backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by imperator3733.. on Apr 24 at 12:59 PM


According to the numbers, Apple's greatest success in 2007, was perhaps in business, where it nearly matched Vista's adoption. However, analysts have been less than complementary of its accomplishments.  (Source: Forrester Research)
Despite massive gains in business, OS X still is much maligned by business analysts

In the consumer market, Apple's publicity machine is firing on all cylinders.  Despite the occasional piece of bad publicity, the media tracks Apple's every product move with a zealousness bordering on obsession (and readers follow it with an equal zest).  Apple's modest gains in the PC market and minor gains consumer operating systems market are well publicized.  Furthermore, among consumers, Apple's brand is extremely well-received and is considered synonymous with creativity and innovation.

Why does Apple do so well with the consumer?  Well much of it lies in its marketing genius (or investment).  From the iPod commercials featuring the trendiest music, to the comic “Mac Guy, PC Guy” commercials, Apple knows how to market to the majority.  Apple isn't necessarily looking to win over the tech followers, like many readers on this site, it’s looking to win over your sister, your mom, your dad -- and it’s doing a good job in most cases.

However, Apple has one big flaw that happens to be coupled to perhaps its largest success story of last year.  Apple simply has no respect from business analysts as a serious business solution.  Analyst opinions of Apple in the consumer market versus the business market are night and day.  However, is Apple doing badly in the business market?

Not at all; in fact, it turns out that Apple went from nearly no market share in the business industry, to 4.2 percent.  To put this in perspective Vista was only able to eke out a 6.3 percent market share despite its heavy business marketing and dominant position.  So do those numbers indicate a Mac OS close to tying a Microsoft OS?  Why hasn't this been the front page news of every tech column (especially when OS X's nearly insignificant consumer market gains were heavily reported)?

The reason is despite the success, analysts have dismissed it and these analysts frequently drive what is reported in the tech news, more than some would like to admit.  And the analysts just don't like Apple's business efforts.  Says Forrester analyst Thomas Mendel:

While 2007 was a big year for Apple, with its enterprise share growing threefold to 4.2 percent, uptake remains limited to enthusiasts and small workgroups. IT departments crave standardization, and Macs pose too many problems for IT departments. The verdict for enterprise-focused vendors is clear: Unless your market is a niche business group, Windows is the only desktop you need support.

However many of Forrester's points are largely inaccurate in terms of the business market (though they might be a bit more applicable, actually, to the consumer market).  With solutions such as the Mac Mini, Apple actually has some relatively affordable offerings, in terms of basic business machines and can often beat competitor's business solutions on price.  Another leveled criticism is that Macs are proprietary.  Actually in terms of many "openness" fields such as web support, Apple is strongest supporters of universal standards

Lastly, another frequent criticism is proprietary software.  While this can be very true for the consumer industry (lack of gaming support), in the business industry Apple often has as much or more software.  In fields such as content creation, it’s no secret that Apple has a number of outstanding software products.   Perhaps the most universally useful business software -- Microsoft Office -- is near-fully implemented on Macs, thanks to an unlikely partnership with Microsoft.

Part of the blame for the situation rests with Apple.  While making great marketing efforts in the consumer industry, Jobs and his team's business marketing efforts are virtually non-existent.  The consume buzz appears to be driving the new business success, as Apple sure isn't.  And likely thanks in part to Apple's poor job marketing itself, business analysts remain unimpressed.

While devices like the iPhone have won Apple a small measure of begrudging respect among business analysts, it is unlikely that their approval will change overnight.  It will take a combination of actual effort from Apple's market, and a less biased analysis from analysts to eventually give Apple more of a chance. 

In market analysis the one thing you can usually trust is hard numbers. When it comes to sales data it seems that analysts should be cheering Apple's business efforts, and perhaps jeering its consumer OS efforts, where gains have been much more lackluster.  Unfortunately, they appear to be doing the opposite.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You forgot SECURITY
By aju on 4/17/2008 11:45:05 AM , Rating: 5
As noted at the last CanSecWest show, Macs are serious security risks (lookup your own dailytech articles). A Mac was seriously compromised within the first few minutes of the contest. As the article states, “Put a Mac up against a serious attack, and it drops like a stone.” The Vista and Ubuntu boxes survived an entire day of hacking without cracking. Apple has a history of getting embarrassed at hacker events. It is that history if insecurity that makes them suspect at best in an enterprise environment.




RE: You forgot SECURITY
By MDE on 4/17/2008 11:57:48 AM , Rating: 5
The Mac actually lasted a full day and wasn't hacked until they were allowed to visit a web page on it that exploited a vulnerability in Safari.

I've got to wonder what the point of this article is though, it's really nothing more than a blog posting lauding the merits of running Macs in a business environment. Sounds like somebody wants the boss to switch. :P


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By Locutus465 on 4/17/2008 12:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
And that some how is a good thing? Vista lasted a lot longer than that, still Flash being able to open a hole in vista was not desireable. Hopefully microsoft is looking into ways to close that kind of hole.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By MDE on 4/17/2008 12:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a good thing smart guy, I was pointing out an error the previous comment. ALL three machines survived the first day of that competition. The Mac went down on day 2, PC on day 3 and Linux didn't. Also, holes in third-party software aren't Microsoft's (or Apple's) problem, in this case it's Adobe's. Apple only recently fixed the hole in Safari, which had to be about a month turnaround. Microsoft would have been burned at the stake for moving so slowly.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By Time Lynn on 4/17/2008 12:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
Out side of sensationalistic journalism no one is really worried about these security vulnerabilities. A software language expert who already knows flaws in the code finding security vulnerabilities within a contest is completely different from a computer being attacked in the wild.

Actually exploiting this vulnerability is another matter. Thus far none of these vulnerabilities have been exploited in the wild.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By jimbojimbo on 4/17/2008 12:41:25 PM , Rating: 4
The best exploits are those that are undetected. Besides if one person can do it there's got to be someone among the billions of people on the planet that can also do it.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By mikefarinha on 4/17/2008 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
ALL three machines survived the first day of that competition.


All three machines 'survived' the first day because the prize money, $20,000, was less than half of what a passive exploit would go for on the open market. Not a single person gave a serious try on the first day.

However on the second day the Mac went down in mere minutes.
The third day people were expecting vista to go down early but it lasted most of the day before a third party hole got exploited. It was also mentioned that the same exploit exists in all three platforms.

The organizer of the event said that Linux lasted all three days due to nothing more than a lack of interest.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By bhieb on 4/17/2008 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I've got to wonder what the point of this article is though, it's really nothing more than a blog posting lauding the merits of running Macs in a business environment.


And incorrectly at that.

This line is utter BS and Jason knows it (or should).

quote:
Perhaps the most universally useful business software -- Microsoft Office -- is fully implemented on Macs, thanks to an unlikely partnership with Microsoft.


Yes the mac has office, but without VBA support it is crap for business. Poll any IT guy in here, and see how many excel or access DB's are on their network with custom VBA. Office for the mac is fine for my mom, but it is castrated and worthless for business without VBA support. Admittedly this is probably more of a MS issue than Apple, but it sucks nonetheless.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 7:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'd disagree with this statement because the assumption is that you NEED VBA to use Office at work, which is incorrect. I entirely agree that VBA support is required for some people, particularly anyone working in an accounts office with Excel, but that doesn't cover everyone and it certainly doesn't cover my team. As far as I am concerned, the lack of full support for MS Exchange in Entourage remains the biggest issue with the new version of Office as this is what I was really waiting for. The lack of VBA support just garnered a shrug of the shoulders.

With respect to the VBA issue, please see this blog post for a really excellent overview of why VBA wasn't implemented in Office:mac 2008 (http://www.schwieb.com/blog/2006/08/08/saying-good... The upshot is that it would have taken an additional 2-years to do just to port the VBA support from Office:mac 2004.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By retrospooty on 4/17/2008 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 3
That and matching Vista in business is NOT an accomplishment. Neither Mac nor Vista will ever be a major factor in business systems. Its pretty clear enterprises are sticking with XP until the next OS release.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By 306maxi on 4/17/2008 12:38:25 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think that's true at all. As soon as businesses can be sure that all their software can run on Vista they'll move because Vista will of course get support for a longer time. A lot of companies took aaaaages to move to XP. The company I used to work for took till 2006 to move to XP. The same thing is happening with Vista and people misconstrue this as a sign that Vista is crap or something.....

It's not that. It's the fact that businesses want everything to work before they move over. The same thing will happen with every new Windows OS that comes out as it has happened with every version of windows that has previously come out in the past.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By tallguywithglasseson on 4/17/2008 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 4
That's a good point. To use the parent's example, most businesses probably will stick with XP until the next version of Windows (Windows 7) comes out -- at which point they'll probably be switching to Vista.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By retrospooty on 4/17/2008 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not really... There are an incredible amount of corporate systems still using win2000. Support means little to nothing, as IT depts never call MS for support on desktop issues (servers yes, but not desktops).

There is no compelling advantage to usse Vista in an office environment, none at all, therefore the cost and more importantly hastle to upgrade the OS is just not worth it. Even new systems that come in as Vista are being images back to XP so that internal support isnt an issue. Expect that to continue long avter XP support stops. Vista will grow a bit in business, but never be massively adopted like XP was. The next gen is what everyone is waiting for.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By darkpaw on 4/17/2008 1:56:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not really... There are an incredible amount of corporate systems still using win2000. Support means little to nothing, as IT depts never call MS for support on desktop issues (servers yes, but not desktops).


Ah, they don't care about "mainstream" (aka technical) support. They do care about the extended report (i.e. security patches). I'd really be suprised any 2000 is still in use after 2010 when extended support ends for the system.

As long as security holes are still getting patched, if the OS meets the business requirements thats fine. After security patches end, there is very little reason to keep an OS around, then it becomes more of a vulnerability they anything.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By retrospooty on 4/17/2008 2:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Point taken... Some care about security patches, not all... But Win2000 has been out of circulation for a long time, for extended support to end in 2010 is not an issue. XP will be around even longer.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By mcmilljb on 4/18/2008 2:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually some people will get smart and relocate them to virtual machines, where they can be protected some more. People worried about one machine for that "special" software should just consider a virtual machine and then just move on. Need to keep Win2K and old access database? just vritualize it on a Vista machine. I think that is what we will see more and more, while main user desktops will upgrade as soon as their applications are Vista compliant.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By darkpaw on 4/18/2008 10:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
Just because it's virtualized, doesn't mean it isn't a threat. There have already been several vulnerabilities that allow taking over hosts or other virtual machines from a comprimised virtual guest and there will be more.

Virtualization != Security


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By 306maxi on 4/17/2008 3:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
But the problem is that none of the bigger companies will move onto windows 7 for at least 3 or 4 years into it's life cycle. At which stage XP will be starting to tire and show it's age.

We're only 15 months or so into the life of Vista. I would be surprised if the story for XP was much better at this stage. XP was really crap in regards to security until SP2 came along and even with SP2 came a mass of problems with programs at the time. All of which seems to be quickly forgotten when people come to slag Vista off.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 7:25:35 AM , Rating: 3
I can say with certainty that the corporation I work for will migrate from Windows XP when support ends for it because it is policy not to run any software that non-supported (the migration from NT was fun). Now what we'll migrate to is a much more grey area but I have my doubts it will be Vista unless Microsoft cuts support for XP before the next release of Windows, which is more likely to be the version that we upgrade to so as to maintain the largest possible support window (pun not intended).

I certainly can't see the company migrating to the Mac, mostly because there is only a single vendor and therefore there can't be a bid process for hardware/software services and there is significant risk relying on a single company for such important services. A migration to a Linux-based OS on the desktop is, however, much more possible and I'd be very surprised if the idea wasn't at least being tested somewhere in the company.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 12:58:35 PM , Rating: 3
The biggest hurdle for Vista for us right now is

1. Application compatibility
2. Integration into the infrastructure.

Application compatibility is huge and the reason I suspect Vista has such a weak business showing right now. We have scores of applications that are simply not certified or compatibile with Vista. So we wont deploy Vista to any of the users in our office using those apps(85% of them)

Integration is a problem as well. The enhanced security features are tough to deal with and present issues when deploying.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By retrospooty on 4/17/2008 1:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly right... And anyone that disagrees with you has never worked in an IT dept before, and has no clue.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By robinthakur on 4/18/2008 3:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say that they simply don't know how to deploy vista actually. Maybe send them on a MCTS/MCSE course so they can learn how to deploy it with extremely simple group policies in place which turn off UAC and most of everything else so you can ensure that you don't take advantage of any of the new secure features...I'm no Vista evangelist and own Macs as well as Vista, but there are too many comments here from people working, presumably in call centres or service desks, who seem to think they know everything about vista through using a cracked copy they downloaded at home...

Macs won't take over until they figure out something akin to Active Directory. As much maligned as MS is sometimes, they do get some things right and AD is a prime example. Vista itself tinkered with alot undser the hood, made it more secure (you get prompted for admin credentials and room credentials in OSX and 'nix as well) and made it almost as pretty as OSX and still people whine. What exactly do you want?


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By Locutus465 on 4/17/2008 12:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, I second apple security issues... their image as being a more secure platform is going to end pretty quickly once they have a big enough market share to be worth hacking in the business sector.


RE: You forgot SECURITY
By pk de cville on 4/18/2008 11:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
I suggest you read a good critique on that sham of a self aggrandizing bunch of meatheads calling themselves 'security experts'. They've lost all credibility as a 'security' organization. Renaming the CamSecWest to 'FUD R US' would at least have integrity.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/29/mac-shot-...

and this

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/31/thom-holw...


umm d'uh
By michal1980 on 4/17/2008 11:37:27 AM , Rating: 4
Business has a hard enough time to switch from a windows system to a windows system (xp to vista).

Talk about a major switch from xp to OS-X.

given that alot of big buiness pc's are leased, vista will come into play as its phased out of OEM's. And the new pc leases come out.

The switch to vista starts as a trickle now, and will turn into a big tidle wave as lease pc's are traded in for new ones.

And business is not about being 'open' its about working, Will my application work in this os? Yes or No.




RE: umm d'uh
By afkrotch on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: umm d'uh
By michal1980 on 4/17/2008 12:26:05 PM , Rating: 3
most big buiness leases PC's. Why buy? they know they will be replaced, they want the warrenty. They dont care about getting rid of the pc when they buy a new own.

I would bet a great chunk of dell's business in B2B leasing.


RE: umm d'uh
By darkpaw on 4/17/2008 12:44:54 PM , Rating: 4
Many big businesses lease, I worked years for a company that handled lease returns.

And it's just a matter of support cost being cheaper. Businesses don't spend millions on custom applications just to rewrite them for a new OS. Do you even have any idea how many business systems are still running on mainframes and in long dead langauges like Cobol? It's not because the support is cheaper, I can tell you that much.


RE: umm d'uh
By tmouse on 4/17/2008 12:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
I will not address the lease or buy discussion but the VAST majority of corporate computers are simply never upgraded to a new OS. Since Vista will require more hardware upgrades its adoption will be mostly through attrition. If it isn’t broke do not fix it has always been the motto of smart successful businesses. There has to be a reason to upgrade, so servers and machines requiring greater security will get the upgrades first (once regression testing is done on house apps) This can easily take several months after the RTM version of the OS is available and then comes the decision to upgrade or wait till the unit is scheduled for replacement is made. The administrative assistants and other users (which make up the bulk of the machines) usually wait until a new machine is mandated. The Mac advances are mostly in laptops and mostly from small companies.


RE: umm d'uh
By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 1:00:45 PM , Rating: 4
Uh I worked for a Fortune 250 company a couple of years ago that leased from Dell. That is about 65,000 workstations and maybe 1000 servers on a 3 year lease. Enterprise wide we were switching out 1/3rd of them yearly or about 20,000 workstations. Lots of bigger companies lease because it will make sure they arent spending IT resources on repairing old ass computers that dont work and ensure people are working instead of waiting for their 8 year old workstation to boot or be fixed.


RE: umm d'uh
By aliasfox on 4/17/2008 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
Same with my university - the business school, for example, leased the machines at $300 per unit per year, with 1/3 changed out every year - so full turnover every three years.

My dean was actually interested in switching (at least partially) over to the Mac, given that with a minimum of fuss, you can have OSX and Windows running on the same box - he was very much a fan of Keynote presentations (while perhaps not as powerful as PowerPoint, Keynote generally looks a lot more polished and less like the digital-transparencies that PowerPoint templates often look like).

At the end of the day, it was IT that shut down the idea more than anyone else. They didn't want to have to find a way to integrate "something different" into the system, even if it was perhaps just 10 machines. I have a feeling some of them may have been worried about job security as well, given that they seemed to have no knowledge outside of a Windows based environment (front end, back end, any end).


RE: umm d'uh
By gramboh on 4/17/2008 4:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, in Canada we probably have about 6,000 notebooks (Dell and HP) in offsetting rotation (e.g. HP's will trade in July 2008, Dell's will trade in July 2009 and so on). In the US it would be over 50,000+ I would think, maybe more. Most clients of a decent size (e.g. over 500 computers) I've worked with have their stuff leased as well, the cost is probably about the same as buying but you avoid the headache of disposing old equipment and supporting old/slow crap.

We are adopting Vista and Office 2007 in July (I believe most of our US offices already have, maybe all of the US by now). Probably due to the OEM license issue, or maybe because Microsoft is a client of ours :)


RE: umm d'uh
By gramboh on 4/17/2008 4:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, in 15 years, I have NEVER seen a Mac in use in a business environment other than at design students or random consultants with Macbooks (that didn't have to run any propietary software or interact with a domain or active directory).


RE: umm d'uh
By HighWing on 4/17/2008 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If their system techs can show that swapping to Mac can save the company X amount of dollars every year, odds are high, the company will swap.


I would really love to see how that is even possible. It's my understanding that most mac hardware is actually overpriced compared to the equivalent PC hardware. And then there is software costs. Moving from PC to Mac would mean that a company could not continue to use it's current software and would have to buy all new licenses. And then finally another major turning point would be support. Even if you could sell the initial purchase and switch as a savings, what about long-term support? It is to my understanding that if you have any hardware failure on a mac you must to send it back to Apple to get it service/replaced at a very high cost. Whereas for PC's, many companies employ in house techs who would just replace the part on site for a fraction of the cost and, most importantly, a fraction of the downtime. That fact alone can keep Macs out of major business offices.


RE: umm d'uh
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 1:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They care about cost.


Exactly. It's cheaper to lease than to buy. Especially when you have to upgrade every few years.

You clearly either don't work or don't work in a large company. Every company I've worked for leases its PCs. From a privately owned company of 90 people to the office of 300+ I work in now. I worked out at Kennedy Space Center for a summer in college. However many thousands of PCs there, all leased.

It makes absolutely no sense for a large organization to purchase PCs when in 2-3 years, they will be out of date and needing to be replaced. Even many small businesses don't buy their computer equipment. Regardless of if its a Mac or a PC, it will be leased.


RE: umm d'uh
By walk2k on 4/17/2008 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Most businesses are simply waiting until Vista and driver support are more mature. They are NOT switching to Mac. hahah... as if.


A bit suspect
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 11:53:32 AM , Rating: 3
The source blog from which this article takes its figures was written by a Mac zealot. I find its figures a little suspect, especially given other sites are quoting the same Forrester Research study as the following:

quote:
According to our latest hardware survey, Microsoft operating systems are powering 99% of North American and European enterprise PCs and 97% of small to medium-size business (SMB) PCs.




RE: A bit suspect
By Proteusza on 4/17/2008 12:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Another choice quote from Jason Mick:

quote:
However many of Forrester's points are largely inaccurate in terms of the business market


Wow. First - on what evidence do you base this? Second, what makes your opinion relevant here? Do you run a business IT department? No?

I work as a developer/consultant, and needing our toys as we do, I've spoken with IT support guys at length. All of them basically say the same thing - heterogenity costs money. The more platforms you have to support, the more it costs money. They could sell Macs for $1, and businesses would still need to question how these things would interact with their Active Directory (if an MS house), whether their existing MS Office site license is valid for it (being a different platform, probably not), whether their personnel are sufficiently trained to provide Mac support....

You made so many baseless assumptions about the nature of business IT support to further your blatant Mac bias, that I'm amazed your work was published.


RE: A bit suspect
By johnsonx on 4/17/2008 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still trying to find that Jason Mick filter in my account settings... it's got to be here somewhere! Maybe there's a filter to block all blog posts disguised as news articles? A Jason Mick filter by another name would be just as sweet!


RE: A bit suspect
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/17/2008 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 3
I've said it once, but I unfortunately must say it again because of comments of this nature.

I don't own a Mac. I don't want a mac. I don't want a mac for business (linux works fine thank you). I don't want a mac for home (my Vista PC plays games better than a mac could dream of).

My basic stance on Apple is that they're a company with brilliant marketing, that largely appeals to consumers who rely more on emotion and less on logic (ie. most consumers). I give them kudos for that.

I do think their consumer electronics ie. iPods/iPhones etc. are rather clever/well designed. I do own an iPod (my ONLY Apple product), as I listen to LOTS of music and it had a 160 GB HD, which its competitors could not match.

As far as an OS, OS X's biggest problem is that its browser Safari is rather poorly designed despite spending worthwhile time focusing on compatibility. This is the source of much of OS X security woes.

Further I think that Apple's executives/management are very totalitarian which shoots any good thing they have going in the foot.

Otherwise OS X versus Vista boils down to your needs in terms of a business user. In terms of a consumer, if you are a gamer, I think OS X is vastly inferior to Vista. If you are a non-gamer, it becomes a closer contest, and again boils down to your other needs.

As far as computer hardware, I think there desktops are slightly overpriced, but not as much so as their laptops that are ridiculous. However I can appreciate the form factor appeal of the Mac Mini/Macbook Air though its not for me. Obviously these machines are quite lacking in many capability areas, but if your goal is a great form factor, these machines could be considered highly desirable.

As far as my opinions on the "other" OS's--

Linux- Free is good, I support open source. However, there's often a lack of quality. And for large businesses it is rather impractical. And both gaming and drivers support is very poor. I consider this a good OS for casual computing and some small businesses.

Vista/XP- I think XP developed into a very very good OS. It might surprise some, but this is my favorite OS, despite its minor problems. I think Vista could do similarly, but I think Microsoft has made some mistakes both design and marketing wise, as well as falling victim to variables outside its control (drivers).

I tend to criticize Vista when I find grounds for such in that its the clear next gen OS consumer leader and should be held to a higher standard as such.

I've been also trying to point out the shortcomings of OS X/Macs/etc. lately, because, while they are not the market leader, I believe that they have developed a position of brand leadership and also should be held to a higher standard.

If I see any such success from Linux (I haven't) I would perhaps take a closer look at its issues.

As far as my data as the original op mentioned that, yes it could be inaccurate. My appologies if so, but I didn't design it. I don't have the expertise to collect and numerically analyze market data, I'm a writer not an analyst. If the analysts lie or screw up in their metrics, that's their fault not mine.

As far as your comment, I have worked IT, however, my basis for my claims, was that it makes sense for some smaller businesses to switch wholly to macs (I agree with your heterogenity comments) or in some cases maintain to separate networks (would be more expensive). There's obviously arguments against using Macs for business (security or the point which you raised etc.) but I think that Forrester's main points were rather inaccurate and I explain why. Its price comments were specifically mentioning hardware costs, not overall costs. The hardware markup on desktops really isn't that bad, like I said. As far as software/proprietary nature, I adressed why these claims were a bit inaccurate. Am I saying there's not arguments against Macs in business. No way! But I disagree with Forrester's analysis.

Apologies for the long post, but I hope I cleared up your misconceptions and that you keep your discussions more on point and less a personal attack and more on point in the future. If you disagree thats fine, but you'll be better of criticizing with facts and logical arguments such as the middle part of your post, which actual raised some intelligent and fair points.


RE: A bit suspect
By bhieb on 4/17/2008 1:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ok then respond to this sentence. It absolutely is NOT fully implemented witout VBA.
quote:
Perhaps the most universally useful business software -- Microsoft Office -- is fully implemented on Macs, thanks to an unlikely partnership with Microsoft.

From another post above:
Yes the mac has office, but without VBA support it is crap for business. Poll any IT guy in here, and see how many excel or access DB's are on their network with custom VBA (excpecially SMB's as they will have tons of this crap). Office for the mac is fine for my mom, but it is castrated and worthless for business without VBA support. Admittedly this is probably more of a MS issue than Apple, but it sucks nonetheless.


RE: A bit suspect
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/17/2008 2:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes the mac has office, but without VBA support it is crap for business.

I think Jason's statement in the article is incorrect (and will be corrected) but to say that small businesses need VBA support is just not true. Yes, for enterprise, it's not enough. But for the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of small businesses out there, most are even unaware VBA scripting even exists inside Office.


RE: A bit suspect
By bhieb on 4/17/2008 2:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
True the small business guy doesn't know about VBA, but the "consultant" that wrote that report did. I doubt they were writing .NET with a SQL backend. More than likely grandma's little boy who wrote some vb script in school customized those reports.

SMB's are all about cost, and right or wrong Access/Excel with VBA is a very cost effective way to implement something. And there are a BUNCH of so called consultants that do nothing, but write custom excel "apps" (and that in and of itself is an oximoron and excel app ha).

Or it is just a manifestation of the very nature of working in Excel. Uncle Tom over in sales gets to tinkering in excel, and before you know it he will run into a wall that only VBA can fix (unless he ports it to something else $$$ and loss of control).

Back to the original point. What was the purpose of this article? Mac is great for business , and sorry but by almost every means of measuring that just is not true.

So moral of the story is that if you don't want to be accused of being a Mac fanboi, don't post articles that clearly illustrate bias.


RE: A bit suspect
By prenox on 4/17/2008 5:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the business. Tons of print shops use Macs exclusively.


RE: A bit suspect
By Proteusza on 4/17/2008 6:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry for the personal attack, I agree it was uncalled for.

The thing is, you provide a brief quote from Forrester that states that only niche businesses need consider Macs, then state many of their points are inaccurate in terms of the business market. You fail to point out which or why. Thus I could only assume that you were implying that Forrester were inaccurate in their assessment that Macs are only usable in niche businesses.

I havent read the report, like I said, but I think they have a point about hardware. With Macs, Apple is your sole supplier. That poses two problems - firstly, that should Apple experience any difficulties, your business is directly tied to them and could fail as a result. Secondly, Apple, and Apple alone, determines pricing. Its short wonder that Macs are more expensive. Also consider that, in the world of business, any difference in markup is too much. Thus even if a Mac carries a small premium but is capable of everything a PC can do, unless it really pays for itself it will not be purchased.

I'm also not aware of what Apple does to cater to business customers. I havent heard of any Apple server software, I suppose thats not in their portfolio. It would make a truly heterogenous network impossible (although that may not deter your capable network admin, who I imagine would use Linux in such a scenario).

I just dont see Apple ever getting serious use in business because it caters more to creativity than productivity - which, as Forrester says, relegates it to niche businesses.


RE: A bit suspect
By walk2k on 4/17/2008 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Nearly matches" is pretty .. uh.... GENEROUS.

The actual numbers are 6.3% to 4.2%

That's a difference of 66%. In other words, Vista in business outnumbers Mac by 66%. That's "nearly matching"?? That's some creative accounting right thre.

To clarify the point, if the numbers were 63% to 42% would you say that was "nearly matching"?? Don't tell that to the HD-DVD folks ok? :D


RE: A bit suspect
By walk2k on 4/17/2008 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is the same crap we get when Apple says they "doubled" their market share..... from 1.5% to 3%.


RE: A bit suspect
By louzamos on 4/17/2008 4:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a difference of 66%. In other words, Vista in business outnumbers Mac by 66%.


its 50% actually,

6.3 - 4.2 = 2.1

2.1 is 50% of 4.2 so if we would like to find how much Apple would have to grow to reach MS, the answer would be 50%.

but, if we'd like to find out how much "ahead" MS is from Apple, the the 2.1 lead is tranformed in just 33,3% lead (2.1 is 33.3% of 6.3)

its how you like at it really but not 66% :)


There is also one other problem...
By Imaginer on 4/17/2008 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 3
If a company were to do a MAJOR OS change from one platform to a completely different platform, they will also have to reinvest in EVERY software and all of its licenses for that OS. Its not like one can install their same copy and licenses of CAD programs and math programs from a Windows platform to a Apple platform.

This is the BIGGEST reason as to why I don't think ANY business should have any business to switch their computer platforms over just because it "looks" better. And it is the same reason for myself.

Not to mention just to get everything FUNCTIONALLY up the same and level once the change is over and whether or not such a platform change is even slightly better overall, you won't see a sweeping change either, from a cost-function-benefit perspective too.

And it is this very same reason as to why I myself won't "switch." If there was a magic wand readily available to have every piece of software I own, purchased, used on my windows machine to magically work once I buy the all mighty apple box then so be it, I will give the platform a try. But if things work as is and if such a difficult change isn't significantly better, then the hell with it.

Hear that Jobs? Not all the image in the world will do this problem justice.




RE: There is also one other problem...
By petrogrips on 4/17/2008 12:53:29 PM , Rating: 1
And the magic wand is.....

Bootcamp, vmware, etc.

By all accounts, the mac makes a better PC than a PC. Your old crappy business software will work just fine and you will be able to start using more modern Mac and iphone based solutions.

Do you really expect the old PC mentality where nobody wants change (keep XP forever) to work in a Moore's law world?


By Proteusza on 4/17/2008 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
so businesses should not only pay Apple's inflated prices for their proprietary hardware, but should also pay for extra Windows XP licenses?

And business IT support wont have freedom to swap hardware at will, because although both are x86, Apple still likes a separate hardware market.

I'm sorry, Apple's appeal to the business market, as I see it, is about 0.


By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 1:02:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah we went through this with somebody and their mac. They had to have a VM running WinXp to do many of their work functions. Worked out great(not). For the price of the hardware, time spent, and software to make it work. I could have purchased about 15 PCs.


By Runiteshark on 4/17/2008 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure a number of business (how about the one I work for) would love to train every single Tom, Dick and Jane how to use VMware or bootcamp, and show them how they constantly need to switch back and forth to get their work done.

That sounds like a spot on idea, I'm sure with those ideas you will have no problems becoming a high up manager at any Fortune 500 company of your choosing.

Or it could be that you don't have a damn idea what you are talking about, and have never been exposed to what its like supporting idiot users all the time, but hey, we need suckers like you to bring up ideas like this, so we can let you go on your own and do it yourself, and then discover the hard way why we don't do stuff like this.


RE: There is also one other problem...
By Imaginer on 4/17/2008 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
By "old" and "crappy" you mean tried and true software solutions that will interoperate with sometimes even older systems and legacy equipment or perhaps highly customized interface software not even remotely available initially on the OSX and then having to reinvent a shiny wheel versus a WORKING wheel.

And no, I am WELL aware of that magic wand. It means I would have to weigh my cost estimates. Like others have posted below you, I am sure YOU enjoy purchasing a machine that is more expensive than the PC that has the same/equivalent specifications and THEN if one doesn't have a Windows OS, purchase that separately... And virtualization? Things are much better run if it is in a native environment as much as possible.


By Runiteshark on 4/17/2008 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
But imagine how totally sweet that Database system prompt written in DOS 15 years ago would look on OSX. Wouldn't that be sweet?

Or how about having a totally sweet that SMS client that Tippingpoint puts out would look with all the fanciness of OSX.

I think the eyecandy far outweighs the gigantic increase in cost spent supporting, rewriting, and debugging the system for an entirely new system. I'm pretty sure the sub-OP would agree.


Meh
By 306maxi on 4/17/2008 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone with half a brain knows that businesses will only start to upgrade to Vista when Windows 7 is on the horizon and all of the manufacturers of their specialist software iron out any bugs their software has with Vista.

I remember just a couple of years ago we had a client who wans a large oil company who had an ancient rig that was running Windows 95 and the monitoring software they had running on it would only work with an extremely limited amount of hardware so they were willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to fix it because they would have to spend a lot more sourcing a new rig and new software and installing new sensors on the rig and so on.

Moral of the story? Big business doesn't care if they don't have the most up to date OS straight away. As long as they PC does the job it's all good.




RE: Meh
By imperator3733 on 4/17/2008 12:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
Businesses will start upgrading to Vista pretty soon now that SP1 is released. It may take a while, but they will upgrade. Businesses always wait for SP1.


RE: Meh
By 306maxi on 4/17/2008 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure. It's only a year in. Most if not all of the consumer stuff I've tried works on Vista. But does all of the stuff companies work with work on Vista? I'm willing to bet that quite a lot doesn't. I'd say another year before business really starts to move over in any big way.


RE: Meh
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 8:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
I can guarantee that we won't. The main reason for this is that Vista does not offer the company a compelling reason to upgrade and therefore we will remain with XP until support for XP is cut, at which time we will likely upgrade to the current version of Windows. The advent of Vista SP1 is largely meaningless because it doesn't address the fundamental issues that Vista doesn't deliver much beyond XP and that much of the existing hardware won't run it. Needless to say no one is attempting to sell a Vista migration to company directors. Migration to XP only occurred across the company really because support for Windows 95 ended, although XP did also make administration of the network much easier as well.

Seriously, how would you justify a multi-million dollar upgrade to Vista? How much money is Vista going to save my company over 5-years compared to XP? Those are the sorts of questions you need to be able to answer before a migration will be approved.


RE: Meh
By imperator3733 on 4/18/2008 4:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
I said this because most organizations wait for SP1 of a Microsoft OS before upgrading. Now that SP1 is out, there will most likely be an increase in the numbers of companies moving to SP1. There will always be some companies that wait until they absolutely can not run an OS anymore before they upgrade, just like there will always be some companies that upgrade relatively quickly. Most companies, however, will fall in between, such as moving to a new OS when they need new hardware and SP1 is out. That is now the case, so more companies will move to Vista.


RE: Meh
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 6:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Apologies but I am going to quote myself, which is a terrible display of narcissism but it needs to be done in this case:

quote:
Seriously, how would you justify a multi-million dollar upgrade to Vista? How much money is Vista going to save my company over 5-years compared to XP? Those are the sorts of questions you need to be able to answer before a migration will be approved.


I think we can all agree that most companies at this time are running Windows XP and that while XP will not be sold soon, it will still be supported and companies running it will have volume licenses for new PCs purchased. Now, please explain how you would justify a migration to Vista SP1. Someone is going to have to pay for the project to implement Vista in an organisation (new hardware, new licenses, training, etc) and they are going to ask what the $ benefit is. What do you say to that, because I'm damned if I can think of a benefit?

I think that you need to get beyond the thinking of a private user and get into the mindset of a CIO and CEO of a company. What's important to them is saving money, particularly in the current economic climate. Perhaps you can get some tasks done faster in Vista, but is the time saved there going to pay for the project? You don't upgrade because the new OS is stable (feel free to argue whether Vista was when it was released), you upgrade because it either saves you money or you have no choice because your current platform is no longer supported.

This isn't just the case with Vista, or computing in general - it's the same for any project. This is what I do. If I can't show to my management that the project will either save money, generate new sales, or make the customer happier (preferably all 3 but you can't always be that lucky) then the project gets refused and investment goes to another that will.


RE: Meh
By imperator3733 on 4/24/2008 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I said in my previous post that a lot of companies would move to a new OS when they need new hardware . I'm not saying that they would upgrade their old hardware to Vista. If a company gets new hardware, they are already changing a lot, so they might as well get a new OS. The companies that would be doing this right now would be running Windows 2000 or early XP computers.


All wrong.
By guy007 on 4/17/2008 2:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lastly, another frequent criticism is proprietary software. While this can be very true for the consumer industry (lack of gaming support), in the business industry Apple often has as much or more software. In fields such as content creation, it’s no secret that Apple has a number of outstanding software products.


That would be a hellz no. Even in business software the highest one can sanely claim is that Apple has 2/3 the amount of commercial software of windows. Pretty much anything Apple has in terms of commercial software (no fanboys iChat, iMovie editor, iEgo booster are not commercial software) windows also has and then some.




RE: All wrong.
By rippleyaliens on 4/17/2008 4:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
OSx Versus XP/Vista
It matters not how gooood OSX is, or the MAC. 90% of the corporate computer users can barely turn their computers on.
XP+Win2k3= Very solid, secure, and LOCKED DOWN environment.

Of all things, 99% of our environment, are thin clients. We are a Citrix Shop. MAC's dont/wont exist in the heavy corporate environment. Not because of Speed/Security.. But because of the millllions of dollars in Applications that are being run.
MS office, adobe suites, etc.... are not the bread and butter of a corporate infrastructure. It is the SAP, ORACLE's the ERP, CRM's. etc... IE the applications that make the companies money. Apple is very secretive about giving out SDK's and code= No corporate sales for them.

Vista- Love it to death (on the laptop that is).. Awesome...
Desktop. too many short commings.. BUT those shortcummings will disapear next year.. This is just the 2008 cycle..
win 3.0,3.1,95,98,me,2000,xp,vista.. Same vicious cycle.. every OS that MS came out with , sucked.. until the hard ware jumped a gen.. then it was the greatest..

MAC.. well, once APPLE decides to allow other companies other than apple come out with a hardware solution.. No company worth its salt, will rely on a company, that acts like apple.

Complain about MS all we want. But the OS run's... 99.5% of all microsoft problems are Hardware related. when you have over 90% market share, and 100,000's of companies writing software for XP.. guess what, virus, poor programming, horrible drivers, security holes.. etc..
Once apple jumps in this game, they will get hit hard as well. Linux same game.. There are about the same amount of fixes and patches for linx as there are for microsoft. But when only 7% of the planet use linux (other than a web server), yah, you can stay running forever. Firewall yah, sweet.. how many of those do i need.. Web server cool, like i need more than 10, versus the 1000 desktops that we control.


RE: All wrong.
By Runiteshark on 4/17/2008 5:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to comment about the rest of your post but:

quote:
No company worth its salt, will rely on a company, that acts like apple.
\

Ain't that the damn truth.


RE: All wrong.
By Locutus465 on 4/17/2008 5:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
All I can say is I run Vista 64bit on my desktop (gaming machine) and on my laptop and I love it on both.

Desktop currently =
AMD Athlon 64X2 3800+
2GB DDR400
AMD/ATI Radeon HD 3870
SB X-Fi Fatal1ty
700GB total disc space split between 2 HDD's
Asus A8N SLI Premium

As soon as my new MB arrives it will be
AMD Phenom 9850 BLACK EDITION 2.5GHz Quad Core
ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe
OCZ OCZ2P800R22GK 2GB Kit DDR2 PC2-6400 (could have gone faster but this was DIRT cheap).
Plus the rest of everything else
All running Vista Ultimate Ed. 64bit

Laptop = HP
AMD 1.8GHz dual core
2GB of whatever DDR2 this system uses
160GB 5400RMP Hard drive
Nvidia GeforceGo 7150M
Running Vista Ultimate Ed. 32bit

The laptop still has enough graphics HP to support dual monitors with Aero and not completely suck despite being very much a value option.

In either case, I really don't have any vista complaints.


RE: All wrong.
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 7:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it’s no secret that Apple has a number of outstanding software products.


Honestly, even if you are correct that Windows has more software, does that really matter? What is important is that the software available does the job that is required for a reasonable price. I am not saying that Windows software is bad, or that Apple software is better, but simply that comparisons of the number of applications available is just a useless statistic without evaluation of the relative quality and usefulness of those applications.

Ultimately, all a business needs, or anyone else for that matter, is one application that does the job. Pretty much everyone uses a single word processing application: MS Word - is it important to them whether there are other word processors? It's nice to have the option to switch but if Word already does what you need for a reasonable price (debate that point somewhere else) then it honestly does not matter if there are any number of other word processors. What Apple needs to concentrate on is filling gaps in the software portfolio where functionality or entire applications are missing. As long as you have at least one solid solution in each area that is important then that's all you need.


RE: All wrong.
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 7:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it’s no secret that Apple has a number of outstanding software products.


Honestly, even if you are correct that Windows has more software, does that really matter? What is important is that the software available does the job that is required for a reasonable price. I am not saying that Windows software is bad, or that Apple software is better, but simply that comparisons of the number of applications available is just a useless statistic without evaluation of the relative quality and usefulness of those applications.

Ultimately, all a business needs, or anyone else for that matter, is one application that does the job. Pretty much everyone uses a single word processing application: MS Word - is it important to them whether there are other word processors? It's nice to have the option to switch but if Word already does what you need for a reasonable price (debate that point somewhere else) then it honestly does not matter if there are any number of other word processors. What Apple needs to concentrate on is filling gaps in the software portfolio where functionality or entire applications are missing. As long as you have at least one solid solution in each area that is important then that's all you need.


RE: All wrong.
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 8:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, looks like my mouse is playing up again with random double-clicks. Apologies for the double post and the mouse will not be getting cheese in punishment.


Apple and their hardware...
By bunnyfubbles on 4/17/2008 12:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
They'll never be able to truly compete until they allow alternative choices in hardware. For a business it doesn't make sense to spend so much more money on Apple systems than a comparable or even superior PC system (whether you end up going Windows or Linux doesn't matter) - with Apple you have to pay for the industrial design, but that only matters if your business might require form over function :P




RE: Apple and their hardware...
By petrogrips on 4/17/2008 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Businesses will save money because of greater hardware reliability and a much higher resale value for the used macs.

Have you done a realistic price comparison lately? Macs are cheap. With better form AND function. Why do you think their resale value is so high.


By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
What IT dept has time to resell their hardware? I'd like to be on that staff!

Greater reliability is a myth imo.


RE: Apple and their hardware...
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 1:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Macs are cheap compared to what? A typical business PC runs probably $400-450 if you had to buy it. Ones like ours which have dedicated GPUs due to the need for good performance in AutoCAD.

Even the Mac Mini runs $500. An iMac runs around a grand. So how is that cheaper?

Granted businesses lease, not buy. But a Mac will still cost more to lease. Even Apple even does leases.


RE: Apple and their hardware...
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 7:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
As much as I love (purely in the platonic sense, of course) my MacBook Pro, I mostly agree with your comment. I think the comment about "form over function" is the usual bunk but it is important that a company can choose who it buys the hardware from. There's a couple of reasons for this:

Firstly, if there are multiple suppliers of the hardware then you can have them participate in a competitive bid process in order to negotiate the best deal. Apple is a "take it or leave it" affair unless you can play them off against the likes of Dell and HP, but your bargaining position is lower if you already have Macs because it's clearly going to be difficult to migrate to Windows.

Secondly, if you rely on a single manufacturer for your computing resources then you are exposing yourself to significant risk. If Dell were to go bankrupt for some reason then my company could migrate back to HP again without too much trouble. However, if Apple were to go into self-destruct mode again then we'd be screwed without making a migration to Windows or Linux, either of which would be painful.

So, yes, I do believe that Apple won't make it in business until they allow other manufacturers to make Macs. In some respects I think this is a shame since I'm a full-time Mac user these days, even at work, but I also don't really want to see the Mac turn into the PC.


Cannot take this seriously
By nglessner on 4/17/2008 12:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I can't take this graph seriously.

First off: 89.8 + 6.3 + 4.2 + 0.6 = 100.9
I understand there can be rounding in these numbers, but still it would add up to at least 100.7

Secondly: where's windows 2000? My company is a fortune 500 company, and I for one still use windows 2000 on my workstation (and prefer it).




RE: Cannot take this seriously
By 306maxi on 4/17/2008 12:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Extremely good point. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 2000 had more market share than Vista, Mac and Linux combined. I think that's quite a good reason to call this graph either made up or to suggest that the sample size of data was not large enough to actually draw any meaningful data from.


RE: Cannot take this seriously
By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 1:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Companies are slow to adopt. And the bigger they are, the harder it was to move. The last mega corp I worked for just got their last person off Win98 in 2004. Onto 2000 of course. I bet you 50 bucks the majority of their users are 2000. hell knowing the pace at which they move. They probably are all 2000 waiting on Vista to mature. Which means the last 2000 users will probably be cycled out about 2011.


By imperator3733 on 4/17/2008 12:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed the numbers too. Your point on Win2K also makes a lot of sense. This chart has to be made up.


Standardization
By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 12:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Is the key to running a right IT organization. Apple's simply dont fit into the model. What do I care if I can save 100 bucks on a Mac-Mini then spend 10 grand on support for that box because it doesnt fit into the infrastructure, requires training of staff, and purchasing of 3rd party tools(Admit Mac) so it can authenticate on my Active Directory and its resources like a PC?

There is a lot more to costs than the raw dollar amount of the hardware. The few macs we have in our office are a real pain in the ass to deal with. Hardly worth the costs from my opinion. But apparently somebody still thinks 8 thousand dollar laptops to run Adobe Photoshop on the road is a good idea.




RE: Standardization
By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
btw I also want to add manageability from an admins standpoint is also a pita. And a major consideration for a business envrionment. Can I remote control is securely, can I view logs remotely, can I patch it when I need to, can I run AV when I need it ect ect.


RE: Standardization
By kelmon on 4/18/2008 8:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect the question you are asking is whether you can do this from a Windows terminal, but administration of a Mac on an Apple network is expected to be performed using Remote Desktop (http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/). What exactly OS X Server would deliver, I am not certain, but in much the same way as Windows plays nicest on a Microsoft network, so OS X plays best on an Apple network.

For my part I run a MacBook Pro on a Windows network bound to the local Active Directory and don't see what the fuss is about.


Vista vs. OSX business marketshare
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 12:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
You cite that OSX was able to go from nearly nothing to 4.2% business marketshare while Vista only got 6.3% market share. However this was the same for XP. Companies generally don't upgrade their OS when a new version of Windows comes out within its first year or so of release. As machines get outdated, the new OS is rolled in.

I won't say though that many businesses are looking to go to Vista. My company isn't. It's just simply not needed right now. But the switch will eventually be made after its guaranteed that everything that a business uses and works on XP will work on Vista.




By kelmon on 4/18/2008 8:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
We only upgrade the OS if the new OS can be shown to save money, or, more usually, support is ending for the current OS. After that point desktops are upgraded to the required standard via purchasing new ones and the new OS is rolled out. The relative merits of an OS are generally unimportant if the current one does its job unless there is a very compelling financial reason for the upgrade given the costs involved. In this respect the release of an OS doesn't prompt an upgrade but rather the end-of-life for a popular one.


Vista vs Mac?
By mikefarinha on 4/17/2008 1:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't they compare Vista vs Panther or Vista vs Tiger?

An apples to apples comparison would either be Windows vs Mac or Vista vs Leopard.

I smell FUD... and it doesn't smell too good!




RE: Vista vs Mac?
By AlphaVirus on 4/17/2008 3:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows vs Mac

PC vs Mac


Server Support
By borismkv on 4/17/2008 2:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest reason that Apple hasn't gotten far in business is because their servers are utter garbage. OSX Server is a hashed together pile of outdated and horribly implemented Open Source software. It's little more than a really expensive Linux OS with a real pretty interface. A pretty interface on a server is like having a solid gold engine in your car. All it does is slow you down.

And if you're going to use a Windows Server, why in hell would you fill your company with Apple desktops?




RE: Server Support
By Elementalism on 4/17/2008 2:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A pretty interface on a server is like having a solid gold engine in your car. All it does is slow you down.


lmao that is a keeper!


Productivity and Re-training
By Tsunami982 on 4/17/2008 11:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
It will be a tough battle and one I don't many large companies doing any time soon. Large companies use a lot of custom software that has slowly been fine tuned throughout the years and linked up to countless databases in other companies. Even ignoring the cost of porting/reprogramming/replacing software, losses in productivity and re-training would be in the millions.




Worst. . .Article. . .Ever
By SoCalBoomer on 4/17/2008 12:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Literally.

Horrid.

Reports are out how businesses are not adopting Vista but staying on XP.

Therefore Vista == Failure

Now you report on how OSX is being adopted by businesses as much as Vista is.

Therefore OSX == Success

However, neither are making much of a dent on XP.

Therefore one cannot be a success and the other failure. . .be consistent!

And most businesses didn't adopt XP in the first year either - I was an early adopter and it was nearly 18 months before I moved my labs over to XP from 2K.

Horrid. Blather.




Viable?
By maven81 on 4/17/2008 1:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Um... have you worked in a large company that had adopted a large percentage of macs? (30-40%) I'm guessing you haven't because otherwise I doubt you'd have such a rosy view of their prospects.
Example, lotus notes ran absolutely horribly on those macs. Now you can claim that it's a piece of crap anyway and you'd be right, but that still doesn't negate the fact that these hundred of mac users had e-mail issues every day, while the PC users did not.

The transfer of documents was also a complete nightmare... you have microsoft office on the mac, but it has it's own idiosyncrasies, some files would not open in office 2004, and required that previous versions be installed... again, lost time and lots of frustration.
In some cases it required that a PC be placed in a completely mac department just to preserve compatibility, which meant they would have been better off with PCs anyway.

Even day to day things like printing and scanning sometimes proved to be a challenge... you better pray there's a mac driver, and that the device is configured properly... postscript errors abounded.

Add "creative" specific issues like the fact that many mac and pc fonts are not compatible unless they are opentype, that PCs could not read the oh so fancy lacie external drives (which were mac formatted), and lots of other things, and you can see that this isn't a walk in the park. Let's not forget the need to have two support staffs either.

Of course you could install windows on these macs, and essentially turn them into PCs now, (which they are actually considering funny enough), but that negates the whole reason of getting macs in the first place!




sort of shortsighted
By Moishe on 4/17/2008 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Vista may be slow gaining (as XP was in the first year) but there is an enormous install base of XP and you can bet the farm that the vast 99%+ majority of those XP installs will be Vista installs later.

Every OS my firm has used has taken 1-2 years to be deployed and we are considered by peers to be relatively quick about it.

Lets admit that Mac has almost no chance right now of even competing with Windows in the business OS market. Maybe later, but right now this is "news" only in the sense that (as Jason admitted) Apple is the darling of the media and gets far over and above it's fair share of attention. This is one of those instances when Apple is not deserving of news and yet they get it.




MSOffice for Mac
By soydios on 4/17/2008 2:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to take issue with this: "Microsoft Office -- is fully implemented on Macs".

MSOffice 2008 for Macs does not support Visual Basic scripts. Granted that this problem stems from Microsoft, but still those Visual Basic scripts are important to a lot of people, especially users of Excel.




Yet another ridiculous article
By Yawgm0th on 4/17/2008 8:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...it turns out that Apple went from nearly no market share in the business industry, to 4.2 percent. To put this in perspective Vista was only able to eke out a 6.3 percent market share despite its heavy business marketing and dominant position. So do those numbers indicate a Mac OS close to tying a Microsoft OS? Why hasn't this been the front page news of every tech column (especially when OS X's nearly insignificant consumer market gains were heavily reported)?

So Vista, which is already considered a commercial failure in the business market gained 50% more market share that the entirety of the Macintosh operating system? It seems to me that Macintosh is being led commandingly by Vista, despite it's relative failure in the business market.

quote:
The reason is despite the success, analysts have dismissed it and these analysts frequently drive what is reported in the tech news, more than some would like to admit.
Perhaps the analysts have dismissed it because Apple still has an entirely insignificant market share, and that despite Vista's failure, Macs have a lower market share and are gaining market share more slowly.

quote:
And the analysts just don't like Apple's business efforts.
No, the businesses don't like Apple's business efforts. Hence the analysis of Apple's business efforts. I hate to break it to you, Jason, but you are the fanboy here, not the analysts. Successful analysts try to be accurate, not pick sides.

quote:
Says Forrester analyst Thomas Mendel:

While 2007 was a big year for Apple, with its enterprise share growing threefold to 4.2 percent, uptake remains limited to enthusiasts and small workgroups. IT departments crave standardization, and Macs pose too many problems for IT departments. The verdict for enterprise-focused vendors is clear: Unless your market is a niche business group, Windows is the only desktop you need support.
However many of Forrester's points are largely inaccurate in terms of the business market (though they might be a bit more applicable, actually, to the consumer market). With solutions such as the Mac Mini, Apple actually has some relatively affordable offerings, in terms of basic business machines and can often beat competitor's business solutions on price.

Forrester's observations are not "points," and they are completely accurate. You can present your argument to the CTOs, IT administrators, and all those who make decisions on what product to go with at businesses. Forrester is not trying to persuade people to choose Windows over Macintosh or spread inaccurate information about the current state of affairs. The observations made by Forrester are entirely truthful, and they are not "points" in some PC vs. Macintosh debate. Frankly Jason, you're the only one pretending to provide analysis or write tech news which is simply propaganda for one side. The rhetoric used in your Mac-related articles indicates either corruption (Apple is paying you; unlikely) or fanboyism (you bend the truth and argue with a variety of logical fallacies to present your preferred position or vendor as the superior one).

I also don't need to be told "Jason isn't a Mac fanboy; he uses PCs." That is a complete non sequitur.

Additionally, it it sheer ignorance to claim that the Mac Mini is competitive with Windows computers for basic business machines. A Mac Mini costs $600. A "basic business machine" with more RAM, a faster processor, MS Office, and Windows XP costs $500 or less, depending on various details. The capabilities of said machines are not even remotely comparable, as the PC is much faster, has better business productivity software, and is very easy to manage and integrate into an existing corporate network.

Your argument is entirely lacking in logic and contrary to the truth, and it is completely ridiculous that you have attempted to blame bias on the fact that other tech sites are not reporting this as a massive gain on Apple's part.




apples and vistas (oranges)
By tanishalfelven on 4/17/2008 9:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
without even reading the article i'd just like to say the title is moronic.

apples is not an OS.
Vista is not a company.

the 2 cannot be compared.

who let this moron write for daily tech ?




Management
By johndiii on 4/17/2008 10:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
The one thing I didn't see anybody really talk about it management. I teach training classes for Altiris. Altiris has very sketchy Mac or Linux support. The same is true largely with our competitors in the space. Remember the Anandtech article on virtualization for software? Those products only work in Windows. Windows is much easier to manage. Combine a tool like Altiris, LanDesk, or SMS with Active Directory and you really can't even come close to the management capability with Macs. Until you can easily image systems with Mac and easily deploy patches and software over the network like you can with SMS and Altiris, most businesses won't touch it.




Fair Share
By BushStar on 4/18/2008 4:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
I do hope Apple gets their fair share of the market, then they can get their fair share of viruses and trojans too.




It's very sad
By loggy on 4/18/2008 11:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
It's very sad to read once again on this site an articleso biased with pro-Apple love.
Apple is a closed system, imposed. Software and hardware belong to the same company, Apple, you understand the implication of this? Being closed is Apple's strategy, iTunes is the proof. I'm very surprises not novice users like you could pay so little attention to this fact, in a country where freedom is so often invoked. Just explain me the reason, thanks.




By Targon on 4/17/2008 6:03:54 PM , Rating: 1
One thing that most people don't realize about the Mac is that the biggest advantage it has is the initial setup out of the box. It's EASY to pull a Mac out of the box, plug it in, and without any serious questions, you are up and running. The process of booting the OS on a Mac is also a lot faster than what we have with Windows XP or Vista.

With those two exceptions, the Mac doesn't really offer anything that you don't get from a PC, and in general, aside from cosmetic issues, there is zero benefit to a Mac. If you work in an existing Mac environment, then it will remain a Mac environment, and if you work in a Microsoft Windows environment, you will probably stay with that environment.

For a business, it is also more important to retain compatibility with others you do business with, and the vast majority of those people will be Windows/PC people. There may be a slight shift in the home market, but that shift could just as easily shift back with more marketing from Microsoft.




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki