In the hands of a time-motion engineer an iPad could make a dish washer more efficient. The correct application is there, but you need to hand the iPad to the right person.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
JPMorgan Embracing iPad as Research in Motion Faces Challenges
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the hands of a time-motion engineer an iPad could make a dish washer more efficient. The correct application is there, but you need to hand the iPad to the right person.
It's no accident that the IT managers once called themselves MIS managers until it became apparent that the title was way to self-revealing.
Management Information System(s) was way to self-revealing?
It wasn't always "free checking" you know. People used to pay about $7.50/month just for the privilege of using a checkbook. Maybe less, depending on the size of their accounts. But 'free' became the norm when one or two banks garnered masses of transferrees by offering 'free' checking accounts. We're simply on our way back to the old way of doing things--with new technology.
I do. Apple's computers have proven their reliability to the extent that the Customer Satisfaction ratings for product and services demonstrate 10% better reliability than the nearest competitor and as much as 30% more efficient in repairing whatever does break.
I must take issue with your above statements on several points.
You said, "I'm not saying that Apple Macs stink, but obviously after 5 years, there's a reason why our company has not adopted Macs." Let me give you the biggest reason: Macs threaten the IT kingdom. The Mac is too damned reliable in a network, and Apple's customer service is too damned good at keeping everything running. Suddenly the IT kingdom is down to a low-level manager and a few techs.
Now, I'm stretching it a bit, but I'm describing the fear in the hearts of the IT manager.
The same fear is at work when it comes to iPhones and iPads. These devices are just too powerful and threaten the kingdom builders long-term place in the corporate structure. So they throw up a wall of FUD about "security" until they can figure out a way to justify their relevance.
It's no accident that the IT managers once called themselves MIS managers until it became apparent that the title was way to self-revealing.
Hey...if Macs are so great (and have been so great for a very long time as folks claim) then why have they been at a 4-8% adoption level for the past 20+ years by consumers and at about a 1% adoption level for businesses for the past 20+ years?
Please don't throw up all the Kingdom and threat BS. Facts speak for themselves.
If a product is truly terrific, it would be adopted at a significant rate. And by terrific I do not mean only 1 aspect (say, appearance). Macs (and I mean decades of Mac products) are good computers from a technical point of view...they are expensive from a pricing point of view...some are quite sexy...and all Macs are 100% controlled from a hardware and OS perspective by Apple.
But again, the facts speak for themselves that they have not been adopted very highly both in the business world and consumer world. If there were reasons/methods that businesses could adopt and use Macs on a larger scale than 1%, it would have happened. Maybe it will someday. Currently I believe the Q3 2010 consumer marketshare of Mac was at 10%. It will need to get into the 20% and 30% range to be considered a major player/stakeholder in the consumer personal computer market. In fact, 20-30% of any marketshare is what is required by a productline to be considered a major player.
Bah. I just opened a State Farm account, and their app also lets you deposit checks through the iphone (the only thing I'll really miss about Chase), they only require a 100 dollar in the account (Chase wanted me to either keep 1500 in the account or have at least one direct deposit be *at least* 500 dollars), and they'll reimburse me for ATM fees long as there is a direct deposit of some sort (no problem, my work direct deposits my checks). So I'll have more ATM options than I would with Chase even (ATM fee from other bank, no problem, I'll be reimbursed for it).
US Bank also had a no fee checking account with no minimum (and even a promotion right now that if I took advantage would pay me 75 bux to open an account with them).
My Boeing Credit Union has no fees and gives me a good interest rate (the first 500 in my checking account gets the same interest rate as my savings account even. The rest gets a lower interest rate). Their biggest issue is they don't have many locations or good hours for depositing money (no problem, I can easily transfer between them and State Farm's account as needed with no charge).
There are options that don't charge (still). In fact, the few I looked at all had no charge options (I didn't have to go far to find alternatives to Chase). Chase though is really going the way of not wanting the little guy's business. Yeah, they're convenient since they have so many locations (mainly in this area cause they bought out Washington Mutual) but it's not worth 120 dollars a year and their stipulations not to get charged are ridiculous and obviously made to chase any small accounts away. When I went in to talk to them the lady next to me heard me and stood up and gleefully exclaimed, "I'm closing my account too!". And I do mean gleefully, you could tell she was a bit bitter.
Because, MS got the advantage of a larger market quicker and then there was no software made for Macs since there was not as big a market. And of course, who except those who really don't like Windows are going to buy a computer that they don't make software for? Which perpetuates the problem of not having a market because people go for the computer that has the market. I mean what good is a computer if you can't run the software you need to run with it?
What you seem to ignore is that the Mac's market share is growing at a rate of anywhere from 15% to 30% while all other brands are static at roughly a 5% growth rate. Ten years ago, Macs held roughly 4% of the US market and barely 1% of the global market and now Apple's computer sales (not counting iOS devices) are pushing 10% and 7% -- and this is just in new sales per quarter. The Mac's installed base is somewhere between 15% and 20%--a figure that is almost never measured by the analysts since they tend to follow sales figures more than useage.
Just for a moment let's set aside the technical aspects of the Mac vs PC argument as it relates to market share in business. One unchallenged, yet little discussed truth is Steve Jobs overwhelming hunger for high gross profits. He's gone on record years ago stating he'd happily give up market share for profit per unit.
Now that it's become a reality, Apple buyers are programmed to believe it's due to quality and superiority. A very significant and persuasive line of BS from the top. Yes Apple has excellent quality for the most part, and a very fine product I use myself. But it's not commensurate with product pricing. That said it really doesn't matter since he's got people believing the corporate spiel. It's now part of the public perception. Once that's done, reality no longer applies.
Now that it's become a reality, Apple buyers are programmed to believe it's due to quality and superiority. A very significant and persuasive line of BS from the top. Yes Apple has excellent quality for the most part, and a very fine product I use myself. But it's not commensurate with product pricing. That said it really doesn't matter since he's got people believing the corporate spiel. It's now part of the public perception. Once that's done, reality no longer applies.
There were a lot of factors at work to get us from the early '80s to today.
First, there was IBM. Microsoft was not a factor. The MIS managers knew IBM and preferred to do business with a know company. In fact they continued to buy IBM PCs for a while after better priced and higher spec products came to market.
Then it became acceptable to buy "IBM Compatible." You will notice that the MIS managers were more concerned that the PCs talked reliably with their "Big Iron" in the environmentally controlled back room.
Now, during this time, Apple and HP along with several others were offering PCs with their own OS and getting no where. Industry articles from that era often mentioned that the movement of data from inside the big iron to the desktop hard disk was empowering the end users too much.
By the time the PCs became dominate over dumb terminals on users desks, it was also apparent that PCs required a lot more futzing with to keep running on a network. The MIS manager had discovered gold!
By the early '90s Apple and other non-IBM compatibles had included the right hardware and software to co-exist on a network. Now the issues became one of being able to run IBM-compatible software, and training techs to service two or more kinds of computers.
White papers produced during this time showed that an all Mac or even a mixed network had a lower maintenance cost. In fact the papers showed that the maintenance costs of an all PC network was so high as to offset the higher purchase costs of the Macs.
Now, why do you suppose businesses did not change over to Macs at that time? Who, within a business would make such a proposal? Who had control of the data to present a plan for upgrading? Facts do not speak for themselves, it takes a voice within an organization to do that and the voice that should have been heard was not going to cut their own throats while doing so. Foot-dragging and FUD was predominate.
In recent years Apple has made incredible gains in capturing more of the PC desk top market, and may will go much further. But Apple's real growth is in the portable device market and that's where the most potential market growth exists as well.
Once again the IT managers trot out their favorite horse called "Security." Helen Keller had this to say about security: "Security is mostly a superstition."
We live in a world where a 22 year-old army private with a thumb drive was able to steal more information at one time then all of the Russian spies during decades of the cold war.
Security is more than a superstition, it's an illusion.
BINGO
That statement is very true on so many levels
IT is scared of Macs
Who decided what computers are used inside a company.IT, no one else in the company.
And what qualification do IT have,all Microsoft training,schooling,etc.
You think they are going to change it to all macs for all their clients and servers computer,they would be unqualified in their new job role and lose their jobs.
Also if you are running a real IT company,its not easy at all to switch to mac in a day.
You have to plan it out,change all the hardware and software inside the company,etc.Theses all huge risks.
I'm not ignoring it...I'm just not writing a book on this entire topic that is slowly going off topic.
But to your reply (and I like Macs)...when you have a world full of tens and/or hundreds of billions of Windows personal computers (and there are only 6 billion people worldwide) used both at home and in the business, growing at a rate of 30% is unimaginable to asking someone like Apple who has a few hundred THOUSAND to grow. It's simple math and statistics.
ALSO, I purposely ignored talking about how great a year (or 2) Apple is having with their Mac line. Big deal...2 great years out of 20. Call me when it's 10 great years like every other pc vendor out there. I'm not doubting Apple...I'm merely stating to call me in the future.
Lastly, as far as I recall Apple dropped the "computer" term from their name...I think Apple is in a big identity crisis...they drop "computer" from the name almost a decade ago so they can concentrate on mp3 players, phones, and other "consumer electronics" (like a Sony) and now their Macs are actually selling quite well (in Apple terms/history)...again, just like Sony with their electronics and also Vaio line.
I'm not knocking Apple or their last 4-5 years of accomplishments...I'm knocking the fanboys out there who claim that Apple has always been superior (and more blah blah blah nonfactual posts) yet have absolutely 0 facts to back it up. The proof is what the world "runs on"...and what the vast vast majority uses at home and in the business. Do you think Radio Shack still makes superior home cordless phones while Panasonic, Sony, and Uniden own the market? That's a pretty good comparison to what some folks are saying here about Apple Mac being "the best at everything" yet own 5-10% of the marketshare depending on what Quarter it is.
Last edited:
Hey, we can write novels all day long about theories. All I was saying is that there are reasons why Apple has sucked in the business world. You named 1 reason and I would still argue your reason is flawed...but again...too much off topic and I'm not about to sit here for hours writing my reply.
Other general factors why Apple (Mac) lost and continued to lose for 20+ YEARS:
-Macs were and still are expensive...period. Forget the shiny cases of today, the Quads and stuff of the '90s were just as beige and boxy as the PC. Similar specs/guts for 2-3x the price.
-Macs were and still are extremely tightly controlled by Apple...hardware, OS software, apps, etc. Look at the entire App store mentality of kissing Apple's foot to allow your app to be accepted into the Apple community.
-PCs were a 100% open model which was 100% opposite of Apple. Someone makes the hardware that is "compatible" to run MS Windows/DOS and poof! you're a PC vendor. Then you have all the hardware accessories, motherboards, chips, ram, etc. that fall into place. The "computer" is not owned by anyone. Dell (for example) makes the the box which has Intel and other parts which promises to run/support MS Windows while the box and OS also agree to support certain technologies like USB 2.0, PCMCIA, Parallel ports, whatever. Again, nobody is in 100% control of "the computer" like the Apple folks. This also makes the end computer cheaper as the main vendor (Dell in this example) simply assembles everything and can pick and choose from an endless list of compatible suppliers.
-Jobs getting canned
-Apple on the brink of closing it's doors (do you really think anyone would buy from a company who was ready to close its doors? Have you bought a GM car lately?)
-Due to the above and numerous other factors as well as the above snowball effect, there were/still are soooooo many more applications available on the PC then on the Mac. Period. Whether or not you or I use all 78 billion apps is irrelevant. The point is that they are out there....for SOMEONE to use. Those "someones" quickly add up and up and up (as well as my other points above) to eventually get you 95% market share.
Is my list complete? No. Much of your point dates back to the 70s and even 80s...when Apple and PC land were clearly head to head and sharp competitors. It's the later 80s till now that Apple completely lost out by bad decisions by Apple. It is widely known that Mr. Jobs and his controlling appetite doomed Apple because Jobs would never work well with other businesses. Software developers, hardware vendors, businesses who might buy Macs, etc. It was Jobs' way or the highway...and it still is today.
Will 2001-2011 be just another repeat of 1978-1989 and then the world collapses on Jobs? Who knows. I think Apple has a big identity crisis with the whole Mac line...they basically gave up on it, changed the company name, and now the Mac is selling well. I think Apple wants (or at least did want for a few years) to be Sony...dominate the consumer area with phones, mp3 players, whatever...and leave the actual computer division as a low priority but still a profit center.
Then you obviously don't work in IT. Repairing broken stuff is a minuscule part of my work day. And I have systems that are far better covered than what Apple's applecare gives you and are much more reliable.
Macs need to be managed, just like any other IT infrastructure.
Yeah, sure. Try writing a novel on it without an external keyboard. Heck, try taking MEETING MINUTES with the unusable on screen keyboard. Try ANYTHING that involves a lot of typing, like logging in remotely to your Cisco routers or Unix servers. Or just try using the damn thing in bright sunlight.
Thanks to a lack of Flash and Java, the iPad does not even give you a full web browsing experience -- and since many enterprise Intranets are very heavy on Java, iPad's Safari is just a toy browser that doesn't cut it for every day use.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
None of that means the ipad isn't a boost to your productivity. It just means an ipad can't replace a computer. Writing a novel (or any book), for example, involves much more than typing. There is a lot of brainstorming, organizing ideas, keeping notes, jotting down inspiration, library research, reading things on PDF, etc. All of that can make an ipad very useful.
Winni said:
None of that means the ipad isn't a boost to your productivity. It just means an ipad can't replace a computer. Writing a novel (or any book), for example, involves much more than typing. There is a lot of brainstorming, organizing ideas, keeping notes, jotting down inspiration, library research, reading things on PDF, etc. All of that can make an ipad very useful.
We are ? Why am I constantly badgering my acquisition department for Macs then ?
Hum... IT is much broader than Microsoft. I maintain and support exactly 0 Microsoft products.
Changing all my servers to Mac would be insane. For one, Apple doesn't offer the hardware grade I need, even the Xserve didn't fit the bill. 2nd, Mac OS X server, while nice, is lacking in many areas to replace my HP-UX/Linux/Solaris boxes.
3rd. I would be very qualified in a Mac shop, as much as what I am now. I wouldn't lose my job at all.
Did you say migration ? Why are you contradicting yourself here ? Is IT scared of Macs because they're afraid to lose their jobs or is it that IT doesn't want to have to migrate to Macs ? Because there's a lot of IT job security in a big information systems migration like a PC to Mac move would entail...
All the people discussing IT in this thread so far have shown they have no clue about IT.
The problem with your analysis is that you believe it's a line of BS and that it's the upper echelon that's driving it. I've never been a member of the upper echelon and have been using Apple computers pretty much since they started coming out pre-built, my first Apple II in 1979 and my first disk drive for that with a serial number of 00050. I used that same machine, upgrading it myself to IIe capability for over ten years, not replacing it until I had an absolute need for a specific key on the keyboard and no way to emulate it. I used a IIe itself for three years, and since then have used Macs--often along side of a Windows box--ever since. In every case my Macs have outlasted those Windows boxes in pure physical reliability, not even counting the arguable slowdowns that developed in Windows itself over time requiring either reinstalls (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers even recommended these at least twice a year for stability even in XP) or major cleaning efforts by people who had some idea of what they were doing (like most of us on these boards.)
My point is that the reliability and operational simplicity is real and the only way to get something similar from the Windows-box side is to spend about the same amount of money for a truly equivalent unit. You might get better 'specs' from a cheaper box, but can you be sure of the quality of the components, right down to the resistor/capacitor/solid-state level in one?
I have never worked for Apple, though I will acknowledge that I once worked for a company that manufactured their inductive devices used on the boards and cables. I know what kind of demands Apple made on their suppliers. I also know what has worked best for me for over 30 years, now. I'll use what I have to, but I personally prefer Apple's hardware and OS over anything else currently available.
Agreed, but I'm trying to correct perceptual errors as they occur in this discussion. Such as...I'm not ignoring it...I'm just not writing a book on this entire topic that is slowly going off topic.
Math and statistics that need accurate numbers to be valid. The real numbers are that there are roughly 1.3 Billion Windows-based computers actively operating in the world. While the total number built will be significantly higher, the vast majority of these are either now in landfills or have been recycled into other devices. Your car may even contain aluminum or steel or plastic recycled from an old PC.
You also appear to assume that the growth rate of Apple's computers has to somehow be concurrent with population growth or something similar. The simple fact is that as the world's computer market (meaning number of people buying at any one time) is growing, the average desktop/laptop computer market is only growing about 12%, with HP running just over 10%, Dell and most others at 5% or even in negative numbers and Apple driving the average at around 20% at the current time.
This isn't saying that Apple has 20% of the market, but rather that Apple is selling 20% more machines this year than last compared to HP and the others selling less than 10% more Windows machines over the same time period. Apple is only the third-largest manufacturer of computers by brand name, but Apple is also the only brand that uses OS X. Even if Apple were the top selling brand in the world, it would still own less than 50% of the computer market for operating systems, which is what most people compare by.
Actually, I was talking about the great decade Apple has been having, since sales of Apples computers have been growing every single year since Steve Jobs returned to the company. Again, growth does not equal market share, but over time growth does control market share. The future is already here, all you have to do is look in the right places. Maybe you should review the last ten years of Apple's annual stockholders meetings and tell me how many years went by where Apple sold fewer computers than the year before.
The facts are out there. If you choose to ignore them, that's your call. I've explained more than once how I know about Apple's hardware specifications, I've even challenged people to make a part-by-part comparison down to the individual resistors, capacitors and solid state devices to see how the other brands stack up to the 'nominal' values of those components. Considering that I've calibrated testing equipment for one of Apple's suppliers and I know that at least for a while Apple required 100% testing of any component shipped from our plant, I believe I have a leg to stand on when I discuss the quality and engineering of their products. Show me any other brand that has ever had that requirement on the components that go onto their circuit boards.
First off, your point about the late 80's is wrong not because Apple failed to do something, but rather because Microsoft succeeded through its relationship with IBM early on. With MSDos on IBM desktop computers, Microsoft got a foot in the door of the corporate market--something no other brand at the time could really manage. When Microsoft then licensed their OSes to anyone who wanted to build to that platform and IBM lost control of the Bios, you suddenly had a plethora of PC manufacturers drastically undercutting IBMs prices. At that point, the PC had already established a foothold and the companies saw an opportunity to save money expanding on it. Microsoft drove the PC market then, not any hardware manufacturer.
Steve Jobs saw what was happening and watched how the build quality of the hardware was falling and didn't want any of that. He managed to prevent the runaway 'cloning' business of Apple's machines and kept the quality up. He was fired from Apple because he argued with the then-CEO, who later stated that Jobs was right all along and that Apple's recovery proves it. Yes, it was Jobs' way or the highway, and his leadership is proving itself by making Apple America's single largest tech company by market cap (not share).
You're repeating yourself on the 'identity crisis' line. Apple has obviously never given up on the Mac, though in order to ensure the development of other products they've had to try and multitask to ensure compatibility. Even today most analysts agree that Apple's hardware is just about the best available, even proving superior to 'equivalent' PCs in running Windows. The reason for this is that Apple still believes in reducing risk when it comes to that hardware. They don't let just anybody shove parts into their boxes, they pick and choose among the best in order to offer a stable and reliable product--proven by customer satisfaction ratings and consumer protection agencies' ratings.
However, I might note that Apple seems to have a much bigger view of where technology is headed compared to most companies. With nearly everybody else, technology is stagnating, making only minor tweaks in performance or capability with almost no view of how all the technology can be integrated. Apple has been expanding its products to offer a completely integrated computing/entertainment package that's only barely begun.
And while you say the discussion has gone way off track from the gist of the article, the fact that JPMorgan and other corporations are bringing the iPad into the enterprise is proof that the enterprise is looking for alternate ways to do things. IT is currently the biggest drain on corporate budgets across the board; if they can find easier, less expensive ways to perform the same jobs, doesn't it make sense to adopt them?
I never said they didn't; management software is available even for mixed networks, capable of doing everything for OS X that you have for Windows. I'm close enough to the IT department of a very major business that I know what's going on there, though non-disclosure rules don't permit me to say who, what or where. However, this article proves that Apple isn't just for consumers any more.
It's no accident that the IT managers once called themselves MIS managers until it became apparent that the title was way to self-revealing.
Whoosh. [that's the sound of word-play flying over your head.]
But perhaps it was easily MIS understood.
