Slashdot Mirror
Why Consumer Macs Are Enterprise-Worthy
cyberkahn tips us to an article in Computerworld that makes the case for Apple's consumer machines moving into corporations. (The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.) With the press that Vista has been getting, is Apple moving into a perfect storm? Quoting: "There is no comparison between Apple's 'consumer' machines and the consumer lines of its competitors. All of Apple's machines are ready to move into the enterprise, depending on the job at hand. The company's simple and elegant product line, which is also highly customizable, will be Apple's entree to the business market — if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers."
"(The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.)" And how is this still considered a noteworthy article?
if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers.
They really think that's what's holding back Macs in the enterprise? I'm pretty sure the problem isn't prejudice against hardware, but integration issues that arise when moving from an all-MS shop to a mixed environment with OS X. The ROI needs to outweigh the obstacles, and it currently doesn't.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
I work in IT and do a fair it of consulting on COEs (Common Operating Environments)among other things. I see *far* more interest in Linux on the desktop than Mac OS among most of the enterprises who are entertaining anything different than Windows.
This reads like a Mac fanboy wrote it. I can't think of any compelling reasons to recommend Macs in an enterprise environment. Properly implemented (that is with proper profiles and security), Windows 'Just Works' in business, and if one wants something different then there is Linux. The latter gives the benefit of being more customizable than either Windows or OS X in fact, given that all the source is available.
You don't get 4-hour on-site service with Macs
That kind of service is available if you want it, although not directly from Apple.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I want to know what the big deal is between not using Linux because it has too many options. Majority of the distros are either based on Debian or Red Hat. I haven't seen software that only worked on one distro, and things like apt-get, yum, synaptic, and all the other package managers can be installed on most of the distros. That just doesn't seem like a valid reason to automatically dismiss any Linux solution. Just use one distro throughout the whole comapny, problem solved.
622677120
Macs are not enterprise ready. The computers, save for the Mac Pro's, are not easily serviceable by IT departments, unlike, say, Thinkpads. Ever try changing a hard drive of a Macbook Pro? You don't wanna get stuck doing that. Also, Exchange dominates the corporation fields. Mac OS X has a long way to go in the aspects of group policy, and other details that Windows offers that admins need. Sure, you might be able to make hacks in the OS to make things work the way you want it, but Linux is a better option if you want a UNIX-like OS.
I do find it very interesting that these stories are all over the place lately. "Apple is ready for the enterprise". This makes what now, 5 or six in the past month alone? They always open with "IT managers are tired of spyware", as if spyware was a problem in large corporations (the targets of these articles), they always proceed to dismiss Linux as an alternative... could it have something to do with the release of Vista? Naaaah. Now if this were articles targetting Apple then of course Microsoft would be behind them.
Maybe it's just a big coincidence.
And its utter bullshit.
I suspect that Apple definitely does NOT want to enter a cut throat world of competition where it becomes just an also ran competing on price with a thousand corporate buyers, when it can design kick-ass product in the consumer market place.
This was written by a misguided (and severely deluded,) fan-boy.
The PC wars are long over. Get over it. Microsoft won. (So they're now tied to the office and that kind of ugly industrial design. [Think BROWN Zune. Yuck!])
Apple is a whole lot better positioned to compete in the vastly more profitable consumer arena.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
And just how is a Linux desktop different than a PC desktop (e.g. Dell/HP) different than an Apple desktop. While this article seems to talk about the hardware, the real answer is: THE OPERATING SYSTEM! With Apple, when you talk about the line-up you can't really separate the hardware from the software, yet Linux and Windows are run on current Macs, and OS-X is successfully (albeit illegally) ported to Dells. So what is special about Apple? The hardware, or the software, and why would Linux even be mentioned in any discussion of the hardware -- except that it runs on a lot more hardware than OS-X, and costs less. All this makes this article, and generally this whole discussion, hard to take seriously.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well I do. And the rate of failure is just terrible. Without exact numbers at hand, I can definitely say we've sent over 30 iBooks to the local Apple service partner.
Being an enterprise customer you definitely dont have to wait in line for consumer service, we just send the computers directly for service. Otoh, you definitely won't get 4hr onsite like all the major pc vendors offer.
As for group policy and manageability, Apple got in the game late and will definitely catch up. The question is when (and what decade).
Remember, Apple is an idealistic company, and likes to push its idea of future tech...
Instead of a docking station, Apple would suggest that you use
This leaves you with only a power cable and a DVI cable to hook up. When the laptop has ports on both sides (with the power and DVI on opposite sides), so you have to hook up two docks, docks won't save you any effort at all.
I know this won't work for everyone, but it's perfectly representative of how Apple tends to think.
Even if you can't use any of the wireless stuff, you still only have power, DVI, USB, and Ethernet to hook up. (Your monitor probably has a USB hub that you can use to hook up your KB, mouse, printer, mass storage, audio interface, etc., etc.) That's a long way from the old days when you might have had separate connections for your KB/mouse, monitor, printer, external hard drive, network, audio, and power.
They are not. just from trying to get them configured for the uni ldap, autofs, nis, it's a pita. We have to manually make changes in the nfs script because it makes 1000's of symlinks in 2 different directories. Many of the settings that can be modified with nss_ldap don't even exist on osx, for example loginshell overrides. There's no newgrp, we have to roll our own. It's going to be real fun transferring all our users from nis to open directory (slapd) when we start configuring that. Will padl's migrationtools work, I doubt it.
..wtf? we had to use fink and install 2.0.something (the apache2 monolithic build provided by serverlogistics.com has cgi bugs). The configuration files are all over the place /etc/hostconfig, /Library, /System/Library, netinfo gui while on more posix systems it's just /etc . The perl that also comes with osx is buggy (try installing Net::LDAP and all its prereqs using perl -MCPAN -e shell).
OSX server comes with apache 1.3
How do I login to an xserve with ssh -C -Y or ssh -X and run gvim or an xterm or any X app, can't have to use vnc. Then there's HFS which we have to use to support all those nasty meta files. I guess Xsan will be nice when we use it but that's after we get all the data off our huge raid array just for a couple of mac clients.
We haven't even started migrating postgres, mailman, request tracker, and sendmail yet. If it's anything like the way it has been already we're probably going to have to use fink again.
And no I don't want quicktime on my headless Xserve, thinking differently is difficulty.
Do we really have to have one of these trolls in every Mac-related discussion?
For the last time (until next time...)
1. Macs are NOT significantly more expensive than comparably equipped commodity machines, for the most part.
1a. On the high end, they tend to be *cheaper* than comparable commodity machines (esp. Mac Pro).
2. However, Apple does not sell barebones configurations; that is not its business.
3. Therefore, *base* prices of Macs tend to be higher.
Anyone who says Apple hardware is 2x as expensive is comparing a barebones PC to a fully loaded Mac (and there really isn't any other kind).
Of course, businesses may want those cheap barebones PCs, but if they do, they are not businesses who would ever buy Apple, even if Apple had flawless enterprise-level support. Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business.
Even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that OS X is "enterprise ready", the fact that Apple hardware comes from a single company makes Macintosh an unacceptable choice. The fact that that company also has a very limited product range makes it even less feasible.
(As a note - I _am_ an OS X (and Linux and Windows) user and admin. I have dozens of Apples ranging from G4s, G5s, Mac Pros, Powerbooks, MPros, and Xserves.)
The learning curve and disparity of Linux distributions is too high for easy general office use.
As someone else noted already, dismissing Linux with a single line is a little silly. Ubunutu is starting to gather desktop momentum. But I'll ignore the Linux factor. There is also a learning curve for moving from Windows to OS X, some of which Apple refuses to deal with. Many users are very used to AND prefer keyboard shortcuts to access pulldown menus, for example. The lack of consistancy for what the green window size button does is fustrating. Even Apple's own software fails to consistantly follow their own UI guidelines. Again, for example, a few applications quit entirely when you close the window while the majorty close the window but the program continue to run.
Many corporate applications have been ported to W3-compliant Web services that are OS-agnostic
Um... yeah. Sure. Which Enterprises are these again? Most Enterprises run tons of legacy software that's connected to via local software (often written in VB) or IE only frontends. Part of being an Enterprise level business is that you have years and decades worth of IT cruft that's built up.
Because Macs work with Microsoft's directory, enterprise administrators can now more easily manage Macs alongside Windows machines.
OS X works with _some_ parts of AD. There is still no viable replacement for Outlook on OS X. Whether you like Outlook with Exchange or not (I don't), there's very little that can do everything it can, and most Enterprise scale businesses are wrapped around it. Remember, it's not just a mail client or a personal scheduler, it's a foundation that many other companies have built on top of the scheduling features.
Yes, you can add virtualization, but then you're back to the problems of running Windows, plus now you have additional administration overhead of running and managing two OSes on each system plus additional user training and problems.
I'm also unaware of a way that I can push updates and settings to OS via Group Policies without using third party software. This is a key factor to Enterprises. A huge factor in deciding whether to shift OSes is the fact that the IT staff must be trained and experienced in what they're going to move to. If they've put years into developing internal tools to manage and deal with Windows, the cost of moving to OS grows.
We find that most PCs that are sold as enterprise desktops are actually stripped-down, lightweight versions of the computers the same companies sell to home users. These machines lack the basic technologies needed in the modern enterprise. Apple, on the other hand, simply doesn't sell a minimalist computer whose predominant 'feature' is its price point, aimed at businesses or any other market."
For instance, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM, Bluetooth, 802.11g Wi-Fi networking, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire and even a remote control..."
My last big batch of Windows desktops were purchased nearly 3 years ago and have 1GB RAM, gigabit ethernet, and have been just fine.
Firewire? Why do enterprise desktop users need firewire? The only reason you need it is for digital video and audio or extremely fast file transfers. Not desktop use.
WiFi? I don't want desktop users using WiFi. That's why we have millions of dollars of copper and fiber infrastructure with security features and VLANs. Wireless is great for some things, but it does not scale and it is inherently less secure than hardwire. Even just having 802.11 means that every single desktop is a potential rogue WiFi station letting people inside the firewall. Great.
Bluetooth? Sort of neat, but again, desktop users don't need it and it opens up security issues.
And I can't believe they even tried to cite having a remote control
My own preferences for corporate desktops would be, in order, Linux, then Windows, then Mac.
In a corporate network environment, the flexibility of Linux desktops is unparalleled. You can optimize your storage needs (and not pay for 300 copies of an OS sitting on 300 hard drives, for example), and you can move applications around the network seemlessly without the users even noticing (useful when one app server gets overloaded). Sure there is a learning curve for the IT department, but on the desktop side, just make sure that for the less techie people, that everything is easily accessible. In fact, I have never found the learning curve to be an obstacle ("we depend on Quickbooks and their support" is a bigger one). In short, an intelligent Athena-style deployment of Linux systems (along with a move to diskless workstations wherever possible) could save a company a bundle on IT and improve productivity. The big issue is that the migration takes time.
Mac's have actually less flexibility than Windows despite the *nix base. You can only buy the systems from Apple, and the really nice aspects of an Athena-style deployment are not possible. Add to that the more limited choices of hardware, and you have some real concerns.
I am not saying tht Macs have no place in the corporate network. THere are places where they are probably very helpful including media production and the like. However, they would not be my first or even second choice for a corporate general-purpose desktop.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
...for moving from a Windows office to an xNIX office. And by xNIX I mean Macs and Linux boxes side by side. I mean FreeBSD and/or Solaris too serving up your data. Mac OS X has a few advantages Linux does not have and never will: Microsoft and Adobe software. Adobe is even reintroducing Premiere for Mac OS X, something that the platform lost when Apple put out Final Cut the first time and Adobe got their noses out of joint over it.
I hate MS and Adobe as much as the next geek, and will gleefully point out F/OSS solutions like OpenOffice.Org, Kino and The GIMP, but let's face it, what will someone completely unhip to F/OSS rather have in front of them: the F/OSS workalike or the reassuring name-brand? Will MS and Adobe ever port to Linux? When pigs fly.
With Mac OS X, you have an xNIX under the hood, and a friendly face out in front. Give the office folks Macs, and use Linux or FreeBSD on those servers that used to run Windows Server. Heck, basically Mac OS X Server is Mac OS X plus ports of stuff like Samba and CUPS. Save your money you would have spent on an XServe and repurpose some PCs with Linux or FreeBSD.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Apple's desire to fix the issues can be summed up in the words, "can we make money doing it?"
It's easy to write a checklist of features that would make up a dream enterprise service package. It's harder to make that package turn a profit in the market. And it's easy for companies to use checklists to justify sticking with the status quo rather than trying something new.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned 4-hour onsite service, for instance.. for desktop machines, not xServes sitting back in the machine room. Lemme tell ya: I've worked for a couple of large companies and have never seen an IT deal that involves 4-hour onsite service guarantees for any random PC sitting on an everyday worker's desktop. Mission-critical servers, yes. Buy-em-by-the-carload boxes that let users connect to the mission-critical servers? Not a chance. Keeping those running is what the IT department's job. And even then, good luck getting 4-hour turnaround on any issue that doesn't cause significant financial losses from the moment it crops up to the moment the system is fixed and running again. For problems that can be stopped by pulling the network cable out of the wall and shutting off the machine, that's exactly as much ASAP service as you'll get. Anything else will happen later, maybe, if it turns out that we really have to.
These checklists of 'things Apple has to do to compete in the enterprise market' smell to me more like excuses not to spend time exploring alternatives than things people would actually buy if Apple made them available.
Companies don't buy Macs because they don't use Macs now. Simple as that. They already have a large and complex body of hardware and software doing mission-critical things, and it all more or less works the way it is. Adding more machines that are basically the same is known to be reasonably easy. Even if there are teething problems, those tend to get identified early and worked around. Trying something new raises the spectre of potential compatability issues in any of a million undocumented places.
Apple will gain entry to the enterprise market as enterprises move away from proprietary formats and protocols, thus making it easy to fit any standards-compliant machine into the system. And even then, someone will have to lock the beancounters out of the room long enough to explain that a low cost of acquisition does not necessarily equal low TCO.
Of course, a series of negative miracles could happen to Dell (they're in a bad patch right now, but I think they can turn it around) and make Apple look like an island of stability in a PC market that's fighting to rebalance itself.
Example: Consider an office building with 500 people working there, a basic mid-sized office for most companies. The marketing department will make up about 25-30 people, of which only 5-10 will need to use photoshop or any other memory intensive app that is arguably better suited for the mac. Upper management will also manifest about 15-20 people, of which it's likely easier to get them macs. I'd acknowledge that there MAY be as much as another 20 people who could make an excuse for why they need the features that come on the most minimal mac rather than a PC that's slightly scaled down from that level.
At the very most, in this example, I could 70 people (out of 500), that are somehow better served by getting a mac (noting of course that I'm comparing against a completely barebones windows PC). $900 for the mac, let's say $650 for the pc (since we might as well have 512 megs of ram and make sure the monitor is 17 inch). Do I really need to write out the math, or is the point made yet? 900 x 500 = $450,000, or 650 x 500 = $325,000 + $5000 in selective upgrades = $330,000.
A difference of $120,000 will pay for an extra IT guy (if the current group wasn't already enough) and it's cover hardware replacements, and be a good chunk of money towards the next upgrade/replacement cycle (which will come no sooner than it would with the Mac). Certainly a theoretical example, and it's not precise, but it is reasonable and it shows there's a huge difference...which means even if I've got a couple of minor errors, it still proves the point.
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time