Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 01:25 PM

Apple's enterprise market and strategy is essentially non-existent - both hardware and software-wise.

I remain confused as to why Apple doesn't pursue this more aggressively? There is some money to be had in securing some nice enterprise contracts and providing service.

Perhaps they see this as simply competing with Red Hat and the other enterprise players and have decided they don't want to go there, but I actually don't think it would require *that* much in terms of resources to offer an enterprise ready product, and certainly it will feed sales of XServes (assuming that Apple will also start offering Enterprise-ready hardware to match these efforts).

Looking at the latest round of commercials, it seems that Apple is satisfied to conceed the blanket "PC" as being the best suited for business applications, but if Apple really wants to grow their overall market perhaps they should focus some attention there, rather than just focusing on tools for creative people, iPods, and a decent computer for the home? Why put all of your eggs in one basket, when they are entirely capable of producing Enterprise-class products and maintain their edge with the stuff they already offer?

G4ME · Dec 18, 2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

focusing on tools for creative people, iPods, and a decent computer for the home? Why put all of your eggs in one basket,

how is that in one basket?

i count three

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by G4ME

how is that in one basket?

i count three

Fine... three.. Possibly one general category within the industry, but I won't nitpick that...

Blasphemy · Dec 18, 2006, 01:39 PM

It may feel that churning out hardware for that market would hurt its brand by making it omnipresent.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Blasphemy

It may feel that churning out hardware for that market would hurt its brand by making it omnipresent.

How so?

What was the point of hyping up Virginia Tech if they were intentionally trying to keep a low profile in this market?

rickey939 · Dec 18, 2006, 01:50 PM

I agree.

Blasphemy · Dec 18, 2006, 01:51 PM

not servers
beige boxes it doesn't want

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Blasphemy

not servers
beige boxes it doesn't want

I'm not proposing that they churn out beige Desktop PCs, just talking about their enterprise server offerings.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by rickey939

I agree.

Awesome! Now that I have support from Ricky, this thread should really gain traction!

How about your official Ricky approving seal?

rickey939 · Dec 18, 2006, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How about your official Ricky approving seal?

Mastrap · Dec 18, 2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Fine... three.. Possibly one general category within the industry, but I won't nitpick that...

No it's not. These are three categories, distinctly different. You have:

A line of music players.
A line of computers designed for the home.
A line of computers designed for creative professionals.

Nexus5 · Dec 18, 2006, 02:08 PM

They do not offer ANY (as we all know) information about their product roadmap. This fact is the big show-stopper. No product roadmap = no enterprise contracts. period.

nexus5.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

No it's not. These are three categories, distinctly different. You have:

A line of music players.
A line of computers designed for the home.
A line of computers designed for creative professionals.

Okay fine, I see you have a point.

However, if Apple is really aiming to grow market share I still say this is a market they should not completely ignore like they basically have been.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nexus5

They do not offer ANY (as we all know) information about their product roadmap. This fact is the big show-stopper. No product roadmap = no enterprise contracts. period.

nexus5.

I don't think that's a big deal...

Any worthwhile IT guy bases their buying decisions on software that is available *now* and can be tested now, not stuff that may be coming out in the future.

As for hardware, Intel being completely open about their product road map makes it pretty easy to predict the sorts of directions Apple will go. The precise timeline may be unknown, but it should be pretty easy to speculate. At the end of the day, decisions are often made around what is out now anyway.

If Apple did go this route, perhaps they'd decide to be more open with their XServe and OS X Server road maps. With components such as the Calendar Server already available as open source, I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that Apple is not too concerned about keeping their cards close to their chest when it comes to the road map of their high end offering. Developers need time to prepare for such things.

Big Mac · Dec 18, 2006, 02:58 PM

I lol at rickey's Krusty Brand Seal of Approval... For Apple to create true enterprise solutions, it would have to create a new brand dedicated to it. Perhaps at some point in the future we'll see that happen.

osiris · Dec 18, 2006, 03:30 PM

Yeah, rickey, funny stuff.

as for Apple Enterprise, not so funny.

I think it was Nexus5 that said it best - if I may very loosely paraphrase, 'We don't know nothing about nothing.' Sure, we know what chips may be used, but don't know when and where.

Enterprise computing is serious business(

)
CIOs want to know which models are going to be upgraded, about how much, and when in order to forecast money before the computers drop dead from virus infestation. + The support mechanism tied to these machines is enormous, as is the clever licensing schemes applied to Enterprise software.

If Apple had enterprise computing, more than half of the IT world would lose their jobs, more than half of greedy Enterprise software companies would disappear, and the air would become fresh - like a spring morning at the base of Mt Fuji on Lake Kawaguchiko after being bathed by three gorgeous women.

But I digress(ed), because I'm sick of Apple ignoring this huge market. Time to drop the secret attitude, time to tell the world that Apple can do it better, faster, cheaper.

Nexus5 · Dec 18, 2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by osiris

Enterprise computing is serious business(

)
CIOs want to know which models are going to be upgraded, about how much, and when in order to forecast money before the computers drop dead from virus infestation. + The support mechanism tied to these machines is enormous, as is the clever licensing schemes applied to Enterprise software.

Exactly. They have to give up their ignorance and arrogance, if not - no chance.

nexus5.

Angus_D · Dec 18, 2006, 05:14 PM

Apple Enterprise Strategy? hahahahaha.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 06:06 PM

There were some Apple reps that were trying to sell us on some Enterprise stuff, except most of their presentation was spent showing off iChat.

Apparently it wasn't very impressive, although I wasn't there.

Eug Wanker · Dec 18, 2006, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't think that's a big deal...

Any worthwhile IT guy bases their buying decisions on software that is available *now* and can be tested now, not stuff that may be coming out in the future.

As for hardware, Intel being completely open about their product road map makes it pretty easy to predict the sorts of directions Apple will go. The precise timeline may be unknown, but it should be pretty easy to speculate. At the end of the day, decisions are often made around what is out now anyway.

If Apple did go this route, perhaps they'd decide to be more open with their XServe and OS X Server road maps. With components such as the Calendar Server already available as open source, I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that Apple is not too concerned about keeping their cards close to their chest when it comes to the road map of their high end offering. Developers need time to prepare for such things.

It's a huge deal. It's a often poor choice to go with a company's products when you have zero idea what future products that company is going to be releasing. This is especially true with Apple, as it has a habit of screwing people over with OS releases and software.

Anyways, Jobs at one point already conceded that Apple had lost the enterprise war. I don't think Jobs feels it's a target for the company at this time. Maybe in a few years...

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 06:33 PM

Yeah, I change my mind.... Their secrecy is a pretty big deal. Don't know why they would be concerned in this area though, they aren't being copied.

osiris · Dec 18, 2006, 06:44 PM

Maybe over time Apple/Steve will change their tune.

Hell already did freeze over, so maybe we'll see some flying pigs in the future.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 06:58 PM

If nothing more, Apple putting more resources into this area will make all of the countless universities and other academic institutions much happier.

mduell · Dec 18, 2006, 06:58 PM

Taking on Dell/HP/IBM in the business sector would be a tough fight.
What's the number one thing people push when talking about Macs in the home? iLife, which is completely useless in the business market.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Taking on Dell/HP/IBM in the business sector would be a tough fight.
What's the number one thing people push when talking about Macs in the home? iLife, which is completely useless in the business market.

A tough fight, but not an impossible fight.

I've heard only through hearsay around my work that several people have had quality control issues with Dell servers (as have we, before my employment). HP makes great stuff, but their entry level support is still suffering from the Compaq merger. Before we were escalated to a higher level of service, I had to deal with them, and it wasn't terribly satisfying. I don't know much about IBM, but our super computer (the biggest in academic computing in the country right now) is based on Blades, so IBM certainly did a good job in convincing us to purchase their offerings.

What Apple is really good at is writing software. If they can produce some solid software and integrate it with their hardware like Sun has done, they could do pretty well. If they go this route, their only real competition in this specific niche would be Sun, no?

mduell · Dec 19, 2006, 05:41 PM

FYI: Macenterprise.org

besson3c · Dec 19, 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

FYI: Macenterprise.org

Anything in particular there that caught your attention?

powerbook867 · Dec 19, 2006, 09:02 PM

I install and service enterprise storage. We sell IBM, McData, Cisco, etc..

I have yet to see in any of our client sites a single Mac in a data center. I'm not saying their hardware/software couldn't get the job done, but IBM, EMC and HP pretty much own the marketplace. Then, on top of the Big 3, you have a TON of smaller companies selling cheap fibre attached SATA trays.

Someone mentioned warranty, CIO's and ROI's. These are all relevant. Can Apple setup a 24x7x365 4 hour turn around for service? I don't know the answer, but if it's no, they are going to have a hard time competing w/ the Big 3. Which drops them down to the bottom feeder/el cheapo fibre channel storage vendors...

They may have a very competent product line, but until they have service/support that matches the big boys, they are never going to attain any significant market share.

I don't do the server side, but unfortunately the same rules apply. Mission critical apps need mission critical support...

Eug Wanker · Dec 20, 2006, 08:13 AM

Can Apple setup a 24x7x365 4 hour turn around for service?

I've been told that Apple's warranty turnaround is a joke in comparison to the big guns. Apple's business strategy seems to be aimed at the smaller businesses, or else smaller purchases in enterprise at this time.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by powerbook867

I install and service enterprise storage. We sell IBM, McData, Cisco, etc..

I have yet to see in any of our client sites a single Mac in a data center. I'm not saying their hardware/software couldn't get the job done, but IBM, EMC and HP pretty much own the marketplace. Then, on top of the Big 3, you have a TON of smaller companies selling cheap fibre attached SATA trays.

Someone mentioned warranty, CIO's and ROI's. These are all relevant. Can Apple setup a 24x7x365 4 hour turn around for service? I don't know the answer, but if it's no, they are going to have a hard time competing w/ the Big 3. Which drops them down to the bottom feeder/el cheapo fibre channel storage vendors...

They may have a very competent product line, but until they have service/support that matches the big boys, they are never going to attain any significant market share.

I don't do the server side, but unfortunately the same rules apply. Mission critical apps need mission critical support...

I believe the main problem with Apple's hardware in and of itself is the lack of hot swappable redundant parts.

osiris · Dec 20, 2006, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by powerbook867

Can Apple setup a 24x7x365 4 hour turn around for service?

If Apple wanted to, they could. With billions in cash, a new branch of Apple could be created for enterprise computing. NY's fifth avenue store is 24/7 - so maybe time isn't the issue, people will work if you pay them well. Kick it up a notch with more service centers, on-site service, etc... It'll be an investment (tax-deductable) and might work.

Y3a · Dec 20, 2006, 08:59 AM

perhaps Apple just doesn't want to try and explain different approaches to Microsoftheads? Those types would rather spend their days patching bad software, telling their user community that "It's not a bug, it's a feature" and praying that one of the vast number of security holes won't bring their little IT world crashing to a halt.

The movie SPFX houses and digitally oriented studios keep buying FC Studio, and lots and lots of Macs, and so do the pre-press folks.

olePigeon · Dec 20, 2006, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Taking on Dell/HP/IBM in the business sector would be a tough fight.
What's the number one thing people push when talking about Macs in the home? iLife, which is completely useless in the business market.

Gods, if only Apple would take on Dell. I hate those piece of

PowerEdge servers.

For

's sake, how many times do they have to break?! We've gone through TWO motherboards on one server (failed NIC, then failed video), one on another (failed NIC), and 2 failed power supplies. This is out of five brand new PowerEdge servers.

I hate Dell with a passion.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 09:37 AM

Here are the things that Apple would have to do, just thinking off of the top of my head:

- fix Software Update so that it isn't retarded

- provide some sort of Software Update server option with the ability to host your own packages and manage groups of computers

- provide Enterprise-level service contracts, beef up all support structures quite a bit

- offer an Enterprise-class version of the XServe

- Be more open about server-related product road maps

- Provide some sort of open source package management tool, or just use an existing one to deploy open source software and related libraries

Eug · Dec 20, 2006, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Here are the things that Apple would have to do, just thinking off of the top of my head:

- fix Software Update so that it isn't retarded

- provide some sort of Software Update server option with the ability to host your own packages and manage groups of computers

- provide Enterprise-level service contracts, beef up all support structures quite a bit

- offer an Enterprise-class version of the XServe

- Be more open about server-related product road maps

- Provide some sort of open source package management tool, or just use an existing one to deploy open source software and related libraries

Yeah, this is definitely not an overnight thing. However, if Apple wants to expand its market share, doing the iPod and iLife thing will only take them so far. OS X 10.5 Leopard could provide Apple with a stable platform for more a business-oriented push starting in late 2007.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 09:53 AM

The Software Update thing being retarded does not only reflect Apple's conscious business/strategic decisions, but it also reflects an embarrassingly bad design decision.

Do you think that OS X Server users really want that f-ing iPod updater, and to restart a mission critical service after the latest version of iTunes updates the Quicktime framework?

Tee hee!!

powerbook867 · Dec 20, 2006, 09:57 AM

besson3c, if the the blades and the storage are not hot swappable(power, controllers,drives), I wouldn't even drop one of their boxes in a medium size business, let alone a fortune 1000 data center..

Everything in this arena is hot swap and redundant. You can buy it without that functionality, but we don't recommend it to any of our clients. We tell everyone the want 5/9's uptime. 99.999% uptime..

If they did make the investment in the infrastructure, they could possibly be a player. However, it would take years of building and the costs would be significant.

You may be surprised, but most data centers are almost an even mix of both Windows and Unix (AIX, Solaris and HP-UX). We are noticing an increase in Linux in the past six months, but most of that seems to be displacing Solaris.

olePigeon · Dec 20, 2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

- offer an Enterprise-class version of the XServe

What's needed to make it Enterprise-class?

Dork. · Dec 20, 2006, 11:31 AM

The only conclusion you can come to is that Apple specifically doesn't want to compete with the big players in the Enterprise Computing market, and only have the Xserve to round out their product line. It may not even be making a profit for the company, if a business case can be made that companies that buy an Xserve are more likely to buy Mac hardware.

Any company, even a large company like Apple, has to pick and choose the markets it competes in. I wouldn't be suprised if they made the decision that the things that currently differentiate Mac OS X from Windows (and Mac hardware from Intel Server hardware) aren't translatable to the Enterprise market.

mduell once supplied a link to a study of OS X Server as a web server platform, and why some of the decisions made in the development of the OS purposely make it suck for many server applications (but better for desktop applications). So it could be that Apple doesn't even want to bother fixing the OS flaws right now. As the company grows, though, it might be an area they choose to participaite in in the future....

Gossamer · Dec 20, 2006, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What's needed to make it Enterprise-class?

Possibly redundant power supplies, hot swappable RAM, other stuff like that I think.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Possibly redundant power supplies, hot swappable RAM, other stuff like that I think.

yup... redundant, hot swappable stuff.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

The only conclusion you can come to is that Apple specifically doesn't want to compete with the big players in the Enterprise Computing market, and only have the Xserve to round out their product line. It may not even be making a profit for the company, if a business case can be made that companies that buy an Xserve are more likely to buy Mac hardware.

Any company, even a large company like Apple, has to pick and choose the markets it competes in. I wouldn't be suprised if they made the decision that the things that currently differentiate Mac OS X from Windows (and Mac hardware from Intel Server hardware) aren't translatable to the Enterprise market.

mduell once supplied a link to a study of OS X Server as a web server platform, and why some of the decisions made in the development of the OS purposely make it suck for many server applications (but better for desktop applications). So it could be that Apple doesn't even want to bother fixing the OS flaws right now. As the company grows, though, it might be an area they choose to participaite in in the future....

Yeah, and that is where my thinking lies - looking forward and expanding Apple's market like they seem interested in doing.

Eug · Dec 20, 2006, 12:11 PM

Aren't some of the server-side issues with OS X fixed (or partially fixed) in Leopard?

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Aren't some of the server-side issues with OS X fixed (or partially fixed) in Leopard?

Which ones?

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 12:14 PM

So, what is the point in Apple working on Calendar Server for Leopard if this is not their intended business? How is this in their interests? Just to potentially upset the Exchange monopoly?

Eug · Dec 20, 2006, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Which ones?

Speed for instance.

I realize that such issues are only a minor part of the overall picture for an enterprise push, but it's better than nothing.

Dork. · Dec 20, 2006, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

So, what is the point in Apple working on Calendar Server for Leopard if this is not their intended business? How is this in their interests? Just to potentially upset the Exchange monopoly?

Well, they do have OS X Server products and server hardware that they're actively selling, and their customers have probably told them that they'd love to have an alternative to Exchange, which is why they're workign on this Calendar Server. My point is that Apple is probably satisfied with the level of committment they have in this market, with no intention to grow but every intention to serve their existing customers. And as long as their customers are satisfied with Apple's level of committment, they'll stay customers.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

Well, they do have OS X Server products and server hardware that they're actively selling, and their customers have probably told them that they'd love to have an alternative to Exchange, which is why they're workign on this Calendar Server. My point is that Apple is probably satisfied with the level of committment they have in this market, with no intention to grow but every intention to serve their existing customers. And as long as their customers are satisfied with Apple's level of committment, they'll stay customers.

That could be, but I don't know of anybody satisfied with Apple's commitment and service, even within the very Mac centric small department I used to work for here. Obviously my own empirical evidence means very little though.

Calendar Server is open source, meaning that it can be built to run on other platforms. There are already alternatives to Exchange, but it all seems to come down to:

a) them working well
b) them being priced attractively

and also very importantly:

c) them scaling (which you could combine with b)

Running Groupware is not cheap. Perhaps Apple is simply trying to provide an option for small business with the resources to offer this service, but to me Groupware really makes the most sense in largish environments where there is a substantial company address book, the need for robust calendaring options, etc. Why would they be going after this market?

I suppose I could be being presumptuous here though, especially since the Calendar server doesn't necessarily represent a broader set of goals or a Groupware initiative.

The approach of beefing up client applications with stuff like CalDAV is a very interesting approach (rather than just making a giant monolithic environment like Exchange or Zimbra is), but it will also rely on receiving buy-in with all of the major and relevant email clients (i.e. something decent that will work on Windows) to make it worth their while.

I'm really interested to see what Apple's plans are here.

olePigeon · Dec 20, 2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Possibly redundant power supplies, hot swappable RAM, other stuff like that I think.

They already have redundant, hot-swappable power supplies. I doubt the RAM is hot-swappable, though. That'd be a good addition.

The HDD sleds are hot-swappable and can use both SATA and SCSI. I think that's pretty slick.

Apple also offers 24/7/365 4-hour turnaround support, and it works great. I think it varies from state to state, though, as they sub-contract to a 3rd party. That could use some improvement if they made it inhouse or a subsidiary company that they could quality control directly.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

They already have redundant, hot-swappable power supplies. I doubt the RAM is hot-swappable, though. That'd be a good addition.

The HDD sleds are hot-swappable and can use both SATA and SCSI. I think that's pretty slick.

Apple also offers 24/7/365 4-hour turnaround support, and it works great. I think it varies from state to state, though, as they sub-contract to a 3rd party. That could use some improvement if they made it inhouse (or a subsidiary company that they could quality control directly.)

Here are the specs of HP's enterprise servers:

HP ProLiant DL500 Servers - comparison results ProLiant Servers - HP

Stuff like ILO is also something very useful I don't think is available on the XServe.