5 ms·

How about they start by publishing official EOL/support dates for their operating system software? Which is a basic expectation of any bordering-on-competent IT

How about they start by publishing official EOL/support dates for their operating system software? Which is a basic expectation of any bordering-on-competent IT department so they can perform advance planning. But I guess that would upturn the apple cart (no pun intended) of the culture of secrecy. This is why Apple will continue to be a failure in any IT department larger than a startup. The only reason MacOS is supported in larger businesses is because the whiny graphics department would riot if they took their Macs away. And I don't want to hear "but I do all my software development on a Mac!!!1!" Yeah, in an unmanaged configuration on your rogue developer box, sure, whatever. No one is running thousands of Macs outside Apple and if they are they're not doing it without many third-party system management kludges and an army of people to support it. And the whole thing hangs on by a thread. Apple's enterprise support is a joke and will continue to be unless there are major changes. Even Linux and FreeBSD (!) are better at this.

philistine 4y ago
Yeah, and then the users need far less support time. It’s a trade off that makes sense for some companies.
MichaelBurge 4y ago
Facebook has tens of thousands of employees and everyone there is issued a Mac and iPhone. The Amazon employees I know were issued Macs as well. Looking back to see if you were ever right, I see a 2013 article[1] claiming Google explained that it’s managing a fleet of over 43,000 Macs its employees use as of now if you start at Google and want to use a platform other than Mac you have to make a business case You're talking about "larger businesses" but the largest tech businesses(#1, 3, 4, 5, 7 in order of market cap on S&P500)[2] require everyone to use Macs. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/google-wants-employees-using-macs-not-windows-own-174037090.html https://news.yahoo.com/google-wants-employees-using-macs-not... [2] https://www.liberatedstocktrader.com/sp-500-companies/ https://www.liberatedstocktrader.com/sp-500-companies/
- assttoasstmgr 4y ago
  A quick Google search indicates that that is ... stretching ... the truth a bit. At both those companies you are offered the choice of a Thinkpad (apparently Windows at FB or Linux at GOOG) or a Mac. And at that point what are they doing? You are using a web browser and SSH through a terminal. There's a word for that and it's called 'thin client'. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the in-office networks were full of standalone machines and borderline shadow IT. No need to simp so hard for Apple bro. The criticism levied by the OP is completely valid. Apple breaks stuff on the regular, without a care, in large-scale deployments with real desktop applications it can be a total shitshow.
jerlam 4y ago
IBM says they're managing around 100K Mac devices with Jamf, and it's even saving them money: https://www.techradar.com/news/ibm-exec-says-macs-are-way-more-wallet-friendly-than-windows-pcs https://www.techradar.com/news/ibm-exec-says-macs-are-way-mo...
- assttoasstmgr 4y ago
  That article claims 90k employees are using Macs but they represent 15% of all machines. IBM has 345k employees. So that means 600k 'machines' ... desktops? servers? Are we to assume everyone with a Mac also has a Windows or Linux PC for real work? Something about that story doesn't add up. It looks like an ad for Jamf.
scarface74 4y ago

philistine 4y ago

Yeah, and then the users need far less support time. It’s a trade off that makes sense for some companies.

MichaelBurge 4y ago

Facebook has tens of thousands of employees and everyone there is issued a Mac and iPhone. The Amazon employees I know were issued Macs as well. Looking back to see if you were ever right, I see a 2013 article[1] claiming Google explained that it’s managing a fleet of over 43,000 Macs its employees use as of now if you start at Google and want to use a platform other than Mac you have to make a business case You're talking about "larger businesses" but the largest tech businesses(#1, 3, 4, 5, 7 in order of market cap on S&P500)[2] require everyone to use Macs. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/google-wants-employees-using-macs-not-windows-own-174037090.html https://news.yahoo.com/google-wants-employees-using-macs-not... [2] https://www.liberatedstocktrader.com/sp-500-companies/ https://www.liberatedstocktrader.com/sp-500-companies/

assttoasstmgr 4y ago
A quick Google search indicates that that is ... stretching ... the truth a bit. At both those companies you are offered the choice of a Thinkpad (apparently Windows at FB or Linux at GOOG) or a Mac. And at that point what are they doing? You are using a web browser and SSH through a terminal. There's a word for that and it's called 'thin client'. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the in-office networks were full of standalone machines and borderline shadow IT. No need to simp so hard for Apple bro. The criticism levied by the OP is completely valid. Apple breaks stuff on the regular, without a care, in large-scale deployments with real desktop applications it can be a total shitshow.

jerlam 4y ago

IBM says they're managing around 100K Mac devices with Jamf, and it's even saving them money: https://www.techradar.com/news/ibm-exec-says-macs-are-way-more-wallet-friendly-than-windows-pcs https://www.techradar.com/news/ibm-exec-says-macs-are-way-mo...

assttoasstmgr 4y ago
That article claims 90k employees are using Macs but they represent 15% of all machines. IBM has 345k employees. So that means 600k 'machines' ... desktops? servers? Are we to assume everyone with a Mac also has a Windows or Linux PC for real work? Something about that story doesn't add up. It looks like an ad for Jamf.

scarface74 4y ago