Is the biggest challenge to Apple in the Enterprise still the IT Director?

The short answer is no, but it is still an interesting question, and one worth thinking about even on a beautiful, warm day, especially since the competition, both Linux and Microsoft, has left the gates open.

While Apple still is not an Enterprise darling, few people notice.  Apple is at its peak as a media darling.  First there is the "Apple buffs marketing savvy to a high shine," in USA Today, and in a link from that article, we have the Onion doing a spoof "Apple Unveils New Product-Unveiling Product."  Even, Oligopoly Watch, which is an interesting site I am unfamiliar with had this to say.

Apple may be an also-ran in the computer business, but in the music business it is now the ruling oligonomy...

Then there is Information Week coming up with the "Top 22 Mac OS X Products."  It is strange that the article is there, and then it is a strange article.

However, the article that got me to writing is Computer World's "Why Apple's 'consumer' Macs are enterprise-worthy."

I always get suspicious when the media is falling all over itself to heap praise or blame on something, even Apple.  I guess the natural tendency in our society is to over play the story to get attention.  I am sure that I am or have been as guilty as any writer.  Apple since it has developed media awareness into this new hyper state is a little guilty also.  Of course in my days at Apple, I could have made some real hay with articles like ComputerWorld's.  Where were they when there were lots of people still at Apple who thought the enterprise really mattered?

The strangest statement in a sort of "I have heard that before" sense comes from page two of the ComputerWorld article. In referring to Apple, the author, Seth Weintraub, has this to say.

The company's simple and elegant product line, which is also highly customizable, will be Apple's entree to the business market -- if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers.

Steve Jobs basically said the same thing when he came back to Apple.  I think at the time he used the example of Chrysler cars.  He said something like, Chrysler doesn't make a special vehicle for the enterprise, and still they sell lots of cars to businesses.  Given today's dynamics in the car market that might now be bad example, but Apple's computers certainly have a better reputation than autos from American manufacturers, and Steve's point is well taken.

Seth Weintraub goes through a whole list of reasons why Apple fits in the enterprise even saying the following.

Mac enterprise administration has become more mainstream and interoperable with Active Directory, Microsoft's user and inventory LDAP database.

That sounds like Apple is really on target.  Could it be possible that Apple's enterprise sales people could actually start spending more time selling customers on Apple products than they do on selling the Enterprise to Apple?

Unfortunately some of the things which make Apple a good fit, and Active Directory is one of them, have required root canals inside Apple to make them happen.  I am not at all certain that Apple has turned the corner and is ready to sustain them in a such a way as to be a good enterprise partner even for companies who are just willing to take whatever consumer products Apple throws over the wall.

I'll grant you that Apple "usually" throws some great products over the wall, but from the many CIOs that I've talked to over the years, it takes more than great products to be successful in the enterprise.

The biggest challenge is that Apple still won't communicate even basic product futures to enterprises.  A big part of Apple's (or Steve's) hype is holding the cards close to the vest unless Steve wants to spill the beans himself.

I seriously doubt that there is any good reason for Apple to keep OS X futures as closely under wraps as they do.  Look how long it has taken Microsoft to get something even close to iPhoto.  I think Microsoft has plenty of problems and copying Apple's user interface isn't going to solve them this time.

Just think of this one huge problem. OS X when a new version ships is available in one version at the same to consumers as it is to IT staff.  In fact I've even seen consumers get their new copy of OS X before volume purchase customers got their copy.  Last I checked, the only way to get a preview of OS X is to become a licensed developer.  That might not be the best way to test new deployments.

This is another statement in the ComputerWorld article.

Many corporate applications have been ported to W3-compliant Web services that are OS-agnostic...

Good luck with that one would be my comment on that.  I hope Apple is working in that direction and that the lack of visible progress is just me not being up to speed.

I guess the biggest challenge in re-purposing those consumer Macs for the enterprise is the hype that Apple likes to build. Those enterprise friendly consumer products are addicted to the stage. Here is where I think USA Today asked an important question, but only provided an oblique answer.

The company's masterful buzz machine has helped generate record profits (thanks to the worldwide digital music cultural icon, the iPod), but it's barely nudged Apple's computer market share....

But despite a slight uptick in Mac computer shipments, Apple is still "stuck at 2% to 3% market share," says Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Technology.

Kay says Apple's free PR hasn't resulted in dramatically higher computer sales, but it has translated into enthusiasm on Wall Street, which has pushed up its stock price.

I guess the question probably doesn't even need to be answered if you are holding stock.  Apple investors are quite pleased to have higher stock prices even if they haven't come from greatly increased computer market share.  Practically the only people who care about computer market share are developers and a few of us who believe that the long term survival of Apple may hinge on it.  We are the lunatic fringe in this case, but interestingly I had a dialog with this great OS X developer about this product that I really wanted.  They stopped supporting it and have moved the product to a web version which is cross platform.  I hope that is not a trend among OS X developers, though I appreciate it when it happens on the other side.

I also hope the iPhone is a hit, because if it isn't, the media will turn on Apple in a heartbeat, the stock will suffer, and then the investors will also be unhappy.

A lot of the great press is all about great stock prices even when they are talking about products they barely understand.  It always has been. Just as much of the negative press in previous years was about low stock prices.

Those of us that actually care about Apple products and use them all the time know that, except for a few notable mistakes, Apple's products have almost always been very good.  Apple has a better reputation for making long lasting computers than any company that I know.

So if the hype and secrecy doesn't help sell lots more computers or copies of OS X, and providing a little peak into the future would make Apple's potential enterprise customers very happy, why not do it?

That's also an easy answer, it is a control issue and control is what Steve Jobs is all about.  It is also an accountability issue.  Steve right now is accountable to no one.  If Steve starts making promises to enterprise customers, they will hold Steve accountable.  That is not a position where I see Steve Jobs putting himself willingly.

There are lots of other things to be resolved if Apple is going to be a serious enterprise company even to those just using great consumer products.

First and foremost is that Apple just stops making products when they feel like it.  That makes it really hard if you're doing an enterprise wide rollout of a certain product.  Apple also changes and/or drops product features whenever they feel like it with no notice.

Second is that Apple service isn't exactly a good match for most enterprises.  I still remember when the AppleCare folks told one of our largest government customers to load up their shipment of twenty malfunctioning original iMacs and haul them to the Apple Store in Tyson's Corner, Va.  Now one would hope that this has been fixed, but my recent experience with a MacBook suggests that it hasn't.

When my MacBook malfunctioned less than six months after purchase, I was told to take it to an Apple Store.  Only after going through a list of resellers and Apple Stores that all happened to be two hours or more away was the support representative convinced of my remoteness enough to send me a box to ship the MacBook back to Apple.

There are two last reasons that I doubt Apple is ready even for enterprise customers who come to them with little sales effort on Apple's part.

The first is that Apple has a really poor record on following through on products.  I like to think of it as the AADD problem or the Apple Attention Deficit Disorder.  Apple moves on to new stuff when Steve decides that it makes sense.  It doesn't matter if the old stuff needs to be maintained or improved. Think about .Mac or even iWeb. The best resources will go where Steve wants them to go, they certainly haven't gone to .Mac.

The effort to get Active Directory supported in OS X was an unfunded field effort because Apple corporate at the highest software management levels didn't believe there was a need to do it.  Apple corporate actually removed the budget for the software head count and only embraced the project after it was significantly completed by someone in the field.  As director of federal sales I could see the need for Active Directory integration which is why I allowed field resources to do the project instead of supporting sales efforts.

People have changed at Apple so perhaps the new people really get the enterprise, but I wouldn't be betting my enterprise on Apple unless I got some significant commitments from Steve himself, because as anyone who has been around a long time knows, there is no guarantee that those people who might understand the enterprise will be around Apple tomorrow.  So without a public corporate commitment from Steve to the Enterprise, there is not much security in believing Apple executives who come in saying they are going to lead Apple's charge into the enterprise or who promise in a non-disclosure meeting that they will meet your enterprise needs.

Oh and the final reason that I doubt Apple is even ready for some free for the taking enterprise customers. 

That would be Steve.  He doesn't like the enterprise and would much rather shock and amaze consumers.  CIOs are a little harder to shock and amaze.

That's enough of me thinking about Apple and the enterprise for the thousandth time. I had a whole career of that. Fortunately it doesn't take much to meet my enterprise needs these days.

It's a beautiful day down here on the coast so I'm off to sell some real estate with Apple tools even if there are only about three other Mac using Realtors® in the country.

Last night's sunset was stunning to say the least. Even on a day not as nice as this one, I always can smile at the great tools I have to do my job, the stunning surroundings of where I work, and the fact that the world still has people turning out some beautiful work even without computers. 

Of course without computers those prints these days might not be that reasonably priced.

Comments

[Juan de Dios Santander Vela]

Don't you think that the present state of affairs is even more interesting to Apple than having a really big market share?

My take is that Apple's mind share is the one that really matters. That's what was lost in the Sculley-Spindler days, and what is being regained step by step: first with the original iMac, next with Mac OS X, and last with the jump into the Intel bandwagon.

This, together with the malware affecting Windows, has made Mac's mind share much bigger than market share, but mind share brings you most of the benefits of market share —people trying to do Mac versions of their software; CEOs asking for Mac support in their companies because they want to use Macs…—, without having to deal with 10 times bigger logistics, as HP or Dell do…

[dingosatemybaby]

You've said it well enough, I can't really add to your dialogue, only post a comment from the IT side of things.

We want to use what works and is easiest for us to administer. I dont care if its Windows, Linux, a Mac or an Etch a Sketch. What does the job best (#1) and what will be simplest to maintain a high SLA to the customers (#2).

After that you can talk about things like support, longevity of the platform, how committed the manufacturer is to their product, etc. All those areas are where Apple just falls down the stairs.

I love Apple products and WISH they'd get behind the Enterprise but they (Steve?) just isnt interested.

[ocracokewaves]

The hyper attention that Apple is getting might appear on the surface to be a really good thing. After all shouldn't the positive feelings about Apple make people feel more positive about buying an Apple computer at some point?

I found it very interesting today in a NY Times Editorial, "A Time and Place for Grousing," the one example they used about products was this.

"..many consumers say they would be satisfied with respect or an apology rather than, for example, a replacement iPod."

So is the example there because so many iPods have been replaced or because it is so popular to mention Apple in every instance?

Today mindshare is easy to lose. If you make one mistake, it vaporizes in this business world.

Real customers who use your products stay with you until the real pain, not the media pain, gets them.

Apple would have gone out of business in the late nineties without the most loyal customer base in the world.

All indications are that Apple is slowing adding to that base. Are the new users getting an experience that will make them Apple customers for life? That's hard to say at this point, but I have my doubts.

I still believe the trend to web apps is going to be a challenge for Apple. Maybe Google will help Apple out on this, but right now Apple is missing what may a battle of historic proportions on who can give away the most to win the greatest number customers. Google is winning hands down right now.

I think Apple is pretty well betting the farm on the iPhone. It's a high stakes gamble, but it is the game Apple has always played.

So far it has worked okay, but the only true hit has been the iPod. The question remains how the market and consumers will view Apple if the iPhone isn't another iPod. The market tends to overreact these days. Apple has created some huge expectations.

We live in interesting times, and it would be a lot less interesting without Apple.

[TRS-80]

Another thing that could be causing marketshare loss is Apple's becoming a media company that's focussed on the US alone. Due to the restrictions rights holders put on distribution things like iTV and iTMS are only available in a few countries, leaving the rest of the world out in the cold, and unable to get the full Apple experience.

This is sort of touched on this post about the iPhone in the rest of the world: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/03/09/apple-may-have-trouble-selling-10m-iphones-in-2008

[Mac Mies]

I one organization, which I cannot here mention, IT director made a comment in a staff meeting: "Mac hasn't died yet. Will take a couple of years."

He was a UNIX guy by the way. It's sad people like him are let to make decisions with that kind of antipathy...

[Steve Dill]

It's too bad Apple is shooting itself in the foot now with their losing control of product quality. Like you say Apple seems to be catching carry-over visibility in the IT world. They don't need a melt down now or it's doomsville.

David,
I was doing a Google search for Dell sales levels on GSA and came across one of your blogs. I want to say this respectfully, and I am offering this as personal advice --GET OVER IT!

I have heard all the rumors from various folks concerning your sudden and undeserved departure from Apple. It's now time for you to forget about the company and live your life which I see you are doing a pretty good job of doing selling real estate on the sea shore. Good boy, keep up the therapy.

If you want to know the true story about why I accepted a position at Apple under you, I could tell you but it might not serve any good purpose. I just want to say I am grateful to you for the time I had there as the knowledge I acquired is serving me well. I had a plan coming in, I executed it, and now have achieved the goal I set out to do. It did not go exactly as planned, but what plan ever does?

I could say a lot here but what sums it up best is during the exit interview, I noted that I actually got somewhat of a surprised look from you when I said "Apple is nothing more than a meat grinder". With that said, of all the folks I have known that have been through the grinder phase, many of them keep coming back to Apple opining to be part of the company again. I must admit that I have felt that way from time to time but I have gotten over it. Apple is rotten at it's core or as someone once said to me, "The fish stinks from the head on down". Steve is a dirty rotten son-of-a-bitch who has never gotten over Bill Gates stealing success from him. I have heard rumors he has pancreatic cancer, and I thought I noted some sort of gentleness/meekness from him when he announced the iPhone that many have when near death. Review the keynote you may see whay I mean. Suddenly they realize what life is really about but I do not see the Steve & Ms. Steve Foundation for humanity anywhere so he will die (hopefully later rather than sooner) a very rich but bitter and self-consumed individual. What does "it profit a man to gain the world, yet loose his soul?"

Apple used you just like they suck what ever brilliance and energy employees give them and once burned out or otherwise fall out of political favor, discard them like some sort of hi-tech roadkill.

Anyway, a last point I wanted to make here is I have personally met many CIO's in my current position and am working some seriously large opportunities. In tomorrows meeting I will be demonstrating some pretty neat technology to a group who has told me Apple refuses to call them. The customer has an installed base of over 10,000 workstations and has specifically told me they would like to give Apple a chance to compete. As your blog points out Apple is not interested in the enterprise, never has been, never will be from my point of view. Steve is an anti-establishment hippie from the late 60's/70's and he does not want any part of the world he sees as evil. The ironic part is he is just as evil as is his company as the military industrial complex he/they obviously want no part of.

[Nick]

"Apple still is not an Enterprise darling ..."

Nevertheless, Apple does seem to be quietly assembling some solutions that seem like they may be attractive to enterprise customers.

In the meantime, Apple has a healthy slice of the *high end* of the consumer market. That's something worth having, and more attractive in some ways than a very much larger slice of the bargain-basement Dell/Gateway market. Wouldn't MS like its software running on PCs for the high end of the consumer market? Of course it would: hence the most overpriced versions of the 7-fold Vista trap, which no-one in his senses would touch anyway for obvious reasons:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Apple has such good software that people tend to forget it makes most of its money by selling hardware. Apple gets people to buy its hardware by offering them attractive products that they'll like. Microsoft, by contrast, lives off the back of the OEMs and works by trying to tie people in to its software by killing the alternatives and by deliberately damaging inter-operability. Its business model virtually _requires_ this.

And anyone who's forgotten just what Microsoft is like, and who has gone all misty-eyed over dear Bill, probably needs to refresh his memory with some of the documents from the Comes case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070220083801959

Anyway, to return to the enterprise, just how much does any company want to spend on licences for people to use Exchange? It's not Dell's hardware that's the problem here: it's Microsoft's software licenses.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/685B09D3-950B-4B23-8B1F-A56D448F7208.html

Give it time. The smarter business customers are capable of running the figures.