iPhone

Why Steve Jobs hates the enterprise

The iPhone is making significant progress in the enterprise, but this doesn't mean that Apple is actively courting businesses. Hear why, from the mouth of Steve Jobs.

Yesterday I published my review of the Apple iPhone 4 from an enterprise perspective, and noted that 40% of iPhone sales are now made to businesses and that some prominent Fortune 500 companies such as UBS are getting serious with the iPhone.

So does that mean Apple is finally starting to warm up to the enterprise, after years of neglect and even disdain for the enterprise market? There are conflicting signals from Apple on this subject, including mixed messages from Apple CEO Steve Jobs himself.

On the one hand, Jobs made a point of emphasizing the iPhone 4's enhanced enterprise capabilities during his keynote presentation on the iPhone 4 at WWDC 2010 (photo below). Also, Apple now has a small sales force dedicated entirely to enterprise customers, especially those who want deploy the iPhone.

On the other hand, we have the words of Jobs in his recent interview with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher of The Wall Street Journal (photo below). Jobs said:

"What I love about the consumer market, that I always hated about the enterprise market, is that we come up with a product, we try to tell everybody about it, and every person votes for themselves. They go 'yes' or 'no,' and if enough of them say 'yes,' we get to come to work tomorrow. That's how it works. It's really simple. With the enterprise market, it's not so simple. The people that use the products don't decide for themselves, and the people that make those decisions sometimes are confused. We love just trying to make the best products in the world for people and having them tell us by how they vote with their wallets whether we're on track or not."

Judging by that statement, I doubt we'll see Apple cozying up to the enterprise very much in the near future and IT leaders should be very clear about that. Apple is likely to throw a few bones to the enterprise to make the iPhone palatable to the powers that be in the corporate IT world. However, do not expect Apple to do what RIM has done over the past decade, which is to cultivate its product (BlackBerry) to the wants and needs of CIOs.

Still, according to Forrester, 29% of corporate IT department now support the iPhone in 2010, up from 17% in 2009. That's nowhere near the 70% that support BlackBerry, but the iPhone is clearly generating significant momentum in businesses.

This momentum is often driven from the top-down by executives. The other driving factor is the consumerization of IT, in which many workers are bringing their own technologies into the workplace -- including laptops, smartphones, and Web apps. This is the wave that Apple is riding, and Jobs appears to be making a bet that it will continue in the future, so he is staking Apple's enterprise play on individual consumers driving demand for Apple products and IT departments reacting to it. Apple simply wants to take away the security and manageability obstacles that keep IT from saying, "No." In other words, don't look for Apple to start aggressively courting the enterprise any time soon.

For instant analysis of tech news, follow my Twitter feed: @jasonhiner

Take the poll

Steve Jobs' characterization of the enterprise and its buying decisions ("the people that make those decisions sometimes are confused") may have been a little harsh, but is it unfair? Answer the poll and then jump into the discussion.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

92 comments
NicoJuicy
NicoJuicy

Apple's booming business is apps. Of each app they sell, they receive 30% and they tried to do it with in-app-subscriptions also, but the industry has protested so loud, they lowered their evil conditions. The problem with the enterprise is, that enterprises need custom applications, eg. for healthcare and etc.. This would mean that applications can be installed without Apple knowing (eg. some sort of jailbreaking) or in other words, on these apps, Apple won't receive 30% of all the revenue.

stand3
stand3

Steve Jobs is such an arrogant S.O.B. that he can't consider anything better than Apple.

Vaporthug
Vaporthug

Please try and make your titles more accurate. Im really sick of these baiter titles. Either the writers are tryuely as stupid as their interruptions are, or they are just misleading in hopes of hits.

ravi
ravi

Maybe he targetted them as the audience and did not know how to get their notice. Now he has found a better way - Target the purse of an individual, he decides for himself and cares two hoots about things going right or wrong.

ricoshay
ricoshay

"At the top of the mountain, we're all snow leopards ..."

dcolbert
dcolbert

As always, he is only presenting his carefully groomed side of the story. Apple makes consumer electronics. They're not a business electronics company. They have *never* been very good at it - which is why Microsoft gave them such a sound trashing in the 80s and 90s. Andy Grove has a philosophy of knowing your core business competency and *sticking* to it. With Intel it is manufacturing. Not retail channel sales. When Intel gets involved in retail channels, they almost inevitably *lose*. With Apple, it is consumer electronics, and I think Jobs realizes that. But that doesn't mean that the Enterprise is an impossible market to cultivate, grow, and turn into a cash-cow. Microsoft dominance in the Enterprise is the living proof of that. Steve's brand of hocus-pocus, his "revolutionary magic", just doesn't work in that space. People don't care as much about slick, revolutionary design. Look at the Lenovo ThinkPad. The basic design is as solid, dependable and unchanging as a rock over the last 15 years - and they're utilitarian, all-business machines with very few bells, whistles, or fancy trim. Next time you're in an airport, look around you as the business users pull out their notebooks, and count the number of Lenovos you see and who is pulling them out... and then note who has Sony Vaios and Apples. Steve Jobs doesn't like the Enterprise, but the Enterprise doesn't really like Steve Jobs all that much - either. I'll let an iPhone be used in my business model, but I'll use a Droid, too. I control my information that those devices might be accessing at a deeper level. I've got enterprise class protection that makes me less concerned about the security of mobile devices like this, and I've got policies that mean that what those devices can access isn't high security or potentially compromising. With the right policies in place, a device like an iPhone becomes a personal preference. I won't buy my employees an iPhone. If they want one, they're on their own and we'll give them a reimbursement. But that is also an "enterprise business" level decision - it doesn't have to do with the phone itself.

OSF-BayArea
OSF-BayArea

Interesting that when it comes an enterprise market, say creative departments (which at one time Apple owned) Steve is OK with groups making decisions for everyone but when it comes to enterprise markets with standards, expectations, accountability vs blind sheep following the cool trend, he doesn't agree with their logic. Steve Jobs=Funny, nothing more.

senigma
senigma

Jobs says "With the enterprise market, it?s not so simple. The people that use the products don?t decide for themselves...", yet won't allow users of said products to decide for themselves what apps they want? Nope, sorry, this is stifling corporatism in in a turtleneck.

Guitockey
Guitockey

I think he's right regarding Enterprise decision-making. Whether or not IT managers are confused is an interesting debate, but the fact is that the Microsoft & Blackberry mentality is prevalent. These companies specifically targeted the business market, did very well, and saw their products trickle through the consumer market. Good move on their part. Apple has simply taken the opposite approach, targeting the consumer market. Good move on its part, but it's much harder to trickle up into the enterprise market. Apple has the functionality for businesses, but overcoming the entrenched mentality ("they're good for graphics") is perhaps something they don't want to pursue full force. Seems they are taking the bread approach: a little yeast works it way through the whole dough.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"The people that use the products don't decide for themselves, and the people that make those decisions sometimes are confused." If we're 'confused', isn't that why Apple has a marketing department? Is Jobs incapable of realizing that the requirements of consumers and businesses are different?

FTAdmin
FTAdmin

I see it as a statement to how Steve hates the perceived /uncertainty/ of the enterprise market, not the market itself. He appears to not like to double-guess his customers' appreciation for the products, which is what he ends up doing, due to indirect feedback from Enterprise customers. He obtains his feedback through sales figures, which (for the Enterprise) rely on someone other than the end user.

azzeh100
azzeh100

Upper management need to focus on tasks

26Alfred
26Alfred

I voted 'No' Jobs still feels the hurt of losing out to IBM in the early eighties, his failure to capture a toehold in the workstation market in the early nineties (remember the NEXT?) and his absolute failure to play a significant role in the emerging internet business. He has now gained a significant share of the comsumer market and - as all power corrupts - starts playing power games (re: you article on i-Phone privacy, his shutting out of third party software developers, etc) Mr. Jobs has turned Apple into a money making concern again, but it does not make him or his policies more pleasant. And many coporate buyers don't relish the idea iof having to deal with a company that seems to be run along Henry Fords lines (I will choose for you!) Alfred Damen, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

coolmark82
coolmark82

I am the same when it comes to the enterprise. If people can't decide for themselves for what they like, how can we know whether to improve ourselves or our products or not? I agree with Steve Jobs.

melias
melias

I voted yes, but I would not say confused, I would say that it is not their field of knowledge. That's why there are CIOs and CTOs. Those are the ones who give information and make recommendations to the rest of the C-executives and board members. THEN hopefully the best decisions will be made. And since most (successful) enterprises are fairly conservative, they will choose the option(s) that best suit their needs with the lowest perceived cost. As for those who insist that letting your employees bring their own technology into the office and do their work on it is a good idea, that is somewhat irresponsible in my opinion. In our little county government, we have several in-house written apps going back well over 10 years. They are throughout the entire county, and run only on windows. Sorry, no re-writes for Mac and 'nix. Also, almost all our vendor-driven software is designed for windows and SQLServer. Most Web software requires IE version 6 or above. Firefox and Mozilla or Chrome need not apply. These requirements are called standards, and if you don't stick to them, then only the smallest shops will not collapse from their own support weight. Due to the economic state, we are running in a semi-permanent crunch mode. Employees who leave or retire are not being replaced save for a few critical postions. Hats are changed several times a day. Who needs the extra headaches of supporting/integrating several different technologies when one will do the job?

jmarkovic32
jmarkovic32

He says we're too stupid to know what we want or don't want. What a smug comment that is.

DEVCPP
DEVCPP

When you consider all the bad IT moves made in your shop by untrained and unskilled CEOs, then you'll see that Steve Jobs has a point. In mine, lots of bad stuff has been forced upon us by management over the years: Microsoft's early offerings head that list (I don't need to enumerate all the bad Microsoft stuff here). The foolish shunning of Linux today is largely a CEO thing. Now, Microsoft has improved greatly in the enterprise world, but, even now, more decision-making power ought to be handed down to the folks that are more in-the-know (sometimes that's not the in-house IT staff at all). Now, upper-management folks are 'getting stupid' by shunning Microsoft in favor of gimmicks like Google's cloud. As a whole, enterprise software is over-priced and under-utilized: most of the feature set provided gets totally ignored by the user base. Good enterprise software is like a good gun: simple, easy-to-understand, and as robust as a Ruger GP-100 or an AK-47! What we usually end up with is a cockamamie mess that's broken and that has broken the budget...thanks to the CEO decision-makers, in large part.

krikit
krikit

So an article with the title "Why Steve Jobs hates the enterprise" ends with the question "Is Steve Jobs' characterization of the enterprise IT market fair?" In the article you quote him "...the people that make those decisions sometimes are confused." I'm with him on the matter. A more accurate title would be "Steve Jobs characterizes enterprise as confused deciders"

fcleroux
fcleroux

Jobs is an idiot. Thats why his company has been #2 for so many years. Is he suggesting that his enterprise is any better, that as an Apple employee I get to choose if I want to use a Blackberry or a PC with Windows7 instead of an iPhone or a MAC. I doubt it. Suggesting that some of the best management teams in the world, in the way of Fortune 500 companies, are "Confused" is both an insult and completely rediculous. As the author of this post noted this is still not the best phone for the Enterprise. There are reasons for that. Jobs should look at those reasons and do something about it instead of complaining and laying blame on confused management. If we let the 'employees' choose any product they want based only on the newest craze or the hippest product we would be in a big mess. What a rediculous statement Jobs made.

wolfshades
wolfshades

As I'm privy to the decision-making in our large organization, I can tell you that Jobs is dead-on with his observation. Not enough of the decision-makers are all that aware of the average user requirements. By necessity, their focus isn't as much on the end-user so much as keeping the corporation safe. Legally, and operationally. But....he could do better by marrying the two requirements: user acceptance and corporate standards. RIM has done well in this respect, and Apple could take a few notes from that company. Apple could increase their already-impressive profits by a factor of 10. (No, I don't know where the 10-factor came from. I pulled it from the air. Still, he could make an amazing profit if he just followed my outstandingly wise comment.)

schmidtd
schmidtd

I have felt that Apple certainly hasn't gone out of its way to ingratiate themselves to IT staff and departments. They have a customer focus, but I never feel they think IT is an important customer. I certainly don't remember them sponsoring any (and I mean any) corporate events I have attended. Indeed that in that infamous commercial, the guy on the screen is probably the IT director ("one vision" in this context seems to mean one type of computer). Ironic because IT doesn?t view Apple as being very open at all, so from IT's point of view the guy on the monitor could easily be Steve himself.

jfuller05
jfuller05

of catering to the consumer field; there's more money for Apple by taking that road. He probably also sees his competition in the enterprise, possibly thinking that the battle just wouldn't be worth it. Apple is doing what it does best: catering to the consumer.

akfaka
akfaka

Sadly Jobs thinks that way. The enterprises are infested with this Windows cockroaches. The Apple OS is so much more superior, Jobs should think of flooding out the Windows cockroaches!!!

ian_hardie
ian_hardie

I think Steve Job's characterization is correct...but I believe he would do more for the enterprise if "We, the People" request changes/advancement in technology then hearing it from CIOs; this is what I think is his point, he is trying to get across to us.

sasphf
sasphf

I think it's brilliant and an important montra of Jobs and Apple. In this model enterprise decisions are made from the bottom up. First, people adopt, or not, the technology. If it stands the test of time but also fulfills enterprise need, businesses will adopt. As a contrarian example, Microsoft is a clear winner of the operating system, but quantity is not quality. In the evolution of operating systems there were/are much better technologies/architectures.

djmorrissey
djmorrissey

The difference in target is ignored in the statements jobs made. He stated that "they may confused" - or sending a confused message? The simple truth is, what is best of an individual is NOT the best for th eenterprise. Usage accountability is a simple one - a porn picture on a personal device is a choice - on a company device it is a lawsuit. The data control of the company is key to the company. The sales rep should not and cannot dictate this. This said - i like th eiPhone and have on in my house, along with a iMac, a iPAD, and two iTouches, but I also have a Windows PC for doing work (and access to the sites I need that use flash).

cttechie
cttechie

I completely see his point. And I would agree with him. BUT.... Why would you knowingly shun the enterprise? I've been in IT for over a decade and Apple still makes like more difficult for us than it needs to be. Fix the known bugs. Make it easier for us to integrate your products - which can and does lead to more Apple products in our environment. But this unspoken policy or philosophy of making things unnecessarily difficult for the enterprise is just stupid. What's the point? And what positive things come from it?

gypkap
gypkap

Jobs seems to have restricted what Macs can do, including connection to other, non-Macintosh computers. He's cutting off his nose (and maybe his turtleneck) to spite his face. If there's a way to connect Macs to Windows, Linux, or non-Apple Unix, let us all know.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Do you see the CEO of ford advertising that GM makes a better product?

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I'd say that's more a problem than something to be proud of. The fact that it's written for a specific browser rather than html standards severely limits your systems. Hopefully then can at least work with IE8 as IE6 should have been dragged behind the barn and shot years ago out of mercy.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Should C-level execs be wasting their time deciding what kind of phone IT will support? Sure, they approve major expenditures, but how informed are they on the factors that influence the decision? Isn't that what subordinates are for, to research the options and make a recommendation? A phone is a tool, like any other tool the company purchases for it's employees. Indeed, it's often a tool that will be replaced in 18-24 months; it's not even a strategic decision. Why would C-levels screw around with this? Is it micromanagement or just ego?

GAGYRO
GAGYRO

The enterprise operates as a cartel, do everything possible to protect it's interests. So yes you may be too stupid to know what you want. You are certainly too stupid to know what is needed.

Gis Bun
Gis Bun

After all he think he's a God. He can tell us what to do. :-)

gypkap
gypkap

Linux is shunned because IT departments (not CEOs who haven't a clue) prefer Unix, AIX, BSD, and other Unix-like operating systems that can be locked down.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I'm sure so many people will now decide to switch to Apple products because you called them names. Belittling your audience is always an effective tool of persuasion.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

MS won the OS battle by winning the business market first. People by Windows systems because that's what they're used to using at work.

tracy.walters
tracy.walters

You said it right, DJ ... Apple has long had the attitude 'We are doing it our way, no matter what the rest of the world thinks' While this may have worked for them with the 'think different' group, when you get into Enterprise, you need to fit in. IT has limited resources and can't afford to have hundreds or even thousands of individuals doing it their way. IT is responsible for data security, keeping systems up, managing complex relationships, often over large geograpic distances. I've dealt with Apple products for years, and while I like them, they seem to have gone out of their way to decentralize management, not conform to Enterprise standards and generally make life difficult. Now Jobs says we're confused...why are we confused? Because we don't have his vision? We'd love to have systems that play well together, have good security and manage themselves...that would give us time to do the cool projects without lots of interruptions. I like Macs...the iPhone is a neat tool (I still like my Blackberry Storm better, but that's a personal choice). If Apple would figure out they need to connect to the Enterprise layer with more security and manageability, their products would find easier acceptance. Of course, I'll be called an 'Apple hater' for this...but I tried to paint a picture of reality in the Enterprise.

timbloom
timbloom

I don't see them intentionally making things more difficult for the enterprise, short of releasing new products. They've overall not been focusing on enterprise, but have been slowly adding features in to support it. They're adding more enterprise support with every update, but just not making a real goal of getting it into businesses.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

how are you trying to "connect" osX with the other *nix and Windows machines? The only thing that really should be a problem is joining the domain if you've a Microsoft LDAP server. osX will run fine within the network without anyhow since it's not going to be using the domain policy from the AD server.

glenstorm_98
glenstorm_98

You constantly hear Hyundai claiming to be better than a Mercedes! (Tip for those who don't get it: Apple doesn't have to claim it has a better product. Every objective person knows it, and asserting it would just make them wonder if their innate judgment about it was right. Jobs is nothing if not a very smart marketer. Doubt it? Just look at their position in the financial hierarchy these days!)

gypkap
gypkap

"The fact that it's written for a specific browser rather than html standards severely limits your systems. " That's deliberate in a lot of places. The CEO is enforcing standards. Furthermore, in big businesses, IT periodically pushes new versions of all applications, not just browsers.

fcleroux
fcleroux

Its called "responsible management". I do some work for a large Corp. that gets a 42K bill every month. They need to ensure the bills are as low as possible while still allowing their users to do their Jobs efectively. They are also responsible to make sure that company a nd legal rules and regulations are followed and security is always a concern. They are a Blackberry house, they can dissable any phone at any time. They can also control what apps get installed on the phones and what Web sites users can visit. All in the name of security. This is also a productivity tool. Did I mention employees shouldnt be wasting their time Texting with friends, or playing games or watching videos all day. Of course end users all want this but in most cases it is not required in business. When it is required thats a different case. What would allowing a single or multiple iPhones to be introduced here. Would it make the users more productive? Would they call and talk faster. No. Would they save money by purchasing a cheaper phone, no the iPhone is mor expensive. Would they save money with cheaper plans. No, the iPhone almost always have more expensive plans. Would theu save money re-training IT supporting a new product, no. Would they need to buy all sorts of new tools to ensure that the new phone is as secure as the Blackberry. How would they control a corporate Blackberry internally like they do a Blacberry. Oh, they would not be anble to do it as the tools are not available. In the end this phone would make the users less productive, less secure and it would cost more? Why would ANY company want that? So why would the C Level execs get involved? When you are looking at 500K+ for phone bills alone per year plus hardware and support costs, it would be irresponsible of management NOT to get involved. This is not Micro Management but rather Corporate Management. Another company just introduced iPhones (with C Level Management Approval) to a select few employees that Require it as they are running an iPhone based web site. People that need access to the site or need to support the apps and the site now have iPhones.

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

then again, most infrastructure decisions aren't. Most of the time, senior administrators or IT directors go to CIO with three potential solutions, explain their recommendations, and CIO agrees or says let's choose option B instead.

gypkap
gypkap

It's called maintainability. If all workstations are the same, the techs only need to know how to deal with that workstation and its software. In a few places I've worked, the art and visualization departments used different workstations, like SGI, Sun, or lower priced Macs.

j-mccurdy
j-mccurdy

Enterprise would be stupid to go Apple. Apple does not have a problem phasing something out, and ending support for it, and it doesn't really have to be all that old. they did it with snow leopard on PPC processors, and they did it just to make it smaller, and so they would have fewer factors to take into consideration. And they have done it on a lot of other things. It's one reason their life is much easier than Microsoft's. But guess what, the enterprise doesn't really like to phase out things that still work just fine. They keep things in service for as long as possible, weather it's regarding hardware or software, while Apple does just the exact opposite. Could you imagine a business having hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in some Apple technology, and apple decides it's time to move on to something newer? Just because they want to make something prettier. And making things backwards compatible is such a hassle. Lets face it if making the old and the new work together, is going to be even the slightest bit difficult, Apple will make it obsolete in a heartbeat.

wirejockey
wirejockey

"They're adding more enterprise support with every update, but just not making a real goal of getting it into businesses." The above statement is exactly why every IT department (those that are not Apple centric) should lockout any and all Apple devices. Back in the mid 90's I was a second level desktop tech contracted to work at a large aerospace company that had about a 60/40 (PC/Mac) split in desktops. I was one of just a few techs with both PC and Mac experience. The Macs and their users, were the bane of our existence. It was no wonder that management was actively trying to eliminate them from that enterprise.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Ironically, a subjective claim unless "better" is a universal constant for all computer users.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

IE6 dependency is far from uncommon. I expect most places now have to go through the pain of testing against IE6/IE7 with very slow migrations to insure the webapp remains functional. From the user side, I've heard "we have to stay with IE6 because XYZ breaks if we upgrade to IE7 or later". I'm also speaking in general terms. IE6 is a reality that businesses have to deal with. It's just not something a company should be proud of being limited by or trying to remain IE6 compliant when there are better cross-browser ways to do things now.

gypkap
gypkap

However, at the place I worked at the time, the official browser was pushed (say IE6 to IE7) to all workstations at the same time. No other browsers like Firefox or Opera were allowed (yes I missed Firefox). That was just the way they did things. Yes, the programmers managing the standard pushes had to make lots of changes behind the scenes before a push happened. Security changes only were pushed when the push happened. There was a firewall between us droids and the real world, that probably took care of most of the malware.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I don't know if we're actually talking about the same subject. Yes, any software in a business can be replaced. Newer replaced older if it supports the business better. That's not the focus here. You write or buy an IE6 specific webapp for your business. Budgets are invested in this purchase. To access it, you have to have IE6 on the workstations because it specifically uses IE6 only features that break against IE7 or non-IE browsers. Now IE6 is no longer getting patches and it's existing vulnerabilities are well known. You can't easily install multiple versions of IE and your users are familiar with IE6 due to so much time within the webapp so what do they browse the internet with? The earlier decision to use IE6 specific features now opens your entire business up to attack through the abismal IE6 security model. What's worse, you have all the original money invested in this webapp that imposes a single browser brand/version which further imposes a specific OS on all your workstations. You can't just do a cold cutover because management is still depreciating the webapp. You can't continue to develop it yourself because replacing the IE6 specific parts entails enough that you'll end up doing a rewrite to fully replace the webapp. Your servers and workstation platforms are dictated by that webapp so the cross platform benefit of the webapp is negated. Ask web developers who now still have to build a site for modern browsers then trick it into working with IE6 how awesome IE6 is still have to code against.

gypkap
gypkap

Large offices want software that always works. They don't want their users making up software unless that's their job (like mine was at the time). The legacy stuff that no longer works gets dumped, replaced by better software. So it goes...

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

That's exactly the issue. If it was written for IE6 and/or ActiveX non-standards then your hamstrung for future software choices and upgrades. You can't move to a more secure browser or potentially even later versions of IE. You have to overhaul the back end or leave your users exposed to well known security flaws in IE6. We have code written both ways here. What's written to browser standards doesn't care what OS or browser flavor or version is viewing it. A little tweaking for IE6 rendering inconsistencies but that's it. The legacy stuff written for IE6 has no upgrade path and behaves very badly with anything not IE6.

wirejockey
wirejockey

Excellent observation. I've been away from Macs for so long I forgot that angle, but it's so true.

wirejockey
wirejockey

I'm serious, how does the use of Macs reduce your support cost over any other system? It has been my experience in the past that Macs are much more expensive to support.

hauskins
hauskins

It is now 2010. I have converted our administrative support staff entirely to Macintosh. It has reduced our support cost considerably. We use Windows where we need to and fill in the rest with Linux.

Editor's Picks