<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Why Steve Jobs hates the enterprise ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T08:57:20-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Why Apple doesn't want to open to the enterprise]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3481769]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3481769]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NicoJuicy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:32:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[SSH, Samba, VNC]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332988]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[how are you trying to &quot;connect&quot; 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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332988]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, Jobs is arrogant.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332848]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332848]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:01:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;every objective person knows it&quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332796]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ironically, a subjective claim unless &quot;better&quot; is a universal constant for all computer users.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332796]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:50:44 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[No, but...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332733]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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!)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332733]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[glenstorm_98@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:48:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[he's Apple's CEO]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332455]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Do you see the CEO of ford advertising that GM makes a better product?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332455]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:05:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Why Steve Jobs hates the enterprise]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332454]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Steve Jobs is such an arrogant S.O.B. that he can't consider anything better than Apple.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3332454]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[stand3]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:00:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I suspect the same for most places]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3323716]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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 &quot;we have to stay with IE6 because XYZ breaks if we upgrade to IE7 or later&quot;.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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3323716]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:16:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I didn't say IE6 was awesome...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3323662]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3323662]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:01:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[are we both talking about IE6 specific webapps?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3322971]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3322971]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:10:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You're seeing the light.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3322732]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3322732]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:42:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[exactly.. new versions of software]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3322465]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3322465]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:10:40 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[There are reasons...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3321977]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;The fact that it's written for a specific browser rather than html standards severely limits your systems. &quot;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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3321977]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:43:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[There are reasons for having one kind of desktop]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3321853]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3321853]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:48:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Why Steve Jobs hates the enterprise]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3319690]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3319690]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Vaporthug]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:18:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Why Steve Jobs hates the enterprise]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318477]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318477]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ravi@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 06:42:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;The foolish shunning of Linux today is largely a CEO thing.&quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318446]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318446]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:42:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Two Different Markets.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318444]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Enterprise buys (for instance) 25000 Androids, all the same. It's done so the IT department only has to deal with one kind of pocket computer.On the other hand, Steve Jobs encourages the consumer to &quot;think different&quot; and buy an iPad. Furthermore, his marketing encourages the consumer to upgrade all the time. Not what IT wants at all...In the enterprise, Android wins.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318444]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gypkap@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:36:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[HOLD ON THERE, JOBS]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318139]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[NOT SO FAST, JOBSNot so fast, Jobs.Does Apple make iPhone demonstration products available to business? I'd like to sign up as an iPhone developer but I can't find a way to acquire an iPhone without also purchasing an AT&amp;T service contract.My point is--how are corporate IT departments to evaluate the iPhone? Do they have to wait until somebody on the staff buys one, or does Apple provide loaner models? If it's the former, how much experimentation and testing is going to occur on an employee's personal phone?Let's say we want to evaluate the iPhone and develop internal applications for our business. How can we get developer phones without also buying AT&amp;T contracts? Also, the developers have to have Macs because you can't develop native iPhone apps without a Mac. How about I just want to do an evaluation? Does corporate IT have to buy an iPhone, an AT&amp;T contract, purchase a Mac, pay the corporate iPhone developer registration fee just to do some pilot projects? Let's say we find the iPhone unsuitable. Do we have to pay the phone service cancellation fee?Jobs doesn't make it easy. And with Jobs, your options are take it or leave it, because it Jobs way or no way.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3318139]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jefferyp2100]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 06:24:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Responsible management]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3317881]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Its called &quot;responsible management&quot;.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.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332731-3317881]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[fcleroux]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:52:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

