[OhBlahDeeBlahDah]

RE: "Apple shipped 2.3 million Macs in the first quarter of 2008,..."
You must have meant for "Apple's first FISCAL quarter of 2008," which was for the LAST quarter of 2007.
As of 2008-04-04 Apple has NOT released any shipment information for the first CALENDAR quarter of 2008.

[aquaadverse]

Apple has a long way to go in the Enterprise. They aren't going to give product life cycles. I can't send our people to Europe with Macbooks and get them fixed in 24 hours if they break. or Four hour response on servers. We are weaning ourselves from Microsoft, but moving to Linux.Going from a software to hardware lock in doesn't make sense, it's the freedom of the free range chicken.
Apple and the Enterprise are not currently in synch. Not a knock on Apple, just a fact. It's amazing how many Mac users feel like they are IT experts and think I'm worried about losing my job, or I only know Windows. Many of us were running Unix 30 years ago. Nice that you finally caught up.

[whitedog]

I'm certainly no expert in enterprise IT, but could it be that Apple has not, up to now at any rate, not taken enterprise computing seriously because the profit margins don't justify the effort?
The issue of hardware and software roadmaps is also telling. It just doesn't suit Apple's business model to divulge where it's going. Until it changes that tune, Apple is unlikely to make a serious dent in the enterprise market, where long term planning is essential and ignorance is definitely not bliss.
In my opinion, iPhone or no, there will be no tipping point for Apple in the business sector until they decide to make their roadmap available. Even the ability to deploy the Windows OS (not to mention Linux) on Intel Macs doesn't change the balance sufficiently to make the Mac a viable corporate solution.
Which brings me back to profit margins. Apparently they are not wide enough in enterprise to persuade Apple away from it's habitual secrecy. Of course no one outside Apple can say for sure, but to the extent one can judge intentions by results, this explanation answers the requirements of Occam's Razor.

[Gary54]

As much as I prefer and have been an advocate of Apple computers and the Mac OS for 14 years, as good as the quality of the hardware is and the productivity of the software is and the reliability of the systems as a whole, I can think of one overwhelmingly good reason why big IT wouldn't, shouldn't and wont ever make the switch.

And I can put it into three words: "Sole source supplier"

Any manufactured item can and does break. Any manufactured item can and does have design flaws. Any manufactured item has bad runs of parts. Any item.

If your company is using and depending on hundreds or thousands of computers and is locked into buying parts from a single source, you just got the trouble you asked for.

Hypothetical: Say Apple was the dominant player in the enterprise market. Can you imagine the independent auto parts industry not even existing and having to go back to General Motors whenever you needed a part for that Chevrolet?

No.

Until there is an industry making and supplying parts from alternative sources, it won't happen.

[Gary54]

quote: "What kind of Mac hardware is Rob Isreal talking about when he says it's not compatible with new Mac OSes? He must be running some awfully old Macs to make that type of claim."

Apple comps have an upgrade path, not a downgrade path. I have been stuck in this dilemma for an essential old program too. I have a lot of files done in it, it was orphaned, it wont run on a newer OS version. A given Mac hardware box will not run OS software older than the version it shipped with, including the incremental upgrades. ie: If the comp shipped with v 10.4.8 .. you cannot install or run 10.4.7.

So anyone with a software setup that can't be or is a big job to upgrade, then you are stuck running the same vintage hardware which existed at the time it was current.

I just bought a used G4 MDD box for exactly that reason. To run that one program.

[whitedog]

Gary54 said:

As much as I prefer and have been an advocate of Apple computers and the Mac OS for 14 years, as good as the quality of the hardware is and the productivity of the software is and the reliability of the systems as a whole, I can think of one overwhelmingly good reason why big IT wouldn't, shouldn't and wont ever make the switch.

And I can put it into three words: "Sole source supplier"

That's not as true today as it once was. Not including the motherboard, most of the internal components on a Mac can be replaced by, or upgraded with third-party parts. Indeed, Apple itself uses many third-party, off the shelf, items. These days you can replace or upgrade the RAM, optical and hard drives and video cards, and install a variety of expansion cards in the PCI slots, without once consulting Apple. There are still a few proprietary or single source components, like the hardware RAID card and the dial-up modem, that you can only get through Apple. But these are hardly deal breakers.

Admittedly, there are some items that have to be made to Apple specifications, like RAM for the Mac Pro and Mac compatible video cards. These limit you choices a bit, but, then, not every RAM board or video card will work in every PC, either. You still have to match specs and, indeed, it's much harder to do that on a PC because there is so much diversity in system configuration. In addition, Apple exercises a level of quality control over third-party components that is unmatched in the rest of the PC world.

Now that Macs can run Windows (and Linux), there is little if any disadvantage to using Mac hardware. Even the proverbial Mac price premium is old news, no longer relevant. Still, there are issues with backwards compatibility that influence some buying decisions, which is one reason there is a healthy secondary market for used Macs.

There are two substantive roadblocks to expanded Mac use in enterprise: the absence of a hardware and software (OS) roadmap, and the mindshare that Windows still retains among IT professionals. To date Apple has made no serious effort to overcome either of these obstacles. Given Apple's track record in recent years, however, there is no reason to believe they could not overcome both of these impediments - if they chose to. The only real question is not when or if, but why.

[whitedog]

[quote name='KPO'M']

>

whitedog said:

I'm certainly no expert in enterprise IT, but could it be that Apple has not, up to now at any rate, not taken enterprise computing seriously because the profit margins don't justify the effort?
>
> In my opinion, iPhone or no, there will be no tipping point for Apple in the business sector until they decide to make their roadmap available. Even the ability to deploy the Windows OS (not to mention Linux) on Intel Macs doesn't change the balance sufficiently to make the Mac a viable corporate solution.
>
>

Quote

Perhaps, but companies like RIM might disagree.

I agree with most of what you say. One little caveat, though: The original question was, will the iPhone open the way for Mac computers in the enterprise market? RIM is irrelevant to this discussion because they don't make computers. While the iPhone may threaten RIM's dominance in the smartphone business, Mac computers won't. Though it's not as easy as it ought to be, if I'm not mistaken you can synchronize a Blackberry with a Mac. If I'm wrong, you can be sure the problem will get sorted out if Macs begin to show up in large numbers in corporate environments.

[Jarmo]

MS just announced how much longer XP will be availlable for new machines and how much longer it will be supported. While many are quick to point this out as a failing of Vista, it's just the kind culture corporations want.
You simply need to be able to plan ahead, you need to be able to make next years budget. And you want to standardize the OS over machines, the OS upgrades need to be planned too.
Let's say a BIG COMPANY considers macs for some department. Mac mini would seem an ideal candidate. So a plan is made, one year from now 500 minis will be ordered.
Now who can guarantee Apple will be still making minis then? Will there be something as a replacement or will the whole product segment be dropped? So by the time something should be ordered, the cheapest solution would be MacBook or iMac, from $599 up to $1099 or $1199! Explain that to the CEO, "ehh.. the macs seem to cost 100% more than we budgeted... and we need to toss those 22 inch screens we bought last year".

[hayesk]

mretondo said:

seems a bit odd, but that's how I read it.
A bit odd indeed, every Mac shipped since Leopard has come out can run Tiger and I believe Panther too.

That is simply not true. My MacBook can not run Tiger or Panther. Neither can my iMac.

[hayesk]

Gary54 said:

As much as I prefer and have been an advocate of Apple computers and the Mac OS for 14 years, as good as the quality of the hardware is and the productivity of the software is and the reliability of the systems as a whole, I can think of one overwhelmingly good reason why big IT wouldn't, shouldn't and wont ever make the switch.

And I can put it into three words: "Sole source supplier"

So, those companies with locked-in, exclusive contracts with Dell are not using a sole source supplier? MS is not a sole source supplier?

[Gary54]

mretondo said:

Yes, that is the case with newer macs not booting OS 9. I have a new iMac that came with Leopard but I put Tiger on it first to test something for a friend and it worked fine. I then reinstalled Leopard of course and migrated from my old mac. What might confuse some people is when a new mac comes out it might require the latest version of an OS i.e. 10.5.2 or 10.4.11 or 10.3.9.

I have two flat panel intel iMacs. One came with a set of 10.4.7 install disks, one came with a set of 10.4.8 install disks. The 10.4.7 disks are not accepted as valid by the machine that shipped with 10.4.8. I have another flat panel iMac that shipped with 10.4. Panther 10.3 will not install on it and a call to Apple tech support confirmed that is the case. "Nothing predating what it was shipped with" If you were able to install older version software on your machine, there is something missing from that picture.

[Gary54]

[quote name='whitedog']
>

Gary54 said:

> As much as I prefer and have been an advocate of Apple computers and the Mac OS for 14 years, as good as the quality of the hardware is and the productivity of the software is and the reliability of the systems as a whole, I can think of one overwhelmingly good reason why big IT wouldn't, shouldn't and wont ever make the switch.
>
> And I can put it into three words: "Sole source supplier"

That's not as true today as it once was. Not including the motherboard, most of the internal components on a Mac can be replaced by, or upgraded with third-party parts. Indeed, Apple itself uses many third-party, off the shelf, items. These days you can replace or upgrade the RAM, optical and hard drives and video cards, and install a variety of expansion cards in the PCI slots, without once consulting Apple. There are still a few proprietary or single source components, like the hardware RAID card and the dial-up modem, that you can only get through Apple. But these are hardly deal breakers.

Admittedly, there are some items that have to be made to Apple specifications, like RAM for the Mac Pro and Mac compatible video cards. These limit you choices a bit, but, then, not every RAM board or video card will work in every PC, either. You still have to match specs and, indeed, it's much harder to do that on a PC because there is so much diversity in system configuration. In addition, Apple exercises a level of quality control over third-party components that is unmatched in the rest of the PC world.

Now that Macs can run Windows (and Linux), there is little if any disadvantage to using Mac hardware. Even the proverbial Mac price premium is old news, no longer relevant. Still, there are issues with backwards compatibility that influence some buying decisions, which is one reason there is a healthy secondary market for used Macs.

There are two substantive roadblocks to expanded Mac use in enterprise: the absence of a hardware and software (OS) roadmap, and the mindshare that Windows still retains among IT professionals. To date Apple has made no serious effort to overcome either of these obstacles. Given Apple's track record in recent years, however, there is no reason to believe they could not overcome both of these impediments - if they chose to. The only real question is not when or if, but why.

I simply don't agree. I am long familiar with disassembling and rebuilding/upgrading Macs and PCs both. While I do not and cannot disagree about your point referring to plug in components and the changes Apple has made in that regard, it still doesn't apply when it comes to basic computer components. Part of what makes Apple hardware products superior is that they are custom designed and built. The cases are non standard, The power supplies are non standard. The rom required for components such as video cards limits the choices available, For example, what's the most frequently failed part of all in any computer? The power supply. Not an ATX. Pick a capacity.

Look inside an Apple computer compared to some PC box .... A thing of engineering beauty. Everything is made to fit, down to the cables. But just as often as not, that means getting a special made to fit part from Apple or adapting something IF it can be adapted. Yes, every Chevrolet model is built with unique parts that don't fit anything else. But still .. nine out of ten times .. you can get that part from someone other than General Motors. Faster, cheaper and better quality. Down the street. You are not solely dependent on GM.

PC motherboard goes down? You can have one the next day from dozens of places. When Apple parts reach that point of availability, then they will make progress in enterprise.

[Gary54]

[quote name='hayesk']
>

Gary54 said:

>
> And I can put it into three words: "Sole source supplier"

So, those companies with locked-in, exclusive contracts with Dell are not using a sole source supplier? MS is not a sole source supplier?

I was speaking of hardware. Regarding Dell, point made. However, Dell is in hot competition with other PC windoze vendors for those contracts selling a competing product. Apple is in competition only with itself and the end buyer. Regarding MS, last I checked, MS was and never has been a PC hardware or parts vendor. People locked into the sole source operating system are by no means also locked into who they get hardware from to run it on.

The enterprise market is big numbers and market share. Not profit margins. Apple lost the platform wars in IT years ago. Jobs has been one sharp cookie to avoid it, keep focused on what Apple does best and let the Gorillas duke it out over bananas and banana peels.

[whitedog]

Quote

I simply don't agree. I am long familiar with disassembling and rebuilding/upgrading Macs and PCs both. While I do not and cannot disagree about your point referring to plug in components and the changes Apple has made in that regard, it still doesn't apply when it comes to basic computer components. Part of what makes Apple hardware products superior is that they are custom designed and built. The cases are non standard, The power supplies are non standard. The rom required for components such as video cards limits the choices available, For example, what's the most frequently failed part of all in any computer? The power supply. Not an ATX. Pick a capacity.

Look inside an Apple computer compared to some PC box .... A thing of engineering beauty. Everything is made to fit, down to the cables. But just as often as not, that means getting a special made to fit part from Apple or adapting something IF it can be adapted. Yes, every Chevrolet model is built with unique parts that don't fit anything else. But still .. nine out of ten times .. you can get that part from someone other than General Motors. Faster, cheaper and better quality. Down the street. You are not solely dependent on GM.

PC motherboard goes down? You can have one the next day from dozens of places. When Apple parts reach that point of availability, then they will make progress in enterprise.

The issue isn't really single source - the issue is availability - and price. The competition in PC motherboards, for instance, keeps the prices down. From Apple, on the other hand, since they are the only source of replacement motherboards for Macs, replacements are prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, would you trade the custom fit and quality of Apple parts for generic versions? The fact is, you can usually get Apple parts, though you may have to go through an Apple authorized service provider to do so.

Certainly Macs are not accessible to build-your-own hobbyists, though modders have always found ways to customize their Macs in flamboyant ways. But this is not an enterprise IT issue. While some IT departments may rebuild their PCs from the motherboard up, I doubt this is really a cost effective practice when you factor in the expense of the labor involved.

I suspect they are far more concerned with software compatibility issues. Here PCs may have an advantage, but the well documented higher support costs for Windows platforms probably zero out any savings they realize on this count.

Converting from one platform to another is a huge undertaking for a large business - or even a small one. Even upgrading on the same platform can be daunting. In the end, whichever problem you prefer to give weight, there are still significant barriers to wider Mac use in enterprise - though most of these obstacles are of Apple's own devising - and thus, up to Apple to solve, when and if they choose.