No thanks. I use google docs and iWorks for my needs. Sorry for me the ship has sailed.
Me too. Except I don't use anything Google, except search. What Apple has done with iWork is just brilliant. I put all my GF's spreadsheets on her iPad using my iMac. They are now on her iPhone and also her work PC (Ugh!) using iCloud. And everything just sync's perfectly. She loves that you know longer have to hit "save!"
Granted, I setup all the forms on my desktop iMac and she is updating them on her iPad. But once setup, it's a breeze.
I find Word overly complex and buggy, clunky and clumsy to use. Numbers is great for a non-power user.
As someone said above MS Office for the iPad? No thanks, that ship has sailed!
The problem I have with what you are saying is that Microsoft doesn't build good software either. Most of their software is "good enough", but not typically best in class. Microsofts licensing and ecosystem lock-in was best in class. Now that they are having issues with giant holes being busted in their ecosystem, they will need to retool and build best in class software to actually compete. I'm not sure they can do this. There are other companies working on MDM solutions for all device types and OSes. Microsoft needs to make one that is better and priced right. The sooner they do that, the better chance they have to leverage what is left of their ecosystem play to try and lock-in their these new tools.
The day my employer tries to force a Microsoft MDM client on my Mac is the day I quit. Bad enough they try to push that Symantec Altris on me.
Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Microsoft is the #1 enterprise software company in the world by far.
Windows Server (soon to be renamed Microsoft Server) is the #1 enterprise server.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products. And no enterprise company competes with ALL of the enterprise products that Microsoft offers. Google competes with some of their products, as does Amazon. Oracle competes with some of their products. IBM competes with some of their products. VMWare competes with some, as does Citrix and Cisco. But no single enterprise software company competes with them all, and certainly no one is nearly as dominant in so many. Take the #2 company, Oracle. They make the best enterprise database, more powerful than SQL Server but easier to use than the IBM databases. But their development platform? They have to give it away for free because no one is going to buy it. Their virtualization product? No one in their right mind uses it. Their enterprise servers? Mostly their own flavors of stuff that other companies release. Their cloud strategy? Mocked within the industry, to the point where Forbes said that Larry Ellison doesn't understand the cloud. They can't even leverage their strong position as a leading enterprise database vendor.
Microsoft's only problem as a company is trying to keep Windows alive. The second that they abandon Windows and instead come up with an entirely different strategy for consumer software and products (and get their business/professional/gaming customer base onto something far better) will be the day that they become a leading edge company again. Well actually they never were a leading edge company but at least their stock price will start going back up then.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products.
Pretty good products for Windows users but a royal pain to get to work properly with Macs.
Oracle is the #1 enterprise database, SQL Server is used for small projects
Exchange is garbage and has significant problems working with Mac software.
AD only works for Macs if you spend a lot of time getting it to work and doesn't do everything Open Directory does for Macs, although Apple is giving up this fight because enterprise IT managers hate Apple products.
Sharepoint is garbage and doesn't even work properly for Windows users
Calling Azure the #3 cloud product is funny because there aren't many more than 3.
Visual Studio is only available for Windows so you're right when considering only Windows OS development.
Hyper-V is a top 3 is the same as calling Azure top 3, there isn't anything below it.
If you're a Windows-only user, everything you've said is true. But when you talk about how Macs interface with these applications, you're way off.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products. And no enterprise company competes with ALL of the enterprise products that Microsoft offers. Google competes with some of their products, as does Amazon. Oracle competes with some of their products. IBM competes with some of their products. VMWare competes with some, as does Citrix and Cisco. But no single enterprise software company competes with them all, and certainly no one is nearly as dominant in so many. Take the #2 company, Oracle. They make the best enterprise database, more powerful than SQL Server but easier to use than the IBM databases. But their development platform? They have to give it away for free because no one is going to buy it. Their virtualization product? No one in their right mind uses it. Their enterprise servers? Mostly their own flavors of stuff that other companies release. Their cloud strategy? Mocked within the industry, to the point where Forbes said that Larry Ellison doesn't understand the cloud. They can't even leverage their strong position as a leading enterprise database vendor.
Microsoft's only problem as a company is trying to keep Windows alive. The second that they abandon Windows and instead come up with an entirely different strategy for consumer software and products (and get their business/professional/gaming customer base onto something far better) will be the day that they become a leading edge company again. Well actually they never were a leading edge company but at least their stock price will start going back up then.
The problem I have with what you are saying is that Microsoft doesn't build good software either. Most of their software is "good enough", but not typically best in class. Microsofts licensing and ecosystem lock-in was best in class. Now that they are having issues with giant holes being busted in their ecosystem, they will need to retool and build best in class software to actually compete. I'm not sure they can do this. There are other companies working on MDM solutions for all device types and OSes. Microsoft needs to make one that is better and priced right. The sooner they do that, the better chance they have to leverage what is left of their ecosystem play to try and lock-in their these new tools.
The day my employer tries to force a Microsoft MDM client on my Mac is the day I quit. Bad enough they try to push that Symantec Altris on me.
Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Microsoft is the #1 enterprise software company in the world by far.
Windows Server (soon to be renamed Microsoft Server) is the #1 enterprise server.
SQL Server is the #1 enterprise database.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products. And no enterprise company competes with ALL of the enterprise products that Microsoft offers. Google competes with some of their products, as does Amazon. Oracle competes with some of their products. IBM competes with some of their products. VMWare competes with some, as does Citrix and Cisco. But no single enterprise software company competes with them all, and certainly no one is nearly as dominant in so many. Take the #2 company, Oracle. They make the best enterprise database, more powerful than SQL Server but easier to use than the IBM databases. But their development platform? They have to give it away for free because no one is going to buy it. Their virtualization product? No one in their right mind uses it. Their enterprise servers? Mostly their own flavors of stuff that other companies release. Their cloud strategy? Mocked within the industry, to the point where Forbes said that Larry Ellison doesn't understand the cloud. They can't even leverage their strong position as a leading enterprise database vendor.
Microsoft's only problem as a company is trying to keep Windows alive. The second that they abandon Windows and instead come up with an entirely different strategy for consumer software and products (and get their business/professional/gaming customer base onto something far better) will be the day that they become a leading edge company again. Well actually they never were a leading edge company but at least their stock price will start going back up then.
You are confusing have a #1 product with having a best in class product. Selling more doesn't mean it is actually better. It means you sold more. This goes to the licensing lock-in Microsoft has on enterprises. As they lose this lock-in, they will have to compete on the merits of the actual products. I used to be a system architect for a tech company and we ran a Microsoft shop. I got burned so many times by API changes, currupted IIS instances, exchange f'ing rebuilds that I had to walk away.
You are confusing have a #1 product with having a best in class product. Selling more doesn't mean it is actually better. It means you sold more. This goes to the licensing lock-in Microsoft has on enterprises. As they lose this lock-in, they will have to compete on the merits of the actual products. I used to be a system architect for a tech company and we ran a Microsoft shop. I got burned so many times by API changes, currupted IIS instances, exchange f'ing rebuilds that I had to walk away.
You had to walk away but that company is still in business, right? Most of the companies that rely on Microsoft stuff do just fine. Being "best in class" means a lot to Apple, and Apple is able to pull that off because they have a very limited and specialized product line (I-Pad, MacBook, I-Phone, soon to be discontinued and pretty much already abandoned in terms of new development I-Pod, and the "hobby" Apple TV, from which Apple will probably shift their efforts from the I-Pod to). But Microsoft only needs to sell the most software, which means that it only has to be "good enough." There is nothing wrong with making the third best enterprise database and the second best enterprise server and so on, because it is just more convenient for a company to just support one range of products instead of training different people to support the "best in class" of each different one. You would need your Apple team to support the MacBooks that the client users have, an Oracle team to support the Oracle database, the IBM team to support the Lotus directory server, a Cisco team to support the messaging/communications server ... or you can have about 5-6 MSCEs to support your entire enterprise infrastructure. Which would you choose? You already know the answer, which is why "you had to walk away."
Pretty good products for Windows users but a royal pain to get to work properly with Macs.
Oracle is the #1 enterprise database, SQL Server is used for small projects
Exchange is garbage and has significant problems working with Mac software.
AD only works for Macs if you spend a lot of time getting it to work and doesn't do everything Open Directory does for Macs, although Apple is giving up this fight because enterprise IT managers hate Apple products.
Sharepoint is garbage and doesn't even work properly for Windows users
Calling Azure the #3 cloud product is funny because there aren't many more than 3.
Visual Studio is only available for Windows so you're right when considering only Windows OS development.
Hyper-V is a top 3 is the same as calling Azure top 3, there isn't anything below it.
If you're a Windows-only user, everything you've said is true. But when you talk about how Macs interface with these applications, you're way off.
SQL Server is used for small projects? 1. That is not true and 2. even if it were true, the fact that there are MANY more small and medium-sized businesses than big businesses means A LOT OF MONEY for Microsoft servicing companies who cannot afford and more important cannot manage the very expensive and complex Oracle. Not only is Oracle more expensive, but its requirements means much more expensive hardware.
Exchange is garbage? Compared to what? Name a better email server. Significant problems working with Mac software? Gee, perhaps because it wasn't designed to? And since Macs have only a small slice of enterprise hardware, that is a problem for Exchange how? When there are more Macs in the enterprise, Microsoft will make the same accommodations for it that they made for Linux servers.
Calling Active Directory a bad product because it doesn't work for Macs when it wasn't designed to work for Macs is more lunacy. Why are you rating Microsoft's products on their ability to support Apple products instead of Microsoft products and enterprise products in general? And why should Microsoft have done anything extra to accommodate the (until now) tiny percentage of enterprise users who use Apple?
There are more than 3 cloud companies. There are only 3 BIG cloud companies and one of them is Microsoft. And when Microsoft entered that space, they leapfrogged over a lot of companies that had been in that space longer. That space's growth potential is huge, and Microsoft is poised to reap a ton of money off it.
Hyper-V? Same deal. You can make a ton of money by being #3 in virtualization. And being able to leverage Azure will give them plenty of opportunities to increase that space.
"If you're a Windows-only user, everything you've said is true. But when you talk about how Macs interface with these applications, you're way off."
I had no interest in how Macs interface with those products, and until now neither did Microsoft. My point was that Microsoft was making a ton of money off them, and will continue to in the future. That their products do not play well with Macs does not change the fact that Microsoft is by far the leading enterprise software company, and will continue to be so because of their leading position in so many enterprise sectors. And no, Apple is not going to get into the enterprise software game to any significant degree because they do not even commercially market software. They are a hardware company, and their only interest in software is to use it to sell their hardware.
You had to walk away but that company is still in business, right? Most of the companies that rely on Microsoft stuff do just fine. Being "best in class" means a lot to Apple, and Apple is able to pull that off because they have a very limited and specialized product line (I-Pad, MacBook, I-Phone, soon to be discontinued and pretty much already abandoned in terms of new development I-Pod, and the "hobby" Apple TV, from which Apple will probably shift their efforts from the I-Pod to). But Microsoft only needs to sell the most software, which means that it only has to be "good enough." There is nothing wrong with making the third best enterprise database and the second best enterprise server and so on, because it is just more convenient for a company to just support one range of products instead of training different people to support the "best in class" of each different one. You would need your Apple team to support the MacBooks that the client users have, an Oracle team to support the Oracle database, the IBM team to support the Lotus directory server, a Cisco team to support the messaging/communications server ... or you can have about 5-6 MSCEs to support your entire enterprise infrastructure. Which would you choose? You already know the answer, which is why "you had to walk away."
As a matter of interest, I worked for a company exclusively running macs, not a small outfit. How many qualified IT professionals did we employ. None. How many man hours were lost on a daily basis due to buggy or crappy architecture. None. Were we happy. Yes. Were we productive.Yes. It won't be long before Apple break the Enterprise lockdown, perpetuated by people like you. It'll take a few years in development but it will happen if not by staff pressure alone. You are only in a job because Microsoft is pants.
Comments
No thanks. I use google docs and iWorks for my needs. Sorry for me the ship has sailed.
Me too. Except I don't use anything Google, except search. What Apple has done with iWork is just brilliant. I put all my GF's spreadsheets on her iPad using my iMac. They are now on her iPhone and also her work PC (Ugh!) using iCloud. And everything just sync's perfectly. She loves that you know longer have to hit "save!"
Granted, I setup all the forms on my desktop iMac and she is updating them on her iPad. But once setup, it's a breeze.
I find Word overly complex and buggy, clunky and clumsy to use. Numbers is great for a non-power user.
As someone said above MS Office for the iPad? No thanks, that ship has sailed!
Best
OnLive desktop. Office. On iOS. Files available on the computer. Done.
The problem I have with what you are saying is that Microsoft doesn't build good software either. Most of their software is "good enough", but not typically best in class. Microsofts licensing and ecosystem lock-in was best in class. Now that they are having issues with giant holes being busted in their ecosystem, they will need to retool and build best in class software to actually compete. I'm not sure they can do this. There are other companies working on MDM solutions for all device types and OSes. Microsoft needs to make one that is better and priced right. The sooner they do that, the better chance they have to leverage what is left of their ecosystem play to try and lock-in their these new tools.
The day my employer tries to force a Microsoft MDM client on my Mac is the day I quit. Bad enough they try to push that Symantec Altris on me.
Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Microsoft is the #1 enterprise software company in the world by far.
Windows Server (soon to be renamed Microsoft Server) is the #1 enterprise server.
SQL Server is the #1 enterprise database.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products. And no enterprise company competes with ALL of the enterprise products that Microsoft offers. Google competes with some of their products, as does Amazon. Oracle competes with some of their products. IBM competes with some of their products. VMWare competes with some, as does Citrix and Cisco. But no single enterprise software company competes with them all, and certainly no one is nearly as dominant in so many. Take the #2 company, Oracle. They make the best enterprise database, more powerful than SQL Server but easier to use than the IBM databases. But their development platform? They have to give it away for free because no one is going to buy it. Their virtualization product? No one in their right mind uses it. Their enterprise servers? Mostly their own flavors of stuff that other companies release. Their cloud strategy? Mocked within the industry, to the point where Forbes said that Larry Ellison doesn't understand the cloud. They can't even leverage their strong position as a leading enterprise database vendor.
Microsoft's only problem as a company is trying to keep Windows alive. The second that they abandon Windows and instead come up with an entirely different strategy for consumer software and products (and get their business/professional/gaming customer base onto something far better) will be the day that they become a leading edge company again. Well actually they never were a leading edge company but at least their stock price will start going back up then.
Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Microsoft is the #1 enterprise software company in the world by far.
Windows Server (soon to be renamed Microsoft Server) is the #1 enterprise server.
SQL Server is the #1 enterprise database.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products.
Pretty good products for Windows users but a royal pain to get to work properly with Macs.
Oracle is the #1 enterprise database, SQL Server is used for small projects
Exchange is garbage and has significant problems working with Mac software.
AD only works for Macs if you spend a lot of time getting it to work and doesn't do everything Open Directory does for Macs, although Apple is giving up this fight because enterprise IT managers hate Apple products.
Sharepoint is garbage and doesn't even work properly for Windows users
Calling Azure the #3 cloud product is funny because there aren't many more than 3.
Visual Studio is only available for Windows so you're right when considering only Windows OS development.
Hyper-V is a top 3 is the same as calling Azure top 3, there isn't anything below it.
If you're a Windows-only user, everything you've said is true. But when you talk about how Macs interface with these applications, you're way off.
Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Microsoft is the #1 enterprise software company in the world by far.
Windows Server (soon to be renamed Microsoft Server) is the #1 enterprise server.
SQL Server is the #1 enterprise database.
Microsoft Exchange is the #1 enterprise email server.
Active Directory is the #1 widely used directory server.
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise communications server (Lync).
Microsoft has the #1 enterprise collaboration/document management software (Sharepoint).
Microsoft Azure is the #3 cloud product (behind Google and Amazon offerings).
Microsoft Visual Studio is the #1 developer platform.
Microsoft Hyper-V is a top 3 virtualization product.
And so on. And they are all pretty good products. And no enterprise company competes with ALL of the enterprise products that Microsoft offers. Google competes with some of their products, as does Amazon. Oracle competes with some of their products. IBM competes with some of their products. VMWare competes with some, as does Citrix and Cisco. But no single enterprise software company competes with them all, and certainly no one is nearly as dominant in so many. Take the #2 company, Oracle. They make the best enterprise database, more powerful than SQL Server but easier to use than the IBM databases. But their development platform? They have to give it away for free because no one is going to buy it. Their virtualization product? No one in their right mind uses it. Their enterprise servers? Mostly their own flavors of stuff that other companies release. Their cloud strategy? Mocked within the industry, to the point where Forbes said that Larry Ellison doesn't understand the cloud. They can't even leverage their strong position as a leading enterprise database vendor.
Microsoft's only problem as a company is trying to keep Windows alive. The second that they abandon Windows and instead come up with an entirely different strategy for consumer software and products (and get their business/professional/gaming customer base onto something far better) will be the day that they become a leading edge company again. Well actually they never were a leading edge company but at least their stock price will start going back up then.
https://www.google.com/search?q=#1+enterprise+database&oq=#1+enterprise+database&aqs=chrome..69i57.4886j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8
http://db-engines.com/en/ranking
I'm guessing you've never heard of eclipse....or VIM or Emacs all more popular than Visual studio.
You are confusing have a #1 product with having a best in class product. Selling more doesn't mean it is actually better. It means you sold more. This goes to the licensing lock-in Microsoft has on enterprises. As they lose this lock-in, they will have to compete on the merits of the actual products. I used to be a system architect for a tech company and we ran a Microsoft shop. I got burned so many times by API changes, currupted IIS instances, exchange f'ing rebuilds that I had to walk away.
You are confusing have a #1 product with having a best in class product. Selling more doesn't mean it is actually better. It means you sold more. This goes to the licensing lock-in Microsoft has on enterprises. As they lose this lock-in, they will have to compete on the merits of the actual products. I used to be a system architect for a tech company and we ran a Microsoft shop. I got burned so many times by API changes, currupted IIS instances, exchange f'ing rebuilds that I had to walk away.
You had to walk away but that company is still in business, right? Most of the companies that rely on Microsoft stuff do just fine. Being "best in class" means a lot to Apple, and Apple is able to pull that off because they have a very limited and specialized product line (I-Pad, MacBook, I-Phone, soon to be discontinued and pretty much already abandoned in terms of new development I-Pod, and the "hobby" Apple TV, from which Apple will probably shift their efforts from the I-Pod to). But Microsoft only needs to sell the most software, which means that it only has to be "good enough." There is nothing wrong with making the third best enterprise database and the second best enterprise server and so on, because it is just more convenient for a company to just support one range of products instead of training different people to support the "best in class" of each different one. You would need your Apple team to support the MacBooks that the client users have, an Oracle team to support the Oracle database, the IBM team to support the Lotus directory server, a Cisco team to support the messaging/communications server ... or you can have about 5-6 MSCEs to support your entire enterprise infrastructure. Which would you choose? You already know the answer, which is why "you had to walk away."
Pretty good products for Windows users but a royal pain to get to work properly with Macs.
Oracle is the #1 enterprise database, SQL Server is used for small projects
Exchange is garbage and has significant problems working with Mac software.
AD only works for Macs if you spend a lot of time getting it to work and doesn't do everything Open Directory does for Macs, although Apple is giving up this fight because enterprise IT managers hate Apple products.
Sharepoint is garbage and doesn't even work properly for Windows users
Calling Azure the #3 cloud product is funny because there aren't many more than 3.
Visual Studio is only available for Windows so you're right when considering only Windows OS development.
Hyper-V is a top 3 is the same as calling Azure top 3, there isn't anything below it.
If you're a Windows-only user, everything you've said is true. But when you talk about how Macs interface with these applications, you're way off.
SQL Server is used for small projects? 1. That is not true and 2. even if it were true, the fact that there are MANY more small and medium-sized businesses than big businesses means A LOT OF MONEY for Microsoft servicing companies who cannot afford and more important cannot manage the very expensive and complex Oracle. Not only is Oracle more expensive, but its requirements means much more expensive hardware.
Exchange is garbage? Compared to what? Name a better email server. Significant problems working with Mac software? Gee, perhaps because it wasn't designed to? And since Macs have only a small slice of enterprise hardware, that is a problem for Exchange how? When there are more Macs in the enterprise, Microsoft will make the same accommodations for it that they made for Linux servers.
Calling Active Directory a bad product because it doesn't work for Macs when it wasn't designed to work for Macs is more lunacy. Why are you rating Microsoft's products on their ability to support Apple products instead of Microsoft products and enterprise products in general? And why should Microsoft have done anything extra to accommodate the (until now) tiny percentage of enterprise users who use Apple?
There are more than 3 cloud companies. There are only 3 BIG cloud companies and one of them is Microsoft. And when Microsoft entered that space, they leapfrogged over a lot of companies that had been in that space longer. That space's growth potential is huge, and Microsoft is poised to reap a ton of money off it.
Hyper-V? Same deal. You can make a ton of money by being #3 in virtualization. And being able to leverage Azure will give them plenty of opportunities to increase that space.
"If you're a Windows-only user, everything you've said is true. But when you talk about how Macs interface with these applications, you're way off."
I had no interest in how Macs interface with those products, and until now neither did Microsoft. My point was that Microsoft was making a ton of money off them, and will continue to in the future. That their products do not play well with Macs does not change the fact that Microsoft is by far the leading enterprise software company, and will continue to be so because of their leading position in so many enterprise sectors. And no, Apple is not going to get into the enterprise software game to any significant degree because they do not even commercially market software. They are a hardware company, and their only interest in software is to use it to sell their hardware.