Slashdot Mirror


Why Apple Doesn't Market Squarely To Businesses

snydeq writes "Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise, Apple remains lukewarm to any Mac and iPhone success in business environments. 'Apple has intentionally created a glass ceiling it has no intention of shattering. My conversations with Apple employees over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of Macs in the enterprise. The company has had no intention of signaling any active plans to serve the enterprise,' InfoWorld's Galen Gruman writes. 'In a sense, Apple views enterprise sales as "collateral success" — a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus: individuals, developers, and very small businesses ... likely because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity Apple would have to deal with.'"

25 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. I'd like to see Apple make a move, but... by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple's not very big on jumping into crowded markets. I'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server business, but they look at how much it would cost to try to push their way in, versus what they can make if they put the same resources into something like the iPad. So far, Apple's growing like crazy without doing much about the business market.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but... by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The truth is, Apple is a marketing based company even more than Microsoft is. That's not an insult at all (I happen to think marketing and sales are as important as the tech itself). Yes, apple has geeks working in company, but would it have enough geeks to put every knob and button on their applications to make them enterprise-ready? I would say no.

      Again, it's not a bad thing, it's just not their focus. Apple doesn't want knobs and buttons, they want an intuitive UI and consumer friendly products. It's very difficult to marry that with the robustness required for enterprise software.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    2. Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      John, are you seriously saying that the personal music player market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPod?

      Are you seriously saying that the cell phone market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPhone?

      Are you seriously saying that the web browser market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released Safari?

      Or are we only considering the "hipster-targeting" markets, which Apple basically created?

    3. Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      John, are you seriously saying that the personal music player market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPod?

      I wouldn't describe it as crowded, since it was so small. Look at the level of sales before and after the iPod came out.

      As for the phones, I'd say that they went for badly-served segment of the market. Smart phones before the iPhone sucked, big time. The introduction of the iPhone has driven a great expansion of the smart phone market.

      Safari they did because they had to. IE on the Mac was crap, and MS had no reason to care.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but... by samkass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, apple has geeks working in company, but would it have enough geeks to put every knob and button on their applications to make them enterprise-ready?

      This statement is interesting because it gets to the crux of the matter in terms of design philosophy. Microsoft designers probably get paid a lot of money to add the right knobs and buttons. Apple designers probably get paid a lot of money to remove the right knobs and buttons. It's like the old quote, "I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make
      it shorter." (Blaise Pascal, Provincial Letters XVI). Apple invests a lot of time and money in removing control elements to what an individual needs to make the device a fluid part of their lifestyle. That's not necessarily what most business needs, having to contend with all sorts of contractual, systemic, and other specifics that require tweaks not deemed essential by the Apple designer.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    5. Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      mano.m - you're using a very wide brush there.

      I happen to have been a unix administrator, developer, and most recently an architect. I've used just about every type of computer system you can imagine from the 1970s to the present. I've assembled the parts and built and upgraded many machines over the years.

      Today, I reserve Linux for my servers - and prefer OSX (and looking forward to the iPad) for my personal laptop and related personal devices are concerned (I see the iPad as an extension of my Macbook Pro....it doesn't need to duplicate the functionality because I don't need to lug (yet another) fully functional laptop around for my personal stuff (I carry 2 laptops back and forth for my job now as it is) - I just want access to some key information, email, web, and other stuff that I am interested in (ebooks) and sync that with my laptop at home. From that perspective, the iPad is not sub-functional to me.

      I would say that all the netbooks and laptops that I've lugged around over the years are over-functional for what I really want for my personal stuff at work, on a business trip or on the bus. I want something as small as a legal pad that I can tote around to meetings or whip out while traveling and entertain myself with, or find information I need. For me, the netbook/laptop is too much for that simple task (and not really portable for all that).

      So - before making such broad assumptions, a person should preface them with "as for myself..." or "I believe..." etc. Readers will appreciate your deeper understanding of reality - instead of an overly simplified binary interpretation of the universe, which implies an overly simple mind.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  2. Not worth it for them by UndyingShadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible. They have no desire or tolerance for "cool" Completely not the market Apple is going for.

  3. XServe, OS X Server, XSan? by Darth+Sdlavrot · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you ignore the products that they market to businesses, then it probably does look like they don't market to businesses.

  4. Re:Why Apple Doesn't Market Squarely To Businesses by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . because you can't bullshit bullshitters.

    Oracle, SAP, and Microsoft would beg to disagree.

  5. Re:No Enterprise Offerings by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Businesses certainly run Macs but they really don't have any great centralized administration tools. Apple Remote Desktop and Open Directory aren't nearly as powerful out of the box as Active Directory and its accompanying tools. There's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of. MacOS is to business desktop computing in much the same way linux is...you can use it, but you need to develop the tools for administering it (or use some open source tools, etc).

    Problem: Adminstrating a lot of macs.

    Solution: Products like Deep Freeze.

    http://www.faronics.com/html/DFMac.asp

    Combine that with restricting macs to network logins with home directories stored on the server and you have one central point for configuration management and backup of user data.

    Oh, wait. You wanted "enterprise" solutions that require your constant attention so you can justify your existence. Sorry about that.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  6. Support by 0racle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They would have to provide and support their products longer then a consumer product cycle. Things like releasing a $3000 workstation then 3 years later releasing an OS update that doesn't support it don't fly well in enterprise environments.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  7. Enterprise Mac = War with Microsoft by orient · · Score: 5, Informative

    AFAIK, Microsoft makes the bulk of its money by selling to the big corporations. By entering the enterprise market, Apple would attack Microsoft biggest and safest money source. If they do that, Microsoft will stop selling MSOffice for Mac and will prevent Macs from interacting with the AD. This way, Apple will lose more trying to enter the enterprise market than ignoring it altogether.

    --
    Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
  8. I can think of two reasons by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just off the top of my head:

    1) Price.
    2) Legacy (OS/applications).

    The first one is pretty obvious.

    The second, I need to define better. Apple generally limits new hardware to the version of the OS that was in production when the machine was built. So I can't work out all of the kinks in 10.4.11 relevant to my environment and load up all new systems with an image of that same OS. The most recent PowerMacs I've bought won't run 10.4. I had 10.4 locked tight and all of our software runs great on it. 10.5 gives me font cache problems similar to the ones I'd already ironed out of our 10.4 systems long ago. To me, that's not an upgrade. I don't want bleeding-edge in production. I want stable and reliable.

    OTOH, every PC I've bought since Vista came out has been able to run XP just fine. In fact, I just got some new systems last week pre-loaded with XP. (Win7 license with XP downgrade.) This means the environment my company's been grooming and tweaking for years can be applied to brand new installations and I don't have to deal with, "I've never seen THAT before."

    And getting back to the cost, I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse for about $500. A mini with 4 gigs, no monitor, and no mouse starts at $700. Apple wants another $50 each for a mouse and keyboard. Each. Don't even ask what they want for monitors.

    Those are the two main reasons Apple won't be making it beyond the Creative departments in my company. And I'm actually a bit annoyed that we're still purchasing Macs for those departments since they're running Adobe suites that are available on the PC. If one of my hats wasn't "the only mac tech in the company", I'd consider making strong arguments against the continued waste of money. :)

  9. Re:Macs are great for small business though by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pardon the uninitiated, but with 10.6 supporting Exchange Mail and Calendar with setup time of about 2 seconds (to enter your email and password), why does one need Outlook?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  10. Apple has no clue how to do enterprise by caseih · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I maintained an OS X Server box for 4 years. Very nice hardware, but the OS had a lot of issues (10.3 and 10.4) and support from Apple was non-existent. We struggled with a race condition in Apple's directory services architecture (the glue between the system and LDAP) for years. Apple really wouldn't do anything about it until some guy on a forum managed to come up with step-by-step instructions on how to trigger the condition. finally Apple acknowledged the problem and, to my amazement, said, "we've fixed it in our new OS, please upgrade." We're talking a full OS upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4. I tried to explain to them that OS's are upgraded in an enterprise normally with the hardware cycle and that we cannot take a production server down for a full system upgrade. Even MS understands that.

    Additionally, the lifespan of Apple's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS. So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS, apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only. Even within major versions, updating was a real pain. Each and every OS update required a reboot. It was just silly. Of course the bug brought our system down every month or so, so I guess that worked out.

    Another time a disk died in our XServe RAID. So we called to get a warranty replacement. The guy on the phone said, "are you sure it has died? Put it back in the array and see what happens." Dumbfounded, I told him this was a production array with mission-critical data on it and that I simply could not trust any disk that had been kicked out of the RAID. The risk was too great for data loss. Had to go through a local rep to lean on apple to just replace the disk.

    After I finally figured out how to make my OpenLDAP server on Linux look and act like Apple's OpenDirectory (making Mac client access seamless with no custom ldap mappings required), I ditched the OS X server and will never go back.

  11. Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs. The company I work at uses PCs exclusively, and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so. My work PC has never crashed, has never had a virus, runs relatively fast, and was probably quite cheap. I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then, and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled.

    For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people, retraining of employees, and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs.

    Ever heard of Cisco? We are free to run a Mac that the company will pay for, as long as IT doesn't have to support it. We have an internal user community that provides its own support in lieu of IT. There are thousands of Mac users here. I switched about four months ago thinking that the worst-case scenario is that I could still run Windows on the hardware if switching to a new OS didn't work out. So far, I'm still running OSX, but am also still running Outlook under virtualization; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very good.

    Obviously this type of solution is not for everyone, but it works for us.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  12. It tried in the '80s by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 5, Informative

    Those with unusually long memories will remember that, in the '80s, the Macintosh (and while it lasted, the Lisa) were Apple's Serious Business Computers. The Apple II was the home/education line.

    The Mac had networking built-in from the beginning. (Not very useful for home users, essential for offices.) It had a black-and-white screen. (Not very useful for games or creative work.) Advertising almost exclusively focused on how a Mac could make businesses more efficient by reducing training and support costs. Watch:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MaDXt30xSo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqLT0UBPx0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcuSOfjR6w

    Print ads, too:
    http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad1.jpg and http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad2.jpg

    For about fifteen years, Apple desperately wanted to be taken seriously by business users, who dismissed Macs as incompatible and expensive (with good reason.) Apple lost loads of money during this period. Meanwhile, Apple's sales were coming entirely from home users, artists, and education sales.

    One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned was shit-can that approach and release the cute, cuddly, home-student oriented iMac. And whaddya know, the company suddenly started making money.

  13. Re:Macs are great for small business though by EXrider · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if Apple would be able to (or has already) delivered an imaging solution so you can roll out a few workstations that start out both identical and functional.

    Yes, they have a services hosted on Mac OS X Server called NetBoot, NetInstall and NetRestore that do system imaging functions. You can read some marketing speak about it here and here. I've been using it since OS 10.4, it's easy to set up and works pretty well.

    --
    grep -iw skynet /etc/services
  14. Re:Of course not by Xtravar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are some things that are not enterprise ready

    Let me tell you right now: the iPhone/iPod Touch platform is one of those things not enterprise ready. This seems as good of a post to rant off of as any.

    I work at a company that wants to sell iPhone software to enterprise customers. We've talked to Apple a hundred times and they reneged on every single one of their promises to help so far. They have no interest in the enterprise or enterprise applications.

    Hello, App Store.

    Now, our competitors can see our (awesome) product and we have weirdos downloading it who can't use it. Not to mention, we can't put out quick fixes (which is kind of important for my business) because of the Apple Gatekeepers.

    Oh yeah, and we can only have one client version and must retain server compatibility (and/or customer-specific lock-out logic) for older clients.

    --
    Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  15. Re:No Enterprise Offerings by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple Remote Desktop (http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/) is $499 for unlimited clients.
    But if your company doesn't have $500, you can use any VNC client, as the macs support it natively (In the sharing settings is where you set up VNC access).

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  16. Re:Of course not by Xtravar · · Score: 5, Informative

    The enterprise license is what an organization would buy to deploy an application to their workers.

    We sell to organizations - not our workers. The enterprise license doesn't let you do that.

    What we *wanted* to do was give our customer organizations our source code so that *they* could use the enterprise license and so that we could avoid the App Store.

    Our lawyers, and Apple's lawyers, had agreed on this model, as well as various people at Apple. Then, someone high-up at Apple came down and said that route wasn't possible anymore and against their terms. Because their terms are so damn broad, we didn't have any recourse and certainly didn't want to get into a spat with Apple.

    But thanks for your suggestion!!! I hope you feel smug now for calling us cheap, asshole.

    --
    Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  17. Re:Macs are great for small business though by kainewynd2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is totally true. I am actually one of those folks who takes OS X Server the "extra mile" so that it can scale into medium/large businesses. It's not even that taking OS X Server to those levels is hard, but there are so few of us out there with the skill set to accomplish this that the overall belief is that OS X Server just can't do it.

    Case in point, I just rebuilt an entire Open Directory backend for a school that had grown from 200 nodes with a cheap SOHO network to upwards of 900 nodes and a Cisco backend. Until the moment I finished, the current admin was adamant that OS X Server and Open Directory in general just couldn't handle the load they were putting on it (essentially one-two hundred authentication transactions at peak times).

    That's ridiculous and since the rebuild and migration, OD has been rock solid... and they have Kerberos again (someone removed it entirely at some point in history). As with anything like this, proper setup, configuration and tweaking will allow most technologies to scale as necessary. Hell, I didn't even have to tweak the OpenLDAP config to optimize this install...

    There just aren't a lot of people who "know how to do it" on this platform and so a stigma is attached... and amplified when Apple refuses to actually push forward on the Enterprise end of things.

    --
    I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
  18. Re:Macs are great for small business though by Danathar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because it ONLY supports certain versions of exchange and if you are not running the EXACT versions that Apple tells you are compatible you are pretty much screwed.

  19. Esoteric in consumer vs enterprise? Riiiiight. by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features

    What? Look at the enterprise-marketed laptop lines for a great example of what corporations want. They're not "esoteric" by any stretch.

    Way to prove you don't work in IT, much less corporate level. We care about things like price, TCO, parts availability, interchangeability of accessories (within reason), and management.

    Meanwhile, consumers want just about everything under the sun.

    and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible.

    Purchase price is not the ultimate concern, no- ballpark is important, yes. Again, way to prove you don't work in IT. I've never had a boss that said "well, this $3000 server is $300 cheaper than the other one, so we're going to get that, even though it doesn't have IPMI and we have no in-house experience with this brand, and their support contract is 8hr, not 4hr."

    They have no desire or tolerance for "cool" Completely not the market Apple is going for.

    It's not a matter of "cool". It's a matter that Apple likes consumers because they're easily pushed around and they CONSUME. And if you think companies don't want "Cool", you haven't seen a CEO of a million dollar company get handed his new Blackberry (hell hath no fury if it works more poorly than the old one, however.)

    Corporations say, "Hey. Why did you just change the display port AGAIN? Now half of our 2000 member sales force have a different display port from the other half." Or, "why are all of our iMacs developing vertical lines? Our CEO's secretary has gone through two machines in a month and he's raising hell because they can't work. Don't you people have any quality control? Send us some goddamn WORKING computers or we buy Dell from now on. That's straight from the CEO's mouth."

    Corporations have legal departments, so that when machines die, lawyers say "give us our money back or we seek damages." Consumers just bitch and moan on online forums- and purchase decisions are more rational in corporations (heh, I can't believe I just said that, but I mean they're not *emotional*.)

    Corporations say "Oh, Macbook Pros are $2k? Well, we're buying 100 of them this month, and we've given you $500k in business this quarter. So, how about $1700?". Consumers just hand over their CC.

    Corporations say, "If a laptop breaks, we want someone to come in and fix it. And if you won't, we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts." Apple a)won't let you order parts unless you're a reseller, b)won't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves. Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $50M company because that was the best support option, and then arguing with some pimply-faced "Genius" who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead?

    In big Apple-using companies I've worked at, we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones, because we couldn't get the goddamn parts from Apple, couldn't get service manuals, couldn't train CSRs.

    Meanwhile, HP, Dell, IBM, Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop, I'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS. They'll let almost anyone order parts, and happily train people in how to repair their products. And if a laptop breaks, they'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan, so our CEO doesn't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS, the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it's anything remotely complicated (the Apple Store can do drive replacements, that's about it.)

    I had to replace two failed drives on an HP server once (one system drive, one data array drive.) I said "I have red lights, they were kicked out of the array by the controller." We had a 4 hour support contr

  20. Re:Macs are great for small business though by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pardon the uninitiated, but with 10.6 supporting Exchange Mail and Calendar with setup time of about 2 seconds (to enter your email and password), why does one need Outlook?

    The incredible thing is that is true. I brought my Mac to work, then specified my company e-mail address and password and it simply asked me to specify my account name, since this was not the same as my e-mail address prefix. In doing so it discovered the mail server (internal and external), the calendar server and the contact directory. With this configuration in place I can even read my work e-mail from home, which is something I can't fathom how to do with the Outlook 2007. BTW for anyone with an iPhone or iPod Touch, this approach works there too.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.