Perhaps the model for getting Macs into business should be the iPod.
An industrial strength iPod as an element of a net boot system?
Virtual laser keyboard, standard iPod controls, small OLED color screen, larger folding OLED screen, fast wireless connection back to server / home folder, voice recognition input and, oh yeah, a phone. Add points for being somewhat usable with Windows.
The business version of the iTMS might be an amusing exercise for our distinguished readership.
EXACTLY. You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded. And for Apple or Mac zealots to assume otherwise is insane. Realistically, you have ONE choice which is to phase in the new platform. You cannot do that unless you ensure that both platforms are running in parallel.
Those that have Wintel systems in their cubicles can keep them right there. Whatever the current infrastucture is it can remain in place as the iMac, bMac, or tMac ("Cubicle Cube"?) is placed beside it as needed, it in a small footprint.
For most companies any change is phased in gradually, as part of the ongoing upgrade process as defined the IT budget. The point is how can Apple products, whether hardware or software, get a slice of this corporate pie.
Given your well expressed need to maintain "legacy" compatability, and given that the hardware already exists for G5 and Wintel to peacefully coexist in a rack together wouldn't that meet your needs?
As far as your objection to throwing your Wintel infrastructure in the trash (where it rightfully belongs me thinks...) that is valid only to a degree. Longhorn will relegate most of that gear there anyways.
Percentage wise there are a large number of PC's out there that don't even run XP that well (and don't need to...). Of course, they could be useful as dumb terminals to the Xeon blades IBM offers for their Blade Centers.
Quote:
Originally posted by peharri
It might be innovative, but who'd actually buy it? Off the top of my head, only a company starting from the ground up.
Or an enterprise that can be sold on the idea that there will be a cost savings resulting from a move to consolidated processing power in densely populated racks of blades that can be managed and protected by the IT staff (reduced to be sure) in the server room, and that troubleshooting trips out into the cubicles can be eliminated.
This is where enterprise computing (regardless of platform) is headed, I mean, just consider the alternative ~ Spending big bucks on buying into Bill Gates dream of new fat client hardware with NGCSB(aka Palladium) hardware running "Longhorn" and then being sold a (bill of goods?) subscription to Redmond's vision with their next Software Assurance Plan.
Now it has been written for "open standards" how hard could it be to develop a OSX version or at least client?
Platform Support: "IBM Lotus Workplace server products are currently available on Linux for Intel 32 bit: SuSE 7.2 and 7.3, IBM AIX, Version 5.2 and Microsoft Windows 2000 Server. Supported client operating systems include Microsoft Windows 2000 sp3, Microsoft Windows XP, SuSE Linux 7.2 and 7.3 on Intel. Supported browsers include Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 service pack 2, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 and Mozilla 1.3 on SuSE Linux."
Despite your italicized warning I'm afraid I must go there.
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. Such a machine must meet three criteria:
1. Small footprint
2. G5 based (64 bit will be THE selling point for business customers)
3. Compatible with existing VGA and DVI displays
Apple currently has no machine that does all three. Businesses will NEVER deploy iMacs or eMacs no matter how cheap they get or even if they get G5s, and the Power Macs are total overkill for the majority of enterprise users.
So, if it quacks like a Cube...
Single 2.0 90nm G5
Single upgradeable 100 GB Serial ATA drive
Radeon 9000 64MB in a standard, upgradeable AGP slot
Dual monitor support via DVI and AGP (VGA adapter included)
Combo drive
2 RAM slots, 512MB, 1GB or 2GB in pairs
No PCI
No extra drive bays
The pitch has got to be simple and cost effective deployment. Just take it out of the box, plug in the power, keyboard, mouse and your existing NON-APPLE CRT or flat panel display and you're done. It runs Office, mounts SAMBA shares, prints to anything, anywhere on the network and doesn't get viruses.
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, call it the bMac. That's actually better anyway. eMacs for education, iMacs for consumers, bMacs for the enterprise and Power Macs for creative professionals.
Well, that post explains why you are still just an ensign. If you had shown some intelligence, you would have been promoted
Ok, seriously now, I think that the problem that you have is that you see Apple taking on the enterprise as Apple making an entire coropration top to bottom use Macs. This is bad thinking and is doomed to failure. Too many secretaries are trained to use cheapo Dells with MS office for the PC. You don't want to retrain them. You can't compete with Dell for a cheapie low end box that can barely run the latest OS and word processor (heck, most of the time these machines are handmedowns!). Deployment isn't such a big issue- enterprises have whole legions of IT staff.
A more sensible enterprise strategy would be for Apple to move into the server room with some reliable components and a great server OS. Apple should focus on integration with windows and playing as nice as possible with a windows environment.
Further, Apple should market themselves as the enterprise supercomputer provider. Apple should sell racks of XServes at a reduced price to place themselves in the position of the premiere back end number crunchers. Quite a few enterprises have a need for LOTS of CPU power.
These are two things that Apple can do well, and they are areas where they can succeed.
And finally, I am dissapointed that you with a screen name of ensign pulver failed to make a single star trek joke on a topic dealing with the "enterprise". The younger generation has so much to learn.
Er, right. So this is about revenge, not switching?
No, it's about switching.
Quote:
That's an unrealistic target. Essentially you're telling virtually every organization with more than a handful of PCs that they can't switch. So what is the point in the bMac?
There is no point to the bMac. Or rather, the point is to try to find Yet Another Way to slip a cheap headless Mac into the lineup so that the bMac advocates can imagine snapping one up for themselves.
That aside, all I've ever said is that you if you're going to switch, you have to make sure the apps are there first. If they aren't, you can't switch.
Two platforms + a KVM is a bizarre and expensive solution that I would only deploy where there really was no choice. There's really no point to doing it in the general case. What you'd like to see, instead, is something like what's happening in engineering, where a single PowerMac replaces a Sun workstation and a Windows box.
Quote:
That's utterly bizarre. I use a Mac at work because it's the right tool for the job and Windows isn't. However, I need Windows on occasion because of legacy and interoperability reasons.
And VPC doesn't work... why?
I understand that it can't do heavy lifting, but if the legacy apps are relatively lightweight, and the interoperability needs are occasional and/or lightweight and apps like DAVE and MacLinkPlus can't address them, VPC is just about perfect.
Come to think of it, you could plant a Windows box under someone's desk and install a remote desktop client, too...
Quote:
Really, if you're going to insist that anyone already stuck with Windows should remain stuck with it, and shouldn't try and find better ways of working then... well, I don't know.
No, you don't. I suggested, in painfully clear language, that if you can't find better ways of working then you can't switch. First, you figure out if the Mac can do what you need (which is "trying and finding a better way," right?). Then, if it can, you can switch.
This is not difficult.
Quote:
I guess we're not going to see eye-to-eye. The Mac is never going to be a perfect platform, neither is Windows, so how legitimate is it to pretend that "the right tool for the job" is one or the other?
The right tool for the job is whatever you need to get the job done. If something requires Windows, Windows is the tool for the job. If something requires a Mac, a Mac is the right tool for the job. If something can go either way, you have a choice. This is not about perfection, this is about deploying a platform that you can actually use.
Quote:
Is it really sensible to argue on the one hand that Apple should come out with a box which is the "ultimate corporate switcher's box" and on the other guarantee it solves none of the problems that switching in a corporate enterprise entails?
I don't recall ever arguing for the bMac. I think it's silly and irrelevant. The problems that switching entails are, as you point out, almost entirely software and support issues, so I'm focusing on those. Hardware solutions to software problems generally suck.
Quote:
EXACTLY. You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded. And for Apple or Mac zealots to assume otherwise is insane. Realistically, you have ONE choice which is to phase in the new platform. You cannot do that unless you ensure that both platforms are running in parallel.
Which you only need a few people to do, as I've said. You get the apps up on the new platform, rolling some new ones in FMP if you have to. You take a small pilot group, sit them down in front of a few KVMs attached to a PC and a Mac, and make sure the new apps can do everything the old apps can do. Then, when you're confident that it works, you roll out the new platform.
I've seen this time and time and time and time and time again. That's how it works.
Quote:
Because a "switch" without KVMs, without both platforms running in parallel and without people able to access their legacy applications and data in legacy formats is an overnight switch and that is what you've been advocating.
No, I've been advocating finding ways to deal with the legacy applications and legacy data before switching. Transparently. In plain English. I've done this myself, and I'm doing it right now. It's not insane, or unrealistic, or even particularly difficult. First, you do a comprehensive accounting of what apps and formats are used and needed. Then, you figure out whether you can source those apps and read those formats on the platform you want to move to. Then, if the numbers add up, you assemble (and/or hand-rool) your new solution, gather beta testers, and let 'er rip. At the end of the testing cycle, you deploy.
Quote:
Right now you seem to be moving to "Well, the developers can run in parallel for a bit and then we'll migate everyone else overnight". That's a little more realistic but not much: I can't think of any corporation where this would work.
You missed a few, then, because that's how every rollout of a platform that I've ever seen has been done.
And, by the way, I haven't moved anywhere in my position. Maybe if I keep repeating it in italics you'll realize what it is. I have never advocated a sudden or blind rollout.
Quote:
The bMac is not a corporate switchers Mac if it doesn't recognize that truth, if it makes the presumption that you can just remove a PC from an organization, change it to a Mac, and as long as you have Office X installed it'll just work. It will not. In 99% of corporations of any non-trivial size, individuals - not programmers, but data processing, product support, accounting, management, etc - run applications that are currently tied to Windows. They CANNOT SWITCH overnight. You can move most of their work to Macs, but not all of it.
The bMac does not and cannot address the simple fact that all the problems you're describing are software problems. Their solutions are software solutions. So you find Mac versions of the software, or Mac alternatives, or roll your own if you can (I'm currently rolling our own). You find ways to translate file formats, or roll your own ways if you can (I really hate doing that, but I've done it). Then, when you think you've got everything, you test. When you're satisfied that everything works, you deploy. The hardware deployment can be overnight, although realistically it would probably be incremental so that you could move the easy people over first, and spend more time on people with more specialized needs. Some people (the SAS programmers here) might never go over.
And you know what? That's fine. The best tool for the job (not the "perfect" tool, because that doesn't exist) is the one that lets your users run what they need and want to run in order to get their work done. If that's Windows, so be it. The world will not end.
Two platforms + a KVM is a bizarre and expensive solution that I would only deploy where there really was no choice. There's really no point to doing it in the general case. What you'd like to see, instead, is something like what's happening in engineering, where a single PowerMac replaces a Sun workstation and a Windows box.
I find it strange that nobody mentioned Citrix in this thread, so here it is: Citrix!
Why not use Entourage 10.1.4? It has scheduling and Contacts support now. Still many features missing like Public Folders and server side rules but it's getting there.
You answered yourself. We have tons of info in public folders; everything from meeting minutes, vendor contact info, dept, helpdesk and on-call calendars. Sucks not having access to that, and only Outlook 2001 brings that to you.
As I look at the Cube on my desk... Hmmn ~ yes! That's it, just strip out all the unneeded stuff and put a heat sink and fan from the G5 Power Mac in there with a gigabit ethernet or optional fiber channel card.
<snip>
Thanks Ensign Pulver, you just designed the 20th Anniversary Mac ~ The Cubicle Cube.
Sure, no problem!
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of netboot. It sure blew my socks off when I first saw Steve demo it years ago. Why has Apple let it languish? Doesn't netboot turn the traditional office network on its head? They say that a competing technology must be ten times better or ten times cheaper to displace an entrenched system. Doesn't an office of netbooted, supercheap Cubes fit that bill? That's how you compete with cheap Dell boxes.
Well, that post explains why you are still just an ensign. If you had shown some intelligence, you would have been promoted
Ok, seriously now, I think that the problem that you have is that you see Apple taking on the enterprise as Apple making an entire coropration top to bottom use Macs. This is bad thinking and is doomed to failure. Too many secretaries are trained to use cheapo Dells with MS office for the PC. You don't want to retrain them. You can't compete with Dell for a cheapie low end box that can barely run the latest OS and word processor (heck, most of the time these machines are handmedowns!). Deployment isn't such a big issue- enterprises have whole legions of IT staff.
A more sensible enterprise strategy would be for Apple to move into the server room with some reliable components and a great server OS. Apple should focus on integration with windows and playing as nice as possible with a windows environment.
Further, Apple should market themselves as the enterprise supercomputer provider. Apple should sell racks of XServes at a reduced price to place themselves in the position of the premiere back end number crunchers. Quite a few enterprises have a need for LOTS of CPU power.
These are two things that Apple can do well, and they are areas where they can succeed.
And finally, I am dissapointed that you with a screen name of ensign pulver failed to make a single star trek joke on a topic dealing with the "enterprise". The younger generation has so much to learn.
Oh my, where to start?
Do you really think a secretary using Office on a PC can't be retrained to use it (better) on a Mac in a week? A day? How much time and money is already spent keeping that cheap Dell running and patched just to protect the "investment" in the secretary's Windows skill in the first place? You trade a few days of training for NOT having the IT guy at the secretary's desk three times a week fixing the latest security hole/virus/software incompatibility.
That's the whole problem with IT. They are the Catholic Church in the 14th century. You have to go to them (and pay dearly) for absolution. Apple's #1 pitch will be greatly reduced IT costs: less staff, less maintenance and most importantly less influence. Of course, the irony is they've got to convince IT departments to put themselves out of business by going Mac.
Now this pitch will be unpopular in most corporate circles, especially initially, but that's fine. Steve's not going to try to win over Ford Motor Co. on the first day. Apple just needs to target mid-sized, yet high profile companies for PR friendly Mac conversions. (Hmm, Pixar anyone?) They can also go after "hip" companies with tech savvy management that don't blindly kowtow to their own IT staff. Startups of course are the most logical here.
And lastly, it is I that shake my head at you, Yevgeny. Do a Google on Ensign Pulver and you might learn there are much cooler references available than our tired Enterprise crew.
I find it strange that nobody mentioned Citrix in this thread, so here it is: Citrix!
Licensing is the shitty part of Citrix. It is VERY expensive and some of it's software requirements are pretty inane. Basically you still have to purchase Windows/SQL/Office/etc licenses to use it. It really is just a management tool, so you don't have to re-image/update a thousand desktops individually.
Mac OS X in the server room and Mac OS X 10.? with an integrated Windows compatibility layer (sorta like VPC) will definately help switchers. The real goal for a company seriously thinking about switching is to save money and protect assets (ie; no security-hole-ridden Windows crap). You need either a multi-platform (read: java/web-based) or OS X-native app that surplants the Windows app you are replacing.
It doesn't make sense to license both platforms for one purpose. If you are serious about switching than the ultimate goal is a total switchover, I have seen.
That's the whole problem with IT. They are the Catholic Church in the 14th century. You have to go to them (and pay dearly) for absolution. Apple's #1 pitch will be greatly reduced IT costs: less staff, less maintenance and most importantly less influence. Of course, the irony is they've got to convince IT departments to put themselves out of business by going Mac.
And just think of the unemployment rate in IT and the sheer number of MCSE's begging for food on the streets!
I can see the signs now, "Will patch your Windows-crap for Food!"
... I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of netboot ... Doesn't an office of netbooted, supercheap Cubes fit that bill? That's how you compete with cheap Dell boxes.
Description of Netboot:
"NetBoot is the primary technology Apple provides for managing open clusters of Macs. Essentially it allows for managing many Macs from a server. Architecturally, it is very similar to X-terminal technology in UNIX. NetBoot is installed on an OSX server. This install includes disk images that client systems will use. No operating system need be present on the client systems. The client is ?booted? off the server and all information needed to function is on the server (operating system, data, and resources). Effectively, this makes the client a ?smart terminal?. Smart in that it uses its own processor. Changes to the client image on the server can be managed remotely. Only the image on the server needs to be modified to affect all the clients."
Yes it is Netboot that will make an Apple thin client work. Perhaps it has "languished" because Apple doesn't make a thin client. The software is in place here, a stripped down "tMac" is all they need.
Putting one in a Cube case would be super cool (insanely great?) but just about any small form factor would work. They could even put one in a KVM switch, (it would have to be a little bigger than an iPod though).
Seriously though, how cheap could Apple make one and still maintain their 30% margin on the device. If G5's are really cheaper than G4's then why not something less than $500? Maybe even three or four hundred dollars for an entry level unit. 1.6 GHz G5 & 256 MB RAM.
Yevgeny should go on over to the Arse Battlefront if he wants to insult other posters. Of course your reply politely gutted him anyway. (You'll be a Doctor yet Ensign!)
I'm glad we have the right approach to this discussion
Quote:
Do you really think a secretary using Office on a PC can't be retrained to use it (better) on a Mac in a week? A day? How much time and money is already spent keeping that cheap Dell running and patched just to protect the "investment" in the secretary's Windows skill in the first place? You trade a few days of training for NOT having the IT guy at the secretary's desk three times a week fixing the latest security hole/virus/software incompatibility.
Yes, they can be retrained. I'd never argue that. Retraining takes time and money, two things that busineses don't give out for no reason. IT people however have a much lower learning curve and most of them are rather familiar with UNIX. Yes, some IT people would prefer very much to have Macs on most desktops, but it just doesn't work because the overall cost is too high to transition. Perhaps if there are some more bad MS viruses, this thinking will change. Right now you can't convince people that the TCO of a Mac setup is less than the TCO of a windows setup, even though it is true.
Quote:
That's the whole problem with IT. They are the Catholic Church in the 14th century. You have to go to them (and pay dearly) for absolution. Apple's #1 pitch will be greatly reduced IT costs: less staff, less maintenance and most importantly less influence. Of course, the irony is they've got to convince IT departments to put themselves out of business by going Mac.
IT staffs usually don't like the idea of smaller IT staffs. Kinda like how the Catholic church didn't like Wycliffe translating the Bible from Latin into other languages and burned him at the stake. Any proposition that winds up putting the IT department out of business will not be popular with the IT department. This is why you market Macs for the server room and hype up the UNIX foundation as much as possible. I think your own quote here shows why your plan to get Macs in the IT department won't work.
Quote:
Now this pitch will be unpopular in most corporate circles, especially initially, but that's fine. Steve's not going to try to win over Ford Motor Co. on the first day. Apple just needs to target mid-sized, yet high profile companies for PR friendly Mac conversions. (Hmm, Pixar anyone?) They can also go after "hip" companies with tech savvy management that don't blindly kowtow to their own IT staff. Startups of course are the most logical here.
Pixar doesn't count. Nobody in their right mind would look at a sound bite from a Pixar rep endorsing Apple computer and think that behind the stage that Mr. Jobs wasn't holding a gun to their head.
Hip works for consumers. TCO, stable, and reliable work for business. Confusing "Enterprise" with "Consumer" will get you laughed off of quite a few bid ("And if you decide to go with Apple, we'll throw in a free iPod for each of your secretaries." does not go over well in the business world)
Yes, startups are a good place to start (ok, I intended for that to be a pun and I will admit it).
Quote:
And lastly, it is I that shake my head at you, Yevgeny. Do a Google on Ensign Pulver and you might learn there are much cooler references available than our tired Enterprise crew.
Ok, so sue me. I didn't think that you were named after an adapted comedy/drama movie. Besides, I think that it is obligatory to do some kind of star trek joke when talking about "the enterprise". Man the internet is just going downhill nowadays.
If it makes you feel better, Yevgeny is not my real name.
Besides, I think that it is obligatory to do some kind of star trek joke when talking about "the enterprise". Man the internet is just going downhill nowadays.
*ahem* (from my post on the first page)
Quote:
I'm sure Ives is working on getting all those LCD screens on the bridge onto nice chrome arms, except for T'Pol's, UPN insists that she must continue to bend waaaay over as much as possible.
I realize that it's not funny if it requires some explanation, but it IS an obligatory Star Trek joke. I couldn't resist since the thread title refers to "the enterprise" and not "enterprise customers," or "the enterprise market"
I realize that it's not funny if it requires some explanation, but it IS an obligatory Star Trek joke. I couldn't resist since the thread title refers to "the enterprise" and not "enterprise customers," or "the enterprise market"
Not even touching the software costs of switching and cross-grading licensing if available, hardware cost and hardware options are a huge sticking point for enterprise acceptance.
Dell has this nailed and since right now Dell = enterprise, Apple has to compete with Dell.
This is of course unless Apple is solely looking at high end enterprise markets and back-end low cost server markets selling xServes, Raids, G5 workstations and the Mobile workforce. Which seems to me to be a valid starting point.
Quick check of Dells web site shows three Desktop small business options that each have three to five sub-options which are customizable in almost every way.
Dimensions, 5 models: 2400,4600,4600C,8300,XPS. Starting price for these models range from $349-$1,549
OptiPlex 160L, 3 Models:GX270, SX270,160L. Starting price for these models range from $399-$499
Dell PrecisionTM, 3 Models: 360, 450, 650. Starting price for these models range from $649-$1199
Comments
Originally posted by Aphelion
A rack full of Apple branded blades hooked to thin clients would be an innovative corporate solution.
It might be innovative, but who'd actually buy it? Off the top of my head, only a company starting from the ground up.
Lotus Software to provide support for Mac OS X in next version of Lotus Notes
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/swne...t&Site=default
Back from 2002. Is this in place yet?
An industrial strength iPod as an element of a net boot system?
Virtual laser keyboard, standard iPod controls, small OLED color screen, larger folding OLED screen, fast wireless connection back to server / home folder, voice recognition input and, oh yeah, a phone. Add points for being somewhat usable with Windows.
The business version of the iTMS might be an amusing exercise for our distinguished readership.
And then there's marketing.
"Your desk is in your pants."
Originally posted by tak1108
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/swne...t&Site=default
Back from 2002. Is this in place yet?
That's the client - how about a Mac OS X version of the server?
Originally posted by peharri
EXACTLY. You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded. And for Apple or Mac zealots to assume otherwise is insane. Realistically, you have ONE choice which is to phase in the new platform. You cannot do that unless you ensure that both platforms are running in parallel.
Those that have Wintel systems in their cubicles can keep them right there. Whatever the current infrastucture is it can remain in place as the iMac, bMac, or tMac ("Cubicle Cube"?) is placed beside it as needed, it in a small footprint.
For most companies any change is phased in gradually, as part of the ongoing upgrade process as defined the IT budget. The point is how can Apple products, whether hardware or software, get a slice of this corporate pie.
Given your well expressed need to maintain "legacy" compatability, and given that the hardware already exists for G5 and Wintel to peacefully coexist in a rack together wouldn't that meet your needs?
As far as your objection to throwing your Wintel infrastructure in the trash (where it rightfully belongs me thinks...) that is valid only to a degree. Longhorn will relegate most of that gear there anyways.
Percentage wise there are a large number of PC's out there that don't even run XP that well (and don't need to...). Of course, they could be useful as dumb terminals to the Xeon blades IBM offers for their Blade Centers.
Originally posted by peharri
It might be innovative, but who'd actually buy it? Off the top of my head, only a company starting from the ground up.
Or an enterprise that can be sold on the idea that there will be a cost savings resulting from a move to consolidated processing power in densely populated racks of blades that can be managed and protected by the IT staff (reduced to be sure) in the server room, and that troubleshooting trips out into the cubicles can be eliminated.
This is where enterprise computing (regardless of platform) is headed, I mean, just consider the alternative ~ Spending big bucks on buying into Bill Gates dream of new fat client hardware with NGCSB (aka Palladium) hardware running "Longhorn" and then being sold a (bill of goods?) subscription to Redmond's vision with their next Software Assurance Plan.
...
Originally posted by FormatC2
Two words: Exchange killer. If Apple wants into the enterprise, it has to go through Exchange to get there.
Could this be the Exchange Killer ?
Now it has been written for "open standards" how hard could it be to develop a OSX version or at least client?
Platform Support: "IBM Lotus Workplace server products are currently available on Linux for Intel 32 bit: SuSE 7.2 and 7.3, IBM AIX, Version 5.2 and Microsoft Windows 2000 Server. Supported client operating systems include Microsoft Windows 2000 sp3, Microsoft Windows XP, SuSE Linux 7.2 and 7.3 on Intel. Supported browsers include Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 service pack 2, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 and Mozilla 1.3 on SuSE Linux."
edit: better link for Lotus Workspace
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Despite your italicized warning I'm afraid I must go there.
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. Such a machine must meet three criteria:
1. Small footprint
2. G5 based (64 bit will be THE selling point for business customers)
3. Compatible with existing VGA and DVI displays
Apple currently has no machine that does all three. Businesses will NEVER deploy iMacs or eMacs no matter how cheap they get or even if they get G5s, and the Power Macs are total overkill for the majority of enterprise users.
So, if it quacks like a Cube...
Single 2.0 90nm G5
Single upgradeable 100 GB Serial ATA drive
Radeon 9000 64MB in a standard, upgradeable AGP slot
Dual monitor support via DVI and AGP (VGA adapter included)
Combo drive
2 RAM slots, 512MB, 1GB or 2GB in pairs
No PCI
No extra drive bays
The pitch has got to be simple and cost effective deployment. Just take it out of the box, plug in the power, keyboard, mouse and your existing NON-APPLE CRT or flat panel display and you're done. It runs Office, mounts SAMBA shares, prints to anything, anywhere on the network and doesn't get viruses.
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, call it the bMac. That's actually better anyway. eMacs for education, iMacs for consumers, bMacs for the enterprise and Power Macs for creative professionals.
Well, that post explains why you are still just an ensign. If you had shown some intelligence, you would have been promoted
Ok, seriously now, I think that the problem that you have is that you see Apple taking on the enterprise as Apple making an entire coropration top to bottom use Macs. This is bad thinking and is doomed to failure. Too many secretaries are trained to use cheapo Dells with MS office for the PC. You don't want to retrain them. You can't compete with Dell for a cheapie low end box that can barely run the latest OS and word processor (heck, most of the time these machines are handmedowns!). Deployment isn't such a big issue- enterprises have whole legions of IT staff.
A more sensible enterprise strategy would be for Apple to move into the server room with some reliable components and a great server OS. Apple should focus on integration with windows and playing as nice as possible with a windows environment.
Further, Apple should market themselves as the enterprise supercomputer provider. Apple should sell racks of XServes at a reduced price to place themselves in the position of the premiere back end number crunchers. Quite a few enterprises have a need for LOTS of CPU power.
These are two things that Apple can do well, and they are areas where they can succeed.
And finally, I am dissapointed that you with a screen name of ensign pulver failed to make a single star trek joke on a topic dealing with the "enterprise". The younger generation has so much to learn.
Originally posted by peharri
Er, right. So this is about revenge, not switching?
No, it's about switching.
That's an unrealistic target. Essentially you're telling virtually every organization with more than a handful of PCs that they can't switch. So what is the point in the bMac?
There is no point to the bMac. Or rather, the point is to try to find Yet Another Way to slip a cheap headless Mac into the lineup so that the bMac advocates can imagine snapping one up for themselves.
That aside, all I've ever said is that you if you're going to switch, you have to make sure the apps are there first. If they aren't, you can't switch.
Two platforms + a KVM is a bizarre and expensive solution that I would only deploy where there really was no choice. There's really no point to doing it in the general case. What you'd like to see, instead, is something like what's happening in engineering, where a single PowerMac replaces a Sun workstation and a Windows box.
That's utterly bizarre. I use a Mac at work because it's the right tool for the job and Windows isn't. However, I need Windows on occasion because of legacy and interoperability reasons.
And VPC doesn't work... why?
I understand that it can't do heavy lifting, but if the legacy apps are relatively lightweight, and the interoperability needs are occasional and/or lightweight and apps like DAVE and MacLinkPlus can't address them, VPC is just about perfect.
Come to think of it, you could plant a Windows box under someone's desk and install a remote desktop client, too...
Really, if you're going to insist that anyone already stuck with Windows should remain stuck with it, and shouldn't try and find better ways of working then... well, I don't know.
No, you don't. I suggested, in painfully clear language, that if you can't find better ways of working then you can't switch. First, you figure out if the Mac can do what you need (which is "trying and finding a better way," right?). Then, if it can, you can switch.
This is not difficult.
I guess we're not going to see eye-to-eye. The Mac is never going to be a perfect platform, neither is Windows, so how legitimate is it to pretend that "the right tool for the job" is one or the other?
The right tool for the job is whatever you need to get the job done. If something requires Windows, Windows is the tool for the job. If something requires a Mac, a Mac is the right tool for the job. If something can go either way, you have a choice. This is not about perfection, this is about deploying a platform that you can actually use.
Is it really sensible to argue on the one hand that Apple should come out with a box which is the "ultimate corporate switcher's box" and on the other guarantee it solves none of the problems that switching in a corporate enterprise entails?
I don't recall ever arguing for the bMac. I think it's silly and irrelevant. The problems that switching entails are, as you point out, almost entirely software and support issues, so I'm focusing on those. Hardware solutions to software problems generally suck.
EXACTLY. You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded. And for Apple or Mac zealots to assume otherwise is insane. Realistically, you have ONE choice which is to phase in the new platform. You cannot do that unless you ensure that both platforms are running in parallel.
Which you only need a few people to do, as I've said. You get the apps up on the new platform, rolling some new ones in FMP if you have to. You take a small pilot group, sit them down in front of a few KVMs attached to a PC and a Mac, and make sure the new apps can do everything the old apps can do. Then, when you're confident that it works, you roll out the new platform.
I've seen this time and time and time and time and time again. That's how it works.
Because a "switch" without KVMs, without both platforms running in parallel and without people able to access their legacy applications and data in legacy formats is an overnight switch and that is what you've been advocating.
No, I've been advocating finding ways to deal with the legacy applications and legacy data before switching. Transparently. In plain English. I've done this myself, and I'm doing it right now. It's not insane, or unrealistic, or even particularly difficult. First, you do a comprehensive accounting of what apps and formats are used and needed. Then, you figure out whether you can source those apps and read those formats on the platform you want to move to. Then, if the numbers add up, you assemble (and/or hand-rool) your new solution, gather beta testers, and let 'er rip. At the end of the testing cycle, you deploy.
Right now you seem to be moving to "Well, the developers can run in parallel for a bit and then we'll migate everyone else overnight". That's a little more realistic but not much: I can't think of any corporation where this would work.
You missed a few, then, because that's how every rollout of a platform that I've ever seen has been done.
And, by the way, I haven't moved anywhere in my position. Maybe if I keep repeating it in italics you'll realize what it is. I have never advocated a sudden or blind rollout.
The bMac is not a corporate switchers Mac if it doesn't recognize that truth, if it makes the presumption that you can just remove a PC from an organization, change it to a Mac, and as long as you have Office X installed it'll just work. It will not. In 99% of corporations of any non-trivial size, individuals - not programmers, but data processing, product support, accounting, management, etc - run applications that are currently tied to Windows. They CANNOT SWITCH overnight. You can move most of their work to Macs, but not all of it.
The bMac does not and cannot address the simple fact that all the problems you're describing are software problems. Their solutions are software solutions. So you find Mac versions of the software, or Mac alternatives, or roll your own if you can (I'm currently rolling our own). You find ways to translate file formats, or roll your own ways if you can (I really hate doing that, but I've done it). Then, when you think you've got everything, you test. When you're satisfied that everything works, you deploy. The hardware deployment can be overnight, although realistically it would probably be incremental so that you could move the easy people over first, and spend more time on people with more specialized needs. Some people (the SAS programmers here) might never go over.
And you know what? That's fine. The best tool for the job (not the "perfect" tool, because that doesn't exist) is the one that lets your users run what they need and want to run in order to get their work done. If that's Windows, so be it. The world will not end.
Originally posted by Amorph
Two platforms + a KVM is a bizarre and expensive solution that I would only deploy where there really was no choice. There's really no point to doing it in the general case. What you'd like to see, instead, is something like what's happening in engineering, where a single PowerMac replaces a Sun workstation and a Windows box.
I find it strange that nobody mentioned Citrix in this thread, so here it is: Citrix!
Originally posted by Outsider
Why not use Entourage 10.1.4? It has scheduling and Contacts support now. Still many features missing like Public Folders and server side rules but it's getting there.
You answered yourself. We have tons of info in public folders; everything from meeting minutes, vendor contact info, dept, helpdesk and on-call calendars. Sucks not having access to that, and only Outlook 2001 brings that to you.
Originally posted by Aphelion
As I look at the Cube on my desk... Hmmn ~ yes! That's it, just strip out all the unneeded stuff and put a heat sink and fan from the G5 Power Mac in there with a gigabit ethernet or optional fiber channel card.
<snip>
Thanks Ensign Pulver, you just designed the 20th Anniversary Mac ~ The Cubicle Cube.
Sure, no problem!
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of netboot. It sure blew my socks off when I first saw Steve demo it years ago. Why has Apple let it languish? Doesn't netboot turn the traditional office network on its head? They say that a competing technology must be ten times better or ten times cheaper to displace an entrenched system. Doesn't an office of netbooted, supercheap Cubes fit that bill? That's how you compete with cheap Dell boxes.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, that post explains why you are still just an ensign. If you had shown some intelligence, you would have been promoted
Ok, seriously now, I think that the problem that you have is that you see Apple taking on the enterprise as Apple making an entire coropration top to bottom use Macs. This is bad thinking and is doomed to failure. Too many secretaries are trained to use cheapo Dells with MS office for the PC. You don't want to retrain them. You can't compete with Dell for a cheapie low end box that can barely run the latest OS and word processor (heck, most of the time these machines are handmedowns!). Deployment isn't such a big issue- enterprises have whole legions of IT staff.
A more sensible enterprise strategy would be for Apple to move into the server room with some reliable components and a great server OS. Apple should focus on integration with windows and playing as nice as possible with a windows environment.
Further, Apple should market themselves as the enterprise supercomputer provider. Apple should sell racks of XServes at a reduced price to place themselves in the position of the premiere back end number crunchers. Quite a few enterprises have a need for LOTS of CPU power.
These are two things that Apple can do well, and they are areas where they can succeed.
And finally, I am dissapointed that you with a screen name of ensign pulver failed to make a single star trek joke on a topic dealing with the "enterprise". The younger generation has so much to learn.
Oh my, where to start?
Do you really think a secretary using Office on a PC can't be retrained to use it (better) on a Mac in a week? A day? How much time and money is already spent keeping that cheap Dell running and patched just to protect the "investment" in the secretary's Windows skill in the first place? You trade a few days of training for NOT having the IT guy at the secretary's desk three times a week fixing the latest security hole/virus/software incompatibility.
That's the whole problem with IT. They are the Catholic Church in the 14th century. You have to go to them (and pay dearly) for absolution. Apple's #1 pitch will be greatly reduced IT costs: less staff, less maintenance and most importantly less influence. Of course, the irony is they've got to convince IT departments to put themselves out of business by going Mac.
Now this pitch will be unpopular in most corporate circles, especially initially, but that's fine. Steve's not going to try to win over Ford Motor Co. on the first day. Apple just needs to target mid-sized, yet high profile companies for PR friendly Mac conversions. (Hmm, Pixar anyone?) They can also go after "hip" companies with tech savvy management that don't blindly kowtow to their own IT staff. Startups of course are the most logical here.
And lastly, it is I that shake my head at you, Yevgeny. Do a Google on Ensign Pulver and you might learn there are much cooler references available than our tired Enterprise crew.
Originally posted by JLL
I find it strange that nobody mentioned Citrix in this thread, so here it is: Citrix!
Licensing is the shitty part of Citrix. It is VERY expensive and some of it's software requirements are pretty inane. Basically you still have to purchase Windows/SQL/Office/etc licenses to use it. It really is just a management tool, so you don't have to re-image/update a thousand desktops individually.
Mac OS X in the server room and Mac OS X 10.? with an integrated Windows compatibility layer (sorta like VPC) will definately help switchers. The real goal for a company seriously thinking about switching is to save money and protect assets (ie; no security-hole-ridden Windows crap). You need either a multi-platform (read: java/web-based) or OS X-native app that surplants the Windows app you are replacing.
It doesn't make sense to license both platforms for one purpose. If you are serious about switching than the ultimate goal is a total switchover, I have seen.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
That's the whole problem with IT. They are the Catholic Church in the 14th century. You have to go to them (and pay dearly) for absolution. Apple's #1 pitch will be greatly reduced IT costs: less staff, less maintenance and most importantly less influence. Of course, the irony is they've got to convince IT departments to put themselves out of business by going Mac.
And just think of the unemployment rate in IT and the sheer number of MCSE's begging for food on the streets!
I can see the signs now, "Will patch your Windows-crap for Food!"
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
... I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of netboot ... Doesn't an office of netbooted, supercheap Cubes fit that bill? That's how you compete with cheap Dell boxes.
Description of Netboot:
"NetBoot is the primary technology Apple provides for managing open clusters of Macs. Essentially it allows for managing many Macs from a server. Architecturally, it is very similar to X-terminal technology in UNIX. NetBoot is installed on an OSX server. This install includes disk images that client systems will use. No operating system need be present on the client systems. The client is ?booted? off the server and all information needed to function is on the server (operating system, data, and resources). Effectively, this makes the client a ?smart terminal?. Smart in that it uses its own processor. Changes to the client image on the server can be managed remotely. Only the image on the server needs to be modified to affect all the clients."
Yes it is Netboot that will make an Apple thin client work. Perhaps it has "languished" because Apple doesn't make a thin client. The software is in place here, a stripped down "tMac" is all they need.
Putting one in a Cube case would be super cool (insanely great?) but just about any small form factor would work. They could even put one in a KVM switch, (it would have to be a little bigger than an iPod though).
Seriously though, how cheap could Apple make one and still maintain their 30% margin on the device. If G5's are really cheaper than G4's then why not something less than $500? Maybe even three or four hundred dollars for an entry level unit. 1.6 GHz G5 & 256 MB RAM.
Yevgeny should go on over to the Arse Battlefront if he wants to insult other posters. Of course your reply politely gutted him anyway. (You'll be a Doctor yet Ensign!)
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Oh my, where to start?
I'm glad we have the right approach to this discussion
Do you really think a secretary using Office on a PC can't be retrained to use it (better) on a Mac in a week? A day? How much time and money is already spent keeping that cheap Dell running and patched just to protect the "investment" in the secretary's Windows skill in the first place? You trade a few days of training for NOT having the IT guy at the secretary's desk three times a week fixing the latest security hole/virus/software incompatibility.
Yes, they can be retrained. I'd never argue that. Retraining takes time and money, two things that busineses don't give out for no reason. IT people however have a much lower learning curve and most of them are rather familiar with UNIX. Yes, some IT people would prefer very much to have Macs on most desktops, but it just doesn't work because the overall cost is too high to transition. Perhaps if there are some more bad MS viruses, this thinking will change. Right now you can't convince people that the TCO of a Mac setup is less than the TCO of a windows setup, even though it is true.
That's the whole problem with IT. They are the Catholic Church in the 14th century. You have to go to them (and pay dearly) for absolution. Apple's #1 pitch will be greatly reduced IT costs: less staff, less maintenance and most importantly less influence. Of course, the irony is they've got to convince IT departments to put themselves out of business by going Mac.
IT staffs usually don't like the idea of smaller IT staffs. Kinda like how the Catholic church didn't like Wycliffe translating the Bible from Latin into other languages and burned him at the stake. Any proposition that winds up putting the IT department out of business will not be popular with the IT department. This is why you market Macs for the server room and hype up the UNIX foundation as much as possible. I think your own quote here shows why your plan to get Macs in the IT department won't work.
Now this pitch will be unpopular in most corporate circles, especially initially, but that's fine. Steve's not going to try to win over Ford Motor Co. on the first day. Apple just needs to target mid-sized, yet high profile companies for PR friendly Mac conversions. (Hmm, Pixar anyone?) They can also go after "hip" companies with tech savvy management that don't blindly kowtow to their own IT staff. Startups of course are the most logical here.
Pixar doesn't count. Nobody in their right mind would look at a sound bite from a Pixar rep endorsing Apple computer and think that behind the stage that Mr. Jobs wasn't holding a gun to their head.
Hip works for consumers. TCO, stable, and reliable work for business. Confusing "Enterprise" with "Consumer" will get you laughed off of quite a few bid ("And if you decide to go with Apple, we'll throw in a free iPod for each of your secretaries." does not go over well in the business world)
Yes, startups are a good place to start (ok, I intended for that to be a pun and I will admit it).
And lastly, it is I that shake my head at you, Yevgeny. Do a Google on Ensign Pulver and you might learn there are much cooler references available than our tired Enterprise crew.
Ok, so sue me. I didn't think that you were named after an adapted comedy/drama movie. Besides, I think that it is obligatory to do some kind of star trek joke when talking about "the enterprise". Man the internet is just going downhill nowadays.
If it makes you feel better, Yevgeny is not my real name.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
... MCSE's begging for food on the streets!
I can see the signs now, "Will patch your Windows-crap for Food!"
At least they will never go hungry.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Besides, I think that it is obligatory to do some kind of star trek joke when talking about "the enterprise". Man the internet is just going downhill nowadays.
*ahem* (from my post on the first page)
I'm sure Ives is working on getting all those LCD screens on the bridge onto nice chrome arms, except for T'Pol's, UPN insists that she must continue to bend waaaay over as much as possible.
I realize that it's not funny if it requires some explanation, but it IS an obligatory Star Trek joke. I couldn't resist since the thread title refers to "the enterprise" and not "enterprise customers," or "the enterprise market"
Originally posted by Guartho
*ahem* (from my post on the first page)
I realize that it's not funny if it requires some explanation, but it IS an obligatory Star Trek joke. I couldn't resist since the thread title refers to "the enterprise" and not "enterprise customers," or "the enterprise market"
You get a cookie and a gold star.
Dell has this nailed and since right now Dell = enterprise, Apple has to compete with Dell.
This is of course unless Apple is solely looking at high end enterprise markets and back-end low cost server markets selling xServes, Raids, G5 workstations and the Mobile workforce. Which seems to me to be a valid starting point.
Quick check of Dells web site shows three Desktop small business options that each have three to five sub-options which are customizable in almost every way.
Dimensions, 5 models: 2400,4600,4600C,8300,XPS. Starting price for these models range from $349-$1,549
OptiPlex 160L, 3 Models:GX270, SX270,160L. Starting price for these models range from $399-$499
Dell PrecisionTM, 3 Models: 360, 450, 650. Starting price for these models range from $649-$1199