Probably main reason why Apple isn't aggressively pursuing enterprise money is all the attached strings that come with it. Large-scale enterprise (clients such as GE, GM, P&G, etc.) have very specific legacy demands. Vista (as well as all prior Win iterations) is such a bear because it HAD to be able to run truckloads of legacy code. Without this ability, none of the big accounts would be migrating. In a way, some of these big enterprise clients may be holding MS hostage when it comes to innovation. While we can debate the merits of putting words MS and innovation in the same sentence, it is certain that Apple wants the flexibility to turn on a dime. None of these big corporations would have allowed Apple to move from 68k to PPC, from OS9 to OS X, and worst, from PPC to Intel, that easily. Ask Adobe, Macromedia, even MS's MacBU. They can all share the frustration of having to rewrite code for their flagship products from the ground up because of Apple's decisions to move from one architecture to the next with only marginal legacy support (emulation in PPC for 68k code; 'Classic' mode; Rosetta). No enterprise with sizable IT assets is willing to put their eggs in such a basket. Neither is Apple interested in pursuing the stodgy CIOs of these large companies.

As long as there is creative content and those who are creating it, as well as the entire home market, Apple has plenty of room for growth.

Intel Macs run legacy code as well. This includes Windows XP/ME/98/95 and DOS. It also runs all the flavors of Linux. On top of that it runs them in a safe and secure sandbox, to protect the main OS. All these apps and environments can run seamlessly and simultaneously using built-in hardware virtualization as well as software such as Parallels and VMWare.

It's a much better way of running legacy code than the way Vista is doing it.

Quote

vasic wrote:
None of these big corporations would have allowed Apple to move from 68k to PPC, from OS9 to OS X, and worst, from PPC to Intel, that easily. Ask Adobe, Macromedia, even MS's MacBU. They can all share the frustration of having to rewrite code for their flagship products from the ground up because of Apple's decisions to move from one architecture to the next with only marginal legacy support (emulation in PPC for 68k code; 'Classic' mode; Rosetta).

My opinion: There are 2 ways of doing things. Keep it forever backwards compatible, or move on providing some legacy support for a few years and provide a better overall product. Could Apple be where they are today if they had taken the MS approach of keeping things forever compatible? No way. It's easy to complain about something and not offer a solution. So, vasic, I would like to know what you would have liked Apple to do instead of what they have done. Progress is a tough road to travel. Would you rather apple stayed on 68k processors?
How I understand what Apple has done (I'm not a programmer, so I may be a little off on this): Apple has offered tools to convert code over the years. Some of those companies that you mentioned (MS, Adobe) did not take Apple's advice in developing the later releases of their applications with Apple's tools (i.e. "Apple Developer Tools"), but rather took the shortcut of updating their legacy code with legacy tools (i.e. "Code Warrior"). MS Office X and 2004 applications are still Carbon applications. If they had done the work to write Office 2004 components as Cocoa applications, their conversion to Intel (Universal Binary) would have been far simpler and quicker.Sure, it would have taken more time to get the 2004 product out, but I'm betting they would have been far better off at this point.

Back to the real topic: Apple in the Enterprise.
So now that Apple is on x86 CPU (Intel, for now.. AMD maybe later?).. and they have a UNIX platform to stand on.. what are the chances that it actually stays this way for many years to come? If so, does that mean that their legacy of abandoning legacy applications is in the past? It is possible, right?
Here's my take: Apple doesn't care about the enterprise until the enterprise cares about Apple. Will they? I think so. I think we're on the verge of something big. Let Vista take a huge chunk out of CFO's budget each quarter with their nickel-and-dime tactics and I think we might start to see something. There's already movement towards Linux in some enterprise/government environments. It would be far easier to switch to Macs. It might really only take a few large companies with a couple of success stories to get CFOs on board to take the plunge.
Here's to hoping.

It's not just allocation of manpower on the marketing side. They need engineering support, too.

For instance, while OS X Server 10.4.x was marketed as having GUI-enabled spam protection via Spamassassin and ClamAV, as of the latest version there are still directories misconfigured in the default installation. It's not a tough fix, thanks to helpful people out there, but I figured by 10.4.2 they'd have that fixed. But no...

I've got a dozen Macs running OS X Server, but until Apple gets serious about follow-through and QC it's going to be a niche product.

TO answer Brett_x, Apple is doing exactly the right thing. When one compares the state of the Mac OS to the state of the Windows OS, this is as clear as a sunny day. While the Adobes and Microsofts (MacBUs) of this world have the right to complain about this constant change, they will ultimately be the ones to benefit from the platform that is truly innovative, secure, stable, and attractive.

The move to Intel (and UNIX) might indicate some continuity for a longer period in the future. However, we need to remember that this is still Apple. If UNIX (and Intel) become eventually obstacles to future innovation, they will be easily abandoned just like before. And by then, hopefully, the enterprise market will realise that these changes are not as expensive as constant upgrade cycles with MS.

Any idiot can learn Windows. MS figured out how to do that way back when Novell was making it hard to earn the CNE. Along come MS with IIS and SHAZAAM every school in the country can teach you to be an MCSE so you can run your network one GUI at a time.
What's the certification track for Apple in the enterprise? Where are the books? How can the janitor of today be the Enterprise Mac Admin of tomorrow?
Apple is really neat, and I'm (probably) not an idiot, but I've got better things to do than flail my way through learning Mac Enterprise by gathering/googling info like collecting shells on the beach.
Apple won't be ready for the enterprise until they can make their cert and training tracks widely available.
My 2 cents. BTW, Apple ALSO needs to get over their cavalier attitude towards security - shipping virus-infected iPods is a PROBLEM FOR APPLE, not a situation where Apple "regrets the vulnerabilities of Windows." Does anybody else remember when viruses first started showing up on early Apples?

I don't think that Apple's marketing, engineering, or anything else will matter until Apple learns that Steve-style 'surprises' are not acceptable in the enterprise. A good surprise is no better than a bad one, enterprises need to _plan_.

Apple has never really gone after enterprise, and IMO with good reason. As stated above, a large enterprise account would be a drag anchor to the manner Apple moves things forward. Big enterprise has far too much inertia behind its requirements. Apple does not need- nor want, to be dragged down by he inertia of large enterprise accounts.

Instead, Apple is making a big success out of aiming at the consumer market. A large part of their success is based on their repeated ability to make the consumer go "WOW!" The drag of conforming to the slow-moving requirements of big enterprise would detract from their ability to make consumers go "WOW!"

Additionally, aiming at the consumer is having some enterprise benefits. There is a definite and growing trend for people to work from home rather than drive into the office every day. Adding to this trend is the formation of virtual offices, in which people use modern communications technology to conference from home - where sometimes those homes are even in differing states! The people who work from home also have the desire to do the things Apple is famous for providing: music, home movies, etc. They do not want to be forced into having a computer for work and a computer for personal use. But Apple has provided a means - via Intel and Parallels/bootcamp - for these professionals to be compatible with work, and have their hobbies all on one machine. So, when Apple makes these professionals go "WOW!" from the consumer end, they are having an indirect effect on enterprise, too. Professionals working from home - especially ones in higher management - are starting to demand their IT departments work to be compatible with THEM, rather than them being forced to be compatible with work. By making professionals who work at home go "WOW!", Apple is making far more progress into the enterprise field than they ever will by catering to a stodgy old board of directors. And they are doing so in a manner that will allow them the continued freedom to work on future "WOW!" products.