The OS X GUI server tools are also pretty kludgy. Now most sysadmins will probably just use the CLI, but still it's very confusing.
I'll second that. These days I'd rather toss the GUI tools altogether. They're pretty bad. I haven't seen 10.3 Server yet, but I can't imagine that Apple will let the server tools stay like they are for too long.
... Another benefit of the tMac as opposed to the bMac is it has ZERO value to consumers.... Make it a true thin client and it doesn't mess up the consumer product grid.
A true thin client relies on the server's CPUs to process instructions. NetBoot would not work with these. A remote tablet as discussed up-thread would be useful as a thin client. My definition for a "tMac" would be a smart thin client. The local CPU would do all the local processing and the server would provide the boot image via NetBoot, as well as all the storage and communications. All this controlled and secured in the server rooms by re-trained MSCSE's.
Well as far as that "tMac" I'd like to have one that I could NetBoot from my duallie, which of course when "xGrided", would give me a three processor system to encode DVDs. (2 G4's and one G5). Of course Apple could sell them by the pallet only to dissuade consumer use.
Think of how cool Rendezvous enabled clustering will be, whenever you add a Mac to your network, you also add to your grid's computational power. We truly live in wondrous times.
If we can sit around and think of insanely great ideas for Apple, think of the things they brainstorm over at One Infinite Loop. They have been painfully slow to bring things to market in the past, but I think that we will be seeing this glacial pace begin to accelerate even more in 2004 than we did in 2003.
Aphelion, apparently I was bandying the term "thin client" around too loosely. Of course our tMac would have its own G5 for NetBoot and distributed computing. What it wouldn't have is an internal hard drive or optical drive. This is what obviously makes it a non-starter for consumers and protects Apple's existing product grid.
Such a machine would also really scare the hell out of Dell. Removing the hard drive and optical drive costs would give Apple a price point not even they could match.
A diskless, super-tiny, quiet G5 Cube NetBooted off a dual G5 Xserve with plug and play distributed computing via Rendezvous sounds like a Dell killer to me...
No matter how cheap Apple makes their hardware there's always going to be someone else cheaper, and it's probably going to be Dell... I believe that Apple already has a compelling set of products for business.
The problem is that Microsoft has fooled business into locking themselfs into a MS solution. That's what Apple has to battle. They have to pick Microsoft's lock, not Dells... most importantly, working with Exchange.
What you said about competing with Dell on price (or anyone else) is true, and they do have a great set of products for business, but the topic is the enterprise, the Fortune 500, not the Fortune 5000.
They need innovative solutions (software) and innovative products (hardware) to meet the challenge before them.
I like your analogy about picking Microsoft's lock. (you are absolutely right, the key is M$ Exchange) Because of Microsoft's Office:mac product's hostage status they have to tread very carefully there.
To continue to use your analogy, they also need to do something about Dell's lock on the business market (Fortune 5000). I'd suggest blowing it off with innovative, cost effective (not cheap) hardware. The kind of stuff that the enterprise (Fortune 500) with competent IT staffs to evaluate would pick up on. The kind of stuff that Dell can't offer.
The third element, and perhaps the most important one, is the sales and support structure. Dell can't compete with IBM there, not in the enterprise. A PARTNERSHIP WITH IBM is the most paradigm changing thing mentioned in this thread. If this is ever announced it game set and match.
Apple has been rumored to be working to be building a corporate sales staff with Oracle alumni, all with Larry Ellison's blessing, and this is a good development if true. In the analysts conference call Apple pronounced their efforts to enter the business market (I think it was Phil). Contracting out support contracts to IBM (as in the SUN/EDS example given earlier) would be a masterstroke.
The delay (and intent) of Longhorn gives Apple a "window" of opportunity to crack Microsoft's monopoly. Once they "pick the lock" in Redmond, they've got to plant some charges, on time delay to be sure, but set to go off before the launch of Longhorn.
... Such a machine would also really scare the hell out of Dell. Removing the hard drive and optical drive costs would give Apple a price point not even they could match.
A diskless, super-tiny, quiet G5 Cube NetBooted off a dual G5 Xserve with plug and play distributed computing via Rendezvous sounds like a Dell killer to me...
Well Dell could does offer Thin Client Solutions - running on Citrix software I believe, so they are doing that.
Interesting what I have been calling a "smart thin client" they call a ThinPC so I'm going with tMac from now on for this diskless Mac (hey I invented a word! ~ but so did you with bMac) I think you would agree to endow your bMac with at least a hard drive to boot from, and I want one too! I fact I'll take both. Lets just hope that the corporate world will choose both as well.
Well Dell could does offer Thin Client Solutions - running on Citrix software I believe, so they are doing that.
Interesting what I have been calling a "smart thin client" they call a ThinPC so I'm going with tMac from now on for this diskless Mac (hey I invented a word! ~ but so did you with bMac) I think you would agree to endow your bMac with at least a hard drive to boot from, and I want one too! I fact I'll take both. Lets just hope that the corporate world will choose both as well.
I know nothing about Citrix. Does it not add a layer of cost and complexity that could be avoided with OS X Server/NetBoot?
Why give our tMac/bMac a hard drive? If it's Net Boot only, then it doesn't need one. Removing all internal rotating drives forces a new paradigm, massively reduces cost and keeps Joe Sixpack from buying one. An admin could always hook up an external drive or burner via FireWire for emergencies.
Just seems that Apple needs to change the rules of the game in order to win in the enterprise, much like Captain Kirk in Star Trek I. (OK, there I did it! A Trek reference/joke.)
I know nothing about Citrix. Does it not add a layer of cost and complexity that could be avoided with OS X Server/NetBoot?
... Just seems that Apple needs to change the rules of the game in order to win in the enterprise, much like Captain Kirk in Star Trek I. (OK, there I did it! A Trek[ reference/joke.)
Oh yes, Citrix does add both cost and complexity, but a Macintosh client is also available from them.
Well you coined the term "bMac" so you can define it any way you like, but sticking with the 21st Century Cube concept a tMac would be for the enterprise, while a bMac, with a local hard drive (ie headless Mac) would be for business, which wouldn't have a server room to NetBoot from.
I think Apple would do well to offer both, but the iMac3 "slice" concept as I posted above would be even more revolutionary.
Apple needs something like Ghost if it's gonna compete with Dell and other PC vendors in the enterprise.
The amalgmated monster (Disk Copy/Utility/Apple Software Restore) that ships with Panther is a woefully inadequate hack job. Terrible interface (including the "Images" menu which disappears and re-appears seemingly randomly) , no Help at all (just a suggestion to check the man page for ASR). Cryptic error messages (Error (-1) and the like) abound!
Does it sound like I'm bitter? I just spent the better part of 2 days imaging 5 Panther machines in a lab, something that would have taken 45 minutes using Ghost.
The OS X GUI server tools are also pretty kludgy. Now most sysadmins will probably just use the CLI, but still it's very confusing.
You are kidding right. Apple has a product called Network Install as part of Panther Server that does just what you are attempting.
They'd be spending $300 mil [for SGI] on a brand rather than R&D. Does that make sense for a company that has one of the most recognisable brands in existance. Maybe they just sink $300 mil into coming out with a line of big iron, multiprocessor computer servers and workstations.
Well, not just one brand but two - SGI and Alias|Wavefront.
The idea would be to own the length and breadth of the media, graphics, film (and publishing) industry in terms of hardware and software.
So SGI branded quad 980/G5 Mac OS X workstations.
Perhaps even Mac OS X 980/G5 or POWER4/5 servers. i.e non-blade servers.
Make these the strategic platform for SGI to migrate its MIPS/IRIX customers, developers and apps.
So to summarize: $300 million buys Apple:
1. SGI's customers
2. Two high end graphics/media brands - SGI (+ Silicon Graphics) and Alias|Wavefront (shake could be branded A|W)
3. Software - Maya, etc.. from Alias|Wavefront, high end server OS technology like XFS for incorporation into Mac OS X Server.
4. SGI's developers and software
Not to mention:
5. SGI big iron MIPS based and Itanium based servers.
This would allow for among other things an isolated port of Mac OS X Server to Itanium, if Apple or SGI so wished.
Am I the only one that has heard of Carbon Copy Cloner?
I have six machines to clone and OSX 10.3 server, I cannot find decent documentation to get me through the entire process. I have 1800 pc's and maybe 100 Macs, I cannot waste days trying to learn how to clone a drive (which is easy) then how to distribute the image using NetInstall. As long as the manual method of installing software on a Mac is quicker than "learning" the automated process, I nor my workers will not invest the resources to do so as there are plenty of other more pending issues to be addressed in the Mac world (AD auth, security ramifications of AD auth, scripting shared resources, etc).
I bought Ghost and had a 30 seat pc lab imaged in 2 hours without training. It took a week to fine tune it but the immediate payoff was enough for me to allocate resources to such a project. My two days wasted on Mac imaging have just given me frustration and I'll put it on the back burner and work on my Windows scripts again since they work and have much better documentation - and I despise Windows.
I am the average IT administrator and Apple still isn't talking my language on many fronts...but this is the latest example.
am on crappy dialup so wasnt able to read ALL comments. Nontheless, at our company you need certain setups for everyone in the place.
Engineers do not generally need laptops. They need something like a nice dual G5 and multiple screens. Everyone here has at least 2 screens, if not 3.
Sales and commercial team, etc need to be mobile and dont necessarily need LOTS of power. We need (and currently have) 13inch thin laptops (Fujitsu Siemens P3 800MHz), with a DOCKING BAY (APPLE MUST START MAKING THESE IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT ENTERPRISE MARKET ) attached to a 15-17inch TFT screen.
Sure, everyone could be given a 15inch Powerbook.. but people here prefer a large screen when static in the office, then something super small and light to transport. So, ideally, 12inch Powerbooks attached to a nice 17-20inch TFT screen.
For the in-between employee (secretaries, administrative, hr, etc) that dont need to have massive power and doesnt have to have a latop, I think a nice THIN solution is in order. Something like a Cube, but thinner, that can be tucked away somewhere. To tell the truth, even an iMac would be fine. They dont need expandibility, they dont need super power... iMac fits the bill.
Then, as mentioned before, for the back office, just go nuts with Xservers etc etc...
From my company's view, thats the four way play Apple has to follow. Mobile+docking stations, PowerMac towers, thin clients (cube v.2), and an ass kicking backoffice solution.
Oh... if you REALLY want to top it off, then also a business orientated iPod... but I dont really see that working well. Better just go with a good PDA/Phone and concetrate on the computing part.
SGI (nee Silicon Graphics) would have made sense for an Apple purchase a couple of years ago when the stock hit $.50 a share.
Unfortunately M$FT gutted much of the IP (intellectual property) when it bought many of the SGI patents relating to OpenGL around that time. (why M$FT did this when they have ActiveX is another fascinating topic)
The Alias/Wavefront software division is the "crown jewel" in SGI's remaining portfolio. Now buying this would be a great advance for Apple's plans to dominate in the film/graphics market.
I've been accumulating AAPL stock since the fall off the cliff in September of 2000. Interestingly when SGI hit $.50 a share I thought then that Apple (or somebody) would snap them up.
Around mid-2001, after I had scraped $2K together to buy another 100 shares of AAPL, I had enough left over to buy 500 shares of SGI (around $300) so I did. Nobody bought out SGI, but their stock went up 5X in a couple of months and I bailed out at $4.33 a share.
Too bad I didn't reverse the buys at the time and buy $1700 of SGI and $300 of AAPL but I did make enough profit off the SGI stock to convert it into another 100 shares of AAPL.
Now SGI has settled down to about a buck and a half a share (Friday's close $1.43) and they are hanging on (barely).
I think Apple's best move is to compete against SGI's core markets by going upscale in the enterprise, thus putting more pressure on SGI's operations then buying Alias/Wavefront when SGI becomes desperate (and hiring some of the engineers).
Also check out Alias' StudioTools modeling software which would give AutoCad a run for the money.
The armchair marketing gurus on this thread make me laugh out loud at their ignorance.
Quote:
Originally posted by rmendis
What makes me laugh are the arguments that suggest Apple has a chance in the enterprise.
Lighten up FormatC2, posters here are just brainstorming, nobodies ideas should be discarded, even the KVM camp addressed some significant issues for enterprise acceptance of Apple's products. Ignorance about Apple's enterprise plans are a given here on this board, I doubt if anybody here knows what Apple is planning to do, but we can all speculate.
remendis ~ the computing landscape is evolving - even in the enterprise. As I have stated earlier in this thread, there is a window of opportunity to break the stranglehold that Windows has in the enterprise. And by this I mean on the desktops of the enterprise, and yes as others have pointed out M$ Exchange is key here.
Microsoft has alienated it's enterprise accounts with it's Software Assurance Six licensing requirements, and this is the wedge that has opened a crack in their control of the enterprise desktop.
Some heavy hitters in the enterprise market are obviously moving to take advantage of this, primarily with Linux solutions. IBM, Sun, and Novell come to mind here.
Apple too should be moving in on this and that's what this thread is all about. How to break into enterprise accounts is the topic here. I believe it will take innovative solutions in both hardware and software by Apple as well as KEY alliances with established enterprise vendors.
Just as IBM's 970 family of chips is pulling Apple's ass out of the performance hole that Motorola has put them in, IBM is also the key to giving Apple credibility in the enterprise.
A PARTNERSHIP with IBM is crucial here for any wide scale enterprise efforts by Apple. Apple will need IBM's support to break out of their niche on any large scale.
I think they already have it, but then I am an optimist, or I wouldn't be buying all that AAPL stock. As Apple users, we live in interesting times.
"Now Belkin gives you control over four computers; either PS/2 and/or USB models, or both from a single PS/2 console. The Belkin OmniView SOHO Series 4-Port KVM Switch with Audio from Belkin gives you easy, cross-platform control when used with PC and Macintosh USB platform. The Belkin SOHO Series also adds a sharp new look to your desktop, with its vertical design that saves space while providing built-in cable management. When the shroud slides into place, the cables flow neatly through the back opening."
At $199 for this four way KVM switch, Apple would probably be better off to just offer these at the Apple Store.
Comments
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
The OS X GUI server tools are also pretty kludgy. Now most sysadmins will probably just use the CLI, but still it's very confusing.
I'll second that. These days I'd rather toss the GUI tools altogether. They're pretty bad. I haven't seen 10.3 Server yet, but I can't imagine that Apple will let the server tools stay like they are for too long.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
... Another benefit of the tMac as opposed to the bMac is it has ZERO value to consumers.... Make it a true thin client and it doesn't mess up the consumer product grid.
A true thin client relies on the server's CPUs to process instructions. NetBoot would not work with these. A remote tablet as discussed up-thread would be useful as a thin client. My definition for a "tMac" would be a smart thin client. The local CPU would do all the local processing and the server would provide the boot image via NetBoot, as well as all the storage and communications. All this controlled and secured in the server rooms by re-trained MSCSE's.
Well as far as that "tMac" I'd like to have one that I could NetBoot from my duallie, which of course when "xGrided", would give me a three processor system to encode DVDs. (2 G4's and one G5). Of course Apple could sell them by the pallet only to dissuade consumer use.
Think of how cool Rendezvous enabled clustering will be, whenever you add a Mac to your network, you also add to your grid's computational power. We truly live in wondrous times.
If we can sit around and think of insanely great ideas for Apple, think of the things they brainstorm over at One Infinite Loop. They have been painfully slow to bring things to market in the past, but I think that we will be seeing this glacial pace begin to accelerate even more in 2004 than we did in 2003.
Such a machine would also really scare the hell out of Dell. Removing the hard drive and optical drive costs would give Apple a price point not even they could match.
A diskless, super-tiny, quiet G5 Cube NetBooted off a dual G5 Xserve with plug and play distributed computing via Rendezvous sounds like a Dell killer to me...
Originally posted by spankalee
I still think it is not the hardware at all...
No matter how cheap Apple makes their hardware there's always going to be someone else cheaper, and it's probably going to be Dell... I believe that Apple already has a compelling set of products for business.
The problem is that Microsoft has fooled business into locking themselfs into a MS solution. That's what Apple has to battle. They have to pick Microsoft's lock, not Dells... most importantly, working with Exchange.
What you said about competing with Dell on price (or anyone else) is true, and they do have a great set of products for business, but the topic is the enterprise, the Fortune 500, not the Fortune 5000.
They need innovative solutions (software) and innovative products (hardware) to meet the challenge before them.
I like your analogy about picking Microsoft's lock. (you are absolutely right, the key is M$ Exchange) Because of Microsoft's Office:mac product's hostage status they have to tread very carefully there.
To continue to use your analogy, they also need to do something about Dell's lock on the business market (Fortune 5000). I'd suggest blowing it off with innovative, cost effective (not cheap) hardware. The kind of stuff that the enterprise (Fortune 500) with competent IT staffs to evaluate would pick up on. The kind of stuff that Dell can't offer.
The third element, and perhaps the most important one, is the sales and support structure. Dell can't compete with IBM there, not in the enterprise. A PARTNERSHIP WITH IBM is the most paradigm changing thing mentioned in this thread. If this is ever announced it game set and match.
Apple has been rumored to be working to be building a corporate sales staff with Oracle alumni, all with Larry Ellison's blessing, and this is a good development if true. In the analysts conference call Apple pronounced their efforts to enter the business market (I think it was Phil). Contracting out support contracts to IBM (as in the SUN/EDS example given earlier) would be a masterstroke.
The delay (and intent) of Longhorn gives Apple a "window" of opportunity to crack Microsoft's monopoly. Once they "pick the lock" in Redmond, they've got to plant some charges, on time delay to be sure, but set to go off before the launch of Longhorn.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
... Such a machine would also really scare the hell out of Dell. Removing the hard drive and optical drive costs would give Apple a price point not even they could match.
A diskless, super-tiny, quiet G5 Cube NetBooted off a dual G5 Xserve with plug and play distributed computing via Rendezvous sounds like a Dell killer to me...
Well Dell could does offer Thin Client Solutions - running on Citrix software I believe, so they are doing that.
Interesting what I have been calling a "smart thin client" they call a ThinPC so I'm going with tMac from now on for this diskless Mac (hey I invented a word! ~ but so did you with bMac) I think you would agree to endow your bMac with at least a hard drive to boot from, and I want one too! I fact I'll take both. Lets just hope that the corporate world will choose both as well.
Originally posted by Aphelion
Well Dell could does offer Thin Client Solutions - running on Citrix software I believe, so they are doing that.
Interesting what I have been calling a "smart thin client" they call a ThinPC so I'm going with tMac from now on for this diskless Mac (hey I invented a word! ~ but so did you with bMac) I think you would agree to endow your bMac with at least a hard drive to boot from, and I want one too! I fact I'll take both. Lets just hope that the corporate world will choose both as well.
I know nothing about Citrix. Does it not add a layer of cost and complexity that could be avoided with OS X Server/NetBoot?
Why give our tMac/bMac a hard drive? If it's Net Boot only, then it doesn't need one. Removing all internal rotating drives forces a new paradigm, massively reduces cost and keeps Joe Sixpack from buying one. An admin could always hook up an external drive or burner via FireWire for emergencies.
Just seems that Apple needs to change the rules of the game in order to win in the enterprise, much like Captain Kirk in Star Trek I. (OK, there I did it! A Trek reference/joke.)
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I know nothing about Citrix. Does it not add a layer of cost and complexity that could be avoided with OS X Server/NetBoot?
... Just seems that Apple needs to change the rules of the game in order to win in the enterprise, much like Captain Kirk in Star Trek I. (OK, there I did it! A Trek[ reference/joke.)
Oh yes, Citrix does add both cost and complexity, but a Macintosh client is also available from them.
Well you coined the term "bMac" so you can define it any way you like, but sticking with the 21st Century Cube concept a tMac would be for the enterprise, while a bMac, with a local hard drive (ie headless Mac) would be for business, which wouldn't have a server room to NetBoot from.
I think Apple would do well to offer both, but the iMac3 "slice" concept as I posted above would be even more revolutionary.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Apple needs something like Ghost if it's gonna compete with Dell and other PC vendors in the enterprise.
The amalgmated monster (Disk Copy/Utility/Apple Software Restore) that ships with Panther is a woefully inadequate hack job. Terrible interface (including the "Images" menu which disappears and re-appears seemingly randomly) , no Help at all (just a suggestion to check the man page for ASR). Cryptic error messages (Error (-1) and the like) abound!
Does it sound like I'm bitter? I just spent the better part of 2 days imaging 5 Panther machines in a lab, something that would have taken 45 minutes using Ghost.
The OS X GUI server tools are also pretty kludgy. Now most sysadmins will probably just use the CLI, but still it's very confusing.
You are kidding right. Apple has a product called Network Install as part of Panther Server that does just what you are attempting.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Why give our tMac/bMac a hard drive?
Indeed. Especially when the iPods' keep getting bigger and bigger.
Make of that what you will. 8)
Originally posted by spankalee
They'd be spending $300 mil [for SGI] on a brand rather than R&D. Does that make sense for a company that has one of the most recognisable brands in existance. Maybe they just sink $300 mil into coming out with a line of big iron, multiprocessor computer servers and workstations.
Well, not just one brand but two - SGI and Alias|Wavefront.
The idea would be to own the length and breadth of the media, graphics, film (and publishing) industry in terms of hardware and software.
So SGI branded quad 980/G5 Mac OS X workstations.
Perhaps even Mac OS X 980/G5 or POWER4/5 servers. i.e non-blade servers.
Make these the strategic platform for SGI to migrate its MIPS/IRIX customers, developers and apps.
So to summarize: $300 million buys Apple:
1. SGI's customers
2. Two high end graphics/media brands - SGI (+ Silicon Graphics) and Alias|Wavefront (shake could be branded A|W)
3. Software - Maya, etc.. from Alias|Wavefront, high end server OS technology like XFS for incorporation into Mac OS X Server.
4. SGI's developers and software
Not to mention:
5. SGI big iron MIPS based and Itanium based servers.
This would allow for among other things an isolated port of Mac OS X Server to Itanium, if Apple or SGI so wished.
Originally posted by Outsider
Am I the only one that has heard of Carbon Copy Cloner?
I have six machines to clone and OSX 10.3 server, I cannot find decent documentation to get me through the entire process. I have 1800 pc's and maybe 100 Macs, I cannot waste days trying to learn how to clone a drive (which is easy) then how to distribute the image using NetInstall. As long as the manual method of installing software on a Mac is quicker than "learning" the automated process, I nor my workers will not invest the resources to do so as there are plenty of other more pending issues to be addressed in the Mac world (AD auth, security ramifications of AD auth, scripting shared resources, etc).
I bought Ghost and had a 30 seat pc lab imaged in 2 hours without training. It took a week to fine tune it but the immediate payoff was enough for me to allocate resources to such a project. My two days wasted on Mac imaging have just given me frustration and I'll put it on the back burner and work on my Windows scripts again since they work and have much better documentation - and I despise Windows.
I am the average IT administrator and Apple still isn't talking my language on many fronts...but this is the latest example.
Apple's brand is one of top, most recognized brands in the world. It is right up there with Coca-Cola and Disney.
SGI who? Get a grip.
am on crappy dialup so wasnt able to read ALL comments. Nontheless, at our company you need certain setups for everyone in the place.
Engineers do not generally need laptops. They need something like a nice dual G5 and multiple screens. Everyone here has at least 2 screens, if not 3.
Sales and commercial team, etc need to be mobile and dont necessarily need LOTS of power. We need (and currently have) 13inch thin laptops (Fujitsu Siemens P3 800MHz), with a DOCKING BAY (APPLE MUST START MAKING THESE IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT ENTERPRISE MARKET ) attached to a 15-17inch TFT screen.
Sure, everyone could be given a 15inch Powerbook.. but people here prefer a large screen when static in the office, then something super small and light to transport. So, ideally, 12inch Powerbooks attached to a nice 17-20inch TFT screen.
For the in-between employee (secretaries, administrative, hr, etc) that dont need to have massive power and doesnt have to have a latop, I think a nice THIN solution is in order. Something like a Cube, but thinner, that can be tucked away somewhere. To tell the truth, even an iMac would be fine. They dont need expandibility, they dont need super power... iMac fits the bill.
Then, as mentioned before, for the back office, just go nuts with Xservers etc etc...
From my company's view, thats the four way play Apple has to follow. Mobile+docking stations, PowerMac towers, thin clients (cube v.2), and an ass kicking backoffice solution.
Oh... if you REALLY want to top it off, then also a business orientated iPod... but I dont really see that working well. Better just go with a good PDA/Phone and concetrate on the computing part.
ZO
Originally posted by FormatC2
Apple's brand is one of top, most recognized brands in the world. It is right up there with Coca-Cola and Disney.
Yes, but not in the enterprise.
Originally posted by FormatC2
The armchair marketing gurus on this thread make me laugh out loud at their ignorance.
What makes me laugh are the arguments that suggest Apple has a chance in the enterprise.
Unfortunately M$FT gutted much of the IP (intellectual property) when it bought many of the SGI patents relating to OpenGL around that time. (why M$FT did this when they have ActiveX is another fascinating topic)
The Alias/Wavefront software division is the "crown jewel" in SGI's remaining portfolio. Now buying this would be a great advance for Apple's plans to dominate in the film/graphics market.
I've been accumulating AAPL stock since the fall off the cliff in September of 2000. Interestingly when SGI hit $.50 a share I thought then that Apple (or somebody) would snap them up.
Around mid-2001, after I had scraped $2K together to buy another 100 shares of AAPL, I had enough left over to buy 500 shares of SGI (around $300) so I did. Nobody bought out SGI, but their stock went up 5X in a couple of months and I bailed out at $4.33 a share.
Too bad I didn't reverse the buys at the time and buy $1700 of SGI and $300 of AAPL but I did make enough profit off the SGI stock to convert it into another 100 shares of AAPL.
Now SGI has settled down to about a buck and a half a share (Friday's close $1.43) and they are hanging on (barely).
I think Apple's best move is to compete against SGI's core markets by going upscale in the enterprise, thus putting more pressure on SGI's operations then buying Alias/Wavefront when SGI becomes desperate (and hiring some of the engineers).
Also check out Alias' StudioTools modeling software which would give AutoCad a run for the money.
Originally posted by FormatC2
The armchair marketing gurus on this thread make me laugh out loud at their ignorance.
Originally posted by rmendis
What makes me laugh are the arguments that suggest Apple has a chance in the enterprise.
Lighten up FormatC2, posters here are just brainstorming, nobodies ideas should be discarded, even the KVM camp addressed some significant issues for enterprise acceptance of Apple's products. Ignorance about Apple's enterprise plans are a given here on this board, I doubt if anybody here knows what Apple is planning to do, but we can all speculate.
remendis ~ the computing landscape is evolving - even in the enterprise. As I have stated earlier in this thread, there is a window of opportunity to break the stranglehold that Windows has in the enterprise. And by this I mean on the desktops of the enterprise, and yes as others have pointed out M$ Exchange is key here.
Microsoft has alienated it's enterprise accounts with it's Software Assurance Six licensing requirements, and this is the wedge that has opened a crack in their control of the enterprise desktop.
Some heavy hitters in the enterprise market are obviously moving to take advantage of this, primarily with Linux solutions. IBM, Sun, and Novell come to mind here.
Apple too should be moving in on this and that's what this thread is all about. How to break into enterprise accounts is the topic here. I believe it will take innovative solutions in both hardware and software by Apple as well as KEY alliances with established enterprise vendors.
Just as IBM's 970 family of chips is pulling Apple's ass out of the performance hole that Motorola has put them in, IBM is also the key to giving Apple credibility in the enterprise.
A PARTNERSHIP with IBM is crucial here for any wide scale enterprise efforts by Apple. Apple will need IBM's support to break out of their niche on any large scale.
I think they already have it, but then I am an optimist, or I wouldn't be buying all that AAPL stock. As Apple users, we live in interesting times.
A Belkin KVM switch that is Macintosh compatable.
"Now Belkin gives you control over four computers; either PS/2 and/or USB models, or both from a single PS/2 console. The Belkin OmniView SOHO Series 4-Port KVM Switch with Audio from Belkin gives you easy, cross-platform control when used with PC and Macintosh USB platform. The Belkin SOHO Series also adds a sharp new look to your desktop, with its vertical design that saves space while providing built-in cable management. When the shroud slides into place, the cables flow neatly through the back opening."
At $199 for this four way KVM switch, Apple would probably be better off to just offer these at the Apple Store.
Originally posted by Flippy
Indeed. Especially when the iPods' keep getting bigger and bigger.
When the iPods' what keeps getting bigger and bigger?