Slashdot Mirror
Corporate Mac Sales Surge 66%
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.
Translation: Hope these businesses don't want actual enterprise support from Apple. Rude awakenings to ensue.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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
"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.
More interesting is the figure for growth in the government segment - 155.6% isn't shabby growth there, either...
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
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.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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.
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.
No, the moral of this story is that you should evaluate the best tool for the job, not just jump with your favourite vendor and expect everyone else to work around their limitations. If all of your clients are Windows machines, then a Windows server for all of the Active Directory stuff might be the best solution. If they're all Macs or *NIX machines, then a Windows server would be a terrible idea. In most environments, no single OS is the best tool for all jobs, and trying to force a single platform is usually a bad idea.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
...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?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.