PDA

View Full Version : Why Apple is a joke in the business world


MacBytes
Nov 27, 2009, 04:42 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Why Apple is a joke in the business world (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20091127174221)
Description:: Its not that Apple doesn't "know how to deal with enterprise", its more like Apple is doing it on Apple's terms ie through the user rather than through the IT dept and that is what IT depts aren't used to.

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

Chobit
Nov 27, 2009, 05:22 PM
There's some pretty bad fud in there, particularly the line saying that "Apple would be highly resistant to the emerging HTML 5 standard, which might make it possible to deliver complicated applications via the iPhone browser without enduring Apple's infamous application approval process."

This is already possible on the iPhone. Where's Microsoft's HTML 5 support?

cwt1nospam
Nov 27, 2009, 05:56 PM
It's pure FUD. For example, claiming that Apple will resist HTML 5 just shows how little Jones knows about what's actually going on, and that he doesn't care about the truth, which is that Apple is one of the major proponents of HTML 5. In fact, David Hyatt, an Apple employee, is one of the editors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5

http://www.geektechnica.com/2009/10/apple-com-leading-the-way-with-html5-implementation/

georgemann
Nov 27, 2009, 06:14 PM
There's some pretty bad fud in there, particularly the line saying that "Apple would be highly resistant to the emerging HTML 5 standard, which might make it possible to deliver complicated applications via the iPhone browser without enduring Apple's infamous application approval process."

This is already possible on the iPhone. Where's Microsoft's HTML 5 support?

The comments section of the original article is actually better than the article itself, well worth a read.

http://apcmag.com/why-apple-is-a-joke-in-the-business-world.htm

George Mann

gagebart
Nov 27, 2009, 06:44 PM
I think someone is just bitter because santa clause gave him a lump of coal last year instead of the macbook pro he asked for

Black Belt
Nov 27, 2009, 06:59 PM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning things and real tech people don't get all teary-eyed over cosmetics. They also want to control the computer, not have Apple tell them how they can or can't run their own hardware. Sure Macs are nice for some things but get pretty ugly for real business. Oh, and I've owned more Macs than you.

MisterMe
Nov 27, 2009, 07:58 PM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning things and real tech people don't get all teary-eyed over cosmetics. ...If you actually knew any technical people, then you would not have said any of this.

cwt1nospam
Nov 27, 2009, 08:31 PM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning things and real tech people don't get all teary-eyed over cosmetics. They also want to control the computer, not have Apple tell them how they can or can't run their own hardware. Sure Macs are nice for some things but get pretty ugly for real business. Oh, and I've owned more Macs than you.
No, you haven't.

The reality here is that the enterprise is the place where computer makers go to die. Just ask Wang, DEC, Compaq, IBM, and several others that I can no longer remember, all soon to be joined by Dell. High volume and low margins is a recipe for disaster, and that's just what the enterprise requires. As long as it does, Apple will continue to laugh all the way to the bank as it avoids the trap that we call the enterprise.

Jason Beck
Nov 27, 2009, 08:48 PM
Fud. Love the word. Yah I agree... Apple is worth BILLIONS.
I don't get how they are the joke of the "business world".
If they are worth that much, provide good quality computers that
run both OSX and Windows, then they are not a joke in my book.
The machines are slightly more expensive, but you see all those
"good" stories about Apple on here really taking care of people.
They have been good to my family in any case.

Bevz
Nov 28, 2009, 02:53 AM
Apple sell products with a high margin that makes them hugely profitable. They sell much smaller numbers than PC manufacturers yet they have an almost equal share of the total revenue from desktop sales. They also have huge cash reserves. No business serious about making profits would do anything but admire apples business model. As for the HTML 5 nonsense, I agree with every other post...

Winni
Nov 28, 2009, 09:01 AM
If you actually knew any technical people, then you would not have said any of this.

-- I -- am a technical person, my job is network administration in global satellite communications and I put my signature under what the other poster has said.

Except for maybe -- MAYBE -- the HTML 5 bit, I don't see -any- FUD in the discussion of the original article. Macs are niche tools and they only have little space in an enterprise environment - and that space usually is in the graphics/marketing department where they run Adobe Creative Suite. I don't see anybody running business software on a Mac - that's probably because it doesn't exist.

I don't see anybody using OS X servers, but I see a lot of Windows, Linux and Unix servers in my daily job.

I also don't see any Macs in the engineering or network operations departments. Could be because there is no software for the Macs there either.

Of course, the software thing can easily be changed by not using OS X on the Apple hardware. But then again, please tell me what the purpose of expensive designer hardware is when I can get much more powerful desktop PCs for a fraction of the cost of the Apple hardware?

Also, please tell me why I should buy a Mac when I can get four-hour-on-site-service from Dell and HP, but I cannot get that kind of support from Apple?

The very moment you begin running mission critical systems, the last thing you want is a ridiculous thing like a "genius bar" where you have to wait a couple of weeks to get an appointment. Dell gives me a phone number where I am GUARANTEED to talk to a competent engineer within THREE MINUTES. And they send me replacement systems and technicians to my server room within four hours when I buy that service. I need to keep a global network running, so for me -- THIS -- is what makes a product enterprise ready. Not some fancy design or face recognition in iPhoto or toy applications like iChat or PhotoBooth. Or that fancy animated excuse for a backup program called Time Machine. Time Machine is one of those typical Apple consumer products - try backing up some serious network infrastructure with it. Even Microsoft's good old NTBackup from 1996 was a more powerful backup solution than Apple's nice looking Time Machine is.

But you folks should stop fooling yourself: Apple isn't the least interested in the enterprise market. They know that they have lost that segment decades ago when the Apple II lost against the IBM PC clones. Thus their entire product line and service structure is now exclusively aimed at the consumer market and they are doing very well there. They still occasionally release some prestige "professional" products ("prosumer" would be the correct label, actually) like the Mac Pro and Final Cut Studio, but that is NOT where they make their money (anymore).

Apple is all about iPods, iPhones, iTunes and the low end MacBooks these days - where the MacBooks are mostly used as Internet surfboards and iPod backends.

YMark
Nov 28, 2009, 10:13 AM
Excellent post snipped

I agree with you. Well written.

cwt1nospam
Nov 28, 2009, 10:43 AM
Also, please tell me why I should buy a Mac when I can get four-hour-on-site-service from Dell and HP, but I cannot get that kind of support from Apple?
The fact that you're missing — probably because you just don't want to face the truth of it — is that the joke here is not Apple, but the enterprise. It simply is a bad business decision to cater to the enterprise, and that is demonstrated by the legions of PC makers that struggle to make a few percentage points in gross profit. The question is not why you should buy a Mac. It's why should Apple bother to cater to your whims? You need to recognize that you simply don't matter because you aren't willing to pay a fair price for the things you want. In fact, buying crappy solutions that don't work well has been the IT business model for a long time. It creates job security, or at least it has in the past. Eventually, IT may understand that its poor reputation is because of this policy. Until that happens, Apple and Mac users will continue to see the enterprise as the joke that it is.

aristobrat
Nov 28, 2009, 10:55 AM
The very moment you begin running mission critical systems, the last thing you want is a ridiculous thing like a "genius bar" where you have to wait a couple of weeks to get an appointment. Dell gives me a phone number where I am GUARANTEED to talk to a competent engineer within THREE MINUTES. And they send me replacement systems and technicians to my server room within four hours when I buy that service.
For their xserve, they offer a similar service. The SLA isn't exactly the same as the Dell "3-minute phone response" you quoted, but this isn't the same as a Genius Bar trip either.
http://www.apple.com/support/products/premium.html

Priority access to Apple experts

* Up to three years of technical support using advanced remote management and monitoring tools(2)
* Direct, 24/7 access by phone and email(3) to Apple’s dedicated Server Technical Support team
* 30-minute response on email and telephone calls

Onsite hardware repairs

* Up to three years of onsite service by Appleauthorized technicians(2)
* Global repair coverage for Xserve
* Onsite response within four hours during business hours(4)
* Next-day onsite response when you contact Apple after business hours(4)
* Optional AppleCare Service Parts Kits for rapid replacement of key hardware component

pimentoLoaf
Nov 28, 2009, 01:00 PM
.... I don't see anybody running business software on a Mac - that's probably because it doesn't exist....

What?

MS Office and FileMaker Pro aren't used in the business world?

cwt1nospam
Nov 28, 2009, 01:40 PM
What?

MS Office and FileMaker Pro aren't used in the business world?
;)
... and MySQL, PHP, C, C++, Unix, email, Skype and other instant messaging services, video editing, Apache web server, etc...

The list goes on and on, but IT types like Winni aren't interested in any of those. They're only interested in cherry picking facts that help them justify their decision to only support Windows. It's just another reason the enterprise is the real joke here.

dejo
Nov 28, 2009, 01:46 PM
They also want to control the computer, not have Apple tell them how they can or can't run their own hardware
And by "they" you mean IT departments? ;)

Bevz
Nov 28, 2009, 01:57 PM
The fact that you're missing — probably because you just don't want to face the truth of it — is that the joke here is not Apple, but the enterprise. It simply is a bad business decision to cater to the enterprise, and that is demonstrated by the legions of PC makers that struggle to make a few percentage points in gross profit. The question is not why you should buy a Mac. It's why should Apple bother to cater to your whims? You need to recognize that you simply don't matter because you aren't willing to pay a fair price for the things you want. In fact, buying crappy solutions that don't work well has been the IT business model for a long time. It creates job security, or at least it has in the past. Eventually, IT may understand that its poor reputation is because of this policy. Until that happens, Apple and Mac users will continue to see the enterprise as the joke that it is.

Spot on post. Extremely well said sir :)

Cromulent
Nov 28, 2009, 02:24 PM
They still occasionally release some prestige "professional" products ("prosumer" would be the correct label, actually) like the Mac Pro and Final Cut Studio, but that is NOT where they make their money (anymore).

I can kind of see your point in the rest that you said but this is just plain rubbish.

Prosumer? Since when has a product that has been used to make numerous hollywood films been considered prosumer?

Logic Studio is also very much NOT a prosumer application. It is used pretty widely in the professional audio world. Maybe not as much as Pro Tools HD but that, like many other areas Apple are involved in, is slowly changing.

Wotan31
Nov 28, 2009, 02:30 PM
Apple is indeed a joke to the business world because their server offerings are of "low end" specs, and their desktop / laptop machines all cost quite a bit more than what big business is willing to pay.

Businesses look at cost per seat. The hardware is only one factor of course, but when they can get a business dell pc for $299 or a laptop for $499 they aren't even going to consider Apple's products.

The only way for Apple to get into big business is to have a "killer app" that requires Mac OS. That already exists today in the audio / video editing industry where Mac's are the defacto standard, as well as in desktop publishing. Also for travelling IT consultants who require a UNIX laptop (and not Linux), a Macbook Pro is a whole lot cheaper than the Solaris portables from Tadpole.

But for your average corporate employee, sitting at a desk schlepping around email and word documents, the corporation simply isn't willing to pay for the higher priced Apple equipment.

On the other hand, there is a huge amount of value in the stability and reliability of OSX, coupled with it's better security and resilience to viruses. But since no one has quantified these values yet, corporate IT has no argument.

cwt1nospam
Nov 28, 2009, 02:50 PM
Apple is indeed a joke to the business world because their server offerings are of "low end" specs, and their desktop / laptop machines all cost quite a bit more than what big business is willing to pay.
So the joke that is the enterprise thinks that Apple is a joke. Why should Apple care?

Until the enterprise is more concerned with total quality than the cost of the box, Apple will continue to laugh at them. What's more, companies that cater to the enterprise will continue to have no way to differentiate themselves (there's no real difference between Dell, Gateway, Acer, HP, etc.) and continue to struggle to make razor thin profits with no room for errors. Heck, the average sales tax on a Windows PC is more than the profit!

Black Belt
Nov 28, 2009, 03:24 PM
Yeah right. Delusional is the word here if you think "Enterprise" is a bad word. HP for example produces a stellar computer and does just fine not raping its customers. The size of Apple pales in comparison to other computer companies. And I can't wait for the day when Apple is forced to comply with the laws everyone else is. It is a crime that I can't plug in my iPod into something other than iTunes or vice versa.

Another example of why Apple is a joke. I am trying to change the harddrive in my Macbook. F*ng Apple uses TORX screws to mount the harddrive cover unlike everyone else who uses a standard screw. What F*ng morons.

cwt1nospam
Nov 28, 2009, 03:37 PM
Yeah right. Delusional is the word here. HP for example produces a stellar computer and does just fine not raping its customers.
Yes, if you think HP makes a stellar computer then you are delusional. The computer is more than the hardware, and there is nothing about HP software that is stellar. Just look at their crappy printer drivers!

You can't claim that HP doesn't rape its customers without acknowledging that they've shipped good jobs to low wage countries where the environment and child labor are not respected. Sure, Apple has had to do some of that too, but it's companies like HP and IBM that led the way.

As for torque screws, they're there for a reason. If you know what you're doing, they're not a problem. If you don't, then you're going to void the warranty if you mess with them.

It is a crime that I can't plug in my iPod into something other than iTunes or vice versa.
The more I read this, the more convinced I am that you are completely clueless. You can't get it through your skull that iTunes is NOT a product. It is one component of a highly integrated product, which has no equal in the rest of the computer industry. You want to force Apple to be the R&D department for PC companies. It's understandable that those companies would want that too, because with their tiny profit margins they can't afford to do their own research. The problem is that there would be no benefit to Apple.

Jason Beck
Nov 28, 2009, 03:47 PM
Sorry I have a headache this morning, but where is the "joke"? Yes they are
trumped in the server solution market, of course, but how are they a joke in
the business world when they do "very well" as a personal or "prosumer"
solution?

I may just being thickheaded today, but i can't see the "joke" below?
Seems to me they know what they are doing at the moment.

Sun Baked
Nov 28, 2009, 03:50 PM
Yep, the joke is... with a bunch of computer execs at the bar.

Did you hear about Apple, they decided to buck the trend on Wallstreet and buy revenue growth with expensive high margin product growth instead of using loss leaders to buy a temporary market share surge.

Then all the execs have a hollow laugh, and start crying.

mac2x
Nov 28, 2009, 04:06 PM
The fact that you're missing — probably because you just don't want to face the truth of it — is that the joke here is not Apple, but the enterprise. It simply is a bad business decision to cater to the enterprise, and that is demonstrated by the legions of PC makers that struggle to make a few percentage points in gross profit. The question is not why you should buy a Mac. It's why should Apple bother to cater to your whims? You need to recognize that you simply don't matter because you aren't willing to pay a fair price for the things you want. In fact, buying crappy solutions that don't work well has been the IT business model for a long time. It creates job security, or at least it has in the past. Eventually, IT may understand that its poor reputation is because of this policy. Until that happens, Apple and Mac users will continue to see the enterprise as the joke that it is.

Great post. :)

mac2x
Nov 28, 2009, 04:12 PM
Yeah right. Delusional is the word here if you think "Enterprise" is a bad word. HP for example produces a stellar computer and does just fine not raping its customers. The size of Apple pales in comparison to other computer companies. And I can't wait for the day when Apple is forced to comply with the laws everyone else is. It is a crime that I can't plug in my iPod into something other than iTunes or vice versa.

Another example of why Apple is a joke. I am trying to change the harddrive in my Macbook. F*ng Apple uses TORX screws to mount the harddrive cover unlike everyone else who uses a standard screw. What F*ng morons.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. NO ONE is holding a gun to your head and telling you to buy from Apple! If you don't like them, don't buy their stuff. :rolleyes:

As to torx screws, get off your arse and buy the right tools for the job. It's not like Apple are the only people in the world who use torx screws. Give us a break!

Oh, and HP printer drivers stink big time. Sometimes, it's all I can do to get my HP all-in-one to print something from either my Mac or my Windows box.

RHatton
Nov 28, 2009, 04:31 PM
Macs in the workplace will be the inevitable death of the IT department. Loads of companies are beginning to switch their servers over alongside the machines with great success so its not like Apple is dead in the water when it comes to the enterprise world. The only reason Apple has not put on a shirt and tie is because of the shear costs. Companies are cheap; like someone mentioned earlier most cubicle workers check their email and type up TPS reports which doesn't require superior computer hardware and software. It would be terribly expensive to switch the servers and computers over to macs BUT worth it. i don't see why the mac mini isn't a viable option for the business world. They are inexpensive, require very little maintenance and work great. Hell they don't even have screws holding the case together. This article is inaccurate and misleading because it concurs that everything Apple makes is ungodly expensive which is not true.

I have had nothing but bad luck with IT departments. I have dealt with loads of them from several very well respected companies and am yet to be impressed with their work. A prime example: I asked the IT personnel at a globally huge company I will not name for a simple 5 pin USB cable and was replied with dumbfounded looks. I can't speak for IT departments as a whole but for the most part it seems like they are simply banking on peoples computer ignorance, even if they themselves are not the smartest.

Jason Beck
Nov 28, 2009, 06:20 PM
Macs in the workplace will be the inevitable death of the IT department..

/Spit.
They've been saying that for 12 years. I've been in IT for a decade and it's
funny how threatened everyone in it feels by Apple. They're not moving in
on the Server Solution section. Yet. But when Apple decides to spend some
of their billions on making a viable contender for it, watch out. You know how _good_ they can make their products. Ease of use, stability, etc. I don't see an immediate threat though. Snow Leopard, although powerful, is stil in its infancy. Who knows what is on Apple's agenda. I for one would welcome them when they decide to move on in.

Lets face it, Unix (any flavor) pwns Windows.
That's something that has always been said for the past decade. I don't
think Windows 7 is changing anyone's minds there.
;)

Black Belt
Nov 28, 2009, 07:08 PM
As to torx screws, get off your arse and buy the right tools for the job. It's not like Apple are the only people in the world who use torx screws. Give us a break!

Yes, they are the only ones in the world. They started it back with the original Macs (the Apples were completely open before - thank you Woz!) and Jobs decision to close them off from consumer access to dumb down its users and rape more money from them when something simple went wrong or an upgrade was desired.

Black Belt
Nov 28, 2009, 07:09 PM
Lets face it, Unix (any flavor) pwns Windows.
That's something that has always been said for the past decade. I don't
think Windows 7 is changing anyone's minds there.
;)

Oh brother. Unix is pointless for the desktop.

Black Belt
Nov 28, 2009, 07:23 PM
Yes, if you think HP makes a stellar computer then you are delusional. The computer is more than the hardware, and there is nothing about HP software that is stellar. Just look at their crappy printer drivers!

The computer hardware is actually better and better priced. The software works great, HP and Win 7 your blather is nonsense. Any printer driver issues are typical Mac problems which Apple refuses to admit to but secretly is having to repair constantly. Just like the myth about no Mac security problems. Bwahahahaha! They'll never get respect when they put out constant BS like that. IT people see those ads and roll their eyes at the bullcrap being shoveled by Steve Jobs.

You can't claim that HP doesn't rape its customers without acknowledging that they've shipped good jobs to low wage countries where the environment and child labor are not respected. Sure, Apple has had to do some of that too, but it's companies like HP and IBM that led the way.

Some of that? Apple's whole business model relies on it. They may be low wages for us, but good wages for them. Child labor? The Environment? Give me a break.

As for torque screws, they're there for a reason. If you know what you're doing, they're not a problem. If you don't, then you're going to void the warranty if you mess with them.

No they are there for NO good reason. I know how to deal with them but I shouldn't have to.

mac2x
Nov 28, 2009, 07:31 PM
Yes, they are the only ones in the world. They started it back with the original Macs (the Apples were completely open before - thank you Woz!) and Jobs decision to close them off from consumer access to dumb down its users and rape more money from them when something simple went wrong or an upgrade was desired.

:rolleyes: Suggest you do some reading up on your screws, mate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torx)

mac2x
Nov 28, 2009, 07:34 PM
Oh brother. Unix is pointless for the desktop.

"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." ~Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

cwt1nospam
Nov 28, 2009, 08:42 PM
Oh brother. Unix is pointless for the desktop.

Child labor? The Environment? Give me a break.

No they are there for NO good reason. I know how to deal with them but I shouldn't have to.
Now I'm convinced. You are completely clueless.

mickydeenyc
Nov 28, 2009, 09:04 PM
Gee... I'm really really pleased with the way my Apple stock is performing. And if I'm not mistaken, the whole company is run on Macs. Oh well, that's just me.

But as a final PS, let me plead with all the Windows-huggers (hard to separate, ain't it)... PLEASE DO NOT FORSAKE WINDOWS. I make so much money doing independent consulting for individuals and small businesses running Windows in all its various and incompatible forms, I would hate to lose that income.

Yes, I do have a lot of clients who end up biting the bullet and buying a Mac. And while I'm happy that they will have an easier, safer, less pressure-filled computer experience, I am sorry that I only see most of them socially now.

Best wishes for the holidays,

Mick

FOXEO
Nov 28, 2009, 09:27 PM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning things and real tech people don't get all teary-eyed over cosmetics. They also want to control the computer, not have Apple tell them how they can or can't run their own hardware. Sure Macs are nice for some things but get pretty ugly for real business. Oh, and I've owned more Macs than you.

Everyone where I work uses Macs at work. I was also given my own new MacBook for work, and it's been extremely useful. The four of us in my department get all of our work done on our Macs.

Jason Beck
Nov 28, 2009, 11:41 PM
Now I'm convinced. You are completely clueless.

I agree. His statement made me laugh.

aristobrat
Nov 28, 2009, 11:45 PM
I haven't had much luck getting Apple support for Mac OS X (as a desktop client) in a Windows Active Directory environment (which is something most large businesses rely on).

I mean, 95% of it works just fine, but there are weird things that pop up now and again, and praying to god that you can google someone else that's had this problem and solved it really doesn't give anyone a confident feeling.

But I agree with whoever said that there's really no money for Apple in the enterprise. We have tens of thousands of Windows machines where I work, and they're treated as disposable commodities. For compliance reasons, they're locked down to the point where the users can't do much other than launch their essential apps. There'd be zero advantage in this environment to switch to Macs.

SnowLeopard2008
Nov 28, 2009, 11:48 PM
My Dad's old workplace had Sun workstations and various Macs. Their server that did a lot of simulations and calculations was a Mac Pro. According to the accountant and several IT admins, using Macs instead of PCs reduced cost and productivity increased. There were also a huge drop in hardware failure and frustration over viruses.

So yea, Macs do work in the business world. It may not work for all businesses, but that doesn't necessarily mean Macs suck in the business world.

robanga
Nov 28, 2009, 11:49 PM
Sure, and their financial results show that "being a joke" in the business world works quite nicely.

dukebound85
Nov 29, 2009, 01:44 AM
Sure, and their financial results show that "being a joke" in the business world works quite nicely.

i feel you are not seeing how the term "business" is being applied by the article

Yes, apple is a successful buisness

No, apple is not successful in the buisness market in terms of platform usage

63dot
Nov 29, 2009, 02:08 AM
The article misses the whole point of Apple and their mission from the beginning.

The business world is one thing, and if Apple wanted to enter that arena, they would be IBM, Microsoft, or Oracle.

Somebody has to have a computer that is ideal for the education market. Somebody has to have a computer that requires very little time to learn and very little time to troubleshoot. Somebody needs a computer that excels in the graphics and multimedia world. And what is wrong with the iPhone and spending a little extra for a smart phone which is more durable and looks better?

I know a lot of people buy Dells, and anytime I am out in public, I get reminded of this constantly at any hotspot. But I can just as easily say that if you are a graphic designer, people may find if you only use your Dell, that would be considered a joke.

Different computer, and cellphone companies, make their products for a target market, and I for one am glad Apple Inc is not aiming for the business market.

Supa_Fly
Nov 29, 2009, 02:59 AM
I haven't had much luck getting Apple support for Mac OS X (as a desktop client) in a Windows Active Directory environment (which is something most large businesses rely on).

I mean, 95% of it works just fine, but there are weird things that pop up now and again, and praying to god that you can google someone else that's had this problem and solved it really doesn't give anyone a confident feeling.

But I agree with whoever said that there's really no money for Apple in the enterprise. We have tens of thousands of Windows machines where I work, and they're treated as disposable commodities. For compliance reasons, they're locked down to the point where the users can't do much other than launch their essential apps. There'd be zero advantage in this environment to switch to Macs.

I've read that OpenDirectory in a corporate environment like say a national bank can easily match active directory. IT personal like Winni may dispute this but he would just need to look at his country's implementation of SUSE Linux by the government that completely abandonned Microsoft a few years ago.

Xserves, open directory and many other tools like MSOffice, many financial applications that Payroll dept can use, engineering teams have plenty of applications readily available along wih highly viable autocad replacements; Genentech and many pharmaceutical corporations use Mac's and Xserves throughout their busness not just the brochure or web department.

One just needs to take a hard open eyes look at www.apple.com/education or iTunes university to see the top 5 USA Universities using OS X as a viable solution to research and education and engineering implementations.

The problem for corporate environments is treating their hardware like expendable commodities usually leasing them and paying exhortant fees for keeping them beyond agreement leases and laying so much cost to replacing them after the lease. Apple needs to take advantage of the recent studies and reputation of building quality hardware and further highlight software that enables business and corporations beyond high end consumer lineup. Also bring the price of Mac Pro down considerably to match Dell's Optiplex 960 lineup. Or increase expandability in the Mac Mini or Mac Jr product. Most corporations will need C2D or C2Quads with ability to expand memory, video cards, add monitors and change hdds. That's mostly it.

If in house t is trained very well and has considerably experience then onsite support will hardly be needed. You shouldn't need to call for corporate support more than 5x per month; if so then something is very wrong: hw/sw or server suite design and implentation; I can think of Microsoft staying daily to isolate issues with exchange server or even issues with SQL server or rim via BES but not too long or frequently.

Applewill need to step up support response times and also after business hours for premium corporate clients before going big into corporate environments. Just how often are servers replaced vs desktop hardware by large corporations??

I beleive apple is still sour after thecorporate market shinned them for the Lemons commercial insult hehe.

roadbloc
Nov 29, 2009, 04:14 AM
Yawn.

Let the fanboy drool a while, then we can all look smug when he gets a trojan or bsod.

I think the fact that 99% of all recording studio's I have been to, are run off mac's, PC World have started selling mac's, the iPhone is the most popular phone and the iPod is the most popular portable music player says enough about apple and who ever wrote that silly silly webpage.

ibosie
Nov 29, 2009, 06:50 AM
Ask most users in a corporate environment and you'll get answers along the lines of "Why Windows is a joke in the business world".

robanga
Nov 29, 2009, 10:25 AM
i feel you are not seeing how the term "business" is being applied by the article

Yes, apple is a successful buisness

No, apple is not successful in the buisness market in terms of platform usage

I definitely get the theme of the article, my point was that they do not need to capture the hearts and minds of all the IT managers and CIO's of the world. They are successful without doing it. As others have stated, a strategy to do this would likely reduce margins and commoditize their products.

kubla
Nov 29, 2009, 10:25 AM
I also don't see any Macs in the engineering or network operations departments. Could be because there is no software for the Macs there either.
I've been running my engineering company on Macs since 1988. I keep a Windows machine around to keep reminding me why. Macs continue to pay for the gas in my Aston Martin.

jimmyjoemccrow
Nov 29, 2009, 11:32 AM
Apple would love to be in the business world, but Microsoft beat them to it, and that is why Macs are now sold as "designer" PCs. Apple licensed Exchange and have their own server OS, its quite clear that they want a piece of that market, but they can't really compete there.

63dot
Nov 29, 2009, 12:40 PM
Yawn.

Let the fanboy drool a while, then we can all look smug when he gets a trojan or bsod.

I think the fact that 99% of all recording studio's I have been to, are run off mac's, PC World have started selling mac's, the iPhone is the most popular phone and the iPod is the most popular portable music player says enough about apple and who ever wrote that silly silly webpage.

The article certainly did not get into us creative types, or the huge success of the iPhone and iPod/iTunes. Apple Inc. could run on those three alone and continue to be a giant success.

If Apple were Microsoft or IBM, I seriously doubt they would have the vision or creativity to come up with an iPhone, iPod, or iTunes. If any of those button down business computer companies could make the iPhone, they would have come up with it first. Apple should continue on its path of creativity and even if we comprise a niche market, it's still a multi-billion dollar market. For instance, what was the revenue alone in iTunes last year? (in 2007 alone, before tv shows, movies, and American Idol caught on big with iTunes, Apple's revenue was $1.2 billion with a nice 10-15% percent margin). And iTunes is just a small part of Apple's business, one that the company maintains is just a service that breaks even for them. :) Then add to that the sales of iPhones, iPods, software, and computers, and there's no need to be Microsoft. Why would we want to be spread so thin or so wide as to have to have the business software operating system worldwide that every hacker attacks and people universally curse on a daily basis. If anything, those Apple vs. Mac commercials are being nice to Microsoft.

If we really want to be a hard core, serious business company, we should become Men's Warehouse and sell suits to those who use big box Dells.

kingtj
Nov 29, 2009, 03:39 PM
I can't really disagree with the conclusions, even if they pack the details with FUD and inaccuracies.

Sure, the "creative" industries like graphic arts, music creation, and publishing have long embraced the Mac - and it's not really going away for most of those people.

The point is, the majority of medium or large-sized businesses and corporations haven't invested very heavily in the Mac, and Apple just doesn't provide compelling enough reasons to do so.

The I.T. people I know who do support XServes running OS X Server have large numbers of complaints about the OS. The GUIs Apple provides don't let you modify some of the details you need to modify in enterprise environments, and manual editing of text files to achieve it risks breaking other Apple-provided tools that don't expect those files to have those changes. If you call in to Apple for assistance, it's obvious they don't have enough support staff with deep knowledge of the OS X Server product either. Your response tends to be one of "We'll escalate your issue to our engineering staff and have someone call you back." followed by weeks of waiting before an answer is given.

On the client side of things? Yes, Macs make nice workstations and the relative lack of virus/spyware issues is a big benefit. But a properly managed corporate network usually has the virus and spyware problem under control anyway. (For example, the corporate network I manage runs everybody's connections through a filtering web proxy server I built using Linux. It downloads a list, updated nightly, of web sites to disallow access to, including all known sites that distribute spyware to PCs. Most of the things people click on at home that infect their Windows machine can't even be visited in the first place with this arrangement.)

Meanwhile, it'd be crazy to claim that Apple's machines don't cost more, partially for the superior style and design. Aluminum cases cost more than cheap black spray-painted towers, for example. That's fine, but on a factory shop floor - which makes more sense? Anything you put out there is going to look horrible in a matter of a couple months! May as well use the cheapest case you can get, or at least something "industrial" so you can practically hose it down with cleaners when you want to try to clean it up.

In fact, theft may even become more of an issue if you deploy Macs, because employees are aware of their "above average resale value" and desirability. I'd rather have a corporate PC that's boring enough, people leave it alone and have no motivation to steal it.

Apple isn't really trying to be THE computer solution for everybody, and that's one reason they're great! They focus on things that the Enterprise doesn't care about - and they're partially able to do that because they're not worried about keeping them as big customers, as part of their overall business model.

cmaier
Nov 29, 2009, 05:42 PM
The I.T. people I know who do support XServes running OS X Server have large numbers of complaints about the OS. The GUIs Apple provides don't let you modify some of the details you need to modify in enterprise environments, and manual editing of text files to achieve it risks breaking other Apple-provided tools that don't expect those files to have those changes.

This particular problem has supposedly been resolved in SL server.

aristobrat
Nov 29, 2009, 07:45 PM
I've read that OpenDirectory in a corporate environment like say a national bank can easily match active directory.
True, but meaningless to medium-to-enterprise sized companies that have already invested in setting up a Windows Active Directory network (to manage their existing Windows assets).

For Apple to make a difference to those types of businesses, they need to offer technical support for making their Mac desktops work in that already exiting environment. Right now, they don't.

For example, you can bind any Mac desktop to Active Directory easily enough, allowing that Mac to automatically update it's DNS entry. Yay. Then if you install VMWare Fusion on that Mac, VMWare Fusion auto-assigns two extra, random IP addresses (for its use) to that Mac. The next time that Mac updates its DNS, it includes those two random VMWare IP addresses. Which aren't routable. So there needs to be a way to tell the Mac not to register the VMWare IP addresses with DNS. Easy 'nuf if this was a Windows box. Two years later, l still haven't found anyone at Apple that can tell me how to do make that happen. IMO, that's unacceptable, and where I work, is a huge red flag that for us, Mac desktops won't be expanding anytime soon.

cwt1nospam
Nov 29, 2009, 09:26 PM
For Apple to make a difference to those types of businesses, they need to offer technical support for making their Mac desktops work in that already exiting environment. Right now, they don't.
You've got the cart in front of the horse.

Why should Apple spend the money to offer tech support to a market that apparently needs more hand-holding than consumers and would lower profit margins from over 30% to less than 5%?

Supa_Fly
Nov 30, 2009, 02:55 AM
True, but meaningless to medium-to-enterprise sized companies that have already invested in setting up a Windows Active Directory network (to manage their existing Windows assets).

For Apple to make a difference to those types of businesses, they need to offer technical support for making their Mac desktops work in that already exiting environment. Right now, they don't.

For example, you can bind any Mac desktop to Active Directory easily enough, allowing that Mac to automatically update it's DNS entry. Yay. Then if you install VMWare Fusion on that Mac, VMWare Fusion auto-assigns two extra, random IP addresses (for its use) to that Mac. The next time that Mac updates its DNS, it includes those two random VMWare IP addresses. Which aren't routable. So there needs to be a way to tell the Mac not to register the VMWare IP addresses with DNS. Easy 'nuf if this was a Windows box. Two years later, l still haven't found anyone at Apple that can tell me how to do make that happen. IMO, that's unacceptable, and where I work, is a huge red flag that for us, Mac desktops won't be expanding anytime soon.

If a Windows Machine is non-routable in VMWare is that not something that can be fixed within VMWare? Since its a function within that software? I completely understand routable IP Address' are needed for the Windows environment (GPO updates, patches, virii definitions etc). My example above for your response WAS for an enterprise sized company. A particular Canadian national bank (1 of the first 4 in Canada) and owns a national personal banking institution in the US (has been around long before they bought that US bank) . There is at least 2 traders I'm aware of that are die-hard Mac users working in Capital Markets in downtown Toronto and 1 of them is able to have their MacBook Unibody Alu unit with VMWare/Parallels join to the domain but with limited & specific GPOs applied with NO remote connection to work desktop; due to the nature of the job of course. Their not changing to Mac and its not even considered.

However, if Open Directory is FREE to implement, and CAN be done in a weening process to come off of Active Directory and be just as upgradeable and powerful across domains and implement various DNS servers, etc I see no reason why Mac OS X Server, a Linux or a pure Unix server with equal desktop support (ie custom applications and such, even from 3rd party clients/customers) cannot be implemented. I wonder if the added benefit of savings for Anti-Virus, maleware corporate subscriptions licensing/yr (an intangible asset that depreciates VERY quickly @ 12mths) is something to consider ????

Supa_Fly
Nov 30, 2009, 03:18 AM
Let's see SOHO to medium business environments for Macs.

Accounting:
http://seminars.apple.com/seminarsonline/aotmintro/apple/index.html

Social Networking:
LinkedIn (which is going public not too long from now)
http://www.apple.com/business/profiles/linkedin/

Virtual Aviation
Join James Stevenson of Virtual Aviation for a live web seminar and interactive Q&A session, broadcast live from London, on Wednesday 2nd December at 7pm-8pm (GMT).

Learning to fly a jet is a serious business, but it can be a lot of fun. Virtual Aviation provides unforgettable simulator flights for thrill seekers and professional pilots. Find out how Mac, iPhone and a few £10-million flight simulators helped James Stevenson take Virtual Aviation to new heights.

Twitter
http://www.apple.com/business/profiles/twitter/

Legal/Law
http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/legal.html
[I personally missed the opportunity to work at Law Society of Upper Canada 2wks ago - no suit :(! Their beginning to increasingly get requests for Mac users to use Lotus Notes remotely. I had experience installing, updating notes design on v8.01 OS X Leopard and would have LOVED to work with this as a project, learning on the go with many of their IT infrastructure team).

Oh and sciences ... I had no idea the reach of the Mac in the scientific community ... an area I thought trimmed spending more than any other industry.

http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/

mcpryon2
Nov 30, 2009, 03:56 AM
I'd say it's as simple as business...seriously, which one is cheaper?

I love my Macs, but I also love my warranties and price on my Win machines. Plus, what do most other people have already? It's just the way it is.

Yes, you can argue this if you find some specific instance where the Mac is better, like an entire Final Cut station for less than the cost of a Nitrous alone for the Windows Machine, but very rarely is the Mac solution going to be cheaper. And I think it's that simple.

SimonMW
Nov 30, 2009, 05:28 AM
"professional" products ("prosumer" would be the correct label, actually) like the Mac Pro and Final Cut Studio,

Given that new FCP based studio installations are now outstripping Avid ones, along with the number of network TV shows edited on it, the idea that FCP is 'prosumer' is, frankly, stupid.

BongoBanger
Nov 30, 2009, 06:08 AM
Apple do not offer a compelling, cost efficient enterprise desktop solution. I'm sorry, but they don't. They could but that would involve offering OS X on third party hardware for a start (anyone who actually makes purchasing decisions will tell you why that's absolutely essential) and providing technical support that's a lot better and on a larger scale than they do just now.

Apple do, however, offer fairly good support in medium sized fresh installs and certainly where there's entrenchment - publishing and media, for example - offer a compelling package. However, large scale office based solutions? Nope, not unless those Macs are going to be running Windows most of the time.

As for those going on about Apple's profits and stock price, uh... so what? Can you point to the portion of those profits that's due to enterprise solutions?

Great hardware, good software, poor scalability. That's just the way it is.

VoR
Nov 30, 2009, 06:16 AM
Why Apple is a joke in the business world

osx server on large networks, and warranty

SactoGuy18
Nov 30, 2009, 06:50 AM
I think people forget that in corporate and government business environments, you don't NEED all the extra functionality that an iMac provides.

What you need is a machine with specs like this:

1) Motherboard with 2 GB of RAM (if you're running Windows XP Professional) or 4 GB of RAM (if you're running Windows Vista Business or Windows 7 Professional). CPU should be a lower-end Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, and in business environments you can get by with lower-end graphics chips.

2) 250-350 GB of local storage, since much data is stored on the business location server machines.

3) Relatively simple audio functionality.

4) Gigabit Ethernet port.

5) A decent keyboard and mouse pointer. I'd upgrade to an ergonomic keyboard and really good mouse pointer if possible.

6) A 19" 1440x900 or 20" 1600x900 LCD monitor.

As such, on a large-scale business purchase, such a machine could be bought at around US$450-US$500 per machine. It's only in higher-end business environments like if you are directly involved in trading equities that a high-powered iMac or Mac Pro with the ability to have multiple displays to see a LOT of data at a glance that Apple machines could have a chance in business environments--provided they can overcome the price advantage of higher-end Windows Vista/7-based machines with multiple video-out to handle a two or three monitor setup.

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 07:27 AM
Claiming that Apple doesn't provide the things that the enterprise requires or that Apple is more expensive (it isn't) completely misses the point. Anyone who does that is simply using the enterprise's arbitrary definition of what it "needs" and what qualifies as inexpensive. A low cost box is not inexpensive if it requires a large IT department to set up and maintain, and it doesn't meet a businesses needs if it must be replaced frequently to run the latest software.

Macs are less expensive that PCs because they cost only a little more up front, but last longer, resell for more, and require less support. That last part is especially true if you keep Windows out of the mix: no AD or "workgroup" networking means less hassle, which means less need for tech support. That means significantly lower costs.

Tell me that my Mac costs several hundred dollars more than your PC and I'll laugh as I add the cost of AV software to your PC, then add the cost of routine maintenance like reinstalling Windows because of Registry corruptions or the failure of AV software to catch the latest variant of a long ago discovered virus. There's also the cost of money/security lost to those viruses, which is hard to measure but certainly must average more than the cost of the box, with many companies/people losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.

Once again for you IT apologists who have yet to attempt an answer to the question: Why should Apple spend money to support IT if IT is unwilling to pay anywhere near what the consumer is willing to pay?

VoR
Nov 30, 2009, 07:35 AM
Macs are less expensive that PCs because they cost only a little more up front, but last longer, resell for more, and require less support. That last part is especially true if you keep Windows out of the mix: no AD or "workgroup" networking means less hassle, which means less need for tech support. That means significantly lower costs.

Tell me that my Mac costs several hundred dollars more than your PC and I'll laugh as I add the cost of AV software to your PC, then add the cost of routine maintenance like reinstalling Windows because of Registry corruptions or the failure of AV software to catch the latest variant of a long ago discovered virus. There's also the cost of money/security lost to those viruses, which is hard to measure but certainly must average more than the cost of the box, with many companies/people losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.

This of course is utter tosh, it's getting a bit boring to read time after time.

A different side to the price argument(?), is that many big businesses actually spend a lot of money for average machines with their 'special deals'. I'm not sure I've ever seen an IT purchase that's been cheaper than the first link on google :)

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 08:22 AM
This of course is utter tosh, it's getting a bit boring to read time after time.
Well, if you say so, then it must be true!
:rolleyes:

Of course, I was at US Surgical when the dumped Macs in favor of Windows and their IT department more than tripled in size while they did it.

:rolleyes: I'm sure it was just a coincidence though! :rolleyes:

Oh, and losses to malware on the PC are in the multi billions of dollars per year, and most of that is not to individuals! But you go on believing that IT does a good job locking down Windows. ;)

aristobrat
Nov 30, 2009, 08:39 AM
Once again for you IT apologists who have yet to attempt an answer to the question: Why should Apple spend money to support IT if IT is unwilling to pay anywhere near what the consumer is willing to pay?
Apple doesn't give any significant price-break to IT shops.

The 30 Mac Pro's my work has accumulated over the past few years were bought at the same price that a consumer would buy them for, yet 99.9% of our Mac users questions are answered in-house.

Simply put, our 30 Mac Pros generate less support calls to Apple than 30 consumers with 30 Mac Pros.

And for the record, we're more than willing to pay Apple for the rare advanced support we sometimes need. We pay MILLIONS of dollars yearly for all types of support contracts for the various pieces of software and hardware that run our businesses. Paying Apple would be no different.

The biggest issue now, as I see it, is that Apple has no option available for companies that are willing to pay it.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Obviously, Apple's model for running a profitable company is doing very well for itself. I'm simply stating that if they ever do wish to grow their business by entering the business market, the very first thing they should do is offer a separate, paid support program for their clients.

Right now, there's a very big push back from our IT shop against adding new Macs to the network. And it's not that we're Mac ignorant or lazy. It's that there are some production issues we're having with our current Macs that we can't get an answer for that are affecting the end users. Makes no sense to continue down that road.

If a Windows Machine is non-routable in VMWare is that not something that can be fixed within VMWare? Since its a function within that software?
No, we've already explored that option with VMWare.

However, if Open Directory is FREE to implement, and CAN be done in a weening process to come off of Active Directory and be just as upgradeable and powerful across domains and implement various DNS servers, etc I see no reason why Mac OS X Server, a Linux or a pure Unix server with equal desktop support (ie custom applications and such, even from 3rd party clients/customers) cannot be implemented.
I get what you're saying, and it makes sense for companies that migrating away from Windows. But for companies that have an already existing AD infrastructure, with no plans to migrate away from it, you'd think that Apple would offer some sort of paid support for when their Mac clients aren't behaving as expected in an AD environment.

VoR
Nov 30, 2009, 08:43 AM
If you read what you wrote, with a knowledge of large IT installs you'd be saying the same thing. It is true, that's why I say so :)

I've worked at a lot of large corporations and everywhere you look you see bad decisions and implementation. At big business there's nobodies money at stake and it certainly wouldn't suprise me (especially at a health related institute if it's anything like the UK) that the IT systems were handled in the absolute worst possible manner.

I think windows is generally 'locked down' very well, and have rarely seen issues with malware costing 'billions' every year. Even if it was, at least it's a feasible system for companies with 1000s of machines, have you seen the problems with configuration that even the smallest networks of osx bring administrators? To quote you... "no AD or 'workgroup' networking means less hassle, which means less need for tech support. That means significantly lower costs" right... You can even spend a little time reading up on osx network issues on this forum if you can drag yourself away from the school yard game of 'which faceless corporation do you prefer?'

aristobrat
Nov 30, 2009, 08:47 AM
Macs are less expensive that PCs because they cost only a little more up front, but last longer, resell for more, and require less support. That last part is especially true if you keep Windows out of the mix: no AD or "workgroup" networking means less hassle, which means less need for tech support.
Are you proposing that user accounts are local to their machines? And if that is your stance, can you please explain your IT experience?

cmaier
Nov 30, 2009, 09:06 AM
From what I've seen, when IT "locks down" the windows machine enough to prevent malware, instead you lose millions of dollars in productivity. On my machine I can't change the background image to plain black to help my eyestrain, can't launch cmd.exe to use terminal commands, can't install tweakui to get x-follows-mouse, can't use firefox instead of ie 7, etc.

You can keep your super secure windows muck. I use an unsanctioned MPB sitting next to my official PC, and citrix in when absolutely necessary.

If you read what you wrote, with a knowledge of large IT installs you'd be saying the same thing. It is true, that's why I say so :)

I've worked at a lot of large corporations and everywhere you look you see bad decisions and implementation. At big business there's nobodies money at stake and it certainly wouldn't suprise me (especially at a health related institute if it's anything like the UK) that the IT systems were handled in the absolute worst possible manner.

I think windows is generally 'locked down' very well, and have rarely seen issues with malware costing 'billions' every year. Even if it was, at least it's a feasible system for companies with 1000s of machines, have you seen the problems with configuration that even the smallest networks of osx bring administrators? To quote you... "no AD or 'workgroup' networking means less hassle, which means less need for tech support. That means significantly lower costs" right... You can even spend a little time reading up on osx network issues on this forum if you can drag yourself away from the school yard game of 'which faceless corporation do you prefer?'

tempusfugit
Nov 30, 2009, 09:07 AM
Yes, they are the only ones in the world. They started it back with the original Macs (the Apples were completely open before - thank you Woz!) and Jobs decision to close them off from consumer access to dumb down its users and rape more money from them when something simple went wrong or an upgrade was desired.


So thats why they use torx? to "dumb down" us?

Well, in your case they may have just succeeded.

cmaier
Nov 30, 2009, 09:12 AM
So thats why they use torx? to "dumb down" us?

Well, in your case they may have just succeeded.

He's right. It had nothing to do with consumer expectations that computers should be like other appliances and not require tinkering. Personally, my mom loves opening the handy access panel on the refrigerator and swapping out harddrives.

tempusfugit
Nov 30, 2009, 09:22 AM
On the client side of things? Yes, Macs make nice workstations and the relative lack of virus/spyware issues is a big benefit. But a properly managed corporate network usually has the virus and spyware problem under control anyway. (For example, the corporate network I manage runs everybody's connections through a filtering web proxy server I built using Linux. It downloads a list, updated nightly, of web sites to disallow access to, including all known sites that distribute spyware to PCs. Most of the things people click on at home that infect their Windows machine can't even be visited in the first place with this arrangement.)


A shining, classic example of a USELESS job.

You realize that the tradeoff for your company to allow users to access the internet securely is hiring you, right? That's an FTE that a small business doesn't need. That's an FTE that a large business doesn't need.

Your Orwellian internet setup at your place of work is a perfect example of what people can expect to avoid if they dish out some more cash initially for Mac.

And OSX Server Snow Leopard is pretty good, in my experience. It allows small businesses to save unbelievable amounts of money compared to MS Exchange or even Google Apps (premiere edition). Though not completely irrelevant for larger operations, I guess I just don't expect it to catch on there. A small business can spend $1000 on a mac mini server whereas they would spend that every year for 20 users on google apps. God knows how much Exchange costs, I don't really even want to.

So I've gotten a bit off topic but my point is that a "properly managed" corporate network, in your opinion, is one in which you're sitting at the helm and have a chokehold on everything. That's a nightmarish scenario to a lot of sane people.

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 09:23 AM
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Obviously, Apple's model for running a profitable company is doing very well for itself. I'm simply stating that if they ever do wish to grow their business by entering the business market, the very first thing they should do is offer a separate, paid support program for their clients.
You're starting from the wrong assumption, and you've yet to answer the most important question: Why would Apple want to do this? Is your one company going to pay enough if fees to make up for a loss of 25% or more in gross margins?
Right now, there's a very big push back from our IT shop against adding new Macs to the network. And it's not that we're Mac ignorant or lazy. It's that there are some production issues we're having with our current Macs that we can't get an answer for that are affecting the end users. Makes no sense to continue down that road.
Sorry, but you're IT: it's your job to figure it out, or see to it that the vendor sees enough potential profit in providing a solution that they will do so.


As for local accounts, that's the way things were done for a long time, even on the PC, and eventually that will be the case again. As has already been demonstrated by others, the Draconian approach used by IT because of Windows security issues is a severe drain on productivity.

aristobrat
Nov 30, 2009, 10:26 AM
You're starting from the wrong assumption, and you've yet to answer the most important question: Why would Apple want to do this? Is your one company going to pay enough if fees to make up for a loss of 25% or more in gross margins?
Please explain where the gross margins are being lost. We have 30 Macs floating around where I work. We bought them all for the same price any consumer did. If anything, we HELP Apple's margine, as we can handle 99.9% of Mac users' support issues in-house, preventing them from tying up AppleCare's telephones.

I'm not speaking of a theoretical future where Apple drops the price of Macs so that every entry-level corporate position can have a Mac on their desk to run Excel and answer email.

I'm talking about *now*, were Windows-based businesses are implementing full-priced Macs for certain areas where Macs make the most sense (graphics, web design, printing, etc).

Sorry, but you're IT: it's your job to figure it out, or see to it that the vendor sees enough potential profit in providing a solution that they will do so.
Sorry, but that's utter crap. I'm not the only person in my IT shop that is pro-Mac (to the point that we've spent our own personal time trying to "figure it out"). There is no publicly posted solution for the issues we're having, and there's no way to pay Apple to provide a solution.

As for local accounts, that's the way things were done for a long time, even on the PC, and eventually that will be the case again. As has already been demonstrated by others, the Draconian approach used by IT because of Windows security issues is a severe drain on productivity.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the compliance requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley and PCI DSS?

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 10:39 AM
I'm not speaking of a theoretical future where Apple drops the price of Macs so that every entry-level corporate position can have a Mac on their desk to run Excel and answer email.Of course you are! In order for you to get your "*now*", you're asking for Apple to make a significant strategic change in focus. You need to provide a compelling business reason to do so, and you're not. You're just whining that they aren't doing what you want.

Sorry, but that's utter crap. I'm not the only person in my IT shop that is pro-Mac (to the point that we've spent our own personal time trying to "figure it out"). There is no publicly posted solution for the issues we're having, and there's no way to pay Apple to provide a solution.
There is a way, but IT won't do it because it means smaller IT departments with less influence within their companies. It also means taking and honest look at the true costs of settling for a Windows only environment.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the compliance requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley and PCI DSS?
So now you're going to use a Bush-era Accounting law to justify a ridiculous position that IT has taken since well before Bush was in office?? Perhaps you'd also like to hire a bunch of lawyers from Regent University to help with your arguments!
:rolleyes:

cmaier
Nov 30, 2009, 11:49 AM
Central accounts are nice - as a user I prefer them, so that when my hardware goes down I can just move to someone else's office/cube or get a replacement and be up and running quickly. Yeah, I can do the same thing with /home on an external disk, but centralized accounts make backup/restore and the like much easier. One of the things I miss from when I used to get to use Unix.

aristobrat
Nov 30, 2009, 11:55 AM
Of course you are! In order for you to get your "*now*", you're asking for Apple to make a significant strategic change in focus. You need to provide a compelling business reason to do so, and you're not. You're just whining that they aren't doing what you want.
I'm not asking Apple to make any change. I'm simply stating that because of how Apple is currently positioned, my company won't be purchasing any more Macs, and that decision has nothing to do with the typical laundry list of crap that people like you post about why faceless IT shops are Mac-biased.

Specifically, my IT shop can afford to buy the Macs, has people (besides myself) that enjoy supporting the Macs, isn't not afraid that adding more Macs to the network will lead to anyone getting laid off, and ... ummm, what are other typical arguments put up against faceless IT shops and why they don't want Macs?

There is a way, but IT won't do it because it means smaller IT departments with less influence within their companies. It also means taking and honest look at the true costs of settling for a Windows only environment.
Please explain the way, as I'm willing to do it (as one the guys responsible for supporting Macs in the IT shop where I work).

So now you're going to use a Bush-era Accounting law to justify a ridiculous position that IT has taken since well before Bush was in office??
I was just curious if you were aware of some of the specific compliance requirements that larger companies require their IT depts to implement, as they're non-negotiable.

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 12:12 PM
I'm not asking Apple to make any change. I'm simply stating that because of how Apple is currently positioned, my company won't be purchasing any more Macs, and that decision has nothing to do with the typical laundry list of crap that people like you post about why faceless IT shops are Mac-biased.It's the same thing, and once again you're failing to realize that Apple just doesn't need you. To Apple, your entire company, and especially the IT department, is the joke here. You think that because you've got Mac Pros you should get special treatment from Apple. Take a look at what they're doing! The iMac is well on its way to replacing the Mac Pro. In just a few more years it will become painfully obvious to even the most diehard IT tech that consumer devices are going to overwhelm "enterprise" devices, and Apple is leading the way.

Please explain the way, as I'm willing to do it (as one the guys responsible for supporting Macs in the IT shop where I work).
You need to get your IT department, and those of other large institutions to:
Be honest about the enormous costs of supporting Windows and the problems it causes.
Be honest about the lost productivity due to locked down systems.
Stop making excuses for locking out systems that don't run Windows.
and most importantly...
start making purchases based on value to the company and not value to IT or the sticker price of the box.
...
Oh, and let's not forget about making a real, viable business case for Apple to support IT, as opposed to whining that they aren't doing it at the same time that you make claims that their prices are too high.
I was just curious if you were aware of some of the specific compliance requirements that larger companies require their IT depts to implement, as they're non-negotiable.
Of course they are, because they back up IT's position! ie: We can't get Macs because they don't have xyz management tools. Let's ignore the fact that when we settled on Windows it didn't have them either, or the fact that if we made the investment those tools would rapidly be developed.

aristobrat
Nov 30, 2009, 01:09 PM
It's the same thing, and once again you're failing to realize that Apple just doesn't need you.
You're wrong. In every post, I've agreed with you on this point.

You think that because you've got Mac Pros you should get special treatment from Apple.
You're wrong again. I've never posted that I should get any sort of special treatment.

Take a look at what they're doing! The iMac is well on its way to replacing the Mac Pro. In just a few more years it will become painfully obvious to even the most diehard IT tech that consumer devices are going to overwhelm "enterprise" devices, and Apple is leading the way.
Your point is irrelevant to my example. The problem isn't with any particular hardware, it's with the OS. All of Apple's Macs clients run the same OS.


You need to get your IT department, and those of other large institutions to:

Be honest about the enormous costs of supporting Windows and the problems it causes.
Be honest about the lost productivity due to locked down systems.
Stop making excuses for locking out systems that don't run Windows.
and most importantly...
start making purchases based on value to the company and not value to IT or the sticker price of the box.
...
Oh, and let's not forget about making a real, viable business case for Apple to support IT, as opposed to whining that they aren't doing it at the same time that you make claims that their prices are too high.

Irrelevant. Not a single thing you mentioned is a factor in why we won't be deploying any more Macs in the near future.

Of course they are, because they back up IT's position! ie: We can't get Macs because they don't have xyz management tools. Let's ignore the fact that when we settled on Windows it didn't have them either, or the fact that if we made the investment those tools would rapidly be developed.
Again, irrelevant. Not a factor in why we won't be deploying any more Macs in the near future. (FWIW, Macs can be just about as tightly managed (and locked down) as Windows boxes)

dejo
Nov 30, 2009, 01:14 PM
Not a factor in why we won't be deploying any more Macs in the near future.
So, what is the reason then? :confused:

cmaier
Nov 30, 2009, 01:24 PM
This is a fruitless and circular discussion.

aristobrat
Nov 30, 2009, 01:33 PM
So, what is the reason then? :confused:
We have an issue where users home folders won't automount when they logon and where OS X can't be configured to not register certain interfaces when it auto-updates the machines' DNS entries (in our case, every Mac is registering it's real IP address, along with two other ones that we need it not to, so resolving via a Mac via DNS only gives you a 33% chance of getting the correct IP back. This essentially breaks some of the maint. scripts that we remotely run on them.)

I don't understand what cwt1nospam's issue with that is. My IT dept is fine with buying/supporting Macs on our network, but we've hit two problems that needs resolving before we can continue.

This is a fruitless and circular discussion.
Pretty much. I've made my points and will do my best to stop repeating them each time that cwt1nospam replies to one of my posts, ignoring them.

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 01:38 PM
Irrelevant. Not a single thing you mentioned is a factor in why we won't be deploying any more Macs in the near future.
You still don't get it! What's irrelevant here are the reasons, whatever they may be, why you won't be deploying more Macs in the near future! It's very simple, really, so I don't understand why you can't see it: IT will be ignored until it represents a good (meaning as profitable as the consumer market) business opportunity to Apple.

dejo
Nov 30, 2009, 01:39 PM
We have an issue where users home folders won't automount when they logon and where OS X can't be configured to not register certain interfaces when it auto-updates the machines' DNS entries (in our case, every Mac is registering it's real IP address, along with two other ones that we need it not to, so resolving via a Mac via DNS only gives you a 33% chance of getting the correct IP back. This essentially breaks some of the maint. scripts that we remotely run on them.)

I don't understand what cwt1nospam's issue with that is. My IT dept is fine with buying/supporting Macs on our network, but we've hit two problems that needs resolving before we can continue.
Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 01:54 PM
We have an issue where users home folders won't automount when they logon and where OS X can't be configured to not register certain interfaces when it auto-updates the machines' DNS entries (in our case, every Mac is registering it's real IP address, along with two other ones that we need it not to, so resolving via a Mac via DNS only gives you a 33% chance of getting the correct IP back. This essentially breaks some of the maint. scripts that we remotely run on them.)
I don't really think that a discussion about an article calling Apple a "joke" in the enterprise is the right place to look for Mac help, but here's a breadcrumb to follow:

Parallels 4 would grab a couple of extra IP addresses and create network locations for them, but version 5 doesn't appear to. If that's your problem, upgrading Parallels or contacting their tech support might be a good idea.

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 05:27 PM
I just saw that in post #54 you mention that you're using VMWare Fusion. First, I should say that I evaluated that at the same time I tested Parallels, and I might have blamed Parallels 4 for grabbing extra ip addresses when in fact it was Fusion. I know Parallels 5 doesn't do it, since that's what I went with.

I think it's very funny that your IT department is blaming Apple for a problem with VMWare software, especially since it's software to use Windows! As funny as it is though, it's also sadly typical of IT: create a problem on the Mac and blame it on Apple. The unsuspecting will accept it as a legitimate reason to ban the platform. Yet another reason that the real joke is the enterprise.

Supa_Fly
Dec 1, 2009, 04:44 PM
We have an issue where users home folders won't automount when they logon and where OS X can't be configured to not register certain interfaces when it auto-updates the machines' DNS entries (in our case, every Mac is registering it's real IP address, along with two other ones that we need it not to, so resolving via a Mac via DNS only gives you a 33% chance of getting the correct IP back. This essentially breaks some of the maint. scripts that we remotely run on them.)

I don't understand what cwt1nospam's issue with that is. My IT dept is fine with buying/supporting Macs on our network, but we've hit two problems that needs resolving before we can continue.


Pretty much. I've made my points and will do my best to stop repeating them each time that cwt1nospam replies to one of my posts, ignoring them.

Thanks for the explanation!

To be honest I've been enjoying your debated posts with cwt1nospam; back & forth. In the middle of the last page I wondered how close to the edge it was getting before the thread was going to lock down. But it was intelligent to a level (loosing me in parts) and reminded me SO MUCH of the arguing men in the balcony booth of The Muppets (previous to the odd couple). You know fighting on the same side yet still disagreeing.

Aristobrat, the issue with Mac's not getting DNS assigned IP's ... is there a solution within Citrix XenApp that can be an alternative solution for hosting applications; this way the virtualized OS and apps get their updates without Mac users affecting the security or is this way off? I'm sure you've already tried a seperate DNS server for the Mac's (and they're not behind a router before the actual LAN), again probably out of scope. Either way I admire your diligence to work towards a solution and provide us some insight without risking corporate security - I kinda got that in the way of your responses not giving out too much a detailed line of site to the issues.

I believe the issues you're experiencing with OS X is not specific to Snow Leopard but just how the OS handles IPs. 1 last lame solution .... anybody in your IT department can fix this via Terminal commands that'll bind?

You still don't get it! What's irrelevant here are the reasons, whatever they may be, why you won't be deploying more Macs in the near future! It's very simple, really, so I don't understand why you can't see it: IT will be ignored until it represents a good (meaning as profitable as the consumer market) business opportunity to Apple.

Not to attack you, but Apple has been finding it profitable and meaningful to support business' since long before the XServe came to fruition. In fact, IBM & Apple partnered to release a 36mhz AIX server specific to large business'. I'm unsure how successful it was though as it was able to run AIX, Apple OS, and another OS. But your stance is in regards to corporate use . I still think with the amount of support they give several university's for co-dependence on OS (OS X/WindowsXP/Vista) they're capable of providing the support that Aristobrat requires.

Supa_Fly
Dec 1, 2009, 04:45 PM
I just saw that in post #54 you mention that you're using VMWare Fusion. First, I should say that I evaluated that at the same time I tested Parallels, and I might have blamed Parallels 4 for grabbing extra ip addresses when in fact it was Fusion. I know Parallels 5 doesn't do it, since that's what I went with.

I think it's very funny that your IT department is blaming Apple for a problem with VMWare software, especially since it's software to use Windows! As funny as it is though, it's also sadly typical of IT: create a problem on the Mac and blame it on Apple. The unsuspecting will accept it as a legitimate reason to ban the platform. Yet another reason that the real joke is the enterprise.

Aristobrat ... I guess its worth it to trial Parallels 5 then??

Consultant
Dec 1, 2009, 05:19 PM
-- I -- am a technical person, my job is network administration in global satellite communications and I put my signature under what the other poster has said.

Except for maybe -- MAYBE -- the HTML 5 bit, I don't see -any- FUD in the discussion of the original article. Macs are niche tools and they only have little space in an enterprise environment - and that space usually is in the graphics/marketing department where they run Adobe Creative Suite. I don't see anybody running business software on a Mac - that's probably because it doesn't exist.<snip>

So you are saying a CEO of a multi billion company don't run any "business software?"

Google:
Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata uses Mac, iPhone, & Apple Keynote Software

There are plenty of examples on the same site under "Mac: Power Users"

BongoBanger
Dec 1, 2009, 06:01 PM
So you are saying a CEO of a multi billion company don't run any "business software?"

Google:
Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata uses Mac, iPhone, & Apple Keynote Software

There are plenty of examples on the same site under "Mac: Power Users"

That's nice. What do most of those companies run as their desktop OS of choice?

Clue: It starts with a W.

cwt1nospam
Dec 1, 2009, 06:23 PM
Not to attack you, but Apple has been finding it profitable and meaningful to support business' since long before the XServe came to fruition. In fact, IBM & Apple partnered to release a 36mhz AIX server specific to large business'. I'm unsure how successful it was though as it was able to run AIX, Apple OS, and another OS. But your stance is in regards to corporate use . I still think with the amount of support they give several university's for co-dependence on OS (OS X/WindowsXP/Vista) they're capable of providing the support that Aristobrat requires.

Apple also makes and sells the Apple TV. They'll probably continue to develop it just as they'll continue to offer business products, both in case they find a legitimate business opportunity down the road. Until such an opportunity presents itself, both the Apple TV and IT departments will be treated as hobbies. That's a big emotional problem for IT types who often like to think that they're much more important than they really are. That's why this isn't the first and won't be the last article disparaging Apple in the Enterprise.

As for What Aristobrat is asking for, it just isn't an Apple problem. It's a VMWare problem that his IT department is choosing to blame on Apple. This is a standard practice in IT, where they feel free to bend the truth in order to find reasons to ban the Mac. I've actually seen them try to replace Macs with PCs in graphics departments. Some of those attempts were even back when the PCs were still using a 16 bit OS! Can you imagine trying to run Photoshop in Windows 3.1???

dvdhsu
Dec 1, 2009, 06:38 PM
That's nice. What do most of those companies run as their desktop OS of choice?

Clue: It starts with a W.

Dude.
Have you heard of nVidia's CEO and Macs? It's halirious.

All I have are "Macs, Macs, and Macs."

JTK28
Dec 1, 2009, 07:00 PM
Its articles like this that make me shake my head in disbelief. I love how people talk about subjects that they have no business talking about. You see it every where. People talking about things that they know little about, or know just enough about to be dangerous and make ill informed decisions and form ill informed opinions.

But i guess thats why these forums exists so people can voice their opinions...

I obviously didn't see or hear the discussion in its entirety but if Nick Jones (BS Computer Technology) is talking about business. Thats utterly ridiculous. Now if he had an MBA from Harvard Business or any MBA for that matter i would be more inclined to take this article a little bit more seriously.

Supa_Fly
Dec 2, 2009, 01:21 AM
Its articles like this that make me shake my head in disbelief. I love how people talk about subjects that they have no business talking about. You see it every where. People talking about things that they know little about, or know just enough about to be dangerous and make ill informed decisions and form ill informed opinions.

But i guess thats why these forums exists so people can voice their opinions...

I obviously didn't see or hear the discussion in its entirety but if Nick Jones (BS Computer Technology) is talking about business. Thats utterly ridiculous. Now if he had an MBA from Harvard Business or any MBA for that matter i would be more inclined to take this article a little bit more seriously.

If Nick Jones had an MBA from Harvard Business I'd be less inclined to believe him. You recall iTunes U as plenty of articles from Harvard Business ready for the iPhone, PC/Mac. Let alone plenty of students using their Macs during studies which would mean they have quite a few Mac's and Servers running their Podcast Server, coding for iPhone/iPod_Touch Apps, and distribute services regarding any version of Mac OS to the faculty.

I guess the REAL arguement is ....

Is there ANY corporation (Business of 2000+ users) where Mac's are used, supported, and/or purchased for business continuity in a domain (Active/Open Directory) anywhere in the world??????!!!!! I'd REALLY like to know: what their annual, quarterly, and monthly service costs are (service/parts), what their initial and projected 5yr service costs are (domain, server, 24hr emergency call service, parts, etc), and their particular topology is.

Peace.

partyBoy
Dec 2, 2009, 03:25 AM
apple is not a joke...that article is a joke ;)

partyBoy
Dec 2, 2009, 03:33 AM
Yeah right. Delusional is the word here if you think "Enterprise" is a bad word. HP for example produces a stellar computer and does just fine not raping its customers. The size of Apple pales in comparison to other computer companies. And I can't wait for the day when Apple is forced to comply with the laws everyone else is. It is a crime that I can't plug in my iPod into something other than iTunes or vice versa.

Another example of why Apple is a joke. I am trying to change the harddrive in my Macbook. F*ng Apple uses TORX screws to mount the harddrive cover unlike everyone else who uses a standard screw. What F*ng morons.

you sound like a moron,you are insulting & complaining about apple yet you have apple products and you are in a apple forum you are just looking to get a backlash of insults :confused:

edesignuk
Dec 2, 2009, 03:41 AM
you sound like a moron,you are insulting & complaining about apple yet you have apple products and you are in a apple forum you are just looking to get a backlash of insults :confused:Finding the things Apple do highly irritating doesn't stop you from still wanting to use them. You just have to try and forgive and forget their particular idiocies, same as with anything else. Doesn't mean you can't bitch about them.

t0mat0
Dec 2, 2009, 04:36 AM
Nick Jones argued the case that Apple would never be a viable enterprise technology provider

Hmm. I'd say the level of iPhone's being brought into Enterprise by individuals or through a company buying scheme show some level of foot in the door. How many top 500 companies use iPhones, Macs again?

"Apple decides which applications you get and if they don't like an application, you don't get it. There's lots of applications Apple don't like which could be very useful to you. As an enterprise platform, it's a joke."

Jones obviously not realising a company could make their own application for the iPhone. Or make a web service that they wouldn't have to put through the app submission process..

Cost? Jones doesn't seem to factor in employee happiness, and through that productivity gains. A couple of hours not lost due to a phone = ROI.
Jones' argument seems to then get grasping at straws - "It's so ice age, you have to charge it. Isn't this the 21st Century?! Don't we have Unicorn batteries already?"
Jones then gets it wrong with HTML5 (ooh, i wonder who pushed Webkit, is shifting to HTML5 on their main site, and has the most reason to shun Flash, push on Canvas, video and audio tags eh?)

Sounds like Jones was lambasting, but with a weak argument in several places. there are good examples to show Apple products work successfully in business. He can't refute that. Yes, Apple doesn't pander to Business - but then that's not their main aim as a company.

cwt1nospam
Dec 2, 2009, 07:10 AM
Finding the things Apple do highly irritating doesn't stop you from still wanting to use them. You just have to try and forgive and forget their particular idiocies, same as with anything else. Doesn't mean you can't bitch about them.
True, but the one thing you cannot do is find a problem with a third party application (VMWare) and then blame it on Apple. This wouldn't be acceptable if it were done by a computer novice, and it is outrageous that an IT department, which is supposed to be comprised of experts, is doing it.

aristobrat
Dec 2, 2009, 11:34 AM
As for What Aristobrat is asking for, it just isn't an Apple problem. It's a VMWare problem that his IT department is choosing to blame on Apple.
Apple has acknowledged this scenario as an problem in Mac OS X Server:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3169

The same problem exists in Mac OS X.
The Mac OS X Server solution (above) doesn't solve the problem.
AppleCare will acknowledge the problem, but has no additional solution to give.
This problem has existed since at least 10.5 (2+ years).
We have used the Apple feedback page numerous times to report this problem.
Nobody in the community has been able to develop a workaround that works in our environment.

To be clear, cwt1nospam, this is an Apple Mac OS X problem. VMWare is one of many examples that can bring this problem to light, but VMWare is not the root cause of the problem. Any Mac with multiple network interfaces (where you don't want them all dynamically registering in DNS) is subject to this problem.

And I'm not ragging on Apple for not providing an answer. I understand that probably .001% of Mac OS X clients will be used in a situation like this.

I'm just giving you, cwt1nospam, an example of why an IT department that is otherwise willing to pay for and support Macs can have issues that stop the deployment of Macs that has nothing to do with the generic laundry list that you keep reposting.


Aristobrat ... I guess its worth it to trial Parallels 5 then??
The users (developers) are all running various hardware/OSs (from ESX Server to Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows). They trade guest machines around a lot, so only VMWare fits their use case.

thejadedmonkey
Dec 2, 2009, 03:01 PM
From what I've seen, when IT "locks down" the windows machine enough to prevent malware, instead you lose millions of dollars in productivity. On my machine I can't change the background image to plain black to help my eyestrain, can't launch cmd.exe to use terminal commands, can't install tweakui to get x-follows-mouse, can't use firefox instead of ie 7, etc.

You can keep your super secure windows muck. I use an unsanctioned MPB sitting next to my official PC, and citrix in when absolutely necessary.

That's a function of your IT's computer policy. And it's not just Windows that can do that - I worked on an iMac that was locked down just as well.

Back to the point, OS X just isn't mature enough for enterprise usage, and Apple's tech support isn't skilled enough to deal with tech support (I say this from personal experience, after having to do all sorts of Windows tricks to make up for OS X's shortcomings, and after Applecare told me what I wanted (reliable file sharing) was impossible). Apple can't handle IT, plain and simple.

cwt1nospam
Dec 2, 2009, 07:41 PM
Back to the point, OS X just isn't mature enough for enterprise usage...
:p That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. OS X is based on Unix, an OS that has been "enterprise ready" for 40 years!

I suppose you think Windows is mature enough? :rolleyes:

To be clear, cwt1nospam, this is an Apple Mac OS X problem.
Sorry, but no.
Sure, the issue could come up, but by your own estimation only 0.001% of the time.
The fact is that there is no good reason for not switching to Parallels, which can easily import VMware virtual machines: http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/whyswitch/upgrade/Those two facts are proof enough that your department is just looking for excuses to ban the Mac.
The users (developers) are all running various hardware/OSs (from ESX Server to Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows). They trade guest machines around a lot, so only VMWare fits their use case.
Wrong. See above.

(I say this from personal experience, after having to do all sorts of Windows tricks to make up for OS X's shortcomings, and after Applecare told me what I wanted (reliable file sharing) was impossible). Apple can't handle IT, plain and simple.
By the way, anyone who thinks that "Windows tricks" have any place on a Mac shouldn't be allowed within ten feet of one. I certainly wouldn't let you touch mine.

aristobrat
Dec 2, 2009, 08:01 PM
Sorry, but no.

Sure, the issue could come up, but by your own estimation only 0.001% of the time.
The fact is that there is no good reason for not switching to Parallels, which can easily import VMware virtual machines: http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/whyswitch/upgrade/

Thanks for the really great workaround to Apple's problem with Mac OS X, but as I explained in my prior post, Parallel's doesn't meet the employees' use case.

Let me rephrase that for you.

The users said Parallel's doesn't do everything that they need it to do.

cwt1nospam
Dec 2, 2009, 08:20 PM
Thanks for the really great workaround to Apple's problem with Mac OS X, but as I explained in my prior post, Parallel's doesn't meet the employees' use case.

Let me rephrase that for you.

The users said Parallel's doesn't do everything that they need it to do.

Parallel's is faster than VMware, and it does everything VMware does. If you're going to claim that Mac users have told you they'd rather not have their Macs than switch to Parallels, then I'm going to call you a bald faced liar.

aristobrat
Dec 2, 2009, 09:18 PM
Parallel's is faster than VMware, and it does everything VMware does.
Not knowing the use case of the employees, you can't factually state that.

The developers are currently cross-platform and have been using VMWare for years. They want to keep the ability of being able to share machines, regardless of what OS their host machine runs.

Parallels can import VMWare virtual machines. But once imported, that machine is then Parallels, and can't be directly shared with the developers running VMWare. The machine would have to then be P2V'ed from Parallels into VMWare. The users said that the constant "transporting" VMWare into Parallels and then P2V'ing it back into VMWare was both time-consuming and likened the chance that something could happen during the import. They never said the didn't want their Macs anyway. They said that Parallel's wasn't a solution to their issue.

I've given you a specific instance where Apple's lack of response to a specific issue is the only reason one Fortune 500 isn't rolling more Macs into its enterprise. Your posts portray you as a bigot on the matter of Apple and the enterprise, so there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

lPHONE
Dec 3, 2009, 04:21 AM
I prefer macs in the workplace. I have over 20. Apple is a joke to me too... A very funny inside joke.

lPHONE
Dec 3, 2009, 04:43 AM
"business world" is a misleading. He should have said workplace. The guy needs to learn how to write.

As far as the business world is concerned, as thiss stuff s a joke:
Mac desktop revenue market share: 47.7 %

http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/itunes-dominance-chart.gif

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/ipod_sales_total_lg.gif

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/200802211745.jpg
http://mobileappmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iphone-sales-growth-chart.png
http://www.quo-vadis.tv/rickjulian/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/iphone-smart-phone001.jpg
http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/mac_sales_quarterly_lg.gif
http://routenote.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/itunes-sales-graph1.jpg

BongoBanger
Dec 3, 2009, 06:33 AM
Two points:

1) iPod and iTunes are irrelevant to enterprise. No one doubts Apple are succseful in the commercial sphere but that's not what's being discussed here.
2) Anyone who celebrates Apple's revenue who isn't an Apple stockholder needs to have their head examined.

nando2323
Dec 3, 2009, 10:35 AM
Funny you say this. I have been using a Mac now for over a year in the enterprise and I am a System Admin/SQL Server DBA and I love it, was using Windows for over 15 years before. I use CORD to remote to Windows Systems, Rapidweaver for designing our intranet site and publishing to IIS is great, We use Lotus Notes and it works fine, Adium with Sametime Lotus Notes is great, Microsoft Document Connection for Sharepoint works great, Network Utility is great for troubleshooting network issues, the ability to mount ISO natively is great, Terminal with Tabs and the ability to save them is awesome, oh yeah and when you quit terminal restart the computer whatever, guess what your commands are still cached (this is an awesome feature) specially for tel netting to Cisco hardware.

The IT world is becoming flat there my friend it's kind of like the global economy, Apple is no longer irrelevant in the enterprise, just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not great.

cwt1nospam
Dec 3, 2009, 11:51 AM
Not knowing the use case of the employees, you can't factually state that.

The developers are currently cross-platform and have been using VMWare for years. They want to keep the ability of being able to share machines, regardless of what OS their host machine runs.

Parallels can import VMWare virtual machines. But once imported, that machine is then Parallels, and can't be directly shared with the developers running VMWare. The machine would have to then be P2V'ed from Parallels into VMWare. The users said that the constant "transporting" VMWare into Parallels and then P2V'ing it back into VMWare was both time-consuming and likened the chance that something could happen during the import. They never said the didn't want their Macs anyway. They said that Parallel's wasn't a solution to their issue.

I've given you a specific instance where Apple's lack of response to a specific issue is the only reason one Fortune 500 isn't rolling more Macs into its enterprise. Your posts portray you as a bigot on the matter of Apple and the enterprise, so there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
You're in an enterprise, right? You pay for software site licenses right? So then it would be less than truthful to claim that there would be a problem trading virtual machines because everyone would be switched to Parallels. Or maybe you're saying that you illegally trade virtual machines with people in other companies?

Of course the very idea that it's necessary to frequently transfer virtual machines is more than a bit hard to swallow. Licensing issues aside, there's just no need. Transfer data? Sure. An occasional application? Yes, possibly. The entire OS? Hardly ever, so time can't be an issue.

So Mac users were honestly informed that their refusal to use Parallels would mean that Macs would be banned? Why do I find this more than a little hard to believe?

What you've done is given me a situation where you (IT) have rigged the game against keeping Macs.

fabian9
Dec 3, 2009, 12:26 PM
nother example of why Apple is a joke. I am trying to change the harddrive in my Macbook. F*ng Apple uses TORX screws to mount the harddrive cover unlike everyone else who uses a standard screw. What F*ng morons.

I wish they only used torx screws, it's so easy to strip Phillips screws if you're not careful, especially the 00s heads they use on the MBPs. That'd never happen with torx screws...

AlmostThere
Dec 3, 2009, 01:52 PM
You're in an enterprise, right? You pay for software site licenses right? So then it would be less than truthful to claim that there would be a problem trading virtual machines because everyone would be switched to Parallels.


And Open Office is a drop-in replacement for MS Office, right?

Unfortunately, one similar or "equivalent" package is not instantly replaceable for another. Years of experience and vendor discounts and good-will may be lost, site-licences are far from cheap, migration and trial periods take time, not to mention compatibility problems and such like that occur during deployment.

Substituting one app for can be relatively easy for a home user to manage, it is another thing to scale that over a large user base; such are the differences between enterprise and home use.


Of course the very idea that it's necessary to frequently transfer virtual machines is more than a bit hard to swallow. Licensing issues aside, there's just no need. Transfer data? Sure. An occasional application? Yes, possibly. The entire OS? Hardly ever, so time can't be an issue.


Actually this can be quite common in development and testing environments, where a common set of images can be used by everyone in the team (or across multiple teams). As and when new platforms need to be supported, the appropriate image can be installed in one place and made available to everyone. Multiple images will be used with images varying not just with OS but versions (patch-levels, distros) and conflicting software, which makes debugging and recreating end-user problems substantially easier.

It is perhaps even more common in the server environment, but that doesn't seem to be what aristobrat is describing. Again, this is usage that is more prevalent in enterprise / business than in the home.

cwt1nospam
Dec 3, 2009, 06:07 PM
And Open Office is a drop-in replacement for MS Office, right?

Unfortunately, one similar or "equivalent" package is not instantly replaceable for another. Years of experience and vendor discounts and good-will may be lost, site-licences are far from cheap, migration and trial periods take time, not to mention compatibility problems and such like that occur during deployment.
Bad analogy. These are two apps whose sole purpose is to run another OS. They either work or they don't, and IT putting vendor good will above the company employees is part of the problem here.

Substituting one app for can be relatively easy for a home user to manage, it is another thing to scale that over a large user base; such are the differences between enterprise and home use.
This is the attitude that makes IT and by extension the enterprise, a joke. No one cares if it makes your job more difficult. That's not an issue at all. It's your job to make things run smoothly for the rest of the company, and using trivial excuses like this is why IT has a lousy reputation. If you can't do the job, find another one.

Another programmer and I were talking just today how our IT department has screwed up the company email by requiring all outside access to it be via webmail. This adds zero security (the intended affect) but instead encourages people to use their own private email. Once again IT has turned the enterprise into a joke.
Actually this can be quite common in development and testing environments..
99% of the time, that's just pure laziness. Code is either compiled or interpreted. Either way, that code and the data is all that really needs to be moved. There just isn't a good reason to transfer the OS as well.

Virtualization is still relatively new, and I think that most people swapping images are doing it because it makes them feel macho.

Goona
Dec 3, 2009, 08:32 PM
Who gives a damn about the business world, you don't need to fully cater to the business world to be successful, not everything is about the business world.

BongoBanger
Dec 4, 2009, 04:32 AM
Who gives a damn about the business world, you don't need to fully cater to the business world to be successful, not everything is about the business world.

This article is.

jayenh
Dec 4, 2009, 07:04 AM
"joke" is the wrong word, and that article isn't exactly unbiased. "not viable" would be a better way to put it for the vast majority of businesses.

and i love the uneducated stereo-typing of IT staff and departments in this thread. funny stuff.

[edit] who said apple WANT to be used in an enterprise anyway. i said in another post somewhere on here before, and i'll say it again; apple have this image of themselves, and that image is not their kit being used in cubicles etc at some bank or similar. i'm pretty sure they like the idea of little design studios with 5 or 6 people working on their mac pros with an xserve and raid set up in a primitive manor so that they are able to work, taking home their macbooks and iphones every night, add designer clothes, add skinny jeans and add man-bags etc etc etc (see what i did there? stereo-typing). there's still money to be made from little creative studios like this, and with the margins apple make on their kit i'd say they are quite happy with this portion of the business sector.

edesignuk
Dec 4, 2009, 07:09 AM
Honest question that I don't now the answer to...

You work in a Mac based office in IT. You need to set a new compulsory home page in Safari. This should be rolled out to everyone within hours and they shouldn't be able to change it.

So that's a new home page (say the launch of a new Intranet), and one that users can't change back to whatever they please.

A stupidly simple task in a Windows world, what would you have to do in a Mac world, can it even be done?

cwt1nospam
Dec 4, 2009, 07:36 AM
Honest question that I don't now the answer to...

You work in a Mac based office in IT. You need to set a new compulsory home page in Safari. This should be rolled out to everyone within hours and they shouldn't be able to change it.

So that's a new home page (say the launch of a new Intranet), and one that users can't change back to whatever they please.

A stupidly simple task in a Windows world, what would you have to do in a Mac world, can it even be done?
Sure, it can be done, but it should not be! This is just another idiotic move by IT that makes the enterprise look like a joke. If you force people to use a home page that they don't want, they'll quickly learn to ignore it. The result is a slight reduction in productivity as they wait for the browser to open to your home page before they jump to the page they want without ever looking at yours.

Instead of acting like a spammer you should concentrate on making your site one that employees will go to on their own.

edesignuk
Dec 4, 2009, 07:42 AM
Sure, it can be done, but it should not be! This is just another idiotic move by IT that makes the enterprise look like a joke. If you force people to use a home page that they don't want, they'll quickly learn to ignore it. The result is a slight reduction in productivity as they wait for the browser to open to your home page before they jump to the page they want without ever looking at yours.

Instead of acting like a spammer you should concentrate on making your site one that employees will go to on their own.What you think should or shouldn't be done is not the point. The fact is that most [large] organisations will do this. I'm asking how simple it would be to do in a Mac office.

jayenh
Dec 4, 2009, 08:12 AM
not to mention that said home page could be the focal point of their productivity. a lot of companies use in house web based programs almost entirely. pretty much everything a user might do could be via an intranet page that they log in to, acting purely as a front end for a huge SQL or whatever else database.

suppose the company is rebranded or the name of said intranet changes, the site they go to changes address... it's a good question.

cwt1nospam
Dec 4, 2009, 08:26 AM
What you think should or shouldn't be done is not the point. The fact is that most [large] organisations will do this. I'm asking how simple it would be to do in a Mac office.
Do you even know where you're posting? This is not the place for IT people to be asking for help, especially if that help request proves the opposite point about the article being discussed.

Here in this space, what you or your IT department thinks should or shouldn't be done is irrelevant except for the fact that it demonstrates how big a joke IT has become.
not to mention that said home page could be the focal point of their productivity. a lot of companies use in house web based programs almost entirely. pretty much everything a user might do could be via an intranet page that they log in to, acting purely as a front end for a huge SQL or whatever else database.
In that case employees would at the very least bookmark the site. Some might even choose to make it their home page. There is certainly no problem with that. The problem arises when IT decides to force it on them. It's stupid, mean spirited, and counter productive.

aristobrat
Dec 4, 2009, 08:28 AM
Honest question that I don't now the answer to...

You work in a Mac based office in IT. You need to set a new compulsory home page in Safari. This should be rolled out to everyone within hours and they shouldn't be able to change it.

So that's a new home page (say the launch of a new Intranet), and one that users can't change back to whatever they please.

A stupidly simple task in a Windows world, what would you have to do in a Mac world, can it even be done?
I know Workgroup Manager can be used to set policies like that, but I don't know if they're such that a user can't override them.

Check out #5 on the link below:
http://www.interrupt19.com/2009/09/03/7-workgroup-manager-tricks-managed-macs/

OllyW
Dec 4, 2009, 08:30 AM
Do you even know where you're posting? This is not the place for IT people to be asking for help, especially if that help request proves the opposite point about the article being discussed.

Why isn't it?

It seems to be a reasonable question concerning the use of Apple computers in a business environment.

edesignuk
Dec 4, 2009, 08:42 AM
Do you even know where you're posting? This is not the place for IT people to be asking for help, especially if that help request proves the opposite point about the article being discussed.

Here in this space, what you or your IT department thinks should or shouldn't be done is irrelevant except for the fact that it demonstrates how big a joke IT has become.I think I probably know where I'm posting thank you.*cough, former site moderator*

I'm not asking for your help. I'm asking, in a thread about Apple's ability to be usable in business, how what is a simple task in Windows could be done in an OS X environment.

Your aversion to answering the question, simply brushing it of as "it doesn't matter", is useless and completely ignores reality. I accept that small offices probably don't care what people do with their computer, but any company of scale will. I've never been to an office where the home page wasn't set and locked in place.

This is the tip of the iceberg, just a quick and simple example of something that takes seconds and next to no training to accomplish in a Windows world with Active Directory and accompanying Group Policy.

cwt1nospam
Dec 4, 2009, 08:51 AM
This is the tip of the iceberg, just a quick and simple example of something that takes seconds and next to no training to accomplish in a Windows world with Active Directory and accompanying Group Policy.
Ok, I'll repeat myself again:
Yes, this is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tiny piece of a large chunk of ice that needs to melt before Apple will take IT seriously.

I too have been many places where the homepage is locked down. The immediate and lasting impression of IT due to this stupid, futile practice is overwhelmingly negative. Even people who don't care about their computers at all react with what can only be described as mild disgust, and virtually everyone tunes it out like a grating commercial.

I've never locked a homepage on a Mac, but from what I know it should be very simple. If IT weren't a joke, it should be easy to figure out. That's the most help I feel comfortable providing on this disgusting practice.

jayenh
Dec 4, 2009, 08:58 AM
it's counter productive to greet people with the main website they should be using during the day for productivity when they open their browser? this gets more and more comical. lets not forget that a lot of big companies have very strict internet policies to prevent wasted productivity. that site might be the only web site that works for them other than for an hour at lunch (if they're lucky), in which case you would want that to be their homepage and so would the user.

you're aiming your hate at the wrong people anyway, generally its the managers and directors that want things (such as the home page) universal as it makes the company look more professional, and they are certainly the ones who say "stop this" or "change this" when they see productivity fall.

Microsoft should do an ad campaign... "theres a group policy for that".

iBlue
Dec 4, 2009, 08:58 AM
Ok, I'll repeat myself again:
Yes, this is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tiny piece of a large chunk of ice that needs to melt before Apple will take IT seriously.

I too have been many places where the homepage is locked down. The immediate and lasting impression of IT due to this stupid, futile practice is overwhelmingly negative. Even people who don't care about their computers at all react with what can only be described as mild disgust, and virtually everyone tunes it out like a grating commercial.

I've never locked a homepage on a Mac, but from what I know it should be very simple. If IT weren't a joke, it should be easy to figure out. That's the most help I feel comfortable providing on this disgusting practice.

Oh, so it's NOT that you don't actually know and that edesignuk has a valid point; it's that you cannot answer the question on a matter of principle. I see. :rolleyes:

I love macs but they have crucial restrictions and limitations. This is why they are indeed a joke in the business world. It has nothing to do with IT or your glaringly obvious disgust for it.

wrldwzrd89
Dec 4, 2009, 09:02 AM
I think I probably know where I'm posting thank you.*cough, former site moderator*

I'm not asking for your help. I'm asking, in a thread about Apple's ability to be usable in business, how what is a simple task in Windows could be done in an OS X environment.

Your aversion to answering the question, simply brushing it of as "it doesn't matter", is useless and completely ignores reality. I accept that small offices probably don't care what people do with their computer, but any company of scale will. I've never been to an office where the home page wasn't set and locked in place.

This is the tip of the iceberg, just a quick and simple example of something that takes seconds and next to no training to accomplish in a Windows world with Active Directory and accompanying Group Policy.
Oh really? My workplace doesn't have the homepage or even the default browser locked. There are exceptions to every role about the enterprise. :p

edesignuk
Dec 4, 2009, 09:03 AM
Ok, I'll repeat myself again:
Yes, this is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tiny piece of a large chunk of ice that needs to melt before Apple will take IT seriously.

I too have been many places where the homepage is locked down. The immediate and lasting impression of IT due to this stupid, futile practice is overwhelmingly negative. Even people who don't care about their computers at all react with what can only be described as mild disgust, and virtually everyone tunes it out like a grating commercial.

I've never locked a homepage on a Mac, but from what I know it should be very simple. If IT weren't a joke, it should be easy to figure out. That's the most help I feel comfortable providing on this disgusting practice.OK, so you're right and everyone else is wrong. Everyone else is an idiot for expecting such manageability. Apple shouldn't be expected to provide it, as it's all rubbish.

Nice world you live in, shame it doesn't exist, and goes to prove the point that Apple are in no way ready for the business world. That might be their choice, which is fine, they're doing very well with the consumer market. If they did want to become a player in the business world, they have a lot of work to do.

Your arguments are laughable and would hold no water with anyone.

and FYI...most of the nonsense that IT are forced to do is not their choice. They have to find solutions to implement rules and regulations to the desktop PC brought about by legal & compliance issues, company branding and so on. Sure you know that though...:rolleyes:

cmaier
Dec 4, 2009, 09:04 AM
Oh, so it's NOT that you don't actually know and that edesignuk has a valid point; it's that you cannot answer the question on a matter of principle. I see. :rolleyes:

I love macs but they have crucial restrictions and limitations. This is why they are indeed a joke in the business world. It has nothing to do with IT or your glaringly obvious disgust for it.

I prefer to think of it as "they don't let IT impose restrictions and limitations." :)

I agree on the issue of Macs being unsuitable for many businesses for these reasons.

I also agree that IT imposes too many limitations, and I blame IT, not management. Too many times I see IT telling management that perfectly innocuous OS or applications features are either too hard to maintain or are a security threat. And as a guy who designed microprocessors for a decade, an administered gigantic compute farms and workstation environments, I know when that's not true.

cwt1nospam
Dec 4, 2009, 09:06 AM
Oh, so it's NOT that you don't actually know and that edesignuk has a valid point; it's that you cannot answer the question on a matter of principle. I see. :rolleyes:
He does not have a valid point, unless you proceed from the idea that anything IT wants is automatically a valid business need. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Locking browser home pages is like spammer web pages that used to pop up multiple other pages so they could get their hit count up. If every employee has to bring up the company's intranet site every time they open a browser, then IT can report to upper management that they've had XX hits on the company intranet site this month, so it's getting used. It's a weak ploy to pad stats and it is the first big step to looking like a joke to every other department in the company.

iBlue
Dec 4, 2009, 09:07 AM
He does not have a valid point, unless you proceed from the idea that anything IT wants is automatically a valid business need. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Locking browser home pages is like spammer web pages that used to pop up multiple other pages so they could get their hit count up. If every employee has to bring up the company's intranet site every time they open a browser, then IT can report to upper management that they've had XX hits on the company intranet site this month, so it's getting used. It's a weak ploy to pad stats and it is the first big step to looking like a joke to every other department in the company.

It doesn't sound like you have a great understanding of IT and how it actually works. It does sound like you have a great understanding of talking crap though. Well done.

edesignuk
Dec 4, 2009, 09:08 AM
He does not have a valid point, unless you proceed from the idea that anything IT wants is automatically a valid business need. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Locking browser home pages is like spammer web pages that used to pop up multiple other pages so they could get their hit count up. If every employee has to bring up the company's intranet site every time they open a browser, then IT can report to upper management that they've had XX hits on the company intranet site this month, so it's getting used. It's a weak ploy to pad stats and it is the first big step to looking like a joke to every other department in the company.Yes that's right. The CEO wanting everyone to see the new company blog, latest news, job openings etc is exactly like spammers and pop ups on the wider internet.

You have idea what you're talking about, do you.

aristobrat
Dec 4, 2009, 09:08 AM
Oh really? My workplace doesn't have the homepage or even the default browser locked. There are exceptions to every role about the enterprise. :p
Every enterprise has different policies and procedures.

IMO, any OS that wants to fit well in an enterprise is one that can handle the range of restrictions ... from none (like your enterprise) to well-locked down (like a financial company).

cwt1nospam
Dec 4, 2009, 09:10 AM
and FYI...most of the nonsense that IT are forced to do is not their choice.
Talk about laughable! IT decides it wants to lock down browser home pages, so it makes up a half baked excuse to tell upper management that it needs to be done, which then turns around and orders IT to lock down browser home pages! Oh, but it's not us, they say. We're just following orders! :rolleyes:

wrldwzrd89
Dec 4, 2009, 09:11 AM
Every enterprise has different policies and procedures.

IMO, any OS that wants to fit well in an enterprise is one that can handle the range of restrictions ... from none (like your enterprise) to well-locked down (like a financial company).
Totally agreed. That doesn't mean the Mac OS X environment can't be locked down (it most certainly can, either with solutions like Deep Freeze or using policies deployed via Mac OS X Server), though. It DOES imply that few enterprises realize that it is possible to lock Macs in this way.

aristobrat
Dec 4, 2009, 09:12 AM
and FYI...most of the nonsense that IT are forced to do is not their choice. They have to find solutions to implement rules and regulations to the desktop PC brought about by legal & compliance issues, company branding and so on. Sure you know that though...:rolleyes:

I also agree that IT imposes too many limitations, and I blame IT, not management. Too many times I see IT telling management that perfectly innocuous OS or applications features are either too hard to maintain or are a security threat.
My experience has been that both types of companies exist out there. Not that mr. nospam would ever even consider the possibilty of what edesignuk has posted. I currently work for one like that, where SOx and PCI drive 99% of the policies that IT is asked to enforce. Although our mandatory homepage decision came from our CEO.

cwt1nospam
Dec 4, 2009, 09:13 AM
It doesn't sound like you have a great understanding of IT and how it actually works.
I understand that any time anyone disagrees with IT, they trot out the old, "you don't understand" dodge. It worked twenty to thirty years ago, but computers aren't new anymore. People know there's little justification for many of the things IT does.

edesignuk
Dec 4, 2009, 09:16 AM
Talk about laughable! IT decides it wants to lock down browser home pages, so it makes up a half baked excuse to tell upper management that it needs to be done, which then turns around and orders IT to lock down browser home pages! Oh, but it's not us, they say. We're just following orders! :rolleyes:I am the IT and I know where the orders come from.

Management decide it's time for a rebrand (you think IT care about company branding?), they commission a new intranet to be built around the new branding. The new intranet gets built (at considerable expense) and it's time for everyone to see it. That means the manager that decided on the rebrand tells the IT Director they want it set on every desktop.

Is it strictly needed, was the rebranding needed? Doesn't matter really, IT have to provide a solution to the business requirement. Thankfully with Group Policy they have it, and it's quick and easy.

dejo
Dec 4, 2009, 09:22 AM
(see what i did there? stereo-typing).
So, it's okay to stereotype Apple but not IT staff? Hmm...

iBlue
Dec 4, 2009, 09:22 AM
I understand that any time anyone disagrees with IT, they trot out the old, "you don't understand" dodge. It worked twenty to thirty years ago, but computers aren't new anymore. People know there's little justification for many of the things IT does.

Oh, I see. You don't like it when people dodge questions with rhetoric. Pardon me while I tend to this irony alert.

Maybe you hear that same old shtick because it's true. Clearly you don't get it. I'm sure there are some IT people out there that just like to be miserable jerks but I don't think they represent all IT people out there. But I'm sure you don't care about that as it gets in the way of your rampant disgust and unconditional apple fanboyism.

jayenh
Dec 4, 2009, 09:31 AM
So, it's okay to stereotype Apple but not IT staff? Hmm...

sorry, i forgot the /sarcasm. silly me for thinking it was obvious.

however, the bit about what apple are content with in the business segment was not stereo-typing. i stereo-typed the offices and users, not apple themselves.

dejo
Dec 4, 2009, 09:36 AM
however, the bit about what apple are content with in the business segment was not stereo-typing
Oh, but it was.

aristobrat
Dec 4, 2009, 09:37 AM
I understand that any time anyone disagrees with IT, they trot out the old, "you don't understand" dodge.
And I understand that you, based on your personal experiences with IT, will always trot out the "I've seen a few IT shops in my 20-30 years of working, therefore I personally know that every IT shop in the world runs exactly like the few I've seen" dodge.

Bigoted is bigoted, whether it's a slack IT shop trying to make its life easier, or your unwillingness to grasp the concept that not all IT shops run that way. Neither concept brings any value.

BongoBanger
Dec 4, 2009, 09:40 AM
Folks, I wouldn't bother with cwt1nospam. It's fairly obvious at this point - and from previous discussions - that he's merely trolling.

cmaier
Dec 4, 2009, 09:42 AM
Folks, I wouldn't bother with cwt1nospam. It's fairly obvious at this point - and from previous discussions - that he's merely trolling.

I don't think he's trolling. He has a unique and too-narrow point of view, but that's not the same as trolling.

aristobrat
Dec 4, 2009, 09:43 AM
Folks, I wouldn't bother with cwt1nospam. It's fairly obvious at this point - and from previous discussions - that he's merely trolling.
I'm not sure. Trolls do it for the attention. I honestly thing that cwt1nospam believes what's he posting. I just wish he'd actually consider the points of others.

wrldwzrd89
Dec 4, 2009, 09:45 AM
ok, so taking an educated and reasoned impression on who and what apple are aiming their products at based on their cash reserves that could be used for investing in that market and their advertisements is stereo-typing? maybe you missed the part where apple made a feeble push at the mac mini with osx server being perfect for little businesses or start ups. "It’s perfect for any small business or group".
Truth be told, Apple is at heart a consumer-oriented company. That doesn't mean they cannot succeed in the enterprise - they just have to kill off old habits first. Once they do that, people WILL and DO switch. The reason we haven't seen any high-profile companies switching is because their old habits refuse to die. :p

steve-p
Dec 4, 2009, 10:07 AM
So you are saying a CEO of a multi billion company don't run any "business software?"

Google:
Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata uses Mac, iPhone, & Apple Keynote Software

There are plenty of examples on the same site under "Mac: Power Users"

CEOs don't actually do any real work in the normal sense, so no he probably doesn't use any business software.

jayenh
Dec 4, 2009, 11:48 AM
Truth be told, Apple is at heart a consumer-oriented company. That doesn't mean they cannot succeed in the enterprise - they just have to kill off old habits first. Once they do that, people WILL and DO switch. The reason we haven't seen any high-profile companies switching is because their old habits refuse to die. :p

I'm being genuine here; can you explain some of these "old habbits"? In my opinion it's not about habbits, it's about functionality, managability and intergration (ignoring cost). OSX Server doesn't offer these at the same level as Microsoft. As a platform I'd say it's not to far off. There are mail apps and proxy apps etc, but they don't come together in the same way as exchange etc.

Not that any of this matters, when was the last time you flicked through a magazine and saw an apple advert pushing the Xserve as a solution for enterprise businesses?

wrldwzrd89
Dec 4, 2009, 01:28 PM
I'm being genuine here; can you explain some of these "old habbits"? In my opinion it's not about habbits, it's about functionality, managability and intergration (ignoring cost). OSX Server doesn't offer these at the same level as Microsoft. As a platform I'd say it's not to far off. There are mail apps and proxy apps etc, but they don't come together in the same way as exchange etc.

Not that any of this matters, when was the last time you flicked through a magazine and saw an apple advert pushing the Xserve as a solution for enterprise businesses?
Enterprises are used to Windows. Many of them have portable (cross-platform) internal applications now, but simply aren't aware that switching to Mac OS X (or Linux, for that matter) is feasible. Of course, there are places like mine that are so heavily invested in Windows-specific functionality, so that they could never switch easily. Also, you do make a valid point about some missing features in OS X Server... but, for most cases where switching makes sense, these usually are not stopping points. The biggest problem, as far as I can see, is lack of alternatives awareness.

AlmostThere
Dec 5, 2009, 03:31 AM
Bad analogy. These are two apps whose sole purpose is to run another OS. They either work or they don't, and IT putting vendor good will above the company employees is part of the problem here.


No, there are subtle differences in compatibility and features. They are not identical, and the end-user telling you package is not substitutable for another. You sound like the IT you are describing.

That you do not consider how easy a working relationship is to manage, and how expensive it can be when it breaks down tells me you have no experience in this area. The same applies to any area of business, that is not an IT only issue and part of a much broader picture I think you are missing.


This is the attitude that makes IT and by extension the enterprise, a joke. No one cares if it makes your job more difficult. That's not an issue at all. It's your job to make things run smoothly for the rest of the company, and using trivial excuses like this is why IT has a lousy reputation. If you can't do the job, find another one.


This not about making IT's job easy or difficult, it is about issues that arise when you have 1000 instances not 1.

Secondly, if things are difficult for IT, then it becomes more expensive for the company as a whole. You could employ a consultant or hire better staff, but again that will cost the business.

Change comes at cost and risk. You have proposed making a broad-sweeping change at high cost and risk to cater for a small minority of users to solve a problem that should be fixed by Apple.

One thing you don't understand is that one of IT's core functions is to manage that cost and risk to ensure that the business can continue to operate and operate efficiently.

Tried and tested solutions are favoured for a reason.

If the business demands something that will cost more to implement that it will generate in revenue / save though efficiency, IT need to make sure that is clearly communicated.


99% of the time, that's just pure laziness. Code is either compiled or interpreted. Either way, that code and the data is all that really needs to be moved. There just isn't a good reason to transfer the OS as well.


No, code needs to be run and tested on different operating systems and versions. That code is simply compiled or interpreted is a nice fluffy, non-programmer way of looking at things but unfortunately it is more complicated than that.

Windows XP, Vista and 7 are all different. XP SP 1, SP 2 and SP3 are all different. What works on one system will not necessarily work on another. To test and on all these systems you can either have to have a room full of machines, where only person can use one machine at a time or you can give everybody access to images of each operating system revision (and there are lots of them for Windows).

Virtualization provides a simple way to test and debug on all those platforms. For example, when a user reports a bug with Vista SP1, the developer assigned can easily recreate the user's environment and debug from there. This is much more efficient, both in terms of space / storage as well as working practice, than having multiple real machines that only one user at a time can access. It is also an example where IT can improve business process by increasing efficiency.

Talk about laughable! IT decides it wants to lock down browser home pages, so it makes up a half baked excuse to tell upper management that it needs to be done, which then turns around and orders IT to lock down browser home pages! Oh, but it's not us, they say. We're just following orders!

Locking down a homepage can be done for perfectly rational reasons.

We had (in my last office) several sales teams and their homepage was set to the area of the intranet that gives the appropriate information for their products, how many have been sold over the past day, week, month and how that compares to last year / month. There is a certain amount of customisation available too.

These dashboards were designed in conjunction with the relevant teams and the decision to set that up as a home page driven by those teams. Marketing and other teams saw this, the benefits and something similar was also set up.

When teams get new members of staff or log in off-site, they were automatically presented (using a group-level homepage) with relevant and important information, which has substantially decreased the time they spend looking for reports and the amount of time the spend chasing IT or MIS for reports already available.

cwt1nospam
Dec 5, 2009, 07:31 PM
No, there are subtle differences in compatibility and features. They are not identical, and the end-user telling you package is not substitutable for another.
No, the end user is saying they don't want to swap images between VMware and Parallels. IT is interpreting that to mean the users don't want Parallels so that IT can ban the Mac.

That you do not consider how easy a working relationship is to manage, and how expensive it can be when it breaks down tells me you have no experience in this area. The same applies to any area of business, that is not an IT only issue and part of a much broader picture I think you are missing.
Yes, it does apply to all areas of business, and the one area most affected is productivity, which suffers greatly when IT bans devices and systems and locks down those that it does allow. Alleged security and IT cost savings are in reality extremely expensive. Windows security problems cost business billions of dollars every year. If IT really wanted to save money, they would at the very least ban Internet Explorer. Where has that happened?

This not about making IT's job easy or difficult, it is about issues that arise when you have 1000 instances not 1.

Secondly, if things are difficult for IT, then it becomes more expensive for the company as a whole. You could employ a consultant or hire better staff, but again that will cost the business.IT represents a small segment of any business, and saving IT time/money at the expense of other departments is a poor business decision.
Change comes at cost and risk. You have proposed making a broad-sweeping change at high cost and risk to cater for a small minority of users to solve a problem that should be fixed by Apple.
The small minority is IT.
If the business demands something that will cost more to implement that it will generate in revenue / save though efficiency, IT need to make sure that is clearly communicated.
Well, that would be a first. :rolleyes:

No, code needs to be run and tested on different operating systems and versions. That code is simply compiled or interpreted is a nice fluffy, non-programmer way of looking at things but unfortunately it is more complicated than that.

Windows XP, Vista and 7 are all different. XP SP 1, SP 2 and SP3 are all different. What works on one system will not necessarily work on another. To test and on all these systems you can either have to have a room full of machines, where only person can use one machine at a time or you can give everybody access to images of each operating system revision (and there are lots of them for Windows).

Nobody's arguing against virtualization. It's the idea that entire OS images need to be traded back and forth that makes no sense. People that need different versions of the OS should already have the images. Then it's just a matter of moving the applications and data back and forth. There really isn't a need to worry about compatible images because the applications will run under either.

By the way, I love the irony of IT choosing to foist all these multiple versions of Windows on us, then claiming that it can't afford to support multiple operating systems!

Locking down a homepage can be done for perfectly rational reasons.
I've yet to see a rational reason, including your example, in which all goals could be easily achieved simply by including appropriate bookmarks in their browsers. There's just no need to lock down the homepage.

qdfgffg
Dec 5, 2009, 09:10 PM
No, the end user is saying they don't want to swap images between VMware and Parallels. IT is interpreting that to mean the users don't want Parallels so that IT can ban the Mac.


Yes, it does apply to all areas of business, and the one area most affected is productivity, which suffers greatly when IT bans devices and systems and locks down those that it does allow. Alleged security and IT cost savings are in reality extremely expensive. Windows security problems cost business billions of dollars every year. If IT really wanted to save money, they would at the very least ban Internet Explorer. Where has that happened?

IT represents a small segment of any business, and saving IT time/money at the expense of other departments is a poor business decision.

The small minority is IT.

Well, that would be a first. :rolleyes:

Nobody's arguing against virtualization. It's idea that entire OS images need to be traded back and forth that makes no sense. People that need different versions of the OS should already have the images. Then it's just a matter of moving the applications and data back and forth. There really isn't a need to worry about compatible images because the applications will run under either.

By the way, I love the irony of IT choosing to foist all these multiple versions of Windows on us, then claiming that it can't afford to support multiple operating systems!


I've yet to see a rational reason, including your example, in which all goals could be easily achieved simply by including appropriate bookmarks in their browsers. There's just no need to lock down the homepage.
No, the end user is saying they don't want to swap images between VMware and Parallels. IT is interpreting that to mean the users don't want Parallels so that IT can ban the Mac.

AlmostThere
Dec 6, 2009, 09:35 AM
...


So, just to be clear, there is an issue integrating a small number of Macs, where the Apple has been unable or unwilling to help out, and your best alternative, putting you in the shoes of IT management for a moment, is an expensive, site-wide change from a tried and tested solution, to one based on unproven software that will decrease productivity and introduce instability, all of which you would force IT to implement, regardless of cost.

Furthermore, you would also force a change in working practice on end-users, from an established, effective work-flow, so that virtual machines can no longer be shared, because it fits with your solution above.

Just how much would you sink into making the Macs work? How many other projects would you delay? How are you going to manage when you have spent all your budget on one pet project? How are you going to maintain the trust of end-user when you have simply dictated how they should do their job?

There's someone with a political axe to grind here and it certainly isn't corporate IT, who by and large make cost effective decisions (get over the fact that Windows has security problems and deal with the fact that it is still more cost effective for most enterprise users than the cost of change).

cwt1nospam
Dec 6, 2009, 10:32 AM
So, just to be clear, there is an issue integrating a small number of Macs, where the Apple has been unable or unwilling to help out, and your best alternative, putting you in the shoes of IT management for a moment, is an expensive, site-wide change from a tried and tested solution, to one based on unproven software that will decrease productivity and introduce instability, all of which you would force IT to implement, regardless of cost.

Furthermore, you would also force a change in working practice on end-users, from an established, effective work-flow, so that virtual machines can no longer be shared, because it fits with your solution above.

How is zipping up an application and its data not more effective than sharing an entire hard drive image?? Most programs and their data will add up to a few tens of megabytes! It's far easier, less error prone, and less time (money) consuming to transfer a few megabytes than ten to twenty gigabytes.

Then of course there's the fact that swapping this information is still, as you've pointed out, relatively rare. Basing a policy which bans an entire platform on it is absurd.

My point about Windows problems is not so much about Windows as it is about IT and its willingness/eagerness to ignore the truth when it doesn't benefit Microsoft. The very organizations that claim to believe in standardization flout the idea by using Internet Explorer, the one browser that deliberately ignores web standards to the point where web developers need to create one version of a page for IE and one for everyone else! IT then makes it worse by lying about it, telling users that xyz browser is not compatible with the sites they've developed, when the truth is that they've developed nonstandard sites that deliberately favor a nonstandard browser. It's yet another example of IT turning the enterprise into a joke.

One more thing: there's a huge difference between cost effective and cheap. Buying a cheap box and spending 5 times more on labor to keep it running is not cost effective.

kingtj
Dec 7, 2009, 11:04 AM
I agree 100%.

I'm a huge fan of OS X and it's all I use at home, for just about anything other than gaming. (Even then, I *try* to use OS X for gaming when someone actually releases a decent game native to the platform.)

But I just can't see the attraction to going "all Mac" in anything larger than a small business/home office setting, most of the time. Even when Macs are perfectly suitable for the task, the cost issue alone can push them back out. (EG. Our city's newspaper was once using pretty much all Macs. The writers and copy-editors loved them. But when the old systems aged and it was time to start swapping them all out and upgrade? They moved to the PC and Windows. The cost-savings simply trumped the other arguments for keeping the Mac. You have to realize, this was the same time-frame as Apple was ditching MacOS 9.x and pushing everyone to OS X, so costs of buying new software were a non-issue. Either they had to buy new Mac OS X compatible versions of the programs they used, or they had to buy Windows versions. Sticking with Mac wasn't going to net a savings there.)

But normally, it's not even a case of a Mac being as "suitable" for the job, for big business. Every company I've worked for has software that simply doesn't exist in an OS X native version. (The steel fabricator I work for now, for example, uses several proprietary packages made just for the industry. There's absolutely *nothing* available for the Mac that performs these tasks ... such as "plate nesting", where you input a CAD drawing of a shape you want cut out of a flat piece of steel, and the software calculates the optimal pattern to cut as many of the objects as possible from the sheet with the least waste metal left behind.) So why would I spend more, up front, for a Mac that can't even run the software we require without buying a *second* OS license (Windows) and having to spend the I.T. staff's time installing it on said Mac (since Apple won't sell you a new Mac with Windows pre-installed on it)?


I'm being genuine here; can you explain some of these "old habbits"? In my opinion it's not about habbits, it's about functionality, managability and intergration (ignoring cost). OSX Server doesn't offer these at the same level as Microsoft. As a platform I'd say it's not to far off. There are mail apps and proxy apps etc, but they don't come together in the same way as exchange etc.

Not that any of this matters, when was the last time you flicked through a magazine and saw an apple advert pushing the Xserve as a solution for enterprise businesses?

MisterMe
Dec 7, 2009, 01:07 PM
... Our city's newspaper was once using pretty much all Macs. The writers and copy-editors loved them. But when the old systems aged and it was time to start swapping them all out and upgrade? They moved to the PC and Windows. The cost-savings simply trumped the other arguments for keeping the Mac. ...Do you know this for a fact or are you repeating what someone told you? The reason that so many businesses stick with Windows is that they have a prohibitive amount of their resources invested in Windows. A change would amount to a massive disruption even if they would eventually realize improvements. When a business's resources are invested heavily in Mac's and Mac software, the same considerations apply.

This sounds like decision made by upper management after entertaining a proposal from a vendor. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the newspaper bought much more from the vendor than would have been necessary if it had upgraded its Mac-based systems. I'd also bet that the newspaper requires more staff dedicated to its automated systems now than before. I would further bet that the writers and copy editors are not happy campers.

cwt1nospam
Dec 7, 2009, 01:53 PM
The reason that so many businesses stick with Windows is that they have a prohibitive amount of their resources invested in Windows. A change would amount to a massive disruption even if they would eventually realize improvements.
Don't fall for another IT propagated lie! As has been pointed out many times by people in IT as a justification for not switching to the Mac: most people are using email, web, and some sort of "office" suite. Switching these people over can be done on a case by case basis, and only as it comes time to replace their PC. The cost of switching is zero for them, and by the time you get around to the others, their specialized software can be Mac ready and/or they can virtualize. Any slight increase in costs would be more than offset by the Mac's much lower cost of ownership.

edesignuk
Dec 8, 2009, 03:37 AM
Don't fall for another IT propagated lie! As has been pointed out many times by people in IT as a justification for not switching to the Mac: most people are using email, web, and some sort of "office" suite. Switching these people over can be done on a case by case basis, and only as it comes time to replace their PC. The cost of switching is zero for them, and by the time you get around to the others, their specialized software can be Mac ready and/or they can virtualize. Any slight increase in costs would be more than offset by the Mac's much lower cost of ownership.I do enjoy reading you continuing talking out of your rear end. Can't be comfortable for you though. You should take a rest.

BongoBanger
Dec 8, 2009, 06:43 AM
I do enjoy reading you continuing talking out of your rear end. Can't be comfortable for you though. You should take a rest.

Still think he's not trolling? ;)

MisterMe is spot on here: entrenchment is a powerful thing.

cwt1nospam
Dec 8, 2009, 08:41 AM
I do enjoy reading you continuing talking out of your rear end. Can't be comfortable for you though. You should take a rest.
Well, with such an intelligent, thoughtful, and well laid out explanation of the error in my logic, I just don't know what to say! I guess I'll have to run right out and join the sheep who have stuck with the MS herd. After all, if IT tells me that's the system to use, it must be true.
:rolleyes:

Still think he's not trolling? ;)

MisterMe is spot on here: entrenchment is a powerful thing.

Have you even seen a Mac?

wrldwzrd89
Dec 8, 2009, 09:40 AM
I am not convinced that cwt1nospam is trolling. I think he raises some valid points.

BongoBanger
Dec 8, 2009, 10:48 AM
Have you even seen a Mac?

Aside from the ones I own and the ones I've used over the last twenty-six years or so (although they weren't all Macs given the timespan obviously), you mean?

Now a question, or rather questions, for you:

1) Do you have any experience of large scale desktop installations?
2) What cost/benefit criteria do you use for selection?*

I am not convinced that cwt1nospam is trolling. I think he raises some valid points.

I think he is precisely because he doesn't.

*Hint: Personal preference isn't one of them.

cwt1nospam
Dec 8, 2009, 01:34 PM
1) Do you have any experience of large scale desktop installations?
Yes.
2) What cost/benefit criteria do you use for selection?
I've seen IT departments grow as they replaced Macs. I've seen those very same departments twist numbers to make it look like they were saving the companies (plural) money. I've also seen them try to replace the Macs in graphics departments (again, plural) over the objections of those departments. Some of that was at a time when Windows was a shell running on a 16-bit (read 64 KB) operating system!

When you suggest that personal opinion isn't a valid criteria, I agree. The difference is that you blindly accept IT's word that they're objectively assessing what is best for the company, and I've seen many times that they're basing their decisions on what is best for them and their departments. You need to look much more critically at anything that comes out of IT. Remember that it is almost impossible for some one to see an alternative viewpoint if their job/income depends on them not seeing it.

BongoBanger
Dec 8, 2009, 03:08 PM
IYou need to look much more critically at anything that comes out of IT. Remember that it is almost impossible for some one to see an alternative viewpoint if their job/income depends on them not seeing it.

I do. I'm involved in the purchasing decisions for our company. As mentioned, we don't actually care what solution we use as long as it's economic and will - and have - axed staff as required if they don't fit the solution. The reasons you quote are horribly simplistic and, frankly, wrong - it has nothing to do with what the IT people want and everything to do with purchasing.

Firstly, let's explode a few myths: Any large scale installation, regardless of platform, has associated costs which increase as the platform becomes more complex. This isn't a function of OS, it's what you put on it. This is true of Windows, OS X and Linux as anyone who actually installs and runs these solutions will tell you.

Secondly, Apple's problem with industry is a perennial one - they are far more restrictive than other providers mainly because they hardware/software relationship is so inextricably tied. In addition they just don't support enterprise installations on the same scale that, say, HP or Dell do.

Thirdly, by far the most powerful factor in any cost/benefit comparison is entrenchment. Windows and OS X shops that have been that way for a long time are cheaper to maintain and replace with the same product because by the time it gets to, say, six years down the line the concessions to remain with the supplier are so good that it just isn't economic to move. Couple that with the fact that the software is so tied in with the solution in terms of compatibility and, especially if you use MS Office in the case of Windows, cost that again it's too expensive to move. There are a few exceptions here, of course, but they aren't the rule.

Now if you look at new installations then Windows is cheaper and, if you can live with the software compatibility issues, Linux is cheaper still. Again there are exceptions depending on what software you're using and what agreements you've negotiated.

The belief that IT determine purchasing strategy is a myth. It had some truth in the 90's when computing was very much a dark art but has absolutely no validity now when desktop solutions are seen merely as part of the overall infrastructure.

cwt1nospam
Dec 8, 2009, 03:49 PM
The belief that IT determine purchasing strategy is a myth. It had some truth in the 90's when computing was very much a dark art but has absolutely no validity now when desktop solutions are seen merely as part of the overall infrastructure.
Guess what they used to say in the 90's about the 80's? Exactly the same thing.
The fact is that everything you've said is a myth. Sorry, but I've seen these myths in action. I've seen IT charge back departments for "software" expenses (Antivirus) that resulted from the platform IT foisted on them, just so it would look like IT costs were lower. The old saying goes that figures lie and liars figure. IT does tons of figuring. You just aren't seeing it.

BongoBanger
Dec 9, 2009, 02:57 AM
Guess what they used to say in the 90's about the 80's? Exactly the same thing.
The fact is that everything you've said is a myth. Sorry, but I've seen these myths in action. I've seen IT charge back departments for "software" expenses (Antivirus) that resulted from the platform IT foisted on them, just so it would look like IT costs were lower. The old saying goes that figures lie and liars figure. IT does tons of figuring. You just aren't seeing it.

Oh right. I'll just discount the practical experience I've had over the last twelve years in favour of your conspiracy theories then.

Maybe not.

Incidentally, every large scale open platform runs AV regardless of OS. Also software charges - as well as depreciation charges on hardware - are often charged back to operational budgets. This is an accountancy provision and happens regardless of platform. If you actually had the slightest idea about your subject matter you would know that.

mbikeboy
Dec 9, 2009, 07:28 AM
Argh, all this nerd-talk is doing my head in!!!

Apple has always been about focussing on the average home user, and the high-end graphics professionals. They make no-nonsense axe-proof computers which do everything needed, easy to use and everything works seamlessly. 15yrs of having Macs, never once has one frozen up or given an error message, n that speaks volumes. The average person just wants to plug something in and it works, not have annoying pop-ups, have all the programs sync seamlessly, etc. Apple has long understood this, and have thankfully been building on that principle, and explains their surge in popularity over the past few years.

I couldn't give a toss what they can or can't do for the 'mega nerds', but for the average home user they absolutely whoop a Windoze unit hands-down. After being burned hard by Windoze-based laptops (well all 4 had terminal issues just outside warranty), I was understandably pissed and went back to Macs...best decision ever imo.

I'm in the throws of establishing a business and will be using a Mac...seeing the amount of 'downtime' with pc's and their unreliability has put me well off. :cool:

cwt1nospam
Dec 9, 2009, 09:20 AM
Oh right. I'll just discount the practical experience I've had over the last twelve years in favour of your conspiracy theories then.LOL! Your practical experience in purchasing??? You might as well be in HR!
Incidentally, every large scale open platform runs AV regardless of OS.Of course they do, because IT tells management — who generally take pride in their computer ignorance — that it is needed. It's just IT's way of covering IT's collective butts: pretend every OS needs it, when the truth is that Windows viruses only affect Windows, and AV software will not catch a brand new virus on any platform. Even if a Mac or Linux virus were unleashed, AV software would be useless until well after it was spotted in the wild.
Also software charges - as well as depreciation charges on hardware - are often charged back to operational budgets. This is an accountancy provision and happens regardless of platform. If you actually had the slightest idea about your subject matter you would know that.
Take a look around you. Most of business these days is full of fraud! From Enron/Arthur Anderson to Bernie Madoff and many, many others, there's huge amounts of fraud in business. Beyond the big, publicly known fraudsters, we have loads of smaller criminals in business who don't make the news. What IT does is criminal, but generally only against the other departments in a company, so it's not going to be investigated.

What you call an "accountancy provision" is really same kind of fraud that caused the current economic crisis, only on a much smaller scale. The fact that it happens all the time and is accepted "business practice" doesn't make it right.

BongoBanger
Dec 10, 2009, 06:25 AM
LOL! Your practical experience in purchasing??? You might as well be in HR!

Well, since HR is a completely different function, no.

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I don't think further discussion is going to be fruitful.

cwt1nospam
Dec 10, 2009, 08:59 AM
Well, since HR is a completely different function, no.
Ok, I'll spell it out for you:

The idea that purchasing experience gives you any more understanding of the hidden costs related to IT than some one in HR is ludicrous. Even an accountant would have a better understanding than some one purchasing or HR, because accountants know when they're making 2+2 add up to something other than 4. Admittedly, they do it so often (rampant corporate fraud) that they might not recognize it anymore, but at least they have a chance of seeing the forest through the trees.

Purchasing simply buys what it's told to buy, while buying the idea that the purchase/cost is legitimate.

VoR
Dec 10, 2009, 12:53 PM
There are so many areas of big business that are run incredibly badly. There often seems to be zero common sense applied, completely nonsensical spending that normal people working for or running small businesses would ever consider. There is noones money at stake and very often no reward or incentive for efficiency/change. Companies often love recessions as it's the only way to 'legitimately' get rid of dead weight from all departments. Really Random Rant.

Anyway, listening to you drone on with your silly IT claims is getting a bit boring now - The day you try and implement and work in an environment with a large roll out of machines is the day that you realise that 'apple is a joke in the business world'. Ignoring the obvious warranty and service issues, there's many huge technical hurdles in large mac installs. It's certainly not a simple case of 'cheap white boxes and expensive admin'.... Seen the amount that corporations spend on 'cheap machines through special contracts'? - Try reading through the osx server forum on this site for real world experiences from professional admins, Ignoring the completely infeasible costs that many companies running specific mission critical software (even if it's just an officer worker with outlook and lotus notes) would incur, there's all manner of serious issues involved with deploying anything other than small workgroups.

JoEw
Dec 10, 2009, 02:20 PM
Apple's Goal is not to make cheap desktop's and laptops to please large businesses. There goal is to make a quality computers for creative professionals and non professionals. Apple is not a joke, they simply are targeting different markets.

cwt1nospam
Dec 10, 2009, 07:29 PM
Try reading through the osx server forum on this site for real world experiences from professional admins...
No need. I fully accept that Apple doesn't take IT seriously, and therefore doesn't support them. I simply think that they have very good reasons for not doing so. It's those reasons that make IT/enterprise the joke, not Apple.

jsam
Dec 13, 2009, 04:59 AM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning

cwt1nospam
Dec 13, 2009, 08:23 AM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning
It's true that they don't necessarily equate to superior products, but in Apple's case they are superior. If Macs were not superior to PCs, they would not have significantly higher resale value. People are willing to pay more for used Macs because Macs remain more current far longer than PCs, don't have expensive virus problems, cost less to maintain, and are far less trouble to use.

The Mac OS has actually gotten faster over time, actually speeding up older hardware. That kind of quality is simply nonexistent in the PC world, where developers take the cues from Microsoft, a company that doesn't understand the difference between features (bloat) and benefits.

Of course, since the business world (IT) is the real joke with its low margins, cheap locked down innovation inhibiting plastic boxes, and whiny techs, it really doesn't matter what they think about Apple.

MikePA
Dec 13, 2009, 09:58 AM
...and it doesn't matter what you think about IT. Your anger and bitterness is clearly the result of not being able to succeed in IT when others failed to recognize your brilliance.

iaddict
Dec 13, 2009, 10:08 AM
My experience is this: I've had 4 mac desktop units plus my current iMac (which I absolutely am still in love with), powerbook, which I bought for my oldest son upon graduation from high school to take to college, and a macbook which was purchased for our younger son when he graduated high school to take to college. When our daughter graduated, she insisted that she NOT have a mac (windows was the only way for her???) Well, the powerbook is still running great (over 5 years - and was a refurb at time of purchase. I think it was about 8 months out at time of purchase) My daughter's (won't mention name brand PC laptop) has had several parts replaced long before the 1 year warranty was up and had to do MAJOR spyware and virus removal because the thing barely moved at a snail's pace. It was 2 weeks worth of work on the phone with manufacturer. Sure, I know there are programs out there but my daughter wasn't "informed" on how to use all that stuff, so the computer was full of that crap. Needless to say, the PC laptop started falling apart within 2 years and is in the junk pile. Powerbook was just replaced yesterday for my son as he's going to graduate school. His wife is thrilled that she now has his powerbook. Still runs great, and isn't some little snail running around either. Not sure if ANY PC laptop can work that length of time and still be worth having around. That's just my .02.

cwt1nospam
Dec 13, 2009, 10:38 AM
Your anger and bitterness is clearly the result of not being able to succeed in IT when others failed to recognize your brilliance.
You're confusing bitterness with disgust, as I've seen IT go from a profession requiring an education into something that high school drop outs choose to enter by registering at DeVry "university" or some other truck driving / computer training school for the GED set.

My anger comes from having found a way to work with computers outside of IT, only to have people assume that I'm part of that mess just because I write code. Even worse, I still have to deal with simpletons in IT who think they know something about computers because they've passed an A+ exam or some other Microsoft centric trivial pursuit type test.

VoR
Dec 13, 2009, 01:07 PM
Not sure if ANY PC laptop can work that length of time and still be worth having around. That's just my .02.

See the odd thinkpad t20 floating about businesses, an old p3 running xp - From my experience there's some far better built pc machines than apples offerings (especially in recent years) - my old thinkpad out lasted a panasonic tough book on site.

@cwt1nospam:
...

MikePA
Dec 13, 2009, 03:33 PM
...I've seen IT go from a profession requiring an education into something that high school drop outs choose to enter by registering at DeVry "university" or some other truck driving / computer training school for the GED set.

...only to have people assume that I'm part of that mess just because I write code.

...I still have to deal with simpletons in IT who think they know something about computers because they've passed an A+ exam or some other Microsoft centric trivial pursuit type test.
Oh no, you're not bitter, not at all. :rolleyes:

Everyone of your posts in this thread drips with bitterness. It's clear, your attitude is it's your way or the wrong way. The only thing worse than reading your uninformed diatribes (which I've now handled with the Ignore function) is being you. No one assumes you're "part of that mess". It's obvious to everyone the only mess you're part of is that of your own making.

rwilliams
Dec 13, 2009, 08:22 PM
You can keep your super secure windows muck. I use an unsanctioned MPB sitting next to my official PC, and citrix in when absolutely necessary.

LOL. I've been using my personal MacBook at work for the last couple of months because I just got tired of Windows XP, and some of our software hasn't been fully tested on Windows 7 yet. I use TeamViewer or Remote Desktop to connect to my work PC for applications that aren't available on the Mac.

labrats5
Dec 13, 2009, 08:48 PM
The reason why Apple fails at business is so obvious to me that it still surprises me to no end that very few people get it. In order to understand the reason why Apple fails in business you need to know what it is not:

Apple's failure has nothing to do with technology.

Not even a little. You may not believe me, but that is because you are wrong. The actual reason is this:

Apple's image and corporate policy mix with business like cereal and water.

To prove this, let's do a thought experiment. Let's have Apple and Microsoft switch corporate identities, but keep their product lineup the same. What is the hallmark of Microsofts approach to Tech? Well, they license out software. The advantages are a wider range of products and cheaper prices due to more hardware competition, and the disadvantages are less reliability due to rogue drivers and less accountability due to hardware and software coming from different companies.. Apple's philosophy is the opposite. Now, outside their respective cultures, which philosophy strikes us as more consumer and which one as more business? Clearly Microsoft is consumer: choice and low price matter more in the consumer space, while Apple is clearly corporate, since reliability and accountability are valued much higher. If nothing but the cultures were switched, Apple would be defended to death by suits while they laugh at Microsoft's clearly consumer grade product.

You may think aesthetics might have something to do with it, but no. Outside of their culture, Apple's aesthetic is clearly the more business-like of the two. instead of plastic they use metal to build their products, which is a material that reeks of class and industry. Their UI uses subtle slivers and greys, as oppose to Microsoft's cartoony blue and green.

You may think it is range of apps, but again, no. Businesses don't actually care about apps outside of a few core ones. Look at the blackberry if you want proof of that. All they need is high quality communication and productivity apps, which Apple has in abundance. In fact, outside of culture, Microsoft's app library could be seen as a problem in enterprise, since it is clearly a gaming platform, while apple's is not. That's what killed commodore in enterprise.

It's all culture. Nothing more nothing less. It is much harder to extend a consumer-like public appearance to make it friendly with corporate culture than it is to go the other way, because consumer culture is much more plastic. Corporate culture is rigid and stupid, and if you own a product that is blacklisted it feels like being in room full of racist highschoolers. I would wager to guess that the sheer patheticness of corporate culture is the main reason why apple has never really tried to extend their identity in the first place. The whole "not meeting business needs" is a joke of an excuse, since business need's are defined recursively as "what we are using now, but better and from the same sort of people". Their resistence to change has far more to do with identity crisis that tech crisis.

So in conclusion, Apple wont be making a real dent in business until suits start learning to mingle at the lunch table without insulting each others moma.

rwilliams
Dec 13, 2009, 09:02 PM
Just to lighten the mood a little....we should have created a drinking game where you have to take a shot everytime cwt1nospam uses the word "joke". How many posters would be left standing? :p

elvirav
Dec 13, 2009, 11:47 PM
Argh, all this nerd-talk is doing my head in!!!
Me too, me too! :D

Apple has always been about focussing on the average home user, and the high-end graphics professionals.
And the video professional, and music professional! I think Apple has a wonderful focus and target market, and I never got the impression that it was their greatest desire to infiltrate the big business market.

But that's already been said on this thread, like, a hundred times already . . . :rolleyes:

Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning

I always instantly ignore troll comments like this from PC fanboys. The minute anyone (be it a troll on a message board, or a commentary on some tech article) says something about Apple products just being shiny and "fashionable," that's when I tune out. They either are willfully ignorant, or just bitter over Apple's success. Film professionals don't get their jobs done on shiny hardware that has no substance, neither do graphics professionals. But whatever. The trolls and Windows fanboys will never stop trotting out this tired old chestnut.

tmofee
Dec 30, 2009, 06:34 AM
a lot of this talk goes right over my head, but i have done a lot of average, so so work in IT all over my old home town. believe what you want about apple/MS (i own both, imac brand spanking new :D) but the fact is in businesses, they all rely on PCs for work related stuff. i live in australia in a pretty decently populated city.

police - PC (with a strict take the PC, leave the HDD with us policy)
hospital - PC
schools - macs for the classrooms, PCs for the network

the only time i ever saw macs being used in work outfits are for design things, like sign writers, graphics people, the local newspaper. which is fair enough! of course macs are far better in that regard.

macbooklover19
Dec 30, 2009, 04:18 PM
PCs are more for main-stream users and corporations... macs are for people that work with much more then main-stream user applications, and also have greater taste in computers :)

linxaudio
Dec 30, 2009, 05:23 PM
Ahem!
May I just say...
15 damned years of pc headache, and now finally, I made the transition...to Mac.
My reason for doing so, apart from the headache, was for working with audio/video.
What is the relevance you may ask!
If I were a manager of a business and needed to use computers, after knowing the difference in quality and usability, the Mac would be my first choice, even though I know my initial outlay will be high. In the long run though, you save on the maintenance costs that you would probably have to shell out on a pc.
I've got to tell you man, since I bought me this iMac, I keep thinking of the first verse of Amazing Grace! lol :D
:apple:

Rampant.A.I.
Dec 31, 2009, 01:38 AM
Apple IS a joke to the business world because pretty, shiny things do not necessarily equate to high quality, superior functioning

The key phrase here being "not necessarily," when in Apple's case, it does equate to high quality and forward-thinking interface and design.

ABG
Dec 31, 2009, 05:28 AM
What?

MS Office and FileMaker Pro aren't used in the business world?

I use Office 2003 at work, Office 2007 at home and Office 2008 almost never.
2008 is such an annoyance I'd rather boot my iMac into XP to run 2003 rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do the stuff I do in seconds in 2003/07.

cmaier
Dec 31, 2009, 09:59 AM
I use Office 2003 at work, Office 2007 at home and Office 2008 almost never.
2008 is such an annoyance I'd rather boot my iMac into XP to run 2003 rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do the stuff I do in seconds in 2003/07.

On SL 2008 is finally tolerable. Now if they'd just make everything on the palettes also available from menus, add back VBA, and fix search crashes, I would have no complaints.

dnguyen
Jan 1, 2010, 01:41 PM
to me it seems apples main goal isn't to cater to the 'business' world as much as they like us to think