim O'Reilly for its shortcomings and incompatibilities. I'm dealing right now with a user's home iMac hiccuping on a Lion upgrade and becoming completely unusable.
Lion is a great product. It has it's short comings just like Leopard and Snow Leopard before it.
Killing off the floppy? Great idea from Apple, as was killing off the optical drive. We can even live without firewire - and for most users - non-solid-state hard drives. But to say Apple is becoming more enterprise friendly is like calling Larry Ellison enterprise friendly because he forces his customers into a turnkey solution that does everything the Oracle way. There may come a time when an entire corporation can run on iOS, iPhones, and iPads. That time is not now, and the curtailing of choices and forced transitions are beginning to pile up in a decidedly un-friendly way.
Give me a break. What sort of non trivial company runs everything on one platform? Frankly trivial operations can now run on the iPhone or iPad. If you have a DBA it might even make sense to run your business from an iPhone. On the flip side the large corporation I work for has always had a heterogeneous hardware mix in the IT rooms even during periods of excessive control over the desktop.
There seems to be a mind set that says Apple isn't suitable for business because they don't sell item xyz. Sadly that is like saying Haas isn't suitable for business because they don't sell sewing machines. If anything Apples focused line up makes for easier business decisions as they either have or don't have what you are looking for.
First of all, Apple has never supported legacy technology and they should continue to do so. Enterprise, on the other hand, loves legacy technology. Apple should not compromise on their refusal to support legacy technology.
Also, enterprise doesn't like secrecy. But secrecy has helped Apple be so successful. Forget about creating hype. Secrecy protects competitive advantages that Apple has.
"Enterprise class" has a specific meaning. Redundant power supplies, hot-swappable RAID drives, ECC RAM, etc. Essentially, the machine needs to have a 99.999 % uptime (or something like that).
well, 5-9s really sounds like a myth. i heard ppl talking about it like reciting bible. while while back people worked/lived on connection-oriented network where network has to be up all the time. now in connectionless-oriented network, do we really need 5-9s? a phone operator used to tell me that he can not imagine a million of customers calling in for a broken phone call if his network glitches more than 50ms. in newer generation of network setup, one glitch here might be recovered by relaying the request to adjacent node or network, so strict 5-9s might not be necessary for newer generation of network setup. this does not mean that carrier/enterprise will use crappy hardware. another factor will be cost of making 5-9s carrier/enterprise equipment. carrier/enterprise equipments are low volume, so if equipment can be designed to spread service into various parts, then replacing a single point of failure might be lesser than the cost to have a 5-9s equipment designed.
my understanding is that 5-9s framework is shifting from carrier/enterprise to consumer product. for carrier/enterprise class products, the component quality can be lesser than those on consumer device. take an example on apple or samsung products. if a wi-fi chipset on iphone has higher failure rate, mean time to failure rate, it would translate to million of returned or RMA-ed devices, thus rendering hugh loss for apple. so the margin of errors on design of a consumer device and its components are much much lower because of higher sale volume. just think about smartphone design, it is kinda amazing to see the designer(s) can put so many discrete parts, of some are impacting each other, into that tiny-pity PCB.
I think Apple has proved that the consumer-first approach is the right one now. The Enterprise is an unnecessary gatekeeper. You support the features they need for security and integration, sure, but the solution to selling to the enterprise is to make products so popular with consumers that companies have to relax their policies and allow employees to use whatever they're most comfortable with. And that is exactly what has been happening.
those enterprise policies are man made, not the physical law. think about it, over the past decade, enterprise has been dominated by MS and its cloned devices. with hardware precision advancing so much, why are ppl moving away from MS platform to apple devices which are not qualified for IT support? i do want to give enterprise IT professionals credits for creating such tightly integrated network/service to their users. but did they notice ppl's exodus to apple products? i can not say for sure that the exodus is because of bad IT services. maybe the newer generation IT service in enterprises is changing in a way that end device is not relent. the dependency between service and its end users' device is becoming lesser and lesser important if more services are moving to web base.
Apple has been focussed on the Enterprise for years now. Just because they don't advertise it doesn't mean they have not been hard at work. Their enterprise reps would reach out from time to time to find out how things were going and looking for areas they could improve. I work for an enterprise that has over 60,000 employees worldwide and we get a choice between Mac Book Pros and Lenovo. Any meeting you go to now has at least half of the people there with Macs. At some point in the very near future I suspect IT will flip the community support model from the Mac to the PC and just support the Macs. Engineering was stuck on PCs the longest because of tools, but so many tools are now available there is no reason to stay on the Windows. If someone needs to run Windows exclusively, I still tell them to get the Mac Book Pro and just load Windows with boot camp and ditch Mac OS X. The Apple hardware is certainly nicer than the Lenovos.
I would say the fact that they discontinued their server line at the beginning of this year shows that they are trying to move away from enterprise. Yes, Mac Pro makes for a fine server, we have many of them here at work, but the fact that they got rid of rack-mountable XServe is HIGHLY inconvenient.
Granted though, I do like four drive bays in the Pro vs the three in an XServe....but that's besides the point.
I think the reason that enterprise is all Windows is to facilitate interoperability. It is not that Macs are not quality machines, it is that they don't communicate with existing infrastructure. If you have a mixed platform environment you have double the IT support costs because the Windows guys don't know Macs and visa-versa.
IBM did some smart advertising and sales back in the 80s and introduced business to DOS which quickly became ubiquitous and opened the door for Windows. It is just easier to have everyone on the same page.
To mix in Macs and Linux with the Windows network would be like hiring people who only speak a foreign language. It makes communication difficult.
So are you saying that it's impossible for Apple to make Macs more friendly in this Windows environment?
I think Apple could remove a good deal of that barrier if it wished.
I would say the fact that they discontinued their server line at the beginning of this year shows that they are trying to move away from enterprise. Yes, Mac Pro makes for a fine server, we have many of them here at work, but the fact that they got rid of rack-mountable XServe is HIGHLY inconvenient.
Granted though, I do like four drive bays in the Pro vs the three in an XServe....but that's besides the point.
But that was Jobs. If Cook really is friendlier toward Enterprise customers, it could be changed.
I think Apple has proved that the consumer-first approach is the right one now. The Enterprise is an unnecessary gatekeeper. You support the features they need for security and integration, sure, but the solution to selling to the enterprise is to make products so popular with consumers that companies have to relax their policies and allow employees to use whatever they're most comfortable with. And that is exactly what has been happening.
yep. You know how the enterprise + MS gatekeep works for a developer? Well first after you get access to the local MSDN server you download the helper app, which you use to download the install image for the particular flavor of Visual Studio you are authorized to install (but it took 2 hours, several emails, phone calls and walking around to figure that part out). Then when you run the installer (of your local network provided software) it requires you to burn a DVD!!!!
And then you get to request permission to install the software via DVD. The software which all fit in RAM because you are running on a big bad developer box with more RAM than needed to simulate the Armageddon, with enough RAM to mount several DVD images in RAM (and even have image mounting software on the box already) but the IT guys ad MS refuse you let you install without burning to DVD first.
It took hours -- decrypting, burning, verifying, reading bit by bit off the optical media and then installing -- what should have taken just a couple minutes installing to the SSHD from a DVD image in RAM.
Yes, this is what it takes in the modern world to be considered enterprise supportive. When your crazy tech provider CEO says "Are you nucking futz?", "you want me to screw everyone over like that?", "in the name of being enterprise friendly?"!!! The only reasonable response to that is that the majority of the enterprise IT support folks aren't making the enterprise more efficient and adding business value to the organization. They are only there to ensure job security and are so risk adverse that accepting completely whacky behavior like the above becomes the norm.
Look, people in my position, spending that amount of time, waste almost 50% of the cost of that dev god-box in lost productivity installing the basic MS office and developer suites. If someone wants to counter that a network install would be better, they haven't tried many of those either. I have a 1Gb drop to the desk and 10GB to the building so throughput should be good, but I have to mash buttons on the screen -- while the IT rep is on the phone with me, because the remote control software is now considered a security risk for various reasonable reasons.
Please just give me a corporate key for the Mac App store and let me live with the lack of "industry" pandering support.
But that was Jobs. If Cook really is friendlier toward Enterprise customers, it could be changed.
Apple can be enterprise friendly without providing the servers. NOBODY is going to beat Linux at that game, not even MS. Not with Google, IBM, Oracle and a plethora of other major players all funding Linux server development by having paid staff as part of the Linux community. It just took Apple awhile to realize that.
It will modernize technology without heavy deference to Enterprise keeping stuff forever, major problem for Microsoft
It will not provide roadmaps to Enterprise, this is too much a competitive advantage - slows down copy cats, SAMSUNG, GOOGLE, Microsoft, DELL, etc.
It will focus on the end user satisfaction not the CIOs, who do not give a lot of concern for end users, their language and measures of success are very different
It will not compete with Enterprise providers unless there is a substantial competitive advantage
It will not troll the cost bottom line at Walmart or Enterprise
These will not change, nor should they. The money to be made is large but the profit is marginal and places Apple in a technology straight jacket.