<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2009 &#8211; Year of Apple in the Enterprise?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.1nova.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243</link>
	<description>Technology, Computers, Opinions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:09:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: iPhone Compared to BlackBerry &#124; Rick Tech</title>
		<link>http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243&#038;cpage=1#comment-1494</link>
		<dc:creator>iPhone Compared to BlackBerry &#124; Rick Tech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:24:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243#comment-1494</guid>
		<description>[...] of the two. While the updated Blackberry sounds much better for my uses, I really think the iPhone is going to make it in the business world and thus make all those arguments null and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of the two. While the updated Blackberry sounds much better for my uses, I really think the iPhone is going to make it in the business world and thus make all those arguments null and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243&#038;cpage=1#comment-1356</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:37:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243#comment-1356</guid>
		<description>You are correct, Apple was already around when the PC was created. But it was not used heavily in the business world. That was certainly a critical time for Apple and they dropped the ball. On the other hand, perhaps just as now they never really considered the Corporate world as a place to sell computers.

What kinds of needs and costs do you see holding back Apple&#039;s entrance into IT departments these? The groundwork is already there, Open Directory interacting with Active Directory being the single biggest piece in my opinion. Apple&#039;s biggest problem is that they do not FIX the tools they&#039;ve provided. OD should work with AD a lot better, even if Microsoft isn&#039;t playing nice and giving them specs. Software Update in OS X Server needs to have two tiers - one for Beta Testing and one for full scale roll out. Apple Remote Desktop has come a long ways, but I feel it still breaks down in large installations - I&#039;m talking 400+ computers. 

But, the iPhone is going to be a subtle enabler for all this. I know of several large PC-Centric enterprises that are already working on integrating the iPhone into their network. This WILL leverage more Apple Desktop machines in the door, just like Linux and Windows before it. I wonder if Steve Jobs planned it this way, or if he&#039;s going to wake up and seize the opportunity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are correct, Apple was already around when the PC was created. But it was not used heavily in the business world. That was certainly a critical time for Apple and they dropped the ball. On the other hand, perhaps just as now they never really considered the Corporate world as a place to sell computers.</p>
<p>What kinds of needs and costs do you see holding back Apple&#8217;s entrance into IT departments these? The groundwork is already there, Open Directory interacting with Active Directory being the single biggest piece in my opinion. Apple&#8217;s biggest problem is that they do not FIX the tools they&#8217;ve provided. OD should work with AD a lot better, even if Microsoft isn&#8217;t playing nice and giving them specs. Software Update in OS X Server needs to have two tiers &#8211; one for Beta Testing and one for full scale roll out. Apple Remote Desktop has come a long ways, but I feel it still breaks down in large installations &#8211; I&#8217;m talking 400+ computers. </p>
<p>But, the iPhone is going to be a subtle enabler for all this. I know of several large PC-Centric enterprises that are already working on integrating the iPhone into their network. This WILL leverage more Apple Desktop machines in the door, just like Linux and Windows before it. I wonder if Steve Jobs planned it this way, or if he&#8217;s going to wake up and seize the opportunity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert B.</title>
		<link>http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243&#038;cpage=1#comment-1354</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1nova.com/blog/?p=243#comment-1354</guid>
		<description>I was agreeing with you until the last reason.  Apple was dominant in the school and personal computer market when the PC appeared.  It was IBM, not Microsoft, who initiated the PC and it was aimed at large businesses where IBM already had sales and support ties.  To IBM&#039;s shame they weren&#039;t focused on this market, merely trying to block Apple from making inroads with customers running IBM mainframes.  They didn&#039;t copyright or patent their PC design, so when the drawings leaked they were faced with upstart PC hardware competitors they never contemplated would exist.  IBM was afraid of the VisiCalc spreadsheet program that came out on the Apple II in 1979.  Microsoft got into the corporate world through IBM selecting them for their PC OS.  Their earlier OS efforts failed.  You might have said that Apple could easily push a broader server line with the same software services and only a single license fee per server, not seats.  While the iPhone will likely be a success in corporations, it&#039;s a much broader spectrum of needs  and costs that will hold back on Apple&#039;s desktop penetration.  If IT departments come to like iPhones and their capabilities it will break down their initial resistance to all things Apple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was agreeing with you until the last reason.  Apple was dominant in the school and personal computer market when the PC appeared.  It was IBM, not Microsoft, who initiated the PC and it was aimed at large businesses where IBM already had sales and support ties.  To IBM&#8217;s shame they weren&#8217;t focused on this market, merely trying to block Apple from making inroads with customers running IBM mainframes.  They didn&#8217;t copyright or patent their PC design, so when the drawings leaked they were faced with upstart PC hardware competitors they never contemplated would exist.  IBM was afraid of the VisiCalc spreadsheet program that came out on the Apple II in 1979.  Microsoft got into the corporate world through IBM selecting them for their PC OS.  Their earlier OS efforts failed.  You might have said that Apple could easily push a broader server line with the same software services and only a single license fee per server, not seats.  While the iPhone will likely be a success in corporations, it&#8217;s a much broader spectrum of needs  and costs that will hold back on Apple&#8217;s desktop penetration.  If IT departments come to like iPhones and their capabilities it will break down their initial resistance to all things Apple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.068 seconds -->
