OS X Enterprise Edition

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by Foocha, Nov 26, 2001.

  1. Foocha macrumors 6502a

    Foocha

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #1
    In the UK right now, there's a big fuss going on about a deal struck between the National Health Service (the UK equivalent to Medicaid) and Microsoft. The UK government's purchasing department believes Microsoft are charging too much with their new licence agreements. Bill Gates has agreed to meet personally with the NHS top brass to close the deal!

    The problem is that the NHS has no viable alternative to Windows and Office. Linux is pretty unfriendly as a desktop operating system and the support costs would be much, much higher.

    Migrating to Mac is not an option for the NHS for two reasons:
    1. they would have to write off their investment in PC hardware
    2. they would be locked into Apple hardware - an even more costly monopoly than Microsoft, where Apple proudly boast about their 30% margins - not the kind of thing the NHS's procurement department likes to hear.

    Well this situation gets me thinking about OS X on Intel again. The reason Apple won't do this is because it will cannibalize their profitable hardware sales. Contracts like the NHS could be very lucrative for Apple, and it is possible for them to port OS X to Intel (they've probably already done so at Cupertino for kicks). Of course they can't offer OS X on Intel to everyone (their hardware sales would suffer), but why not develop it under a different brand like "OS X Enterprise Edition" bundle it with Apple Works and a few other bits and market it as a cost effective alternative to Windows for large corporate accounts. It protects your hardware investment, there are lower support costs than Linux, and there's plenty of software available. I wonder if Microsoft could be persuaded to compile Office v.X for Mac to Intel? Probably not I guess, but image how cool that would be.
     
  2. ryanweb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    #2
    Agree completely!
    I've read a lot about IT managers looking for alternative to Windows, but they all stuck with Wintel hardware, so the only option they have is Linux. No one will change 200-300 desktops and servers at once.

    I thinlk many companies will seriously consider OS X if it will run on Intel hardware.
     
  3. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #3
    ?

    do you think apple would actually do something that would make them serious money for a change?

    um...nah

    making money is for the pc companies

    we are starving artists and and its cool to think different
     
  4. al256 macrumors 6502a

    al256

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    #4
    I must agree this is a great idea. Apple does have Darwin for X86 computers, but it is always behind the PPC Darwin. Since Apple does have Darwin for X86 that's close to half the work, then you just bump up OS X server to be sizeable from a normal pc to a workstation to a server. While were at it IBM should make their PPC computers able to install the Mac OS. This would be more than a just a profit factor to Apple it would be a way to get respect from the PC industry.
     
  5. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #5
    I know this is MACrumors, but why does it have to be Apple? Where does it say that Microsoft is the only one who can make an OS for a PC?
    Why can't another company come in and build a better OS that would be compatible? The time is right.
     
  6. Foocha thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Foocha

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #6
    Apple is well positioned to do this because they already have a critical mass behind their OS.

    There are a number of barriers to entry for a new desktop OS player - as BE found to their cost. It's not enough to have a great product, you need to have a community of developers behind you and a critical mass of users. It also takes some time to develop a UI with the maturity to be ready for mainstream. Linux with Star Office is the only real alternative to Windows and Office on Intel right now, and it's still a little rough around the edges. Support costs for this set up are likely to be much higher (although I haven't seen any stats on this).
     

Share This Page