Do we want Mac in the enterprise when we have Linux?
Summary: Apple has done such an incredibly nice job moving into the world of consumer electronics that I say, "Let them stay there!"
Larry Dignan recently posted a piece on Mac in the enterprise (The eternal question: Can Apple go enterprise?). I think a better question is actually why we would want Apple to bother with the enterprise when we have Linux? This assumes, of course, that you're in the market for a Windows alternative. However, Apple has done such an incredibly nice job moving into the world of consumer electronics that I say, "Let them stay there!"
As Larry points out, outside of Apple's identified business markets (i.e., content creation), they have largely abandoned any effort to penetrate the enterprise. Linux, on the other hand, has evolved to such an extent that there are a lot of places where it could be really successful in enterprise markets (and certainly already is in the server room). XP and Vista are great, too, with certain caveats and obviously dominate the enterprise (for a variety of reasons, both good and bad).
The ability to purchase what is now considered entry-level hardware (since any single processors now seem to fall into that category) at rock bottom prices just makes it hard to stomach Apple's premium hardware/premium prices approach. While it's true that Apple's prices are competitive with comparably equipped Wintel PCs, so many users at the enterprise level simply don't need dual core power. A plain old P4 can do the job quite nicely. A reader recently asked if we were going to be doomed to Windows forever. The answer is probably not, but Apple is not the only alternative. Quite frankly, at this entry level, where the majority of our users reside, Linux looks remarkably attractive. Not only is it free, but it provides basic office productivity as well or better than Windows. While companies and schools may make a business decision to stick with Windows (existing platform investments, skills of support staff, etc.), if you and your users are looking around, it seems pretty utterly unnecessary to buy hardware capable of advanced video editing and really impressive content creation just to avoid Windows.
How many flavors of Linux are there now? A lot? And certainly several mainstream choices with lots of developer support, drivers, and great software. The various 'buntus, SUSE, Fedora, etc., all handle security nicely, look pretty Windows-like if you want them to, and run quite well on very reasonable modern hardware. Open Office rocks and talks quite well with Microsoft apps. And it's free. And runs on cheap hardware. So why buy an Apple for your mainstream users? They're very pretty, I'll give them that. I just don't see them taking off in the enterprise unless Apple can address the overkill issue.
Please folks, before you start ranting, keep in mind that I'm not Mac-bashing by any means. However, outside of specialty applications, I really don't see a reason to try and bring Apple into any enterprise. I'm giving serious thought to buying a Mac mini for my kids after setting up a small Mac lab at my school (Should I have bought those Macs?) because they really are remarkably cool and do some amazing stuff out of the box. I just don't need computers that do really amazing stuff out of the box for 95 percent of my users. There are some compelling reasons to look outside the Windows box, but I don't see myself looking inside Apple's box if I leave the Windows camp. I may have to go sneak into my new lab though and break out Garage Band this weekend.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Because Macs are easier to use
with the enterprise when we have Linux?"
It's no bother for Apple. Macs already can work in the enterprise. Anything that
Linux can do, Macs can do as well and more easily.
In 1987 ...
But now, in 2007, all three platforms have desktop services which are virtually identical and equally easy to use.
The greatest strength of the Apple Macintosh has always been its "out-of-the-box" ease of use. And it's greatest detriment has always been the premium price associated with that "ease of use".
To be certain, in the consumer world, people will pay a premium for a perceived difference in quality. Case in point is the Apple iPod, a brilliantly marketed premium product with inperceptable differences in quality over its competitors. It is a 'sexy' product which sells at a 10% to 20% premium over its competitors. BUT, the iPod line has it's entry-level (the iPod Shuffle) and a mid-range (the Nano) and a high-end (the video iPod).
Apple 'claims' to have an entry-level Macintosh, the Mac Mini, but, it retails for $599 -- almost twice what a headless entry-level Windows box sells for (I just paid $330 for a headless Vista-equipped Compaq). Granted, the Mac Mini is dramatically more capable but this is the 'overkill' factor to which Chris refers.
The enterprise is less swayed by 'sexy' products than the consumer and TCO is the justification the enterprise must use in order to get those controlling the purse-strings to agree to a product purchase. As Chris points out, when it comes to content creation, nobody can beat the Apple Macintosh -- but in the enterprise, content creation is not generally the goal. It is much more so in Education but generally only at the college level, where Macintosh makes a real difference.
The bottom line is that in the enterprise machine room, specialized Linux or UNIX boxes are far more cost-effective than a general purpose UNIX port like MacOSX. The exception, of course, is the Macintosh server providing specialized services to Macintosh clients. A similar excpetion is Windows servers providing specialized services to Windows clients.
When Apple decided not to compete in the commodity desktop market, they deliberately chose to leverage their strengths in CPU-intensive content creation applications and to walk away from those needing nothing more than general purpose computing capabilities. So far, that choice has served them well but that choice also precludes them from the much-more-lucrative enterpsie machine-room market.
Penny wise, pound foolish
By your definition Linux is overkill too. A much simpler client is a dumb one
which downloads its OS and applications on startup. This is how clients in the
'80s and '90s ran, and now with Web 2.0 upon us, this model can popularized
again. A dumb client would cost $100 and would benefit developing nations
immensely.
If the Mac gives a better experience, allows one to be more productive and is built
to last longer (things to which you couldn't speak), then wouldn't those be
justifications for paying a slightly higher price? We're not talking about a $1000
difference, or even a $400 difference. We're talking about $269 difference. You
don't think avoiding all the downtime due to viruses or the headaches of
administrating Linux are worth the $269 over the life of the computer (typically
five years minimum). At five years, that's $4.48 a month for ease of use and
security.
Penny Wise Pound Wise
which downloads its OS and applications on startup. This is how clients in the
'80s and '90s ran, and now with Web 2.0 upon us, this model can popularized
again. A dumb client would cost $100 and would benefit developing nations
immensely. ::quote
In this respect the best choice would certainly be Linux. An excellent exampple of this is the Linux terminal set up offered by Linux Distributions like EdUbuntu (Ubuntus Education version), and they really do make the sort of price difference you are talking about.
Other Linux examples that would also save the enterprise money are Multi head Linux desktops where a single Linux Box serves multiples users (6 or even 8) at one time (South African schools have been using an HP supplied 4 head machine for some time)
South Africa is not the enterprise
The enterprise, at least in the U.S. does not have the same financial limitations as
do developing nations.
My point is if U.S. enterprise find supporting Windows too costly, then it doesn't
follow that the logical alternative is Linux. Linux has its hidden support costs,
high administrative learning curve and dubious business model (just witness
Novell's recent sellout to Microsoft as a sign of things to come). There's a middle
way and I argue that the best value for enterprise's buck are Macs running Mac OS
X.
You may not agree, but I can say this from experience. The ratio of support
personnel to end-user is the lowest of all the operating systems.
Wolf in sheep's clothing
specialized services to Macintosh clients."
Nothing specialized about Mac servers. They serve OpenLDAP directory services,
VPN services, Kerberos services, SMB services, Postfix mail services, Jabber services,
on and on and on. I can hide a Mac server among Linux or Windows clients and no
one would know the difference. Not only I, but countless others have done this.
Wide-scale adoption? No
Because of their investment in ...
Neither Linux vendors nor Microsoft have such considerations...
Microsoft makes its money selling very large numbers of Windows licenses to a handul of OEMs and Linux vendors make their money selling modest numbers of licenses AND services to the the enterprise for use in the machine-room -- a far more lucrative market.
Support particularly lucrative
the interest that ultimately keeps Microsoft and Linux in business.
Macs buck the trend there.
Your said ...
Here! Here!
recommended Windows because it guaranteed long-lasting "support" fees.
I ran my first Red Hat box a few years ago, and I was astonished at how Mac-like it
was. (Notice I didn't say Windows-like). Great OS. Knowing the Mac, it was easy to dig
into Linux. Can't say any of my experience with Windows helped - Linux and Mac OS
X are cousins, or brothers. They're built and organized the same way. Windows is
entirely different.
Another day, another example
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/
windows_virus_cripples_florida_newspaper_mac_based_pubs_unaffected/
Markets decide
viable in the enterprise. That hasn't changed. Want to flame?
Flame the marketplace.
Markets aren't static
IBM and At&T were was on top once too. With Micrsoft's inabilities to produce timely
products that people care about and being nipped at the heals by Linux and Mac OS
X, what makes you think Microsoft is invincible?
And yet, Apple still can't crack the marketplace.
Microsoft is FAR from invincible, but Mac isn't the answer either. And IT/business really doesn't need new products, we need better, more stable versions of what we have, at a better price.
Openoffice.org oversold
<br><br>
I wish people would quit overselling OOo. It's nice, but it still needs a lot of work. Rendering errors, font metric problems, performance, documentation. (Recent peeve: A resume I laid out in OOo needed complete rewrite before I could export a usable .DOC file. OOo's frames work, but it doesn't export them to .DOC properly.) If you sell it as a drop-in replacement for MS-office, users will be disappointed.
<br><br>
That's not a bash. I've been using OOo for eight years and I like it. It's usable, and its TCO can't be beat. But I'd rather use Framemaker for some things and LaTeX for others. KOffice does a lot of things better than OOo does. The right tool for each job.
role of ISVs
<br><br>
Macintosh has needed less of that because the limited hardware selection it has to support lets Apple do a lot of it before the box goes out the door. It's part of why they cost more.
why is mac to be preferred if you run a small business
Probaly because of this, neither ever gave me cause to switch to another OS and I have found both hardware and software to be exceptionally reliable over long period of time.
This has enabled me to operate without ever having to ask for help from an IT professional (except whenever I have had to install a Windows machine or maintain a Linux server). As a business operator it represent quite a lot of savings over time even if the package hardware+software is more expensive at the start.
Obviously for anyone working in IT this is a no-no proposition as that means no work for IT professionals at the business level.
If you go Mac, get real...