Can Apple Penetrate the Corporation?

coondoggie sends us a NetworkWorld story on the prospects for Apple gaining market share in the corporation. A number of factors are helping to catch the eye of those responsible for upgrading desktops and servers, the article claims: "Apple's shift to the Intel architecture; the inclusion of infrastructure and interoperability hooks, such as directory services, in the Mac OS X Server; dual-boot capabilities; clustering and storage technology; third-party virtualization software; and comparison shopping, which is being fostered by migration costs and hardware overhauls associated with Microsoft's Vista." On this last point, one network admin is quoted: "The changes in Vista are significant enough that we think we can absorb the change going to Macs just as easily as going to Vista."

why not?

Can Apple Penetrate the Corporation?

Why not? They're already penetrating consumers.

Re:Are you sure?

Fire this guy, before he talks to your boss. Jesus! I love Macs - but don't think for a minute that you can use them with smartcards and automatically deployed certificate infrastructures, or any form of distributed policy management, etc. Where is the corporate distribution of packaged software?

You might want to do your homework first... smartcards systems can be used on OS X, and "certificate infrastructures" Directory Services handles "distributed policy management", Apple Remote Desktop, ssh, NetBoot, can all be used with distribution of packaged software, what you have to remember is, some software doesn't like being distributed that way on Windows or Mac OS X (Adobe software is a good example of that).

Re:Are you sure?

For all of MAD's suckyness (Microsoft Active Directory ...MAD delivers functionality that OS X can't even dream of.

Example:
You can send your admin-monkey to the server, with a few manual procedure steps, ...from using a DOS command shell.

This configuration change will go out on the network with the next reboot. And poof! 500 nosy, troublesome Users are now a bit less able to shoot themselves in the foot, or work mischief on your systems.

First, I love the MAD acronym. :)

Secondly, here's a question for you: does OSX even require this functionality, or is it merely a consequence of the MS world-view that this functionality seems to be required?

Let's look at your example, and let me admit I've not used OSX in an enterprise setting, but I have used Solaris, HPUX, Linux, and AIX in enterprise settings and all are *nix variants like OSX. First, you have to image all your drives - that's standard across all systems. Next, you have central servers with user profile information on them on one variant or another (again, standard in this scenario). With the *nix variants, the user home directories can be NFS mounted, with every machine giving you the same view instantly, with the same performance as you'd experience on any other machine. Unless ADS has changed, I believe a new profile is downloaded/updated on every login/logoff, and is slower than molasses if your system is configured with or default/user stores large files on the desktop or in the profile. Also, should I want to change run perms, I change it on the server(s) and voila - INSTANT changes in what users can do - no logoff/login cycle required. Now, OSX being a *nix variant, can probably be setup exactly the same way (The only uncertainty remains because I haven't done it nor experienced it first hand).

Other examples: disable the IE address bar. (and prevent Trojans from hooking it). Disable the Tools menu so users can't mung with the security settings in IE. Disable control panels. Enforce a password-protected screen saver across the enterprise. Take the File-Open menu away from MS Excel. Whatever. I assure you, as draconian and capricious as these sound - some of them are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to operate computers in a secure environment.

These are all windows centric issues, however, given the above configuration with NFS mounts, applications can be controlled in exactly the same way. General users don't have access to system settings in network *nix environments without a super user password. Your strawmen don't exist in a standard *nix rollout.

...But the effort required to "roll your own" system to manage client configuration on this scale, with this ease of use, would be on a pretty much unimaginable level.

I'm afraid you're mistaken on that. See below:

I am an unashamed Mac fanboy. The bane of my life is when I have to go into work, and fix broken Domain Policies or MAD server. I have 4 Macs at home, and I try to manage them somewhat like an enterprise - and I'm telling you - the tools just are not there. There *is* a usable infrastructure, but you'd need to pump tens of thousands of man-hours from a very skilled scripting guru to pull off the equivalent thing on a Mac.

I think you'll find that with a half-way knowledgeable *nix system administrator that more than half your issues will go away, and a decent one will make 95% of your issues evaporate. You're still seeing the world through MS glasses. You expect systems to work like MS systems. MS systems are standalone systems that sort of communicate (badly) through networks, since networks were after thoughts. *nix systems were designed with networks (well, multiple terminals/multi-user systems which were much easier to convert to network centric systems) in mind and thus have a completely different view of networked systems.

I have actually used OSX OD

Man, organise a trial of OSX server with Open Directory before you start speaking your prejudices out loud. OD can do exactly that, since you can replicate a thusly configured configuration to all your users. OD is, on top of that, compatible with AD and NDS, and openLDAP, for that matter.

Re:You should keep looking...

Again, the cost is more for a card system, than a whole identity and policy management infrastructure on AD.

OTOH, the identity and policy management infrastructure on OS X comes gratis with the server OS. And the remote management and package distribution system costs a grand total of $500 for unlimited users. In my office the database needed to back the Windows remote/package management system cost more thatn 20 times that. There are no CALs for any services. I think this impact most corporate users a lot more than the cost of smartcard system.

Re:Are you sure?

My experience of .MIL is that, regarding cost control, they have a different reality than business.

What?

Yeah. The entire enterprise application base from Win32 to POSIX/Cocoa.

You don't need the entire application base of Win32, only the applications that you need. If the apps required for his company are available on OSX then, well, what's the problem.

Where is the corporate distribution of packaged software?

It's Unix, this's been trivial for decades. The hard part is the politics.

See, in the real world there's no such thing as perfect, it literally can't exist. There is only ever good enough and no two people stand at exactly the same point on the good enough continuum.

If you want badly managed client end-points, go ahead.

snort... Sorry, but Windows is the epitome... the very apotheosis of badly managed end points, even with all the bells and whistles of AD and SMS it's still ridiculously painful.

 

Re:What?

Ahem.

As a matter of fact there are fewer and fewer client side apps in an average corporation. Most IT departments do not have the competence and resources to support internal development. I no longer even get pissed off when I hear an IT boss wannabie speaking the "We are not software developers" mantra. In fact in many places, not using software "as shipped and specified by the vendor" has become a firing offence.

Most internal applications have long moved to various forms of portals/intranet servers which makes the end-client platform considerably less relevant. In fact moving from IE6 to IE7 and further to vista access controls have caused (and will cause) the same level of pain as moving to a different OS + browser.

As far as corporate readiness goes, Apple has everything it needs from a technological viewpoint to be ready. However, it is not currently showing the will and desire to go after that market. It does not have a corporation oriented sales channel. It does not have corporation oriented support channel either. Its entire model is geared towards end-users (alone or within an educational establishment).

Actually the situation is not entirely dissimilar from the early PC days.

In those days enterprises where terminal shops with terminals connected to a mainframe or minivax or a unix system. Few places were running Unix using early vintage X terminals. The PC went for the small business and personal market first and from there it displaces the terminals in the larger businesses.

Nowdays the situation is about the same. Microsoft has been paying too much attention to large business customers and ignoring the place it started - SMBs, small ISVs and personal use. At the same time most internal company applications are now server based and very few things run on the clients. This is roughly the position of mainframes of old and we very well know how they have been displaced by a product which was initially adopted by SMBs and for personal use.

So, Apple if they want to, can try to repeat the Microsoft of early days. Currently, they are not showing that they are willing to do so.

Re:Are you sure?

Ok ... first of all ... most enterprise applications are web based, have been for a while now, as for the rest, you're misinformed ...

Office ... available for Mac.
Smart Cards ... work as of Tiger
Certificates ... see Certificate Assistant added in Tiger

Distributed policy management ... it's UNIX underneath ... see NIS

Corporate distribution of packaged software ... see Software Update Server

Granted, most of this is newish since it was only added in 10.4 (04/2005) but it's all there.

Re:why not?

I am so glad this is Slashdot, you have no idea how pissed I was gonna be if the first comment on this page wasn't a penetration joke :-)

Re:why not?

But consumers don't wear chastity belts, are much looser and would easily accommodate an apple. Much harder to penetrate a corporation - have to try it with a thin client or something like that - an apple would just get crushed.

Re:why not?

Purposely missing the joke. The is a solid reason for Corporations not to use Macs. Sure right now they are the Hot Platform and arguably just as good if not better then most other Computer Platform of the same market, and the prices a competitive (Yes they are, I don't want to hear about some el-cheap-o Dell PC that just match one or 2 specs, If you match them up pound for pound spec for spec the prices are very close). But the issue is the same issue of why Microsoft got dominance early on. It is the fact that Apple primarily run OS X and OS X only runs on Apple. So in 2, 5, 10, 20 years when Apple Quality begins to drop and stink like it did in the early-mid 90's companies software are stuck with Apple. At least with Microsoft Windows if what ever PC brand they are using begins to loose it competitive edge they can switch quite easily. Just think about IBM when they sold their PC Unit to Lenovo. A lot of companies (especially government) when it came to upgrade their PC they just went with Dell, HP or whatever without much hassle, with little Major Software redesigns or intensive training classes. Now they may go with Macs but they will just put Windows only on them and not take advantage of Mac OS, which would be pointless because you have better selection with other PC distributers. Linux is getting better but still there is little effort in making a good Desktop Linux and the fact that MS Office has a huge dominance. For your own Personal PC go with a Mac it is great even if you use it for work. But for a wide scale company layout going with Apple would only be a short term gain with a huge long term risk.

I'd like to see

Some concrete numbers on admin costs between the two platforms. Whatever reasons you proscribe to the whole Windows vs Macs vs every electronic plague on the planet, I suspect there's some serious cost-benefits to making the switch at the corporate level.

If nothing else I'd love to see a larger market-share for Apple just to cut down on the number of spam-generating zombies out there.

Re:I'd like to see

They don't allow for corporate volume discounts

Yes they do. Ask any Apple sales rep about it.

-jcr

If you're going to get like that...

In Soviet Russia, BSD confirms it: Netcraft is dying.

Re:I'd like to see

The problem with Apple is that they do not consider the corporation to be a target audience. They don't allow for corporate volume discounts (that alone is a massive deal breaker, making them substantially more expensive than anything else); and they don't provide customer service packages that mid-to-large corporations expect.

This is not accruate. I am an Apple Authorized Business Agent, and Apple Enterprise sales group absolutely can and does offer corporate dicounts. Check your facts. Call Apple, ask for entrprise sales, and talk turkey. Evidently, you'll be surprised.

Re:I'd like to see

Similarly, I've worked as a software "consultant" developer at quite a number of companies over the years, and I've seen Macs everywhere. The pattern is interesting: Most of the non-IT management uses Macs, while the IT people have the usual ongoing war between the Microsoft and the linux (or Sun) fanboys. The attitude of the non-IT management folks is generally "Those IT geeks can keep their user-hostile PCs; we'll just stick with something that dummies like us can actually use without swearing and tearing our hair out twice a minute."

They approve purchases of Microsoft (and/or IBM) junk because they believe that the IT people will get all sulky and sabotage anything else foisted on them. They buy Macs out of their own department's budget. Either IT is willing to support Macs, or there's a separate Mac support group somewhere else. Not that the Macs (or linux or Sun) machines need much support, of course.

Now, this is just a string of personal anecdotes; I don't pretend to know what the rest of the world is doing. But I know of a number of companies where Apple can sell very easily, because the non-IT management already knows and loves them.

When someone asks "Can Apple penetrate the corporation?" they are really asking "Can Apple subvert IT departments' love of Microsoft and IBM?" This is going to be a much harder sell. The IT people who are amenable to weaning are also likely to know about Sun, Red Hat, and the others. So those are Apple's real competitors. If an IT department is Microsoft-only, chances are that nobody there will even listen to anyone trying to sell them something else, no matter how good it might be.

I got a Mac Powerbook a few years back, partly so that I could really learn what was so good (and bad ;-) about it. Now I can talk fairly knowledgably to the non-IT management types about the pros and cons of the topic. But I haven't found any way to talk to IT types about the topic at all. It's simply not open to discussion. Some of them already hate MS, but those already have a non-MS laptop of their own and don't need convincing. The rest aren't about to listen to someone like me.

I did have some fun a couple of years back, on a project where I'd been told that all the IT folks were dyed-in-the-wool IBM- and Microsoft-lover types. When I asked individuals, I actually found that almost all of them had linux on their home machine, and at least half had finagled a linux box at work, too. They worked on IBM/MS machines because that's what they were paid for, but they all wanted a good machine for their own use. Sometimes their work machine was dual-boot; sometimes they had two machines. And a few also had Macs.

The real problem is the intransigence of IT management, whose careers are married to IBM and/or Microsoft. In many corporations, everyone else is already convinced.

Of course, as a multi-computer sort of geek, I wouldn't have seen any corporation where everyone loves IBM and/or MS. I wouldn't even be invited inside the doors of such places. So take my comments with a big "FWIW".

Re:I'd like to see

"Can Apple subvert IT departments' love of Microsoft and IBM?"

I'm not sure it's even a love of Microsoft and IBM so much as a love of control and hostility to change, especially change not implemented by them.

I've seen a government office's IT department refuse to send a standard USB mouse to a team that needed one for a Mac they had purchased because "we don't know how to support a Mac." Even after the head of the team had calmly explained to them that all they need to know in this particular case is how to tell a USB connector from a PS/2 connector. I don't see anything there but the IT department trying to play power games - something that I see hints of every single time I go out to visit a client site.

Re:Indeed

It seems to me that if the IT department (Ok, the undergrad who has to act like an IT department) is leaving IE as the default browser on those machines, you're getting pretty much what you deserve. Get them to put Firefox on there and the general level of noise and hijacking will settle down quite a bit.

Or you can go Mac and it'll settle down to zero and stay there. :)

Re:Paradigm-shift.

There's no start menu, and this annoying blue apple up in the left corner.

Re:Ew.

Well, yes and no.

Steve Jobs spent a lot of time and money trying to get the fortune 500 to use NeXT computers, and I think he just doesn't care much about that market anymore. The Xserve and Xserve RAID are fine machines, and far less work to set up and operate than any other system I can name, but Apple's just not staffed to offer the kind of enterprise-level support that HP, and Sun are. I plan to use a lot of Xserves in my current venture, but I do so knowing that I'm going to have to provide the on-site rapid response service to our customers myself.

-jcr

Re:Ew.

You have some points but Xserves still aren't as capable as modern solutions from Sun, HP, and hell, even Dell. Think SAN management, it's not impossible but its quite a bit more difficult on the Mac side of the fence. Maybe in a few more years they'll gear it up but monitoring and management have always been the weak side for Apple as they generally prefer to give the power to the user. This is great for home users but very bad for corporate users.

The support you mention is probably the biggest stumbling block for Apple at the current time however.

Re:Ew.

Never having worked in a "Microsoft Shop," i wonder what kind of support the actual OS vendor really supplies. I mean, sure, they've got to have a really good online knowledge base, but do Windows admins really spend much, if any, time on the phone with Microsoft? As far as I know, companies just hire consultants to give them support when inhouse staff can't handle it.. even when using Windows. Why wouldn't your clients rely on your for on-site support if they went with Microsoft? Who else would they call?

I think it is about features and options. Xserves and XRAIDs are great and easy to manage because they're relatively simple. But because they are simple, they lack at lot of flexability and options that enterprise users need. I mean, seriously, there is basically just ONE external RAID option for Apple servers. There's hundreds for PCs/Windows. If Apple products just happen to fit what you want to do, great, but Windows will continue to be the default platform of choice just because there is so much choice out there. And it isn't just Microsoft. We're talking Dell, HP, IBM, etc.

-matthew

Re:I've always thought

Yes, but the challenge isn't so much the hardware, but the availability of applications that are actually used in corporations. I've tried using my Mac as a work computer, and I just couldn't do it, even with Virtual PC on it (not every application likes being virtualized).

Ironically, as a corporate desktop, Linux is probably better supported than OS X.

Re:I've always thought

The sad thing is Yes they do.
Often they use many client server/database programs written in shudder VisualBasic.
Often the company completely depends on them.
For example in my office we depend on Goldmine, USP Shipping software and a number of small programs what we developed in house using Java. We chose Java to make it easy to move to Linux or the Mac but we still depend on a few Windows programs for our day to day operation.

Yes and Maybe No

Yes I can see how switching to a Mac could absord the cost of Vista and it's hardware requirments but what about the cost of training a whole enterprise of users on MacOSX.

Re:Yes and Maybe No

The cost of training is crap. Stick any user on a Mac or Linux desktop that is setup well and there won't be much need for training.

The big cost is all the custom software that was written with an MS-Only IDE, to MS-Only API's and specs. That is the real killer.

I am a senior programmer with more than a decade of experience. During that time about 90% of my work has been MS-only stuff.

I have written C code for Win32
I have written C code for Solaris
I have written C code for Linux
I have written C++ code for Win32
I have written C++ code for Solaris
I have written C++ code for Linux
I have written Java code for Win32/Solaris/Linux
I have written VB code for Win32
I have written C# code for Win32


The funny thing, all the code I have written for non-MS OS'es has been pretty portable. The MS software, well, that has been MS-Only. MS designed their whole software "ecosystem" to lock you in.

So the real cost of switching from MS is not in training, but in re-writing custom apps. Notice I didn't say _porting_. Most MS-Only apps don't port very well. MS made it this way for a reason, to lock-in customers. The more MS software your company uses, the more locked-in you are.

Re:Yes and Maybe No

Vista is very foreign feeling compared to any windows release since Windows 95. OS X is not that hard to use. Most people can barely print documents and view websites. I think corporate users can be just as lost on OS X as they are in windows.

The real argument against a transition is software compatibility. However, its possible that even a vista deployment would require virtual pc + windows xp for some applications. Lets face it, many products just don't run on vista yet. Some will never be supported. I still know people using Lotus 123 in upper management in a hospital. IBM is not going to update smartsuite for vista compatibility. They claim it mostly works in 32 bit vista but not x64. This is one example. Since lotus is not available for the Mac, its an even transition. Of course the real problem is that corporate users think they need all the extra crap in office. There's always two or three people who just love access or infopath and can't get enough of it.

In the end, it all comes down to requirements. Its just as possible that Linux could "penetrate" the desktops.

This topic perenially arises

And people perenially point out the problems:

You can't get enterprise level support. I.e. next day overnight shipping for parts, 24-hour tech high-level support, etc. Getting a damn power supply should be easily done online a la the stuff Dell and HP offer. Speaking of that, it's also damn near impossible to get an online system apart from the basic Apple store.

No xMac. [arstechnica.com] The Mini helps in this regard, but Apple still doesn't offer a basic tower.

Exchange client/server. It's not good enough until it's perfect.

Uncertainty regarding OS X and hardware. The enterprise doesn't like not knowing what Steve Jobs is going to pull out of his hat in six weeks when you need new hardware today.

The first point is probably the most important, and the article doesn't really address how things have changed. Ever since 10.1 people have speculated Apple is finally pushing into the enterprise... maybe this time it will be. I'm skeptical given Apple's past intransigence. And I'm posting from a PowerBook.

Re:This topic perenially arises

You're missing some basic information here.
Apple does have an Enterprise sales division and they are quite different from the consumer division, you get dedicated Apple representatives for your account. Onsite service contracts are available for server systems. Apple has always had self-servicing programs for enterprises, although the investment in spares can be a bit high.

Another factor is your allegations that uncertainty over future products hampers enterprise planning. The switch to Intel changed this picture considerably. Apple's future products track rather closely to Intel's.

Re:This topic perenially arises

They do have an enterprise sales division that still doesn't do most of the things I'm describing and only *really* works well if you're deploying thousands of Macs at once. If you buy even a dozen a month, they're not much use.

I'm also not sure your generalizations fly. From the board I read -- Ars Technica's -- most people who *do* actually manage Macs in large environments haven't seen much Improvement. See, e.g., here [arstechnica.com] and here [arstechnica.com] and here [arstechnica.com] and here [arstechnica.com] for a variety of threads discussing the issue. Every time OS X.n+1 is about to arrive, so do threads wondering if this is the time for OS X in the enterprise. Look in particular for the posts of a guy named dhaveconfig, who manages a uni setup in Australia and is well-versed in Apple's various enterprise failings.

you get dedicated Apple representatives for your account. Onsite service contracts are available for server systems. Apple has always had self-servicing programs for enterprises, although the investment in spares can be a bit high.

This is true, but you STILL have to jump through Apple's hoops and you STILL don't get many of the things I cited in my original post. To be sure, Apple is looking better in the enterprise than they have in the past, but that's more an accident than anything else, and more a result of dividends from their other strategies. And "better" in this circumstance just means, "not as abysmal as they used to be," which is hardly an accolade.

Our Business

While our workstations are still Windows only, I've managed to make to make our office's server environment 100% OS X Server. Ironically, our MS Access database application is now served by a mySQL backend on an XServe.

However, corporations and businesses in general are prone to using a lot of custom-designed software built by Windows-only outfits. Until that changes, Apple will have a hard time penetrating the corporation.

Nope - Companies/Groups Have Innate Cultures

For Microsoft it is an inability to grasp and implement computer security concepts.

For Open Source it is an inability to make hard and reasonable choice in UI design.

For Apple, it is a complete lack of understanding of the corporate computing mindset. Also game development, but that's a whole other subject.

Re:Nope - Companies/Groups Have Innate Cultures

Understanding a customer and choosing to pursue that customer are two separate things. Apple's a Fortune-500 company themselves, and they use their own products not only on desktops, but in massive IT projects like the iTunes music store and the Apple Online Store. The fact of the matter is, Apple has to decide what to spend their time and money pursuing, and they can do a lot better selling iPods, iPhones, and iMacs than they can if they were to completely take over Sun's entire market.

-jcr