But Apple's success has further proven that the "technical experts" are less and less relevant today. The customer is the consumer and the consumer is the customer. We as individuals can and have to do more for ourselves and NOT rely on "technical experts", less we become beholden to a small oligarchical group of technohippies who speak a language nobody understands and take control of the economy for themselves and enslave the rest of us.

No, I'm not a freeper. Heck, I just learned what the heck that even means a month ago. I avoid the nutcase fringe.

I think Apple has proven it can speak to customers with little or no technical background, even professional customers in that category.

It would be nice if they kept up their sérieux to the technical community, where a lot of the really exciting stuff happens.

I have it from a good source (German NeXT programmer) that Jobs has been extremely frustrated with the corporate market throughout his NeXT days.

Hasn't the main driver of business, technical and product decisions become MONEY? Making the numbers? Keeping that share price up? Making sure that the options are worth a fortune?

Look at the iTunes 7 release. I believe the release date was driven by the Disney deal, not the state of readiness of the software.

I will be VERY leery of Leopard when that comes out.

Hasn't Apple always targeted the non-tech crowd? "The rest of us," so to speak? Hasn't that been what separates them from a typical PC manufacturer? Hasn't most of their innovation gone toward user experience... making everything "just work..." with the goal of enabling the non-technical person?

If so, then why worry whether Apple is accomodating the Federal, Corporate or University technical markets? Aren't those outside of Apple's primary market, and apart from their business plan? Sure, there's money to be made and sure, there have always been researchers, corporations and military departments that have used Macs. But I would argue that these are few and far between, have always been so, and will remain so. And that doesn't really bother me... if a technical user finds a place for Apple hardware and OS in their plans (eg, VA Tech), more power to them - they will more than likely have the resources and abilities to press forward on their own. I don't know if it's worth it for Apple to spend the resources needed to truly compete in these areas... they're simply outside of Apple's primary focus.

At the moment I am a big fan of Apple because of their progressive attitude, which does not mean I cannot see a day when a more progressive and more innovative comes along. It hit me hard when Commodore and the Amiga went under along with the Atari ST. These were made by companies that wanted to push the boundaries of graphics, sound and ease of use for gaming, etc., so I know that Apple were not the only company that could have succeeded. And, if they had survived we may have been where we are now with Apple a long time ago. But they had to bow down to the PC - the serious, sensible computer that you could type on and see it all in beautiful mono. Now Apple is enjoying its peak, but history shows us that success breeds complacency. Apple knows that this is what history shows us though and so it is still showing caution. Whether the company is successful in retaining its prior ethos will be down to how well its strategy works in the marketplace. One day it might be where MS is now and behave in the same way, and if that is the case I will be looking for the next big thing.

I'm not sure why most people don't know this or talk about it but if you pay Apple for an Enterprise support contract they do talk to you in very technical detail. You can ask them anything and they will respond very quickly with very detailed answers. They will keep you informed of the status of any issues you have and report back to you with solid answers. I think someone need to evalute the payfor support ar Apple not just free support.

I don't know about 13 page security guides. The page mentioned has a link to 167 page PDF:

http://images.apple.com/server/pdfs/Tiger_Security_Config.pdf

I've started reading it. However, in some ways I'm not impressed by the approach at all. It reads like a mixture of of a configuration guide and an advertising pitch:

"Mac OS X users can comfortably rely on the ongoing public examination by large numbers of security experts, which is made possible by Apple’s open approach to software development. The result is an operating system that is
inherently more secure."

The first sentence is boastful rather than informative - and somewhat questionable considering the bad blood there's been around Open Darwin, including Rob Braun's well-known comment that it has been "been dead for years." The second sentence really says nothing at all.

It's just not good enough. I don't think what purports to be a security configuration guide is the right place for claims, boasts, bombast, and what reads like advertising copy. A security configuration guide should say what you are advised to do for particular applications (meaning uses here) you may have, and stick to that.

"This is what you need to do" *not* "We are the greatest".

They're not, anyway. Security-wise nothing approaches OpenBSD:

http://www.openbsd.org/security.html

I suspect the Month of Apple Bugs will make some of that boasting look a little hollow.

First, Mr. Sobotta's site is a regular rant against Apple because Apple is messed up in its approach to corporate users, and because he's a former employee. Mr. Sobotta refuses to accept that Apple just doesn't want to compete for the corporate user.

Second, Apple splits the computer market into four: creative, high-performance, corporate, and consumer. Apple cares mostly about consumer and creative because it believes the future of computing is in the creation and delivery of creative content to a consumer (digital hub). It believes that meeting the needs of the creatives will drive its technology advancement. It cares some about high-performance (beyond creative use), but mostly for marketing purposes. It cares little about corporate (beyond creative), which is saturated with Windows PCs.

Third, for the purposes of marketing and demonstrating their own technology, Apple does, once in a while, engage a technical user (corporate or university) in a project. Marketing includes both making the public aware of what Apple products are capable of, and making Apple internally aware of what some users are trying to do with Apple products.

Fourth, Apple does put some effort into making their products work better with other corporate products. But the focus of this is not to sell into those corporate markets, but rather to continue to sell to those who are already Mac users, but who would like better compatibility with PC-using folks.

Fifth, Apple is primarily focused on selling product (including Leopard) to the creative segment and to the consumer. If somebody (or some corporate, federal, or university user) wants to do more with Apple products, that's great but not something Apple is focused on making happen. Accept it and all its consequences.

Apple believes the personal computer as a general purpose processing device for consumers is fading away. Consumers are buying computing devices to do multiple but specific tasks, and these tasks are slowly shifting from owned software apps to web-based apps, and from text/numbers to multimedia and communications. (Creatives will still harness all the power and will use software apps.) The Mac line and iPod line are two forms of computing devices. The iPod line is for playback only (on-the-move or stationary (i.e. connected to iPod hi-fi). Like the Cinema displays and Airport Express peripherals in earlier computing generations, the "iTV" will complete the "system" by connecting the digital hubs (Mac, iPod) to the consumer's preferred presentation devices.

Now will this harm Mac OS X? No, unless there is some technology out there that is beyond what is needed for creatives or consumers. Is there anything in the corporate market, that is not also in the creative market, that drives technological advancement in either hardware or OS software? Even grid/cluster stuff is within the needs of creatives. Even database stuff.

Finally, going forward, Mac OS X will probably do less to meet Windows server-type compatibility, a big need of the corporate market. But Apple has already partially dealt with that by allowing Windows to run on a Mac. And with Parallel and VMware, that will likely be completely dealt with in the next couple of years.

And so I think this article is misguided.

I have seen many companies in my life. If you watch them from outside, everything looks fine. But goin in you can find a lot of things you don't like. Sometimes you wonder how they manage to make money.

It is the same story with Apple and its customers in the enterprise. I'm sure, You are right, zpok. Steve doesn't like corporate customers. They sold their IT to IBM, Microsoft, SAP and others and didn't show that kind of business intelligence John is talking about. And because Steve doesn't like them, the fools at Apples middle management show a lot of arrogance to the enterprise. It is the same arrogance, NEXT collected years before.

But beside of that – Johns article is based upon two asumptions: 1. Apple needs higher technical skills to serve enterprise customers, and 2. Apple can make more money selling products to the enterprise.

I doubt this is true.

John is one of the guys, waiting for apple to reenter the enterprise market. And the longer it takes the louder are his concerns.

Apple is on the way to show there is a future beyond Dell an HP. It is up to them to get better margins selling a Standard PC with Vista on board. And it is up to John and other pundits to accept the idea one day, that a computer company can exist without any anchor in the corporate business.

That is what I think.

If Apple didn't care about corporate, why bother to attend FOSE in the first place? And if they're going to attend, why not actually make a serious effort to win business? To do what Apple did at FOSE is a waste of time, money, and resources. If they really didn't care, they should not have bothered and saved themselves the trouble.

I agreed that Apple Federal was a mess ... in 2004 and before. Back then, Apple was in the in-between state. The highest levels were slowly coming to a decision to get out. The lower levels were in, but slowly getting the message that they were out of that market.

It's clear now that Apple is not directly attacking the corporate market (outside of creative) with Mac OS X. Jobs said Windows won that war in the corporate space. His plan is to attack Windows in a different war; the creative and consumer war.

This is not about the corporate market.

In order to better infiltrate the academic and scientific community, the people in charge of planning computer infrastructure should be getting more help from Apple so they can better prepare their case to advocate Apple purchases.

and Apple decided its future was in the consumer electronics model, that it'd turn OS X over to open source.

1st: Apple designs products for consumers first.

You may not like it, but they are very up front about it. Expecting Apple to trade off it's consumer business model to put your business needs first may be what you want but it doesn't make it right for Apple.

2nd: Never-the-less Apple lays out the red carpet and welcomes technical customers to see what it has been working on and converse directly with most all it's engineers annually at WWDC. They could not be much more open than that.

3rd and Last: Your arguments lose all credibility when you reference Sobotta. The guy is a disgruntled ex-Apple employee that if I recall was let go by Apple. Do you really think his views are objective, let alone accurate? Did you work for or with him while at Apple and leave under similar circumstances???

Tiger - you're right on some levels BUT we're the guys who develop the software you're running, or recommend the IT infrastructure your firm is running on. A lot of us still have a love for Apple, but it's certainly true your Microsoft, IBM and Oracle do a LOT more to cultivate decision makers. Of course that might be the right decision for Apple - their future might be what John fears - being the best supplier of consumer computing out there. The momentum is behind Linux - rather than OS X - as the 'serious' alternative to Windows and it may not be worth going the same route as Sun.

The corporate market is locked into Windows due to the creation of company software tied to Windows or IE and even Office (as the Mac Office is not exactly like the Windows Office when it comes to corporate uses). Apple blew it in the 90s; there's no point in fighting it head-on.

Separately, the comment, if "Apple decided its future was in the consumer electronics model, that it'd turn OS X over to open source" is equally wrong. Jobs noted that the future of consumer electronics is moving into Apple's core competency of software, networking, and design. One can infer that some variation of OS X is intended to drive Apple's future embedded computing, er, consumer electronics devices. The movement of OS X to Intel and the highlighting of the lower-power Intel chip roadmap are indicators of this.

Apple is going to attack Windows from the multimedia creation and playback angle, an area where Windows, Office, and Windows Server have no advantage. As media creation becomes more important to a company's success, Apple's products will become more important.

I work at a major research university with a very large installed base of Macintosh systems. It has been clear to me for some time that the consumer is the focus for Apple and institutional purchasers are nice, but Apple isn't going to bend over backwards for them. Things like Apple support for Kerberos K4 to K5 migration, CUPS, site licensing, access to technical resources are all much more difficult to deal with than they need be.

Having dealt with higher ed Apple reps and spoken with various Apple director and VP-level folks at WWDC, I think the problem is more with mid-level management in Apple (something that John has touched on in his articles). The higher level technical folks seem to get it -- higher ed management sure doesn't. Higher ed management is busy reorganizing to eliminate competence and reward ass kissing. I'm sure it all makes sense when viewed through the bottom of a highball glass.

Both the column and associated commentary are quite perceptive!

Sun (and Sun Federal) used to be this way too, whereby certain
levels of technical competence were shielded from customers.
Part of this was due to sheer resource contraints as well as
misguided "process" inherent in bureaucracies. Software remains
a labor-intensive black art, with huge costs to triage.

But a good portion of Sun's sclerotic support (as remains true
with Apple) was due to maintaining the artifice of the proprietary
source code barrier. With feet held to the fire by Linux,
Sun learned to open this up, and allow customers to solve problems,
share results, and boost developer community futures --
it's cheaper this way, too.

Although corporate/employee blogging looks like surface PR,
it's something that Apple should consider, too. Could Apple's
corporate DNA ever allow opening up the kimono of its
innovators, ala:

http://research.sun.com/minds/

Many have always thought that Apple and Sun would make
natural, complementary partners. In a strong sense, they already
are, with Sun's best Unix innovations (Java, ZFS, Dtrace) now highlighted
in Mac OS X -- perhaps Mach/BSD/Darwin will be replaced by a GPL Solaris.
As these underpinnings merge, such joint innovation will further
span both consumer and enterprise markets.

Corporations have shown that they are very price-sensitive and will buy commodity junk over more expensive systems of better quality. Mac Mini and XServe notwithstanding, Apple doesn't currently compete in the market of dirt-cheap commodity desktops and bargain-basement server farms.

That being said, Apple's systems do work quite well in a business environment, and Apple offers decent paid support. However, that doesn't seem to be where the money is for Apple at this moment in time.

Apple has its Ph.D.'s working on core technology rather than externally focused research or customer communication. I'd like to see more of the latter, but it's clear that the former is what contributes to the bottom line.

If you really need to get in-depth technical information from Apple, then it's probably worth paying for, so why not join ADC and/or pay for an enterprise support contract?

If you're just a hacker, you can still get tons of technical information - not to mention the source code for the underlying OS and other software - from the ADC web site with a free membership.