I had the pleasure *cough* of having network administration duties (approx 15 workstations and a server) at a company I worked for prior to starting college/university, as part of my overall job description. I was primarily brought onboard to redesign the company's website, implementing an e-commerce system if possible. The position expanded to include customer support and circuit board testing (among other things).
Here are a few of my observations regarding Apple's hopes of improving marketshare in the business segment:
- I think that we'll see Apple gradually supplanting Windows-based servers for back end, behind the scenes usage prior to seeing widespread desktop usage. This is of course highly dependant on what types of server applications a company needs (such as groupware, print serving, file serving, proprietary apps, etc.). The driver for this? I can't imagine what it has been like for network admins over the past couple of years, as many of them are likely going slightly nuts over the never ending stream of Microsoft platform specific security holes and viruses.
- In order to effectively target corporate desktop usage, Apple needs a lower cost solution that is not an all-in-one design. Apple also needs to either a) offer a lower priced display model for business use or b) allow purchasers of the headless box to easily connect them to PC monitors (CRT or LCD). The biggest single reason for the above is that purchasing requests are always subject to management approval, and if purchasing 1000 Apple desktops is going to cost $400 more per unit than PC platform desktops ($400,000 extra in total), good luck getting the manager to approve the switch.
- There are many companies out there that could switch their desktop use to the Mac platform, but the additional costs of personnel training, software purchasing (such as outfitting all new desktops with the Mac version of MS Office) and other costs would need to outweigh the costs of maintaining status quo. I would personally approach this in a proposal by showing the amount of money that maintenance due to patching and virus updates, as well as actual downtime (i.e. actual virus infections) are costing the company.
- In addition to the above, the Mac platform must meet the needs of the desktop users. Office on Mac vs. PC isn't a problem, but you have to also consider any proprietary apps being used, current e-mail/groupware used, etc.
I don't want to ramble too much beyond these points, but there has to be business sense in making a platform switch; beyond a sys admin waking up one day, "seeing the light", and deciding that he/she suddenly wants to convert everything to Mac OS.
On a related note, I'm working on my Bachelor of Commerce, with major in MIS and minor in Comp Sci, so it's quite possible that I will be involved in exactly this type of proposal creation and/or decision making in the near future.
- In order to effectively target corporate desktop usage, Apple needs a lower cost solution that is not an all-in-one design. Apple also needs to either a) offer a lower priced display model for business use or b) allow purchasers of the headless box to easily connect them to PC monitors (CRT or LCD). The biggest single reason for the above is that purchasing requests are always subject to management approval, and if purchasing 1000 Apple desktops is going to cost $400 more per unit than PC platform desktops ($400,000 extra in total), good luck getting the manager to approve the switch.
A possibility for this market, working with IBM or without, would be to design a good blade server and deploy a cheep thin client. For this you wouldn't need any larger than a 40 GB hard drive, and even the lowly G4 would be powerful enough if the main processor could off-load excess processing to the Blade server. In fact the Blade doesn't even need to be running OS X server, just have the software to work transparently with OS X. This direction does fit in with technology that Apple has presented in the past, as well as rumors of of distributive processing (correct term?) that Apple has been working on. The question is what is the proper form factor for the "box" and how cheep can Apple, realistically, manufacture them for.
Hey, we actually agree on this subject! I guess I was being a little too hardcore when I said "change core values". I just meant that Apple's going to have to give up its AIO and Apple branded display fetishes in order to put Macs on enterprise desktops.
But it would actually involve giving up one of Apple's core values, because a bMac is, fundamentally, a Dell in white plastic. It offers no concrete improvement, usability-wise, over an iPaq or a Dell.
The iMac does.
Quote:
My whole argument boils down to the basic fact that IT managers (perhaps wrongly) REFUSE to consider AIOs.
1) They REFUSED to consider machines without PCI NIC cards, too.
2) IT managers are absolutely great at coming up with a zillion reasons not to get Macs ("they're chatty on networks!" "their system fonts aren't masculine enough!"). However, this is changing of its own accord. White is a perfectly neutral color, especially the matte white of the iMac.
Most AIOs (including the eMac) do not make terribly good enterprise machines because (in the case of the PC AIOs) they suck and they're costly, or (in the case of the eMac) the presence of the tube makes any kind of work on the machine hairy and potentially lethal. Except for the iMac, none exploit their AIO nature in a way that gives them a significant advantage over an iPaq and an LCD. But the iMac does. Furthermore, the iMac could probably be tweaked in a way that makes it possible for a trained tech to replace the screen (which is why I mentioned the "iMac toolbox" available to enterprise people). Remember, they don't have to do it right there on the shop floor. They can swap in a spare and work in their own area, too. The iMac's design makes that really easy.
I don't see any hurry or rush to this. Apple can route around stubborn IT managers or wait until the threat of getting outsourced makes them look at cost-effective solutions even if they come in white. They don't have to sell to everybody now. The IT managers who understand what they need can be early adopters, and their successes can build the momentum necessary to nudge the people who are hung up on case colors. And that will take as long as it takes. In the meantime, Apple can build market share more easily in the education and consumer and professional markets, where there are lots of people with far fewer hangups, and even a growing number of people for whom the name "Apple" has some cachet.
The problem with AIO's is that you are limited to one manufacturer for all components. It is pretty rare to see a fully single vendor environment. Even if the imac has an easy to replace screen....yuou still have only one choice for screen attachment. But more importantly, the screen isn't the only thing that may go out.
More Apple in businesses will mean more at home, it is plain and simple. A lot of customers buy what they use and are used to. In most cases it mirrors what they have at work. Most consumers do not want to learn a new system...and for most of them that would mean learning to use a mac.
Apple is still viewed in IT departments as proprietary, and it has a bumbpy road ahead to overcome that perception. Being open source and standards based will help. Having a compatible exchange solution would go a long way in easing the transition.
Two words: Exchange killer. If Apple wants into the enterprise, it has to go through Exchange to get there.
If I were Apple, I would go web-based, to make it cross-platform.
At the core it would need e-mail, calendar, meeting planner (shared calendar) and organization-wide address book (ldap).
A lot of people simply don't realize how entrenched Exchange is in organizations... it is the trojan-horse of Office.
If you upgrade the Exchange server, you must upgrade the client, which is located in guess where? Office.
Being web-based would make the Xserve the obvious platform to serve it off of. Apple is a hardware company, so selling more Xserve hardware would be the plan.
Your thoughts?
How about asking IBM to make a Mac OS X version of Lotus - it's more used than Exchange anyway.
With the discussion regarding education as a de facto enterprise arena/market is also quite valid...
I am inclined to think this area would make more sense for Apple to pursue since it already is a player in this arena...
Being a lifelong student (now in grad school), I have both studied at and visited many educational institutions, both at the career college levels and the typical university level...
I too have chit chatted with many of their IT people, and have discussed the merits of the various available platforms...
And the repeating theme for all these past discussions has to do with COST. No more, no less. Cost is what cash strapped educators seemingly care about the most maybe even more so then your typical business manager.
For Apple to gain an additional grasp in the education market they have to drop prices, of their hardware aimed for education purposes....I know this is a rather simplistic but very true...
Apple just make it feature packed and as cheap as possible...whatever form factor you choose, whether AIO, or cube, or headless Mac, or maybe the release of a cheaper monitor is what you decide...it does not matter, just make it CHEAP in terms of final price...if you have to take a slightly larger hit on the bottomline do so to gain market penetration...
I know that the eMac is very competitive already, but maybe perhaps Apple has to offer deeper discounts, or restructure their current leasing/buy back policies...however I am not sure if this is possible...
For example, at my university (www.yorku.ca which is now probably the second largest university in Canada) they usually hang onto hardware for about 2 years and then all of it is returned for current hardware....monitors and everything...
currently the univeristy is using Dell's and I have been told that Dell simply offered the most attractive leasing options and thus got the contract...(an obscenely huge one for the record)...
so what I am referring to here is that maybe hardware is not the only possible problem or drawback that is hindering Apple's relative success in this PEECEE dominated market, but rather their existing enterprise pricing and leasing policies...
If Apple is gonna get serious about the enterprise then it must have a low cost, low maintenance, yet high performance client machine for the desktop...
Apple could do this machine early next year for $999. Even less in large quantities or bundled with G5 Xserves.
If the Cube name is tainted...
If the Cube didn't make market sense back then when there was quite a gap between the very consumer original G3 iMacs and the G4 PowerMacs, it will make less sense now when the current iMacs (G4, LCD) have got more "proconsumer".
A single processor G5 Cube may not be all that different in value from a single processor G5 tower.
So from a market point of view, I don't see much sense to a G5 cube.
If the Cube didn't make market sense back then when there was quite a gap between the very consumer original G3 iMacs and the G4 PowerMacs, it will make less sense now when the current iMacs (G4, LCD) have got more "proconsumer".
A single processor G5 Cube may not be all that different in value from a single processor G5 tower.
So from a market point of view, I don't see much sense to a G5 cube.
agreed...
perhaps in this scenario Apple should simply widen the variety of choices that are currently avaialble with the current PowerMac line...
increase the amount of build to order options currently available...thus ultimately concentrating and focusing resources on this one line solely...
The idea of a Partnership!!! with IBM is overlooked by most Industry watchers.
Yes, an Enterprise Partnership with IBM would be a good idea.
Already IBM/Lotus produce:
1. Lotus Notes client for Mac
2. VisualAge C/C++/Fortran compilers for Mac OS X
3. Lotus WebSphere Studio for Mac
What would be good is to have support from some of IBM's other enterprise software: MQSeries, WebSphere, Domnio, DB2, SmallTalk, Rational tools to name a few.
If the Cube didn't make market sense back then when there was quite a gap between the very consumer original G3 iMacs and the G4 PowerMacs, it will make less sense now when the current iMacs (G4, LCD) have got more "proconsumer".
A single processor G5 Cube may not be all that different in value from a single processor G5 tower.
So from a market point of view, I don't see much sense to a G5 cube.
It would make a ton of sense if it was $999 or even $1299. The ONLY thing wrong with the original Cube was the price.
I like the idea of a bMac/Cube to compliment Apple's X-Serve.
Ensign Pulver, I like what you're saying.
The mini-'G5' Cube looks 'PHWOAR!'
I'd like to see it in 'all white'. Nice.
If Apple could do that. G5 it. Get the price under a 1K then they'd have a very compelling consumer/edu' and bus' Mac. (They'd sell more than those G4 towers do, eh? )
Given the lacklustre sales of iMac2/eMac then it's worth a try.
I'm sure alot of business folk have monitors they don't want to throw out when they buy a new computer (in addition to software switch costs etc...) The bMac concept should replace the eMac to me.
The iMac3 will replace the iMac2. Maybe it will be the 'b'Mac. Hopefully it will have a detachable LCD monitor and innovative feature set to justify its high price. Still depends on why(!) Apple are making an iMac3 as rumoured.
Cost? Price bracket? Margins? Make it more flexible in design? More innovative. The rumours of changes to the iMac2 have been consistent for some time. Clearly, Apple aren't satisfield with the current model. And sales figures and inability of Apple to drive the price downward tell their own story. (Not to mention critics on these boards who have their reservations.)
Yes, an Enterprise Partnership with IBM would be a good idea.
... to have support from some of IBM's other enterprise software: MQSeries, WebSphere, Domnio, DB2, SmallTalk, Rational tools to name a few.
IBM's blades and Blade Center chassis are also a perfect fit with Apple's server strategy. No R&D expenses to recover, instant roll-out (MWSF?) and World Class IBM support and service.
Just as Sun has gained tremendous credibility with their java desktop (Looking Glass) by contracting EDS to provide on-site service and support, Apple can OEM these from IBM and let IBM service and support them. Instant acceptance in the corporate world.
On the software side IBM and Apple could be extremely complimentary. Why wouldn't IBM not want to offer another choice in operating systems? They would make their money from the support and service contracts.
A thin client from Apple to compliment the OSX blades in the server room would be a major inducement for both business and educational use. (think Sun Ray).
Microsoft's Exchange Server already has some competition from SuSe with the Open Exchange Server With IBM's $50 million investment in Novel's purchase of SuSe we might see some benefits coming Apple's way in dethroning Microsoft in this area with a compelling replacement that could be compiled to run under OSX.
What would Apple lose by allowing IBM to offer OSX server on their big iron? What would they gain?
One thing to remember is that the cube is designed specifically for the look and form factor. Corporate entities are going to want something closer to a functionality spec than a visual spec. The "Cube" is really unsuitable for the same reason that the iMac II is unsuitable.
That's not to say a small box isn't a good idea. I do think it needs at the very least a PCMCIA or PCI slot though - someone above wrote that tech departments "used to" be concerned about on-board Ethernet - well, no, they were, and still are, concerned about irreplacable Ethernet systems (and on PCs also wanted to standardize the Ethernet hardware so that common drivers could be used.) You need some expansion potential simply so that an expensive machine with a common, unavoidable, form of damage isn't rendered unusable as a result.
A strengthened pizza-box type enclosure might be more appropriate for what corporate users want than a cube. If it can support a 19" CRT monitor sitting on top of it, it wouldn't take up any extra desktop area, and it should be large enough for a side-ways PCI card. It also would be relatively easy to cool as airflow in a confined space is fairly easy to predict and control.
Oh, and one other thing - a built in KVM. That is, you should have a VGA-in slot and keyboard/mouse PS/2 output sockets. You're asking people to do a radical thing and switch from one platform to something radically different that doesn't run the same software: one way you can help is to make it easy for someone to hook up their old hardware so they still have access when they need it. That's a perfect solution - the user will not have to reinstall anything, all they have to do is unplug the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and plug the new Mac into the monitor and the old PC.
... Oh, and one other thing - a built in KVM. That is, you should have a VGA-in slot and keyboard/mouse PS/2 output sockets. ...
There are inexpensive PS/2-to-USB adapters. I bought one ($15), thinking it would make my Mac work with my KVM. The keyboard connection works, but not the mouse. I'm thinking of trying another kind.
KVMs are extensively used in server rooms, not on the desktop. Thus, this might make sense for an Xserve, but it isn't necessary for the bMac. Besides, most PCs are going to USB keyboards & mice too.
There are inexpensive PS/2-to-USB adapters. I bought one ($15), thinking it would make my Mac work with my KVM. The keyboard connection works, but not the mouse. I'm thinking of trying another kind.
KVMs are extensively used in server rooms, not on the desktop. Thus, this might make sense for an Xserve, but it isn't necessary for the bMac. Besides, most PCs are going to USB keyboards & mice too.
If you reread my comment, you'll see my explanation. I'm not proposing the use of bMacs in server rooms, I'm proposing that they're an absolute must for most people who are migrating from one platform to a completely different, incompatable, one. If you don't provide a KVM, you force someone switching in a corporate environment to either:
(a) Have both a complete Mac and complete PC on their desk. They're not going to do that
(b) Force someone to buy a KVM seperately. They're unlikely to want to do that. They may not even realise such a solution exists. They probably will not do it.
(c) Use a PC emulator, which entails extra investment, poor performance, and a need to reinstall everything, with no guarantee the reinstalled environment will work. They're not going to do that.
(d) Forget about switching - absolutely the most likely "migration path"...
PS/2 is fine because no PC anyone's migrating from will lack PS/2 ports.
I use a Mac at work (at my own expense...) and if I didn't have a KVM, I'd have given up. There's still legacy apps I need access to as well as an installed base of PC users who rely upon my having a PC (and would have me fired if I snottily told them "Oh, I can't use that application, I have a Mac")
A KVM is a critical component of a migration path from one platform to an entirely incompatable platform. If Apple includes the functionality in a bMac, they'd be guaranteeing one would be there, that it would work, that it would encourage - through defaults etc - the user is orientated to the Mac and uses the PC only when necessary.
BLADE RUNNER._ As a side benefit, Apple's nascent server business will likely gain from IBM's moves to push the envelope on its PPC line. Glaskowsky and others expect that Apple will soon be able to offer a blade-server line based on the chip configuration IBM plans to put into its JS20 blade servers.
That gets Apple a seat at the table in one of the hardware business' fastest growing segments. Tech tracker IDC found that in the third quarter of 2003, blade-server sales grew by 763% vs. the same quarter last year. That still only totals $164 million, a very small percentage of the $11 billion global server market for that quarter. And Apple sold just 4,800 servers in that quarter, less than half a percent of the total global market.
Still, the blade-server market is growing in key areas where Apple has strong niches, such as biotech and special effects and animation for films. While it will probably never come close to Apple's much bigger desktop and laptop business, the server lines promise nice profit margins. "[Apple is] still a pretty small player. But their presence has grown," says Mark Melenovski, a server analyst at IDC.
I too have chit chatted with many of their IT people, and have discussed the merits of the various available platforms...
And the repeating theme for all these past discussions has to do with COST. No more, no less. Cost is what cash strapped educators seemingly care about the most maybe even more so then your typical business manager.
For Apple to gain an additional grasp in the education market they have to drop prices, of their hardware aimed for education purposes....I know this is a rather simplistic but very true...
You don't even look at Apple's retail prices to see how bidded purchases work. I believe one of the big iBook installments averages out to $300 per iBook over the lease, and Apple threw in free PowerBooks for the teachers, a couple of free Xserves, free ABSs, etc.
You don't even think of making money off the hardware with these deals. The money is in the support contract.
At least in K-12, the machine Apple's flogging is the iBook, not any desktop (the eMac is available for really young children, mostly). At $799 retail, the G3 iBook is very hard to beat in terms of its feature set and its quality.
Quote:
For example, at my university (www.yorku.ca which is now probably the second largest university in Canada) they usually hang onto hardware for about 2 years and then all of it is returned for current hardware....monitors and everything...
currently the univeristy is using Dell's and I have been told that Dell simply offered the most attractive leasing options and thus got the contract...(an obscenely huge one for the record)...
That's quite possible, but there have also been cases where Apple has underbid Dell on large contracts, and there is also the unspoken possibility that Apple was never even given a chance to bid.
But if you look at the rollout of iBook programs to schools, the most cost-conscious enterprise environment, and you see Apple gaining share in laptop sales as laptop sales become a bigger part of overall education sales, it's hard to argue with the aggressiveness of their staff. They'll lose a few, inevitably (HP beat both Apple and Dell to a major laptop-in-school initiative in Illinois? recently), but they're winning a bunch.
Quote:
so what I am referring to here is that maybe hardware is not the only possible problem or drawback that is hindering Apple's relative success in this PEECEE dominated market, but rather their existing enterprise pricing and leasing policies...
I'd say that their biggest problem remains that some people never give them a chance to bid in the first place, and in many cases they go through back channels and make unilateral decisions to lock Apple out of their environments. In one such instance I read about recently, the poor Apple rep didn't even know that the decision had been made at the superintendent level to go all Windows until it was done and said and the memo had been sent out to staff (who learned that a decision was even being made at that time). A teacher who'd read the memo had to call her and ask her what had happened.
My whole argument boils down to the basic fact that IT managers (perhaps wrongly) REFUSE to consider AIOs. They also would NEVER (perhaps, also wrongly) deploy anything made with white plastic, no matter how attractive, fast or cheap it is.
You're way too hung up on colour. My office has about 400 PCs in the colour the supplier makes them - black, white, beige, silver - and a G4 Quicksilver.
All IT managers care about is Windows and price. If Macs were pink and ran Win2k they'd buy them too.
Regardless of system specs, etc, the real issues are monetary (the lease/support contract), compatibility (No real Exchange support other than the dreaded Outlook 2001), legacy apps (you know, that old crappy DOS or 16-bit Win app that you're still supporting) and knowledge (what IT director is comfortable replacing Win desktops with Mac OS X clients?). Overcome these and you have a better shot in the enterprise.
So to tackle monetary, it is all up to Apple's sales divisions. Compatibility is a bitch, because Outlook relies on MAPI (not available on the Mac) for Public Folders, etc. And until the day Microsoft releases the source for this, the Mac is doomed to Outlook 2001 for full Exchange compatibility. Also, legacy apps that require some version of Windows to run. Some apps we use were written by software houses no longer in business, so forget about even broaching the subject of a Mac-release. That is tough to overcome, as you have to find, or write, applications to replace them. I am doing this so as to stay open, with open souce database apps (mostly written in PostgreSQL) and PHP-enabled web servers (Apache). The last problem, knowledge of Mac OS X, may be the biggest hurdle, because it forces IT people to relearn and support an operating system. What Windows-IT flunky would want to give up that cushy job to actually learn proper and well crafted software? Better question, what IT manager wants to spend the money to retrain and entire IT staff on Mac OS X? It has to be done though if Apple wants a serious push into this market. The Enterprise group has to entice IT people to see the benefits of ridding themselves (at least somewhat) of Microsoft's shatware.
Comments
Here are a few of my observations regarding Apple's hopes of improving marketshare in the business segment:
- I think that we'll see Apple gradually supplanting Windows-based servers for back end, behind the scenes usage prior to seeing widespread desktop usage. This is of course highly dependant on what types of server applications a company needs (such as groupware, print serving, file serving, proprietary apps, etc.). The driver for this? I can't imagine what it has been like for network admins over the past couple of years, as many of them are likely going slightly nuts over the never ending stream of Microsoft platform specific security holes and viruses.
- In order to effectively target corporate desktop usage, Apple needs a lower cost solution that is not an all-in-one design. Apple also needs to either a) offer a lower priced display model for business use or b) allow purchasers of the headless box to easily connect them to PC monitors (CRT or LCD). The biggest single reason for the above is that purchasing requests are always subject to management approval, and if purchasing 1000 Apple desktops is going to cost $400 more per unit than PC platform desktops ($400,000 extra in total), good luck getting the manager to approve the switch.
- There are many companies out there that could switch their desktop use to the Mac platform, but the additional costs of personnel training, software purchasing (such as outfitting all new desktops with the Mac version of MS Office) and other costs would need to outweigh the costs of maintaining status quo. I would personally approach this in a proposal by showing the amount of money that maintenance due to patching and virus updates, as well as actual downtime (i.e. actual virus infections) are costing the company.
- In addition to the above, the Mac platform must meet the needs of the desktop users. Office on Mac vs. PC isn't a problem, but you have to also consider any proprietary apps being used, current e-mail/groupware used, etc.
I don't want to ramble too much beyond these points, but there has to be business sense in making a platform switch; beyond a sys admin waking up one day, "seeing the light", and deciding that he/she suddenly wants to convert everything to Mac OS.
On a related note, I'm working on my Bachelor of Commerce, with major in MIS and minor in Comp Sci, so it's quite possible that I will be involved in exactly this type of proposal creation and/or decision making in the near future.
Originally posted by Chagi
- In order to effectively target corporate desktop usage, Apple needs a lower cost solution that is not an all-in-one design. Apple also needs to either a) offer a lower priced display model for business use or b) allow purchasers of the headless box to easily connect them to PC monitors (CRT or LCD). The biggest single reason for the above is that purchasing requests are always subject to management approval, and if purchasing 1000 Apple desktops is going to cost $400 more per unit than PC platform desktops ($400,000 extra in total), good luck getting the manager to approve the switch.
A possibility for this market, working with IBM or without, would be to design a good blade server and deploy a cheep thin client. For this you wouldn't need any larger than a 40 GB hard drive, and even the lowly G4 would be powerful enough if the main processor could off-load excess processing to the Blade server. In fact the Blade doesn't even need to be running OS X server, just have the software to work transparently with OS X. This direction does fit in with technology that Apple has presented in the past, as well as rumors of of distributive processing (correct term?) that Apple has been working on. The question is what is the proper form factor for the "box" and how cheep can Apple, realistically, manufacture them for.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Hey, we actually agree on this subject! I guess I was being a little too hardcore when I said "change core values".
But it would actually involve giving up one of Apple's core values, because a bMac is, fundamentally, a Dell in white plastic. It offers no concrete improvement, usability-wise, over an iPaq or a Dell.
The iMac does.
My whole argument boils down to the basic fact that IT managers (perhaps wrongly) REFUSE to consider AIOs.
1) They REFUSED to consider machines without PCI NIC cards, too.
2) IT managers are absolutely great at coming up with a zillion reasons not to get Macs ("they're chatty on networks!" "their system fonts aren't masculine enough!"). However, this is changing of its own accord. White is a perfectly neutral color, especially the matte white of the iMac.
Most AIOs (including the eMac) do not make terribly good enterprise machines because (in the case of the PC AIOs) they suck and they're costly, or (in the case of the eMac) the presence of the tube makes any kind of work on the machine hairy and potentially lethal. Except for the iMac, none exploit their AIO nature in a way that gives them a significant advantage over an iPaq and an LCD. But the iMac does. Furthermore, the iMac could probably be tweaked in a way that makes it possible for a trained tech to replace the screen (which is why I mentioned the "iMac toolbox" available to enterprise people). Remember, they don't have to do it right there on the shop floor. They can swap in a spare and work in their own area, too. The iMac's design makes that really easy.
I don't see any hurry or rush to this. Apple can route around stubborn IT managers or wait until the threat of getting outsourced makes them look at cost-effective solutions even if they come in white. They don't have to sell to everybody now. The IT managers who understand what they need can be early adopters, and their successes can build the momentum necessary to nudge the people who are hung up on case colors. And that will take as long as it takes. In the meantime, Apple can build market share more easily in the education and consumer and professional markets, where there are lots of people with far fewer hangups, and even a growing number of people for whom the name "Apple" has some cachet.
More Apple in businesses will mean more at home, it is plain and simple. A lot of customers buy what they use and are used to. In most cases it mirrors what they have at work. Most consumers do not want to learn a new system...and for most of them that would mean learning to use a mac.
Apple is still viewed in IT departments as proprietary, and it has a bumbpy road ahead to overcome that perception. Being open source and standards based will help. Having a compatible exchange solution would go a long way in easing the transition.
Originally posted by FormatC2
Two words: Exchange killer. If Apple wants into the enterprise, it has to go through Exchange to get there.
If I were Apple, I would go web-based, to make it cross-platform.
At the core it would need e-mail, calendar, meeting planner (shared calendar) and organization-wide address book (ldap).
A lot of people simply don't realize how entrenched Exchange is in organizations... it is the trojan-horse of Office.
If you upgrade the Exchange server, you must upgrade the client, which is located in guess where? Office.
Being web-based would make the Xserve the obvious platform to serve it off of. Apple is a hardware company, so selling more Xserve hardware would be the plan.
Your thoughts?
How about asking IBM to make a Mac OS X version of Lotus - it's more used than Exchange anyway.
I am inclined to think this area would make more sense for Apple to pursue since it already is a player in this arena...
Being a lifelong student (now in grad school), I have both studied at and visited many educational institutions, both at the career college levels and the typical university level...
I too have chit chatted with many of their IT people, and have discussed the merits of the various available platforms...
And the repeating theme for all these past discussions has to do with COST. No more, no less. Cost is what cash strapped educators seemingly care about the most maybe even more so then your typical business manager.
For Apple to gain an additional grasp in the education market they have to drop prices, of their hardware aimed for education purposes....I know this is a rather simplistic but very true...
Apple just make it feature packed and as cheap as possible...whatever form factor you choose, whether AIO, or cube, or headless Mac, or maybe the release of a cheaper monitor is what you decide...it does not matter, just make it CHEAP in terms of final price...if you have to take a slightly larger hit on the bottomline do so to gain market penetration...
I know that the eMac is very competitive already, but maybe perhaps Apple has to offer deeper discounts, or restructure their current leasing/buy back policies...however I am not sure if this is possible...
For example, at my university (www.yorku.ca which is now probably the second largest university in Canada) they usually hang onto hardware for about 2 years and then all of it is returned for current hardware....monitors and everything...
currently the univeristy is using Dell's and I have been told that Dell simply offered the most attractive leasing options and thus got the contract...(an obscenely huge one for the record)...
so what I am referring to here is that maybe hardware is not the only possible problem or drawback that is hindering Apple's relative success in this PEECEE dominated market, but rather their existing enterprise pricing and leasing policies...
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
If Apple is gonna get serious about the enterprise then it must have a low cost, low maintenance, yet high performance client machine for the desktop...
Apple could do this machine early next year for $999. Even less in large quantities or bundled with G5 Xserves.
If the Cube name is tainted...
If the Cube didn't make market sense back then when there was quite a gap between the very consumer original G3 iMacs and the G4 PowerMacs, it will make less sense now when the current iMacs (G4, LCD) have got more "proconsumer".
A single processor G5 Cube may not be all that different in value from a single processor G5 tower.
So from a market point of view, I don't see much sense to a G5 cube.
Originally posted by rmendis
If the Cube didn't make market sense back then when there was quite a gap between the very consumer original G3 iMacs and the G4 PowerMacs, it will make less sense now when the current iMacs (G4, LCD) have got more "proconsumer".
A single processor G5 Cube may not be all that different in value from a single processor G5 tower.
So from a market point of view, I don't see much sense to a G5 cube.
agreed...
perhaps in this scenario Apple should simply widen the variety of choices that are currently avaialble with the current PowerMac line...
increase the amount of build to order options currently available...thus ultimately concentrating and focusing resources on this one line solely...
perhaps not...
Originally posted by Aphelion
The idea of a Partnership!!! with IBM is overlooked by most Industry watchers.
Yes, an Enterprise Partnership with IBM would be a good idea.
Already IBM/Lotus produce:
1. Lotus Notes client for Mac
2. VisualAge C/C++/Fortran compilers for Mac OS X
3. Lotus WebSphere Studio for Mac
What would be good is to have support from some of IBM's other enterprise software: MQSeries, WebSphere, Domnio, DB2, SmallTalk, Rational tools to name a few.
Originally posted by rmendis
If the Cube didn't make market sense back then when there was quite a gap between the very consumer original G3 iMacs and the G4 PowerMacs, it will make less sense now when the current iMacs (G4, LCD) have got more "proconsumer".
A single processor G5 Cube may not be all that different in value from a single processor G5 tower.
So from a market point of view, I don't see much sense to a G5 cube.
It would make a ton of sense if it was $999 or even $1299. The ONLY thing wrong with the original Cube was the price.
Ensign Pulver, I like what you're saying.
The mini-'G5' Cube looks 'PHWOAR!'
I'd like to see it in 'all white'. Nice.
If Apple could do that. G5 it. Get the price under a 1K then they'd have a very compelling consumer/edu' and bus' Mac. (They'd sell more than those G4 towers do, eh?
Given the lacklustre sales of iMac2/eMac then it's worth a try.
I'm sure alot of business folk have monitors they don't want to throw out when they buy a new computer (in addition to software switch costs etc...) The bMac concept should replace the eMac to me.
The iMac3 will replace the iMac2. Maybe it will be the 'b'Mac. Hopefully it will have a detachable LCD monitor and innovative feature set to justify its high price. Still depends on why(!) Apple are making an iMac3 as rumoured.
Cost? Price bracket? Margins? Make it more flexible in design? More innovative. The rumours of changes to the iMac2 have been consistent for some time. Clearly, Apple aren't satisfield with the current model. And sales figures and inability of Apple to drive the price downward tell their own story. (Not to mention critics on these boards who have their reservations.)
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by rmendis
Yes, an Enterprise Partnership with IBM would be a good idea.
... to have support from some of IBM's other enterprise software: MQSeries, WebSphere, Domnio, DB2, SmallTalk, Rational tools to name a few.
IBM's blades and Blade Center chassis are also a perfect fit with Apple's server strategy. No R&D expenses to recover, instant roll-out (MWSF?) and World Class IBM support and service.
Just as Sun has gained tremendous credibility with their java desktop (Looking Glass) by contracting EDS to provide on-site service and support, Apple can OEM these from IBM and let IBM service and support them. Instant acceptance in the corporate world.
On the software side IBM and Apple could be extremely complimentary. Why wouldn't IBM not want to offer another choice in operating systems? They would make their money from the support and service contracts.
A thin client from Apple to compliment the OSX blades in the server room would be a major inducement for both business and educational use. (think Sun Ray).
Microsoft's Exchange Server already has some competition from SuSe with the Open Exchange Server With IBM's $50 million investment in Novel's purchase of SuSe we might see some benefits coming Apple's way in dethroning Microsoft in this area with a compelling replacement that could be compiled to run under OSX.
What would Apple lose by allowing IBM to offer OSX server on their big iron? What would they gain?
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
It would make a ton of sense if it was $999 or even $1299. The ONLY thing wrong with the original Cube was the price.
Well, Apple will not be able to produce a $999 Cube without seriously revising the iMac prices. So no, it's not going to happen.
I might have thought it likely if Apple had made the iMac cheaper, making room at the mid or proconsumer level.
That's not to say a small box isn't a good idea. I do think it needs at the very least a PCMCIA or PCI slot though - someone above wrote that tech departments "used to" be concerned about on-board Ethernet - well, no, they were, and still are, concerned about irreplacable Ethernet systems (and on PCs also wanted to standardize the Ethernet hardware so that common drivers could be used.) You need some expansion potential simply so that an expensive machine with a common, unavoidable, form of damage isn't rendered unusable as a result.
A strengthened pizza-box type enclosure might be more appropriate for what corporate users want than a cube. If it can support a 19" CRT monitor sitting on top of it, it wouldn't take up any extra desktop area, and it should be large enough for a side-ways PCI card. It also would be relatively easy to cool as airflow in a confined space is fairly easy to predict and control.
Oh, and one other thing - a built in KVM. That is, you should have a VGA-in slot and keyboard/mouse PS/2 output sockets. You're asking people to do a radical thing and switch from one platform to something radically different that doesn't run the same software: one way you can help is to make it easy for someone to hook up their old hardware so they still have access when they need it. That's a perfect solution - the user will not have to reinstall anything, all they have to do is unplug the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and plug the new Mac into the monitor and the old PC.
Originally posted by peharri
... Oh, and one other thing - a built in KVM. That is, you should have a VGA-in slot and keyboard/mouse PS/2 output sockets. ...
There are inexpensive PS/2-to-USB adapters. I bought one ($15), thinking it would make my Mac work with my KVM. The keyboard connection works, but not the mouse. I'm thinking of trying another kind.
KVMs are extensively used in server rooms, not on the desktop. Thus, this might make sense for an Xserve, but it isn't necessary for the bMac. Besides, most PCs are going to USB keyboards & mice too.
Originally posted by cubist
There are inexpensive PS/2-to-USB adapters. I bought one ($15), thinking it would make my Mac work with my KVM. The keyboard connection works, but not the mouse. I'm thinking of trying another kind.
KVMs are extensively used in server rooms, not on the desktop. Thus, this might make sense for an Xserve, but it isn't necessary for the bMac. Besides, most PCs are going to USB keyboards & mice too.
If you reread my comment, you'll see my explanation. I'm not proposing the use of bMacs in server rooms, I'm proposing that they're an absolute must for most people who are migrating from one platform to a completely different, incompatable, one. If you don't provide a KVM, you force someone switching in a corporate environment to either:
(a) Have both a complete Mac and complete PC on their desk. They're not going to do that
(b) Force someone to buy a KVM seperately. They're unlikely to want to do that. They may not even realise such a solution exists. They probably will not do it.
(c) Use a PC emulator, which entails extra investment, poor performance, and a need to reinstall everything, with no guarantee the reinstalled environment will work. They're not going to do that.
(d) Forget about switching
PS/2 is fine because no PC anyone's migrating from will lack PS/2 ports.
I use a Mac at work (at my own expense...) and if I didn't have a KVM, I'd have given up. There's still legacy apps I need access to as well as an installed base of PC users who rely upon my having a PC (and would have me fired if I snottily told them "Oh, I can't use that application, I have a Mac")
A KVM is a critical component of a migration path from one platform to an entirely incompatable platform. If Apple includes the functionality in a bMac, they'd be guaranteeing one would be there, that it would work, that it would encourage - through defaults etc - the user is orientated to the Mac and uses the PC only when necessary.
BLADE RUNNER._ As a side benefit, Apple's nascent server business will likely gain from IBM's moves to push the envelope on its PPC line. Glaskowsky and others expect that Apple will soon be able to offer a blade-server line based on the chip configuration IBM plans to put into its JS20 blade servers.
That gets Apple a seat at the table in one of the hardware business' fastest growing segments. Tech tracker IDC found that in the third quarter of 2003, blade-server sales grew by 763% vs. the same quarter last year. That still only totals $164 million, a very small percentage of the $11 billion global server market for that quarter. And Apple sold just 4,800 servers in that quarter, less than half a percent of the total global market.
Still, the blade-server market is growing in key areas where Apple has strong niches, such as biotech and special effects and animation for films. While it will probably never come close to Apple's much bigger desktop and laptop business, the server lines promise nice profit margins. "[Apple is] still a pretty small player. But their presence has grown," says Mark Melenovski, a server analyst at IDC.
A year and a half ago I started this topic: Blade Runner - A Modular Power Mac
And then this thread: Blade Runner Redux
Perhaps I was a bit early with my speculation, but an interesting idea none the less.
Originally posted by shabbasuraj
I too have chit chatted with many of their IT people, and have discussed the merits of the various available platforms...
And the repeating theme for all these past discussions has to do with COST. No more, no less. Cost is what cash strapped educators seemingly care about the most maybe even more so then your typical business manager.
For Apple to gain an additional grasp in the education market they have to drop prices, of their hardware aimed for education purposes....I know this is a rather simplistic but very true...
You don't even look at Apple's retail prices to see how bidded purchases work. I believe one of the big iBook installments averages out to $300 per iBook over the lease, and Apple threw in free PowerBooks for the teachers, a couple of free Xserves, free ABSs, etc.
You don't even think of making money off the hardware with these deals. The money is in the support contract.
At least in K-12, the machine Apple's flogging is the iBook, not any desktop (the eMac is available for really young children, mostly). At $799 retail, the G3 iBook is very hard to beat in terms of its feature set and its quality.
For example, at my university (www.yorku.ca which is now probably the second largest university in Canada) they usually hang onto hardware for about 2 years and then all of it is returned for current hardware....monitors and everything...
currently the univeristy is using Dell's and I have been told that Dell simply offered the most attractive leasing options and thus got the contract...(an obscenely huge one for the record)...
That's quite possible, but there have also been cases where Apple has underbid Dell on large contracts, and there is also the unspoken possibility that Apple was never even given a chance to bid.
But if you look at the rollout of iBook programs to schools, the most cost-conscious enterprise environment, and you see Apple gaining share in laptop sales as laptop sales become a bigger part of overall education sales, it's hard to argue with the aggressiveness of their staff. They'll lose a few, inevitably (HP beat both Apple and Dell to a major laptop-in-school initiative in Illinois? recently), but they're winning a bunch.
so what I am referring to here is that maybe hardware is not the only possible problem or drawback that is hindering Apple's relative success in this PEECEE dominated market, but rather their existing enterprise pricing and leasing policies...
I'd say that their biggest problem remains that some people never give them a chance to bid in the first place, and in many cases they go through back channels and make unilateral decisions to lock Apple out of their environments. In one such instance I read about recently, the poor Apple rep didn't even know that the decision had been made at the superintendent level to go all Windows until it was done and said and the memo had been sent out to staff (who learned that a decision was even being made at that time). A teacher who'd read the memo had to call her and ask her what had happened.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
My whole argument boils down to the basic fact that IT managers (perhaps wrongly) REFUSE to consider AIOs. They also would NEVER (perhaps, also wrongly) deploy anything made with white plastic, no matter how attractive, fast or cheap it is.
You're way too hung up on colour. My office has about 400 PCs in the colour the supplier makes them - black, white, beige, silver - and a G4 Quicksilver.
All IT managers care about is Windows and price. If Macs were pink and ran Win2k they'd buy them too.
So to tackle monetary, it is all up to Apple's sales divisions. Compatibility is a bitch, because Outlook relies on MAPI (not available on the Mac) for Public Folders, etc. And until the day Microsoft releases the source for this, the Mac is doomed to Outlook 2001 for full Exchange compatibility. Also, legacy apps that require some version of Windows to run. Some apps we use were written by software houses no longer in business, so forget about even broaching the subject of a Mac-release. That is tough to overcome, as you have to find, or write, applications to replace them. I am doing this so as to stay open, with open souce database apps (mostly written in PostgreSQL) and PHP-enabled web servers (Apache). The last problem, knowledge of Mac OS X, may be the biggest hurdle, because it forces IT people to relearn and support an operating system. What Windows-IT flunky would want to give up that cushy job to actually learn proper and well crafted software? Better question, what IT manager wants to spend the money to retrain and entire IT staff on Mac OS X? It has to be done though if Apple wants a serious push into this market. The Enterprise group has to entice IT people to see the benefits of ridding themselves (at least somewhat) of Microsoft's shatware.