Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will Apple's Lion Roar For Business?

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the uphill-battle dept.

Businesses 340

An anonymous reader writes "Apple has long had a troubled relationship with IT departments. Any creative professional will testify just how hard it can be to convince IT managers to allow the use of Macs in Windows-dominated environments. And, despite the fact that the Mac OS is now quite a well-behaved client on Windows LANs, Apple sometimes does little to help its own cause. The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server. There are rumors that Apple will, itself, run a virtualized version of Mac OS under VMware as part of its iCloud product. Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs."

cancel ×

340 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

typo? (4, Insightful)

naroom (1560139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845466)

"Any creative professional will testify just how hard it can be to convince IT managers to allow the use of Macs in Windows-dominated environments."

You mean, any creative professional who uses a Mac.

Re:typo? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845510)

You mean, any creative professional who uses a Mac.

Are you implying those people are a rare breed?

Re:typo? (2, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845588)

No, he's implying that not every creative professional uses a Mac. The submitter is implying that all creative professionals use macs, or would recommend using one.

Re:typo? (-1, Redundant)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845664)

So... the problem stems from being overly literal. Okay.

Re:typo? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845748)

No, the problem stems from implying that anyone who uses wintel is a dullard, incapable of being "creative".

Re:typo? (-1, Redundant)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845820)

So... imaginary persecution then?

Re:typo? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845942)

You seem very slow. Do you need us to draw you a picture or something?

The line says "any creative professional" not "Mac-using creative professionals". That's false. The English word "any" doesn't apply there and anyone publishing an article should know that. That's point number one. It would be like saying "as any woman knows, Ace Cleaning Products are the best!" even though not every woman is a housewife (some are fat and had to get a career instead).

It also describes trying to get Apple products into a Wintel shop and implies grave difficulty in so doing. The imaginary persecution, my slow-witted friend, is persecution of the poor creative Apple user by those evil restrictive Wintel admins who won't let them use a Mac. Of course that's not what you meant because for some reason you'd rather be a dick about this than read the black-and-white line that has already been quoted for you.

Re:typo? (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846076)

Whoooooosh! Steve Ballmer, is that you?

Re:typo? (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846092)

You seem very slow. Do you need us to draw you a picture or something?

I guess so, I just don't see what's so offensive about it.

The line says "any creative professional" not "Mac-using creative professionals". That's false.

Sure. Commander Data would agree with you.

It would be like saying "as any woman knows, Ace Cleaning Products are the best!"

Generalizing about millions of people is hard and print demands brevity. Applying literalism to this is just nitpicky.

Of course that's not what you meant because for some reason you'd rather be a dick about this than read the black-and-white line that has already been quoted for you.

I'm a creative professional who works in Windows. My whole team uses Windows. We make creative decisions that create huge ripples throughout the projects we work on. Yet that statement didn't bother me in the slightest. I don't understand why your panties jumped up into your crack about it.

Re:typo? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845666)

No, any creative professional who uses a Mac, or who knows other people who use a Mac, or who has talked to IT managers about the possibility of using a Mac. Or, as the original writer said, any creative professional.

Re:typo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845712)

You mean, any creative professional who uses a Mac.

No, people who do not use Macs are NOT creative professionals. Only Mac users are hip and creative. Everbody else is just a dusty old-timer and not cool enough to be creative.

Re:typo? (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845926)

Also, last time I checked, Photoshop exists on Windows. I'm sure there are other tools"creative professionals" use, but I would bet that they are also available on PC. Nobody likes changing the OS environment they're used to, but if you compare that to hiring IT staff with Mac-specific expertise, the choice is easily made from a management point of view.

Re:typo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845974)

And as for photoshop, thats just been plain better on Windows for multiple versions now. Mac version tends to lag behind in performance and hardware support.(64-bit, GPU acceleration, etc)

Re:typo? (3, Funny)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846146)

The ones using Windows clearly found it not just hard but impossible.

It's a money question, mostly. (1)

nosfucious (157958) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846184)

Most IT guys have no problem with a Apple device, on it's own. However, it's not just a question of plugging it in to a corporate network.

There's a whole bunch of management behind the computer system that "creative types" don't see. Each new environment has real money costs way beyond the purchase price of the kit.

Just off the top of my head (and i'm not an expert on Apple Desktop Environments):
You need someone with support skills to manage the environment. You need tools to manage the mac, and ensure compliance with corporate policy. These tools probably don't integrate with what is currently implemented. There may be the hidden costs of potentially incompatible document formats (Office Documents), different feature sets on web browsers. The anti-virus software probably doesn't have a Mac version, so requires a one off purchase.

True story: Createive type got approval to buy a mac at one of our regional sites, via the wrong budget. Bought all MS Office and software and installed it herself. Outlook is essential to her work (and in this case, REALLY essential). Of course, not having cleared the purchase with IT, she didn't know that the current version of Outlook doesn't integrate natively with Exchange 2003. (Yes, I know IMAP works).

The "creative types" need to sit down and talk with IT. Not at IT. IT need to listen and understand the requirements. Creative Types need to wear ther cost of supporting a second discrete infrastructure.

Where did I read about "Infrastructure: The stuff everybody needs, but no one want to pay for"? Probably Dilbert.

True story (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845502)

One of my IT guys came in to ask what time I downloaded Lion on Wednesday. The time I downloaded the OS and the time a colleague downloaded it correlated with times our network traffic was pegged and he couldn't access the Internet.

Re:True story (2)

Anubis350 (772791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845570)

This is why QOS exists...

Re:True story (4, Insightful)

indeterminator (1829904) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845688)

Not just lack of QoS issue. If a single bulk download blocks everyone else from using the uplink, something is seriously misconfigured.

Re:True story (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846220)

Typically found pre-configured in the box the router came in. Still can't get it? pry open the router w a crowbar.

--
"Justice is served"

Re:True story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845628)

Sounds like you need to get yourself a new network.

Anyway, you didn't need to download two copies of the installer. One is enough and you can move that around between all computers that should be updated. I think that organizations still should pay for each one even if they do that while everyone else can just install it directly on all their machines.

Re:True story (4, Insightful)

That's What She Said (1289344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845756)

Well... At least one download is needed per company.

After that, the "IT guy" can use detailed instructions available on the 'net and create an installer/boot DVD or USB thumbdrive. It's easy as that! I can't see any other good way to deploy to multiple machines on businesses.

Oh, yes! I can: create a net-installer and use Mac OS X Server (now dirt-cheap) to deploy via netboot. Takes a little effort in the preparation phase, but won't use the internet afterwards, only the LAN.

Apple does offer business licensing for Mac OS X (and other products). No need to buy one boxed copy (soon to disappear) for each machine... Just the same way you can use a burned DVD to install Windows (as I did a lot of times myself).

And, please, don't even try to tell me it's better to buy installation media (like those shiny holographic Windows install DVDs). People have been burning Linux ISOs for ages with no complaints.

So, this "IT guy" needs to know some things before complaining about congested internet connections...

Re:True story (5, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845794)

So he thanked you for pointing out the network infrastructure was horribly broken, right?

When pigs fly... (4, Insightful)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845514)

Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs

Apple would never allow this. As has been often noted, Apple is a hardware company. Allowing OS/X on non-Apple hardware would only cut into their hardware business. Besides, no one can make their servers "pretty" enough to meet Steve's artistic tastes (except Apple's engineers of course).

they are a marketing company (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845708)

all the hardware is made by a handful of companies in China like FoxConn.

the problem with letting non-apple hardware run apple software is that it hurts their brand.

Re:they are a marketing company (3, Interesting)

aclarke (307017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845778)

Apple is not (much of) a hardware MANUFACTURING company. However, I'm not sure how you can intelligently take the position that hardware does not make up a significant portion of the company's focus. Look at the hardware they design, have custom made, sell, support, and yes, market.

I wish people would accept that a company can be a hardware company, a software company, AND a company that takes design and marketing seriously.

Re:they are a marketing company (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845806)

Apple does their own design, they employ hardware engineers who design the circuits on their boards. FoxConn takes those designs and turns them into PCs. Other PC shops like Dell just send a list of requirements to FoxConn who designs in whatever is cheapest and yet meets specs. Apple outsourced the assembly labour, Dell outsourced both that and the engineering labour.

Re:they are a marketing company (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846112)

you cant be serious that you think apple is sitting down ignoring all the pre-designed material and making hand made wirewrap core 2 duo boards and nvidia geforces, they use the same reference designs as everybody else. I dont think they have actually sat down and designed much of anything in the pc side since the 68K machines outside of taking reference designs and fitting them into their crappy little apple cases

Re:When pigs fly... (3, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845750)

Apparently even Apple engineers can't, seeing as how they killed the Xserve.

Re:When pigs fly... (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845916)

Apparently even Apple engineers can't, seeing as how they killed the Xserve.

It's not that they "can't" make a pretty server, it's just that it's pointless. Why make a pretty server that just sits in a back room or closet somewhere where no one can gush over it's elegant lines. Servers, by there very nature, focus on function over form - just the opposite of Jobs' vision.

Re:When pigs fly... (3, Interesting)

That's What She Said (1289344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845826)

At least, one can dream about it.

Now that the XServe is dead and the only options are the Mini Server (no dual ethernet, to say the least) and the Mac Pro (takes too much space in the rack), I wish I could just get an HP or Dell server, install a minimum Linux system with a VM and run instances of Mac OS X Server in it.

About servers being pretty, I am not sure it's just like that. Apple likes to sell pretty stuff, but they like to make money out of them even more.

Re:When pigs fly... (1)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845934)

Eh, they're not far from being able to do it, and meet your requirements. Take an iMac, strip it of everything that makes it expensive, the harddrive, most of the memory, many of the ports etc. Call it a vMac. Have it only connect to a Lion server via VDI. And in reverse, only a Mac can connect to lion. Charge $300-$500 for it. Let Lion run as a guest on a hyper-v host.

Do it again for the mini so people can supply their own monitors. Sell that for $200. Boom, everyone happy. IT guys get to virtualize and do terminals. Professionals get their macs. Apple sells more hardware.

Re:When pigs fly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36846142)

Indeed, the license for 10.7 says you can install it on as many machines as you own or control. Sounds like a deal for IT if I've ever heard one.

pc authority, no mac authority (5, Informative)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845530)

The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.

before reaching a coclusion, read a better researched article, written by someone who really knows macs firts: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars [arstechnica.com] (warning, 14 pages article)

lion can be burned to a DVD after download, also, in the near future, apple will ofer lion on thumb drives for $69.

the EULA also mentions virtualisation. the hypervisor probably needs to run on a mac OS host, but it is supported as guest, if the EULA is true.

Re:pc authority, no mac authority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845698)

The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.

before reaching a coclusion, read a better researched article, written by someone who really knows macs firts: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars [arstechnica.com] (warning, 14 pages article)

lion can be burned to a DVD after download, also, in the near future, apple will ofer lion on thumb drives for $69.

the EULA also mentions virtualisation. the hypervisor probably needs to run on a mac OS host, but it is supported as guest, if the EULA is true.

Shhh! Don't go getting your "facts" all over the PC fanboiz Two Minutes Hate. ;)

Re:pc authority, no mac authority (3, Informative)

macshome (818789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846028)

You can just copy the Lion installer to a network share or other disk to move it around as well.

The EULA allows for virtualization of up to two additional instances without the need for more licenses as long as you do it on Mac hardware. http://www.afp548.com/article.php?story=lion-eula [afp548.com]

Re:pc authority, no mac authority (1)

linhux (104645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846038)

What's more, you can just copy the Lion application bundle after downloading it through App Sture (before installing it), and install it on any number of computers, distributing it using whatever tools you like. The installer has no key code or Apple ID requirements. Of course, anyone can find that out by going to Apple's web site [apple.com] .

Re:pc authority, no mac authority (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846156)

hm kill our internet for a couple days or piss off your IT guy by the company asking him to burn a dvd X times

seriously would it have hurt apple that fucking much to include a 50 cent dvd in a paper sleeve (which is what you get from those clowns 80% of the time anyway cause white paper looks elegant)

Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845540)

But I thought the whole point of Lion was to bring the mobile OS market and the desktop OS market closer together? Isn't Apple's general strategy to be a complete unification at some point? That's certainly what it seems like to a lay-person...

That being said, I don't see how that would be compatible with administrative requirements in the business world. Apple seems to be moving towards being completely focused on the consumer aspect where people are shopping on the App Store for all of their software, the bulk of said software being Angry Birds-esque games and ways to consume mass media. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not in the industry at all, but it just seems like they're moving away from any real "nuts and bolts" business use outside of the Point of Sale market.

Wrong two ways (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845754)

But I thought the whole point of Lion was to bring the mobile OS market and the desktop OS market closer together?

No, that's not the point at all. The point was to learn from other platforms ideas that they can bring back into the desktop. That's why the WWDC Lion theme was "Back to the Mac" not "assimilation".

Apple has always maintained people want different UI on a desktop vs. a mobile device, and they are absolutely staying there with Lion. Yes they have a full-screen mode (and a real full screen mode too, not just a Windows style Maximize button). But that lives off in a separate space (virtual desktop) and is a full parter with all other running apps. They also have got rid of permanent scroll-bars (which you can re-enable if desired) but that's only in the case where the pointing device you are using support gesture based scrolling.

Indeed, Apple has stated repeatedly they thought touchscreen desktops made no sense. It's Microsoft that is showing us new Windows versions oriented to using a touchscreen, Apple is keeping Mobile and Desktop UI separate and distinct.

That being said, I don't see how that would be compatible with administrative requirements in the business world.

Even if that were true you would be wrong here too. Businesses LOVE devices that are more locked down because they introduce fewer paths to user security issues. Lion has a lot of new features to appeal to IT security that are brought back from Mobile devices - like whole disk security (that is actually reliable unlike FIleVault of old) and real application sandboxing (though that will take a long time to get picked up by the larger applications).

Apple is moving in a direction IT security departments love, not hate. And really that is better for overall user security too, because users at home have no IT department to worry about a system being secure so it has to do as much for the user as possible.

Re:Wrong two ways (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846020)

I think Apple will be motivated to use the mobile business models on the desktop wherever they can, because it's been so immensely profitable for them. I wouldn't like much of that, but I'm not too worried, because 1) customers, including corporate users, still have influence with Apple through their buying power, and 2) mobile won't always be this profitable, like anything it will become commoditized and simmer down.

As far as businesses loving devices that are locked down, you forget an important point - THEY want/need to be the ones with root, not some cloud provider somewhere.

Forgot nothing (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846214)

As far as businesses loving devices that are locked down, you forget an important point - THEY want/need to be the ones with root, not some cloud provider somewhere.

That's how Apple works things though, all the devices are easily managed by a company - not Apple. Apple does not want to be the one in charge of systems. Apple makes corporate management tools and there are also lots of third party options. Companies can wipe devices remotely, and with Lion whole-disk encryption can probably do the same for desktops (but even if they can't without a valid login an attacker cannot get anything off the drive).

Re:Wrong two ways (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846238)

You really don't understand Apple's business model at all.

1. Mobile business is profitable because of hardware. You can't just apply that to desktops.

2. Apple makes their decisions pretty much independent of their customers, especially corporate users. See xServe demise.

3. Mobile will always be profitable for Apple because they'll always be moving forward, staying in the profitable end of the development envelope. They leave the low end, commoditized market for others to have - HTC, Dell, etc.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845924)

Ok, You're wrong.

I know Apple engineers working on the OS and on the pro-apps. None of them are even remotely concerned about this - it's a slashdot-incubated fantasy of those who either can't or won't think for themselves. It ought to be clear to the meanest of intelligences that Apple will *need* a significantly more powerful environment than iOS to create apps for iOS. At work I have a Mac Pro with 3 30" monitors, and when I'm coding something significant all that real estate is in use. My friends at Apple say they are similarly equipped.

Even *if* a future iPad got thunderbolt, and therefore a larger screen, it still wouldn't come close - the Mac Pro struggles to compile an app with thousands of source files spread over several frameworks. Can you imagine how complex something like Final Cut Pro, or Aperture are ? I shudder to think how an iPad would do, and (as for any company) for Apple, time is money. They're not going to destroy productivity in their software division for the sake of some operating-system purity vibe.

Bottom line: To create the sort of interfaces Apple make, they need powerful machines. Having OSX is a competitive advantage for that because they can adapt it to suit. If you wish, consider OSX to be a cost-of-doing-iOS-business, then consider that you can leverage that cost into a profit center. Why would they remove a profit center ?

Simon

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (2)

chispito (1870390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846128)

it's a slashdot-incubated fantasy of those who either can't or won't think for themselves. It ought to be clear to the meanest of intelligences that Apple

Here, I bought you a gift [amazon.com] .

No. (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845558)

Why would it? OSX-virtualization is still limited to fruit-hardware by license. And the available server-hardware? Mac Minis and Mac Pros. Yeah...

Lame excuse (1)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845566)

Just copy the downloaded Lion to a thumb drive and install it on all the corporate computers. If anything, it's easier than windows. Complaining about each person downloading it is retarded. You only need to download it one time, copy it to a drive and use it all over the place. IT, once again, showing ignorant and lazy they can be.

Re:Lame excuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845728)

It's impressive how an old geezer with such a low id can be way more retarded than most noobs.

Look at your /. history.

Every single post you made sucks.

Snap! (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845830)

Oh wait, you were looking at your own posts.

Snap!

Re:Lame excuse (2)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846118)

Windows? You mean the OS where you can remotely tell every single machine to install or update from a local server dedicated to holding system updates? Not even close.

Not gonna happen (3, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845586)

Apple is a company that makes its money primarily through the sale of boutique computer and electronics equipment. Their equipment happens to need an OS. Sure, there are some higher end applications for video and music that have created a niche market, but at the moment they make their money on selling trendy computers and electronics to trendy people at trendy prices.

Enterprise IT is different. Computers stay in use until they're depreciated or until they're nonviable. IT departments aren't interested in upgrading, and do it in waves, usually skipping entire generations of hardware and OSes because they don't fit the support model. IT departments also don't like variation and work hard to buy literally one model of computer for as absolutely long as possible, again, skipping generations of machines until latching on to the next long-term purchase model. It's the ONLY way to make support over a large number of machines (sometimes as much as many as 5000 to a technician like where I work) even close to possible.

Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!

Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves. They have no interest in licensing their OS out to run on hardware not their own, and with their upgrade strategy, they can't make significant inroads into Enterprise IT.

Re:Not gonna happen (1)

Cheech Wizard (698728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846096)

Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves.

Isn't that the same with every successful company, or at least what every company strives for? For a "successful" business plan whereby they're successful in their niche? Apple has never been after the business market - BUT - They're being drawn in. Both the iPhone and iPad are making significant inroads into businesses. Whether that was/is Apple's plan or not. I know one heck of a lot of management people who have ditched their Blackberrys for iPhones, and I'm seeing exec's who want to use their iPad and are beginning to use their office computer less. In reality, success in the intended niche is all that really matters. Apple, like every other company, can not be successful in every niche.

Re:Not gonna happen (2)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846298)

Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!

...and Microsoft doesn't? It used to be you'd have bi-yearly updates to Office. Did you think they were releasing them that often because they love us?

Also, with the exception of the gap between XP and Vista, Microsoft has had a new consumer OS every 2-3 years. Windows 3.0 in 1990, 3.1 in 1993, 95 in 1995, 98 in 1998, ME in 2000, XP in 2001, Vista in 2007, 7 in 2009, and 8 in 2011 (aka later this year).

The trend exists on the Workstation/Professional side of things, too, with larger than normal gaps between NT 4 and 2000, and XP and Vista.:
Windows NT 3.1 in 1993, NT 3.5 in 1994, NT 3.51 in 1995, NT 4.0 in 1996, 2000 in 2000, XP in 2001, Vista in 2007, 7 in 2009, and 8 in 2011 (aka later this year).

Summary is wrong or misinformed (3, Informative)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845598)

First, it's possible to create your own disc or USB stick containing the Lion installer, so that's hardly a problem. Secondly, if you absolutely need some blessed install media, Apple will be selling an official install on a USB drive [itracki.com] in a month. This is something that has been discussed on Slashdot so I don't see why glaring inaccuracies like this should get through.

Business IT pro don't want to investigate (5, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845604)

Apple has pretty good enterprise tools, directory support, image deployment. What I have noticed in my organization is that Windows admins simply don't want to investigate. We have an Apple rep (engineer) that gives free classes on anything we want and still the Windows admins complain Lion needs a 3rd party (expensive) full disk encryption, special programs to integrate with Active Directory and can't be imaged.

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (1)

mwfischer (1919758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845836)

Blame all these 2 year tech school monsters and MSCEs who seemingly own IT right now. Add it to cheap quarterly based "upfront costs are the only ones that matter" managers who look for the cheaper choice. (disclaimer: I have a MBA)

I fully support (and actually encourage) any unix machine on my network. There is one hidden good thing Apple has going for it right now with the current strategy. In the world of corp still stuck on IE 6, Windows XP, and Office 2003... the iOS devices are causing increased interest.

Just yesterday I did a voice command on my iPhone 4 to call someone in front of a bunch of MSCEs an they looked at me like I just opened the fucking Stargate. This was amazing in 2006 guys....

It's hard being the Mac ERP Engineer for a heavy windows enterprise.

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845928)

Please. No one has been impressed by voice command on cellphones in years. At least no one who matters. I give the iPhone 4 props. It's a good phone. But let's not get out of hand about it. Not everyone who uses MS is a moron and not everyone who uses Mac is a genius artist. Get over yourself.
 
Oh, and it wasn't amazing in 2006. You just didn't have a phone to worship and name drop at every turn.

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36846176)

Just yesterday I did a voice command on my iPhone 4 to call someone in front of a bunch of MSCEs and they looked at me like I was a massive dick.

Do you actually say the words "iPhone 4" out loud every time you refer to your phone?

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36846248)

It's hard being the Mac ERP Engineer for a heavy windows enterprise.


 
Sooooo.... you're a Mac certified guy who pisses on Microsoft but you still work at a Windows shop? How are those crazy Mac skillz working out for you, let alone that MBA? Either you're a liar or you really don't have the skills you claim.

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845908)

Lion needs a 3rd party (expensive) full disk encryption, special programs to integrate with Active Directory and can't be imaged.

This is a fucking HUGE pain in the ass for IT Admins. Their networks are already set up with Active Directory. You want them to switch to a system that is already more expensive to start, needs more work done to it and additional *expensive* software just to play nice with everything else.

Meanwhile you can take any PC, flatten it, then toss your Linux or Windows image onto it and you're golden. You're done. Worst case if you're getting a new line of desktops in you have to spend an hour or so making a new image for that line.

On a Mac there are no network deployment tools. You can't update settings remotely. You're going to have to manually go to every single fucking machine and import all of your settings.

Explain to me why a windows (or linux for that matter) admin would want to help you use a system thats setting them back 10-15 years in technology.

The only way to remotely make it work is for the company to go 100% Mac, including the server hardw.... oh wait, there isn't any.

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846186)

You get checkpoint FDE for free on Windows?

Ah but that's bullshit in and of itself. You extend the AD schema... ONCE... and you can plug the workgroup manager into it and do apple-equivalent of group policy management on all the machines. The apple kit binds out of the box, and will do authentication, password changes and everything. There are only two points of difficulty that I've seen so far: DFS support is, for lack of a better word, shit. You can get DAVE but fuck that, so you plug the mac's onto the source servers rather than the DFS and it's not that big a deal, just a minor headache if you don't know about it.

The other PITA is auto enrollment for certificates in a 2 factor environment, but even that is pretty easy to get around, a few roll your own scripts and a couple of minor changes and you can programatically create and install the certificate on each machine - as part of the deployment process.

Network deployment tools... what? ARD, DeployStudio, fucking SSH will let you do network deployment. So you can't give your users an SCCM interface - it's only relatively new tech and if you desperately need it, sounds more like you're a shitty admin than against Mac. A decent linux admin should be able to translate their skills straight across with only a minor GUI changeover point, and I know I can Netboot a mac from a BSD server

All in all though, the right tool for the right job, but blatant ignorance of either platform hurts both platforms market share in different places (and lets face it, group policy is loads better than workgroup manager just for the built in defaults).

Re:Business IT pro don't want to investigate (3, Interesting)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845958)

I was using Mac OSX for the past year in my enterprise environment and it wasn't too bad for a lot of things. But the things I *really* wanted out of it it didn't have. I really dig the multiple desktops and being able to switch by moving the cursor to a corner of the screen. REALLY nice for virtualization. VMware Fusion ran decently, but I didn't have beefy enough hardware to really run everything I wanted - I do desktop support fairly often and it's nice to have every OS we use ready to go so I can walk someone through the steps of something exactly or troubleshoot w/ that specific system. I was given a Mac Mini so that really pushed what it was capable of to a point. What I didn't like - lack of anything similar to a taskbar. I hate hate hate grouping things. It's one of the first things I disable in Windows. I couldn't find much in the way of customizing the dock to do what I wanted. I was really turned off when I looked up how other's dealt with that people in the forums were typically very rude/arrogant (more than I've seen in a lot of other places) pretty much accosting anyone who wanted something different than what Apple had fed them. I'm fine with default being what it is but I'd like to have the option to change away from that. Lack of IE/browser with Active X. Not Apple's fault by any means but still really annoying when you need to access sites that utilize ActiveX. I'm looking at you Microsoft Web Outlook. Update handling was very nice. Very user friendly. Major plus. Fairly stable overall for most users. I was the exception the rule but that was due to the virtualizing I was tryign to do. What I'd really want as an IT professional is to have the abilty to run OS X in VMWare for reasons I stated above - it enables me to support other machines types very easily - in this case the few Macs we have. I get they're a "hardware company" but hindering my ability to support others does them no favors in regards to gathering support from IT decision makers.

As usual, blame the manager, not the OS (3, Insightful)

Tomsk70 (984457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845606)

When, for instance, did apple fix their OS to use windows server print queues without locking the AD user account when their password changed? 10.6, that's when.

Please, this issue was over ten years ago - where is the apple equivalent of AD, or group policies? They've had ELEVEN YEARS. And that's just three examples - so please slashdot, enough with the fanboy ignorance articles.

Basic research failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845642)

1. Lion is not download-only; there is a USB stick version.

2. Lion can be virtualized; the license explicitly allows it (Obviously, you still need Apple hardware on which to run the VM; Apple still wants to make money.)

Stupid post uses unrelated lead in to troll rumor (1)

Marvin_Runyon (513878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845646)

Apple can run their OS X based iCloud infrastructure on top of VMWare all they want, using INTERNAL ONLY builds of OS X that will happily boot and run within a VMWare virtual machine, and being the owner of OS X, they are not subject to their own licensing terms. For all we know, Apple already does this to support its online presence and existing services infrastructure. There is no reason to think that Apple has any interest or intentions of bringing to market an OS X license that allows it to be a guest on non apple hardware.

This whole story summary is a 1 cent rumor wrapped in a thin layer of unrelated truth.

Uh, what makes you think Apple cares... (2)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845648)

about businesses? Apple is a consumer electronics company. This topic comes up every few years. It's like Apple is supposed to care about businesses when the majority of their revenue comes from consumers. The notion is entirely misplaced. At best Apple accommodates business customers or perhaps more accurately Apple tries to make it easy for their customers, consumers, to do work too.

yes and no (2)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845674)

You do not have to download a copy for every machine. There is not a serial number in the OS, so download it once, burn to DVD or thumb drive, install everywhere. Apple still relies on people to do the right thing, and it works. They also will sell OS X on thumb drive very soon. Do not look for Apple to allow businesses to run virtual copies of OS X, it would break their business model. They are a hardware company.

Mac-based office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845676)

I work at a professional association that is Mac-based. We have one Linux box and a couple of people run Windows thru Parallels.

I can't speak for our IT dept, but I've heard comments echoing the need for AAPL to step it up in the small-business department. I'm seeing too much focus on iShit and not enough on the business environment. I've got a couple of iPods around the house, but they get far less use than my desktop machine.

And don't get me started on the walled garden of iPhone/iPad. I'm Android all the way in that respect.

You know what would be better? (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845686)

Easy AD integration.

"creative professional" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845704)

I detest that phrase. What profession doesn't require a certain degree of creativity? Graphic design and journalism require it, sure, but so do engineering, medicine, and law.

Re:"creative professional" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845758)

What profession doesn't require a certain degree of creativity?

Pretty much the entirety of unskilled jobs?

Re:"creative professional" (1)

RoverDaddy (869116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846224)

"Lucille, God gave me a gift. I shovel well. I shovel very well."

A consumer upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845720)

Since I haven't had the time recently to dig into the details of the Lion's upgrade, but it does feel more of a consumer upgrade than anything that is necessary to upgrade to this time around. Snow Leopard will still have security updates for sometime and I'd rather see where Apple goes with their next OS then jump into Lion on anything but a Macbook Air.

A serious upgrade (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846042)

Actually with the security improvements in Lion everyone should really switch. Between sandboxing applications and much better security all over, it's a really strong update that moves past Windows7 in terms of securing the desktop.

Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client (3, Interesting)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845736)

Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client

Until OS X takes on or even implements active management of clients at even a fraction of the level Windows does, it will not be viable in corporate/enterprise enviornments.

With Active Directory and Windows management capabilties, Microsoft has always focused on enterprise/business customers and an increasingly seamless system. Windows client/server environments self maintain, and offer a vast number of features that it is impossible to even replicate on OS X.

The world is no longer just well-behaved clients that work well with file shares and printers, and hasn't been since the early 90s, when Novel didn't grasp this evolution either. The transition was first to application server technologies, then centralized technologies that allowed computing power to stay local and offer a lot of features to the users/client and yet behave with the ease of agnostic terminal computing.

Re:Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845986)

You nailed a pretty important aspect there. You just don't have control over the machines in the way you do with AD. It's the nature of the beast but that's a part of WHY IT is reluctant to allow them on the network as they're either self-managed or you're doing it via sneaker-net.

Re:Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client (2, Interesting)

ephraimX (556000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845992)

I manage about a hundred clients with OS X Server, and it covers pretty much everything I can think of. Can you describe what you can do with Windows client management that you can't do with OS X?

Re:Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36846088)

They have made great strides in Lion Server.....
Big improvement in client management tools. The philosophy seems to be, "Everything is a mobile device".
I work for small company that runs on all mac laptops with mac mini servers, HP Miniservers with ESXi running firewalls and Storage .
Windows is a application now, running just our accounting package, accessed over a RDP, on a mac mini boot camp install.

The world has moved on for the Small Business and Microsoft. We don't need them now. Enterprise is not Apple's target market, it's Small Business. Clean and easy setup, and it just runs......

Re:Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846104)

Until OS X takes on or even implements active management of clients at even a fraction of the level Windows does, it will not be viable in corporate/enterprise enviornments.

You mean like Profile Manager [apple.com] and Remote Desktop [apple.com] ?

Profile Manager

Administrators can define profile settings for individual users, groups, devices and groups of devices. For group-based management, Profile Manager easily integrates with directory services such as Open Directory, Active Directory and LDAP.

Remote Desktop

Distribute software, provide real-time online help to end users, create detailed software and hardware reports, and automate routine management tasks — all without leaving your desk.

With Lion, managing a whole slew of Macs becomes a lot more affordable because of the lack of client access licenses on Lion Server and Remote Desktop.

apple needs to make some hardware changes for busi (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845742)

apple needs to make some hardware changes for business use like.

* Needs to have some kind of hardware / software road map
* Mini and Imac's need to easy to open at least being able get to the HDD
* Let Business send in systems for warranty work with out a HDD in side
* Better pricing VS dell and others at least for big orders of hardware
* allow some OS downgrades on new hardware
* App store for business
* smaller OS update downloads
* some kind of desktop mid tower or at least a easy to open mac mini system
* Let MAC OS server run on ANY VM

Re:apple needs to make some hardware changes for b (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845988)

Needs to have some kind of hardware / software road map

Why? What use it that? Current desktop systems will suffice, plan for three years of use. Why do you NEED to know what else is coming?

Mini and Imac's need to easy to open at least being able get to the HDD

I'm not sure how it gets any easier that screwing off the bottom of a Mini to get to HD and RAM. That changed a few years ago...

Let Business send in systems for warranty work with out a HDD in side

That would be useful, are you sure Apple disallows it?

Better pricing VS dell and others at least for big orders of hardware

I'm not sure Apple will really play that game to the extent Dell does but they DO offer business discounts (something like10% on new systems).

allow some OS downgrades on new hardware

They do support SL on all but the very more recent systems. That is an area where businesses get kind of annoyed because of training issues...

App store for business

You mean like the Apple Apps Volume Purchase program? Or the fact that any enterprise can simply put custom apps up on a server and allow devices to download them directly? [pcworld.com]

smaller OS update downloads

Happily the app store does delta updates now.

some kind of desktop mid tower or at least a easy to open mac mini system

Which as noted they've had for a year or two now.

Let MAC OS server run on ANY VM

That would be good, not sure what the license is like on that now... it would make a lot of sense since they don't have the XServe anymore.

Re:apple needs to make some hardware changes for b (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846180)

business PC's and servers are like selling coke cans in a supermarket. there is no profit and it's done for branding only. that $500 laptop or desktop is almost no profit for HP or Dell. they make money on the server hard drives and other IT gear they also sell. like a $3000 starter fiber switch that goes to $30,000 after you buy all the licenses.

apple on the other hand wants to make a 30% or so gross profit on every device they sell.

FUD? (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845762)

The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.

Uhm, except that instructions for creating a boot disc from the first download are all over the 'net? And in one month or less Apple will be selling thumb drives with boot system & Lion installer preloaded? So what was the point of this post?

Yes, I would like to virtualize OS X on non-Apple hardware, and would be willing to pay good money to do so. But that's not enough to redeem this worthless piece of shit post.

Anyone with half... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845772)

Anyone with half a brain knows to stay away from (cr)apple products altogether! (cr)apple has somehow managed to create the ILLUSION that owning their vastly overpriced, poorly made junk products somehow makes one cool, hip, or whatever. That is the only way that they have any success at all. It is no wonder that businesses avoid (cr)apple like the plague!!

Apple is not interested in the Enterprise (1)

tdp252 (519328) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845780)

Apple's focus is on the consumer market. Period. I've met with Apple Sales representatives multiple times in technology purchasing roles at various companies I've worked for and they aren't shy about stating that you either play by their rules or leave the discussion.

One of the biggest problems is that large companies want to see things like Product Road Maps. Apple makes it very clear they won't let you know whats going to happen 6 months ahead with any of their products. This really puts the enterprise off in many large companies because they like to know where technology is going in order to plan for it's impact on their infrastructure accordingly.

Newsflash: Apple couldn't care less (1)

jht (5006) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845784)

Apple is busy making scads of money in the consumer space. Enterprise IT is a "nice to have", but not a "gotta have" for Apple. Sure Lion is initially available as a download only. And no IT department with any brains will install Lion right away to begin with. That all said, it's easy to download it once, then make it available for mass deployment (just pay the license fees as if you were downloading it a ton for starters - there's no DRM on the download). And next month it'll be shipped on USB stick (like they do now for all the current DVDless Macs).

Besides that, there's plenty of third-party deployment and management tools that are being updated for Lion right now. It's really not going to be that big a deal. They are dumbing down the server software, but they also have a virtualization license that is far more generous than it has been in the past. The App Store is getting a corporate version. Third parties like Apperian are getting opportunities there, too.

Apple's focus from a corporate side is making Lion a good client OS. They've done a lot to advance it. The server is backtracking to be a SMB OS (we'll see how server-friendly the next Mac Pro is, but the mini is pretty slick even if it's not readily rackable). Apple, though, is focused on delivering the features that sell the most units to the most people. Period. Anything they deliver on top of that is pretty much a bonus.

When your Mac sales are considered disappointing because they're "only" up 14% you're doing something right.

Unfuck your filesystem first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845864)

._* and .DS_Store, anyone...?

(Yes, the .DS_Store can be disabled, emphasis on *can*, not that most users give a rat's ass if the spill that crap on the corporate fileserver, the ._ files cannot be disabled at all.)

Quite well behaved? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845882)

While it isn't necessarily their fault(the whole idea that there is such a thing as a "Windows LAN" is kind of fucked up), it really requires an excessively charitable viewer to describe OSX machines as "quite well behaved clients" in the context of an environment making heavy use of Microsoft stuff. Sure, they speak SMB more or less adequately, and the AD binding mostly works, usually; but there are all sorts of weird quirks and architectural differences(a particular non-favorite of mine: Windows handles 802.11X wireless authentication in two stages: "machine" authentication, tied to the permissions of the machine account, normally so that you can get network access to handle user authentication, and then "user" authentication, which occurs when somebody logs on. The OSX machines can have a system-wide set of 802.11X credentials, or individual accounts can have them. These differences are nothing that a bunch of bodging can't overcome; but they are sort of annoying.)

Then, of course, there is the fact that if you want to do any sort of AD-esque control of OSX clients, Apple's advice is "Go get an OpenDirectory server". In fairness, that is pretty much exactly the same as Microsoft's response, but in an already microsoft environment, only one of those is a sunk cost(and, Apple's "server" offerings, to which their software is legally bound, are kind of a joke. Of Course IT would be happy to run some directory services off a machine that isn't even offered with redundant PSUs, and is "rack mountable" in the sense that you can put it on a shelf if you want...)

There is no point in denying the elegance of Apple's engineering, and their success in home and small-business niches is a testament to that; but institutional IT isn't frowning at your precious macbook just because we hate your creativity and want to stifle you into a beige cube drone...

Creative professional (1)

Gazoogleheimer (1466831) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845940)

I find it hilarious that Apple still has that myth going for it -- there are NO advantages to a creative professional under an Apple environment compared to a Windows environment, especially after FCP took a turn for the worse...

mo3 Sdown (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36845950)

Does the poster even work for a business? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845970)

First if all I don't know of many business that would allow a random employee to buy, download, and install an OS without first testing and blessing it on company machines. After approval, these usually are procedures for enterprise deployments like downloading a single copy on a network share. Second if it was a personal machine, I know my business doesn't like you clogging the company bandwidth with a 4GB download. Businesses are different but how is any different when the newest version an OS like Red Hat is released?

OS X virtualisation (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845972)

IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization

It does offer full support, unless you're too cheap to buy Apple hardware to run it on.

The whole thing seems to boil down to a whine that the AC submitting can't run OS X on his cheap commodity hardware..

WAKE UP AC ! OS X is a means to sell Apple hardware because they are a hardware company.

Network resources? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36845998)

I am not sure where the network resources comes in? Does corporate run off a dial up connection? In my case I have a slow ATT dsl connection and total upgrade took one hour.

as far as upgrades, do the same thing we do for pcs. For instance, I have 15 identical macs and 25 identical PC. Upgrade one of each, setup as like, create an image and propagate. MS Windows is superior in some ways in that it can remotely load change profiles each time the machine is booted, but that is not important to everyone. For my personal cluster of macs, I like OS X Lion because there are virtually no licensing issues.

Only one download required (4, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846140)

The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.

They've already announced a volume licensing scheme [osxdaily.com] which only requires one download and everybody should know by now that the "updater" app that you download can be copied to physical media and re-used, and if you dig it contains a disc image of a good-old-fangled bootable DVD which you can use for bare metal installs. Most big IT setups will do an install on one machine of each type and then image it, anyway.

The main annoyance is not for IT departments, but for microbusinesses and people running small groups of renegade Mac users in PC centric environments, where the minimum order of 20 licenses might be a problem (although if you phrase that as "$600 for up to 20 users" it sounds more reasonable).

Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.

Ain't gonna happen. First, Occam's razor suggests that the reason they dropped XServe was that they couldn't even sell it to themselves: who's going to buy a XServe when the makers have just built a big shiny data center full of Dells?. Second, they've passed on the realistic solution, which was to license Snow Leopard Server for non-Apple hardware: at $500 a pop (or sign a volume license) it would hardly allow Dell to produce a $500 MacPro-killing minitower, but would be competetive with other server-grade software. Now that Server is a $50 add-on, that is out of the window.

Thing is, Apple has to make the Mac play nice with Windows servers if they want any business penetration. With that as a given, there's not much of a case for using OS X in your general purpose server farm when you can use Windows or Linux instead: OSX's USP is its combination of UNIX with nice GUI and the availability of MS and Adobe applications, which counts for little on a server.

While the Mac Mini and Mac Pro servers are not a replacement for proper rack-mounted server hardware, they are fine for Mac workgroups. The advantages of "proper" server hardware only cuts in when you've got a hundred of the things and the overall MTBF starts to go down.

As for this whole Apple hates business thing: so much of the business sector is a MS or Linux closed shop than any investment Apple makes is a long shot. Its main "inroad" to business in the past was its present in the DTP, Pro graphics and video arenas which was established at a time when Apple and Adobe had a head-and-shoulders lead in those markets and the PC of the day wasn't technically up to competing. That is now going to be a war of attrition. Apple main weapon now is its ability to rapidly innovate and move on to new things: that goes down a storm in the consumer arena but is not so good to businesses who like nice stable platforms, roadmaps and 5 years warning before a product is discontinued.

There are rumors that Apple will, itself, run a virtualized version of Mac OS under VMware as part of its iCloud product.

Well, OS X is Unix and Apple own it so they can install it where the hell they like. Bet its stripped down to hell, though. Chances are though, it would be just as practical to run iCloud on Linux, OpenBSD or any other Unix-a-like - just a bit of an embarrassment if your name was Apple.

Too bad Apple is going to abandon desktops (2)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846154)

Too bad Apple is going to abandon desktops and their pro line software. They laid off 40 staff on the FCP team and turned it over to the iMovie people. If the FCP X fiasco is any indication, the transition not going to be clean or pretty.

Apple should have sold their desktop business and licensed their OS to someone else. They're a successful consumer electronics company trailing a part of the business they hang on to for nostalgia.

Only one supplier (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846168)

Any medium to big sized company that thinks that it is cool to base their IT infrastructure in hardware from a single supplier and that any software you buy for that platform is tied to it is making a big mistake. Basing their software purchases on a single OS provider like Windows is enough a problem to tie you to a hardware manufacturer. At least software is something intangible that can be replicated easily, with hardware you must be ready to be able to switch providers if needed, for example: on my country companies have problems importing their products frequently, what happens if Apple is not able to provide you the hardware you need when you need it and you need to open a new branch office, ohh no!!! we are screwed

Download argument is a red herring! (1)

macshome (818789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846202)

The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.

I can't see how this is an actual issue for most IT managers. Most shops have already been doing electronic delivery on every other OS for years.

Two words: Active Directory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36846226)

Yes, you CAN get Macs to work in AD and the machines work great -- once everything is set up. It isn't a hardship to set Macs up and, although you do need to run separate remote access tools remote administration of a Mac is a breeze.

The thing is, and it is a big thing, that you need to have a mac to remotely administer a mac and you need to have a PC to administer the PCs and Windows-based servers. And yes, you CAN run PC apps on a mac through any add-on product or method you want but it's slower, requires extra work, and is wholly dependent on the Mac running they way you want it to.

I maintain a multi-site windows-based network from a mac laptop -- not through choice but because my boss wants me to. It is a lot of extra work keeping everything on my own system working so that I can maintain all of the other systems. As an admin who is forced to work this way I can say unequivocally I would not wish this set up on anyone and if I had my way everyone in my network would either use a Mac or a PC but there would never, ever be a mix. As someone with some insight on IT purchasing I can tell you that my boss's boss, the guy who holds the purse strings, would rather never buy another Mac.

Apple does NOT WANT business (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36846258)

I am very familiar with Apple in a business environment and have been successful using, administering, supporting and integrating Mac with a primarily Windows environment. That is not and has never really been the problem.

The real problem is hardware support.

In business, we have come to expect things like next-day-on-site for repairs and service. This is especially important for servers and laptops -- desktops not so much but still important when you need it. (And most businesses don't understand "spare" anything... all they see is money spent with no return on it.) Apple will not offer such services. They won't offer accidental damage warranty coverage either. There are local suppliers who will offer this type of support, but if/when they have trouble or go out of business, it is meaningless. It needs to come from Apple just as my expectations and needs are met by Dell.

Apple does not want the responsibility for providing business level services. Consumer-only is far more convenient. I suspect this is part of their legal strategy -- when business sues, it's a big deal, when consumers sue, it's not.

New level of stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36846296)

So I read this as,
"If Mac was more like Windows, Microsoft administrators would understand it better."

It would also be a steaming pile of dung just like Windows...... It's different for a reason you 'tard.

We run a datacenter and moved all of our staff to Mac years ago. I've also personally helped dozens of companies completely dump Microsoft for a all Mac office and the IT support practically drops to nothing. Either these Windows only shops are 'tarded or worried about losing their job if the boss realized how much less support is needed from a Mac centric office.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>