By Andy McCue, 19 January 2005 15:20
NEWS Leading IT bosses claim that despite Apple's recent revival - largely around its consumer products - the company will continue to have little impact on corporate IT strategies.
After coming back from near oblivion, Apple's recent successes have been based around the iPod, new desktops and business hardware and a relatively virus-free platform.
We asked the silicon.com CIO Jury whether this had led them to rethink any aspect of their technology operations or if it challenged the traditionally-held notion that Apple has no place in corporate IT departments.
Rob Neil, head of ICT at Ashford Borough Council, said that as far as corporate systems are concerned Apple is "an irrelevance", while Richard Yeo, CTO at easyGroup, simply stated: "Proprietary hardware and software, overpriced, few applications."
Cost was an issue highlighted by other IT chiefs. Gavin Whatrup, IT director at advertising agency Delaney Lund Knox Warren & Partners, said that while Apple's strengths are in "great technology", graphics and design, the company needs to address supply, price and integration issues to break into the corporate mainstream.
Richard Steel, head of ICT, Newham Borough Council, was more succinct. "[Apple is] still an expensive fashion accessory in the consumer market and niche for business," he said.
Others agreed that Apple has no place in their own IT strategy but admitted that Apple's success in building up its user base has had a knock-on effect.
David Yu, CTO at online betting exchange Betfair, said: "We won't change our core platforms or strategy, but it does stress the need for web-based companies to improve support for the valued Mac population. We had already rebuilt our site to better support non-Windows platforms."
Phil Young, head of IT operations at Amtrak, said he is kept busy ensuring staff are not attaching iPods to business machines.
A couple of IT bosses, including Ted Woodhouse, IT director at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, said the only reason there are few malware exploits for Apple software is down to a lack of market penetration.
"Virus writers aim to cause maximum disruption and attacking the Mac community will not do that any more than attacking the Linux desktop community will. If Mac or Linux, for whatever reason, become massively successful, and massively more market-dominant, then we all know where the malware authors will redirect their ethically misguided efforts."
Jeremy Acklam, IT director at Virgin Trains predicted that an iPod with email capability might change the picture for businesses but the only person who said Apple will be an issue for corporate IT departments was JP Rangaswami, global CIO at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.
Rangaswami described Mac OSX as "Linux with quality assurance and style" and said businesses will be forced to consider it because of Java's predominance, the maturing of open source, security and reliability issues, and the implications of telephony becoming software.
"Large institutions will find it harder to do this as current work practices are locked into the desktop, so maybe the release after Tiger. You have to look at it."
Today's CIO Jury wasÂ…
Jeremy Acklam, IT director, Virgin Trains
Steve Anderson, European IT partner, Davis Langdon
Ian Cohen, IT director, Financial Times
Rob Neil, head of ICT, Ashford Borough Council
JP Rangaswami, global CIO, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Hugo Smith, IT director, Sporting Index
Richard Steel, head of ICT, Newham Borough Council
Gavin Whatrup, IT director, Delaney Lund Knox Warren & Partners
Ted Woodhouse, IT director, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Richard Yeo, CTO easyGroup
Phil Young, head of IT operations, Amtrak
David Yu, CTO, Betfair
If you are a CIO, IT director or equivalent at a large or small company in the private or public sector and want to be part of silicon.com's CIO Jury pool, or you know an IT chief who should be, then drop us a line at editorial@silicon.com
Comments
There are 124 comments. Join the discussion
1. Andy Rennard
"Proprietary hardware and software, overpriced, few applications."
Oh come on ! How do these people get jobs as IT directors when all they can do is spout this kind of nonsense ? In what sense is 'proprietary' meant in this case - in the same sense that Windows software is proprietary ? Overpriced ? Does Total Cost of Ownership count for nothing, and have they not heard of the Mac mini ? And how many more than 10,000 applications do you need before it stops becoming 'few' ?
2. ph8te
Of course none of these CTOs and CIOs would give Apple a chance. Any of these decision maklers backing Apple would essentially be commiting career suicide because their budgets would be totally cut when the tremendous advantage of TCO Apple has over any competitor.
Then there is the myth of safety through obscurity. it is not a gicen that Apples are safer because of their obscurity. Since the advent of OS X there has been no successfull attack on any OSX box. Thus these ITIdiots think that it is due to obscurity. Think Again!! It is because not successfull attack has been achieved. I bet that there have been plenty attempts though. Alone from the claim that Apple OSX is secure, many would be Mac hackers would have wanted to show Apple that they could. but they can't.
Then there is the mute argument that there is no software for the Mac. Only specialist-software is not available on the mac, because until now, there has no demand for such software. In general Mac Software is much more elegant than their PC/Windows counterparts. Not only comparable (feature/use) packages with different names, but even same-name software with only a platform difference (Windows), is much more friendly and stable on Mac OSX.
So, all you ITheads out there who think that Apple is irrelevant, come back back to me in 5 years time, when you're collecting your unemployment checks, and lets have this chat again. unless, of course you start giving credit where credit is due.
a smal hint, there is a pro link on the Apple website (www.apple.com) that you should visit in order to educate yourselves. and if asny questions arise, i am sure you will find intelligent answeres to any mac related question on mac community sites.
3. David Thompson
Quote:
"Phil Young, head of IT operations at Amtrak, said he is kept busy ensuring staff are not attaching iPods to business machines."
--> This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If they were running managed Mac OS X Servers and workstations, they could EASILY stop users from connecting not only iPods, but any 3rd party peripheral. You can lock down almost anything with OS X Server so users can't copy anything...even CD's and DVD's.
The problem with these large CIO's is that they all want to build their empires and dynasties that cost companies far more in support because of head count as opposed to using technology from companies in which you wouldn't have to have an employee running around to users computers and asking them to unplug their iPods from the machines...
Their ignorance and stiving for large IT deparments to make themselves feel like they are worth something is pathetic. Why CFO's and CEO's are allowing this to happen is beyond me. They should look at technology from companies that offer solutions, and not meaningless head count job creation!
Windows = Lots of job creation and large IT departments because of constant problems
Macintosh = Reduction of IT departments and money saving becuase of a lesser need for support.
4. Edward Ayres
The headline shoud be, CIO's Irrelevant to Future Technology Trends." The ball is never moved forward by these guys because they function in slow, safe, behind the times environment, and can never be counted to correctly predict long term trends. Do you remember how they dismissed the idea of colorful computers when the iMac arrived? Their advertising slogan should be, "Think Beige." They are slaves to short-term thinking based on Quarterly profits and therefore driven to create less choice in the name of efficiency. Most of the internal tech support people I've met don't want to take the time to learn another platform or company doesn't want to spend money on the software, licensing fees, etc. Ultimately, it is the consumers who drive the bus. The more inroads Apple makes in the consumer market the more likely it is that the followers who populate corporate America will have to come along.
5. anonymous
Who can blame IT personnel for dismissing the mac as a business platform? Their livelihood is, in no small measure, dependent upon the promulgation of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), regarding the use of computers in the workplace. It has been shown that macintosh computers are cheaper to operate than windows-based machines (36% cheaper, in fact), insofar as they are more stable, more user-friendly, and more easily maintained in the long-term. Smaller businesses (with more limited IT budgets) will probably begin to see the utility of these useful machines and transition to the superior OS/X operating system. Particularly given the seamless interoperability between Mac versions of major office suites, and the Windows versions. And...particularly given that the computer once described as the "BMW" of computing systems (due to both quality and market share) is becoming increasingly affordable to a larger demographic...
6. anonymous
Not going with Apple is called job security.
7. anonymous
It's always interesting to see people focus on the initial cost of hardware and not the life cycle of a system. Even though Mac OS X is not without its problems, you do not need a large IT staff to handle the problems that occur from time to time. Therefore, any argument about cost without taking the maintenance into account, is not worth a lot without some figures to back it up...
8. anonymous
As a "switcher", I can't but help remember hearing myself back in the days when I was as ignorant of the facts as your panel members. Apple is as "irrelevant" as are your panel members current on what is truly happening in world industry. People are starting to notice and investigate the many benefits of Apple. Read a broad selection of the trade mags and you can't miss the trend (if your head is on your shoulders, that is).
9. anonymous
Very uninformed "jury". In addition to the excellent point made by other commenters about the TCO of Macs vs. PCs, even the initial outlay is not appreciably more expensive. We're a Windows shop, but I bought an XServe to handle file, print, and web services when I saw that the Xserve priced out at less than comparable Dell or IBM servers with the Microsoft client licenses.
10. Lee Allen
How any of these so-called "professionals" can claim Apple is expensive, is beyond me. After the downtime and required anti-viral measures are taken on a Windows platform, the cost for a Mac is well below the cost for any Windows unit...regardless of source.
Even without the added measures, by the time you equip a CHEAP PC to equal a Mac, you are either equal to or above the price of the Mac. (give me a snorkle, the BS from the beige-box world is getting DEEP!!)
The simple fact is that reduction of tech support cost is not in the IT admin's interest. So long as they can pull the wool over the eyes of those that hold the purse strings, they will do so because the bigger their budget and the more dependant the company is on their so-called skills, the more they can demand for their "services"...just like any other drug-dealer.
I work for a major American aircraft company. Due to it's use of Windows, I personally can attest to no less than $4500 wasted last year alone, due to my needing to address virus and spyware issues.
This waste is based on my wages and the amount of time I had to be unproductive, while on the phone, with IT support, dealing with exploits.
The claim that Apple exploits don't exist due to Apple being a bit player, rings very hollow. The TRUE professional would use the advantage of being a "bit-player" to be immune to exploits, rather than use the "bit player" excuse to insist on remaining vulnerable to exploits; thereby raising costs.
These "IT professionals" are simply too lazy (or too PREJUDICED) to learn the facts, and the CEO's that are employing them are too complacent to get REAL Professionals.
Answer:
"By being penny wise and pound foolish"
Question:
"How can you waste a million dollars, but claim to be saving money?"
11. jason swan
interesting how ignorant these guys are....more of them are spouting myths from a decade ago. And there are IT directors of major businesses?
12. anonymous
These are the comments that lead Mac guys to tear their hair out:
"Proprietary hardware and software, overpriced, few applications."
- and -
"[Apple is] still an expensive fashion accessory in the consumer market and niche for business,"
The first comment is particularly frustrating because it is such an over-generalization. People like to compare Apples' pro machines to Dell's mid level machines, and that is fine. But the common perception that there is a lack of software is just silly. If just ONE of these bit-monkeys would just rephrase it to read "there is a lack of software in key areas that my company requires" I would have some respect for these guys, instead I look at them as ignorant bit-monkeys.
The comment about fashion, that just shows me that he never considered them in the first place. How can it possibly serve your needs? Its pretty! Serious machines aren't pretty!
Sheesh!
13. Peter Shepherd
What an uninformed bunch of pompous fools, except for the last guy. Just a bunch of prejudiced and blinkered minds, quite out of touch with the progress Apple has made over the last few years, and doing no service to their companies. Typical though, in my experience. I'm not surprised that Silicon.com published such a misguided article but I'm embarrassed for its implications about British business awareness.
14. anonymous
"Richard Steel, head of ICT, Newham Borough Council, was more succinct. "[Apple is] still an expensive fashion accessory in the consumer market and niche for business".
This guy has no inkling whatsoever what "expensive" means, since he recently threw millions of taxpayers' money at Microsoft for an IT solution that only a Microsoft funded study found "economical".
I'm quite shocked about the ignorance of the IT gods and the stubborness with which they tend to camp on their expensive and humbuggish prejudices.
15. Bruce Ambrose
The comments in this article show why the computer business is such a mess. Each response is a knee jerk defense of maintaining their status quo for personal gain. Translated, "Macs? No way, we are going to keep using M$'s overpriced, bug riddled, virus laden products, because it keeps me and my staff happily employed and in control of my companies fortunes." Apple is proprietary? What do you call M$ products? They only work if you are using M$ products so much of the time. They are the king of proprietary closed systems. These guys need a 12 step program.
16. anonymous
What I think is interesting (and ridiculous all at the same time) is that these neandertahls are in charge of corporate IT budgets and decisions.
Proprietary hardware? Since when are PC3200 RAM, Serial ATA hard drives, PCI slots, IDE DVD burners proprietary? You can find those in just about any PeeCee you look at.
Proprietary software? MS Office is proprietary? My version of Office 2004 works flawlessly with my PeeCee using coworkers.
Too expensive? Show me another company's 1U rackmount server that can beat the price and performance of Apple's Xserve... what's that? You can't? Imagine that... How about Total Cost of Ownership? How much do you guys pay your IT techs hourly/yearly? How much of their time is spent removing viruses, fixing Windows crashes, etc? I'm the only Mac tech in my company of 500+ users... we have 6 PeeCee techs in a 60/40 environment, and they're still overworked.
Few applications? The only things I don't have on my Macintosh that I do have on my Dell are games. But I'm too busy getting work done on my Mac to have time to play games.
Get a life, you morons.
These are the idiots that need to be retired and get out of the way of forward thinking, open minded IT professionals who look at the whole picture instead of the narrow minded PeeCee-centric worlds they occupy now.
17. Neil Taggart
The whole premise here is wrong. It's a bit like discussing whether high-end Mercs would make good fleet cars. I'm sure most, if not all, of these CIOs would not call their Mercs "over-priced and irrelevant". And if they don't have a Merc (or equivalent), I bet they're either dismissive or envious of the people who do.
18. anonymous
Methinks the Brit CIOs need to come out of the Dark Ages. Some specifics:
"Richard Yeo, CTO at easyGroup, simply stated: "Proprietary hardware and software, overpriced, few applications.""
Overpriced? Xsan with Xserve RAID is nearly as cheap as the lowest-end Linux-based RAID setups. Few applications? In what areas? While I realize Yeo is probably talking about specialized apps like SAP and the like, it's a cart-before-the-horse problem: people write SAP applications for Windoze because of the numbers, and then CIOs claim they can't use Macs 'cos there's no applications for the platform. Maybe if someone wrote it, They Would Come ...
"Richard Steel, head of ICT, Newham Borough Council, was more succinct. "[Apple is] still an expensive fashion accessory in the consumer market and niche for business," he said."
I work in IT at a major NASA center and most of my co-workers have Macs their desks. We log onto Linux and Solaris boxes all day. While admittedly Xserves have an uphill battle vs. cheap headless Linux boxes, on the desktop I can't imagine why anyone would want to sit in front of a Windoze box all day ...
"A couple of IT bosses, including Ted Woodhouse, IT director at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, said the only reason there are few malware exploits for Apple software is down to a lack of market penetration."
Live in your nice little blinkered Windoze world Ted, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason there are "few malware exploits" for Macs and Linux is down to the fact that the OS is much more security-conscious and protective than Windoze?!? I don't buy the security-through-obscurity bit at all.
I guess these Brit CIOs must think it's more fun to put up with Windoze crap and malware all day than to actually get work done in an elegant manner.
19. anonymous
Answer: "Irrelevant."
Question: What did the brontosaurus think upon seeing the first mammal scurrying among the leaves?
20. anonymous
I wondering if you asked the CIOs if they actually could name what Apple's enterprise offerings were most of them would just end up scratching their heads. If you look at it from a CPM perspective, and take the unlimited software license into account the Xserver is the simply most cost effective and efficient 1U rack server out there. Bar none. If you look at the cost of a Xsan RAID that is also the most cost effective off the shelf SAN. It is platform agnostic and is certified to work with multiple platforms and OSs. Would it be OK if the XSan was OEM'd by Dell? I'm sure in the mind of some IT people I'm sure that it would. IT Applephobes abound because they need to justify their positions by using Windows.
21. anonymous
Its good enough for Cisco...
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/2005/01/11/generalmacobserver_2005_01_11_eng-macobserver_eng-macobserver_103356_6211153172770290903.html
22. Emanuel Brown
Please forward these helpful links to the ill-informed members of your "jury" (except for JP Rangaswami) and please, stop baiting the Mac community with this kind of inflammatory inanity just to increase your page views. Shame on you.
Over 23,000 Products for the Mac platform:
http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso
Powerful enterprise-level solutions:
http://www.apple.com/webobjects
http://www.apple.com/xsan
Open-source enabled development platform:
http://developer.apple.com/enterpriseit/
Profiles of entrepreneurs in the emerging Small Business category:
http://www.apple.com/business/profiles/
InfoWorld is a good bet for some "unbiased" research and reporting, specifically Tom Yager's weblog.
Happy Reading!
23. Tom
NFS & NIS Issues left a bad taste in people's mouth. Apple had a chance to penetrate deep into the UNIX server crowd but the NIS & NFS issues that they have refused to address have left people with a bad taste in their mouth. This one bad piece has left people feeling that the OS must be immature in other parts too.
24. anonymous
These CIO's could only wish that their companies commanded 3 or 4% of the worldwide share of what they make do.
Since they don't, I can't imagine they also believe that their respective companies are marginalized and niche players that have no relevence.
Apple's 3-4% of the worldwide share of computing is neither trivial nor does it make it simply a niche player. It is amazing considering what it is up against.
Apple is a successful Fortune 500 player that provides products that people want to buy and use. Companies are made up of people. Apple's products empower the people that use them.
Major international corporations (e.g., manufacturing, retail, publishing, entertainment, biotech, geothermal, military and government agencies) have been and continue using Macintosh hardware and software for years because they have profited by its use. Simple. This serves the shareholders' interests. That makes it a great corporate citizen.
Apple's success worldwide validates the choices that should exist in any free market.
FWIW Apple has suceeded in selling more UNIX systems then IBM, HP and Sun combined. They were the first to make this powerful operating usable by the average worker.
There is only one version of Mac OS on the desktop and one version of Mac OS Server. So it is simple to deploy and manage. That saves money.
Longhorn, Microsoft's future major release will be available in no less than 17 different versions. Linux comes in many distributions and give it flexibility but also complexity.
Do you seriously want to talk about which platform will be the most efficient and less costly to support commerical operating system?
Bring it on
25. anonymous
Clearly, these IT directors don't even know what a Macintosh computer is like. Maybe you should find a director who supports Macs. This shouldn't be difficult. Try a newspaper, magazine or some other publishing firm. They have Macs. Much of what these "jurists" say about Macs is based, sorry to say it, on pure ignorance.
26. anonymous
Hmm. The fact that these CIOs make a living because they're constantly dealing with problems caused by Windows issues, that they have job security because of so many problems with Microsoft applications, and that many are wined and dined by Microsoft or or application developers who depend upon Microsoft wouldn't have anything to do with this, eh?
27. Moin Haque
Sounds like someone needs to declare a mistrial here.
This jury brings up "canned" responses in its extremely narrow assessment. I fear that they may absorb all their IT news from copies of MSDN Magazine.
Vision and strategic planning are ways in which companies may realize any ROI and value proposition offerred by Apple's technologies.
Gut responses are not becoming of CIOs. That should be left to the Active Directory managers.
28. D D
The unfortunate reality is that regardless of how uninformed these yahoos are they still represent what Apple is up against when trying to sell into the enterprise.
Apple needs to spend the time and money necessary to educate senior decision makers on the cost effectiveness and reliability of their solutions or they'll never gain a foot hold.
29. Dan Pinard
Overpriced and Proprietary?!?!!
Yeah, maybe in 1998!!!
And I suppose you typed that on an IBM
Selectric while you were at it too huh?
That mode of thinking is so outdated as to
be laughable. Spec out your system you
currently have and then spec out a similiar
Xserve setup running OSX server and you'll
find that the TCO is far less. BTW, how
is that per-seat "open" Micro$soft system and its licensing scheme treating you?
30. anonymous
IT establishment is negative because they are securing their jobs. Besides CIO's of the large companies have tendency to make bad decisions. They do have purchasing power though but are their decisions relevant for Apple? Apple can easily obtain 10% market share without blessings of the corporate purchacers
31. Mark A. Smith
If their jobs did not depend upon the complexity and clumsiness of the the Wintel platform, they would be singing a different tune. They offered not one reason, beside price (which has been fixed by apple), for ruling out the use of the Mac on the desktop of corporate America.
32. Tom Hughes
Just how irrelevant is Apple technology in the real world ?
Apple runs the largest music download e-commerce store in the world (iTunes Music Store) using their own Xserve systems. They deliver 1,250,000 songs and transactions per day and who knows how many more real-time previews.
Several of the fastest super computers in the world, including a simulator for the US Navy use Apple Xserve systems. Why? They are effecient to operate and way cheaper than the competition.
Obviously the CIO mindset cannot come to grips with reality.
It reminds us of the railroad tycoons in the 1800's who thought innovation was irrelevant and their monoply would never end.
33. David Keller
Apple must offer more to the enterprise. Most IT are ingrained to MS. They are in their comfort zones and let's face it; viruses keep a network of people employed. It also keeps DEALS going. IT people have it just where they want it and aren't motivated to change until the Top Brass get a little smarter. "Too expensive" and "not any safer" are bogus claims and they know it!
34. Timothy Mowlem
The main reason for the Mac being only a small part of the corporate IT landscape is the ignorance, narrow mindedness and lack of vision of the CIOs like those in your panel.
Proprietary software? overpriced? Not even debatable, just plain wrong as demonstrated by many web articles.
You would have thought a CIO doing his job properly would be open minded and forward looking not another lemming.
35. J Petersen
Only one or two top tier CIO's in Jury
The one slightly reassuring result of this article is that the Jury arguably only contain one top-tier organisation where the the CIO's performance is of integral importance for his business. This would be JP Rangaswami from Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, the investment bank. Interestingly, this person seems to be up to date of the strength in Apple's enterprise strategy. As for the rest of the Jurors: well they are sticking to the old 'no-one was ever fired for choosing Microsoft...'. They need not know better in their unchallenging environments :-) But the tide is turning: look at the product selections for SAN & supercomputing at Oracle, Cisco, U.S Army, NASA, Virginia Tech etc. Let's catch up with the Jurors in 5 years time... they should have seen the light by then.
36. anonymous
All this will be settled by market forces. Those companies that can cut costs in IT will move ahead of those who doggedly stay with their old technology. It happened with IBM in the 70's and it is happening now with open source. The Macs are linux with training wheels. Training is a cost, and needs to be factored into the overall TCO.
37. Rich Scillia
Just a note of thanks to all who submitted these well thought-out responses. It's proof that Apple is indeed making significant inroads into the business world.
I was initially distressed upon reading this article, but felt much better after checking the reader comments.
Well done!
38. anonymous
I agree with many of the comments made by readers here - even though they may be dismissed as Mac fanatics.
I can appreciate that from a desktop point of view, the lack of specialist software is a drawback (nearly every deparment in our council has a specilaist piece of software which is only available for windows - mainly because that's all that business in the UK buys).
But from a backend point of view, the Xserve, Xserve RAID and Xsan products seem to offer a pretty low cost solution to an organisations IT needs. As has been said, if it is good enough for CISCO, who are an IT compnay rather than just an IT deparment (plus Virginia Tech, the US DOD, and quite a few others) why do these IT managers seem to think it is not good enough for them?
It does seem to be true though that many in the UK both consumers and in business a either fanatically pro-Windows or fanatically anti-Mac, which means that as usual we'll have to wait until the US has adopted the Mac more widely before we follow suit.
It is a great shame that UK companies don't seem to foster IT departments that can think for themselves and explore the best business options rather than the best Windows business options.
Ho hum...
39. anonymous
The CIO's comments remind me, first, of the early days of PCs when big corporations didn't see the value in having desktop computers.
>"Real computing is the IBM "big iron" in the
>back rooms. PCs are just for hobbyists."
Second, they sound similarly out of touch when they criticize Macs as stylish. I can certainly remember when the original Mac (and Lisa) were viewed as toys by this same crowd.
>"Real men use only DOS and the CLI."
Funny thing about that, though, is that it is now OS X that has the real *nix CLI power and it is Windows that is the wannabe.
40. Viswakarma
The current crop of CIOs/CTOs are brought up in the proprietary Microsoft Windows ethos of living with constant hardware/software upgrades, service packs, software patches, virus problems etc. and the associated need for large support staff and budgets that they can not countenance the use of Apple's products, that threaten the CIO/CTO fifedoms since they make the need for PC support functions minimal. These people are like drug addicts. They can not get away from Microsoft's "holey" products.
The people who you should question about the relevancy of Apple in the business environment are the small to medium business CEOs who foot the bills, the COOs whose operations are constantly messed up, and the end users who have to constantly put up with the pain of using the unintuitive, cumbersome and virus/worm/pop-up ridden personal computers.
CIOs and Microsoft products are anachronisms in the current age of user configurable Intranets using products from Apple - Mac OS X, X-Serve G5, X-Serve Raid, and Airport Express WiFi products, iWork/iLife etc., and ISP provided Internet Gateways. In addition, the robust and secure Unix-based Mac OS X has enabled quite a few developers to port their Unix-based business applications to the Macintosh platform that the need for Windows-based applications no longer exists.
For those few obscure applications that require Windows OS, Virtual PC from Microsoft is more than adequate to run these applications under Mac OS X.
There is no excuse for these CIOs/CTOs not to move to an open stanadards-based Unix environment provided by Apple, except the threat to their vast IS/IT budgets and their irrelevant existence in a modern enterprise.
41. John Yardley
When you look at the state that government, local authority and corporate computing is in, and see who is making them, suddenly these comments suddenly make absolute sense.
42. anonymous
I'm not an IT expert, so I'll just provide a quote from the article about Cisco's use of Xserve/Xsan/OSX:
"We are harnessing Apple storage systems in best-of-breed solutions that offer twice the capacity at half the price compared with other enterprise storage vendors," said Dan Fischler, President of Digital Strata, in a statement.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/2005/01/11/generalmacobserver_2005_01_11_eng-macobserver_eng-macobserver_103356_6211153172770290903.html
Also, as stated in the article, Oracle is using Xserves (although not OS X) in a future project.
How can you get more "enterprise" than Oracle and Cisco Systems?
43. Douglas Metcalfe
These CIO's are just trying to hold onto their jobs and bloated budgets, like most out there. Every Windows problem is a job ticket for them.
Replacing every desktop with a Mac mini, and all their servers with xServes, and all their storage systems with xRaids would result in no need for the Windows priesthood that hold corporate IT hostage. A significant savings when you deduct their salaries from the cost of change over.
Bring in a 13 year old Mac geek to manage the systems and let the secretaries answer support questions for upper management.
Seriously CEOs and CFOs need to get involved to cut the extortion that these CIOs are extracting from them.
Buy a Macintosh and put it on your desk, then make them support it. If they are unable to do so then you don't really have an IT department worth paying for.
44. anonymous
These guys are just protecting their jobs, which is wholly dependent upon repairing Windows' faults and susceptibility to viruses. If Macs were more widely adopted, there would be less use of these IT guys' services given their ease of use and UNIX's better security against viruses.
45. Andres Magnusson
Aren't the jurors also on trial here?
In my opinion the jury is loaded. How could they possibly find Apple's enterprise offerings adequate or superior to the stuff they've been buying (and have planned to buy for years to come) without admitting that their strategy (on which they built their carreers) might have been... uh how can I put this charitably... misguided.
46. Jeff Lebowski
The Xserve and storage products from Apple are very competitively priced yet there was no discussion of this issue in the article.
It always cracks me up when these folks start talking about how they want to avoid proprietary systems, yet deploy Windows-based solutions. Windows is proprietary. Sure you can buy hardware from different vendors, but your still using a proprietary system. And, how many of these guys using Sun solutions? If they are, how do they justify that and how is it different than buying an Apple solution?
The worst part is the assertion that viruses and malware are only a problem on Window because of it's near monopoly market position. Nonsense. Windows is insecure from the ground up. If Apple were to gain significant market share, more people would attempt to write viruses for it, but their attempts would fail most of the time because it's simply more secure.
But, this is all irrelevant because facts rarely play a role in the buying decisions of senior management at corporations. Senior managers don't choose the best products, they choose the "safe" products. That is, the products that no one will question them about. You'll never get fired or demoted for choosing MS solutions regardless of how insecure, buggy and high maintenance they become. People don't rise to high positions in corporations by making risky bold moves. They do so by sucking-up and playing it safe.
I work in the telecom sector and it wasn't until about ten years ago that the "no one gets fired for buying ATT [Lucent] equipment" mentality finally faded and allowed alternative vendors a chance for business. Hopefully that day will come soon in the computer world.
47. anonymous
Anyone who actually works for a living in the IT industry knows that this is simply a confirmation of what we already know. That is, the individuals in senior management positions are completely useless when it comes to technology decisions. With the introduction of Xsan, Apple has the only affordable metadata accessible file system storage solution for under $200k. This isn't rocket science. This is profoundly cool technology.
48. anonymous
For most of the comments in this article, the phrases "clueless" and "protective fear" come to mind.
"Windows = Welfare for IT staff"
49. anonymous
As an InfoSec professional I am VERY pleased that these CIOs have chosen to keep with the status quo. If they were smart enough to switch their systems over to any form of unix, the money I am making would be reduced significantly .
When reading Ted Woodhouse comment I almost choked from laughter... The real reason there is so little malware for Mac OS X and other "Open Source" OSes is for the simple reason it that they are OPEN Source. There are so many Information Security professionals and other coders out here looking through every line of code for a hole that if and WHEN a hole if found it is immediately reported and is fixed with in a reasonable amount of time. Microsoft on the other hand has been fixing the same holes for years. How many time have we gotten one patch that opened holes that were fixed in the previous patch. Further more most malware involves "ActiveX", Microsoft's answer to scripting its OS. ActiveX allow a "scripter" direct access to core OS utilities that are otherwise only available to the systems Admin. ActiveX is itself considered to be malware by the CBK (Common Body of Knowledge... see CISSP @ isc2.org). One of the simplest reasons for this is because it does not demand user input before allowing a script to do BAD things.
Why these CIOs choose to put their collective heads in the sand is beyond me but, like I said it's cool... my pocket keeps getting fuller.
M$ has been working on a TCB (Trusted Computer Base) version of their OS (Longhorn) since October of 2002 when they showed the first alpha... since then it has been pushed back 3 times (i believe) and is currently announced to not be released till some time in the 3rd quarter or 2006 (if then).
One last thing most of our (the USA) 3 letter agencies have now moved away from any Windows servers. Do you think that the reason is cause crackers have no motivation to get into those systems?
Ok.. One more last thing... If you ever attend a security conference, take a good look at how many of the attendees are using Macs...
50. rj
The CIO Jury needs to get out more. Here's an Infoworld review:
<blockquote>When factoring in the OS cost, Xserve remains a smart server choice for budget-conscious operations that don’t need an all-Microsoft ecosystem. If Xserve G5 falls short anywhere, it’s on features that may be unnecessary outside the most demanding environments.</blockquote>
http://www.infoworld.com/Apple_Xserve_G5/product_45990.html?view=0&curNodeId=0
On the XServe RAID:
<blockquote>The simple-to-set-up, easy-to-manage Xserve RAID just got better. The most noticeable change: bigger drives. Plus, the top-end model gets you an extra terabyte. When Xsan comes out later this year, Apple will have an affordable, best-of-breed storage package.</blockquote>
Here's Oracle on XServe and XServe RAID:
<blockquote>Oracle has identified the Apple product as one of several storage systems that would make a good low-cost alternative to the types of high-end monolithic storage systems that have traditionally been used to store Oracle databases. Additionally, Oracle is using the Xserve RAID in its own technology department to store e-mail, voice mail and calendar information.</blockquote>
http://news.com.com/Oracle+uses+Apple+storage+gear/2100-1015_3-5480045.html?tag=sas.email
Looks like uniformed jury to me!
51. anonymous
Relatively virus free ?
That's like saying space is relatively dry.
There are virtually no viruses for Mac OS X in the wild.
No spyware, adware and all the other malware that infests Windows PCs.
52. rogerh
Perhaps the NHS IT drone should read this:
<http://www.rsna.org/publications/rsnanews/dec04/ipod-1.html>
53. anonymous
I agree with others here, all it shows is how little CTOs and CIOs know about IT. They are simply a mix of Windows guys or non-computer guys that know nothing about TCO or ROI when it comes to computer systems. Apple will be irrelevant in corporate IT as long as corporate IT officers are biased, ignorant and base their decisions on underlings who are dependant on Windows' problems for a job or misinformed by FUD and untruths. If some of these corporate guys were to actually consider Apple products, they would learn what a lot of others already know. Macs do not cost more for the equivalent product, and, in addition and more importantly, they are cheaper to run over time and need replacement less often. They can live in their own little world where they only know what others tell them. The first businesses to take a chance will ultimately be more successful financially.
54. anonymous
And how much do these "experts" get paid?
55. RetiredMidn
Let's qualify that. Apple is "irrelevant" to the business of IT departments. This says nothing about the relevance (or lack thereof) of IT departments to business.
56. anonymous
I hope that these CIOs continue using their preferred wintel PCs - that will enable my company, using Macs, to have lower operating costs, and productivity advantages. At least one on your jury is a direct competitor. Buy all the Dells you want! Keep expanding your IT empire! We'll just eat into your customer base and market share - once you're gone, no one will care that you think Apple's computers are irrelevant.
57. anonymous
The jury didn't do its homework. Xserves cost less than comparably equipped Dells. And no dreaded seat licensing fees. There are no Macs at our place....yet. We are looking very closely at trying the X-Serve.
58. anonymous
Shhhhhh! Don't tell them any more; they might wake up and smell the roses. I rely on these MS biases to so I can help our company kick butt!
While they are busy rebooting and removing viruses and patching buggy software, I develop and deploy new systems. While they rely on antiquated, non-integrated lousy software, I deploy new iApps (love that iCal!) and third party apps that support a paperless workflow. My new iWork arrives in a few days so I can finally dump MS Word!.
Our staff of 10 plus 3 highly paid professionals thrive on 13 Macs, 2 Xserves and XServe RAID, plus a Windows PC. The PC was installed by a vendor who doesn't "do" Mac. Instead they chose to spend a about a million $$ developing a system that utilizes IE extensions only a fool would embrace. (IE sucks on a Mac even worse than on a PC but they spent so much going down the wrong road they can't turn back!)
We use the Windoze box only 2 hours per day. They are so locked down by their owners that we can't even use them to surf the web!
Truth: I almost never go to the office. It all just works. I and my "Mac genius" colleagues develop and deploy new functions and features because the tools for Macs enable us to focus on solutions not problems. And, yes we can do it from anywhere in the world, even from home. I am NOT an IT certified anything.
I'll take OS X, Apple's iApps, OS X Server, Apache2, Tomcat, Java and FileMaker anyday over the M$ branded options that requires "certified" MS professionals to even be qualified to work arround ubiquitous M$ bugs and viruses.
59. Lonewolf
This is another example of CIO/IT Managers who are out of touch with the real world. Moreover, it's about money, Managers do not want to see the budgets reduce. Apple is most definitely able to work within Microsoft and Novell environments. They sell Microsoft so much, none are willing to admit they could wrong, or that there's something better out there.
60. anonymous
Probably my biggest IT mistake:
- 2 dual blade server with windows software
and a raid (sql server, server 2000, etc) with all the licensing, blah, blah, blah.....$60,000 plus.
- 2 dual Xserves with XRaid and other software
(webobjects dev, other dev tools). $25,000.
Both systems had the same functional coverage.
Don't even get me started with the TCO issues.
We went with the windows box/config. I WILL NEVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.....
It's clear that the CIO people on this panel made absolutely no attempt to research anything for this review. I wish this had surprised me, but it didn't.... relects the sad state of IT.
61. anonymous
Add to famous last words. Add these comments to others like ... 640K should be more than enough ... etc.
62. Esme Vos
These are comments from people who have dozens of staff members running around for them. I switched my small business to the Mac platform because no one has time to do all the things one needs to do with Windows XP machines: the endless security patches, the malware/spyware cleaning rituals, and of course the worry. One of them says the Mac is an expensive fashion accessory? More expensive than hiring people to run around cleaning Windows machines, patching computers? More expensive than the damage a company suffers when a hacker steals passwords or breaks into a corporate network and deletes files?
63. Todd Austin
Pardon me while I scrape my jaw off the floor. Your 'jury' is quite spectacularly out of touch. They clearly haven't looked seriously at the market in a very long time. None of their criticisms, as reported in your article, are even remotely close to being true about the offerings from Apple for at least two years. Apple products in our environment are seeing a dramatic upsurge due to their excellent value, their ability to run standard applications, top-notch support, and their excellent integration with other systems we run.
Really folks, where did you find these people???
64. Blow
This just in "Poll reveals that UK irrelevant to global business."
Relevant Tech sector in UK almost non-existant!
65. anonymous
The views of the CIO jury are woefully uninformed and are a very sad reminder of the lack of education in the IT procurement tier of most medium to large companies.
It would be irresponsible to claim that anything you can do on a Windows based PC you can do on a Mac, it's simply not true.
What is true, however is that the server level products are supported by some of the largest players in the industry (eg Oracle) and deployed by people who want bang for buck (eg Virginia Tech).
Also with OS X on board the Mac is a UNIX machine, with all the security, compatibility, scalability and ease of modification that UNIX allows. Have any of the jury ever used a UNIX box? I doubt it.
Application development for the Mac is made easier with Perl, Ruby and Python accessible from the terminal (shell) or the use of Xcode (Apple's built in application development software, which uses Objective-C, Java or Perl to build full blown applications).
Okay Silicon, it's time for you to dismiss this jury as they obviously have no clue and no desire to even think outside of the (Windows based) box.
66. Tim Pinder
So Apple have produced a "relatively virus-free platform".
How many viruses for the Mac OSX are there?
None.
That makes it totally virus-free in my book
67. anonymous
I was surprised to hear the same old hoary arguments dished out by supposedly IT experts.
With the exception of one they seemed to think Apple is still back in the mid-90's and had no idea about Apple's move to a Unix-based OS, Apple's servers, easy connectivity with Windows and the price/performance/TCO which in all research comes out as better than Windows-using hardware.
This is not surprising, I suppose, given the track record of failures in IT projects in the UK and the miserable experience users get with much of the hardware/software these IT experts actually recommend. Not to mention the expense of keeping up with the monopolistic hegemony dictated by Microsoft.
68. Ged Carroll
Apple is widely considered irrelevant for reasons that your board has failed to mention:
- Apple products are a threat to the political position of IT director. Think about this an IT directors power or influence in a company can be measured in two ways: budget and and people.
Lets look at people first, there a numerous surveys that show that less IT support staff are required to support Apple infrastructure than a Wintel or Linux/Intel infrastructure. Less people equates to less respect from their director peers.
Secondly cost. Apple units can cost more upfront,however if they are specced like for like against Dell generally they are competitive if not slightly cheaper. Also, Apple machines tend to be kept in place for longer reducing the total cost over the lifecycle and need less support. Apple applications generally don't cost more, but may be rolled out later than PC ones, in addition there is a huge effort now on to take advantage of the Macs unix underpinnings by porting over a lot of open source software, some of which would not abe available for Windows users. I will not get into an argument on the relative merits and costs of open source as this is relevant for a debate on its own
- Apple kit is also politically unacceptable to many IT people. They have invested (often quite literally) in their own personal Microsoft certified skills and are now on a treadmill that they feel that they can't get off. Which is fine, I personally would'net employ anyone who didn't have some demonstrable *nix skills and experience
- Ignorance: for the past eight years you could get Apple kit to play nicely in a Windows environment, when is the last time the majority of your board have used Apple kit (if ever)? Even NT had facilities on it that could be turned on at the surver to allow Macs to play.
I have no problems with people proffering opinions but pick a board that at least has the professional competence to check that their factual responses are accurate.
I would recommend the following link as suggested reading:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030814.html
69. Stuart Bell
The virus comment was woefully ill-informed. The lack of Mac viri is mainly due to a Unix based architecture which is not as full as security loopholes as Microsoft's products.
The software comment is incorrect in most fields, due to the use of Office and web-based applications on most platforms.
The real reason that IT managers don't want Macs is that a) they know little about them, and would be de-skilled if their company switched, b) half their staff would be laid off through lower support overheads.
70. anonymous
Once again can't believe the number of comments from Mac geeks on here. The CIO's points seem reasonable and obvious.
You wonder if any of the apple supporters here would consider all of the alternative platforms if they were given a CIO role.
71. Simon
Same old drivel, served up by those with a "the world begins and ends with Windows" mentality.
So Apple is expensive and proprietry ? Err, so what is Microsoft then ? OK the hardware is (mostly) proprietry, but then so is much of the IBM, HP, etc hardware these types of organisations use - "Sorry boss, we can't consider an IBM mainframe, it's proprietry" isn't the sort of thing often heard !
As for lack of support and applications, well these guys have only themselves (and their counterparts in the rest of industry) to blame by accepting (for example) shoddy websites designed by blinkered idiots to work ONLY with Internet Explorer. And if they actually started asking vendors about non-MS support then perhaps people might start providing it - again, if written properly, it needn't cost a huge amount extra to support multiple platforms.
I've got a clue for you guys, it costs you money to re-buld your web site to support 'the rest of the world', it costs nothing (or should cost nothing if the people involved are competent) to build it right the first time.
I'll be blunt, I have gripes about Apple who sometimes seem like they are trying to out-microsoft Microsoft. But if these corporate idiots took their head out of the sand and dared to actually THINK then they might not be so dismissive.
72. anonymous
What is it with Silicon.com and Mac bashing? There have been countless anti-apple articles in the past couple of months, and the majority them have been so badly researched and written, i'm suprised apple didn't sue them.
Our company 50% PC 50% mac, 600+ people. 12 people on PC IT support and only 2 needed for MAC support. Go figure.
[Ed note: On the one hand, you could well be thinking of this, which is very much in recent memory - http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,39127101,00.htm - though we would say quoting the opinion of the CEO of a rival company to Apple doesn't mean silicon.com is "Mac bashing".
On the other hand, we'd point to articles such as these:
http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,39126893,00.htm
http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,39126271,00.htm
and countless iPod pieces which are the polar extreme of "Mac bashing".]
73. Andy
Same old, same old - haven't these arguments been put from both side for at least the last 10 years on various discussion groups.
Speaking personally - I work in an environment where there is a lot of expertise in PC / Windows systems. Moving to MACs would involve a great deal of external consultancy / support initially and the funding is not available. For a phased implementation, basic PC's running basic apps come in cheaper for us
74. Timothy Barnes
I run a small business consulting company that runs Macs. We have no problems integrating with the companies that are our clients, finding the right software or connecting to corporate networks.
The overall cost of ownership is far lower given the low training requirements, better security and higher user productivity.
Anyone that does not consider Apple is ignoring them out of ignorance as far as I can see.
75. Don Tregartha
Who wants Windows software? As a Mac user in a mixed environment, its beggars belief when I see the plain stupid re-inventing of the wheel that goes on with windows apps. They're usually slapped together with VB or something equally dopy, with a user interface that introduces novel key commands for everyday tasks and a tendency not to run unless the hardware spec is just the way the developer had it on his machine.
Mac apps just work, and usually they are pretty tolerant of the hardware. If it runs the OS, it'll run the software.
76. anonymous
If you actually use both MS and Apple platforms you will know that you can usually achieve the same results on either. The point is that with a Mac, you can usually achieve it much quicker and without recourse to the IT department. Neither platform is flawless but Apple is WITHOUT DOUBT easier to grapple with. Apple is starting to win traction at home again and that is the future. Businesses largely buy low performance (slow), proven (old) technology from big (dull) vendors. Apple doesn't really fit that bill.
77. anonymous
In the USa there is an old phrase that aptly describes Corporate IT people and professional Wintel apologists...
"featherbedders"
--Borborygmus
78. Nick Clark
I agree with the Jury.
The Mac platform is a real pain to tie down in any decent sized network with multiple users. They are still overpriced compared to equivalent PCs from manufacturers such as Dell, and cost even more to support.
This is from the perspective of an educational establishment with 1100 PCs and 120 Macs, so it is informed.
79. Paul
"Uninformed bunch of pompous fools"...
hmmm..., 10+ guys who are heads of their respective IT organisations or somebody with an "ology". Who you gonna believe?
80. Chris Hair
If these guys spent more time doing their jobs and less sitting on committees they would be better informed. Ignorance like this is keeping corporate IT in the dark ages. Being run by dinosaur's afraid for their jobs.
81. David Howe
It's obvious to me the Mr. Rangaswami is the only one on your panel that's paying attention to what people are doing in the real world rather than repeating sound bites heard deaceds ago...he's actually taken the time to study the situation and form an opinion with a rational backup. Wonder how many of these other clowns will be in the same capacity next year...or will they just switch positions amongst themselves. As a small business owner (under 100) with a 90/10 mix of Macs/PeeCee's...my support costs are the same for both platforms....If I replaced all the PC's my costs would halve....if I replaced the Macs my costs would quadruple....some how I think being able to brag about number of reports and job security is what's really going on here...any CEO that has a CFO that can give them good costs would be bitch slapping these guys over what they're doing....Status quo is a death sentence in today's business climate.
82. paul broome
Dear oh dear, how inward looking -so Icons, Mice , Photsohop all brought commercially to teh desktop are irrelavant. Sounds like the "ride a raleigh, drive a ford" arguement - avoid difficult decisons and risk.
Teh up and coming school kids when they go to work will nothing of this silly Linux, Win, Mac nonsense.
They will just have and expect devices to work like thier phones and ICQ systems, seamless, easy to use and no silly gotchas!
i-Pods prove the power of handheld devices that don't play the corp.
game.
Don't fnece them out embrace them or kiss cosy, no risk, best practice world goodbye!
83. Johnny Appleseed
The sheeple keep bleating. While these CIOs of obscure and irrelevant companies mindlessly and unquestioningly stay cocooned in their comfort zones, creative, industry-leading companies like Cisco are adding Apple hardware.
84. Richard
Technically they are quite correct.
Macs are irrelevant to most corporate enterprises because lazy, grey-skinned bean counters like the panel members have ill-informed opinions that say it is so.
However, this is not an insult, it is a wake-up call.
Example: How does Kleenex sell paper hankies to men? By packaging them differently from the women's product and calling them "Man Size". Do all men have bigger noses and produce more snot than women? In fact women use more hankies but men feel they "need" big, manly tissues so we buy them.
It's all in the marketing.
Selling into a particular market is not just a matter of making a product and saying, "look, isn't it great". Don't jump up and down and tell the IT Directors just to look at the facts. They won't. that's not how it works. Making a superior (or in this case just-as good-if-not-better) product has never been an automatic highway to commercial success.
This is Apple's failing, and this is the lesson of the survey.
Apple is a brand. PeeCee is not. And if IT directors think there is nothing in the Apple brand for them, they will never investigate and never learn just how foolish, short-sighted and penny-wise-but-pound-foolish they may have been.
Apple and it's apologists must accept that IT buying decisions are mostly made by unimaginative, dull-minded, ill-informed Yes-men with vested interests who are fixated by FUD* like bunny rabbits in the headlights of a juggernaut. If Apple wants to sell desktop boxes to business, they will launch a non-Macintosh branded range (as they did with the superb X-Serve) and tell the world the true facts of security, productivity, usability and TCO.
The fact that there is no such Apple machine and no such marketing campaign suggest that Apple currently have no great interest in the business desktop market, regardless of how good the current hardware and software actually are.
[* FUD, for those who don't know, means (unjustified) Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt intentionally propagated as a marketing tool to scare IT customers away from competitors' technologies. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD ]
85. A McKenzie
"Once again can't believe the number of comments from Mac geeks on here."
->sigh<- Surely it's obvious that it's not the Mac folks who are the geeks here ...
And how come so many are shy about their names? If you have an opinon, at least have the bottle to sign your name to it.
86. anonymous
I'm a senior IT consultant with work experience in government and major private sector organisations includiing banks and utilities. MOst of these institutions are almost wholly windows pc based. Most are led by lunkhead CIO's who pay hugely inflated fees to major IT practices to send in me and others like me to solve their problems. Most corporate IT departments are poorly staffed andd most staff, particularly in the public sector, seek private sector or consultancy work. They all invariably take advantage of general widespread management ignorance of pc's and the core corporate application being deployed across them to 'goof off' when they wish.
Those few organisation where I have worked with Macs delpoyed tend to be different indeed, they are more productive, more knowledgeable of thier computer and how to make best use of it and they spend more time being productive.
So for most companies, in my experience, fire the CIO, break out a few more Macs and make a line at the exit for your IT departments and pass out P45's on their way out, that is if you want to become more productive and thereby more profitable.
87. anonymous
McCue is a troll. If you look at this site, he regularly trashes Apple with data that is incorrect, misleading, etc.. Compare Macs from the past several years to EQUIVALENT PeeCees. The Macs are almost always cheaper. The difference is that you can buy PeeCees without FireWire, built-in modems, real video cards, etc.. Apple doesn't sell stripped-down bargain basement pieces of junk.
Regarding your comment about Macs being more expensive to maintain, you obviously don't know what you're doing then. I've not seen one study that supports your view. Every study and reputable anecdotal story I've seen says the opposite.
88. anonymous
Over priced? The only way that this is true is if these so-called experts really want stripped-down, bare bones, essentially no-name quality for their co-workers and are only concerned with today's purchasing bottom line and are happy ignoring support costs, shortened hardware lifespan, reduced productivity due to users fighting the OS, reduced productivity due to crashes, failures, worms, viruses, etc..
89. anonymous
Virus claims ignore reality. You can repeat it as often as you like, but claiming that Windows is only less secure because it's more popular isn't true. The facts are that correcting for installed base makes Windows look worse, not better. Also, the kinds of security patches for Windows OS's are for critical holes that exploits exists for and often are currently plaguing users. Mac OS and linux security patches are for relatively minor issues and are patched often before exploits exist and long, long before any malware exists in the wild. Mac OS is based on FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD -- all of which have been designed to be secure. The same can't be said for Windows. Windows was designed for developer convenience, add that to M$'s half hearted concern for security, and that explains why Windows operating systems are so insecure and disproportionately attacked.
90. Alister
Hmmm... 80+ comments here, and all but a tiny handful think these CIOs are way out of line. And these commentators are not just random Mac buffs, unless they're all making up their occupations -- kind of unlikely for users of a website for IT professionals. They are all people who know about IT, and try to keep up with where things are going: there are even CIOs among them.
Seems to me the CIOs in your jury haven't registered which way the wind is blowing...
91. anonymous
MS has no clue about security. From ComputerWolrd:
"One attack, first documented last month by the Danish security firm Secunia, misdirects Web surfers by modifying a little-known directory in Microsoft Windows machines called a host file. When an Internet user types a Web address into a browser, he is directed instead to a fraudulent site."
What OS with even the most basic concept of security allows this file to be touched by a web browser or otherwise changed without a direct action by the user?
92. Michael Smith
A bunch of CIOs who invested heavily in Wintel trying to defend and justify being locked into a technology platform that is not user-friendly, not very intuitive, and is infested with bloatware, viruses and spam.
why should we take their views too seriously?
93. Richard Sarson
Over fifty years, I've met these guys before. They're the ones who objected to COBOL and FORTRAN because they lacked the control that machine code gives. They "never got fired because they chose IBM". When Commodore Pets and Apple 2s came out, they rubbished them as Mickey Mouse machines. They couldn't see the point of colour screens. They clung to their command lines, and thought GUIs were for kids. They stuck with their pricy dedicated networks and saw the Internet as a threat. They haven't noticed that OSX protects you from viruses.
94. Tom
If it was really irrelevant, they wouldn't be talking about it... nuff said
95. Tony Smith
If Apple and others didn't continually challenge market conventions, Wintel would still be selling lame-brained CIOs MS-DOS with the promise of Windows 3.1 to come.
They are protecting their own jobs and empires. ask any user in a corporate network how often they need to call the "IT helpdesk" and you'll find out how wonderful and efficient is Windows.
96. Tony Smith
If Apple and others didn't continually challenge market conventions, Wintel would still be selling lame-brained CIOs MS-DOS with the promise of Windows 3.1 to come.
They are protecting their own jobs and empires. ask any user in a corporate network how often they need to call the "IT helpdesk" and you'll find out how wonderful and efficient is Windows.
97. anonymous
Irrelevant seems so, ...arrogant. Perhaps for lack of experience, or inability to measure the options, system against system, and ROI against ROI, makes "IT experts" this way.
We have no "IT experts", only an outside hardware guy, and a database developer. We have run a company for 20 years on Macs. It is easier and better now than ever! We are 12 people making our living, and Macs have helped us do that; Irrelevant? Not.
98. anonymous
There was a time the saying went 'nobody gets fired for buying IBM'. Now its Microsoft.
These things have a way of changing.
99. Leflyman
What an irrelevant jury-- does anyone on there have much of a point to their nonsense? As information technologists, they are terribly misinformed about technology.
Apparently these so-called CIO haven't paid attention that clustered Apple G5s can run world-class supercomputers for a fraction of the price, time and technical requirements that traditional server companies require. Heck, on its debut in November 2003, Virgina Tech's "System X" ranked the third fastest supercomputer in the World, using 1100 Apple G5 2.0Ghz. This year, the system upgraded to 1100 Dual 2.3 XServes (2200 processors) still ranks as #7-- just a hair behind an HP-built Alpha system requiring 8192 processor! And just wait until the Army's Mach5 Apple cluster makes the list with over 3100 processors.
But what's interesting to note, is that in the top-10 supercomputers, five use the same processor lineage as Apple uses-- IBM's PowerPC-- including the fastest, with over 32,000 PowerPC 440 (a low-end "embedded" processor!) Only three are Intel based (2 Itaniums, one P4)
The Apple G5 is actually the IBM PowerPC 970, and the first consumer computer with a 64-bit process
100. Garry Small
"relatively virus-free platform"? At the last count PC 63,000 Mac OSX 0..
101. Thomas Barta
I just learned something. Windows must not be "proprietary". So, it is OK to use in enterprise. I bet that would be news to Microsoft.
(I am referring of course to the genius who critiqued Apple for being "proprietary").
102. anonymous
The absence of any biotechnology companies on that list is telling.
103. jbelkin
CIO's are bureaucrat personality types. They view the world through negative prisms and what can fo wrong - that's just who gravitates towards that job. That's a broad brush and I'm sure there are innovator thinkers CIO's but to 90% of them, innovation is getting an extra row of servers into a room ... but for the most part - this is the group that cried out for standards and when they got them, bemoaned their lack of choices.
So, I'm not surprised they rejected something out of hand without actually investigating it to change their mind - after all, they didn't get to be a CIO by being innovative or thinking differently.
104. anonymous
I would just like to respond to 2 comments and muse a little...
Apple is relatively virus and hacker free (like Linux) due to obscurity. No doubt this is true in part, however there are almost as many tracked pieces of malicious software (virus, trojan horse etc.) in the Linux domain as in the Wintel domain. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the organisation who published these figures last year.
Concerning the remark about proprietary, and lack of, software on the mac platform. This is not true. Mac OS is based on Opensource BSD. When considering which applications are available, one must also look at the applications, many of which are business oriented, which are available for UNIX. Also many of these are much more economical than commercial packages.
So to muse a little. The people who were interviewed for the article, are important players in the business sector. If they are not willing to consider Apple, then Apple will indeed remain irrelevant in this market.
105. Shawn
What is this "Can't pin down macs in a network' or They can't be used in a multi user environment?. I have over a hundred users operating off of Two home directory servers. All open directory (ldap) based. It is truly multi user. Any user can log into any machine in the company and have full access to their files and applications. The best is if a machine fails I can have a replacement machine up and running on their desk in about five minutes. Without any loss of data.
106. Dobbin
NO MAC VIRUSES. - I have just checked this and there are at least 30 out there.
107. Dan Shockley
There are 0 viruses affecting Mac OS X. MS Office viruses that do NOTHING to Mac users do not count. Trojan horses also are not viruses. There are no worms or viruses that affect Mac OS X without a user directly deciding to execute code (which is a trojan horse).
108. anonymous
Apple products will continue to infiltrate organizations the way Linux did. It'll be the grunts in the IT department who will bring Apple products in to help them get real work done. Eventually CIOs will get wind of what's happening, and suddely they'll jump on the bandwagon. Then the conventional wisdom will rapidly shift and all the sheep will start bleating about how they've "watched Apple for a long time" and are now convinced that their products offer "superior ROI."
Mark my words - it'll happen. These guys are all sheep, which is why they can't fathom anyone who looks outside the mainstream and thinks for themselves.
109. Frederick C. Lee
I'm a professional Oracle developer and am now developing Obj-C/Cocoa software for the Mac OS X (Panther).
I've seen mediocrity in the professional IT workplace, where meeting the next budget quarter is the de facto standard.
Much of the code I've encountered is speghetti, where 80% of the budget is maintenance.
Meanwhile, managers are screaming for greater productivity in less time; for less cost.
I've discovered Obj-C/Cocoa this past year, even though I've been working with Macs for nearly two decades; and use my iBook in developing Oracle projects.
From a programmer's point of view, Objective-C/Cocoa, the foundation of OS X - savvy applications, is well designed and intuitive; and suitable for IT use.
Tiger (OS 10.4) promises to add 200+ enhancements to the current Panther OS (10.3); including core-data & spotlight which are two technologies that are attractive to IT work.
Quality software will be more in demand as the IT business matures. OS X is rapidly evolving to fit this expectation.
Oracle does poorly with the Windoz architecture compared to Unix. Mac OS X is Unix (BSD Unix).
Oracle 10g is now available for OS X.
I see Macs muscling in on Windoz territory; particularly in professional software development and servers; and the growing attractiveness of Open Source software.
That's why I'm spending more time developing OS X software today.
110. anonymous
Productivity Software is on Mac platform too, so if you work for an office preparing documents (letters, budgets, presentations, email), then you can be a Mac user, besides forget about viruses.
This CIO Jury have fear, about what people can say about them, if one see me using a Mac, let me hide in my bathroom to listen music on my iPod?
111. Alistair Thomas
Pouring scorn on anybody isn't the best way to get them to see sense. Politics and corruption may play their parts in big business but it’s simplistic to dismiss these CIOs for this reason. Remarks taken out of context can often seem ignorant - that’s the danger of sound bites.
Firstly these guys will be drowning in legacy issues. Most legacy is not created on the back of systematic or deliberate stupidity. Even when a 'bad' system can be traced back to fundamentally flawed logic, it is often only with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. Most legacy starts as a small mistake and then builds incrementally. Without a revolution, and a massive initial investment, switching to radical new technology isn't an option.
If you're asking an organisation to rewrite its bespoke applications or buy the equivalent of its generic software to run on a new platform, and retrain all its users with no functionality gain then that's a big ask. Lower maintenance and support and even better productivity will take years to offset initial investment and therefore impact TCO. Be cautious about asking CFOs to interfere – theirs is often the shortest term view.
At its best, technology should be invisible. Ultimately, the user and the job they are trying to achieve is all that matters. Usually, user need changes much slower that the technology base. In the medium term, investment in people and applications far outweighs the investment in (any particular wave of) technology.
It's an unpopular view, but I've always seen Microsoft as a protector of my investment in applications. My image manipulation skill and Office software needs have not progressed since Photoshop 5 and Office 97. I still use these versions on my Dell/XP laptop because I can't afford to update them. In the late 90s when I worked in a Design company with mixed Mac/PC environment, every time the latest Mac with the latest OS came out we had to update our application software because it wouldn’t run on the new platform. If OSX was found to be flawed tomorrow, would Apple still be supporting it in 5 years time or would they drop it and all their users for the next ‘perfect solution’?
After so many years, I really hope Apple does have what it takes to get a bigger share of the market. Back office solutions seem a sensible place to start an offensive on the enterprise space since they have maximum impact and target the key decision makers. With consolidation on the PC side of things, competition is vital to keep up the pressure to make things better. If Apple wants to get its 'rightful' share of the world market then it has to take people like these CIOs with it.
112. anonymous
In my experience, the leading motivator for most IT directors is preserving their own franchise, not making the wisest, most economically sound or efficient choices.
TCO means nothing to any of the gentlemen quoted in the article. In fact, I'll bet that keeping support costs high keeps their departments at full employment and their pockets lined with bonuses.
113. John McMillin
Are the problems of Windows part of its corporate appeal? Security flaws, balky updates and clumsy interfaces all have one thing in common. They require the constant work of highly paid. Windows-credentialed specialists to patch up the system. To suggest Apple as an escape route from this futility is seen as equivalent to bringing abong into the boardroom and declaring, "Look, I'm a hippie!" The Windows world is looking more and more like a cult itself, insular and inbred, oriented towards its own preservation rather than getting any work done.
114. Don Tregartha
Boo hoo! I asked my Daddy for a Mac and he bought me a Windows PC...
115. anonymous
Reader jury: Silicon.com stories are irrelevant to my decision-making.
If this is the best you guys can do - poll CIOs who obviously have their heads in the sand - then silicon.com doesn't deserve my readership. I wouldn't endorse the opinions of a group of people who are uniformly down on a surging platform with real advantages for business.
Fact is - here in Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, Macs are catching on in businesses quite quickly. Offhand, I'd say that about half the IT workers and highly-skilled people I know here have a Mac at home purchased within the past two years. None of them work at Apple, and two friends have purchased Mac minis within the last three days to relieve themselves of the twin perils of Spam and Spyware.
If your CIO jury wishes to see themselves fade into true irrelevance, then so be it, but it would be interesting to know just how many of them have actually taken a hard look at Apple's competitive blade server and workstation offerings within the last 12 months. I suspect that none of them have, given their uninformed opinions.
Most businesses can get along with a Mac just as easily and more cheaply over the life cycle of the hardware than with a Windows system. After all, Apple is lowering internal costs year over year. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Cupertino to know what the balance sheets for support look like. I'll bet Apple spends far less per employee on support than any other top-tier computer manufacturer.
116. Phil Young
Well our comments certainly caused a reaction! I would like to stress that I am sure majority of CIO's do not view MS over Mac as a way to 'build empires' and 'further our careers'. I recognise that Mac's may have a place in modern business, but the challenge that CIO's face is to look at the business requirement / need and establish applications and architectures that deliver to these requirement but still maintain stability across the infrastructure. Our infrastructure is predominately Unix based by the way.
I found it interesting that some comments were made around the short-sightedness of CIO's and comments such as ‘why do CFO's let us get away with it’. It's worth pointing out here that many IT functions were / are actually headed by CFO's and hence decisions have been cost led i.e. MS cheaper than Mac to purchase, thus giving MS this stronghold in business. Do not get me wrong, I am not defending my position as a CIO or 'empire builder' as I would outsource myself as fast as possible if I or the business felt that this was a good thing to do. The point here is; we make decisions for the greater good of the organisation and the bigger picture rather than just focusing down on a piece of technology.
117. Charles McELEAVY
Leading IT bosses, blindly disregard Doctors advice!
I.T. managers in the UK at any rate, seem to be living in the dark ages
regarding Apple computers if this article "Apple Bruisers", is anything to go by.
UK IT managers who do not see Apple as a serious business tool have got their
heads in the sand and will pay the price of their ignorance in the coming months.
I work for a large corporate body here in the UK - we employ well in access of 25,000 people -and have woken up to the idea of fast, stable, virtual virus free and easy to use Apple computers. We have literally thousands of computers,and up until 5 years ago most were PC's.
For years we ignored Apple computers for the mass marketed Dells and Compaq's running Microsoft OS's, blindly acquired by all our I.T. departments.And boy did we suffer the fate of having to pay extortionate amounts of money to keep these fragile and flaky systems working.We had out arms well and truly tied!
If my company is anything to go by, the days of Windows supremacy are well and
truly coming to an end. Amen to all that.
So, all you I.T. guys out there and i believe it is mostly "guys', take heed and watch
your corporate backs because the APPLE is biting back.
Save your self money ,time , and above all else peace of mind, and make the switch with all the rest of us. Not unless you like all the frustration, cost, and annoyance you have been experiencing in the last twenty years or so!
C.J. McEleavy.
118. matt kennedy
It's the same old story spouted by fearful, paranoid, overpaid IT managers for years, but every now & then, quite a few businesses "see the light" and bring Macs onboard - so they can save money. There is a notion out there that Apple is still a cottage business, and people need to realise that this company - which invented the Personal Computer - is bigger than McDonald's and is not, and never has been, insignificant.
The reason for the silly, ill-informed responses in this article is threefold:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The question was put to IT managers. Not the most progressive thinkers in the business world.
(2) The main savings made when Macs replace PCs are made in the areas of efficiency and IT support staff.
The fear for IT Mgrs. is that support budgets (& staff) end up being cut as Macs require far less support.
(3) IT Managers who've spent years becoming Windows experts, strutting around the office "saving the company" with their PC voodoo are, all of a sudden, novices in a business full of Macs. When the bosses bring in a computer system that the young bloke in the art dept. knows more about than you do, and a secretary can learn to maintain, you can't blame the IT Manager for feeling insecure in their job and reacting with fear and accusations.
We've had much of the same paranoid reactions to Linux from fearful, conservative IT Managers and look at Linux now.
119. uncle tungsten
Wow, I just set up a new shop and after looking around Xserve + Mac + Linux + Windows clients is a heck of a lot cheaper than any win-tel solutions. Plus a whole bunch better. These people are way out of touch!
This article explains alot about uSofts continued ability to stay in business. I won't be paying $50,000 in client licenses per year ever again in my life! And rebooting and getting hacked and looking a ugly interfaces...
120. Stephen Derham
Well I can certainly see why your jury finds OSX irrelevant! After all what large corporate entity would find it useful to system-level PDF creation and handling , with system-level metadata searching that includes pdf text content. I can't see why they'd want it to be based on the most secure OS in world (BSD Unix) according to secunia and most other security firms including the CIA. Certainly it wouldn't be useful to have an OS that can be set up with user accounts completely configurable regarding priviledges and permissions remotely in various ways including and up to 128-bit SSL secure remote connections. Up to date system wide support for full open - standard Java, HTML, Open GL and X11 environments is also totally useless isn't it?
And I for one would be very upset if every successive OS update worked faster and yet did more on even 6- year old legacy computers (eg my girlfriends iMac) that came out before the first OS. Yep, they've definitely got a bit. DUUUUH!
121. Paul St Clair Terry
I spent 15 years as a top-tier strategy consultant followed by 10 years as a C-level executive in a global Financial Services firm based overseas. Inevitably, I spent much time determining global IT strategy, architecture, infrastructure etc. , given an annual IT spend of USD 1 billion. While Apple did not occupy my thoughts as a strategic technology partner, I personally have always preferred using Apple technology, though I am equally proficient in both Mac and PC environments.
When travelling the globe, I found the my PowerBook would invariably connect to heterogeneous environments where my ThinkPad or my Vaio had some configuration issue that could not be resolved by the local techs. Also, at a corporate level, it was apparent to me that though the initial comparative price of the Mac might have seemed more expensive, TCO was much less. Typically, maintenance costs of our PC platforms ran at about ten times those of our (admittedly few) Mac platforms.
Right now, Apple server technology is most certainly worthy of consideration by even the most jaded and dyed-in-the-wool old IT blowhard. This is being taken seriously by the handful of CIOs who are strong enough not to be thought of as frivolous for considering Apple in this particular enterprise niche...
122. Paul Grantham
The jury's commentary says more about the state of IT management than it does Apple technology. Many IT managers have become specialized procurement managers, focusing on purchase price. Imagine where our entriprises might be today if we had agnored the easy solution of buying from monopolists and instead tried to drive true innovation in the desktop. One only needs to look where Apple is common, in the creative arts, to get a glimpse of that missed opportunity.
123. Zoki
Quote: "If Mac or Linux, for whatever reason, become massively successful, and massively more market-dominant, then we all know where the malware authors will redirect their ethically misguided efforts."
Dear Mr. Woodhouse,
LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) ARE already "massively more market-dominant" in the Galaxy we're living in. Why is it then Win/IIS that still get hit by viruses?
Now please stop wasting our time and go cash in your unemployment check. There are too many unemployed, competent people out there waiting for your job.
124. Rick Wagner
Compatability better than PeeCee. The OS X operating system can be installed and can operate on an old PowerMacintosh G3 machine just fine that was made over 10 years ago. Can you install Windows-XP Professional on an Intel based machine that was made 10 years ago without having to hunt for drivers and fix glitches just to get it to boot? Get Real Boys and girls.... The UNIX core of the Macintosh OS X has been around longer than MS-DOS.