In theory, yes. But that is only relevant when Apple opens OS X for non-Apple hardware, meaning: Regular PCs, as in Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Asus, Acer or Lenovo.
You will have a hard time finding corporations or large organizations that willingly enter a hardware-vendor-lock, especially when that vendor is more expensive than the competition, does not sell low-end office machines, has the general policy of not providing product road maps, has no enterprise-level support services worth mentioning and worst of all is not even compatible with legacy (Windows-based) applications out of the box.
On top of that, OS X is lacking a large amount of enterprise-level features, from deployment over administration to backup.
I wasn't saying they were looking to conquer the corporation. Just support corporate users better. So this eliminates Exchange as a barrier to entry. Apologies for any confusion.
Some counterpoint as a lot of what you say as I feel OS 10 is a viable solution if admins are open to it. Im not bashing or fanboi-ing just trying as you stated to
Try selling that to an IT department of a large organization. Good luck, you'll need it.
The sell...
One big problem is companies are generally so heavily invested in Windows (from training to licenses) they can't break away from thinking of anything else as an option... from Windows to ASP.net.
re: roadmaps I don't see this as an issue. The Vista release debacle should prove my point. Just because MS says it'll be x, y, or z date doesn't mean it will. And Apple has been pretty spot on with hitting their committed marks in the previous releases.
re: Vendor lock. This is all corporations DO! Its how they get discounts. They only buy Dell, or HP, or... vendor x. Granted the OS in this case is Windows and will work with multiple vendors PCs (hopefully) but they are just as tied to one vendor because of the bean counters. Try buying from a non approved vendor!
If you're ordering feature for feature the Macs are comparable to PCs. Yes you can get a cheaper PC... but it will not be component for component the same. Apple does tend to favor more bleeding edge stuff and PCs generally make trade offs to get a lower price. I agree Apple is slightly higher (in most cases) but not by as much as you imply. You're talking more about the bottom end in my opinion. In other words, cheap, so in that case then yes look somewhere else besides Apple.
The legacy stuff... what couldn't you run in a VM? Most legacy stuff isn't supported out of the box on Windows without a crap ton of configuration anyway. I speak from experience. I say this is a wash with a 15 minute tip of the hat to the windows side because it is pre-installed. Addressing a problem of licenses... youre installing old software so youd already have the licenses, etc. One problem would be on the obsolete hardware side (i.e. hardware locks, ISA cards, etc)... but this same problem would exist on newer PCs too.
On top of that, OS X is lacking a large amount of enterprise-level features, from deployment over administration to backup.
I cant think of anything off hand that falls into this category. In fact I would argue with ssh you can do more on a Mac, and yes you can do remote deploys and administration on a Mac... not sure why youre saying you cant...
I think you underestimate OS X here and at the risk of making an incorrect assumption your background is probably heavy on the Windows side. Perhaps I'm wrong but your statement has a bit of Windows bias in it.
If your talking about imaging... its built into the OS... Backup and Restore of partitions in Disk Utility. And there are great third party tools for this too.
Other great tools that would be available to admins would be ssh access, Remote Desktop, Applescript, and Automator. Remote software updates are really easy. And you dont need Remote Desktop on Leopard or greater. (Screen Sharing) but if you had it nothing is off limits. So Im not sure how youd be worse off with OS 10. In fact I think youd have more options out of the box. Plus youd NEVER have to deal with the registry.
OS X was made for consumers, small sites and basically everything that has nothing to do with the enterprise. Its direct competition from Redmond was mainly made for exactly the other end of the spectrum: Large scale deployments in huge organizations. Places where nobody cares for design and beautiful user interfaces and where only enterprise-ready feature lists count.
You'll have more luck selling Linux in those places than OS X. For starters, Linux can be deployed on already existing hardware. And that closes the circle back to the statement that Apple needs to open OS X for third party hardware if they want to gain any significance in the enterprise market.
I think you mean OS X is marketed to consumers... and in that youd be right. But design wise (OS Level) its comparable to a Windows box but with a more consistent design which translates into better ease of use. There is a consistency throughout the OS thanks to the Carbon and Cocoa frameworks. Which ensure when you learn the basics of one program they translate easily to others.
Plus not to mention support time is significantly reduced on a OS 10 box. No viruses, spyware, and great sand boxing of users. Perhaps its a pipe dream of mine but why is this never factored into purchasing decisions... its a shame IMHO.
And as for enterprise users... in my experience enterprise users need Excel, Word, email, and an internet browser but claim they need more... and most of the other stuff they have to have they never use in their job functions and is wasted money for said company.
Plus if you take the Linux route you lose the Excel/Word edge (basing this on needing 100% compatibility) and that opens a world of options for native (disregarding Office:Mac) OS 10 with programs like Openoffice.org and NeoOffice which are free and save the company 400 bucks per license. Not surprisingly these are also available on Windows but yet companies still require official licenses of Office for their enterprise users. More waste. In addition, I think the learning curve of Linux for the end users is still too steep.
I think if you consider the entire cycle. From cost of hardware, software, training users, and supporting a machine. The argument can be made that a Mac is right there with Windows if not ahead.
