It makes business sense for HP to sell workstations, why not for Apple??

[Panther Al]

This. Every study I've seen and been a part of says Macs are cheaper.

Exactly. While the up front costs are a lot higher, it gets made up fast once the teething in period works past.

The biggest costs wasn't the hardware though: it was the consultants that we knew we would have to get to ensure that our legacy data from manufacturing, engineering, and sales was still available.

 

[derbothaus]

Dude, Apple has nothing even close to Microsoft's enterprise capabilities...

Did I say they did? I said they could do the things mentioned as example. You are having this argument with yourself as I never argued for Apple over anything. Just that they can hang client wise with a decent Win/ Linux server implementation.

 

[NewbieCanada]

Sure, you're stuck on MS technologies that aren't cross platform. Thus you will obviously be using a Windows machine.

Just like if you were using Xcode and WebObjects a Windows machine wouldn't be an option.

Doesn't have much to do with the current conversation about IT having to support Macs though.

It has a lot to do with it - those just happen to be the tools I work with, but the people in Accounting work with other Windows-only apps, the ones in Customer Service still others. The fact that most people in most companies are working with one or more Windows-only apps is a huge factor limiting corporate adoption.

So in our company the VPs and marketing people have Macs, and everyone else has PCs. The Mac penetration rate on people's home machines, however, is much higher.

 

[Luba]

Ok, but why can't Apple put together a robust services arm? Other posts talk about the lack of OS X engineers, but if the demand is there more engineers will learn OS X, give it some time. What's the next territory/market for Apple to conquer? Will Apple shy away from the enterprise because it's too difficult? They would only be fighting HP and Dell, hmmm well that shouldn't be taken lightly, but they do have the resources. Back in the 1980s, Apple saw themselves fighting against IBM for the enterprise office, and I believe only when they lost did they focus on consumers.

Back to Mac Pros, isn't more risky for Apple not to continue making them? The potential downside of not having Mac Pros seems enormous to me: Creative Content makers leave for Windows, causing a chain reaction down to iOS devices . . . no iOS apps etc. Maintaining the Mac Pro line, poor Apple will have to live with thin profit margins, small total profit as compared to iOS devices. Besides all that, Apple must know the consumer market is quite finicky, today the iPhone and iPad is hot. Who knows what the next coolest device is out there?

BTW, Apple bought Bump? Apple also bought Square??? Or are you saying that's what Apple should do is buy Bump and Square?

The only way to make real money selling workstations is to sell a lot of them. And even still, you're looking at paper thin margins and no growth potential, which HP makes up for with a robust services arm.

Apple's not about low margin, hard-scrabble sales. They're about creating new markets and new ideas and owning them for as long as they can, operating more like a drug company than a tech company. If they move deeper into the enterprise, it'll be due to opening some new niche, same as the Apple II did with Visicalc in the 70s and 80s. They might have started by buying up Square and Bump, integrating them with the pay-by-iphone system and packaging the unique business model of the Apple Store as a one stop wifi point-of-sale and inventory management appliance.

But there's no way they'd get a 30% margin on that. So why put people on the task?

 

[Luba]

A few posts have basically said Apple had their chance. Why didn't they take MS on? Weren't ready? Didn't feel they had enough resources to take on MS?

Well, now Apple does have the resources, but they don't make Xserves anymore? Is it too late for Apple?

I am not an IT person, but I thought most servers (80%) are run by Linux OS?? And desktop OS is mostly Windows (95%). If the above is somewhat true, then the other desktop OS is probably Mac OS X (5%). Thus, Linux OS runs the servers, and serves both Windows (95%) and Mac OS X (5%) desktops. So if servers can service both Windows and Macs, it doesn't matter what the desktop OS composition is, correct? Doesn't matter if it's 50% Windows, and 50% Mac, correct?

Edit: The really shameful thing about that is that if Apple wanted, they could have taken on Microsoft head to head. They basically could have said "Buy XServes to run your Windows domains and your email/calendar. We can do the same stuff, run your Windows machines, all for a flat price with unlimited clients." If they pushed that angle more, they could have gotten tons of traction even on all Windows networks.

 

[Knara]

I am not an IT person, but I thought most servers (80%) are run by Linux OS??

I'm pretty sure that is not true. The other stats are in the right ballpark, though.

There is a significant Linux presence in the server room, but I don't recall it being anywhere near 80%.

 

[Panther Al]

Pretty much its still a windows game in server rooms: Mainly because of inertia rather than any particular "better" OS being out there.

When IT departments are scrounging for every dollar, they will take what ever is cheapest and work rather than getting the perfect server/OS that might take more money/time more often than not. And if it is working, even if its an old POS box, with a POS OS, they will leave it be. Don't fix what aint broke mentality. Heck, I still have a newish machine running NT 4.0 - It does what I want, so why not, its paid for.

Of course, some departments do take the time and spend the money to get the right hardware. Depends on the size and funding of the company in question.

 

[theSeb]

Pretty much its still a windows game in server rooms: Mainly because of inertia rather than any particular "better" OS being out there.

When IT departments are scrounging for every dollar, they will take what ever is cheapest and work rather than getting the perfect server/OS that might take more money/time more often than not. And if it is working, even if its an old POS box, with a POS OS, they will leave it be. Don't fix what aint broke mentality. Heck, I still have a newish machine running NT 4.0 - It does what I want, so why not, its paid for.

Of course, some departments do take the time and spend the money to get the right hardware. Depends on the size and funding of the company in question.

No, it's not. Linux/unix runs on around 60% of the world's servers. Windows runs about 39%.

 

[G51989]

No, it's not. Linux/unix runs on around 60% of the world's servers. Windows runs about 39%.

Indeed, don't expect that number to change either, most large departments have stuck to a certain system because it works, and its cost effective. Most of the Linux/Unix based server OS's are awesome, Windows Server is also a great server OS.

 

[Knara]

Indeed, don't expect that number to change either, most large departments have stuck to a certain system because it works, and its cost effective. Most of the Linux/Unix based server OS's are awesome, Windows Server is also a great server OS.

One has to also consider that many of those "Linux/Unix" servers end up in clusters that never get anywhere near an end user.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I recently went to Sears to buy a new washer & dryer. The employee had an iPad for taking my purchase.

The idea is less time is spent waiting inline at the cash register for the customer. The majority of the sale is put into the iPad. The last part is done at the cash register to print out the receipt. Later on they will be getting credit card strips so they can swipe a credit card directly into the iPad.

So a lot of mass deployment of iPads can be done for many business chains.

 

[elvisizer]

i've worked on integrating and managing mac clients in the enterprise for over 10 years, and it doesn't have to suck.

first off, apple can be a difficult vendor to get support from. they're getting better, especially lately, but they definitely have had legit issues in this area. my current employer has an alliance level support contract, and i've been happy for the most part.

second, they make a decent active directory client (caveat- i'm only talking about 10.7.2 and .3 here. the apple AD plugin was straight up broken for many environments in 10.7 and .1) so account management is done for you already in most shops. osx boxes have their faults as AD clients still, even in 10.7.3, but i've seen more commitment from apple to fix the issues in the last year than i ever have before- 10.7.4 is evidence of this.

third, client configuration management through MCX is very nice on OS X. I like it better than group policy. many third party application settings can be managed using the same tools, too- office 2011, for instance.

fourth, MCX is morphing into mobileconfig profiles . . . .the very same mobileconfig profiles used to manage iOS devices in the enterprise. profile support was introduced as an addition to traditional MCX with lion and will be greatly expanded in mountain lion. this is a VERY good thing- OS X deployments will be easier to piggyback off of iOS infrastructure instead of requiring mac-specific servers and admins. plus you can still use your custom MCX commands in the new profiles, so its an easy transition.

fifth, JAMF and the casper suite. very, very nice imaging, inventory, remote control, MCX/profile delivery, software distribution, patch management, and self-service system for OS X and iOS that makes sccm look . . . unwieldy. the server runs on any platform that supports java, tomcat, and mysql. i run mine in a windows 2008r2 vm.

sixth, if you don't want to pay for a solution like casper or absolute manage, you can roll your own client management system using deploystudio, munki, puppet, etc . . . these are all examples of a small but active open source community creating osx enterprise tools that are very high quality. google has released many tools, cauliflower vest most recently, greg neagle/disney have improved on the apple SUS with reposado . . . there's a lot going on, and it's all great stuff. even adobe has good+free repackaging and deployment tools these days.

 

[goMac]

Ok, but why can't Apple put together a robust services arm? Other posts talk about the lack of OS X engineers, but if the demand is there more engineers will learn OS X, give it some time.

Sure. But senior engineers take 10 years to train.

So they're not going to be staffed any time soon.

Edit: That's not to say newcomers couldn't help, but remember who Apple is competing against. Microsoft's server engineers are extremely good, so are the engineers who work on Linux. The former OS X Server team were veterans as well. IMO, the rollback of features in OS X Server is due to no longer having the engineers to maintain the broader feature set.

 

[Luba]

I don't understand the services being listed off, but I take it that Apple is getting better in the enterprise/server environment from your 10 years of experience.


So if the consumer market is worth say, 100 billion, what is the enterprise market worth? 200 billion? Is the enterprise/server market worth twice as much as the consumer market? I have no idea, just want to get a feel of how big the enterprise world is? I suppose I should break it down to Enterprise in the USA, and enterprise in the Asia, etc. if we are comparing world consumer market to world enterprise market.


Tonight, I talked to a guy who worked at HP and he said no way Apple would enter the enterprise market because it was too entrenched. If Apple did, he thought they would be competent. But what surprised me is that he echoed the sentiment of other posters in this thread, I am concluding that he's almost saying that Apple is unwilling, maybe even afraid of a tough fight even though Apple could very well give the competition a run for its money. Apple would rather enter new markets and be pioneers of untested territory.

i've worked on integrating and managing mac clients in the enterprise for over 10 years, and it doesn't have to suck.

first off, apple can be a difficult vendor to get support from. they're getting better, especially lately, but they definitely have had legit issues in this area. my current employer has an alliance level support contract, and i've been happy for the most part.

second, they make a decent active directory client (caveat- i'm only talking about 10.7.2 and .3 here. the apple AD plugin was straight up broken for many environments in 10.7 and .1) so account management is done for you already in most shops. osx boxes have their faults as AD clients still, even in 10.7.3, but i've seen more commitment from apple to fix the issues in the last year than i ever have before- 10.7.4 is evidence of this.

third, client configuration management through MCX is very nice on OS X. I like it better than group policy. many third party application settings can be managed using the same tools, too- office 2011, for instance.

fourth, MCX is morphing into mobileconfig profiles . . . .the very same mobileconfig profiles used to manage iOS devices in the enterprise. profile support was introduced as an addition to traditional MCX with lion and will be greatly expanded in mountain lion. this is a VERY good thing- OS X deployments will be easier to piggyback off of iOS infrastructure instead of requiring mac-specific servers and admins. plus you can still use your custom MCX commands in the new profiles, so its an easy transition.

fifth, JAMF and the casper suite. very, very nice imaging, inventory, remote control, MCX/profile delivery, software distribution, patch management, and self-service system for OS X and iOS that makes sccm look . . . unwieldy. the server runs on any platform that supports java, tomcat, and mysql. i run mine in a windows 2008r2 vm.

sixth, if you don't want to pay for a solution like casper or absolute manage, you can roll your own client management system using deploystudio, munki, puppet, etc . . . these are all examples of a small but active open source community creating osx enterprise tools that are very high quality. google has released many tools, cauliflower vest most recently, greg neagle/disney have improved on the apple SUS with reposado . . . there's a lot going on, and it's all great stuff. even adobe has good+free repackaging and deployment tools these days.

----------

I did read about how Lion Server has less features than Snow Leopard Server. Actually, I went to a talk given by Apple about Snow Leopard Server. They were on a road tour explaining the virtues and try to sell SL Server. I guess after that road tour and the lack of response they got, they decided to back out of the enterprise server market. So Apple has plenty of resources (money) to enter the enterprise market, but not human resources.

Sure. But senior engineers take 10 years to train.

So they're not going to be staffed any time soon.

Edit: That's not to say newcomers couldn't help, but remember who Apple is competing against. Microsoft's server engineers are extremely good, so are the engineers who work on Linux. The former OS X Server team were veterans as well. IMO, the rollback of features in OS X Server is due to no longer having the engineers to maintain the broader feature set.

 

[goMac]

Tonight, I talked to a guy who worked at HP and he said no way Apple would enter the enterprise market because it was too entrenched. If Apple did, he thought they would be competent. But what surprised me is that he echoed the sentiment of other posters in this thread, I am concluding that he's almost saying that Apple is unwilling, maybe even afraid of a tough fight even though Apple could very well give the competition a run for its money. Apple would rather enter new markets and be pioneers of untested territory.

Honestly, competence was a big problem. Apple is very much on a consumer bug fix cycle, which is on a scale of months. When you have a bug in Mac OS X server that causes your entire XRAID to become corrupt within a few days, you don't have months to get that dealt with.

Sure, if they wanted to re-orient how they fixed bugs, that could be fixed. But at that point we're getting further away from reality.

Again, the XServe was a very trailblazing idea. A drop in server with headless setup that came with unlimited client server software that was darn cheap and could serve equally to Mac and Windows clients. To put that in perspective you can't even buy an unlimited client version of Windows Server. Unfortunately, for the reasons above, that dream died. It was really the first server that was more like a "server as an appliance."

I still miss XServes a lot, but I don't kid myself that Lion Server on those things would be a waste.

 

[derbothaus]

i've worked on integrating and managing mac clients in the enterprise for over 10 years, and it doesn't have to suck.

first off, apple can be a difficult vendor to get support from. they're getting better, especially lately, but they definitely have had legit issues in this area. my current employer has an alliance level support contract, and i've been happy for the most part.

second, they make a decent active directory client (caveat- i'm only talking about 10.7.2 and .3 here. the apple AD plugin was straight up broken for many environments in 10.7 and .1) so account management is done for you already in most shops. osx boxes have their faults as AD clients still, even in 10.7.3, but i've seen more commitment from apple to fix the issues in the last year than i ever have before- 10.7.4 is evidence of this.

third, client configuration management through MCX is very nice on OS X. I like it better than group policy. many third party application settings can be managed using the same tools, too- office 2011, for instance.

fourth, MCX is morphing into mobileconfig profiles . . . .the very same mobileconfig profiles used to manage iOS devices in the enterprise. profile support was introduced as an addition to traditional MCX with lion and will be greatly expanded in mountain lion. this is a VERY good thing- OS X deployments will be easier to piggyback off of iOS infrastructure instead of requiring mac-specific servers and admins. plus you can still use your custom MCX commands in the new profiles, so its an easy transition.

fifth, JAMF and the casper suite. very, very nice imaging, inventory, remote control, MCX/profile delivery, software distribution, patch management, and self-service system for OS X and iOS that makes sccm look . . . unwieldy. the server runs on any platform that supports java, tomcat, and mysql. i run mine in a windows 2008r2 vm.

sixth, if you don't want to pay for a solution like casper or absolute manage, you can roll your own client management system using deploystudio, munki, puppet, etc . . . these are all examples of a small but active open source community creating osx enterprise tools that are very high quality. google has released many tools, cauliflower vest most recently, greg neagle/disney have improved on the apple SUS with reposado . . . there's a lot going on, and it's all great stuff. even adobe has good+free repackaging and deployment tools these days.

Thanks dude. At least a few of us are here. This is my argument as well. If you don't suck it can work out great. Plenty of tools. I don;t have any problem with the mass notion that it can't be done. It keeps me employed

 

[elvisizer]

@ Luba:
'enterprise' doesn't have to mean 'server'. apple's basically finally admitted that they're NEVER going to be a player in enterprise servers, so they're concentrating their server offering on small business (Lion server's change of feature set and focus reflect this) and making OS X a better client for other vendor's enterprise server ecosystems, like Active Directory.

If you ask apple how to manage your fleet of macs without running an OS X back-end, they'll tell you to buy casper from JAMF and then bind the machines to AD.

----------

I don;t have any problem with the mass notion that it can't be done. It keeps me employed

I know! It's crazy how much demand there is out there for OS X admins that can work in the enterprise . . . I've increased my salary by nearly 50% in the last 6 months, and gotten some nice work from home perks . . . . all because there's a ton of companies in the bay area that want to let their employees use macs but they can't find people to manage the clients effectively, and I've been able to get them bidding against each other.

 

[blackhand1001]

Yeah, I see companies going for iPhones and iPads, which makes sense. They are very easy to use for most people, and well made.

But heres what you need to understand. What makes a Mac better than a Windows PC? Macs cost twice as much as their PC counterparts without being well lets be honest, any better. At least for productivity. ( Yes there are SOME departments where Macs do better, but those are few and far between )
Give me one reason why an IT department would spend 500-600 dollars on PCs, vs 1200-1500-2000 dollars on an iMac or 3K+ on a Mac pro that can't do anything the cheaper PCs can do? It just makes no sense to go to Mac in an Enterprise world, it offers zero advantages at twice the cost.

Apple is VERY capable company. However, until they make a focus into the Enterprise World, they won't compete. And thats why Microsoft kicks Apple's ass all over the Desktop world, and will keep doing so.

DISCLAIMER: I don't hate Apple, I have a Ton of Macs ( as well as PCs ) and I love mine. But they just aren't an Enterprise Computing company. I have a feeling they dont want the business.

And I think Apple could do GREAT in the Enterprise Market, they make a great machine, a great OS.

Problem: Zero support for large scale enterprise market, and they REFUSE to make a budget Model. If Apple made a 700-800 dollar All In One with slightly worse materials, supported the enterprise market, and put effort into it. Which they don't. THey could do great.

Screw the all in one, make a machine thats like 500-600 dollars thats a mid tower desktop. Enterprises don't want compromised form factors like an all in one or a mini computer. They just add unnecessary costs and reduce performance.

This would be perfect for a lot of users and it has the premium pro onsite support standard. It has 7200rpm drives unlike the mac mini and has a quad core and 4gb of ram. The mac mini has a low end dual core and 2gb of ram for the same price with no optical drive.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...us&l=en&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&model_id=vostro-260