I been thinking about something for quite a while and can't get it out of my head, so I thought I'd better ask you guys to see if anyone else can find a reason.
The question is: Why doesn't Apple and Linux team up to really get big scale enterprise sales going? Apple should handle the "business desktop" while Linux should handle the server side and user administration.
---
There's been two very interesting articles on Computerworld.com in the last few weeks about Apples bumby road into the enterprise world. The first's called: Can Macs conquer the enterprise? The time is ripe ...
Here are some interesting quotes from it:
"corporate interest in a broader role for Macs is up dramatically among IT executives"
"Service and support are another hurdle. "You're transferring to a platform from a vendor that's not committed to supporting large enterprise needs. From what we've seen, the tools available and the support [to enact that change] are not enterprise-class," Smulders says."
"There is an enterprise agreement where you pay $50,000 and you get stellar support, including a dedicated support guy [...] But that kind of money may not fit into the budget of companies with just a few dozen Macs in the marketing department"
"most large businesses will probably remain on the sidelines for the foreseeable future. "I don't think you'll see a significant penetration into the traditional enterprise until Apple makes the strategic decision to go after that," says Bajarin."
And then the second article about tools for administrators, especially accentuating LANDesk: Management tools: A missing piece of the Mac enterprise puzzle no more.
Here are some interesting quotes from it:
"Rowles said that LANDesk's cross-platform capabilities are its biggest selling point for him. "I'd say that 90% of the Windows features I need are available for the Mac," he added."
"Not everything that Rowles wants to see in LANDesk's Management Suite is there now. He said that the software has weaknesses when it comes to letting users directly set group policies into Microsoft Corp.'s Active Directory or the Mac's equivalent technology, which is called Open Directory."
"Gartner's Cosgrove said another feature that cross-platform management vendors have largely failed to port over to the Mac is a so-called targeted software distribution capability, which lets administrators deploy software to users and not simply to PCs."
---
Now this is all very interesting and though these articles just provide a small glimpse of the subject it does provide a interesting starting point for my question.
Macs are primarily intended for the end user, not the hardcore server administrator. Macs excel in being user friendly and looking smart/"sexy". The iPod/iPhone effect has really started a Mac craze, but of course I don't need to tell you guys that
Macs have huge software, hardware and driver support from allmost all major players out their. But though the CEO might be interested in having a good looking, easy-to-use machine on his desktop, the IT-administrators simply cannot manage huge companies full Mac users if the appropriate hardware and software isn't available in the server room.
With Linux it's just the opposite. I've worked with Linux for many years. I've tried every possible Linux desktop distribution out there, and though e.g. Ubuntu has become a really interesting player on the desktop market in the last years. But still you don't have to play around with it for long before you bump your head against the wall. If you want to set up special screenresolutions or add additional functionality to your mouse buttons you quickly find yourself in need of using the console. And using the console is just a killer for almost all ordinary computer users. Moreover, software and hardware support for the desktop is frightningly inadequte. You can run Microsoft Office through the WINE-emulator, but really... anyone who's tried it knows that at some point something doesn't work like it was supposed to. And for your hardware, like webcams, you need to use open source drivers that are both difficult to setup and configure correctly for the average user. But on the server side on the other hand... With server distros like Red Hat (that's where it really excels these days), oh boy, Linux is the king. Once you seen what Linux servers can do you'll be forever convinced of their value. Plus Linux server has the great advantage of being able to run on hardware from many different sources, not just one, and can't therefore to a much greater extent save the company money buy choosing other hardware suppliers if they are cheaper and better.
So what I see is a server company like Red Hat Linux, who lives to produce some of the world's leading server software. But it's not much fun being a server, if you have no one to serve. And I see Apple who primarily focuses on it's client machines and software. But a client is not worth much without the central control point which manages the internet acces, file sharing, e-mails, etc. Of course I'm aware that Apple creates both servers (Xserve) and server software (Mac OS X Server). This is fine for a small business and might be used as a gathering point for the different sections of a company. But to really handle massive loads of data from all the Xserves of a huge company, Linux would be perfect.
I e.g. Apple and Red Hat Linux join forces, they could create a perfect user administration tool, shouldn't be to hard since they both agree that UNIX and Open Source is a good thing. What might be the most important argument, as I see it, they have fairly little overlapping of interests. Red Hat Linux wants to focus on the servers, but needs clients to serve. Apple wants to focus on the end-user Macs and just want the underlying IT-infrastructure, to be there and work flawlessly.
Many people prefer Windows servers with Windows clients today, because they work so well together. You might say that the Windows server is 85% perfect and the Windows client software in 85% perfect. But for a server Linux is 100% perfect and for workstations Macs and Mac OS X is 100%
To me this seems like a win/win situation. So here's my question again: Why doesn't Apple and Linux team up to really get big scale enterprise sales going?
The question is: Why doesn't Apple and Linux team up to really get big scale enterprise sales going? Apple should handle the "business desktop" while Linux should handle the server side and user administration.
---
There's been two very interesting articles on Computerworld.com in the last few weeks about Apples bumby road into the enterprise world. The first's called: Can Macs conquer the enterprise? The time is ripe ...
Here are some interesting quotes from it:
"corporate interest in a broader role for Macs is up dramatically among IT executives"
"Service and support are another hurdle. "You're transferring to a platform from a vendor that's not committed to supporting large enterprise needs. From what we've seen, the tools available and the support [to enact that change] are not enterprise-class," Smulders says."
"There is an enterprise agreement where you pay $50,000 and you get stellar support, including a dedicated support guy [...] But that kind of money may not fit into the budget of companies with just a few dozen Macs in the marketing department"
"most large businesses will probably remain on the sidelines for the foreseeable future. "I don't think you'll see a significant penetration into the traditional enterprise until Apple makes the strategic decision to go after that," says Bajarin."
And then the second article about tools for administrators, especially accentuating LANDesk: Management tools: A missing piece of the Mac enterprise puzzle no more.
Here are some interesting quotes from it:
"Rowles said that LANDesk's cross-platform capabilities are its biggest selling point for him. "I'd say that 90% of the Windows features I need are available for the Mac," he added."
"Not everything that Rowles wants to see in LANDesk's Management Suite is there now. He said that the software has weaknesses when it comes to letting users directly set group policies into Microsoft Corp.'s Active Directory or the Mac's equivalent technology, which is called Open Directory."
"Gartner's Cosgrove said another feature that cross-platform management vendors have largely failed to port over to the Mac is a so-called targeted software distribution capability, which lets administrators deploy software to users and not simply to PCs."
---
Now this is all very interesting and though these articles just provide a small glimpse of the subject it does provide a interesting starting point for my question.
Macs are primarily intended for the end user, not the hardcore server administrator. Macs excel in being user friendly and looking smart/"sexy". The iPod/iPhone effect has really started a Mac craze, but of course I don't need to tell you guys that
Macs have huge software, hardware and driver support from allmost all major players out their. But though the CEO might be interested in having a good looking, easy-to-use machine on his desktop, the IT-administrators simply cannot manage huge companies full Mac users if the appropriate hardware and software isn't available in the server room. With Linux it's just the opposite. I've worked with Linux for many years. I've tried every possible Linux desktop distribution out there, and though e.g. Ubuntu has become a really interesting player on the desktop market in the last years. But still you don't have to play around with it for long before you bump your head against the wall. If you want to set up special screenresolutions or add additional functionality to your mouse buttons you quickly find yourself in need of using the console. And using the console is just a killer for almost all ordinary computer users. Moreover, software and hardware support for the desktop is frightningly inadequte. You can run Microsoft Office through the WINE-emulator, but really... anyone who's tried it knows that at some point something doesn't work like it was supposed to. And for your hardware, like webcams, you need to use open source drivers that are both difficult to setup and configure correctly for the average user. But on the server side on the other hand... With server distros like Red Hat (that's where it really excels these days), oh boy, Linux is the king. Once you seen what Linux servers can do you'll be forever convinced of their value. Plus Linux server has the great advantage of being able to run on hardware from many different sources, not just one, and can't therefore to a much greater extent save the company money buy choosing other hardware suppliers if they are cheaper and better.
So what I see is a server company like Red Hat Linux, who lives to produce some of the world's leading server software. But it's not much fun being a server, if you have no one to serve. And I see Apple who primarily focuses on it's client machines and software. But a client is not worth much without the central control point which manages the internet acces, file sharing, e-mails, etc. Of course I'm aware that Apple creates both servers (Xserve) and server software (Mac OS X Server). This is fine for a small business and might be used as a gathering point for the different sections of a company. But to really handle massive loads of data from all the Xserves of a huge company, Linux would be perfect.
I e.g. Apple and Red Hat Linux join forces, they could create a perfect user administration tool, shouldn't be to hard since they both agree that UNIX and Open Source is a good thing. What might be the most important argument, as I see it, they have fairly little overlapping of interests. Red Hat Linux wants to focus on the servers, but needs clients to serve. Apple wants to focus on the end-user Macs and just want the underlying IT-infrastructure, to be there and work flawlessly.
Many people prefer Windows servers with Windows clients today, because they work so well together. You might say that the Windows server is 85% perfect and the Windows client software in 85% perfect. But for a server Linux is 100% perfect and for workstations Macs and Mac OS X is 100%
To me this seems like a win/win situation. So here's my question again: Why doesn't Apple and Linux team up to really get big scale enterprise sales going?
