Corporate Mac Sales Surge 66% 494
syngularyx writes "Mac sales in the enterprise during Apple's last fiscal quarter grew a whopping 66 percent, significantly outpacing the rest of the PC market, which grew just 4.5 percent in the enterprise. The data from Apple's previous fiscal quarter was highlighted on Friday by analyst Charlie Wolf with Needham & Company. He said though he originally viewed success in the enterprise as a "one-quarter blip," it now appears to be a "durable platform" for Apple."
What makes this especially interesting is that Apple apparently isn't looking for corporate sales, and considers them "collateral success" rather than an indication that they should market specifically to corporate buyers.
Corporate sales? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:5, Funny)
No dummy.
Obviously the growth from 2 to 3 Macs would be an increase of 50%.
The only logical answer is Apple sold 5 Macs to business as opposed to 3 last quarter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. It's just a few more "freelancers", who hope you can do a couple of jobs off elance, and then get a sweet tax deduction for your "business" computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn beat me to this by a !nternet month (and hour)
Re: (Score:3)
We've got them at work. I think the main reason is that they run Unix. Having a hip cool laptop back when a lot of founding employees were younger was a bonus. Over time though a lot of drawbacks appear. They're expensive, they're expensive to support (seriously, IT can't even install new hard disks, and newer models don't even have replaceable batteries), they've had hardware problems, there are full disk encryption headaches, and the IT staff has fewer people who understand something other than window
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, its ironic - I'm currently sat in an office where all the computers (a dozen or so) are Macs - iMac 27" to be precise.
The irony is that they are all running Windows 7, not one is running OSX. Business owner bought them because they looked cool, but the business is a .Net software development house.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that they are all running Windows 7, not one is running OSX. Business owner bought them because they looked cool, but the business is a .Net software development house.
Apple doesn't mind. Do the developers mind?
Re: (Score:3)
Ive heard the sentiment "but the hardware is better". I usually explain that there isnt any fairy dust that they sprinkle on the Seagate drives (Dell uses Seagate as well), Foxconn motherboards (again, dell uses foxconn), Hynix RAM, nVidia Graphics, or Intel processor to make it more durable; so if theres any "durable" theyre paying for, its for a really really nice, $1500 case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since that hard drive is not a user serviceable part and never has been,
Redefining something as "not user serviceable" doesnt all of a sudden mean that Macs are better; I have yet to see a Mac that could not use a standard SATA drive. It sounds like this is not a case of "preventing damage" (when the hell have you seen harddrive damage due to heat? the processor is likely to overheat if the ambient temp is getting high enough for HD failure), but another attempt to limit user-serviced computers and to ensure that you have to pay for the upsell from Apple.
I seem to remember D
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the reason that they're doing it this way, according to most educated guesses, is that SMART status while standard is a little unreliable sometimes, and you really don't want to be polling it all the time, and in the prior iMac (2009-2010) they used a specific special cable that was different for each manufacturer's drive (and they use about 4 different makes in the iMac line - including Seagate - they don't claim to know more than them, they simply ask Seagate and others for a drive that has specifications they can use, in this case a custom firmware that makes the drive more useful to them).
What they then did was repurpose the LED access light connector, which they don't use (there's no external LED HD light on the iMac) and used the signals for temperature sensing. What this means is that they can simply use one connector (the same connector) regardless of what drive they install, streamlining inventory and assembly. Since it was never designed for user service, they didn't see it as a downside that it was a non-standard method.
Now, having personally upgraded the HD in my own 20" white Intel iMac, I wish they'd made it possible for me to do without jumping through hoops if I upgrade to one of these machines (my white iMac simply has a temperature sensor that attaches to the outside of the drive, so you just transfer it to the new one), but I'm sure it won't be long before some third party solution comes along to cure it. Apple's own documentation mentions shorting that line out if an SSD is installed in that bay instead of a spinning drive, for example, and I'm sure they are looking at what some third party shops are doing - they released firmware for the 2011 iMacs that enabled full 6GBs speed on 2 of the 3 SATA busses, for example, despite not shipping any BTO parts that could use it, ostensibly after OWC said "hey, it would be cool to put our SATA 3 SSDs in here!"
The iMac is a big laptop, essentially, so I expect it to come with various issues like this. It's no different from a custom logic board and PSU. It will be documented and worked out soon - likely using Apple's own documentation.
If they're so determined to force the upsell, you think they'd have stuck to having the CPU soldered onto the board though, eh? As it is now, this is one of the first times in the iMac they've gone for a socketed stock CPU. I'm not sure anyone has attempted to put in anything different, but no doubt it will be tried soon. The GPU is also on an external card that is clearly a board made by AMD. It's obviously custom and thus not upgradable easily, but the door does remain open for the possibility of changing it out in the future - even if it's only for one of the more powerful cards currently in the lineup (like the one in the top spec 27"),
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:4, Informative)
But you can upgrade the RAM aftermarket - easily in fact, and it's user serviceable. They take temperature data because the iMac is cooled by zones, rather than simply monitoring the CPU temperature. There are sensors all over it. Their old method (custom cable) required a separate part, as did the even older method (a physical temperature probe (the most user friendly method). This new method removes the need for both of those things, and you can bypass it by shorting the cable out, in the same manner to jumper settings, so presumably other in-zone sensors are fine, although an internal reading is obviously more accurate and allows finder control of the fans.
You are quick to mark it as an "anti consumer conspiracy" when the far more obvious choices are "it was designed that way because it worked for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's very, very hard to open - a consequence of it's size and appearance - so in order to dissuade people from opening it badly and breaking it, Apple have declared the disk non-user-serviceable..
If for some reason you need a Mac whose innards can be fiddled with, Apple are very happy to sell it to you a Mac Pro that is incredibly easy to open and swap out drives.
Re: (Score:3)
I hazard to guess for the same reason - they looked cool and matched their iphones....
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:5, Informative)
The 27" iMac is pretty hard to beat. Consider that a 27" IPS 2560x1440 screen is about $1000 to start with (hell, dell's more expensive than apple on this one), that gets you a small, quiet, mid range i5 system with a real graphics card for $700... It's not unbeatable, but it's a reasonable price.
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:4, Interesting)
The base config is pretty OK priced. There are some gotchas, though:
Yes, I sorta regret getting that iMac a few years ago.
Back on topic:
I see a good business model in becoming a certified Mac shop and offering corporate service deals (tech support + physical service). Slowly but surely, the walls are being torn down as applications are becoming web applications. HTML5 may make the OS completely irrelevant in a few year's time.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, most companies do this, when they buy something it has a planned lifetime. A desk might have a planned lifetime of ten years, a chair might be expected to last five years and a computer three years.
This also means that barring sudden economic hardships the company puts replacements into the budget even if the hardware in question is still in perfect working order.
It's kind of like how you don't see your local UPS man drive around in an ancient truck because "it's still working" (based on some ca
Re: (Score:3)
Because they are. Apple skimps on the specs to maintain an absurd profit margin. The "Apple premium" is sometimes lower than other times, typically because there's some gimmicky thing that Apple mass-manufactures that it's hard to get elsewhere (in the imac's case, the especially high resolution screen), but the f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Talk about wasting money."
If you spec out a similar HP or Dell (esp. at corporate pricing), you often pay around the same amount - sometimes more. Seriously, look around sometime and try it. A lot of it depends on where in Apple's refresh cycle you are when you make the purchase, and a lot of it depends on how close to the end of the fiscal quarter HP and Dell are, but generally the prices are close once you start matching spec for spec.
( While I'm pretty sure that some bargain hunter will come up with som
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:4)
Parent is generally right, subject to a few ifs and buts:
1. Comparison must be truly like-for-like. For instance, the iMac is an all-in-one machine with Bluetooth, integrated webcam and I believe an IPS panel. So if you're comparing something else to the iMac, it also should be all-in-one with Bluetooth, integrated webcam and an IPS panel. These things may not be important to you personally, and if that's the case then by all means don't include them in your feature list when you're going shopping. But you must account for them in any like-for-like comparison otherwise it's not like-for-like.
2. Design and build must be taken into account. All the major vendors have a product line where the laptops have an entirely plastic casing and ventilation in the bottom effectively preventing you from using them actually on your lap; these aren't in any way comparable to a machined lump of aluminium with the ventilation holes hidden in the screen hinge.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because, obviously, giving your employees something they'd find pleasant to look at is just unthinkable, right?
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
but generally the prices are close once you start matching spec for spec.
The thing is that isn't how one normally buys computers, normally one starts with a set of requirements and then looks for a computer to meet those specs.
And when looked at in this way for many sets of requirements the cheapest mac that meets them is a LOT more expensive than the cheapest PC that meets them.
Re: (Score:3)
You are absolutely right about this. It's trivial to find a cheap PC with the same basic specs as a Mac. When you set them side by side though it's like looking at a chevy cavalier with a v6 sitting next to a porsche 911. Yeah...they're both 6 cylinder cars.
Re:Corporate sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
...except both are still just going to the corner store.
Both adequately address the actual end user requirements. Both accomodate the use case.
You remember the end user, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a lot of businesses use Dells in their offices and Macs at their reception, for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
At one point a 27" IPS screen alone was about the same price or more than the 27" imac. If you wanted a screen of that size and quality it made complete sense to buy an imac and wasn't a waste of money at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The iMacs were bought because they are aesthetically pleasing,
Sounds like they didnt do much shopping. Dell and HP have several knockoffs, and if you go to Newegg theres an entire section dedicated to "All-in-one" PCs (read, iMac knockoffs).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Collateral success vs indication of support need (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Hope these businesses don't want actual enterprise support from Apple. Rude awakenings to ensue.
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:4, Insightful)
As if there were no rude awakenings to ensue when trying to get "enterprise support" from Dell, Microsoft, and Symantec.
Enterprise support is a joke. If you don't have an IT staff capable of supporting the hardware and software you're buying... you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. If your capable it staff figured out that something specific which is needed and should work really does not work and that it is a problem of the preinstalled software/hardware then it if a difference if you are put trough to the "did you check it is plugged in" customer phone support, which will file a case which will rot in the depths of their database unless 10000 other customers have the same problem, or if you actually have a support contract.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had no problems getting same day engineer callouts to replace parts in enterprise systems from Dell - the difference is, Dell offers enterprise orientated options, Apple does not. And the Dell systems weren't expensive in comparison either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, Apple does have enterprise support options: You just have to know where to look [apple.com] (and don't let the "server" page name fool you - OS support sits right at the top of the page).
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:4, Insightful)
That exactly shows what's wrong with Apple support: It doesn't support the laptops. If an IMac breaks, they'll come and fix it, if you have the right level of Apple Care. But for a Macbook (Pro), you can't get that level of service, you're expected to bring it to the shop. 90% of the Mac's where I work (including mine) are laptops. They are really nice machines. Until they break. (Which some will, if you have several hundred users).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:4, Insightful)
Never mind a corporation.
You can be a single person shop or even an individual and get better support options from Dell than what's available from Apple.
It's another one of those things where Apple simply doesn't bother to offer a product. You're expected to adapt to the way that Apple does thing and you are expected to like it and not complain.
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an example of the different levels of support that we got from Apple and from Dell when a machine failed in the university lab where I used to work:
Dell sent out a technician to fix it. He brought spare parts with him, and fixed it on the spot. We weren't paying for an expensive support contract - just the standard support Dell gives to large customers - so it sometimes took a day or two before they sent someone out. The machine was out of action for a day or two, and a technician had to spend about 10 minutes on the phone to get it repaired.
Apple kept us on hold or about half an hour, before telling us that we had to take the machine to the nearest Apple Authorised Reseller. The nearest one to Swansea was in Cardiff, which is about an hour and a half's drive away (city centre to city centre), plus a little walk at each end since you couldn't park near the shop in Cardiff. The would then send it to their repair centre, who would take up to three weeks to fix it. Once it was fixed, it had to be collected from there. Machine was out of action for three weeks, and it effectively took an entire day of technician time (two round trips to another city with the machine) to get it fixed.
Somewhat strangely, Mac owned by individuals bought through the Higher Education store got much better support. They sent out a box the next day, you put the broken machine in it, and a day or two later it returned working (normally - I had one experience where it took them a month to admit that they'd lost it, then two attempts to send me a working replacement). For some parts, they send the replacement out, and you put the old one in the box and send it back with the courier when it arrives.
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:5, Informative)
For what you pay Apple for a three year support contract which requires you to send the machine in or bring it in, you get onsite service for the same period from pretty much any other vendor. I live on a one-lane road in the back of beyond and HP sent a technician to work on my laptop even though I'm three hours away from the place from which they sent him. Of course, he did actually manage to break the laptop further, but Apple is capable of doing the same thing and I should probably thank him because I ended up getting a better one as a replacement.
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why this is such a big story. Apple made a jump like this while having sub-par service and expending absolutely ZERO effort at marketing to corporations. They even quit making the XServe and XServe RAID. So why the jump in sales?
Managers Had It at Home (Score:3)
So why the jump in sales?
I would presume for the same reason that businesses installed Windows servers in droves - the mid-level managers had the machines at home. They assumed that they could thus understand the servers themselves, because no dysfunctional middle manager can have his underlings knowing more than he does.
So, "I have a Mac at home, I should have one at the office. My underlings should have what I have (but with a smaller hard drive and LCD panel)".
Just a guess based on the last go-around.
Re:Managers Had It at Home (Score:4, Interesting)
Being an employee of a major corporation, I'd offer a different theory. I've watched us go from no-Macs to maybe 100 Macs in the past quarter. It has nothing to do "I have a Mac at home". It has everything to do with iOS development. iPhones and iPads are now supported devices in the enterprise. We can now receive our corporate email on iOS devices, where previously this was restricted to BlackBerry devices.
As a result, internal corporate applications are being developed in iOS. The iPad in particular is attractive as a business tool. Carrying one to a corporate meeting is as easy as carrying a notebook, and the company doesn't even have to pay for the hardware because many people already bring their own to work.
Since Apple has created a situation where you can only develop for iOS on OSX, voila, we have a large number of OSX machines by necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
Dell support has been okay. They will send a person out same day to replace most things.
Most support that we use is provided by a 3rd party contract now. If they end up supporting Macs too then it will not matter what type of machines we have.
Re: (Score:2)
4.5% of 100,000,000 is 45,000,000. 66% of 10,000,000 is 6,600,000. My PC numbers are obviously low and my mac numbers exaggerated, but you get the point.
Factor up or down as you like, but 66% growth in Macs just isn't the same.
If you read the article and look at the charts, you'll see they state only percentages and no actual raw numbers to evaluate on our own.
Re: (Score:2)
not necessarily (Score:3)
Mac's are fine for web development. Mac's are unwise for developing data processing software, which naturally run on Linux, or end user applications, which naturally run on Windows.
AddressBook, iCal, and iChat are all kinda light weight for business needs, but MS Office et al. exists for Mac OS X. Mac's are suboptimal though if you need more specialized business software than MS Office.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Mac specifically because it will run EVERYTHING. I run Windows 7 in a VM, and I could run it natively if I wished, and I can run Linux (or other *nix systems) in a VM.
I refuse to rely on Windows as my primary OS, and I don't want to rely on a "Hackintosh" system. I used to run Linux as my primary OS, but got tired of its limitations (primarily video and multimedia stuff). So, this is the most versatile and easiest to use system.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd argue differently:
Each platform has different strengths:
If I was sitting on 1000 computers and needed policies to make the legal eagles happy, with finance getting one set of rules, dev another, IT another, etc., I'd go Windows, because in this arena, it is the best for ease of managing on a large scale.
If I was going with a department that just needed office/clerical applications, I'd go Mac. On a small scale, it gives fewer headaches, and I can define policies (password changes, etc) in OpenDirectory
Incorrect (Score:3)
Mac's are fine for web development. Mac's are unwise for developing data processing software, which naturally run on Linux
To the contrary, the Mac is the nicest UNIX development platform I have used. Anything you can compile on Linux you can also run on the Mac, much of it comes shipped with the Mac already.
I wouldn't deploy a Mac as a server, but there are no issues using a Mac as a development system and then doing final production deployment in Linux. You get a lot of productivity gains as a developer.
Re:Collateral success vs indication of support nee (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I would bet heavily that the increase is tied strongly to one simple thing – everyone wants to develop an iOS app.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have points today. I would mod you up if I did. Unfortunately to make iOS apps you need a Mac to do development. So iOS Developers will get macs to do their work. iOS apps are popular so companies will buy Macs.
Mod parent up (Score:3)
Approaching 200 million iOS devices, I bet they have sold half a million macs to developers making programs for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's AD support is a finicky beast to be sure, but usually these issues come from either not having Sites and Services set up. Without that, you're talking to a domain controller on a congested line somewhere in West Nowhere, Oklahoma. Also, Apple doesn't yet support DCs that are read-only, and if you don't have top-level SRV records for your DCs, that can cause issues too.
Here's the example given to me regarding the SRV records, by an SE at Apple specializing in AD:
Say you have a DC in the FUJI site:
$
Bring-your-own platform (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an interesting change. At my former employer, they piloted a program to allow developers to develop on a Linux box rather than a Windows one, but it was not utilized by many and the desktop team found the support too painful for their taste.
Now looking at a different article from TFA: http://blogs.computerworld.com/18330/apples_mac_steals_windows_enterprise_sales [computerworld.com]
"What's driving the growth? Wolf writes, "Notwithstanding its premium prices compared with Windows PCs, the Mac should continue to grow faster than the PC market, propelled by the halo effects now emanating from the iPod, iPhone and iPad along with the international rollout of Apple Stores. The cost of ownership is emerging to be another key factor. Square Group chief, Darren King, notes, "Total cost of ownership (TCO) for a Mac vs a comparable Wintel device over 3-4 years is actually lower!" Think about that."
"Eight out of 10 organizations said they are "more likely to allow more users to deploy Macs as their enterprise desktops" in 2010-2011, up from 68 percent in the 2009 survey," the researchers said."
It's interesting that the coming decade might herald, rather than the switch we might have anticipated to Linux desktops (following the Year of Linux on the Desktop of course), a switch to desktop autonomy and self-governance at work.
Re: (Score:3)
"Total cost of ownership (TCO) for a Mac vs a comparable Wintel device over 3-4 years is actually lower!" Think about that."
I'm sure this varies drastically based on company size and requirements of the employees. If you were going high-end anyway, then the capital outlay difference is far lower. If the users are virus-magnets, then even expensive hardware may pay for itself in short order.
But for a big company with many lower-end users and the virus situation under control, it's hard for me to understand how TCO could be lower - though 3-4 years is a long time to make up a few hundred bucks.
But yeah, if I were setting up a bunc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'd rather have a virus than Symantec!
Re: (Score:2)
"Total cost of ownership (TCO) for a Mac vs a comparable Wintel device over 3-4 years is actually lower!" Think about that."
That's just an Apple variant of the usual Microsoft marketing drivel against Linux... None of it is based on facts of any kind. My bullshit filter also goes off when anyone says "think about that" after producing some very vague and unsubstantiated numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
Could be.
I was just pondering, however - not being a developer any longer, I don't see why I couldn't be as productive with an OSX desktop. The enterprise stuff I administer comes mainly through Citrix. We've recently switched to a remote-desktop substitute that is kicked off from a browser as well.
I don't see what, for me, would count as "advantages", but I don't see any costs, per se.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I work in IT at a large private university. The official gospel is that 'we are a WinDell campus', but the students all buy Macs, and my group actually all use Macs for most tasks, except where there's some stupid reason we have to use Windows. So IT here have slowly moved toward full Mac support, and it'll happen elsewhere, as the pressure to support them increases. Think about shops in the early 90's that were all Sun or SGI, and as the cost and convenience factors ushered in the great tragedy of 'Windows
Re: (Score:3)
The one where the firewall is turned off by default with no GUI
Because there are no open ports to start with...
or the nvram setup password that is trivial to reset
Here's a thought - perhaps your company should invest in locks on doors to prevent physical access to systems.
allowing anyone to muck about in the HDD with a boot CD
Which a user would have to know to hold down "C" to boot from since there is no auto-boot or auto-run from media unless your main HD is toast...
Or maybe it's the way Apple doesn't fix
Not a Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Ain't That A Shame (Score:3)
To borrow a line from Fats Domino, ain't that a shame that /.ers can't find anything better to do than slam Apple's success. Not too long ago, Apple was as doomed as BSD.
Apple Enterprise does exist. It's much smaller than Apple Education, but it's not exactly tiny. Sure, the territories are quite vast, but it appears they're covering it very well. Between channel sales and direct, the numbers being put down by Apple are quite impressive. I'd guess the majority of the bump here is from the channel. That part of the organization is well funded and extremely well supported. The management there is strong and willing to do what it takes. The direct sales organization is newly reorganized as of about a year ago. It appears that reorganization is doing well under the new leadership, and they have been aligned under the VP for channel sales. This was obviously a good move for Apple.
As for Enterprise Support, it also exists. I don't know a lot about the structure of it, but I do know whenever I called for support, it was very good. I've had changes made to software, replacement hardware, and always a friendly and knowledgeable person on the phone instead of just a screen reader. Apple's support is impressive. You have to pay for it, but most good things are that way.
Re: (Score:3)
To borrow a line from Fats Domino, ain't that a shame that /.ers can't find anything better to do than slam Apple's success. Not too long ago, Apple was as doomed as BSD.
Some of us were happy about that, too. I was a Mac user when they promised us Copland. I was using BeOS when they suggested they would use that. And now we (well, you) are stuck with a bastardized, bloated version of NeXTStep which ruined everything good about its interface.
Re: (Score:3)
And now we (well, you) are stuck with a bastardized, bloated version of NeXTStep which ruined everything good about its interface.
Probably written using Windows. The interface for NeXTStep was/is not that great. It might have been great at the time, but comparing it to OSX of today is stupid. To use a car analogy, that is like comparing a car engine from the 1960's to today. The advances outweigh the simplicity. The "in my day everything was better" is the war cry of those who can't or won't adapt. I am so sick of that argument. If your PREFERENCE is to use an interface that looks like 1997, then by all means you still can use GNUste
collateral (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So Mr. Jobs, do you plan on replacing it with a rack mountable mini with redundant power supplies or can I slap a sticker on my poweredge and call it a mac? The alternative is the fancy imacs everyone loves get tossed to ebay come the next refresh cycle, and I'm not the only one with a headache from this [appleopenletter.org].
I don't think y'all understand that Steve don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Amen to that. I don't have experience with AD integration but even with an all-Mac network we still have all sorts of problems with Mac OS X Server (AFP processes maxing out to 1000's of % of CPU usage, Apple's own apps being very IO heavy, etc). In my experience Apple don't care about the enterprise market, and for all the hype, Mac OS X server can't do (well) most of the things Apple say it can. I've used OS X Server and Xserve since 2003, and for anything more than a small install I don't recommend it.
As
RIP, xserve (Score:3)
So, as I'm at one of the few enterprises that actually has an Apple Rep ...
We've been told no more xServes, as they're convinced that everyone would be fine with either a MacPro mounted sideways (which doesn't have the same density per RU, or a bunch of minis (you can get shelves for 'em ... I'd go for the 1U that holds two [amazon.com], as the 2U ones that hold 4 just doesn't have sufficient space for cables [macessitywebstore.com]), which doesn't have sufficient cores to handle heavy loads.
I tried asking about when they'd release an i7 mini.
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who doesn't work in a datacenter, is the rackmount absolutely necessary? Apple offers the Mac Pro in a server configuration.
Yes. Rack-mounting 2U Servers in a 42U cabinet means I can fit 16 comfortably with room to breathe, plus have my cable management solution, and room for a Power Distribution device.
Trying to shoehorn server towers into the same rack means I can fit 6 servers, with each pair sitting on a heavy-duty shelf. My cable management is screwed because I'm putting power, data, and control all bundled together up both sides of the rack, and if I need to perform hardware replacement/addition/maintenance, the server
I've seen it (Score:2)
I know of a very very large cable company in the US that is allowing its managers and engineers a choice between PCs and Macs. The Macs are doing very well in the company, especially among the engineers.
I think Google also has this option between Mac,Windos, and Linux.
As for enterprise support, what does that mean for desktops/laptops? What does Dell or HP offer in that area that Apple doesn't. If it breaks, send it to them after IT looks at it. The only difference I think is that with Apple, if you have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now I'm dealing with an HP Script Monkey. It's taken me almost a week of back and forth. The last update I got from them indicates the SM ignored or failed to understand the update I made to the ticket the day before.
Script Monkeys are everywhere.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
In general business I think what you're seeing is mac desktops then Windows/*nix in the server room.
As for Apple themselves they have likely developed their own server for their datacenter. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like what Google uses, a custom board, DC power supply etc... since Apple already has the experience in designing hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
and for that you have to have a corporate contract, buy the expensive corporate brand computers and the warranties. same $$$ as a Mac in the end
Mandatory ACLs (Score:2)
Re:Mandatory ACLs (Score:5, Informative)
Is that a troll question, as in rhetorically expecting an answer in the negative?
Mac OS X has ACL built in:
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=2005050120073947 [macworld.com]
-dZ.
Re:Mandatory ACLs (Score:4, Informative)
Lie, damned lie, statistics. (Score:2)
Without knowing the specifics, I'll still explain why this study is a folly.
Let's say that 95% of all computers that where sold to businesses last comparable period where PCs (conservative guess).
Let's say, just for example that a total of 100 million computers where sold last comparable period.
That would mean 95 million PCs, 5 million macs.
If we apply the above percentages, this would mean that 99.275 million PCs where sold.
This would mean that 8.3 million macs where sold.
This would mean a total of 107.575
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Talking about "growth" like it's meaningful is ridiculous when you're already starting at near-complete dominance. There's not much room to grow there, whereas a competitor which doesn't have much marketshare has pretty much nowhere to go but up.
Basically, this article is someone trying to manipulate data to make Apple look (disproportionately) good rather than accurately inform. Go figure.
Government... (Score:5, Insightful)
More interesting is the figure for growth in the government segment - 155.6% isn't shabby growth there, either...
Re: (Score:2)
IT hates apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IT hates apple (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, IT hates Apple. Not because it's Apple, but it's because they don't understand it much like they don't understand Linux. What they tend to not understand is that Windows is the one doing things differently, not LInux or Mac. Oh and there aren't any policy wizards.
Secondly, the reason users in corporate environments like Apple is because IT doesn't understand Apple. That means that you don't have to deal with silly, overbearing policies that make your computer run slow and stop you from using your applications until you call the Helpdesk who opens a ticket that will be addressed within 8 hours. Heck the best bit of news I got was the news that I could have my own Linux box at work and that IT wouldn't support it.
The worst thing that could happen to Apple is that IT start to love them. Then your Mac desktop would end up as unusable as the Windows desktop you currently have.
Re:IT hates apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Good! Only problem is, they should have sacked him a LOT sooner....
IMO, there's really NO excuse for spending money to change out a system that's proven to work efficiently for people in a company. This isn't about "Microsoft vs. Linux" or anything else. It's just simple math. If you spend money on your infrastructure, it should always be towards quantifiable improvements (often/usually involving upgrading an existing system that works, vs. ripping it out and starting over with something else).
I remember years ago.... a couple of my friends had jobs at Ralston Purina (long before their merger with Nestle Corp.). They were one of the firms in town that used OS/2 extensively, with Lotus Notes for email. The story I heard is, the C.E.O. wound up getting "wined and dined" by salespeople from Microsoft, including giving him a fancy titanium golf club/driver under his hotel room bed as a gift, to get him to switch the company to Microsoft Exchange.
Well, the switchover was hugely expensive, and they wound up with not only no new functionality for the end-users, but MORE problems than before in certain circumstances. (There were things the administrative assistants could do with their boss's calendars/schedules in Notes that weren't possible anymore as "delegates" in Outlook/Exchange, as I recall them saying.) Additionally, as Notes allowed more UI customization than Outlook/Exchange did, it caused them some issues with things they'd developed in-house for OS/2 and Notes in the past (like kiosks they had set up with very simplified screens with, say, 4 or 6 buttons displayed on them that could be tapped to do very specific things like viewing one calendar of events, or checking one public information type mailbox).
Ultimately, I suppose it worked out for the better for them in the long-run, only because IBM wound up pretty much dumping OS/2 support. But that wasn't a factor back when this changeover was done.
Re:IT hates apple (Score:5, Funny)
You just know you fucked up when migrating away from Lotus Notes results in a worse experience.
Re:IT hates apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Macs at John Deere (Score:2)
My mom is in IT at John Deere and just this year she's having to learn how to support Macs now. As I understand it, it's only being used by some of the employees and not any of the servers. Deere is a pretty big international corporation, and they're taking Macs more seriously.
Makes sense. (Score:3, Informative)
Anecdotal experience from my company (Score:5, Interesting)
"in the beginning", I was the one corporate Mac user (by special agreement/dispensation/employment agreement with the CEO.) Then a couple of Macs were purchased for specific projects, plus a couple other 'favorite sons' got a Mac. Once the senior leadership (including the CIO and COO) actually -tried them-, they decided that the convenience/ease of use of the software platform, along with the reliability of the hardware, was A Good Thing. So the corporate policy was still "No Macs", but they became in some respects a status simple at the VP level. Then the CFO said "no Macs". But with a significant number of VPs advocating for the Mac (including the ability to connect to the corporate Exchange server, and the ability to run corporate Windows-only applications through virtualization), is likely to result a re-look in the "no Macs" policy. A big part of that is that the hardware's lasting a lot longer. If a Dell breaks in 2 years and a Mac lasts 4, and the price for SIMILARLY EQUIPPED machines is relatively close, then the Total Cost Of Ownership argument for Macs is a strong one.
But we're talking about 20 machines in a 500 person company, so Mac penetration here is not very strong. The level of interest at the VP and senior tech staff level remains high. And typically that's what I've seen in several other companies; the 'desire for Macs' is particularly strong in the senior technical ranks. In my case specifically, and in the case of others I've talked to, it's a combination of ease-of-use for everyday tasks, hardware reliability, and the lack of IT controls and interference (e.g. corporate-injected software updates that crash your machine in the middle of working or worrying about the latest crop of vulnerabilities.) Also for many of us, the Unix underpinnings provides a lot of capabilities for tools we grew up with (e.g. grep, chmod, EMACS, etc) that are often highly productive alternatives to the Windows way of doing things.
Re: (Score:3)
No, your random crappy anecdotal evidence does not prove that the same parts from the same manufacturers are any higher quality when you put them into an Apple chassis.
Re:Figures (Score:4, Informative)
Looking at it again, maybe they mean 66% in the last *year* as those numbers look more plausible at ~540,000 for Q1 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Quoth the article:
Mac sales in the enterprise during Apple's last fiscal quarter grew a whopping 66 percent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's how financial people do it, they compare last quarter to the same quarter the year previous. That way you don't get terrible reductions after the holiday quarters.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but Mac OS X has been around for over 10 years, and Apple computers for much longer. This marks real growth, not initial market seed.
-dZ.