I think attempts to determine what a Mac aimed at businesses and other large scale purchasers have to focus on flexibility.
Yes, offering tremendous diversity in the product line is something that would typically kill Apple by making it harder to manage inventory. However, in the case of large purchases Apple could afford to build machines heavily customized to their customers' needs.
Perhaps a small supply of machines in a few popular, inexpensive configurations could be kept in the channel as "switcher" machines.
A headless machine would allow the greatest flexibility, though a more customizable AIO might not be a terrible idea. My thoughts run along the lines of a desktop akin in form to the 6100. Offer space for a single optical drive, two hard drives (or one 3.5" drive and a single hard drive) 2-3 RAM slots, 1 PCI slot, 1 AGP slot, and the usual complement of ports.
Offer options aplenty (though not so many as to entirely discourage purchasing more expensive configurations):
Choice of optical drives with the exception of the SuperDrive, or no optical drive at all.
Choice of processors (single). G3 or G4, 800MHz - 1.25GHz. G3s with 2 RAM slots, G4s with 3.
Choice of RAM, including none.
Choice of video hardware (AGP or PCI, VGA, DVI, ADC), including none.
Choice of front-mounted ports or not, as some institutions might specifically not want them. Also for this market, optional front software and hardare lock to prevent unautorized access.
Choice of OS setup, partnering with TerraSoft to offer either Linux or Linux/Mac OS X dual boot systems, in addtion to the default Mac OS X installation.
And possibly a less important option: custom case decoration, such as a business' logo, while not supplanting the Apple identification.
I think attempts to determine what a Mac aimed at businesses and other large scale purchasers have to focus on flexibility.
Yes, offering tremendous diversity in the product line is something that would typically kill Apple by making it harder to manage inventory. However, in the case of large purchases Apple could afford to build machines heavily customized to their customers' needs.
Perhaps a small supply of machines in a few popular, inexpensive configurations could be kept in the channel as "switcher" machines.
A headless machine would allow the greatest flexibility, though a more customizable AIO might not be a terrible idea. My thoughts run along the lines of a desktop akin in form to the 6100. Offer space for a single optical drive, two hard drives (or one 3.5" drive and a single hard drive) 2-3 RAM slots, 1 PCI slot, 1 AGP slot, and the usual complement of ports.
Offer options aplenty (though not so many as to entirely discourage purchasing more expensive configurations):
Choice of optical drives with the exception of the SuperDrive, or no optical drive at all. Choice of processors (single). G3 or G4, 800MHz - 1.25GHz. G3s with 2 RAM slots, G4s with 3. Choice of RAM, including none. Choice of video hardware (AGP or PCI, VGA, DVI, ADC), including none. Choice of front-mounted ports or not, as some institutions might specifically not want them. Also for this market, optional front software and hardare lock to prevent unautorized access. Choice of OS setup, partnering with TerraSoft to offer either Linux or Linux/Mac OS X dual boot systems, in addtion to the default Mac OS X installation. And possibly a less important option: custom case decoration, such as a business' logo, while not supplanting the Apple identification.
I think that would be a bad idea.
If we are talking about client desktop machines, then you want them to be as cheap and as simple as they can be. Something like this.
INSIDE:
*G4 Processor
*NO PCI
*NO AGP
2 RAM slots
Back ports:
VGA
Firewire 400
Firewire 800 (debatable i suppose)
2USB
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Audio In
Audio out
1 Firewire 400 port on the front.
This machine would have NO CD-ROM. Not really needed really.
In all, a very basic, stripped down machine. Cheap and simple.
Oh, I agree with that, in that there's often a need for extremely inexpensive, basic client desktops. However, what then do you offer clients who want something different?
What I was trying to say, essentially, is that Apple needs a flexible platform that can be either as simple as a client needs or as complex. Using a single basic platform would allow Apple to respond to corporate or institutional purchases quickly, without requiring much in the way of additional R&D to address unique needs assciated with each purchase.
I think Apple's E.G. needs to focus on getting more companies using their product (hardware, software and support contracts). Like the article said, they need a couple of large companies to buy into their products, even if it's at a loss, to show that someone is using their product. This will open doors and IT minds to using Apple's hardware and software in the enterprise.
Sitting down with enterprise IT people and showing them that they can do the same things, and more, with Apple hardware and Mac OS X will open their eyes. Getting in the door is always the hardest step anyway...
After that, they can roll with their "enterprise" hardware lines.
What I was trying to say, essentially, is that Apple needs a flexible platform that can be either as simple as a client needs or as complex.
The best way to do that is to offer a standards-based server that speaks all major networking protocols, can read and serve all major file system formats, and whose primary application development environment is based on Web protocols and Java - so that the customer can have pretty much whatever the heck they want as a client, including what they already have.
Fortunately for Apple, that's what they're offering (the application environment? WebObjects).
The best way to do that is to offer a standards-based server that speaks all major networking protocols, can read and serve all major file system formats, and whose primary application development environment is based on Web protocols and Java - so that the customer can have pretty much whatever the heck they want as a client, including what they already have.
Fortunately for Apple, that's what they're offering (the application environment? WebObjects).
Oh I couldn't agree more, but they should also seek to build a client machine which is attractive to corporate types and can fully utilize the server.
It's a chicken and egg kind of situation. Breaking into the server room will given Apple more credibility in the enterprise market, but if Windows dominates on the workplace desktop there will be less support (or at least less reliable support) for those open services on the client-side and more support for closed systems which Apple and others are less able to implement.
An Apple presence in the cubicle farms of the corporate world, rich in robust end-user software that can take advantage of open standards, and designed from the start to do so, will encourage IT to put Apple in the server room.
Hooboy, more speculation about a 'headless iMac', this time under a different name. When is anyone gonna get it through their heads: APPLE IS NOT DELL. They don't have to be in every cubicle to be a good computer!
Seriously, your imaginary 'bMac' with a low price, black plastic and tons of compromises on speed, expandibility, and features is a Dell.
If you want a Dell, go buy a Dell. That's what the corporate world does, by and large. They aren't gonna be impressed by a machine that compromises the features that makes a Mac great, while poorly imitating a mediocre competitor. And neither am I...
Someplace on the internet, right now, on a Dell lovers message board, someone is about to post: "You know what Dell needs? They should take a P4, put it in an all-white case, bundle if with a lot of cool music and video software, and market it to home users! They're never gonna get any respect until they do!"
I'm just glad that none of you is Steve Jobs. We'd all be in trouble...
Sheesh! It seems to me the first thing Mr. Ives asks himself is... "Do we want to make another 'Us Too!' product?" "How can we make this kind of product truly revolutionary?" 'Us Too' products are how Apple got into trouble in the early and mid 90's
That said.. I doubt that Apple will develop and sell a product specifically for the enterprise cubicle unless they can see a way to create that product in a way that will forever alter that market sector from what it was before. They can't just offer a "Pancake" design without having thought through the user experience.
<Off Topic>
The real secret weapon in the enterprise space isn't a piece of hardware. It's Netinfo Manager. It is the IT departments 'Hand of God' on the network.
With it. A user could get to his files on the file server at Corporate HQ in New York. Print hard copies on his printer and access his files in his home folder at his home office in Denver. And synchronize with any iCal calendar he has access to in the regional Office in Tokyo. And do all these things by walking up to any machine in any of those offices and logging onto it with his standard name and password. (or by stepping onto the wireless network with a laptop at any of the locations.) No configuration on the client end. It all just shows up. Geography is irrelevant.
my corp just upgraded all 800+ machines, to windows 2k, because of licensing and compatablitiy issues, the doc lounge computer was ujpgraded to 333 mhz( get that, what a mhz myth we don't need all that speed it's a scam i asked the IT guy where he gets a 333 he says recycled old machines and many companies provide these boards for just this reason. heck my laptop to pull images from the hosp only needs 266), network card,20-30 gig hd and and cd drive. everything is on a network, and we use internet. other machines have a a bit more so thay can use older versions office they told me that they want compatablity, upgrades are expensive and a pain. minimal run xp or newest office/word due to costs.
so enterprise that, how to get the total costs down, keep compatablity and simplicity. do you think they replaced monitors, very very few, just the box. so as above your right get a cheap box corps are also concerned with waste, to replace all those monitors costs big and since there is not much market for old monitors seen as environmentally iresponsible this from the IT guy. IT depts, many in management don't understand this stuff so IT will want products to expand there budgets why get something that cuts IT costs and personelle???? All these viruses tell management that they need more IT, apple may work this side of the enterprise equation as well, schoools that i know that have macs, loved this when all those viruses came out to play, they were up, so sell the whole costs of ownership
Hooboy, more speculation about a 'headless iMac', this time under a different name. When is anyone gonna get it through their heads: APPLE IS NOT DELL. They don't have to be in every cubicle to be a good computer!
Seriously, your imaginary 'bMac' with a low price, black plastic and tons of compromises on speed, expandibility, and features is a Dell.
If you want a Dell, go buy a Dell. That's what the corporate world does, by and large. They aren't gonna be impressed by a machine that compromises the features that makes a Mac great, while poorly imitating a mediocre competitor. And neither am I...
Someplace on the internet, right now, on a Dell lovers message board, someone is about to post: "You know what Dell needs? They should take a P4, put it in an all-white case, bundle if with a lot of cool music and video software, and market it to home users! They're never gonna get any respect until they do!"
I'm just glad that none of you is Steve Jobs. We'd all be in trouble...
No it's not. My imaginary cMac (because it's for home and edu use too) would be based on one of these:
G3 model: iBook - laptop (that is, take the iBook and make it a desktop, $549)
I don't get all the clamoring for a business Mac. The iMac is possibly the best enterprise desktop machine I can think of. The current models don't have the best performance in the world, but that's a pre-G5-era issue. I'm sure it'll be fixed, but corporate clients don't really need a ton of horsepower.
What they need is what the iMac has: Simplicity, Reliability, Ease of Use, Ease of Maintainance, Low Total Cost of Ownership, Ergonomics, Space and Power Efficiency.
The iMac, thanks to OS X, also has great compatability with enterprise applications. Windows X11 implementations are sub-par and cost money, Linux doesn't run Office, etc. A business machine doesn't need PCI or AGP slots, they don't need huge hard drives, they don't really need seperate monitors (in fact I bet a lot of IT guys would welcome an AIO)
The only problem with the imac is that it's pricey. Entry level should be where it was with the old iMacs - $799. If Apple can get the price that low on a 1GHz 15" LCD iMac, they'll have a great corporate client.
That being said, I doubt the real focus of the EST is clients. Apple may have the best server operating system in existance right now, and a nice peice of server hardware to go along with it. What I expect for enterprise hardware is two new XServes. Both G5, one an update of the current XServe, and the other a higher-end unit (who knows what'll be in it - 4 processors? ECC memory? redundant power supplies?).
all these edu accounts that are talked about what ibook do they use the 12 or 14???? i know they have airport, on the apple news info portion they say use airport extreme i thought the ibooks aren't compatable.
all these edu accounts that are talked about what ibook do they use the 12 or 14????
12"
Quote:
i know they have airport, on the apple news info portion they say use airport extreme i thought the ibooks aren't compatable.
They are, but only because AE is backward compatible with the original AirPort spec. My mom has a 500Mhz iBook with the original AirPort card and an AirPort Extreme Base Station, and they work fine together. (Well, the Base Station did after several firmware upgrades and a long stream of cursing, anyway.)
I don't get all the clamoring for a business Mac. The iMac is possibly the best enterprise desktop machine I can think of. The current models don't have the best performance in the world, but that's a pre-G5-era issue. I'm sure it'll be fixed, but corporate clients don't really need a ton of horsepower.
What they need is what the iMac has: Simplicity, Reliability, Ease of Use, Ease of Maintainance, Low Total Cost of Ownership, Ergonomics, Space and Power Efficiency.
The iMac, thanks to OS X, also has great compatability with enterprise applications. Windows X11 implementations are sub-par and cost money, Linux doesn't run Office, etc. A business machine doesn't need PCI or AGP slots, they don't need huge hard drives, they don't really need seperate monitors (in fact I bet a lot of IT guys would welcome an AIO)
The only problem with the imac is that it's pricey. Entry level should be where it was with the old iMacs - $799. If Apple can get the price that low on a 1GHz 15" LCD iMac, they'll have a great corporate client.
That being said, I doubt the real focus of the EST is clients. Apple may have the best server operating system in existance right now, and a nice peice of server hardware to go along with it. What I expect for enterprise hardware is two new XServes. Both G5, one an update of the current XServe, and the other a higher-end unit (who knows what'll be in it - 4 processors? ECC memory? redundant power supplies?).
Comments
Yes, offering tremendous diversity in the product line is something that would typically kill Apple by making it harder to manage inventory. However, in the case of large purchases Apple could afford to build machines heavily customized to their customers' needs.
Perhaps a small supply of machines in a few popular, inexpensive configurations could be kept in the channel as "switcher" machines.
A headless machine would allow the greatest flexibility, though a more customizable AIO might not be a terrible idea. My thoughts run along the lines of a desktop akin in form to the 6100. Offer space for a single optical drive, two hard drives (or one 3.5" drive and a single hard drive) 2-3 RAM slots, 1 PCI slot, 1 AGP slot, and the usual complement of ports.
Offer options aplenty (though not so many as to entirely discourage purchasing more expensive configurations):
Originally posted by japh
I think attempts to determine what a Mac aimed at businesses and other large scale purchasers have to focus on flexibility.
Yes, offering tremendous diversity in the product line is something that would typically kill Apple by making it harder to manage inventory. However, in the case of large purchases Apple could afford to build machines heavily customized to their customers' needs.
Perhaps a small supply of machines in a few popular, inexpensive configurations could be kept in the channel as "switcher" machines.
A headless machine would allow the greatest flexibility, though a more customizable AIO might not be a terrible idea. My thoughts run along the lines of a desktop akin in form to the 6100. Offer space for a single optical drive, two hard drives (or one 3.5" drive and a single hard drive) 2-3 RAM slots, 1 PCI slot, 1 AGP slot, and the usual complement of ports.
Offer options aplenty (though not so many as to entirely discourage purchasing more expensive configurations):
Choice of optical drives with the exception of the SuperDrive, or no optical drive at all.
Choice of processors (single). G3 or G4, 800MHz - 1.25GHz. G3s with 2 RAM slots, G4s with 3.
Choice of RAM, including none.
Choice of video hardware (AGP or PCI, VGA, DVI, ADC), including none.
Choice of front-mounted ports or not, as some institutions might specifically not want them. Also for this market, optional front software and hardare lock to prevent unautorized access.
Choice of OS setup, partnering with TerraSoft to offer either Linux or Linux/Mac OS X dual boot systems, in addtion to the default Mac OS X installation.
And possibly a less important option: custom case decoration, such as a business' logo, while not supplanting the Apple identification.
I think that would be a bad idea.
If we are talking about client desktop machines, then you want them to be as cheap and as simple as they can be. Something like this.
INSIDE:
*G4 Processor
*NO PCI
*NO AGP
2 RAM slots
Back ports:
VGA
Firewire 400
Firewire 800 (debatable i suppose)
2USB
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Audio In
Audio out
1 Firewire 400 port on the front.
This machine would have NO CD-ROM. Not really needed really.
In all, a very basic, stripped down machine. Cheap and simple.
What I was trying to say, essentially, is that Apple needs a flexible platform that can be either as simple as a client needs or as complex. Using a single basic platform would allow Apple to respond to corporate or institutional purchases quickly, without requiring much in the way of additional R&D to address unique needs assciated with each purchase.
Sitting down with enterprise IT people and showing them that they can do the same things, and more, with Apple hardware and Mac OS X will open their eyes. Getting in the door is always the hardest step anyway...
After that, they can roll with their "enterprise" hardware lines.
Originally posted by japh
What I was trying to say, essentially, is that Apple needs a flexible platform that can be either as simple as a client needs or as complex.
The best way to do that is to offer a standards-based server that speaks all major networking protocols, can read and serve all major file system formats, and whose primary application development environment is based on Web protocols and Java - so that the customer can have pretty much whatever the heck they want as a client, including what they already have.
Fortunately for Apple, that's what they're offering (the application environment? WebObjects).
Originally posted by Amorph
The best way to do that is to offer a standards-based server that speaks all major networking protocols, can read and serve all major file system formats, and whose primary application development environment is based on Web protocols and Java - so that the customer can have pretty much whatever the heck they want as a client, including what they already have.
Fortunately for Apple, that's what they're offering (the application environment? WebObjects).
Oh I couldn't agree more, but they should also seek to build a client machine which is attractive to corporate types and can fully utilize the server.
It's a chicken and egg kind of situation. Breaking into the server room will given Apple more credibility in the enterprise market, but if Windows dominates on the workplace desktop there will be less support (or at least less reliable support) for those open services on the client-side and more support for closed systems which Apple and others are less able to implement.
An Apple presence in the cubicle farms of the corporate world, rich in robust end-user software that can take advantage of open standards, and designed from the start to do so, will encourage IT to put Apple in the server room.
Seriously, your imaginary 'bMac' with a low price, black plastic and tons of compromises on speed, expandibility, and features is a Dell.
If you want a Dell, go buy a Dell. That's what the corporate world does, by and large. They aren't gonna be impressed by a machine that compromises the features that makes a Mac great, while poorly imitating a mediocre competitor. And neither am I...
Someplace on the internet, right now, on a Dell lovers message board, someone is about to post: "You know what Dell needs? They should take a P4, put it in an all-white case, bundle if with a lot of cool music and video software, and market it to home users! They're never gonna get any respect until they do!"
I'm just glad that none of you is Steve Jobs. We'd all be in trouble...
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
...Seriously, your imaginary 'bMac' with a low price, black plastic and tons of compromises on speed , expandibility, and features is a Dell...
And I thought that was the G4 iMac.
That said.. I doubt that Apple will develop and sell a product specifically for the enterprise cubicle unless they can see a way to create that product in a way that will forever alter that market sector from what it was before. They can't just offer a "Pancake" design without having thought through the user experience.
<Off Topic>
The real secret weapon in the enterprise space isn't a piece of hardware. It's Netinfo Manager. It is the IT departments 'Hand of God' on the network.
With it. A user could get to his files on the file server at Corporate HQ in New York. Print hard copies on his printer and access his files in his home folder at his home office in Denver. And synchronize with any iCal calendar he has access to in the regional Office in Tokyo. And do all these things by walking up to any machine in any of those offices and logging onto it with his standard name and password. (or by stepping onto the wireless network with a laptop at any of the locations.) No configuration on the client end. It all just shows up. Geography is irrelevant.
</Off Topic>
so enterprise that, how to get the total costs down, keep compatablity and simplicity. do you think they replaced monitors, very very few, just the box. so as above your right get a cheap box corps are also concerned with waste, to replace all those monitors costs big and since there is not much market for old monitors seen as environmentally iresponsible this from the IT guy. IT depts, many in management don't understand this stuff so IT will want products to expand there budgets why get something that cuts IT costs and personelle???? All these viruses tell management that they need more IT, apple may work this side of the enterprise equation as well, schoools that i know that have macs, loved this when all those viruses came out to play, they were up, so sell the whole costs of ownership
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Hooboy, more speculation about a 'headless iMac', this time under a different name. When is anyone gonna get it through their heads: APPLE IS NOT DELL. They don't have to be in every cubicle to be a good computer!
Seriously, your imaginary 'bMac' with a low price, black plastic and tons of compromises on speed, expandibility, and features is a Dell.
If you want a Dell, go buy a Dell. That's what the corporate world does, by and large. They aren't gonna be impressed by a machine that compromises the features that makes a Mac great, while poorly imitating a mediocre competitor. And neither am I...
Someplace on the internet, right now, on a Dell lovers message board, someone is about to post: "You know what Dell needs? They should take a P4, put it in an all-white case, bundle if with a lot of cool music and video software, and market it to home users! They're never gonna get any respect until they do!"
I'm just glad that none of you is Steve Jobs. We'd all be in trouble...
No it's not. My imaginary cMac (because it's for home and edu use too) would be based on one of these:
G3 model: iBook - laptop (that is, take the iBook and make it a desktop, $549)
G4 model: eMac - display. (Take $799 eMac, kill display, $650).
G5 model: PowerMac G5 + iMac - display. (take iMac, kill display, stuff in a G5.)
What they need is what the iMac has: Simplicity, Reliability, Ease of Use, Ease of Maintainance, Low Total Cost of Ownership, Ergonomics, Space and Power Efficiency.
The iMac, thanks to OS X, also has great compatability with enterprise applications. Windows X11 implementations are sub-par and cost money, Linux doesn't run Office, etc. A business machine doesn't need PCI or AGP slots, they don't need huge hard drives, they don't really need seperate monitors (in fact I bet a lot of IT guys would welcome an AIO)
The only problem with the imac is that it's pricey. Entry level should be where it was with the old iMacs - $799. If Apple can get the price that low on a 1GHz 15" LCD iMac, they'll have a great corporate client.
That being said, I doubt the real focus of the EST is clients. Apple may have the best server operating system in existance right now, and a nice peice of server hardware to go along with it. What I expect for enterprise hardware is two new XServes. Both G5, one an update of the current XServe, and the other a higher-end unit (who knows what'll be in it - 4 processors? ECC memory? redundant power supplies?).
Originally posted by NOFEER
all these edu accounts that are talked about what ibook do they use the 12 or 14????
12"
i know they have airport, on the apple news info portion they say use airport extreme i thought the ibooks aren't compatable.
They are, but only because AE is backward compatible with the original AirPort spec. My mom has a 500Mhz iBook with the original AirPort card and an AirPort Extreme Base Station, and they work fine together. (Well, the Base Station did after several firmware upgrades and a long stream of cursing, anyway.)
Originally posted by spankalee
I don't get all the clamoring for a business Mac. The iMac is possibly the best enterprise desktop machine I can think of. The current models don't have the best performance in the world, but that's a pre-G5-era issue. I'm sure it'll be fixed, but corporate clients don't really need a ton of horsepower.
What they need is what the iMac has: Simplicity, Reliability, Ease of Use, Ease of Maintainance, Low Total Cost of Ownership, Ergonomics, Space and Power Efficiency.
The iMac, thanks to OS X, also has great compatability with enterprise applications. Windows X11 implementations are sub-par and cost money, Linux doesn't run Office, etc. A business machine doesn't need PCI or AGP slots, they don't need huge hard drives, they don't really need seperate monitors (in fact I bet a lot of IT guys would welcome an AIO)
The only problem with the imac is that it's pricey. Entry level should be where it was with the old iMacs - $799. If Apple can get the price that low on a 1GHz 15" LCD iMac, they'll have a great corporate client.
That being said, I doubt the real focus of the EST is clients. Apple may have the best server operating system in existance right now, and a nice peice of server hardware to go along with it. What I expect for enterprise hardware is two new XServes. Both G5, one an update of the current XServe, and the other a higher-end unit (who knows what'll be in it - 4 processors? ECC memory? redundant power supplies?).
Can you say eMac?