All that growth for Apple in enterprise will be iPads and iPhones.
Sales departments can convincingly demonstrate the usefulness of iPads for slick presentations while on sales visits. They are also very effective as promotional give aways for large purchases or prize drawings at seminars (sales pitches).
Corporate IT and department managers still have no interest in Macs, and rightly so. Macs do not integrate that well into Windows environments and the IT staff generally has zero training or experience with them. They tolerate them in the marketing and advertising departments where the users are more independent from the mainstream customer service, accounting and sales divisions.
In some instances when a particular user is very computer savvy and wants to bring their own Mac to work, IT will allow it, but for the most part, corporate computers will remain on Windows.
If you are a Mac person and are forced to work exclusively on Windows, maybe you need a different job.
Especially with browser based applications, which a lot of companies use for various reasons. The thing is most users, Mac or otherwise are point and clickers and really don't go past 'point and click' of what they do. So if they need to make changes to the browser settings, few companies have any real knowledge of how to accomplish that in the Mac OS environment.
Many places will not even try to walk a client through that, because the support centers don't have Macs and are not able to determine browser settings.
Having worked in support, I can tell you that a picture is worth a thousand words and about an hour on the phone, but walking someone through getting a screen shot on either a Mac or Windows has benefits and consequences on both, but they are vastly different.
If you look at the chart in the 5 years 2008 to 2013 Windows based device sales have stagnated at around $68 billion.
Apple products, on the other hand have grown from just $2 billion a year in 2008 to a projected $28 billion in 2013 i.e. from less than 3% of Windows in 2008 to over 41% in 2013.
I would hardly describe that performance as "nipping" at Windows heels!
Incidentally Outllook has been available on Macs for years - its part of the Mac Office Suite.
Check with CRM because they may have a Mac version of what you need. I know that they are making a big effort converting their stuff for iPads.
Say goodbye to the tedium and loss of productivity of Windows and join the modern era with Apple!
That's what Forrester now say having reversed their advice not to use Macs!
There's a difference between hardware sales and software sales. While I like iWork, the truth is that it's not a heavy duty suite. There are things for which Office is needed. Mac users agree, and Office sell very well to Mac users. So it's true, there are things that MS, primarily a software company, does pretty well, despite the jokes about some of its products.
Apple needs to upgrade Numbers pronto! I'm wondering if they even care anymore.
Hopefully Apple will get serious about the enterprisexand re-release the Xserve while continuing to update the Mac Pro.
Microsoft tied up the enterprise market decades ago. Apple took the Mac where Microsoft Windows was weakest: the consumer market. Now look where Microsoft is going with Windows 8.
Hopefully Apple will get serious about the enterprisexand re-release the Xserve while continuing to update the Mac Pro.
I sure do hope they will update the Mac Pro, as I am waiting for an Express Bus 3 model with Ivy Bridge and a new graphics card, along with Thunderbolt, SATA 3, hopefully USB 3, and continued FireWire 800 (or better, though I doubt that will happen).
As for the XServe, may it rest in peace. Apple was never truly serious about those. They made them for Apple shops. Corporate was asking, for years, that Apple have an upgrade path to a 2 height or greater model, and blades, but Apple never wanted to go that route. Because of that, sales began to diminish, after a few years of strong growth. At one point it looked as though Apple could claim a good 5% of server sales, which would have been several billion a year. It's too bad they declined to go that route.
It's always possible that Cook, who is less antagonistic to large corporations, may look at it again, but with the integration of Macs into the Microsoft environment going as well as it has been with software updates to the OS from Apple, they may feel that it's all they really need, as Server handholding with companies is much greater with servers.
In addition, of course, with the very large sell through of iPads to corporate, with SAP, who recently bought over 12,500 for themselves, as well as 12,500 iPhones, saying that half of all iPad sales are to business, Apple may feel that they moving in anyway, and it's pulling OS X machines in as well. In that case, along with strong corporate iPhone sales, why bother having an additional line of products that may never be worthwhile?
Outlook good!??!!!? Microsoft Outlook is one of the worst applications ever. It is a bloated, slow pig. The mail interface is a complete disaster. Search is completely broken. And their CRM product is a complete joke? Have you every used these products? Salesforce is light years ahead of the Great Plains, i mean Microsoft CRM.
I agree with this 100 percent. If it were possible to agree with you 1000000 percent, I would. Outlook is a horrendous application. It's everything wrong with Microsoft rolled into a single application.
Apple products don't integrate easily, because of the monolithic nature of the windows franchise in most enterprise settings.
While I am staunchly pro-apple, pro-Linux, and my tech-savvy business partner is at least pro-Linux, we still can't avoid having one windows server in the office, or an IE-dependent "web application" for accounting.
Streamlining points the other direction. The reason to go Apple (in a heterogeneous setting) is to maintain flexibility.
The many stories out of the corporate world via the commercial computing/business publications such as Computerworld, E Week, Infoworld, Information Week, and others, shows that integrating client Macs into a Windows environment isn't too difficult anymore. Yes, there can be some hassles, here and there, but it's very different from where it was before 10.4. With each OS upgrade, it's been getting easier.
All that growth for Apple in enterprise will be iPads and iPhones.
Sales departments can convincingly demonstrate the usefulness of iPads for slick presentations while on sales visits. They are also very effective as promotional give aways for large purchases or prize drawings at seminars (sales pitches).
Corporate IT and department managers still have no interest in Macs, and rightly so. Macs do not integrate that well into Windows environments and the IT staff generally has zero training or experience with them. They tolerate them in the marketing and advertising departments where the users are more independent from the mainstream customer service, accounting and sales divisions.
In some instances when a particular user is very computer savvy and wants to bring their own Mac to work, IT will allow it, but for the most part, corporate computers will remain on Windows.
If you are a Mac person and are forced to work exclusively on Windows, maybe you need a different job.
That's not really true anymore, and I'm getting tired of hearing it. Is it perfect? Well, no, but then, it can be a problem getting Windows clients working properly in a Windows environment. There have been big steps over the past few years.
And a lot of this is not because of BYOD. Corporations are finding this worthwhile.
I've seen many surveys over the years suggesting the uptick for Apple within the enterprise environment. As before, nothing happened. Apple remains below the double digit mark. Remember folks that this is just a survey. It doesn't have any factual basis for these companies to actually buy Apple products. As proven for the last 10 years, market share remains well below 10 worldwide.
I've seen many surveys over the years suggesting the uptick for Apple within the enterprise environment. As before, nothing happened. Apple remains below the double digit mark. Remember folks that this is just a survey. It doesn't have any factual basis for these companies to actually buy Apple products. As proven for the last 10 years, market share remains well below 10 worldwide.
lol! Yourself, but the numbers don't lie. The Mac HAS been taken up in business in a much bigger way as time has gone one.
Years? You mean since last year? Microsoft also dragged their heels for 6 months after launch and Outlook couldn't sync with any devices (except via exchange). They finally fixed that last spring. Office 2011 was the first with Outlook though. To say otherwise as you did suggests you don't really know what you're talking about.
Outlook -> Entourage -> Outlook
Apart from the name change, Office for mac has always had a Microsoft email client with near identicle functionality. 2011 was not the first.
What was it you were saying about not knowing what you're talking about?
I've seen many surveys over the years suggesting the uptick for Apple within the enterprise environment. As before, nothing happened. Apple remains below the double digit mark. Remember folks that this is just a survey. It doesn't have any factual basis for these companies to actually buy Apple products. As proven for the last 10 years, market share remains well below 10 worldwide.
A single PC vendor to have the kind of market share Apple does is still very impressive.
A single PC vendor to have the kind of market share Apple does is still very impressive.
It's amazing when people suggest that Apple, a HW vendor, can't be successful unless they have the marketshare of someone like MS. Even if they had 49% OS marketshare Slappy would still call them a loser yet they would have more than Dell and HP combined and be taking about 98% of the profits if everything else held the same. Obviously to any rational person that an impossibility.
Apart from the name change, Office for mac has always had a Microsoft email client with near identicle functionality. 2011 was not the first.
What was it you were saying about not knowing what you're talking about?
Sorry, you said Outlook has been in Office for Mac for years. It hasn't. Entourage was, but it was FAR different and inferior to Outlook. I can't believe my eyes, to see someone suggesting it had "near identical" functionality to Outlook. It was commonly seen (along with Excel) as a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep users from switching, it was so crappy.
You can't just say something specific and totally wrong, get called on it, and then switch it around to say the other person is at fault.
It's amazing when people suggest that Apple, a HW vendor, can't be successful unless they have the marketshare of someone like MS. Even if they had 49% OS marketshare Slappy would still call them a loser yet they would have more than Dell and HP combined and be taking about 98% of the profits if everything else held the same. Obviously to any rational person that an impossibility.
Pro tip with Sloppy (oh darn that auto correct ), roll eyes then walk away.
Sorry, you said Outlook has been in Office for Mac for years. It hasn't. Entourage was, but it was FAR different and inferior to Outlook. I can't believe my eyes, to see someone suggesting it had "near identical" functionality to Outlook. It was commonly seen (along with Excel) as a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep users from switching, it was so crappy.
You can't just say something specific and totally wrong, get called on it, and then switch it around to say the other person is at fault.
Outlook was in office 98. Entourage was introduced in 2001 and then back to outlook in 2011. I've checked the feature list, synchronisation was the only thing missing from entourage. It supported everything else - After that it's just stupid things like crappy forwarding of HTML emails and sending of vCards being a bit ham-handed. I'll give you the crappy excel in 2008. It really was terrible. But from what I've seen and used, 2004 and 2011 are on par with the windows counterparts.
Sorry, you said Outlook has been in Office for Mac for years. It hasn't. Entourage was, but it was FAR different and inferior to Outlook. I can't believe my eyes, to see someone suggesting it had "near identical" functionality to Outlook. It was commonly seen (along with Excel) as a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep users from switching, it was so crappy.
You can't just say something specific and totally wrong, get called on it, and then switch it around to say the other person is at fault.
Also, FYI. I was not the original poster who said it was in it for years.
Also, FYI. I was not the original poster who said it was in it for years.
I just noticed that. You defended that statement as if you were, and I didn't check the original, but your defense of it makes it your claim. And it's a ridiculous one.
You've checked the feature list? That's your expertise to claim that it was "near identical" to Outlook for PC? Nice.
Comments
Sales departments can convincingly demonstrate the usefulness of iPads for slick presentations while on sales visits. They are also very effective as promotional give aways for large purchases or prize drawings at seminars (sales pitches).
Corporate IT and department managers still have no interest in Macs, and rightly so. Macs do not integrate that well into Windows environments and the IT staff generally has zero training or experience with them. They tolerate them in the marketing and advertising departments where the users are more independent from the mainstream customer service, accounting and sales divisions.
In some instances when a particular user is very computer savvy and wants to bring their own Mac to work, IT will allow it, but for the most part, corporate computers will remain on Windows.
If you are a Mac person and are forced to work exclusively on Windows, maybe you need a different job.
Many places will not even try to walk a client through that, because the support centers don't have Macs and are not able to determine browser settings.
Having worked in support, I can tell you that a picture is worth a thousand words and about an hour on the phone, but walking someone through getting a screen shot on either a Mac or Windows has benefits and consequences on both, but they are vastly different.
Bouncerman
If you look at the chart in the 5 years 2008 to 2013 Windows based device sales have stagnated at around $68 billion.
Apple products, on the other hand have grown from just $2 billion a year in 2008 to a projected $28 billion in 2013 i.e. from less than 3% of Windows in 2008 to over 41% in 2013.
I would hardly describe that performance as "nipping" at Windows heels!
Incidentally Outllook has been available on Macs for years - its part of the Mac Office Suite.
Check with CRM because they may have a Mac version of what you need. I know that they are making a big effort converting their stuff for iPads.
Say goodbye to the tedium and loss of productivity of Windows and join the modern era with Apple!
That's what Forrester now say having reversed their advice not to use Macs!
There's a difference between hardware sales and software sales. While I like iWork, the truth is that it's not a heavy duty suite. There are things for which Office is needed. Mac users agree, and Office sell very well to Mac users. So it's true, there are things that MS, primarily a software company, does pretty well, despite the jokes about some of its products.
Apple needs to upgrade Numbers pronto! I'm wondering if they even care anymore.
Hopefully Apple will get serious about the enterprisexand re-release the Xserve while continuing to update the Mac Pro.
Microsoft tied up the enterprise market decades ago. Apple took the Mac where Microsoft Windows was weakest: the consumer market. Now look where Microsoft is going with Windows 8.
Hopefully Apple will get serious about the enterprisexand re-release the Xserve while continuing to update the Mac Pro.
I sure do hope they will update the Mac Pro, as I am waiting for an Express Bus 3 model with Ivy Bridge and a new graphics card, along with Thunderbolt, SATA 3, hopefully USB 3, and continued FireWire 800 (or better, though I doubt that will happen).
As for the XServe, may it rest in peace. Apple was never truly serious about those. They made them for Apple shops. Corporate was asking, for years, that Apple have an upgrade path to a 2 height or greater model, and blades, but Apple never wanted to go that route. Because of that, sales began to diminish, after a few years of strong growth. At one point it looked as though Apple could claim a good 5% of server sales, which would have been several billion a year. It's too bad they declined to go that route.
It's always possible that Cook, who is less antagonistic to large corporations, may look at it again, but with the integration of Macs into the Microsoft environment going as well as it has been with software updates to the OS from Apple, they may feel that it's all they really need, as Server handholding with companies is much greater with servers.
In addition, of course, with the very large sell through of iPads to corporate, with SAP, who recently bought over 12,500 for themselves, as well as 12,500 iPhones, saying that half of all iPad sales are to business, Apple may feel that they moving in anyway, and it's pulling OS X machines in as well. In that case, along with strong corporate iPhone sales, why bother having an additional line of products that may never be worthwhile?
Outlook good!??!!!? Microsoft Outlook is one of the worst applications ever. It is a bloated, slow pig. The mail interface is a complete disaster. Search is completely broken. And their CRM product is a complete joke? Have you every used these products? Salesforce is light years ahead of the Great Plains, i mean Microsoft CRM.
I agree with this 100 percent. If it were possible to agree with you 1000000 percent, I would. Outlook is a horrendous application. It's everything wrong with Microsoft rolled into a single application.
One word: winmail.dat.
If you want another one, go for umask.
Apple products don't integrate easily, because of the monolithic nature of the windows franchise in most enterprise settings.
While I am staunchly pro-apple, pro-Linux, and my tech-savvy business partner is at least pro-Linux, we still can't avoid having one windows server in the office, or an IE-dependent "web application" for accounting.
Streamlining points the other direction. The reason to go Apple (in a heterogeneous setting) is to maintain flexibility.
The many stories out of the corporate world via the commercial computing/business publications such as Computerworld, E Week, Infoworld, Information Week, and others, shows that integrating client Macs into a Windows environment isn't too difficult anymore. Yes, there can be some hassles, here and there, but it's very different from where it was before 10.4. With each OS upgrade, it's been getting easier.
All that growth for Apple in enterprise will be iPads and iPhones.
Sales departments can convincingly demonstrate the usefulness of iPads for slick presentations while on sales visits. They are also very effective as promotional give aways for large purchases or prize drawings at seminars (sales pitches).
Corporate IT and department managers still have no interest in Macs, and rightly so. Macs do not integrate that well into Windows environments and the IT staff generally has zero training or experience with them. They tolerate them in the marketing and advertising departments where the users are more independent from the mainstream customer service, accounting and sales divisions.
In some instances when a particular user is very computer savvy and wants to bring their own Mac to work, IT will allow it, but for the most part, corporate computers will remain on Windows.
If you are a Mac person and are forced to work exclusively on Windows, maybe you need a different job.
That's not really true anymore, and I'm getting tired of hearing it. Is it perfect? Well, no, but then, it can be a problem getting Windows clients working properly in a Windows environment. There have been big steps over the past few years.
And a lot of this is not because of BYOD. Corporations are finding this worthwhile.
I've seen many surveys over the years suggesting the uptick for Apple within the enterprise environment. As before, nothing happened. Apple remains below the double digit mark. Remember folks that this is just a survey. It doesn't have any factual basis for these companies to actually buy Apple products. As proven for the last 10 years, market share remains well below 10 worldwide.
lol! Yourself, but the numbers don't lie. The Mac HAS been taken up in business in a much bigger way as time has gone one.
Years? You mean since last year? Microsoft also dragged their heels for 6 months after launch and Outlook couldn't sync with any devices (except via exchange). They finally fixed that last spring. Office 2011 was the first with Outlook though. To say otherwise as you did suggests you don't really know what you're talking about.
Outlook -> Entourage -> Outlook
Apart from the name change, Office for mac has always had a Microsoft email client with near identicle functionality. 2011 was not the first.
What was it you were saying about not knowing what you're talking about?
I've seen many surveys over the years suggesting the uptick for Apple within the enterprise environment. As before, nothing happened. Apple remains below the double digit mark. Remember folks that this is just a survey. It doesn't have any factual basis for these companies to actually buy Apple products. As proven for the last 10 years, market share remains well below 10 worldwide.
A single PC vendor to have the kind of market share Apple does is still very impressive.
lol! Yourself, but the numbers don't lie. The Mac HAS been taken up in business in a much bigger way as time has gone one.
There was an article on Apple insider that said something like 33% share in enterprise, yes?
A single PC vendor to have the kind of market share Apple does is still very impressive.
It's amazing when people suggest that Apple, a HW vendor, can't be successful unless they have the marketshare of someone like MS. Even if they had 49% OS marketshare Slappy would still call them a loser yet they would have more than Dell and HP combined and be taking about 98% of the profits if everything else held the same. Obviously to any rational person that an impossibility.
Outlook -> Entourage -> Outlook
Apart from the name change, Office for mac has always had a Microsoft email client with near identicle functionality. 2011 was not the first.
What was it you were saying about not knowing what you're talking about?
Sorry, you said Outlook has been in Office for Mac for years. It hasn't. Entourage was, but it was FAR different and inferior to Outlook. I can't believe my eyes, to see someone suggesting it had "near identical" functionality to Outlook. It was commonly seen (along with Excel) as a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep users from switching, it was so crappy.
You can't just say something specific and totally wrong, get called on it, and then switch it around to say the other person is at fault.
It's amazing when people suggest that Apple, a HW vendor, can't be successful unless they have the marketshare of someone like MS. Even if they had 49% OS marketshare Slappy would still call them a loser yet they would have more than Dell and HP combined and be taking about 98% of the profits if everything else held the same. Obviously to any rational person that an impossibility.
Pro tip with Sloppy (oh darn that auto correct
Sorry, you said Outlook has been in Office for Mac for years. It hasn't. Entourage was, but it was FAR different and inferior to Outlook. I can't believe my eyes, to see someone suggesting it had "near identical" functionality to Outlook. It was commonly seen (along with Excel) as a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep users from switching, it was so crappy.
You can't just say something specific and totally wrong, get called on it, and then switch it around to say the other person is at fault.
Outlook was in office 98. Entourage was introduced in 2001 and then back to outlook in 2011. I've checked the feature list, synchronisation was the only thing missing from entourage. It supported everything else - After that it's just stupid things like crappy forwarding of HTML emails and sending of vCards being a bit ham-handed. I'll give you the crappy excel in 2008. It really was terrible. But from what I've seen and used, 2004 and 2011 are on par with the windows counterparts.
Sorry, you said Outlook has been in Office for Mac for years. It hasn't. Entourage was, but it was FAR different and inferior to Outlook. I can't believe my eyes, to see someone suggesting it had "near identical" functionality to Outlook. It was commonly seen (along with Excel) as a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep users from switching, it was so crappy.
You can't just say something specific and totally wrong, get called on it, and then switch it around to say the other person is at fault.
Also, FYI. I was not the original poster who said it was in it for years.
Also, FYI. I was not the original poster who said it was in it for years.
I just noticed that. You defended that statement as if you were, and I didn't check the original, but your defense of it makes it your claim. And it's a ridiculous one.
You've checked the feature list? That's your expertise to claim that it was "near identical" to Outlook for PC? Nice.