Forrester: 'It's time to repeal prohibition' on Macs in the enterprise

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 123
    My hope: corporations continue to adopt the iPad, iPhone, etc. Those corporations later want to create their own internal apps & thus are forced to start making exceptions for those development Macs... then the floodgates open due to jealousy. I think even a lot of Mac haters / skeptics would try a Mac, if their work was providing it. That was the case for me, anyway. I mean hell, they are damn sexy machines with top of the line specs, and you *can* install Windows on it (see that tasty worm dangling there?)



    My story: as a long time PC user & Mac sceptic, my interest piqued when Macs switched to Intel. Growing bored with Windows XP I decided to try my hand at making a Hackintosh. Flash forward to a year later, and I was hardly ever booting into Windows. Having built 100% of my personal computers up until then (easier for me to afford, upgrade), I started to soften on the price premium for the top-of-the-line hardware, and as soon as I had the money I got a MBP. Now I have only I PC left, which only the kids use to play games on the web. I grew tired of using PCs at work, too, so I started studying iPhone development (I was doing .Net), and made the switch to being an iOS developer. I've been developing iPhone and iPad apps for over 2 years, 1 full time, and I can't see ever going back... I've never enjoyed my work more. (I've always loved what I do, but this is a whole new level.)
  • Reply 22 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thevaf View Post


    The reason we don't like to work with Macs in the enterprise is because Apple doesn't give a sh!t about enterprise compatibility. What I mean is, Apple does not integrate well with the main infrastructure that is already prevelant in all companies.



    The idea is to have OS X Server-based infrastructure.



    Quote:

    Mac's will enter the enterprise when Apple decides to play nice with other company's products. Which is never.



    Huh. Apple seems to work perfectly well with billions of USB devices, thousands of FireWire devices, and dozens of Thunderbolt devices. Not to mention virtually all Ethernet hardware on a server end.



    Guess you mean "Decides to play nice with Windows/Linux-based server racks".



    Which makes a lot of sense.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cheesehead Dave View Post


    My company's IT department just blocked iCloud access for being an "IT Security Risk". I doubt Macs will be making headway here anytime soon.



    Isn't that their fault?
  • Reply 23 of 123
    Better CAC compatibility with OSX, and CAC Card slit into an iPad model will make large-corporations and the gov go on a purchasing frenzy for Apple products. It's the only serious limitation.
  • Reply 24 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    I love reading this.



    I had to fight very, very hard to be allowed to use a Mac at work (which I paid for myself). Some people might be surprised by the amount of flat out lies our IT staff told to management in their efforts to stop me (they actually had the gall to argue that Macs were a virus threat -- and that from an IT group that still has its PCs running Windows XP).



    There was no single factor that allowed me to win my fight -- it was a combination of things. But one thing that has to have helped is that the CEO and several senior VPs all have Macs at home and come to me for support. I think the anti-Mac trolls in IT are an endangered species.



    Having worked the pc and mac sides of IT, I can assure you that it takes less staff to support Macs. The arguments IT makes against the Mac is purely a job security issue.
  • Reply 25 of 123
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    the new trend coming is BYOC, bring your own computer



    a lot of companies are starting to buy citrix vdi and give you a virtual windows 7 desktop. you bring your own computer to work. Windows or OS X
  • Reply 26 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Is that the real reason, or is it that the maverick CEO who makes businessmen nervous is now gone? In other words they think Apple is entering a "boring" phase.



    Another way to look at this could be that it took Steve 12 years to undo the damage done to Apple's reputation by the previous three CEO's. And now that work is bearing fruit.
  • Reply 27 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The idea is to have OS X Server-based infrastructure.







    Huh. Apple seems to work perfectly well with billions of USB devices, thousands of FireWire devices, and dozens of Thunderbolt devices. Not to mention virtually all Ethernet hardware on a server end.



    Guess you mean "Decides to play nice with Windows/Linux-based server racks".



    Which makes a lot of sense.







    Isn't that their fault?



    I do have OS X Server based infrastructure. I am running both Open Directory and Active Directory. Some call me crazy, I call it accommodation. But it definately increases the workload dealing with the integration of it all. And there are much more problems for Mac users when in a hybrid environment.



    USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt are peripherals/toys - I was referring to infrastructure software such as Exchange and Active Directory, which dominates the corporate IT market.



    How about some virtualization of OS X if you want to penetrate the corporate market? Apple discontinued XServe, so if a corporation wants your "OS X Server-based infrastructure" they have to buy a Mac Mini. But if Apple allowed licensing of OS X Server to be virtualized, I bet many IT depts. will at least start tinkering with the idea.



    By discontinuing Xserve, Apple is making a clear point that it does not want to go into the corporate infrastructure market. They want the end-user, which is fine, and they do it the best, but they need to play nice. They learned that lesson with iWork/MS Office - why do you think it took till 2011 until Outlook came out for Mac? Because most corporate messaging is done by Exchange.
  • Reply 28 of 123
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 29 of 123
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    I love reading this.



    I had to fight very, very hard to be allowed to use a Mac at work (which I paid for myself). Some people might be surprised by the amount of flat out lies our IT staff told to management in their efforts to stop me (they actually had the gall to argue that Macs were a virus threat -- and that from an IT group that still has its PCs running Windows XP).



    There is a reason for that. I used to live next door to a guy who was CTO for a major bank. He and his wife received several free trips a year (completely free - air fare, hotel, meals, entertainment) all paid for 100% by Microsoft. It was all under the guise of a conference and he did say that he had to spend about an hour out of his 3 day vacation attending a seminar, but with perks like that, it's no wonder they bought the Microsoft line.
  • Reply 30 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thevaf View Post


    IT Guy here...



    The reason we don't like to work with Macs in the enterprise is because Apple doesn't give a sh!t about enterprise compatibility.



    I'm calling BS here. So called "enterprise compatibility" is a moving target created by IT guys who don't know what they are doing.



    We recently upgrade from Exchange 2003 to 2010. Snow Leopard and Lion both are out-of-the-box compatible with the Exchange Web Services protocol introduced with 2007. Our IT folks deliberately reconfigured Exchange so as not to work with either Apple Mail or MS Outlook 2011. Then they turn around and blame the Mac for not being compatible.
  • Reply 31 of 123
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thevaf View Post


    I do have OS X Server based infrastructure. I am running both Open Directory and Active Directory. Some call me crazy, I call it accommodation. But it definately increases the workload dealing with the integration of it all. And there are much more problems for Mac users when in a hybrid environment.



    USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt are peripherals/toys - I was referring to infrastructure software such as Exchange and Active Directory, which dominates the corporate IT market.



    How about some virtualization of OS X if you want to penetrate the corporate market? Apple discontinued XServe, so if a corporation wants your "OS X Server-based infrastructure" they have to buy a Mac Mini. But if Apple allowed licensing of OS X Server to be virtualized, I bet many IT depts. will at least start tinkering with the idea.



    By discontinuing Xserve, Apple is making a clear point that it does not want to go into the corporate infrastructure market. They want the end-user, which is fine, and they do it the best, but they need to play nice. They learned that lesson with iWork/MS Office - why do you think it took till 2011 until Outlook came out for Mac? Because most corporate messaging is done by Exchange.



    will never happen



    MS will pull ActiveSync from iphone and ipad making them less attractive in the enterprise



    Apple will need to start supporting enterprise customers which means supporting software for 5-10 years



    they will need to spend a lot of time re coding OS X for performance in a virtual environment. Windows is already optimized for Hyper-v and Citrix. and works nice on vmware.



    Mac's will never have a big place in corporate america until apple stops playing games and allowing older OS's to be installed on new hardware
  • Reply 32 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thevaf View Post


    IT Guy here...



    ...



    Mac's will enter the enterprise when Apple decides to play nice with other company's products. Which is never.



    My brother is in charge of IT for a large healthcare provider, and I can say that in most cases, Macs will enter the enterprise whenever the top executives want them to. He has been told to make the iPad work with the company systems, and is also tasked with evaluating the Apple TV for running presentations in meeting rooms via AirPlay, from said executive's iPads. He went kicking and screaming, but he went. (For the record, he now loves his iPad, switched to the iPhone and loves that too.)



    My point is, while they have the most influence, IT doesn't have the final say. If you are tasked with making it work, you better be searching for an AD (or other tech) alternative (or more likely, figuring out the problem with your AD implementation), or the guy who says it *can* be done will be taking your job. (For the record, I worked for a large government contractor. They did not use windows servers, but got AD logins working perfectly for Windows, as well as support for Linux and Mac machines. )
  • Reply 33 of 123
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,704member
    Software developer here (who has created software for just about every operating system ever made in the last 30 years).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thevaf View Post


    The reason we don't like to work with Macs in the enterprise is because Apple doesn't give a sh!t about enterprise compatibility. What I mean is, Apple does not integrate well with the main infrastructure that is already prevelant in all companies. I don't think Mac users will be that productive when they have to wait up to 5min to login (AD Plugin bug that didn't get fixed until 10.6.8) or when they have to wait up to 30 secs for a network folder's files to show up (bug in 10.6, still in 10.7).



    The real issue I find is that, the decision making process for what network infrastructure technology to use at companies seems to get hijacked by people who only know Microsoft. And that's what the real problem is: choosing a technology which doesn't scale well across different types of hardware and operating systems.



    What if you want to integrate a Linux or OpenBSD server into your network because it's more economical and/or secure? You can't because Active Directory pretty much forces you into using Microsoft-based products.



    There are plenty of standard, open authentication schemes which work just fine across many operating systems. Kerberos, for example, is what my university used for a campus of around 30,000 people. Worked fantastically across the dozen or so operating systems being used in computer labs at the time (including Windows NT).

    Quote:

    Mac's will enter the enterprise when Apple decides to play nice with other company's products. Which is never.



    Macs will enter the enterprise when people stop choosing proprietary, closed, network infrastructure technology which is near impossible for anyone but the company that created it to support well.
  • Reply 34 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thevaf View Post


    I was referring to infrastructure software such as Exchange and Active Directory



    Not sure what Active Directory is, but there's Exchange support built into OS X.



    Quote:

    they have to buy a Mac Mini



    That's the idea, yeah. Virtualization breeds terrible experiences.



    Also, there's a Mac Pro available.



    Quote:

    But if Apple allowed licensing of OS X Server to be virtualized,



    They have for years? Try it.



    Quote:

    By discontinuing Xserve, Apple is making a clear point that it does not want to go into the corporate infrastructure market.



    No, they made a clear point that no one was buying them.



    Quote:

    They learned that lesson with iWork/MS Office - why do you think it took till 2011 until Outlook came out for Mac?



    Shouldn't you ask Microsoft since Apple has nothing to do with that?
  • Reply 35 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    will never happen



    MS will pull ActiveSync from iphone and ipad making them less attractive in the enterprise



    Apple will need to start supporting enterprise customers which means supporting software for 5-10 years



    they will need to spend a lot of time re coding OS X for performance in a virtual environment. Windows is already optimized for Hyper-v and Citrix. and works nice on vmware.



    Mac's will never have a big place in corporate america until apple stops playing games and allowing older OS's to be installed on new hardware



    The $29 upgrade fees too much for you? I think Apple cares more about keeping you up-to-date then supporting old software forever. They have an easier time doing that by using hardware as their main revenue stream. 10 years is pretty ridiculous though. The silicon in an Intel processor will fail after that period of time. Most enterprise customers replace hardware after three years.



    So you think Microsoft will stop honoring the ActiveSync license, face the wrath of our court system, and push their customers away to third party control for this feature? Are you the sort that needs to make something up if reality doesn't fit your point of view? If not... maybe provide some evidence of this?



    Whats wrong with Mac virtualization? I've heard of some NFS related IO bottlenecks, but that isn't something you will run into for most virtualized servers. OS X is pretty lean on memory usage. Citrix is a bit different use case. Apple has no interest in a thin client strategy at this time. That is like complaining about word processing on your PS3. They just don't do it at all.



    Sure there are occasional bugs, but most 'bugs' are related to supporting an environment that isn't configured right. I'm talking about things that Microsoft says you shouldn't do. Large flat domains, tons of multicast traffic, portfast off on Cisco equipment, .local domains, disjoint DNS, etc.
  • Reply 36 of 123
    While I would love to have a iMac on my desk at work rather than the seemingly ancient HP dx5150, part of me hopes it never happens. Why? If business adopts Mac as the primary platform, then guess what the number one target for hackers and virus writers becomes?



    Apple.



    iPad and iPhones along with iOS ARE making huge grounds in enterprise--my company just released it's first App and just a little less then a year ago you couldn't even use an iPhone with our systems. But iOS can be made to play nice with Windows and Enterprise software, so it's a different story then OSX, at least for now. In the future that will change, as it sure looks like Apple's future PC's sure look like they will run iOS like operating systems.
  • Reply 37 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jbruni View Post


    I'm calling BS here. So called "enterprise compatibility" is a moving target created by IT guys who don't know what they are doing.



    We recently upgrade from Exchange 2003 to 2010. Snow Leopard and Lion both are out-of-the-box compatible with the Exchange Web Services protocol introduced with 2007. Our IT folks deliberately reconfigured Exchange so as not to work with either Apple Mail or MS Outlook 2011. Then they turn around and blame the Mac for not being compatible.



    You are correct that SL and Lion support Exchange. But that requires IT to enable Basic Authentication on the server-which is fine if you are running SSL.



    I have no idea why your IT Guys configured Exchange to not work with Outlook 2011, that is what Outlook 2011 was created for - better exchange support. Probably one of the best things Apple/MS collaboration did for the enterprise.
  • Reply 38 of 123
    auxio you hit the nail on the head with your post. I completely agree, but the reality is that most IT guys inherit infrastructure. And while Apple was surviving in the 80-90s, Microsoft was raping Novell for network infrastructure dominance and established itself. I do not think Microsoft is the best, but they are so entrenched in corporate america that its a hard sell to make the conversion.
  • Reply 39 of 123
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by esummers View Post


    The $29 upgrade fees too much for you? I think Apple cares more about keeping you up-to-date then supporting old software forever. They have an easier time doing that by using hardware as their main revenue stream. 10 years is pretty ridiculous though. The silicon in an Intel processor will fail after that period of time. Most enterprise customers replace hardware after three years.



    So you think Microsoft will stop honoring the ActiveSync license, face the wrath of our court system, and push their customers away to third party control for this feature? Are you the sort that needs to make something up if reality doesn't fit your point of view? If not... maybe provide some evidence of this?



    Whats wrong with Mac virtualization? I've heard of some NFS related IO bottlenecks, but that isn't something you will run into for most virtualized servers. OS X is pretty lean on memory usage. Citrix is a bit different use case. Apple has no interest in a thin client strategy at this time. That is like complaining about word processing on your PS3. They just don't do it at all.



    Sure there are occasional bugs, but most 'bugs' are related to supporting an environment that isn't configured right. I'm talking about things that Microsoft says you shouldn't do. Large flat domains, tons of multicast traffic, portfast off on Cisco equipment, .local domains, disjoint DNS, etc.



    it's not the upgrade fee it's the fact that corporations have software that costs tens of thousands of $$$ that rely on specific versions of other software.



    is there even an imaging solution for Mac's? corporate IT has a few master images. no one installs software manually on computers in a large environment
  • Reply 40 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Not sure what Active Directory is, but there's Exchange support built into OS X.



    Active Directory is how Microsoft took over the corporate market. Its basically the gatekeeper that authenticates users and provides resources.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    That's the idea, yeah. Virtualization breeds terrible experiences.



    Virtualization is the way corporate server farms are going



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Also, there's a Mac Pro available.



    That's true, but try fitting it into a rack.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    They have for years? Try it.



    Really, Please tell me where I can get a copy of SL Server to load into my VMware box and test on my HP server and violate OS X EULA?







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    No, they made a clear point that no one was buying them.



    Yep...people do vote with their wallets.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Shouldn't you ask Microsoft since Apple has nothing to do with that?



    Microsoft couldn't do it without apple's help. See "EntouRAGE"
Sign In or Register to comment.