Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

besson3c · 08:32 PM

Funny how when some Mac users don't want to agree with this columnist, they just resort to attacking him (read the comments of this MacNN story. This is the same sort of tactics Global Warming naysayers resort to - they don't want to believe in GW, so what do they do? Attack the messenger (Al Gore).

Like it or not, this guy is right... Apple is not a major player in the Enterprise, and his thoughts line up exactly with everything I've heard around our large state university.

I just don't understand why Apple doesn't want to address this potential.

wallinbl · May 31, 2007, 08:31 PM

Your URL is all whack.

Margins are too low there - the Steve wouldn't like it.

The only desktop machine an enterprise would buy is the PowerMac and it's too freaking expensive. An enterprise has little interest in a machine it can't repair (iMac/Mini). Another issue is software - I think OS X is behind Linux in terms of enterprise software. Are there any ERP packages that run on OS X? Beyond just ERP, in the software packages I see, I see Linux support far more often than OS X support.

If they can master running Windows apps at the same time as OS X apps, then they have a shot. But, they need to release the mythical xMac. No business is buying a Mini and no business wants to buy a new LCD every refresh cycle. And the only businesses buying the PowerMac are doing so for developers or creatives.

besson3c · May 31, 2007, 08:33 PM

Fixed the URL.

Railroader · May 31, 2007, 08:33 PM

Apple will probably go bankrupt soon. Ignoring the enterprise market will do that. I mean, if you are a computer hardware maker, you have to be in the enterprise market right? Foolish Apple.

I hear Apples are good for graphix.

OldManMac · May 31, 2007, 08:46 PM

Perhaps Apple isn't so serious about this business is because it is a low margin business that involves some hand holding. As a former Apple Solutions Consultant, I used to call on some local businesses, such as ad agencies, trying to pitch the XServes, and it's an extremely tough nut to crack. We did a couple of XServe seminars, put on by Apple technical people, and we'd get maybe a half dozen to a dozen people show up. They always seemed impressed, but getting them to pull the trigger was another matter altogether, even when we could show the price advantage. Switching consumers is a piece of cake; the enterprise market is leery because of the attendant costs involved and the training costs, and the just plain psychological barrier of being different, which I think is the biggest barrier to overcome. A lot of companies have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, and even if they're having some problems, at least they're problems they can deal with, as opposed to the learning curve of something new.

besson3c · May 31, 2007, 09:01 PM

Karl: I think the bottleneck is with the software more than it is with the hardware, at least as of late.

goMac · May 31, 2007, 09:09 PM

Oh god... here we go again...

MindFad · May 31, 2007, 09:37 PM

Alllll aboard!

besson3c · May 31, 2007, 09:58 PM

Sorry guys, I find this "debate" of reality vs. fantasy far more entertaining than most other threads in this forum, but maybe that is just my own unique sense of taste here...

Railroader · May 31, 2007, 10:27 PM

You do realize you are very hard to take seriously when you mock people's religious beliefs and post inane threads don't you?

wolfen · May 31, 2007, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Funny how when some Mac users don't want to agree with this columnist, they just resort to attacking him (read the comments of this MacNN story. This is the same sort of tactics Global Warming naysayers resort to - they don't want to believe in GW, so what do they do? Attack the messenger (Al Gore).

Like it or not, this guy is right... Apple is not a major player in the Enterprise, and his thoughts line up exactly with everything I've heard around our large state university.

I just don't understand why Apple doesn't want to address this potential.

More accurately, the enterprise market does not want Apple's products.

Apple is a niche-marketing company. If you are familiar with this concept, you know that niche marketing is successful when its products are designed for a fairly narrowly defined pool of potential customers. Niche marketing companies tend to enjoy greater brand loyalty, higher margins, and are typically more innovative than competitors seeking greater market share.

The reason Apple doesn't care about enterprise computing is because they are a SUCCESSFUL niche-marketing company. More <> better.

besson3c · May 31, 2007, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by wolfen

More accurately, the enterprise market does not want Apple's products.

Apple is a niche-marketing company. If you are familiar with this concept, you know that niche marketing is successful when its products are designed for a fairly narrowly defined pool of potential customers. Niche marketing companies tend to enjoy greater brand loyalty, higher margins, and are typically more innovative than competitors seeking greater market share.

The reason Apple doesn't care about enterprise computing is because they are a SUCCESSFUL niche-marketing company. More <> better.

Good points!

It kind of makes me wonder why Apple bothers with OS X Server at all then if all they can expect to lure is loyal Apple customers who need a server in a small/medium sized business? Doesn't seem like a big enough market to be worth their while...

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 09:12 AM

1 - HP: 634,093 units (30.03%)
2 - Dell: 445,850 units (21.12%)
3 - IBM: 295,175 units (13.98%)
4 - Fujitsu: 81,068 units (3.84%)
5 - Sun: 79,063 units (3.74%)
8 - Acer: 14,900 units (0.71%) *
9 - Hitachi: 9,000 units (0.43%) *
10 - Apple: 8,700 units (0.41%) *
Other: 543,416 units (25.74%)
Total: 2,111,265 units (100.00%)

Gartner numbers except * - IDC quoted by Digitimes

This is why I really wonder what Apple plans to accomplish with their server products... They have such a long way to go. They are clearly gunning for small business, but I'm not sure how that potential will translate into these sorts of numbers. Overall, I just wonder whether Apple is taking a hit here, or recognizing its ROI. There is a lot of competition in this space, both hardware and software wise.

hmurchison2001 · Jun 6, 2007, 11:40 AM

The Enterprise market is not growing at the same rate that the SMB market is. Apple would do best to find their niche within the SMB market. If they could get Server sales up to about 20k in a couple of years that would be nice.

Tiger was the first OS that I believe really felt comfortable for users. Leopard will be the first Server OS that feels comfortable for administrators.

Sales will only go up from here.

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001

The Enterprise market is not growing at the same rate that the SMB market is. Apple would do best to find their niche within the SMB market. If they could get Server sales up to about 20k in a couple of years that would be nice.

Tiger was the first OS that I believe really felt comfortable for users. Leopard will be the first Server OS that feels comfortable for administrators.

Sales will only go up from here.

Why is that a given? It's not like Apple is the only vendor targeting small business. Sure, OS X Server makes doing some things easy, but there are also costs associated with migrating from Windows and such. What Apple really needs to do is focus on virtualization technologies such as Xen so that these small businesses can run their specialized Windows apps if they have to. They also need to do something that will compete or cooperate with MS Exchange. iCal server is a great start, but Exchange will do a whole lot more than simply personal calendaring, global address book, and mail.

Mind you, I don't know how many small and medium sized businesses are on Exchange.

hmurchison2001 · Jun 6, 2007, 01:03 PM

It's a given because even at the server level Apple's legendary ease of use applies. IT staffs are shrinking and in some small companies dedicated IT staffing doesn't exist. Stuff has to work without a lot of fuss.

Exchange is great but one you go down that road you're stuck upgrading your CALs. Exchange 2007 requires a 64-bit computer and to fully extend it you must pretty much be running Microsoft software.

You don't need XEN to run virtualization for small windows apps. Parallels will do that and with VMware coming that need is taken care of IMO.

iCal server is nice for a few reasons.
1. It's based off of an open standard in CalDAV
2. No CALS are required

The mail server should tie into the Calendar server. Apple's mail program uses an API to add "To Do's" and calendar functionality. Team Directory should handle the assigning and management of groups and Address Book should handle the global needs of users.

Toss in the iChat 2 server and Wiki server and you have a standards based toolset that should provide email/calendaring/groups and Instant Messaging. For intranet data you have a Wiki server and weblog server in Blojsom.

Leopard is supposed to have a native iSCSI initiator as well which is nice because the SMB market likes iSCSI pricing far more than Fibre.

Unlike Tiger...I don't see a lot of gaping holes in Leopard Server and Apple hasn't even shown half of the new features.

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001

You don't need XEN to run virtualization for small windows apps. Parallels will do that and with VMware coming that need is taken care of IMO.

Xen would still be ideal because:

1) It is open source
2) It supports full virtualization with Intel's VT hardware and AMD's equivalent. The new version of Parallels will start to get into this, from the sounds of this
3) This virtualization is happening at a much lower level than the application level as handled by VMWare and Parallels. This means that you can basically have multiple OSes running on the same hardware simultaneously managed by the OS, loaded at boot. This is pretty cool. I don't know how much of this the OS X version of VMWare (which I believe is Workstation?!) will handle.

iCal server is nice for a few reasons.
1. It's based off of an open standard in CalDAV
2. No CALS are required

It is very nice, but it will take some time to get the clients up to speed. As of now, there are no stable clients.

The mail server should tie into the Calendar server. Apple's mail program uses an API to add "To Do's" and calendar functionality. Team Directory should handle the assigning and management of groups and Address Book should handle the global needs of users.

Toss in the iChat 2 server and Wiki server and you have a standards based toolset that should provide email/calendaring/groups and Instant Messaging. For intranet data you have a Wiki server and weblog server in Blojsom.

These are all cool features, but in order to compete directly with Exchange Apple will need to provide support for:

1) Delegates
2) Free/busy time
3) An interface for setting permissions on shared mailboxes/folders
4) Client support

It won't be until then that they have a full groupware solution.

Leopard is supposed to have a native iSCSI initiator as well which is nice because the SMB market likes iSCSI pricing far more than Fibre.

That's very cool. There was a Slashdot article not too long ago about replacing expensive SANs with iSCSI and ZFS.

Unlike Tiger...I don't see a lot of gaping holes in Leopard Server and Apple hasn't even shown half of the new features.

It depends on what you mean by "holes". Do you mean stuff that would make OS X Server big business ready? If so, there are several things missing, some quite significant.

hmurchison2001 · Jun 6, 2007, 02:36 PM

I agree with you about Xen if we're talking about improved low level access. I can see the benefits of Apple doing this for 10.6 and leaving the workstation/desktop market to Parallels and VMware.

I'll be looking to see how well Apple integrates Groupware features into Leopard. All those features you mentioned are "must haves"

Leopard really improves biz level tools in that it finally has a calendar server which should integrate well with the mail server. Toss in instant messaging and you have much of the core task of a Groupware server.

We'll see how extensible the configuration is. Leopard server will be the first server I attempt to get certified in so I'm going to be intimately familar with its capabilities soon enough.

goMac · Jun 6, 2007, 02:45 PM

Sun announced today ZFS is becoming the default file system in OS X.

Besson whining--

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Sun announced today ZFS is becoming the default file system in OS X.

Besson whining--

Why would I whine? That is great news!

goMac · Jun 6, 2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why would I whine? That is great news!

Hence the (Besson Whining)--

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001

I agree with you about Xen if we're talking about improved low level access. I can see the benefits of Apple doing this for 10.6 and leaving the workstation/desktop market to Parallels and VMware.

I hope Apple includes Xen support in 10.5, because it's been out for a while. If it takes another 2 years or so for 10.6 to come out, by then this will be ancient news, unless somebody other than Apple can get Xen working.

I'll be looking to see how well Apple integrates Groupware features into Leopard. All those features you mentioned are "must haves"

My sense is that Leopard will be an improvement, but still a work-in-progress in this respect. I hope I'm proven wrong!

Leopard really improves biz level tools in that it finally has a calendar server which should integrate well with the mail server. Toss in instant messaging and you have much of the core task of a Groupware server.

I would say the core elements of groupware are delegate support, an interface for sharing calendars, free/busy information, shared mailboxes, and address book data. My sense is that iCal Server will be used for providing group read/write calendar access to realms, which is great, but I have no clue whether iCal will go as far as creating calendars showing free/bush information. Because OS X Mail is a general purpose IMAP client, I'm not sure if Apple can facilitate the shared mailbox mechanism in a way that will work with all mail servers. I also suspect that OS X Mail will remain an LDAP client to read a master directory of addresses, but won't allow sharing of personal address book information within a group.

I *really* want a nice, open source Groupware solution to emerge. There are a few, but the bottleneck seems to be client support. Several have Outlook connectors, but none that I know of really bridge into OS X, with the exception of Zimbra which now includes an iSync module.

We'll see how extensible the configuration is. Leopard server will be the first server I attempt to get certified in so I'm going to be intimately familar with its capabilities soon enough.

I hope it succeeds, I'm just not convinced based on the sneak peaks that Apple really is concerned about addressing these bottlenecks that prevent OS X Server from being a greater player in large business.

hmurchison2001 · Jun 6, 2007, 03:20 PM

Yessssssssssssssssss

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Hence the (Besson Whining)--

Your face is a whine.

MacosNerd · Jun 6, 2007, 03:22 PM

You also need to consider what the system/network admins are most comfortable dealing with and that's windows. Its a known commodity and switching platforms is not a feasible answer to dealing with network problems.

As a person who works in IT, I can say that the Mac is looked upon with disdain, why would these same people suddenly decide to start using xserve instead of say a blade server running MS server 2003?

besson3c · Jun 6, 2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

You also need to consider what the system/network admins are most comfortable dealing with and that's windows. Its a known commodity and switching platforms is not a feasible answer to dealing with network problems.

As a person who works in IT, I can say that the Mac is looked upon with disdain, why would these same people suddenly decide to start using xserve instead of say a blade server running MS server 2003?

I guess it depends on what business you work in. In some, a Unix or Linux is the standard tool of choice.

Still, your point does apply - what is the draw in migrating to OS X in a Unix environment? GoMac claims that XServe hardware is cheaper than Dell/HP/IBM, and that training costs are lower. However, this would apply only if you are looking for machine specs in line with the XServe's offerings (you can get a Dell server for a full hundred dollars that I suppose Dell thinks will provide enough hardware for some businesses), and if you can actually make use of the GUI tools Apple provides in OS X Server.

Y3a · Jun 6, 2007, 03:40 PM

In a gov't agency where LOTS of scientists work, they use BOTH. They have more folks switching TO mac than from. Thursby's "AdmitMac" product is used, but the main problem (real world) is NT server types fiddling with the settings on the servers and causing problems for the non-windows users (Mac, UNIX, LINUX, weird special use) The graphics folks already do all their own Xserve stuff and run much more smoothly than the windows users. The windows folks have to have daily virus and app updates to be 'safe' from windows issues that MS has refused to address. The TV folks only have PC's for little admin stuff, as all the heavy processing and production is done on Macs.

Y3a · Jun 6, 2007, 03:44 PM

Windows acceptance has more to do with the workforce training, Windows PC (MCSE) , or UNIX,LINUX or Mac. Most "IT Professionals" are PC centric, and are useless in multi-platform environments. The "Other Platform" types have to assist the MCSE types way too much for people claiming to be IT Professionals.

MacosNerd · Jun 6, 2007, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Windows acceptance has more to do with the workforce training, Windows PC (MCSE) , or UNIX,LINUX or Mac. Most "IT Professionals" are PC centric, and are useless in multi-platform environments. The "Other Platform" types have to assist the MCSE types way too much for people claiming to be IT Professionals.

True but by the same token why would the folks who have so much experience on one platform willingly decide to use another when the current platform is "good enough"

Y3a · Jun 7, 2007, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

True but by the same token why would the folks who have so much experience on one platform willingly decide to use another when the current platform is "good enough"

Their users may need a specialized app that doesn't run on WindowZ or they have no use/trust in using windows in a critical application or situation.

The Server guys are always tweaking the registry and hosing up stuff. Then the desktop support guys have to identify the specific issues and then the server guys have to undo something they never logged in as a change(for documentation purposes) Unprofessional MCSE's strike again.

Angus_D · Jun 7, 2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I hope it succeeds, I'm just not convinced based on the sneak peaks that Apple really is concerned about addressing these bottlenecks that prevent OS X Server from being a greater player in large business.

I don't really understand why you say that. It's quite clear to me that Apple isn't concerned. They're not even trying to convince you.

besson3c · Jun 7, 2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

I don't really understand why you say that. It's quite clear to me that Apple isn't concerned. They're not even trying to convince you.

That does seem to be the most logical conclusion. I just find it weird how Apple sort of makes gestures and nods towards big enterprise with things such the XServe and its marketing, but simply don't take this seriously enough on the software side.

I do agree with you though.

Angus_D · Jun 7, 2007, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

That does seem to be the most logical conclusion. I just find it weird how Apple sort of makes gestures and nods towards big enterprise with things such the XServe and its marketing, but simply don't take this seriously enough on the software side.

You just have to sit back and accept that it's all a bit schizophrenic. It suits some groups to have some ability to claim "HEY LOOK ENTERPRISE!!!" at some junctures, but in general it doesn't mesh very tightly with Apple's core focus. Having some sort of workgroup server infrastructure is clearly necessary for larger OS X client/workgroup deployments, and OS X Server/Xserve are quite good at that.

But I wouldn't try and represent them as a generic multi-purpose server platform. Sure, you can run a web hosting company on OS X Server. But why would you? The only reason people have been able to supply me with is that they have some sort of allegiance to the platform, and they think they'll get some kudos from the Mac community for running their sites of OS X Server. Which is bunk.

They also perceive that they'll be able to look after some sort of semi-professional IT infrastructure without any proper IT staff, because it's a friendly Mac like point and click GUI. That's also bunk. They'll have some sort of illusion that they have some sort of workable IT infrastructure, then something will go wrong and they'll be stranded because they don't have a clue. Or, they'll want to make some sort of basic change which falls outside the narrow tramlines of the GUI, and they'll be stranded. Either way, it's an illusion.

besson3c · Jun 7, 2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

But I wouldn't try and represent them as a generic multi-purpose server platform. Sure, you can run a web hosting company on OS X Server. But why would you? The only reason people have been able to supply me with is that they have some sort of allegiance to the platform, and they think they'll get some kudos from the Mac community for running their sites of OS X Server. Which is bunk.

They also perceive that they'll be able to look after some sort of semi-professional IT infrastructure without any proper IT staff, because it's a friendly Mac like point and click GUI. That's also bunk. They'll have some sort of illusion that they have some sort of workable IT infrastructure, then something will go wrong and they'll be stranded because they don't have a clue. Or, they'll want to make some sort of basic change which falls outside the narrow tramlines of the GUI, and they'll be stranded. Either way, it's an illusion.

Well said!

It is definitely dangerous to get too comfortable inside Apple's comfortable bubble if you are responsible for managing IT. Knowing what to click on to do task X or Y is something you could train anybody on, but in order to really understand how to manage this infrastructure some knowledge under the hood is required.

I've experienced a Windows administrator trying to admin a Mac based infrastructure with this level of knowledge, perhaps Microsoft certification (can't remember), and he was pretty much useless whenever there was a significant problem.