"There are also two trends that should boost Linux in 2004. One is a gambit by Microsoft to encourage business users to upgrade their systems every time Microsoft comes out with a new version, a program called Software Assurance. It really is a gambit ? Microsoft is betting that business users will find it profitable to pay more for Microsoft products instead of less for Linux; the Redmond giant points to figures saying that licence price is just one-fifth of the whole total cost of the ownership picture. But will it wash with CIOs and their tight budgets?
The other is the growing popularity of grid computing, a software method by which computers are linked to share tasks; a reasonable number of computers linked this way can make a cheap supercomputer. Linux has made great strides in this direction, but Microsoft is lagging, or perhaps not even interested. Make an offer to a corporation of a grid-system supercomputer based on Linux, and it will fall on friendly ears. It may also make a good argument against Microsoft.
Grid computing was also ported successfully in 2003 to the Macintosh Operating System X platform, although so far this has been largely limited to software labs and geek basements. But if grid computing takes off, so will the fortunes of Apple Computer Inc.
The new Macintosh G5 computers from Apple are not only beautiful, they are powerful. If Apple can push the grid concept with Macs, they might have a good shot at regaining the high-end graphics market, specifically the one used by the film industry, which has been quietly adopting Linux for its animation and computer-generated imaging jobs.
In the corporate field, IT departments are facing little or no increase in their budgets, and desperately need more staff just to test out the endless security upgrades put out by Microsoft before they can be deployed. This tends to get IT people grumpy about Microsoft, but then again, IT departments would have to increase staff anyway to roll out a system based on Linux instead, so they remain caught in a bind."
So... consider that unlike a Linux roll-out, a Macintosh roll-out will reduce staff expenditures. Then consider that in the "tMac" or "smart terminal" scenario the data flow can be a two way street.
All those Cubicle Cubes will be using wasted CPU cycles in between keystrokes to deliver processing power back to the server room. This bonus of surplus computational power will be harnessed by OSX grid softwre to sort and search massive Oracle databases, render movie scenes, and other processing intensive jobs - power on demand.
The sudden, and completely unexpected, rise of the Virginia Tech super-computing cluster, (the "Big Mac") to the third fastest computer in the World, announced a paradigm shift in thinking about Apple's products.
CIO's and IT professionals who were used to thinking about Apple's products as cute toys, with no place in the server room, are now forced to re-evaluate their pre-conceptions.
As we advance into the 21st Century technologies like grid computing will make the Microsoft vision of a fat client (a NGSCB "enabled" PC) sitting on everyone's desk from secretaries and mail clerks to CEO's costing money and wasting computational power, seem irrational.
Linux might seem like a slam dunk here, but using Microsoft's own sales pitch, sometimes spending more initially turns out to be cheaper in the long run. TCO comes into play when the cost of technical and support staff are rightly added into the projections.
Going forward, Apple has an enormous opportunity to take advantage of this "Window" of opportunity between now and "Longhorn".
Apple's big enterprise push should be in software:
Enterprise Objects, Xcode, WebObjects
And select hardware:
Xserve, Xserve RAID, Airport networks as cheaper server and WiFi net alternatives
In the enterprise client/desktop, Apple has to compete with Dell, HP and the like. Dell, HP boxes are cheaper, lower risk, more compatible, etc...so how can Apple reasonably compete in that market?
Apple going for the enterprise client is a waste of time.
Unless...
...Apple were to come up with a new lightweight client.
That is a tablet style wireless monitor, keyboard and mouse that hook up to either a "basestation-like" headless iMac, or better yet - racked Xserves.
This most certainly will be an 'enterprise class' solution that would at very least appeal to Apple's larger or enterprise customers in graphics, media, publishing and education markets.
...Apple were to come up with a new lightweight client.
That is a tablet style wireless monitor, keyboard and mouse that hook up to either a "basestation-like" headless iMac, or better yet - racked Xserves.
Sounds good.
If Apple are to truly 'think different' then they need to produce more than jazzed up iMacs. I think they need an 'earthmoving' consumer desktop product. An iPod for the consumer desktop. Maybe a dockable tablet that can stream content from the basestation/mothership Mac. THIS WOULD be more in the spirit of the original iMac than the current model. Something that blows the doors off like the Mac did in 1984. Apple really needs another home run for their consumer desktops. Something that breaks the mould. 'I didn't know I needed that...but I gotta have it...'
Products like the iPod and G5 and Panther are beginning to go beyond the 'Apple box' by giving people what they want.
Apple's piling on the pressure. They've never had this much good press!
The Virgina Tech' story is an eg of a seismic shift in the way Apple is perceived. It will no doubt help to shift more G5s (tower or pending G5 X-serve...)
I believe Apple can take Dell on. They don't have to match them dollar for dollar. They can cost 'a little more' and offer all the value added qualities OS, iapps, support from an integrated/vertical supplier etc.
Apple are making a fair fist of bidding for these big edu' contracts. Many are beginning to see the Apple 'bigger picture'.
But I feel they need to sort out their consumer desktops.
iMac2 into iMac3.
eMac into headless. A 'bMac' for edu'/business and cheapo switchers.
But hopefully, something compelling will come with them.
And as mentioned by others, Apple have just got to sort out some of their business software (ie 100% bullet proof...) and a G5 X-Serve.
I believe the 980 will pile on the pressure for workstation market to go Apple and the G5 in consumer Mac desktops will make the consumer desktop more compelling...
If Apple can just get a couple of Top 500 companies to go Mac. It's game on. That should be their benchmark if they want to achieve true growth.
Start patting that baseball bat...because then Apple will be ready for a fight.
I believe the 980 will pile on the pressure for workstation market to go Apple and the G5 in consumer Mac desktops will make the consumer desktop more compelling...
Well, more than the enterprise market, I have thought that the high end graphics, media and publishing markets ought to be persued by Apple.
Apple has considered making itself more like Sony - that is capturing the consumer and high end markets.
One way to do that would be to purchase a company like SGI outright (and run it as a wholely owned subsidiary).
Offer SGI branded G5/980 Mac OS X workstations and servers and high end software. (Alias|Wavefront as a subsidiary of Apple|SGI)
SGI (including A|W) is only $300 million and should make an easy aquisition for Apple.
SGI (including A|W) is only $300 million and should make an easy aquisition for Apple.
That'd be cool! SGI could become a 'boutique' brand. They could port Irix and all their software over to the PPC and gradually port it to Mac OS X as time went on.
That'd be cool! SGI could become a 'boutique' brand. They could port Irix and all their software over to the PPC and gradually port it to Mac OS X as time went on.
Doesn't SGI own Cray Research, too?
I don't think too many businesses (not the high-end) are interested in a machine like this. Grid computing has a much greater potential- seemingly low-powered computers pooling and sharing their own resources.
Cray has been with SGI since 1996 through 2000 when Tera bought all assets of SGI/Cray.
...Apple were to come up with a new lightweight client.
That is a tablet style wireless monitor, keyboard and mouse that hook up to either a "basestation-like" headless iMac, or better yet - racked Xserves.
I don't think that this "tablet" solution would be viable for general enterprise use. For one these tablets would be easily stolen, dropped, broken, and lost. They would have to be really cheap to be a viable product for general distribustion in an enterprise solution.
Quote:
Originally posted by rmendis
This most certainly will be an 'enterprise class' solution that would at very least appeal to Apple's larger or enterprise customers in graphics, media, publishing and education markets.
Most graphics/publishing workers would want WACOM quality out of this, which means at minimum 256 level pressure sensative tablet, preferably tilt sensative as well. Have you priced WACOM's LCD tablets lately? This is not inexpensive technology and requires a specialized, active stylus which when carried around with the "tablet" would be easily stolen, dropped, broken, and lost, without which the "tablet" cannot function as a "tablet".
The way to offer an innexpensive enterprise solution is to build a thin client, which requires the server side hardware and software solutions to support. Right now Apple does not have this hardware, and while they have been working on the software side I dont think they are ready for market with it today.
Another thought, a "netboot" X86 client would allow Apple to compete with DELL by offering, say IBM (or anyone elses) "discount" PC's in their enterprise sales that run OS X booted off of a OS X server solution. This way Apple limits the "cost of migration" because customers could use thier old PC's that are set up to boot OS X over the server, or buy new "bargin basement" PC's to do the same thing.
Well, more than the enterprise market, I have thought that the high end graphics, media and publishing markets ought to be persued by Apple.
Apple has considered making itself more like Sony - that is capturing the consumer and high end markets.
One way to do that would be to purchase a company like SGI outright (and run it as a wholely owned subsidiary).
Offer SGI branded G5/980 Mac OS X workstations and servers and high end software. (Alias|Wavefront as a subsidiary of Apple|SGI)
SGI (including A|W) is only $300 million and should make an easy aquisition for Apple.
I've always wanted Apple to buy SGI. There's so much they could do with that company.
- They could port SGI software to OS X.
- They could use some of the MIPS processor technology in future PPC chips.
- They could make thie own ultra-highend graphics cards for Macs.
- They could port OS X to MIPS and run it on SGI hardware.
- They could integrate Inventor as the new QuickTime3D
The problem is that Apple is becoming very much like SGI (Hardware company with their own processor technology and highend media software). There's a lot of overlap between A|W and Apple's offerings like Shake. I know A|W is considered 'more pro', but Apple is already heading in that direction. Apple could also make the big iron hardware if they wanted too. They'd be spending $300 mil 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. And another big problem is that SGI licensed most of their patents to Microsoft a little whilee back. Yuck.
If Apple are to truly 'think different' then they need to produce more than jazzed up iMacs.
Why does is keep coming back to new hardware? I think current Mac owners are just blind to what's really keeping them out of the enterprise.
Repeat after me: "It's Not The Hardware!"
Apple needs to over come the perception and reality that Macs are not completely compatible with a Windows world. That's it. That's the only thing holding them back.
It requires a marketing effort to battle the false perception. I'm talking about things like: "I need Microsoft Office, so I can't use a Mac".
It also requires some serious software development to add things like Exchange support to Mail, iCal and Addressbook.
Once Apple does this, then we can start talking about whether or not the hardware lineup is optimal for business, but if Macs are looked at as machines for the art department it won't matter.
Oh, and they need to do it quick. We don't want to find out what will happen if MS stops developing for the Mac. Therefore Apple needs to raise it's business marketshare so that any move to kill Mac Office, Virtual PC, Windows Media, etc can't possibly be viewed as a necessary cost savings measure.
I've always wanted Apple to buy SGI. There's so much they could do with that company.
- They could port SGI software to OS X.
- They could use some of the MIPS processor technology in future PPC chips.
- They could make thie own ultra-highend graphics cards for Macs.
- They could port OS X to MIPS and run it on SGI hardware.
- They could integrate Inventor as the new QuickTime3D
The problem is that Apple is becoming very much like SGI (Hardware company with their own processor technology and highend media software). There's a lot of overlap between A|W and Apple's offerings like Shake. I know A|W is considered 'more pro', but Apple is already heading in that direction. Apple could also make the big iron hardware if they wanted too. They'd be spending $300 mil 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. And another big problem is that SGI licensed most of their patents to Microsoft a little whilee back. Yuck.
Yes Apple could compete in the markets that SGI does, and they do have the brand recognition that is required, and a good amount of the software to get them there. One thing they would gain is one less competator, which could make that $300 mil a very good investment in and of itself if Apple were to seriously target SGI's current market. Also, since Apple would gain the patents that Microsoft is licensing then that gives Apple some more leverage with Microsoft.
Yes Apple could compete in the markets that SGI does, and they do have the brand recognition that is required, and a good amount of the software to get them there. One thing they would gain is one less competator, which could make that $300 mil a very good investment in and of itself if Apple were to seriously target SGI's current market. Also, since Apple would gain the patents that Microsoft is licensing then that gives Apple some more leverage with Microsoft.
Very true about having one less competitor. Also SGI still has a good place in government.
With the patents though, I think it was either a lifetime license, or Microsoft actually bought them. I don't think there any way to revoke the license, so there's no leverage to be had.
... The way to offer an innexpensive enterprise solution is to build a thin client, which requires the server side hardware and software solutions to support. Right now Apple does not have this hardware, and while they have been working on the software side I dont think they are ready for market with it today.
OSX NetBoot is already in place and has been since 2001.
The only piece lacking is the thin (but smart) client. If Apple does have an enterprise strategy they must be looking long (since 2001) and hard (how else to compete with Dell prices) at this solution.
The monitor line is due for an update (overdue?) and it's possible that the delay is to do something innovative here. I have read rumors of a thin bezel product line that has a VESA standard attachment point which would imply a detachable stand.
So let's look at what type of innovative ideas could be incorporated into a detachable stand. The adjustable arm on the iMac line seems a no-brainer. Replace the iMac base with a weighted base with the arm attached to the rear portion of it. (for balance)
Logic would dictate that this base would also act as a USB and FireWire hub. Common sense would put ADC, DVI, and VGA connectors on it as well (Apple doesn't, unfortunately, always use common sense tho). What else could Apple do with this base to make it innovative?
Make the monitor base "stackable" much like SGI's "brick" concept. Connectors (like my ThinkPad's port replicator) would allow a thin client "slice" to be added. Another "slice" could be the iMac3, a nice concept that would allow the biggest objection to the all in one concept to be overcome (forever chaining an expensive monitor to an un-upgradable CPU), as well as making sure that no non-Apple monitors can be used.
I for one, can see Apple going this route, as opposed to a headless box. Once the proprietary connector is developed Apple can provide a multitude of "slices" to add-on. This appeals to me because the entire line of monitors would be all the same, bundled at different price points with the iMac3 slice, or simply sold with the base alone as it's monitor line-up.
What other innovative "slices" can you guys think of?
All those Cubicle Cubes will be using wasted CPU cycles in between keystrokes to deliver processing power back to the server room. This bonus of surplus computational power will be harnessed by OSX grid softwre to sort and search massive Oracle databases, render movie scenes, and other processing intensive jobs - power on demand.
The sudden, and completely unexpected, rise of the Virginia Tech super-computing cluster, (the "Big Mac") to the third fastest computer in the World, announced a paradigm shift in thinking about Apple's products.
I like the way you think Aphelion! NetBoot + grid computing + Unix based OS X + Mac Office 11 seems like a truly compelling solution. One that MS is neither technically or philosophically prepared to offer.
Another benefit of the tMac as opposed to the bMac is it has ZERO value to consumers. I believe Amorph attributed desire for Apple to reintroduce a Cube-like bMac to people like me who wanted one for themselves. (Guilty, I admit it!) Well, it ain't much use to me if I gotta drop $5K on an Xserve to run the thing. Make it a true thin client and it doesn't mess up the consumer product grid.
Why does is keep coming back to new hardware? I think current Mac owners are just blind to what's really keeping them out of the enterprise.
Repeat after me: "It's Not The Hardware!"
How about this? "It's not JUST the hardware!"
Of course the long standing anti-Mac bias in the enterprise is just as big a hurdle, but that's kind of assumed for purposes of this discussion. What LBB and I and others are arguing is that Apple still has to have a killer enterprise desktop machine available for actual purchase BEFORE they can even try tackling corporations. It's a chicken-and-egg situation. The box MUST exist before the now already mythical Apple Enterprise Division can even walk into a boardroom.
Besides, half the anti-Mac bias you claim is the sole problem comes from the perception (reality?) that Mac hardware is overpriced/underpowered. The ONLY way Apple can address that particular concern is with a brand new machine with a value proposition so obvious even a Win IT manager "gets it".
The iMac present or future, G4 or G5, is NOT that machine.
1. There's very little in the way of applications you'd want.
Alias|Wavefront doesn't have any desirable software?
2. Current MIPS chips are less interesting, and lower
performing than POWER.
I haven't kept up on MIPS since the R10000 days, but that was an impressive chip. MIPS gets huge performance out of fairly low Mhz.
3. SGI uses ATI R3x0 chips in their 'ultra-highend' graphics
cards, Apple use R350 cards.
What about Reality Engine? Is that ATI based now?
4. Why would you port to a platform with lower price/performance?
Because they have a decent installed base and are highly regarded in some areas.
5. Apple doesn't need a new QuickTime3D since they switched
to OpenGL, you can get most of the interesting 3D APIs on
the Mac now.
Inventor is an object-oriented layer on top of OpenGL. It includes lots and lots of stuff that's not in GL and is a much easier way to program 3D apps. GL is pretty painful most of the time. It is mostly open-sourced now in the form of OpenInventor though.
The kick-ass products SGI still makes are their servers,
and the best performing is the Altix range based around
Intel's Itanium2 processor.
SGI would mainly be worth purchasing for compiler experience,
server knowledge, branding. The hardware
is not really that attractive IMHO. Getting some SGI
engineers to beef up the PowerMac and Xserve, and
work on Xcode and gcc would be the best use. Perhaps
Apple could offer them jobs rather than buy the company?
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.
Besides, half the anti-Mac bias you claim is the sole problem comes from the perception (reality?) that Mac hardware is overpriced/underpowered. The ONLY way Apple can address that particular concern is with a brand new machine with a value proposition so obvious even a Win IT manager "gets it".
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. Even if Apple was cheaper they still won't be considered if you can't get to your email, calendars, or addresses on it.
Competing on price is something that just about any company can do. What Apple does that others can't is produce easy to use, easy to maintain, durable and powerful systems. It'd be folly for Apple to try to play Dell's game. Dell has already run many other companies out of business who try to compete on their terms.
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. Apple must figure out a way to live up to it's claim of being a "first-class citizen" on Windows networks and that includes, most importantly, working with Exchange.
Contrary to popular belief most companies to not purchase on price alone. They would be happy to pay a little more for a solution that works better and makes their business run better. I've see a lot of small shops go completely Apple in the past few years and they love it. Of course, they weren't already locked into the "MS Way"
If Apple can break MS's proprietary technology barrier then they will be given equal consideration. If that time comes and they're still not competing well enough, then they can try to compete the Dell way, but I think they must play to their strengths first.
Comments
Quoting from the Globe and Mail article:
"There are also two trends that should boost Linux in 2004. One is a gambit by Microsoft to encourage business users to upgrade their systems every time Microsoft comes out with a new version, a program called Software Assurance. It really is a gambit ? Microsoft is betting that business users will find it profitable to pay more for Microsoft products instead of less for Linux; the Redmond giant points to figures saying that licence price is just one-fifth of the whole total cost of the ownership picture. But will it wash with CIOs and their tight budgets?
The other is the growing popularity of grid computing, a software method by which computers are linked to share tasks; a reasonable number of computers linked this way can make a cheap supercomputer. Linux has made great strides in this direction, but Microsoft is lagging, or perhaps not even interested. Make an offer to a corporation of a grid-system supercomputer based on Linux, and it will fall on friendly ears. It may also make a good argument against Microsoft.
Grid computing was also ported successfully in 2003 to the Macintosh Operating System X platform, although so far this has been largely limited to software labs and geek basements. But if grid computing takes off, so will the fortunes of Apple Computer Inc.
The new Macintosh G5 computers from Apple are not only beautiful, they are powerful. If Apple can push the grid concept with Macs, they might have a good shot at regaining the high-end graphics market, specifically the one used by the film industry, which has been quietly adopting Linux for its animation and computer-generated imaging jobs.
In the corporate field, IT departments are facing little or no increase in their budgets, and desperately need more staff just to test out the endless security upgrades put out by Microsoft before they can be deployed. This tends to get IT people grumpy about Microsoft, but then again, IT departments would have to increase staff anyway to roll out a system based on Linux instead, so they remain caught in a bind."
Apple's Grid efforts bearing fruit
So... consider that unlike a Linux roll-out, a Macintosh roll-out will reduce staff expenditures. Then consider that in the "tMac" or "smart terminal" scenario the data flow can be a two way street.
All those Cubicle Cubes will be using wasted CPU cycles in between keystrokes to deliver processing power back to the server room. This bonus of surplus computational power will be harnessed by OSX grid softwre to sort and search massive Oracle databases, render movie scenes, and other processing intensive jobs - power on demand.
The sudden, and completely unexpected, rise of the Virginia Tech super-computing cluster, (the "Big Mac") to the third fastest computer in the World, announced a paradigm shift in thinking about Apple's products.
CIO's and IT professionals who were used to thinking about Apple's products as cute toys, with no place in the server room, are now forced to re-evaluate their pre-conceptions.
As we advance into the 21st Century technologies like grid computing will make the Microsoft vision of a fat client (a NGSCB "enabled" PC) sitting on everyone's desk from secretaries and mail clerks to CEO's costing money and wasting computational power, seem irrational.
Linux might seem like a slam dunk here, but using Microsoft's own sales pitch, sometimes spending more initially turns out to be cheaper in the long run. TCO comes into play when the cost of technical and support staff are rightly added into the projections.
Going forward, Apple has an enormous opportunity to take advantage of this "Window" of opportunity between now and "Longhorn".
Enterprise Objects, Xcode, WebObjects
And select hardware:
Xserve, Xserve RAID, Airport networks as cheaper server and WiFi net alternatives
In the enterprise client/desktop, Apple has to compete with Dell, HP and the like. Dell, HP boxes are cheaper, lower risk, more compatible, etc...so how can Apple reasonably compete in that market?
Apple going for the enterprise client is a waste of time.
Unless...
...Apple were to come up with a new lightweight client.
That is a tablet style wireless monitor, keyboard and mouse that hook up to either a "basestation-like" headless iMac, or better yet - racked Xserves.
This most certainly will be an 'enterprise class' solution that would at very least appeal to Apple's larger or enterprise customers in graphics, media, publishing and education markets.
...Apple were to come up with a new lightweight client.
That is a tablet style wireless monitor, keyboard and mouse that hook up to either a "basestation-like" headless iMac, or better yet - racked Xserves.
Sounds good.
If Apple are to truly 'think different' then they need to produce more than jazzed up iMacs. I think they need an 'earthmoving' consumer desktop product. An iPod for the consumer desktop. Maybe a dockable tablet that can stream content from the basestation/mothership Mac. THIS WOULD be more in the spirit of the original iMac than the current model. Something that blows the doors off like the Mac did in 1984. Apple really needs another home run for their consumer desktops. Something that breaks the mould. 'I didn't know I needed that...but I gotta have it...'
Products like the iPod and G5 and Panther are beginning to go beyond the 'Apple box' by giving people what they want.
Apple's piling on the pressure. They've never had this much good press!
The Virgina Tech' story is an eg of a seismic shift in the way Apple is perceived. It will no doubt help to shift more G5s (tower or pending G5 X-serve...)
I believe Apple can take Dell on. They don't have to match them dollar for dollar. They can cost 'a little more' and offer all the value added qualities OS, iapps, support from an integrated/vertical supplier etc.
Apple are making a fair fist of bidding for these big edu' contracts. Many are beginning to see the Apple 'bigger picture'.
But I feel they need to sort out their consumer desktops.
iMac2 into iMac3.
eMac into headless. A 'bMac' for edu'/business and cheapo switchers.
But hopefully, something compelling will come with them.
And as mentioned by others, Apple have just got to sort out some of their business software (ie 100% bullet proof...) and a G5 X-Serve.
I believe the 980 will pile on the pressure for workstation market to go Apple and the G5 in consumer Mac desktops will make the consumer desktop more compelling...
If Apple can just get a couple of Top 500 companies to go Mac. It's game on. That should be their benchmark if they want to achieve true growth.
Start patting that baseball bat...because then Apple will be ready for a fight.
I'm kinda thinkin' that 2004 will be that year.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I believe the 980 will pile on the pressure for workstation market to go Apple and the G5 in consumer Mac desktops will make the consumer desktop more compelling...
Well, more than the enterprise market, I have thought that the high end graphics, media and publishing markets ought to be persued by Apple.
Apple has considered making itself more like Sony - that is capturing the consumer and high end markets.
One way to do that would be to purchase a company like SGI outright (and run it as a wholely owned subsidiary).
Offer SGI branded G5/980 Mac OS X workstations and servers and high end software. (Alias|Wavefront as a subsidiary of Apple|SGI)
SGI (including A|W) is only $300 million and should make an easy aquisition for Apple.
Originally posted by rmendis
SGI (including A|W) is only $300 million and should make an easy aquisition for Apple.
That'd be cool! SGI could become a 'boutique' brand. They could port Irix and all their software over to the PPC and gradually port it to Mac OS X as time went on.
Doesn't SGI own Cray Research, too?
Originally posted by cubist
That'd be cool! SGI could become a 'boutique' brand. They could port Irix and all their software over to the PPC and gradually port it to Mac OS X as time went on.
Doesn't SGI own Cray Research, too?
I don't think too many businesses (not the high-end) are interested in a machine like this. Grid computing has a much greater potential- seemingly low-powered computers pooling and sharing their own resources.
Cray has been with SGI since 1996 through 2000 when Tera bought all assets of SGI/Cray.
Originally posted by rmendis
...Apple were to come up with a new lightweight client.
That is a tablet style wireless monitor, keyboard and mouse that hook up to either a "basestation-like" headless iMac, or better yet - racked Xserves.
I don't think that this "tablet" solution would be viable for general enterprise use. For one these tablets would be easily stolen, dropped, broken, and lost. They would have to be really cheap to be a viable product for general distribustion in an enterprise solution.
Originally posted by rmendis
This most certainly will be an 'enterprise class' solution that would at very least appeal to Apple's larger or enterprise customers in graphics, media, publishing and education markets.
Most graphics/publishing workers would want WACOM quality out of this, which means at minimum 256 level pressure sensative tablet, preferably tilt sensative as well. Have you priced WACOM's LCD tablets lately? This is not inexpensive technology and requires a specialized, active stylus which when carried around with the "tablet" would be easily stolen, dropped, broken, and lost, without which the "tablet" cannot function as a "tablet".
The way to offer an innexpensive enterprise solution is to build a thin client, which requires the server side hardware and software solutions to support. Right now Apple does not have this hardware, and while they have been working on the software side I dont think they are ready for market with it today.
Another thought, a "netboot" X86 client would allow Apple to compete with DELL by offering, say IBM (or anyone elses) "discount" PC's in their enterprise sales that run OS X booted off of a OS X server solution. This way Apple limits the "cost of migration" because customers could use thier old PC's that are set up to boot OS X over the server, or buy new "bargin basement" PC's to do the same thing.
Originally posted by rmendis
Well, more than the enterprise market, I have thought that the high end graphics, media and publishing markets ought to be persued by Apple.
Apple has considered making itself more like Sony - that is capturing the consumer and high end markets.
One way to do that would be to purchase a company like SGI outright (and run it as a wholely owned subsidiary).
Offer SGI branded G5/980 Mac OS X workstations and servers and high end software. (Alias|Wavefront as a subsidiary of Apple|SGI)
SGI (including A|W) is only $300 million and should make an easy aquisition for Apple.
I've always wanted Apple to buy SGI. There's so much they could do with that company.
- They could port SGI software to OS X.
- They could use some of the MIPS processor technology in future PPC chips.
- They could make thie own ultra-highend graphics cards for Macs.
- They could port OS X to MIPS and run it on SGI hardware.
- They could integrate Inventor as the new QuickTime3D
The problem is that Apple is becoming very much like SGI (Hardware company with their own processor technology and highend media software). There's a lot of overlap between A|W and Apple's offerings like Shake. I know A|W is considered 'more pro', but Apple is already heading in that direction. Apple could also make the big iron hardware if they wanted too. They'd be spending $300 mil 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. And another big problem is that SGI licensed most of their patents to Microsoft a little whilee back. Yuck.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
If Apple are to truly 'think different' then they need to produce more than jazzed up iMacs.
Why does is keep coming back to new hardware? I think current Mac owners are just blind to what's really keeping them out of the enterprise.
Repeat after me: "It's Not The Hardware!"
Apple needs to over come the perception and reality that Macs are not completely compatible with a Windows world. That's it. That's the only thing holding them back.
It requires a marketing effort to battle the false perception. I'm talking about things like: "I need Microsoft Office, so I can't use a Mac".
It also requires some serious software development to add things like Exchange support to Mail, iCal and Addressbook.
Once Apple does this, then we can start talking about whether or not the hardware lineup is optimal for business, but if Macs are looked at as machines for the art department it won't matter.
Oh, and they need to do it quick. We don't want to find out what will happen if MS stops developing for the Mac. Therefore Apple needs to raise it's business marketshare so that any move to kill Mac Office, Virtual PC, Windows Media, etc can't possibly be viewed as a necessary cost savings measure.
Originally posted by spankalee
I've always wanted Apple to buy SGI. There's so much they could do with that company.
- They could port SGI software to OS X.
- They could use some of the MIPS processor technology in future PPC chips.
- They could make thie own ultra-highend graphics cards for Macs.
- They could port OS X to MIPS and run it on SGI hardware.
- They could integrate Inventor as the new QuickTime3D
The problem is that Apple is becoming very much like SGI (Hardware company with their own processor technology and highend media software). There's a lot of overlap between A|W and Apple's offerings like Shake. I know A|W is considered 'more pro', but Apple is already heading in that direction. Apple could also make the big iron hardware if they wanted too. They'd be spending $300 mil 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. And another big problem is that SGI licensed most of their patents to Microsoft a little whilee back. Yuck.
Yes Apple could compete in the markets that SGI does, and they do have the brand recognition that is required, and a good amount of the software to get them there. One thing they would gain is one less competator, which could make that $300 mil a very good investment in and of itself if Apple were to seriously target SGI's current market. Also, since Apple would gain the patents that Microsoft is licensing then that gives Apple some more leverage with Microsoft.
Originally posted by JCG
Yes Apple could compete in the markets that SGI does, and they do have the brand recognition that is required, and a good amount of the software to get them there. One thing they would gain is one less competator, which could make that $300 mil a very good investment in and of itself if Apple were to seriously target SGI's current market. Also, since Apple would gain the patents that Microsoft is licensing then that gives Apple some more leverage with Microsoft.
Very true about having one less competitor. Also SGI still has a good place in government.
With the patents though, I think it was either a lifetime license, or Microsoft actually bought them. I don't think there any way to revoke the license, so there's no leverage to be had.
Originally posted by JCG
... The way to offer an innexpensive enterprise solution is to build a thin client, which requires the server side hardware and software solutions to support. Right now Apple does not have this hardware, and while they have been working on the software side I dont think they are ready for market with it today.
OSX NetBoot is already in place and has been since 2001.
The only piece lacking is the thin (but smart) client. If Apple does have an enterprise strategy they must be looking long (since 2001) and hard (how else to compete with Dell prices) at this solution.
The monitor line is due for an update (overdue?) and it's possible that the delay is to do something innovative here. I have read rumors of a thin bezel product line that has a VESA standard attachment point which would imply a detachable stand.
So let's look at what type of innovative ideas could be incorporated into a detachable stand. The adjustable arm on the iMac line seems a no-brainer. Replace the iMac base with a weighted base with the arm attached to the rear portion of it. (for balance)
Logic would dictate that this base would also act as a USB and FireWire hub. Common sense would put ADC, DVI, and VGA connectors on it as well (Apple doesn't, unfortunately, always use common sense tho). What else could Apple do with this base to make it innovative?
Make the monitor base "stackable" much like SGI's "brick" concept. Connectors (like my ThinkPad's port replicator) would allow a thin client "slice" to be added. Another "slice" could be the iMac3, a nice concept that would allow the biggest objection to the all in one concept to be overcome (forever chaining an expensive monitor to an un-upgradable CPU), as well as making sure that no non-Apple monitors can be used.
I for one, can see Apple going this route, as opposed to a headless box. Once the proprietary connector is developed Apple can provide a multitude of "slices" to add-on. This appeals to me because the entire line of monitors would be all the same, bundled at different price points with the iMac3 slice, or simply sold with the base alone as it's monitor line-up.
What other innovative "slices" can you guys think of?
- They could port SGI software to OS X.
- They could use some of the MIPS processor technology in future PPC chips.
- They could make thie own ultra-highend graphics cards for Macs.
- They could port OS X to MIPS and run it on SGI hardware.
- They could integrate Inventor as the new QuickTime3D
1. There's very little in the way of applications you'd want.
2. Current MIPS chips are less interesting, and lower
performing than POWER.
3. SGI uses ATI R3x0 chips in their 'ultra-highend' graphics
cards, Apple use R350 cards.
4. Why would you port to a platform with lower price/performance?
5. Apple doesn't need a new QuickTime3D since they switched
to OpenGL, you can get most of the interesting 3D APIs on
the Mac now.
The kick-ass products SGI still makes are their servers,
and the best performing is the Altix range based around
Intel's Itanium2 processor.
SGI would mainly be worth purchasing for compiler experience,
server knowledge, branding. The hardware
is not really that attractive IMHO. Getting some SGI
engineers to beef up the PowerMac and Xserve, and
work on Xcode and gcc would be the best use. Perhaps
Apple could offer them jobs rather than buy the company?
Originally posted by Aphelion
All those Cubicle Cubes will be using wasted CPU cycles in between keystrokes to deliver processing power back to the server room. This bonus of surplus computational power will be harnessed by OSX grid softwre to sort and search massive Oracle databases, render movie scenes, and other processing intensive jobs - power on demand.
The sudden, and completely unexpected, rise of the Virginia Tech super-computing cluster, (the "Big Mac") to the third fastest computer in the World, announced a paradigm shift in thinking about Apple's products.
I like the way you think Aphelion! NetBoot + grid computing + Unix based OS X + Mac Office 11 seems like a truly compelling solution. One that MS is neither technically or philosophically prepared to offer.
Another benefit of the tMac as opposed to the bMac is it has ZERO value to consumers. I believe Amorph attributed desire for Apple to reintroduce a Cube-like bMac to people like me who wanted one for themselves. (Guilty, I admit it!) Well, it ain't much use to me if I gotta drop $5K on an Xserve to run the thing. Make it a true thin client and it doesn't mess up the consumer product grid.
Originally posted by spankalee
Why does is keep coming back to new hardware? I think current Mac owners are just blind to what's really keeping them out of the enterprise.
Repeat after me: "It's Not The Hardware!"
How about this? "It's not JUST the hardware!"
Of course the long standing anti-Mac bias in the enterprise is just as big a hurdle, but that's kind of assumed for purposes of this discussion. What LBB and I and others are arguing is that Apple still has to have a killer enterprise desktop machine available for actual purchase BEFORE they can even try tackling corporations. It's a chicken-and-egg situation. The box MUST exist before the now already mythical Apple Enterprise Division can even walk into a boardroom.
Besides, half the anti-Mac bias you claim is the sole problem comes from the perception (reality?) that Mac hardware is overpriced/underpowered. The ONLY way Apple can address that particular concern is with a brand new machine with a value proposition so obvious even a Win IT manager "gets it".
The iMac present or future, G4 or G5, is NOT that machine.
Originally posted by catbat
1. There's very little in the way of applications you'd want.
Alias|Wavefront doesn't have any desirable software?
2. Current MIPS chips are less interesting, and lower
performing than POWER.
I haven't kept up on MIPS since the R10000 days, but that was an impressive chip. MIPS gets huge performance out of fairly low Mhz.
3. SGI uses ATI R3x0 chips in their 'ultra-highend' graphics
cards, Apple use R350 cards.
What about Reality Engine? Is that ATI based now?
4. Why would you port to a platform with lower price/performance?
Because they have a decent installed base and are highly regarded in some areas.
5. Apple doesn't need a new QuickTime3D since they switched
to OpenGL, you can get most of the interesting 3D APIs on
the Mac now.
Inventor is an object-oriented layer on top of OpenGL. It includes lots and lots of stuff that's not in GL and is a much easier way to program 3D apps. GL is pretty painful most of the time. It is mostly open-sourced now in the form of OpenInventor though.
The kick-ass products SGI still makes are their servers,
and the best performing is the Altix range based around
Intel's Itanium2 processor.
SGI would mainly be worth purchasing for compiler experience,
server knowledge, branding. The hardware
is not really that attractive IMHO. Getting some SGI
engineers to beef up the PowerMac and Xserve, and
work on Xcode and gcc would be the best use. Perhaps
Apple could offer them jobs rather than buy the company?
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.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
How about this? "It's not JUST the hardware!"
...
Besides, half the anti-Mac bias you claim is the sole problem comes from the perception (reality?) that Mac hardware is overpriced/underpowered. The ONLY way Apple can address that particular concern is with a brand new machine with a value proposition so obvious even a Win IT manager "gets it".
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. Even if Apple was cheaper they still won't be considered if you can't get to your email, calendars, or addresses on it.
Competing on price is something that just about any company can do. What Apple does that others can't is produce easy to use, easy to maintain, durable and powerful systems. It'd be folly for Apple to try to play Dell's game. Dell has already run many other companies out of business who try to compete on their terms.
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. Apple must figure out a way to live up to it's claim of being a "first-class citizen" on Windows networks and that includes, most importantly, working with Exchange.
Contrary to popular belief most companies to not purchase on price alone. They would be happy to pay a little more for a solution that works better and makes their business run better. I've see a lot of small shops go completely Apple in the past few years and they love it. Of course, they weren't already locked into the "MS Way"
If Apple can break MS's proprietary technology barrier then they will be given equal consideration. If that time comes and they're still not competing well enough, then they can try to compete the Dell way, but I think they must play to their strengths first.