they want to buy the same computer you'd buy from apple.. just at a bulk rate..
Mostly. They may request a custom build (RAM size, storage size, maybe preload a specific software bundle), but overall, yes, it will be a real Mac, at Apple's usual level of quality, even if it's not a configuration you could order straight from Apple.
As a good example, my office buys a lot of Dell 1U rack systems. Although they are sold as servers, we are using them as testbeds for our software, not to run server software. (We selected them because the 1U form factor allows us to cram a lot of them into a small space.) As such, we have them shipped with a relatively small hard drive (320GB), a lot of RAM (64GB, since each one hosts 16 virtual machines), 10 Ethernet ports, and with nothing (not even the OS) preloaded on the hard drive (we install our own private build.) We had a few meetings with a Dell sales rep, discussed out needs, agreed on the system specs, and got a price.
If you try to go to Dell's web site, however, you can't order this configuration. They require you to get larger hard drives, you must have an OS (Windows or Linux) preloaded, along with a few other features we don't require.
So it wouldn't surprise me if IBM's IT people meet with Apple's people and discuss what can really be configured/installed (vs. what the web site lets you order). They will negotiate a configuration and pricing and will sign a contract. The systems they order will probably look like any other Mac from the outside, but they will probably have a private model number corresponding to the negotiated configuration.
Now that Microsoft is changing the user experience anyway, might as well retrain on something with known good features and benefits.
This is a major point for a lot of IT departments.
One of the reasons for sticking with Windows for all these years is that IT department and users want to stick with what they know. They don't want a system upgrade to involve a massive learning curve.
If Microsoft is changing Windows so much that sticking with them will involve a lot of reeducation, then their customers are no longer going to have that argument against switching to something else.
I am still waiting for the day that companies extend BYOD to the laptop. There really is no need for companies to invest in the laptops anymore than they need to invest in phones. Let employees bring there own and they will be happier.
So you say.
If I was to bring my laptop to work and attach it to the corporate LAN (or even just copy company documents to it), then it would have to be made to comply with our IT security policy. This would mean encrypting the hard drive, giving the IT department the recovery key for it, installing/configuring software auditing (with all logs being sent to the IT department on a schedule), mandating the corporate proxy server for all web traffic, configuring the firewall so there is no internet access other than through the corporate gateway (when directly connected) or through their VPN (when away from the corporate LAN.)
There are tons of things that they mandate for their own computers, which would be mandatory for any personal system allowed on the LAN. There is no way I would ever want to install that on my home computer.
I don't think it's reasonable for them to relax their security policies. I think it is completely correct that they issue me a computer to use for my job and that they assume all responsibility for it complying with their security policies.
This probably is the main argument. Quality will pay in the long run. I work with governance of IT and to me it's a mystery why large corporations mess around with Win clients when there are alternatives that are way more cost effective.
Well, one major cost of switching (from anything to anything else) is the cost of training users for the new platform. Until Microsoft started making radical changes to their UI, training costs for sticking with Windows were close to zero, while training to switch would be substantial. Today, the costs to upgrade to the new Windows is as high as the cost to switch to Mac OS X. And companies won't be able to just stick with Windows 7 forever, because MS will stop supporting it in a few years, just like they did with XP.
Additionally, there are often critical apps that the corporation relies on. They may not exist on the Mac platform, or the Mac version may be different enough that it is a problem. For instance, where I work, I need to run Microsoft Visio, which only exists for Windows. Many managers need MS Project, which is also Windows-only. Those who are using Macs must access these apps via virtual machines or by logging into a Citrix server, which is pretty inconvenient.
And then there is the fact that supporting two systems (any two) means additional support costs. Even if the cost of adding Mac support is low, it won't be zero. You'll need people trained in Mac support in your IT department, which is a cost that wouldn't exist if you were Windows-only.
In many cases, the advantages of using Macs outweighs these costs, but not always. Although I sometimes disagree with corporate IT decisions, I can usually understand the reasons they give.
I used to work for a very large media company. The whole company worked off crap Dell PCs. They were slow. Very slow. And very crap.
Then they decided a couple of years ago to ditch all the PCs and kit out the whole place with iMacs and MacBooks. And they're just a slow. And crap. (but they look nice)
If your IT department is going to specify hardware incapable of running the apps you need to get your work done, then the result will suck. PC vs. Mac really doesn't matter under such conditions.
The main problem is the way main RAM is soldered on more and more machines. My guess is that IBM - or any other company - would want increased RAM at a significant discount.
Soldered-down RAM is not a big deal as long as the corporate IT department specifies that the systems have enough installed to run the corporate-standard software suite, and to deal with growing requirements during the time it is in service (usually 3-5 years, depending on company policy.)
As for pricing, they're not going to quibble over the price of RAM upgrades. They're going to spec out an entire system in 2-3 configurations and get price quotes for the entire bundle. And when you're planning to order 150K+ systems every year, everything is negotiable.
IBM would likely not buy these direct from Apple. They would go through their contracted suppliers like all other equipment orders. For example they would buy through CDW.
Maybe, maybe not. When you're ordering custom configurations, there's really no purpose going through a middleman, who will just charge extra money to do nothing more than change the shipping label.
Where I work (not IBM, but another very big corporation,) we've got an elaborate purchasing system for office supplies and all kinds of other similar stuff, but for our PCs, they are ordered directly from HP (one of 6 specially negotiated configurations - 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models.)
... Supposedly, when Steve came back, some say Steve accused IBM that the IBM-Apple partnership was in fact a plan for IBM to destroy Apple from the beginning. ... Steve's comeback was first with the iMac to out fashion IBM. Then he wanted anything IBM out of the Mac. This lead to the Intel processor switch and the head spinning switch of OS X to the Intel instruction set.
Could you please cite a source (with a link, if possible) for this. I've never heard this story before, and I was watching the news very carefully while all these events were supposedly happening.
According to news reports and Apple statements at press events, they switched from PPC to x86 because IBM refused to develop higher performance PPC chips. They were focusing all their efforts on big iron processor subsystems (POWER5, POWER6, etc.) and would not develop smaller chips without being paid for all the R&D work. Sony paid that money and got the Cell processor (used in the PlayStation 3).
Apple didn't want to and started looking for another CPU supplier. When Jobs found out that some developers were working on a PC port of Mac OS X as a personal project, he decided to take the company in that direction, and switched over Mac hardware when the OS was stable enough to make it possible.
I'm sure Steve never liked IBM, but I really doubt the switch was due to a personal grudge. There were very strong technical and business reasons for switching, which would've been valid no matter who the personalities were.
I downloaded two apps from the App Store -- Good and Citrix. Both are self contained and cannot spy on anything else going on in my phone/iPad. If someone steals my device, my company can remotely wipe good without affecting my device. I can use apple' find my iPhone service to wipe my device as well - I actually did this once. Citirx does not require anything to be wiped or deleted only that my password be changed or deleted on the corporate server.
Citrix has been advertising this line for decades. Their products work well, up to a point. But there is a significant performance hit in running everything remotely over a VPN/remote-desktop link. You need a much more powerful computer and a very fast network connection (which may be hard to get when users are telecommuting) in order for performance to be acceptable.
That was on the consumer line of laptops not the T series.
You must be more trusting than me.
A Chinese corporation is caught red-handed installing spyware on thousands of consumer laptops, and you're willing to trust them when they say they're not doing it on the other products they ship?
