PDA

View Full Version : iPhone not enterprise ready: Gartner


MacBytes
Jun 27, 2009, 09:27 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: iPhone not enterprise ready: Gartner (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090627102745)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Anonymous

supmango
Jun 27, 2009, 10:10 AM
IT departments have always been control freaks. Just because a device is independently secure and inherently not subject to their obsessive-compulsive control through frivolous and and annoying security policies, does not mean it is unfit for enterprise environments. Let's think about this, if IT cannot crack into an iPhone to control it, how likely is it that someone else will? Or even if they do, how far would they get??
I think Apple realizes that the thing most people hate about IT departments is how controlling they are, which is one reason they ensure their products are made to not need it. Sorry IT people, your job becomes significantly less important with the reign of Mac (and iPhone).

windywoo
Jun 27, 2009, 10:46 AM
The reason IT departments are such control freaks is that all the technical babies out there who don't want to know how their computer works will blame them when things go wrong. Another reason would be unfamiliarity with the device. Popular or not, the iPhone is just one of many smartphones, and if IT departments were simply to allow their users to use whatever phone they wanted, imagine the support headache learning how all those devices interact (or don't) with the network.

MecPro
Jun 27, 2009, 11:11 AM
IT departments have always been control freaks. Just because a device is independently secure and inherently not subject to their obsessive-compulsive control through frivolous and and annoying security policies, does not mean it is unfit for enterprise environments. Let's think about this, if IT cannot crack into an iPhone to control it, how likely is it that someone else will? Or even if they do, how far would they get??
I think Apple realizes that the thing most people hate about IT departments is how controlling they are, which is one reason they ensure their products are made to not need it. Sorry IT people, your job becomes significantly less important with the reign of Mac (and iPhone).

:confused::confused:

Mte you are talking rubbish. We in I.T need the enterprise aspect of of technology for more than security. It's for keeping control of things when they go wrong, need changes or upgrades, etc.

The most simplest analogy that I can come up with is: computers in an office are much more easier to control when they are in a network. If there are 100 machines in one office, and you had to make changes to them all such as software, or patches, it is A LOT easier doing it at a single point, rather than all individually.

You must not know ANYTHING about IT if you say "Sorry IT people, your job becomes significantly less important with the reign of Mac (and iPhone).". No one's job in IT is at risk because of mac or iPhone. Blackberry and nokia still have a HUGE monopoly of businesses and the trend will continue..

jayducharme
Jun 27, 2009, 09:10 PM
What a confusing article. It ends with this:

And the reality is that if all people want to do is email and calendar, then the risk is not very high to the business.

So the there's really no problem? It seems that communication and organizing are what many people use computing devices for. So why the thumbs down for the iPhone? That wasn't clear.

Richg4
Jun 28, 2009, 06:46 AM
Mecpro,

I have to agree with you on everything except the part of "World Domination" by Blackberry and Nokia . Everybody in my office has already dumped their Blackberrys since AT&T now offers the enterprise package for the iPhone. It won't be long...

ibosie
Jun 28, 2009, 07:05 AM
IT departments have always been control freaks. Just because a device is independently secure and inherently not subject to their obsessive-compulsive control through frivolous and and annoying security policies, does not mean it is unfit for enterprise environments. Let's think about this, if IT cannot crack into an iPhone to control it, how likely is it that someone else will? Or even if they do, how far would they get??
I think Apple realizes that the thing most people hate about IT departments is how controlling they are, which is one reason they ensure their products are made to not need it. Sorry IT people, your job becomes significantly less important with the reign of Mac (and iPhone).

I'm one of those end users subject to this general attitude in IT that if you don't want to get run over then don't cross the road and I'm totally with you on this. In my office people are given Blackberry but most of us have iPhones and do almost everything work related on it without interference from IT.

SolRayz
Jun 28, 2009, 07:27 AM
I do agree that IT professionals are total control freaks, particulary in my company. I have been hounding them for a year now to allow our iphones on the MS Exchange network, but they continue to refuse my requests.

The problem may lie with the fact that the iPhone can be modified, jailbroken, and hacked to a degree. For example, with a jb phone one can defeat the rather annoying unlock password that defaults with Exchange mail setup. This could be potentially disastrous in the case of a lost or stolen phone where sensitive information may be contained in emails or elsewhere.

supmango
Jun 28, 2009, 10:01 AM
You must not know ANYTHING about IT if you say "Sorry IT people, your job becomes significantly less important with the reign of Mac (and iPhone).". No one's job in IT is at risk because of mac or iPhone. Blackberry and nokia still have a HUGE monopoly of businesses and the trend will continue..

Clearly you know nothing about Mac's. We will see what happens in a few years, but as Mac's increase, need for IT WILL decrease.

pilotError
Jun 28, 2009, 10:51 AM
I personally know of a few major corporations that are switching to the iPhone. Mainly because they can put custom applications on it.

One is a Major Law Firm in the NYC area.

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 11:38 AM
Clearly you know nothing about Mac's. We will see what happens in a few years, but as Mac's increase, need for IT WILL decrease.

If something is plural it doesn't require an apostrophe. Sorry but you are wrong. Not only will Macs still need support, we will soon see how much of IT related issues are user related. The network will still slow down when some idiot decides to send a video attachment to all his mates. Keyboards and mice will still need to be replaced because someone spilled coffee on them, and when they do, the Apple replacements will cost considerably more.

Have you ever used a Mac in a work environment? With hundreds or even thousands on the same system? Most likely the answer is no, because Macs just don't aim at that market.

cwt1nospam
Jun 28, 2009, 11:38 AM
The reason IT departments are such control freaks is that all the technical babies out there who don't want to know how their computer works will blame them when things go wrong. Another reason would be unfamiliarity with the device. Popular or not, the iPhone is just one of many smartphones, and if IT departments were simply to allow their users to use whatever phone they wanted, imagine the support headache learning how all those devices interact (or don't) with the network.
Would you please just stay on a PC and stop posting drivel like this? Or do you get paid by Microsoft to spread FUD?

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 11:42 AM
Would you please just stay on a PC and stop posting drivel like this? Or do you get paid by Microsoft to spread FUD?

Another technical baby I can see. I am on a PC, posting from a Mac. Do Apple pay you to spread FUD? No, you pay them.

supmango
Jun 28, 2009, 02:40 PM
If something is plural it doesn't require an apostrophe. Sorry but you are wrong. Not only will Macs still need support, we will soon see how much of IT related issues are user related. The network will still slow down when some idiot decides to send a video attachment to all his mates. Keyboards and mice will still need to be replaced because someone spilled coffee on them, and when they do, the Apple replacements will cost considerably more.

Have you ever used a Mac in a work environment? With hundreds or even thousands on the same system? Most likely the answer is no, because Macs just don't aim at that market.

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. It really went a long way to exposing my incompetence.:rolleyes: But actually, you are wrong (we can keep going back and forth on this forever if you would like). Mac's simply do not need as much support as PC's, it is a fact (that's probably incorrect grammar as well, feel free to point it out). I really can't blame you for being defensive about this, because it is your job security after all.

supmango
Jun 28, 2009, 02:42 PM
I do agree that IT professionals are total control freaks, particulary in my company. I have been hounding them for a year now to allow our iphones on the MS Exchange network, but they continue to refuse my requests.

The problem may lie with the fact that the iPhone can be modified, jailbroken, and hacked to a degree. For example, with a jb phone one can defeat the rather annoying unlock password that defaults with Exchange mail setup. This could be potentially disastrous in the case of a lost or stolen phone where sensitive information may be contained in emails or elsewhere.

Can't someone "jailbreak" a Blackberry and achieve the same thing??

Rodimus Prime
Jun 28, 2009, 02:50 PM
I'm one of those end users subject to this general attitude in IT that if you don't want to get run over then don't cross the road and I'm totally with you on this. In my office people are given Blackberry but most of us have iPhones and do almost everything work related on it without interference from IT.

There is another reason everyone seems to forget about IT departments and why they are such control freaks. They are historically HORRIBLLY under staff. The ideal ration for IT department should be 25 to 1 ratio. For every 25 employees you need 1 IT staff member. Way to many companies are running 50-100 to 1 ratios. This means your IT departments are over burden as it is. Because of this they are going to be very controlling on what goes on the systems because it means FEWER stupid problems from the end users installing things on the computers.

Also because they are so understaff it does give them enough time for testing to make sure everything works and as such they are not going to let it go out system wide because they do not have time to deal with the stupid problem.

People are idiots and most of the staff calls IT departments with stupid problems that most of them could solve themselves if they knew even a little about what they are doing.

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 03:07 PM
Thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. It really went a long way to exposing my incompetence.:rolleyes: But actually, you are wrong (we can keep going back and forth on this forever if you would like). Mac's simply do not need as much support as PC's, it is a fact (that's probably incorrect grammar as well, feel free to point it out). I really can't blame you for being defensive about this, because it is your job security after all.

In case you hadn't noticed, I did go on to argue the point as well. Pointing out grammatical errors just shows that you aren't quite up to speed on the English language, which I feel is something people ignore too much on messageboards. These aren't text messages where 9 keys have to represent 26 or more digits, you have a full keyboard there. If you aren't up to speed on your first language then it weakens your debating skills.

I have never seen anyone show any studies whatsoever that show Macs require less support than PCs, just anecdotal evidence presented on Mac fanboards. My own experience is that Macs require less support simply because there are fewer of them. But that is, as with all the other evidence I have seen, personal experience, not indicative of a general trend. In fact if I was being harsh I could say that Macs require more upkeep, seeing as I bought a second hand iBook off ebay and it broke beyond repair within 2 months. But that wouldn't be a fair comparison, just as many of the stories presented on these boards are not fair comparisons either.

BongoBanger
Jun 28, 2009, 03:11 PM
I have never seen anyone show any studies whatsoever that show Macs require less support than PCs, just anecdotal evidence presented on Mac fanboards.

QFT. Macs and PCs both require support in terms of software loading and maintenance. The unproven idea that Macs - at least in a corporate environment - need less support needs to die now.

As for the iPhone and enterprise, not going to happen. Too expensive, too limited and too locked down.

JNB
Jun 28, 2009, 04:08 PM
Funny, in that every study has shown that a Mac-oriented shop has a lower TCO (including the support component) than a PC-oriented one. Ironic, too, that it was Gartner themselves that originated the concept and some of the original metrics.

Obviously, this really only applies when you compare operations that are predominately one or the other, a smattering of Macs (or PC's) in a business would likely have a slightly greater cost, as the expertise and supply channels are separate, and hence, not benefiting from scale.

Check out CIO Magazine for a plethora of articles and further reading.

BongoBanger
Jun 28, 2009, 04:22 PM
Funny, in that every study has shown that a Mac-oriented shop has a lower TCO (including the support component) than a PC-oriented one. Ironic, too, that it was Gartner themselves that originated the concept and some of the original metrics.

Obviously, this really only applies when you compare operations that are predominately one or the other, a smattering of Macs (or PC's) in a business would likely have a slightly greater cost, as the expertise and supply channels are separate, and hence, not benefiting from scale.

Check out CIO Magazine for a plethora of articles and further reading.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. If you're referring to CIO magazine I sincerely hope it's not their seven reasons not to buy/eight reasons to buy (or whatever it was) articles which were more than a little lacking in substance and quite fundamentally flawed in their assumptions. I'd also hope that you aren't referencing Winn Schwartau's discredited calculation model.

Gartner did posit the idea about fifteen or so years ago and, in fairness, Macs actually are cheaper than PCS is certain specialized situations however as a general rule they aren't. A good leasing arrangement with a high volume OEM provider coupled with site licensing and support agreements win every time.

I should point out that I do this stuff as part of my job. It would be nice if there was actually some competition in terms of volume desktop installations but, frankly, there isn't just now. Apple just isn't at the races here.

supmango
Jun 28, 2009, 04:55 PM
In case you hadn't noticed, I did go on to argue the point as well. Pointing out grammatical errors just shows that you aren't quite up to speed on the English language, which I feel is something people ignore too much on messageboards. These aren't text messages where 9 keys have to represent 26 or more digits, you have a full keyboard there. If you aren't up to speed on your first language then it weakens your debating skills.

I have never seen anyone show any studies whatsoever that show Macs require less support than PCs, just anecdotal evidence presented on Mac fanboards. My own experience is that Macs require less support simply because there are fewer of them. But that is, as with all the other evidence I have seen, personal experience, not indicative of a general trend. In fact if I was being harsh I could say that Macs require more upkeep, seeing as I bought a second hand iBook off ebay and it broke beyond repair within 2 months. But that wouldn't be a fair comparison, just as many of the stories presented on these boards are not fair comparisons either.

Lovely argument and wonderful use of the English language. That must mean you know what the @&$! you are talking about.:rolleyes: Thanks for the good laugh, I just don't run into people quite as arrogant and obsessive-compulsive as you... Oh wait, I.T. does seem to attract that.

I have had fun in never-never land, I have to go back to the real world now where people don't edit their grammar for every single forum post.

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 05:31 PM
No, Macs attract that. Getting moist over UI details, complaining that their SATA is 1.5GB and not 3. But when their PC goes wrong, they expect someone else to fix it for them.

I've looked at this CIO magazine and can't see anything about total cost of ownership of Mac compared to PC. That might be because its search function returns articles from 2007.

cwt1nospam
Jun 28, 2009, 06:49 PM
Another technical baby I can see. I am on a PC, posting from a Mac. Do Apple pay you to spread FUD? No, you pay them.
:D
Wonderful grammar! Does it make you feel superior to claim that you're running Windows on a Mac? I assume that's what you mean by:
I am on a PC, posting from a Mac.
or maybe you're sitting on a PC while typing on a Mac! Either way, you don't deserve the Mac.

Oh and stop lying about TCO. Everyone knows that there have been studies for decades that show Mac TCO is significantly lower. Even Intel had one in the 90s (before OS X with its even lower TCO) that they were embarrassed to talk about because Apple wasn't using their chips at the time.

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 07:44 PM
I'm saying a Mac is a PC. If there are studies then please link one, because they aren't easy to find. And if the studies are old they are pretty much irrelevant now anyway, since Apple uses the same components as other manufacturers.

JNB
Jun 28, 2009, 08:56 PM
A good leasing arrangement with a high volume OEM provider coupled with site licensing and support agreements win every time.

True, but that's not comparing them on equal terms then, now is it? Plus, that's entirely a high volume/low margin business, which is not Apple's target, and hasn't been in any real manner since the 80's. I'm excruciatingly aware of the standard Dell/MS enterprise business model (I've been there, too, from both sides of the deal ;)). For the majority of the Word/Excel/surf-the-web-at-lunch office drones, that's more than good enough.

That being said, unless & until Apple decides it's in their interest to compete similarly in the enterprise market, we'll never really know for sure, will we? :)

supmango
Jun 28, 2009, 09:33 PM
No, Macs attract that. Getting moist over UI details, complaining that their SATA is 1.5GB and not 3. But when their PC goes wrong, they expect someone else to fix it for them.

I've looked at this CIO magazine and can't see anything about total cost of ownership of Mac compared to PC. That might be because its search function returns articles from 2007.

Agreed that Mac's do tend to attract a certain amount of arrogance, but not so much OCD. And certainly not as much as you are displaying today. Why do I suddenly feel like I am arguing with my neighbor in kindergarten again?

PC's are crap, not because they can't be excellent, but because those who make them don't really want them to be (or they wouldn't sell as many because no one would want to "upgrade"). Apple is out to prove that fact, and has repeatedly. It is really only a matter of time before the rest of the world figures it out. And you are simply the stubborn person that I once was only a few years ago- So sure that Mac's are crap, basically an expensive PC, but in actuality totally ignorant about the truth.

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 10:14 PM
Well you are matching me post for post in this thread so you are just as much suffering from OCD as myself. Your neighbour in kindergarten wouldn't be able to argue any points whatsoever on the basics of PC support so that point goes out the window.

I never said Macs were crap, I just think they are overpriced and their users are arrogant tossers. OSX is stylish and perhaps slightly easier to use than Windows, but in the end we are only talking about pointing and clicking with a mouse here, its not rocket science. Windows is simple to learn, thats why its on 97% of machines out there.

9 times out of 10 when I am asked to help someone with a computer problem it's a user issue. I've never had to remove a virus from a PC that wasn't there just because the user didn't update their antivirus or Windows. The 1 time out of 10 when its hardware its simple to replace a PC part. PCs do NOT constantly fail as Mac lovers would like you to believe. They last the same amount of time as Macs, or at least long enough to earn the price paid. I have a 1.6GHz Celeron laptop that must be going on 8 years old now. It never got infected, I've never had to replace a part and it will run Windows 7. I've never seen PCs slow down over time unless the user was a clutter bug downloading crappy smilies and other stupid little programs.

The amount of disdain Mac users have for Windows is proportionate to their ignorance of computers and their desire to justify the high price they have paid. Their blind loyalty to Apple leads to them believing every computer innovation in the past 20 years has been Apple's doing, anyone else has copied. They ignore that Apple took its time to update their mice to use wheels, the fact that multi touch was around before it was on Macbooks, tabbed browsing was around before Safari caught up, the Dock was present in other operating systems, just less shiny.

If I go to a PC forum and there is news about a new PC component the discussion does not immediately turn to dismissing the competition's product. PC users don't tend to feel the need to big themselves up by bashing competing components. In fact most PC users I know couldn't give a **** about Macs. They see the high price, see that it doesn't do anything a PC can't do and buy the product that will suit their needs at a price that suits their wallet. Then they don't give it a second thought because their PCs don't go tits up at the first sign of Confiker as Mac users would have you believe.

I'm only telling you this because I think I have much, much more experience with PCs than you do, unless you are now going to tell me you have spent 15+ years playing/working with them. My Mac experience is somewhat lesser, because I don't see too many Macs around. Now why is that? Have all these people and businesses that I have supported simply been stupid? Or could it really be that PCs actually do work and nobody feels the need to pay extra for a Mac that looks good but isn't really necessary?

ProwlingTiger
Jun 28, 2009, 10:23 PM
I despised my high school's tech dept. for this reason. It is run by a 50yr old lady that lacks the willpower to learn something new, however easy it may be to learn Mac OS. Consequently, my former school district (I've since graduated) will not see Mac's for a long time.

It got heated when I mentioned I'm bringing my Mac. They said well it could present viruses to their network because I'm not running virus protection.

I about walked out of school that day. My Mac w/o protection is loads more secure than their computers w/ protection. Plus, I mentioned that a USB drive could also introduce viruses to the network. No comment from them.

In return, I'm in the process of comparing a cost analysis of the benefits of switching my former district to Mac. Most of the other schools in the region have completely switched. In fact, one school offered its students the choice of Mac or a PC from either Dell or HP. They unanimously chose Mac and have no regrets.

I thought about contacting their school and asking to visit. It's a small project that I'm doing on my own time with no benefit to me. I just want to disillusion the nation's future. This past school year alone, I converted 4 to Mac and 3 to iPhone, and 1 to both.

But if anyone has good ideas as to what I can include in my presentation, hit me up. I'm planning for the first BOE meeting I can make it to this upcoming school year.

-Dan

They see the high price, see that it doesn't do anything a PC can't do

Last time I checked, PC's don't run OS X natively.

You're fighting a losing battle here. I can't stand to read half your post without wondering what side of bed you awoke on. Clearly not the proper one. Chillax.

rjohnstone
Jun 28, 2009, 10:31 PM
Clearly you know nothing about Mac's. We will see what happens in a few years, but as Mac's increase, need for IT WILL decrease.
Clearly you do not work for a company that has to make regular SEC filings and submit to SOX compliance audits.
Us in IT don't care about what YOU, the end-user want. We care about what the CFO and the Feds want went audit time comes around. And until Apple becomes more enterprise friendly (i.e., centrally managed or controlled if you like), they aren't going to become widely accepted.
Every company email sent or received MUST retained for audit purposes.
Every device that might contain company info must be able to have sensitive data remotely wiped if the device is lost or stolen.
In the Credit Card industry, if we lose one customer card number or their account info due to loss of theft of a company device, we have to notify ALL our customers.

It goes way beyond what end users think their entitled too.
Just be glad you get a paycheck. If Apple proves to be able to provide better option that meets the compliance needs, perhaps they will find their way into mainstream corporations.

windywoo
Jun 28, 2009, 10:33 PM
Running OSX isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about Office work, internet, email etc, etc. The operating system is irrelevant.

I really am not fighting any losing battle so long as I know that what I am saying makes sense, and I know that you cannot change the fact that PCs work, and work well enough that 97% of users don't feel like changing.

bentoms
Jun 29, 2009, 06:49 AM
“Apple has also enabled encryption, but as far as we can tell it’s not centrally controllable by an IT department.”

Maybe they should look at this. (http://support.apple.com/downloads/iPhone_Configuration_Utility_2_0_for_Mac_OS_X)

From the above site:

iPhone Configuration Utility lets you easily create, maintain, encrypt, and push configuration profiles, track and install provisioning profiles and authorized applications, and capture device information including console logs.

Configuration profiles are XML files that contain device security policies, VPN configuration information, Wi-Fi settings, APN settings, Exchange account settings, mail settings, and certificates that permit iPhone and iPod touch to work with your enterprise systems. For instructions on how to use iPhone Configuration Utility, see the iPhone and iPod touch Enterprise Deployment Guide, available for downloading at:

Enterprise Deployment Guide - http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/enterprise/

We're not using iPhones at my work as they're cannot be purchased through our current Mobile Provider.. But, i've tested the iPhone Utility on my iPhone & it will allow us to lock down the device in accordance with our SOX Policy (well except for us not owning the device...).

BongoBanger
Jun 29, 2009, 06:54 AM
That being said, unless & until Apple decides it's in their interest to compete similarly in the enterprise market, we'll never really know for sure, will we? :)

Totally agree. It's very difficult to compare the two because of the lack of Mac volume installations and the competitive behaviours that would be engendered if there were more.

BongoBanger
Jun 29, 2009, 06:58 AM
It got heated when I mentioned I'm bringing my Mac. They said well it could present viruses to their network because I'm not running virus protection.

I'd be quite worried for your clients if you don't understand the concept of virus transmission. Your Mac may be relatively safe but it can still transmit to Windows based PCs.

Anyone running an open network on Macs without adequate security provision is going to go bankrupt very quickly.

cwt1nospam
Jun 29, 2009, 07:13 AM
I'm saying a Mac is a PC. If there are studies then please link one, because they aren't easy to find. And if the studies are old they are pretty much irrelevant now anyway, since Apple uses the same components as other manufacturers.
Can you really be that dumb?
First, the Mac is a personal computer, not a PC. PC is a generic term usurped by and for Windows based personal computers.

Second, the old studies were about the more expensive to maintain versions of the Mac OS prior to OS X. Since OS X is significantly less costly than previous versions and Windows has not reduced costs, the old studies are still valid.

Of course there are more recent examples: http://www.networkworld.com/best/2006/022706bestbreaker-schwartau.html?page=1

cwt1nospam
Jun 29, 2009, 07:16 AM
I'd be quite worried for your clients if you don't understand the concept of virus transmission. Your Mac may be relatively safe but it can still transmit to Windows based PCs.

Anyone running an open network on Macs without adequate security provision is going to go bankrupt very quickly.
Uh... aren't the PCs on that network running AV software? Aren't they protected? If they're really so insecure that a single system on the network can successfully inject a virus on them, then the entire IT department needs to be fired.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 29, 2009, 07:24 AM
Uh... aren't the PCs on that network running AV software? Aren't they protected? If they're really so insecure that a single system on the network can successfully inject a virus on them, then the entire IT department needs to be fired.

Wow that goes to show how little you know about computers networks and viruses. All it takes is a single infected computer to infect the entire network in a matter of seconds (yes seconds)

This just goes to show ignorance of computer virus and lack of understanding IT departments.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 29, 2009, 10:01 AM
I'd be quite worried for your clients if you don't understand the concept of virus transmission. Your Mac may be relatively safe but it can still transmit to Windows based PCs.

Anyone running an open network on Macs without adequate security provision is going to go bankrupt very quickly.

First off, the network itself is secured. To my knowledge, they still had static IP address configuration requiring an IP to be manually assigned before it could connect. Word is they're putting in dynamic this year.

Second, they had laid out a whole student laptop plan. Approved funding, etc, so each student could have one. This program vanished for some unknown reason. Then it popped back up again and I havent heard a word about it since.

Also, I offered to put virus protection on my Mac. They were completely resistant to the idea of me running my Mac on their network. Oh, and there were other individuals years prior that ran their own computers on the network.

Basically, they have 3 people that work in the department (smaller school district). The main computer mechanic HATES Mac. I figure it is probably because if we had Mac OS, he wouldn't have a job fixing them. Clearly the best interest of the student isn't in mind amid their ignorance.


Wow that goes to show how little you know about computers networks and viruses. All it takes is a single infected computer to infect the entire network in a matter of seconds (yes seconds)

This just goes to show ignorance of computer virus and lack of understanding IT departments.

Um,...and what exactly is stopping the other computers from getting viruses? They are statistically more vulnerable. The fact of the matter is, that is not the real reason that I couldn't connect that year. My point was a USB drive, with no virus protection, could easily infect the network.

supmango
Jun 29, 2009, 10:18 AM
If I go to a PC forum and there is news about a new PC component the discussion does not immediately turn to dismissing the competition's product. PC users don't tend to feel the need to big themselves up by bashing competing components. In fact most PC users I know couldn't give a **** about Macs. They see the high price, see that it doesn't do anything a PC can't do and buy the product that will suit their needs at a price that suits their wallet. Then they don't give it a second thought because their PCs don't go tits up at the first sign of Confiker as Mac users would have you believe.

I'm only telling you this because I think I have much, much more experience with PCs than you do, unless you are now going to tell me you have spent 15+ years playing/working with them. My Mac experience is somewhat lesser, because I don't see too many Macs around. Now why is that? Have all these people and businesses that I have supported simply been stupid? Or could it really be that PCs actually do work and nobody feels the need to pay extra for a Mac that looks good but isn't really necessary?

And yet, here you are arguing with us Mac lovers. I do, in fact, have 15+ years experience with PC's. I grew up with them. I do not have time to post more at the moment, being that I am at a real job and cannot spend time here. But I would be happy to elaborate more this evening if you are curious. I must say, you do remind me quite a bit of myself only 2 years ago.

BongoBanger
Jun 29, 2009, 10:29 AM
Uh... aren't the PCs on that network running AV software? Aren't they protected? If they're really so insecure that a single system on the network can successfully inject a virus on them, then the entire IT department needs to be fired.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't wash - the onus on the data transmitter is to reduce risk. Relying on your customers' firewall and AV software whilst neglecting your own is totally unacceptable. This is a basic business principle.

You might have a point if it's a secure internal network with no external access at all (including USB and disks) - in which case you wouldn't need AV software full stop - otherwise forget it.

First off, the network itself is secured. To my knowledge, they still had static IP address configuration requiring an IP to be manually assigned before it could connect. Word is they're putting in dynamic this year.

Second, they had laid out a whole student laptop plan. Approved funding, etc, so each student could have one. This program vanished for some unknown reason. Then it popped back up again and I havent heard a word about it since.

Also, I offered to put virus protection on my Mac. They were completely resistant to the idea of me running my Mac on their network. Oh, and there were other individuals years prior that ran their own computers on the network.

Basically, they have 3 people that work in the department (smaller school district). The main computer mechanic HATES Mac. I figure it is probably because if we had Mac OS, he wouldn't have a job fixing them. Clearly the best interest of the student isn't in mind amid their ignorance.

Fair enough - if you offered to put AV software on the Mac then I can't see why they couldn't network it.

windywoo
Jun 29, 2009, 10:54 AM
And yet, here you are arguing with us Mac lovers. I do, in fact, have 15+ years experience with PC's. I grew up with them. I do not have time to post more at the moment, being that I am at a real job and cannot spend time here. But I would be happy to elaborate more this evening if you are curious. I must say, you do remind me quite a bit of myself only 2 years ago.

All I did was stand up for IT departments, the rest came after. If I remind you of yourself then you shouldn't be arguing.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 29, 2009, 10:57 AM
Basically, they have 3 people that work in the department (smaller school district). The main computer mechanic HATES Mac. I figure it is probably because if we had Mac OS, he wouldn't have a job fixing them. Clearly the best interest of the student isn't in mind amid their ignorance.



Igorance yes but fear of not having a job is not one of them.

Could easily be the main Computer mechanic back in the day was using OS 7 or 8 which had some problems and where known to crash. Windows 95 was better than those. Apple is still paying the crap they put out during those years. That reputation will last with them a long time.

A lot of people only experiences with a mac date back to when they where in elementary school. Those computer were crap and had lots of problems.

Now a lot of the same ignorance of windows I see on these boards time and time again.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 29, 2009, 12:58 PM
Igorance yes but fear of not having a job is not one of them.

Could easily be the main Computer mechanic back in the day was using OS 7 or 8 which had some problems and where known to crash. Windows 95 was better than those. Apple is still paying the crap they put out during those years. That reputation will last with them a long time.

A lot of people only experiences with a mac date back to when they where in elementary school. Those computer were crap and had lots of problems.

Now a lot of the same ignorance of windows I see on these boards time and time again.

Honestly, I don't care what it's ignorance of. Ultimately, if its more cost effective and logical to move to Mac, his views should not sway the ultimate goal. If so, he can take a hike in my book. Not too complicated really, especially since the town has about 10 other qualified individuals that could easily replace him.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 29, 2009, 03:23 PM
Honestly, I don't care what it's ignorance of. Ultimately, if its more cost effective and logical to move to Mac, his views should not sway the ultimate goal. If so, he can take a hike in my book. Not too complicated really, especially since the town has about 10 other qualified individuals that could easily replace him.

I keep seeing that argument it is most cost effect but lets break it down for something the size of the school.

AV software still required (no savings)
Staff is going to stay the same (No Savings)
Computer life span going to stay the same (No Savings)

That is the 3 largest things they argue for savings but it not going to exist. Instead their will be a huge upfront cost to switch in the terms of Hardware, software and on top of that a training.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 29, 2009, 03:28 PM
I keep seeing that argument it is most cost effect but lets break it down for something the size of the school.

AV software still required (no savings)
Staff is going to stay the same (No Savings)
Computer life span going to stay the same (No Savings)

That is the 3 largest things they argue for savings but it not going to exist. Instead their will be a huge upfront cost to switch in the terms of Hardware, software and on top of that a training.

There are loads of funding grants for schools that I've researched for switching to the Mac. Additionally, many nearby schools recently switched, I figured I'd get rough estimate.

Mac has a FAR longer lifespan than any PC the school blows through. Guaranteed lifespan increase. In fact, they keep replacing them every 1-2 years with insignificant technological gains or benefits.

BongoBanger
Jun 29, 2009, 03:31 PM
Mac has a FAR longer lifespan than any PC the school blows through. Guaranteed lifespan increase. In fact, they keep replacing them every 1-2 years with insignificant technological gains or benefits.

Then they're buying rubbish. Good PCs last as long as Macs.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 29, 2009, 03:56 PM
Then they're buying rubbish. Good PCs last as long as Macs.

If you do a fresh Windows install every 1-2yrs, maybe. But I've never seen one last that long, running as fast as it did originally. And, yeah, they are buying some real rubbish computers.

But, this is all a bit off topic, I apologize, I'll make a thread about this education situation I'm tackling in another board.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 29, 2009, 03:58 PM
Then they're buying rubbish. Good PCs last as long as Macs.



add to that see PC last as long as mac time and time again. The hardware demanding is not there any more. Now the worse thing is hardware starting to fail at around the 5 year mark (hard drives).

In the schools the abuse on the system would take out a mac just as fast. that old argument that mac have a longer life is false now. I see the same cost computer last the same amount of time now. Hell the PC I am typing thios on is 5 years old and still going strong.

If you do a fresh Windows install every 1-2yrs, maybe. But I've never seen one last that long, running as fast as it did originally. And, yeah, they are buying some real rubbish computers.

But, this is all a bit off topic, I apologize, I'll make a thread about this education situation I'm tackling in another board.


again false. thank you for showing how little you truly know about windows. My windows install on my 5 year old PC is about 4.5 years old still going strong. Proper maintaince prevents the need from doing that. Proper maintenance is install updates and run basic Antivirus scans. OMG that is the same things that would be done on a mac in a system like the school......

Now you argue it not as fast. Guess what Mac suffer the same problem as time wears on and it is not virus or the OS causing the problems. it is the build up of extra pieces of software people install over the years. That just add to the amount of crap running when the computer boots up. Mac suffer the same problem.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 29, 2009, 04:44 PM
again false. thank you for showing how little you truly know about windows.......Mac suffer the same problem.

Don't assume I don't know Windows. I've worked with Windows for 10 years now, built systems, etc. Sure, my PC's run alright. Not near as good as my older Mac though.

Remember students will be using them. I've toured schools that have Mac labs and compared with our Windows labs. They blew ours away. Period. Say what you want, there is a quality difference. If there wasn't, I wouldn't buy 

windywoo
Jun 29, 2009, 09:44 PM
Prowling I feel sorry for how deluded you are.

supmango
Jun 29, 2009, 11:15 PM
Clearly you do not work for a company that has to make regular SEC filings and submit to SOX compliance audits.
Us in IT don't care about what YOU, the end-user want. We care about what the CFO and the Feds want went audit time comes around. And until Apple becomes more enterprise friendly (i.e., centrally managed or controlled if you like), they aren't going to become widely accepted.
Every company email sent or received MUST retained for audit purposes.
Every device that might contain company info must be able to have sensitive data remotely wiped if the device is lost or stolen.
In the Credit Card industry, if we lose one customer card number or their account info due to loss of theft of a company device, we have to notify ALL our customers.

It goes way beyond what end users think their entitled too.
Just be glad you get a paycheck. If Apple proves to be able to provide better option that meets the compliance needs, perhaps they will find their way into mainstream corporations.

Macs are well equipped to perform these actions. You are assuming that your insufficient knowledge of a Macs capabilities means they are not capable of doing these tasks. This seems to be a common theme on this forum.

supmango
Jun 29, 2009, 11:19 PM
Prowling I feel sorry for how deluded you are.

Your stubborn defensiveness is really quite entertaining. Why don't you go and try a Mac (for real this time) and then come back with your comments. Us adults will go and play elsewhere until you do.

BongoBanger
Jun 30, 2009, 04:21 AM
Remember students will be using them. I've toured schools that have Mac labs and compared with our Windows labs. They blew ours away. Period. Say what you want, there is a quality difference. If there wasn't, I wouldn't buy 

It depends what they're using - Macs are very good, well constructed machines as are HP dVs and Dell Inspirons. If they're using antiquated rubbish then Macs will blow them away.

As for Windows reinstalls, again it depends what you're doing - if you're chucking loads of badly coded rubbish on to a Windows box it will degrade however that's true of any machine. I've found that Vista is actually very good at managing this process.

cwt1nospam
Jun 30, 2009, 08:47 AM
Wow that goes to show how little you know about computers networks and viruses. All it takes is a single infected computer to infect the entire network in a matter of seconds (yes seconds)

Geez, think about what you're saying! If a single infected computer can rapidly infect the entire network, which is allegedly comprised of other PCs that all have AV software, then there are at least two major problems with the network:

A) It has very poor AV software.
B) The IT department chose the wrong platform to install on the network.

Both are sufficient reasons for heads to roll in the IT department.
This just goes to show ignorance of computer virus and lack of understanding IT departments.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, well being a Mac user I have no experience with viruses.

BongoBanger
Jun 30, 2009, 09:53 AM
Geez, think about what you're saying! If a single infected computer can rapidly infect the entire network, which is allegedly comprised of other PCs that all have AV software, then there are at least two major problems with the network:

A) It has very poor AV software.
B) The IT department chose the wrong platform to install on the network.

Both are sufficient reasons for heads to roll in the IT department.


No, Rodimus is right - you completely missed the point. You don't allow risks in period.

diamond.g
Jun 30, 2009, 10:18 AM
Maybe they should look at this. (http://support.apple.com/downloads/iPhone_Configuration_Utility_2_0_for_Mac_OS_X)

From the above site:



We're not using iPhones at my work as they're cannot be purchased through our current Mobile Provider.. But, i've tested the iPhone Utility on my iPhone & it will allow us to lock down the device in accordance with our SOX Policy (well except for us not owning the device...).

The only issue I have found with using an iPhone is the required use of iTunes. So far I still haven't found a way to disable the iTunes store and prevent music and other apps from being loaded onto the device.

kelleigh2
Jun 30, 2009, 12:29 PM
IT departments have always been control freaks. Just because a device is independently secure and inherently not subject to their obsessive-compulsive control through frivolous and and annoying security policies, does not mean it is unfit for enterprise environments. Let's think about this, if IT cannot crack into an iPhone to control it, how likely is it that someone else will? Or even if they do, how far would they get??

Hmm.. interesting. So, lets say your phone does get stolen and hacked (which they've proven the iPhones can be - just because IT can't doesn't mean someone else can't) - who gets fired for the data that gets leaked or stolen or potentially was leaked or stolen - you or someone from the IT department? Hopefully you'll stand up and say it was all your fault and spare the IT folks since you don't want them to be control freaks. That's the inherent problem - no one wants the locked down devices, computers, etc., but they also don't want the responsibility if something goes wrong... that blame is left to the IT folks. So, fine, take on the entire responsibility yourself -figure out how to protect the data, prevent data leaks, what to do if it is stolen, prove whether or not the data was actually stolen, and take the fall for it happening at all.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 30, 2009, 04:21 PM
Hmm.. interesting. So, lets say your phone does get stolen and hacked (which they've proven the iPhones can be - just because IT can't doesn't mean someone else can't) - who gets fired for the data that gets leaked or stolen or potentially was leaked or stolen - you or someone from the IT department? Hopefully you'll stand up and say it was all your fault and spare the IT folks since you don't want them to be control freaks. That's the inherent problem - no one wants the locked down devices, computers, etc., but they also don't want the responsibility if something goes wrong... that blame is left to the IT folks. So, fine, take on the entire responsibility yourself -figure out how to protect the data, prevent data leaks, what to do if it is stolen, prove whether or not the data was actually stolen, and take the fall for it happening at all.
Remote wipe. Problem Solved.

kelleigh2
Jun 30, 2009, 04:54 PM
Remote wipe. Problem Solved.

As long as there is a policy for it...

SPUY767
Jun 30, 2009, 05:32 PM
Then they're buying rubbish. Good PCs last as long as Macs.

For the average home user, when a computer starts to become unbearably slow, which for a windows PC can be anywhere from six months to a couple of years, they naturally assume that the computer needs to be replaced or is just, "Getting Old." Macs don't suffer the same slow down problems as PCs and therefore, as far as a user who is not as computer savvy as someone on these message boards is concerned, the Mac is lasting longer and is still a pleasurable experience throughout its life.

supmango
Jun 30, 2009, 05:36 PM
Hmm.. interesting. So, lets say your phone does get stolen and hacked (which they've proven the iPhones can be - just because IT can't doesn't mean someone else can't) - who gets fired for the data that gets leaked or stolen or potentially was leaked or stolen - you or someone from the IT department? Hopefully you'll stand up and say it was all your fault and spare the IT folks since you don't want them to be control freaks. That's the inherent problem - no one wants the locked down devices, computers, etc., but they also don't want the responsibility if something goes wrong... that blame is left to the IT folks. So, fine, take on the entire responsibility yourself -figure out how to protect the data, prevent data leaks, what to do if it is stolen, prove whether or not the data was actually stolen, and take the fall for it happening at all.

Who's the "they" that has proven iPhones can be hacked. And yes, it is worth it to me to be able to use a Mac and have to take on the responsibility if something goes wrong. I think most Mac users would agree. I find it ridiculous and frustrating when companies lock down their equipment. The problem is, you have to with Windows based architectures. Switching to Mac solves that need, thus solving the problem.

Way too much emphasis is being placed on the "inability" to remote wipe a Mac. Remote wipe requires the thief to go online. So what happens if a computer is never put online after it is stolen, and a smart thief (at least one who is smart enough to use data) would know better. Also, remote wipe can be done on a Mac, just because certain people on this forum do not know how to does not mean it cannot be done. If remote wipe is the only thing keeping corporations from adopting Mac's, I assure you the problem would have been addressed long ago. But then again, you have to understand the technology to be able to adopt it. And it appears several people on this thread do not.

I have found that most security measures in place from IT departments are relatively easy to circumvent, and this coming from an individual with no formal education to do it. They end up being more annoying than anything else.

ProwlingTiger
Jun 30, 2009, 05:55 PM
Who's the "they" that has proven iPhones can be hacked. And yes, it is worth it to me to be able to use a Mac and have to take on the responsibility if something goes wrong. I think most Mac users would agree. I find it ridiculous and frustrating when companies lock down their equipment. The problem is, you have to with Windows based architectures. Switching to Mac solves that need, thus solving the problem.

Way too much emphasis is being placed on the "inability" to remote wipe a Mac. Remote wipe requires the thief to go online. So what happens if a computer is never put online after it is stolen, and a smart thief (at least one who is smart enough to use data) would know better. Also, remote wipe can be done on a Mac, just because certain people on this forum do not know how to does not mean it cannot be done. If remote wipe is the only thing keeping corporations from adopting Mac's, I assure you the problem would have been addressed long ago. But then again, you have to understand the technology to be able to adopt it. And it appears several people on this thread do not.

I have found that most security measures in place from IT departments are relatively easy to circumvent, and this coming from an individual with no formal education to do it. They end up being more annoying than anything else.

Exactly. I think if a business were to develop in house iPhone applications and allow employees to use the iPhone, the IT department would receive less nags and issues to address.

joro
Jun 30, 2009, 10:58 PM
I personally have used the iPhone in two enterprise applications including one last year with Bank of America. Apparently, the IT department told me they had more control over the iPhone group than Blackberry's although I don't claim to know definitely. I do know that BOA was one of the test pilots for the enterprise release and hence their acceptance of the technology.

BongoBanger
Jul 1, 2009, 05:56 AM
For the average home user, when a computer starts to become unbearably slow, which for a windows PC can be anywhere from six months to a couple of years, they naturally assume that the computer needs to be replaced or is just, "Getting Old." Macs don't suffer the same slow down problems as PCs and therefore, as far as a user who is not as computer savvy as someone on these message boards is concerned, the Mac is lasting longer and is still a pleasurable experience throughout its life.

Which would be relevant if we were talking about consumer machines and not enterprise machines which are maintained. Also, Vista seems to have sorted out Windows rot - I presume W7 will be the same.

diamond.g
Jul 1, 2009, 06:21 AM
The only thing I wonder about for Enterprise Mac use is the OS. Does Apple allow an older OS to be installed on newer hardware? For example, 10.5 seems to be pretty stable, we get 30 Mac Minis to start out with. 10.6 comes out, we want some more Minis can we get them with 10.5 installed? Will we be able to put 10.5 on them? Or are we at this point forced to upgrade all out machines to keep the userbase (whom continually bug me that the Windows boxes they use doesn't have the same software on it as it is) happy?

pdjudd
Jul 1, 2009, 09:07 AM
The only thing I wonder about for Enterprise Mac use is the OS. Does Apple allow an older OS to be installed on newer hardware? For example, 10.5 seems to be pretty stable, we get 30 Mac Minis to start out with. 10.6 comes out, we want some more Minis can we get them with 10.5 installed? Will we be able to put 10.5 on them? Or are we at this point forced to upgrade all out machines to keep the userbase (whom continually bug me that the Windows boxes they use doesn't have the same software on it as it is) happy?

Well Intel Macs can only support Tiger and Leopard - problem is that Apple only provides restore disks with the OS that you get from sale. You can't get Tiger for Intel Macs in retail since those were for PPC computers. You also cannot install an older version of the OS on a Mac either (If your computer shipped with 10.5.4 or something it won't allow you to install from earlier retail leopard discs that have 10.5 on them).

Even if you could, your only option would be leopard due to the fact that Tiger is the first Intel release out there. Of course even if you could do something like Snow Leopard to Leopard, the driver support wouldn't be there since that gets built into the OS release.

Of course there is no requirement that you use the same OS. Many programs out there will run just fine on multiple versions of OSX (from at least Tiger and on). The problem comes with applications that require a newer OS to run (Bento for example only runs on Leopard). However that problem is not unique to Macs.

If the userbase is not happy, that is not really your fault - They can clamor all they want, but you don't have to give them the latest and greatest right away. We have lots of people that would like to run Vista here at the office, but we have said that it is not officially supported and not to get it. Of course with Leopard to Snow Leopard being 30 bucks, it really isn't going to be an issue.

joro
Jul 1, 2009, 09:13 AM
Of course there is no requirement that you use the same OS. Many programs out there will run just fine on multiple versions of OSX (from at least Tiger and on). The problem comes with applications that require a newer OS to run (Bento for example only runs on Leopard). However that problem is not unique to Macs.

Good point, I think you can use Mac computers in an enterprise just as easily as a PC assuming of course your software that you need for your type of business is Mac compatible – which some is right and some isn’t.

pdjudd
Jul 1, 2009, 09:21 AM
Good point, I think you can use Mac computers in an enterprise just as easily as a PC assuming of course your software that you need for your type of business is Mac compatible – which some is right and some isn’t.

Right. Things that enterprises require - like centralized user account management and account policies and such do not undergo massive changes. Even today (and for the past two releases I think) Macs can connect into Active Directory domains in much the same way. We run Server 2003 here at work and we have three versions of Windows that connect to the domain and pretty much support most of the same functionality. Upgrading server software will increase the flexibility client side - but you need the client support, you would have to factor that cost in anyway.

If the software support is there and meets your particular business requirements (which are very different from company to company), you are good.

diamond.g
Jul 1, 2009, 09:24 AM
Well Intel Macs can only support Tiger and Leopard - problem is that Apple only provides restore disks with the OS that you get from sale. You can't get Tiger for Intel Macs in retail since those were for PPC computers. You also cannot install an older version of the OS on a Mac either (If your computer shipped with 10.5.4 or something it won't allow you to install from earlier retail leopard discs that have 10.5 on them).

Even if you could, your only option would be leopard due to the fact that Tiger is the first Intel release out there. Of course even if you could do something like Snow Leopard to Leopard, the driver support wouldn't be there since that gets built into the OS release.

Of course there is no requirement that you use the same OS. Many programs out there will run just fine on multiple versions of OSX (from at least Tiger and on). The problem comes with applications that require a newer OS to run (Bento for example only runs on Leopard). However that problem is not unique to Macs.

If the userbase is not happy, that is not really your fault - They can clamor all they want, but you don't have to give them the latest and greatest right away. We have lots of people that would like to run Vista here at the office, but we have said that it is not officially supported and not to get it. Of course with Leopard to Snow Leopard being 30 bucks, it really isn't going to be an issue.
I see. But in this case the issue would be going from Leopard to Snow Leopard. In my case the new OS is supposed to be tested before it would be allowed to connect to the network (as is the case for all software and hardware that is to be introduced) and not being able to load the older OS on the new hardware would pose an issue. Where I work now every new machine purchased is licensed to run Vista but they load 2000 because XP hasn't been approved yet.

It sucks let me tell you... Switching to Apple wouldn't help much. We would need to be able to run the old OS on new hardware.

pdjudd
Jul 1, 2009, 09:38 AM
It sucks let me tell you... Switching to Apple wouldn't help much. We would need to be able to run the old OS on new hardware.

I understand, but in your case you would be pretty much SOL. You cannot even install some Leopard retail discs on a Mac that came with some versions of Leopard. The system will reject the disc due to version differences.

Of course your business has very strict OS requirements since you are still using an OS that dates back several years ago. I don't want to sound crass or anything, but Windows 2000 dates back to when OSX was still public Beta. Apple dropped support of that long ago. Of course I should point out that OS development differs greatly between what Redmond does versus Apple not to mention how their software is sold..

Its no secret that Business have to consider OS support when they are making their purchasing decisions. Many business for example simply set a minimum bar based on what programs they use and what they support. It is never going to be a black and white answer and more akin to a moving target.

ETA: The point of all this is to say simply that the blanket statements "The iPhone is not Enterprise ready" or "The Mac is not Enterprise ready" are false. True it may not fit some corporate requirements or needs - thats to be expected. However, many companies are already embracing the iPhone and loving it. Same for the Macs. Many many companies and groups use Macs either exclusively or alongside Windows in some fashion just fine. The point is "Enterprise" covers a wide gamut of requirements. No one solution is going to cover every possibility or scenario. If Mac hardware or software does not fulfill your corporate requirements, your not going to use it end of story. Not all companies work like that. If your company can use Mac hardware and software and would be an advantage to do it, than that is a different story. The fact is that the word "Enterprise" does not mean "Windows and Blackberry (or other proprietary solution)"

cwt1nospam
Jul 1, 2009, 08:21 PM
No, Rodimus is right - you completely missed the point. You don't allow risks in period.
By that logic you never turn on your computer!

The fact is that if one infected computer can easily and quickly infect all of the rest of the computers on your network, then:


Your company has purchased computers using an extremely insecure OS.

Your company has purchased extremely poor AV software.

Since IT is responsible for both of those purchases, IT heads should roll.

xIGmanIx
Jul 1, 2009, 08:38 PM
I personally don't think the iPhone is ready yet for enterprise level prime time for a bunch of reasons and one of those is for the simple fact that you need to connect it to iTunes, the IT department loses some command control. It is the IT departments job to maintain security of the network, although its everyone's job, thats what they get paid to do.

And this talk that if you turn on a PC and it gets a virus is just plain crazy talk.

Anyways, the talk about what platform does better in the enterprise environment is a waste of time because windows has and always will be the de facto standard for business. And until apple can lower their hardware prices, you could purchase 100 windows "boxes" for a lot cheaper than 100 apple "boxes" unless someone knows something i don't about enterprise procurement.

chewietobbacca
Jul 3, 2009, 02:38 AM
I can't believe people are arguing about all this

When big companies need uniform control over hardware and software, that means they don't want to be at the mercy of any other company. Period.

Windows happens to give enterprise users a lot of customization over the OS and gives them support as well. The simple fact that the iPhone has to go through iTunes is already a big no to a lot of companies (and we're not talking about just Exchange use here).

And being at the mercy of hardware? Even more of a big no! Every once in a while, a new version of OS X is released which outdates old hardware - seeing as how companies don't want to replace hardware unless it's at their pace, that's another big issue.

Whether you like it or not, Macs themselves aren't ready for enterprise use on the scale that Windows is - and frankly, Apple hasn't shown any interest in making it so.

(And geez, there sure is a lot of hate towards IT people here :confused:).

BongoBanger
Jul 3, 2009, 04:25 AM
By that logic you never turn on your computer!

The fact is that if one infected computer can easily and quickly infect all of the rest of the computers on your network, then:


Your company has purchased computers using an extremely insecure OS.

Your company has purchased extremely poor AV software.

Since IT is responsible for both of those purchases, IT heads should roll.

You're missing the point again - yes, heads should roll if insecure AV is used but you just don't allow unsecure machines to join the network in the first place. This means whether or not the machine is a Mac, Linux box or a Windows PC it's going to be running AV software or it's not going on.

MikeDTyke
Jul 3, 2009, 08:28 AM
Chuckle,

I love a good flamewar and there`s been plenty of B.S. thrown by both sides.

Bottom line is Gartner says it`s not ready and whilst the article sounds like their analysis is based off bullet points, there`s a lot of CIO`s who`ll just read the headline.

If Apple wants to be taken seriously in an enterprise, and by that i mean 500+ iPhones, they will have to come up with a mgmt console that gives IT patch control, app deployment, remote lockdown of processes/functions, auditing & remote wipe. ie. one tool, one interface and NOT iTunes. The Ent. deploy tool is only part the way there.

That`s the current complaint, and it`s valid one, maybe Apple will resolve it, maybe they won`t. But you know what? It`s has ***** all to do with SOX compliance or any SEC declaration, so don`t even bring that one to the table.

I feel that Apple will continue to creep in through the back door, in the pockets of execs and others with a, i know best attitude. These are the individuals who most need a good smackdown from IT. Whether or not the device is suitable, circumventing corporate policy/process is a sackable offence and quite right too.

P.S. i love my company iPhone and yes i work in IT.

supmango
Jul 3, 2009, 09:02 AM
...Bottom line is Gartner says it`s not ready and whilst the article sounds like their analysis is based off bullet points, there`s a lot of CIO`s who`ll just read the headline.

Quite true, and this is one problem with corporations. By the time a business gets to the point of corporation, decisions are placed less and less into the hands of people with appropriate knowledge and/or experience to make them. Who handles the checkbook is more a matter of who has the best political prowess to get it. Many psychologists agree that the only difference between a high up CEO, officer, or president (even in governments) and a person in prison for fill-in-the-blank-crime is that the CEO possesses a significantly higher intellectual ability, and thus was able to avoid getting caught. Psychologically they are identical (antisocial and/or narcissistic). You can see the problem here.

cwt1nospam
Jul 3, 2009, 10:59 AM
You're missing the point again - yes, heads should roll if insecure AV is used but you just don't allow unsecure machines to join the network in the first place. This means whether or not the machine is a Mac, Linux box or a Windows PC it's going to be running AV software or it's not going on.
No, you're missing the point: The Mac is secure, at least in comparison to the PC. It's the PC that is easily infected. What you mean by insecure is a computer that IT doesn't have control over, at least as far as the users are concerned. The fact that IT has no control over that machine if it is exposed in any way to malware is something that just flies over your head. The only reason to insist on installing AV software on a Mac is so that IT can make the political claim that it's no different from Windows as far as security is concerned. That of course is just a lie told by IT for political advantage.

cwt1nospam
Jul 3, 2009, 11:06 AM
I feel that Apple will continue to creep in through the back door, in the pockets of execs and others with a, i know best attitude. These are the individuals who most need a good smackdown from IT. Whether or not the device is suitable, circumventing corporate policy/process is a sackable offence and quite right too.
No, these are the individuals who are smacking IT, and it's about time they did! IT should not be making corporate policy, they should be following it.

The days of corporate executives being clueless to IT abuses is ending as the old school, never touched a computer generation retires. IT won't be able to hold back the iPhone, so they'd better start getting used to it.

MikeDTyke
Jul 3, 2009, 11:28 AM
No, these are the individuals who are smacking IT, and it's about time they did! IT should not be making corporate policy, they should be following it.

The days of corporate executives being clueless to IT abuses is ending as the old school, never touched a computer generation retires. IT won't be able to hold back the iPhone, so they'd better start getting used to it.

You sound like one of those clueless i know best douchebags.

I`m not advocating a head in the sand, we`re not going to consider it cos it ain`t Microsoft policy. IT has to fulfil the requirements of the business. But guess what they are the ones making CORPORATE POLICY because they are the ones qualified to stipulate what goes on the network and what gets left at the door.

There`s nothing more irritating than some smartar5e who thinks they know better, when the reality is the don`t know half the issues and some couldn`t understand them if it was explained in big pictures and small words. :mad:

BongoBanger
Jul 3, 2009, 02:30 PM
No, you're missing the point: The Mac is secure, at least in comparison to the PC.

I'm sorry that statement alone shows you don't understand the point we're making. There's little point in continuing this discussion as such.

cwt1nospam
Jul 5, 2009, 08:05 AM
You sound like one of those clueless i know best douchebags.
Coming from someone who's obviously swallowed IT propaganda hook, line and sinker, I'll take that as a complement, but I'll make one last stab at getting you to open your eyes and see the reality of the situation:

Of course IT has the training to know what can go on the network. No one argues that they don't. The problem is: do they make their decisions based on what's best for the users and therefore the company, or what's best for IT?

There are many examples of IT making decisions that are counter to the company's best interest. Developing Windows-only software which continues to lock the company into one OS is one example, but I'm sure you'd come up with rationalizations for any given project. You'd probably believe them, too!

Let's look instead then at IT's insistence on pushing IE as the corporate browser. IE has been for years the least standards compliant browser on the market (IE8 may be an improvement, but it's still a problem) and it causes problems for users and developers alike. This means added costs for corporations in developing web sites as well as increased security risks!

The sad fact is that if IE had come from anyone but Microsoft it would have been roundly rejected by IT for not being compatible with internet standards. Instead, companies lose money and security while users have to deal with problems, all because IT has a fixation with protecting Microsoft's dominance of the corporate network.
I`m not advocating a head in the sand, we`re not going to consider it cos it ain`t Microsoft policy.
You don't know it, but yes you are.