Can Apple Penetrate the Corporation? 500
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."
Paradigm-shift. (Score:1, Interesting)
Or the changes going to Linux.
I've always thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the network admins call (Score:2, Interesting)
But no one from mid or upper management will put his/her corporate future on the line for the Mac. The fact is, that the corporate higher crust is literally in love with Bill and Microsoft, the poster boy of the Wall Street crowd.
Besides, the corporate upper crust always goes for the safer bet. No one was fired for using Microsoft.
Apple isn't appealing to Corporations (Score:3, Interesting)
Until Apple offers a Mail/Calendaring system that's as functional as Exchange, I don't see Apple being adopted by corporations any time soon. Though perhaps the iPhone offers just enough functionality in a sexy enough package that the executives will be tripping over themselves to get the latest expensive status symbol.
It's already happening (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially at small companies. The company I work at was 100% Windows just 2 years ago. Now we are 90% Mac (only holdouts being our servers, and the dev machines that work on the servers). The impetus was security -- get everyone using Macs since they're safer for browsing/email -- but in the end, people just liked them better, and they require less maintenance. I know, because I'm the guy maintaining them.
A friend today (new Mac convert) was groaning about getting help from his office IT guy for his MacBook, on a printing issue, because that IT worker was openly hostile to Macs. Only months ago, that IT worker was laughing when he heard my friend was considering a Mac, don't get it, it's not compatible with our stuff, you won't be able to do what you need to on there, etc. I just received an email, literally 10 minutes ago -- this same IT guy heard about his printing issue today and WANTS to help. Why? Because more of his other customers are moving to Macs, and now that he's had to use them, he actually PREFERS THEM! He's thinking about getting one for himself!
The vista people are looking at is increasingly filled with Macs... the Wow starts now for sure, but perhaps it wasn't what Microsoft was expecting... as in Wow, there are a lot of Macs in this office.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yes and Maybe No (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'd like to see (Score:1, Interesting)
They can get into schools because they specifically work with schools to make it easy for them to buy and maintain Macs. When they do this for corporations, they will have a ready audience, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there are deals behind the scenes that prevent that. Remember that Microsoft once held a chunk of Apple, and there may well have been contractual elements to the divestiture of MS's stake.
Yes, already Considering this move! (Score:4, Interesting)
Many will say "Apple is more expensive". Totally not true. Based on educational pricing we have been comparing what we can get to get a 20" or 24" iMac with 2GB ram and 3-year APP etc. vs equivalent machines/warranty/features from Gateway and Dell and guess what, Apple is CHEAPER. The same holds true for laptops as well. We can't see any reason why not to move to a dual-boot or Parallels based platform (and no the new EULAs dont affect those of us using Vista enterprise - virtualization is allowed). Why not view a high-end Apple machine as your Vista upgrade path? We are seriously thinking of doing this as a method to not only get new machines that can run Vista well (have been running Vista on my Macbook Pro with full Aero support since last summer!), but also allows us to more easily support a mixed platform environment so whoever needs/wants to run Mac or Windows applications can. This helps us out tremendously with applications such as R-25 and Banner for compatibility issues we've had with our Mac users and lets everyone use Final Cut Pro to do their video editing etc for the departments that need it. I see this is as a win-win situation, so please enlighten me as to the downside i'm not seeing.
Also, we have an Apple-certified service center (as well as Gateway certified) so we do on-site hardware support already so the support isn't an issue in our organization.
happening (Score:0, Interesting)
Sure! I'm game. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Mac Pro is grossly overpowered for what we need, which makes it much too expensive for us to consider. The Mac Mini's laptop-class hard drive is probably too unreliable (and not user-serviceable enough) for our 5-year desktop replacement cycle. And while the iMac is about right in many ways, I already have LCDs throughout so buying an all-in-one makes no sense for us.
What I'd need to buy Macs for the office is a headless machine that delivers a single Core 2 Duo, a gig of RAM, integrated graphics, and a basic desktop-class SATA drive in a user-serviceable chassis for around $1100.
But Apple does not seem to be interested in the low-end desktop market, so it's back to Dell for me.
Re:I'd like to see (Score:4, Interesting)
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
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:At this hour, no. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes and Maybe No (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Paradigm-shift. (Score:3, Interesting)
- The mnemonics for the keyboard shortcuts make no sense.
- Layer styles are non-existent.
- Palettes get lost among the images because there's no "always-on-top" setting.
- The right mouse button pops up a menu bar instead of a reasonable context menu.
- Gimp insists on using its own private clipboard unless you beg it not to.
- It runs in X11, meaning the Command key is ignored, menus appear in the wrong place, and the file dialog boxes look nothing like Aqua dialogs.
It's worth putting up with the hassle of activation to get Photoshop because there's no reasonable alternative. The Gimp doesn't even come close. I wish it did, but I don't expect to catch up for years, at least.Re:I'd like to see (Score:3, Interesting)
By their own admission, the IT people lived in fear of people figuring out how to do things on their own and thus obviate the need for the IT guys to have a job. Also, it's much more lucrative salary-wise to get multiple MS certifications; although Apple also offers similar certificates, I guess it just doesn't hold up when you're talking about a platform widely regarded as usable by any idiot.
Want to make some money Apple?, listen up... (Score:3, Interesting)
* Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 Merom 2.0GHz Socket M Processor.
* Mobile Intel 945PM Express Chipset.
* Mini tower chassis (serviceable).
* MicroBTX logic board.
* 60GB 3.5" 7200-rpm SATA hard drive, 8 or 16MB cache.
* 2GB DDR2 SO-DIMM PC2-5300.
* PCI-Express 16x slot, with an Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT in it.
* PCI-Express 1x slots.
* Gigabit Ethernet.
* On-board sound.
* Combo Drive.
$999 per system (as spec'ed above).
Re:Nope - Companies/Groups Have Innate Cultures (Score:3, Interesting)
I again notice that for your server market example, you used Sun, the current loser (by a long shot) in the server market. Sun's market share is hovering ~10% compared to ~30% for HP & IBM.
I take your point that Apple's not trying to pursue the server market, but your assumption about Apple's motivations for doing so is absurd. Take a look at IBM's server revenue and compare it to Apple's entire revenue.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.