Linked by David Adams on Sun 22nd May 2011 02:26 UTC
Apple Mac sales in the enterprise during Apple's last fiscal quarter grew a whopping 66 percent, significantly outpacing the rest of the PC market, which grew just 4.5 percent in the enterprise. The data from Apple's previous fiscal quarter was highlighted on Friday by analyst Charlie Wolf with Needham & Company. He said though he originally viewed success in the enterprise as a "one-quarter blip," it now appears to be a "durable platform" for Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 474167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Corporate Fanboys
by theosib on Sun 22nd May 2011 04:09 UTC in reply to "Corporate Fanboys"
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

There's nothing _wrong_ with putting Macs on desks in corporate offices. Just think of them as high-quality PC's with a slightly different OS.

On the one hand, you could buy a $500 Dell, loaded up with MS Office, and give it a 2-year useful lifespan.

On the other hand, you could buy a $1000 iMac instead. You'll get more memory, more hard drive, a faster CPU, and a 4-year useful lifespan.

It's basically a wash on price, except that you have to replace the Mac half as often. (Migrating files to a new Mac is also easier, but I'm assuming that user files are stored on a server, so that doesn't matter.)

Macs are not the savoirs of the corporate desktop. For non-developers, basically any computer you can buy right now is overkill. Hell, an iPad would be overkill. But you have to give them _something_, and a Mac isn't a bad choice. It might even be a morale boost for some, feeling they're special getting a cool-looking Mac on their desk instead of some ugly plastic Dell.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys
by Elv13 on Sun 22nd May 2011 04:56 in reply to "RE: Corporate Fanboys"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

This is not how corporate workstation work. A corporate desktop is not like an home PC. It is not a single entity. It is a node in a bigger picture. It is connected to a domain, share folder using that domain, have a domain connected mail client and is usually using a standard disk image that can be replaced remotely. If the corporate Network use a full Microsoft stack (Active Directory, SharePoint, IE6(...), Windows Server) and Windows applications, making a transition to the Mac take a -lot- of IT resource for what it worth. By a lot, I mean 3000+ person-hours, so around 65000$ not invested anywhere else. If this is not done, the Mac will have limited integration and will probably run Windows is Parallel Desktop or VMware for most tasks. Even there, it will still be an alien.

Mixing -workstation- type is usually not cost effective. Mixing servers is fine, but not workstation.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Corporate Fanboys
by bouhko on Sun 22nd May 2011 05:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

I guess the fact that more and more applications are web-based helps a lot in that regard.

Also, dropping some Microsoft solutions in favor of web-based ones might save a lot of licensing cost over the long run.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Corporate Fanboys
by Adamal on Sun 22nd May 2011 05:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys"
Adamal Member since:
2005-07-06

While I agree that it would be a big effort for some IT infrastructures, Mac integrate with Windows pretty well. At my work, I use a Mac for development and my macbook pro is joined to the Active Directory domain, using all the standard Microsoft tools with few issues.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys
by broken_symlink on Sun 22nd May 2011 05:51 in reply to "RE: Corporate Fanboys"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know where you work, but where I work, the desktops have a much longer lifespan than 2 years. Heck, we're still running some pentium 3 desktops that are probably close to 10 years old.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Corporate Fanboys
by Neolander on Sun 22nd May 2011 07:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This. Your company must be very rich to throw good computers away after 2 years. Everywhere I've ever went, it's possible to see lots of machines being 5-years old or more, and I can guarantee you that they were not worth $1000 (no serious GPU, 512MB or 1GB ram...).

Unless, of course, you think that to be usable, a computer must run the latest release of the OS you put on it. But if we forget for a moment how disputable this is (fixed purpose machines which work well in their current setup only need security updates, not feature updates), I've heard that Leopard was not exactly light on resources at release time either. More like competing with Vista for the title of most bloated OS of these times ;) So it's likely that lots of macs were not able to run it.

Plus, in terms of upgradeability, Linux and BSDs used in combination with the right software beat them all by a large margin.

Edited 2011-05-22 07:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys
by moondevil on Sun 22nd May 2011 08:23 in reply to "RE: Corporate Fanboys"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

2 years!? I wish.

In all the companies I worked so far, the PC were used until they died, without any chance of possible recovery.

Even then, their working parts were used to keep other of the same age running.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys
by danieldk on Sun 22nd May 2011 08:44 in reply to "RE: Corporate Fanboys"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

On the one hand, you could buy a $500 Dell, loaded up with MS Office, and give it a 2-year useful lifespan.


This comparison is, of course nonsense. E.g. our university has many 'ancient' HP desktop machines that have been running at least 5 years. The actually rarely break, and are usually replaced by faster machines. I am a Mac user and enthusiast, but I have seen far more Macs that required repair than HP business machines.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys
by JAlexoid on Sun 22nd May 2011 08:51 in reply to "RE: Corporate Fanboys"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

$500 Dell will serve 4-6 years with no issues. I've had done application development on 5 y/o Dell Optiplex and those machines are still going to be in use for at least 3 years.

My desktop is 4 y/o and I am still doing heavy Java development on it. Average users don't even need half of what I have. And I have an energy efficient setup with an underclocked CPU.

If you are a larger client with Dell, HP or Lenovo, you'll get a service contract that will b**chslap AppleCare. I go for Lenovo, for their global warranty and subtile design.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Corporate Fanboys
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 23rd May 2011 02:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

$500 Dell will serve 4-6 years with no issues. I've had done application development on 5 y/o Dell Optiplex and those machines are still going to be in use for at least 3 years.


Eh, Our experience would beg to differ. We've had a a few dell's just flake out for no reason at a high error rate, thankfully Dell's SMB support is pretty good at replacing them when they kill themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Corporate Fanboys
by kaiwai on Mon 23rd May 2011 03:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

$500 Dell will serve 4-6 years with no issues. I've had done application development on 5 y/o Dell Optiplex and those machines are still going to be in use for at least 3 years. My desktop is 4 y/o and I am still doing heavy Java development on it. Average users don't even need half of what I have. And I have an energy efficient setup with an underclocked CPU. If you are a larger client with Dell, HP or Lenovo, you'll get a service contract that will b**chslap AppleCare. I go for Lenovo, for their global warranty and subtile design.


That is assuming they buy them where as most organisations I know tend to lease them and let EDS, HP or IBM Global Services take care of the details.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Corporate Fanboys
by sorpigal on Tue 24th May 2011 19:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Corporate Fanboys"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

The reality is that more powerful computers really don't help most users. A few, like developers, can benefit, but most peoples computing needs were well met by 90s computers. New convenience features might require more resources and those features might be helpful to productivity for some users but in the majority of cases any computer produced in the last decade running an appropriate set of software for its specs will be sufficient for almost every user.

What drives workstation replacement is maintenance costs. How much to get spare parts? How often does it break? Do we still have an image for that? Can our management software still manage it? As long as we get get parts cheaply and it doesn't require constant attention and we can still reimage and manage it, it stays.

Reply Parent Score: 2