Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tim Cook Appears Onstage at Cisco Live to Debut New Enterprise Security Partnership

jzuena said:
You wouldn't want to work where I do then. When Sierra came out, we were given 90 days to upgrade. When Office patches come out, we usually get 1-2 weeks. With Windows 10, we were given longer, but we have to upgrade by the end of this year.

You wouldn't want to work for Cisco, either. Every one of their presenters is using a MBP. Hands-on labs are mostly using them as well, with a few labs using NUCs instead.
Click to expand...

I assume you run no bespoke software like large companies do? Just from a security stand point of view, you are crazy to upgrade to new software with unknown vulnerabilities vrs stable and patched. Same goes for apple software news versions are full of bugs, stick to the last version of the previous version until 3-4 updates into the new version.
[doublepost=1498537936][/doublepost]
Ileskovar said:
You are right, thay would be BS, but it is not the case. :)

"IBM expects to have more than 100,000 Macs in use by the end of this year, so that’s a pretty significant sample size. The company is rolling out 1,300 Macs a week, and only five IT administrators are supporting all of those computers."

And this was from last year, so if you multiply weeks with 1,300, it should be about at least 120,000 Macs by now, so I was wrong it is 2:1 probably so far, but in only 2 years from almost 0% to more than 30% is huge step. Plus that there is 81,000 iPhones and 48,000 iPads or 217,000 apple devices in total.

Many of my friends are working in corporate IT sector here in Croatia, and are scared of these numbers, support IT stuff reduction, when You present it to them..

http://www.macworld.com/article/3133544/hardware/how-switching-to-macs-is-paying-off-for-ibm.html

http://www.cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-macs-save-up-to-543-per-user.html
Click to expand...

What they worried about? From 2015 to 2017 took IBM 2 years to get 100 000 macs to 1/4 of its workforce......IBM cannot even roll out a product to its won company ....great PR spin.

One company has 1/4 of its employees on macs in a very very slow rollout.... your mates are safe . Next they will believe the iPad pros will replace thier jobs....nah more markerting BS :)
 
MH01 said:
I assume you run no bespoke software like large companies do? Just from a security stand point of view, you are crazy to upgrade to new software with unknown vulnerabilities vrs stable and patched. Same goes for apple software news versions are full of bugs, stick to the last version of the previous version until 3-4 updates into the new version.
[doublepost=1498537936][/doublepost]

What they worried about? From 2015 to 2017 took IBM 2 years to get 100 000 macs to 1/4 of its workforce......IBM cannot even roll out a product to its won company ....great PR spin.

One company has 1/4 of its employees on macs in a very very slow rollout.... your mates are safe . Next they will believe the iPad pros will replace thier jobs....nah more markerting BS :)
Click to expand...

You are kidding, right? :D
 
Ileskovar said:
You are obviously expert, maybe you can find job at IBM as consultant, and teach them that they are all wrong.. :)
check this in the meantime: http://www.computerworld.com/articl...-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html
Click to expand...

this si a bit misleading if you look into further details.

One of the change that IBM also made was switching to Citrix and centralized processing. This allows any workstations, including Mac's to be usable on an enterprise network without having to maintain / manage it yourself. You don't have to let them on an A.D if you don't want, or you can but use the AD to authenticat for citrix / remote app.

this will drop maintenance costs considerably as your not trying to enforce corporate security policies directly on the target OS, and works great for companies like IBM who have a very large part fo their work force who don't work from IBM offices.

However, in traditional Enterprise models, MacOS is damn near impossible to have to manage, especially if you're company is heavily reliant on GPO's and security policies due to client requirements and audits (FinTech for example).

It's not some one size fits all. IBM was able to find savings on their helpdesk because they rolled out expensive back office tools. Not something every small/medium or even large business is going to be able to afford all the time.
 
DevNull0 said:
Apple will never be more than a minor niche in enterprise
Click to expand...

Having 98% of the Fortune 500 use iOS is "niche" to you? :rolleyes:

IMG_0148.PNG
 
bdrolshagen said:
First, Tim flirts with IBM, now he want's to party with Cisco, and we all call this "security increase for the enterprise" (replace the term enterprise with the other term privacy at will). You really mean it? Ever heard about NSA? Do you really think the gorgeous Ad back in 84 was nothing else but marketing? I think I need another aluminum hat right now...
Click to expand...

Gorgeous ad shown at a biggest boot licking corporate event in the world, the superbowl, not entirely sincere and self-serving.... Probably.

Apple is all about personal privacy (people control as much privacy as they're ready to give), the issue right now is what happens to the Apple user's data once it has left its own sphere of influence. Apple is not going to control all the internet or enterprise infrastructure.

In that sphere, IBM and CISCO have a large sway and Apple needs to insure that their own user's good experience doesn't fall apart once they interact with the rest of the world.
 
... and for those of us who want to actually watch the video being described, instead of reading a load of MR waffle, here's the actual video - might have been a thought to include the video in your "article", MacRumors. Tim begins speaking @ 40:16
 
  • Like
Reactions: BorderingOn
Steve.P.JobsFan said:
Having 98% of the Fortune 500 use iOS is "niche" to you? :rolleyes:

View attachment 706016
Click to expand...

you miss understood that stat

98% of Fortune 500's have apple products in their environment.

NOT that Fortune 500's are using 98% of Apple products.

that 98% can be as simple as supporting iOS devices on OWA, all the way up to full enterprise integration.

stat's can be misleading, especially when used for marketing purposes.
 
Steve.P.JobsFan said:
Having 98% of the Fortune 500 use iOS is "niche" to you? :rolleyes:
View attachment 706016
Click to expand...

So 98% of the 500 largest companies in America make at least some minor use of iOS. What a shocking statistic. I'm honestly surprised it's not 100%. Which 10 Fortune 500 companies don't own a single iPhone?

On the other hand they could be used in 98% of Fortune 500s while having a 0% market penetration across those 500 companies (rounded to the nearest 0.1%). This isn't true, but it shows how meaningless that 98% figure is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordVic and MH01
I don't have a firm understanding of this, but I do have a gut feeling that this is one of those ideas that sounded fantastic to a bunch of clueless bean counting MBA's in a board room but in reality is a total mess.
 
LordVic said:
However, in traditional Enterprise models, MacOS is damn near impossible to have to manage, especially if you're company is heavily reliant on GPO's and security policies due to client requirements and audits (FinTech for example).
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what kinds of policies are missing in macOS?
 
chucker23n1 said:
Out of curiosity, what kinds of policies are missing in macOS?
Click to expand...

Via Windows GPO's you can really do a lot of client side lock-down and configurations.

Here's an example of something I was able to enforce using Windows Active Directory with multiple GPO's due to some client demands / multi-resident hosting solution.


- Each clients file remotely accessed via locked down share that is hidden an completely invisible / inaccessible to other clients / users
- Each client has their own share of working and temporary directories, that the users can not navigate to.
- The filesystem locked down for exclusive access to a single resource only.
- No filesystem navigation permitted (either locally or remotely)
- No start menu
- Automatically launches a single application, and blocks capability of launching any additional programs (either through windows or the application itself)
- Desktop is not-writable and must be blank
- Each client has it's own set of working directories for the Application. These cannot be shared, but must be dynamically allocated
- No access to any configuration items such as control panel or settings.
- cannot add/remove items from the taskbar (I ended up even using a GPO to hide the taskbar completely)
- users could only navigate to a single mapped drive, which automatically mapped to specific user folder for that specific client.
- all drives hidden in file explorer
- no search functionality from file explorer
- no file menu in file explorer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MH01
I know what GPOs are and I used them back in the early days of Windows 2000 — my question was, in particular, how these compare to Apple's offering.
 
chucker23n1 said:
I know what GPOs are and I used them back in the early days of Windows 2000 — my question was, in particular, how these compare to Apple's offering.
Click to expand...

Apple's offerings are non-existent.

There is no current Apple server platform for centralized control of resources or policy. Apple killed their enterprise grade hardware platforms in 2011.

My experience with MacOS server is a bit more limited, but I have not found an equal to windows GPO's in it. especially to the extent that windows can be limited/controlled
 
  • Like
Reactions: MH01
The kind of users who get Macs aren't the kind who get locked down systems. All of the engineers and scientists where I work get admin access to their machines (Windows or Mac). We have Carbon Black watching what we install, and unknown software needs to get whitelisted by security before it will run, but otherwise no restrictions.

The core supported software needs to be kept patched, and there are both Windows and Mac solutions for that. We don't use SCCM, so its third party for both Mac and PC anyway. And Security is very aggressive about patching if the patch has security fixes. Patch Tuesday items have until the next Friday, Office and Flash patches might get two weeks, and new macOS versions get a couple of months. Windows 10 got a longer deferral -- we have until the end of this year. All new systems are coming with it, but I run it in a VM so I'll have to do an upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back