PDA

View Full Version : CIO Jury: Apple 'irrelevant' to businesses


MacBytes
Jan 19, 2005, 12:52 PM
Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: CIO Jury: Apple \'irrelevant\' to businesses (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050119135250)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

24C
Jan 19, 2005, 01:13 PM
Read some of this, but "A couple of IT bosses, including Ted Woodhouse, IT director at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, said the only reason there are few malware exploits for Apple software is down to a lack of market penetration."

Really good stuff :rolleyes: nowhere do they mention that OSX/Unix is inherently more secure as a platform, instead we get the marketshare drivel, that coming from an IT specialist in an organisation that spent £200 million on implementing a new computer system in hospitals, that got criticised in a Government report for it's lack of effectiveness...one highly promoted feature, hospital appointments via online bookings from doctors surgeries, was used just 69 times, :eek: in a population of 60+million. Who needs that type of success.

There's more sad comments like an iPod with eMail, from a Virgin IT guy, jeepers, they can't get tilting trains to run without software malfunctions, but there was one guy who stuck his chin out against the hordes, and no he didn't work for Cisco.

jholzner
Jan 19, 2005, 01:18 PM
Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: CIO Jury: Apple \'irrelevant\' to businesses (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050119135250)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Uh oh...quick, someone better tell Cisco and Oracle the news! Hopefully they can get their money back on their Xserves and Xserve raids!!

1macker1
Jan 19, 2005, 01:18 PM
Damn, I was shocked to see "over priced accessory".

nagromme
Jan 19, 2005, 01:23 PM
I'm not familiar with Silicon.com, but AppleTurns mentions them as one of the most consistently anti-Mac sites.

As a counterpoint, visit a few articles from multiple different writers at highly-respected IT publication Inforworld:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/01/12/03PPhands_1.html?s=feature
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/01/13/HNmacworldanalysis_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/05/35OPconnection_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/12/36OPconnection_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/02/27OPcurve_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/10/40OPcurve_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/reports/SRapple.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/26/13OPcurve_1.html<<< FIXED
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/18/25FE64bits_1.html

SuperChuck
Jan 19, 2005, 02:34 PM
Apple is a threat to IT departments everywhere. As a friend of mine who makes his living as a freelance IT contractor put it, "If everyone bought Macs, I'd be out of a job - they don't require the same level of support."

Keynoteuser
Jan 19, 2005, 02:48 PM
Why do people write this stuff except as an excuse to bad mouth Apple? Did someone ASK for an article about Apple and buisiness from the CIO's perspective?

I love the line about little or no software. Uh, besides Access, which is a piece of junk anyway, most offices use e-mail and Office. And their e-mail (usually Exchange) is always going down due to viruses. I'd love to see a study on how moch more stable a large office full of macs running something like Kerio mail is.

On top of that, if you put Mac minis on every desk, and you had a few spares with a standard disk image on them, when you've got a problem, you walk up to the desk, grab their mini, hand them the new one, and walk away. Hows that for tech support.

Santaduck
Jan 19, 2005, 02:54 PM
The issues are: prorietary & high-priced.

Does anyone have the facts?

1) I thought X-serve RAID was not based on proprietary software, and was the lowest price per storage GB. This is based on Apple PR, so does anyone have a more accurate appraisal?

2) How proprietary is X-san (http://www.apple.com/xsan)? Since it was just released, the CIO Jury may not really be up to speed on it, but the real question is: What is it about xsan that cause the CIO Jury members to shy away?

proprietary software hierarchies? cost? reputation in enterprise? support? hardware interoperability? performance?

They may have a point, and they may not. If you don't already know about Xsan, I highly recommend reading through the Apple link above.

mpw
Jan 19, 2005, 02:56 PM
... drivel, that coming from an IT specialist in an organisation that spent £200 million on implementing a new computer system in hospitals, that got criticised in a Government report for it's lack of effectiveness...

I didn't read the Government report but there was a 'letter of the week' in the UK MacUser magazine in the last couple of months from an Apple using IT guy or Doctor in the NHS which tore the new IT system to shreds. The writer seemed to know his stuff and put a great account of all the additional cost of data input of records etc. and still was able to budget for an Apple PC (at retail I think) for every UK GP plus the hospitals networks etc. for less than the £200 millions+ they've spent on a flawed windows system.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 19, 2005, 03:06 PM
http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/maceducation/33806.html<- LINK IS DEAD

Other than that, those articles nagromme linked to are good ones.

the_mole1314
Jan 19, 2005, 03:31 PM
Ofcourse Apple is irrelevant to businesses, if businesses used them they (IT people) would possibly loose their jobs (most anyway, depending on how many you have working.)

24C
Jan 19, 2005, 03:38 PM
I didn't read the Government report but there was a 'letter of the week' in the UK MacUser magazine in the last couple of months from an Apple using IT guy or Doctor in the NHS which tore the new IT system to shreds...snip...

The report was featured on today's BBC News 24, and yep it was an Apple owning doctor that didn't want to convert to the NHS system, as his practice/ surgery had managed on Macs without hassle for years, unlike his peers. A lot of medical stuff is dominated at admin level by M$ consultants, I think there is a some movement to get away from this.

24C
Jan 19, 2005, 03:43 PM
Ofcourse Apple is irrelevant to businesses, if businesses used them they (IT people) would possibly loose their jobs (most anyway, depending on how many you have working.)

Great point, I also had first hand experience of IT support in a multinational corporation. The translation, documentation was done on Apples, yet all the admin was done on M$, invoicing etc, and all the support staff trolled up and down on these machines...they didn't have support for the Apples.

nagromme
Jan 19, 2005, 04:25 PM
Thanks for the dead link warning! I'll remove that from my list.

EDIT: I found a good link to the same article. Added the fixed link back to my list:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/26/13OPcurve_1.html
(Nothing too exciting--a discussion of Apple's core markets.)

Billy_ca
Jan 19, 2005, 04:31 PM
What exactly is non-proprietary about Microsoft Windows XP?

zen
Jan 19, 2005, 06:08 PM
Yep, that's it on the button. IT staff at most major organisation are busy fulltime "rebuilding/reimaging" machines (whatever that means), purging viruses/spyware/trojans etc, and managing unwieldy Windows server systems, or preparing systems for users. We use XP machines at my work - to get a laptop from IT to go to a conference it takes one IT technician AN ENTIRE DAY to prepare it (and I mean that's all he does that day).

If we all switched to Macs, IT department staff would be reduced to 25% I think. So of course they are going to defend their jobs.

It's kinda sad to think about how better and more pleasant life would be if everyone used Macs!

Apple is a threat to IT departments everywhere. As a friend of mine who makes his living as a freelance IT contractor put it, "If everyone bought Macs, I'd be out of a job - they don't require the same level of support."

nagromme
Jan 19, 2005, 07:35 PM
A paycheck's a paycheck I guess.... but what an unpleasant job to defend :(

A lot of it I imagine is higher-up IT folks, the ones who would keep their jobs no matter what, but also who don't have to do the dirty work fighting Windows personally all day. They are keeping Windows to save jobs of people under them in part--but also because the more people under them, the more power and clout they have. So they're defending their "turf" more than their job itself.

And some of them can't let themselves be seen to "back down"--if something better comes along, they can't seize on it because they will look fallible. A shame--think what heroes they could be by replacing certain systems with Macs!

rjwill246
Jan 19, 2005, 10:09 PM
That the people quoted have jobs is a miracle since they are clearly performing at a level of incompetence that shoud demand immediate removal from their potentially important positions. That said, I have friends who are Microsoft certified, get perks from M$ for this, and thus would defend to the death those perks and the "need" for their expertise, as in "keeping their overblown staffs." Speaking of which, where's Aiden Shaw these days?

bousozoku
Jan 19, 2005, 10:57 PM
Working in corporate information departments over the years, I've found that most bosses wouldn't know good technology if it hit them in the head. They're more willing to go with whatever someone writes in a magazine and use as many buzzwords as are not applicable to sell the idea.

While Apple is making a few inroads, it's safer to buy Wintel equipment because their bosses have heard that it's used by other companies. They don't want to know what's best--they only want to run with the crowd.

combatcolin
Jan 20, 2005, 07:16 AM
Buisness's have spent a lot of money on their (flawed) pc networks and don't really want to replaced them (yet) regardless of the advantages of Mac OS.

The Mac Mini weill of course have its impact, i only hope than Apple put in place a "Bulk Order" program to make it more attractive.

SiliconAddict
Jan 20, 2005, 10:17 AM
*shrugs*

The mini could "potentially" go a long way to reverse that trend but reality is that since minis aren't as user serviceable as standard desktops they prob won't hit the enterprise with as big of a crash as the consumer market.

Beyond that there are some standard technologies that simply don't come as standard on Apple's server line. Even Dell's bottom of the barrel server line comes with hardware RAID. Apple doesn't. It comes with software RAID which is craptastic. Couple that with Apple's service contracts that are pretty er...what the best term for "screw the customer over"? :rolleyes: and you get a server that isn't any better then most of the other OEMs that provide server hardware.
Never mind the fact that most OEMs now provide Linux support on their systems, which is just as viable a platform as OS X and you, well at least those with open minds, understand where some of these guys are coming from.
Honestly Apple has always catered to the home consumer and educational environment. That is where their bread and butter is. Apple would have to retool a number of things to really go after the enterprise. Something I personally don't see Apple doing…yet.
Lets see where they are in a year from now with the minis selling like hotcakes. Apple over the years has had to scale back a number of things. Lets be honest when was the last time we've seen Apple produce something truly revolutionary that came straight out of R&D?
Apple had the Newton. Apple had one of the first digital cameras. Apple has had a number or real innovations over the years but with falling market share comes the tightening of the belt. The iPod isn't anything overly revolutionary. They took over-the-counter parts and made an MP3 player. Its what they did with that MP3 player is what made it revolutionary.
I think if Apple can really start rolling in the big bucks with the minis or at the very least start nabbing market share they can turn their attention back to the educational environment, which they already have started to do, and then, eventually, the enterprise.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
*shrugs*

The mini could "potentially" go a long way to reverse that trend but reality is that since minis aren't as user serviceable as standard desktops they prob won't hit the enterprise with as big of a crash as the consumer market.

Beyond that there are some standard technologies that simply don't come as standard on Apple's server line. Even Dell's bottom of the barrel server line comes with hardware RAID. Apple doesn't. It comes with software RAID which is craptastic. Couple that with Apple's service contracts that are pretty er...what the best term for screw the customer over? :rolleyes: and you get s system that isn't any better then most of the other OEMs that provide server hardware.
Never mind the fact that most OEMs now provide Linux support on their systems, which is just as viable a platform as OS X and you, well at least those with open minds, understand where some of these guys are coming from. Honestly Apple has always catered to the home consumer and educational environment. That is where their bread and butter is. Apple would have to retool a number of things to really go after then enterprise something I personally don't see Apple doing…yet. Lets see where they are in a year from now with the minis selling like hotcakes. Apple over the years has had to scale back a number of things. Lets be honest when was the last time we've seen Apple produce something truly revolutionary that came straight out of R&D?
Apple had the Newton. Apple had one of the first digital cameras. Apple has had a number or real innovations over the years but with falling market share comes the tightening of the belt. The iPod isn't anything overly revolutionary. They took over the counter parts and made an MP3 player. Its what they did with that MP3 player is what made it revolutionary.
I think if Apple can really start rolling in the big bucks with the minis or at the very least start nabbing market share they can turn their attention back to the educational environment, which they already have started to do, and then, eventually, the enterprise.
I agree with you. Put another way, the Apple machine is like a positive feedback loop - the better results it gets, the more it becomes able to deliver results better still, and so on. Thus, with increasing market share, we'll see what the Apple R&D machine is truly capable of - all I can say is this: prepare to be amazed in the rest of 2005 and years to come.

mrsebastian
Jan 20, 2005, 11:07 AM
i wish apple would do more to get into the corporate market. it'd be fantastic to see apple build a workstation cluster to go with the xserve. when i say workstation, i'm thinking something along the lines of a hard drive-less imac, but built specifically so that boards can be swapped easily once a year or so. kind of a subscription to upgrades for an appropriate fee, compared to having to buy whole new machines and allowing the case/display to have a longer life span. the operating system would be a corporate version of osx and then the company would have the option of an apple (when they get it together) or m$ office suite. as part of a package deal, you throw in an apple certified i.t. guy, that's on call for you 24 hours a day and stops in at least once a day to check on things.

i would think that if apple, even steve personally put together a presentation for ceos, cfos, and the top people. dollar for dollar, they would find apple to be a much better deal. heck, he could start pixar as an example... thinking out loud this morning... need more coffee and maybe a donut.

ps. if you're reading this steve/apple and you use my idea, i don't want millions of dollars for the concept, but if i could just have free macs for life that would be great ;) please :) i am a stock holder too :D