Slashdot Mirror
Will Apple's Lion Roar For Business?
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has long had a troubled relationship with IT departments. Any creative professional will testify just how hard it can be to convince IT managers to allow the use of Macs in Windows-dominated environments. And, despite the fact that the Mac OS is now quite a well-behaved client on Windows LANs, Apple sometimes does little to help its own cause. The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server. There are rumors that Apple will, itself, run a virtualized version of Mac OS under VMware as part of its iCloud product. Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs."
"Any creative professional will testify just how hard it can be to convince IT managers to allow the use of Macs in Windows-dominated environments."
You mean, any creative professional who uses a Mac.
One of my IT guys came in to ask what time I downloaded Lion on Wednesday. The time I downloaded the OS and the time a colleague downloaded it correlated with times our network traffic was pegged and he couldn't access the Internet.
Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs
Apple would never allow this. As has been often noted, Apple is a hardware company. Allowing OS/X on non-Apple hardware would only cut into their hardware business. Besides, no one can make their servers "pretty" enough to meet Steve's artistic tastes (except Apple's engineers of course).
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.
before reaching a coclusion, read a better researched article, written by someone who really knows macs firts: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars (warning, 14 pages article)
lion can be burned to a DVD after download, also, in the near future, apple will ofer lion on thumb drives for $69.
the EULA also mentions virtualisation. the hypervisor probably needs to run on a mac OS host, but it is supported as guest, if the EULA is true.
What ? Me, worry ?
Apple is a company that makes its money primarily through the sale of boutique computer and electronics equipment. Their equipment happens to need an OS. Sure, there are some higher end applications for video and music that have created a niche market, but at the moment they make their money on selling trendy computers and electronics to trendy people at trendy prices.
Enterprise IT is different. Computers stay in use until they're depreciated or until they're nonviable. IT departments aren't interested in upgrading, and do it in waves, usually skipping entire generations of hardware and OSes because they don't fit the support model. IT departments also don't like variation and work hard to buy literally one model of computer for as absolutely long as possible, again, skipping generations of machines until latching on to the next long-term purchase model. It's the ONLY way to make support over a large number of machines (sometimes as much as many as 5000 to a technician like where I work) even close to possible.
Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!
Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves. They have no interest in licensing their OS out to run on hardware not their own, and with their upgrade strategy, they can't make significant inroads into Enterprise IT.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
First, it's possible to create your own disc or USB stick containing the Lion installer, so that's hardly a problem. Secondly, if you absolutely need some blessed install media, Apple will be selling an official install on a USB drive in a month. This is something that has been discussed on Slashdot so I don't see why glaring inaccuracies like this should get through.
Apple has pretty good enterprise tools, directory support, image deployment. What I have noticed in my organization is that Windows admins simply don't want to investigate. We have an Apple rep (engineer) that gives free classes on anything we want and still the Windows admins complain Lion needs a 3rd party (expensive) full disk encryption, special programs to integrate with Active Directory and can't be imaged.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
When, for instance, did apple fix their OS to use windows server print queues without locking the AD user account when their password changed? 10.6, that's when.
Please, this issue was over ten years ago - where is the apple equivalent of AD, or group policies? They've had ELEVEN YEARS. And that's just three examples - so please slashdot, enough with the fanboy ignorance articles.
Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client
Until OS X takes on or even implements active management of clients at even a fraction of the level Windows does, it will not be viable in corporate/enterprise enviornments.
With Active Directory and Windows management capabilties, Microsoft has always focused on enterprise/business customers and an increasingly seamless system. Windows client/server environments self maintain, and offer a vast number of features that it is impossible to even replicate on OS X.
The world is no longer just well-behaved clients that work well with file shares and printers, and hasn't been since the early 90s, when Novel didn't grasp this evolution either. The transition was first to application server technologies, then centralized technologies that allowed computing power to stay local and offer a lot of features to the users/client and yet behave with the ease of agnostic terminal computing.
But I thought the whole point of Lion was to bring the mobile OS market and the desktop OS market closer together?
No, that's not the point at all. The point was to learn from other platforms ideas that they can bring back into the desktop. That's why the WWDC Lion theme was "Back to the Mac" not "assimilation".
Apple has always maintained people want different UI on a desktop vs. a mobile device, and they are absolutely staying there with Lion. Yes they have a full-screen mode (and a real full screen mode too, not just a Windows style Maximize button). But that lives off in a separate space (virtual desktop) and is a full parter with all other running apps. They also have got rid of permanent scroll-bars (which you can re-enable if desired) but that's only in the case where the pointing device you are using support gesture based scrolling.
Indeed, Apple has stated repeatedly they thought touchscreen desktops made no sense. It's Microsoft that is showing us new Windows versions oriented to using a touchscreen, Apple is keeping Mobile and Desktop UI separate and distinct.
That being said, I don't see how that would be compatible with administrative requirements in the business world.
Even if that were true you would be wrong here too. Businesses LOVE devices that are more locked down because they introduce fewer paths to user security issues. Lion has a lot of new features to appeal to IT security that are brought back from Mobile devices - like whole disk security (that is actually reliable unlike FIleVault of old) and real application sandboxing (though that will take a long time to get picked up by the larger applications).
Apple is moving in a direction IT security departments love, not hate. And really that is better for overall user security too, because users at home have no IT department to worry about a system being secure so it has to do as much for the user as possible.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is not (much of) a hardware MANUFACTURING company. However, I'm not sure how you can intelligently take the position that hardware does not make up a significant portion of the company's focus. Look at the hardware they design, have custom made, sell, support, and yes, market.
I wish people would accept that a company can be a hardware company, a software company, AND a company that takes design and marketing seriously.
www.clarke.ca
Apple does their own design, they employ hardware engineers who design the circuits on their boards. FoxConn takes those designs and turns them into PCs. Other PC shops like Dell just send a list of requirements to FoxConn who designs in whatever is cheapest and yet meets specs. Apple outsourced the assembly labour, Dell outsourced both that and the engineering labour.
While it isn't necessarily their fault(the whole idea that there is such a thing as a "Windows LAN" is kind of fucked up), it really requires an excessively charitable viewer to describe OSX machines as "quite well behaved clients" in the context of an environment making heavy use of Microsoft stuff. Sure, they speak SMB more or less adequately, and the AD binding mostly works, usually; but there are all sorts of weird quirks and architectural differences(a particular non-favorite of mine: Windows handles 802.11X wireless authentication in two stages: "machine" authentication, tied to the permissions of the machine account, normally so that you can get network access to handle user authentication, and then "user" authentication, which occurs when somebody logs on. The OSX machines can have a system-wide set of 802.11X credentials, or individual accounts can have them. These differences are nothing that a bunch of bodging can't overcome; but they are sort of annoying.)
Then, of course, there is the fact that if you want to do any sort of AD-esque control of OSX clients, Apple's advice is "Go get an OpenDirectory server". In fairness, that is pretty much exactly the same as Microsoft's response, but in an already microsoft environment, only one of those is a sunk cost(and, Apple's "server" offerings, to which their software is legally bound, are kind of a joke. Of Course IT would be happy to run some directory services off a machine that isn't even offered with redundant PSUs, and is "rack mountable" in the sense that you can put it on a shelf if you want...)
There is no point in denying the elegance of Apple's engineering, and their success in home and small-business niches is a testament to that; but institutional IT isn't frowning at your precious macbook just because we hate your creativity and want to stifle you into a beige cube drone...
You can just copy the Lion installer to a network share or other disk to move it around as well.
The EULA allows for virtualization of up to two additional instances without the need for more licenses as long as you do it on Mac hardware. http://www.afp548.com/article.php?story=lion-eula
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.
They've already announced a volume licensing scheme which only requires one download and everybody should know by now that the "updater" app that you download can be copied to physical media and re-used, and if you dig it contains a disc image of a good-old-fangled bootable DVD which you can use for bare metal installs. Most big IT setups will do an install on one machine of each type and then image it, anyway.
The main annoyance is not for IT departments, but for microbusinesses and people running small groups of renegade Mac users in PC centric environments, where the minimum order of 20 licenses might be a problem (although if you phrase that as "$600 for up to 20 users" it sounds more reasonable).
Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.
Ain't gonna happen. First, Occam's razor suggests that the reason they dropped XServe was that they couldn't even sell it to themselves: who's going to buy a XServe when the makers have just built a big shiny data center full of Dells?. Second, they've passed on the realistic solution, which was to license Snow Leopard Server for non-Apple hardware: at $500 a pop (or sign a volume license) it would hardly allow Dell to produce a $500 MacPro-killing minitower, but would be competetive with other server-grade software. Now that Server is a $50 add-on, that is out of the window.
Thing is, Apple has to make the Mac play nice with Windows servers if they want any business penetration. With that as a given, there's not much of a case for using OS X in your general purpose server farm when you can use Windows or Linux instead: OSX's USP is its combination of UNIX with nice GUI and the availability of MS and Adobe applications, which counts for little on a server.
While the Mac Mini and Mac Pro servers are not a replacement for proper rack-mounted server hardware, they are fine for Mac workgroups. The advantages of "proper" server hardware only cuts in when you've got a hundred of the things and the overall MTBF starts to go down.
As for this whole Apple hates business thing: so much of the business sector is a MS or Linux closed shop than any investment Apple makes is a long shot. Its main "inroad" to business in the past was its present in the DTP, Pro graphics and video arenas which was established at a time when Apple and Adobe had a head-and-shoulders lead in those markets and the PC of the day wasn't technically up to competing. That is now going to be a war of attrition. Apple main weapon now is its ability to rapidly innovate and move on to new things: that goes down a storm in the consumer arena but is not so good to businesses who like nice stable platforms, roadmaps and 5 years warning before a product is discontinued.
There are rumors that Apple will, itself, run a virtualized version of Mac OS under VMware as part of its iCloud product.
Well, OS X is Unix and Apple own it so they can install it where the hell they like. Bet its stripped down to hell, though. Chances are though, it would be just as practical to run iCloud on Linux, OpenBSD or any other Unix-a-like - just a bit of an embarrassment if your name was Apple.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
We've got roughly 300 Mac clients on our network, and we are 90% windows in the server room. Samba in Mac OS has been broken since Leopard. Accessing SMB shares has either been unreliable or very slow and DFS support was non-existent until 10.7.
I would argue that Apple's efforts in Windows compatibility have been half-hearted - and that's why IT departments cringe when a handful of Mac users want their machines to be integrated into a network that they do not own or maintain....and then they complain when the results are less than optimal.
Apple's management tools have always been a bit half-assed as well. Remote Desktop Administrator is OK, but their patch deployment server stinks, and Open Directory doesn't really compare with the power and flexibility of Active Directory. 3rd party tools can help make this better though.
So I'm not accused of being a Mac hater - ALL of my personal machines are Macs, and I love Mac OS. I simply wish that Apple put more time and effort into making admins happy, not just end-users.
-ted
(Also killing XServe was a STUPID thing to do. Now I am forced to choose between a MacMini with an external disk array, or a Mac PRO turned on its side - both options SUCK in different ways.)
It used to be downloading porn was the network stress test. Now its operating systems. How boring have we become?
They design the boards that connect those standard parts together, rather than say just buying a motherboard from new egg for whatever is on sale that week. They also engineer the "crappy little case" beyond just picking the CPU and RAM an so on that most armchair PC designers seem to think is involved in making a product. Everything from materials testing, to thermal management, recycling ability etc - you know, rather than just a standard ATX beige box.
Just because they don't design their own CPUs and GPUs down to the transistor level does not mean you can dismiss them out of hand as a hardware designer. There are many, many levels between "design your own CPU" to "ask someone to design and build a PC that you then market"