Apple has never had a strong lobby in corporate IT departments. At
most there were a few enthusiasts, if that.
A simplified history
Most of the reasons for this are PC history. Managers bought
Apple IIs (with 48k
RAM) with VisiCalc to do spreadsheets in the late 70s. Many IIs were not
even declared as computers so that the managers could avoid involving
IT departments.
This market dried up when the IBM
PC arrived. Managers were still buying directly, but they started
demanding connections to the corporate computers so the data could go
straight to the PCs.
The IT departments saw their chance. They owned the data, the
relationship with IBM (mainframes ruled), and could say how and what
PCs were going to be connected to their network. They regained control
except where divisions had already put together an infrastructure. Once
IT departments worked with PCs, they realised just how much support was
needed. This allowed IT departments to expand. Since corporate status
depended on department size, this was a good thing (for them).
When Macs arrived, they didn't fit into this at all. They needed
less training and less support from the IT department.
Fortunately for IT departments, Apple and the dealer network knew
little about selling to the corporate world. If Apple had known, Macs
would now be the standard. In those days most IT departments were well
known for delivering systems late, over budget, and not quite fitting
user requirements.
Twenty years on, most IT departments are split between Windows
people and Unix people. Nearly all the really powerful systems are
Unix-based. Even in the mainframe world, where MVS still rules, 11% of
IBM's last quarter sales were for Linux.
IT departments are now under pressure to cut costs. If they don't,
more and more companies are prepared to outsource computing
support.
Most of the current IT Directors come from the large systems world
and are used to more security than is available in Windows. They can't
be happy with the time spent on applying security patches to Windows
servers, the time required to support PCs, and the XP pricing
structure.
The time is ripe for Apple to start working directly - and through
others - with IT departments.
The other Unix Vendors
Sun has been the dominant player for the past few years. With
the fall off in dot-com business and, more recently, cuts in the
finance sector, Sun has been bleeding red ink. This year it was forced
to lay off staff for the first time. However, it is still the leading
Unix vendor and has very strong relationships with the major software
companies like Oracle.
The low end Sun Blade at $995 competes in price with PCs. Sun kept
clear of Linux until last year when it bought Cobalt, whose popular
Qube server caused Apple some naming problems. The new version of Sun's
operating system, Solaris 9, will contain Linux-friendly features. Last
week Sun announced it will sell x86/Linux PCs.
Sun will be using AMD chips, in a move to further establish itself
in the Linux market and to slow or stop any widespread adoption of
Intel's Itanium architecture. If
the latter works, Sun and IBM are best placed to benefit in the server
market, and it should help Apple in the workstation market.
IBM has been beating the Linux drum loudly for a couple of years and
has used Linux as a way of outflanking Sun. The Power4 (PowerPC) has
won major supercomputer bids and IBM has generally seen a rise in
market share with the latest offerings based on this architecture. It
has also hedged its chip position, in case Itanium and successors
become widespread, by porting its Unix, AIX.
IBM has been doing particularly well in the server
consolidation market. In this a large server or mainframe runs many
virtual servers and acts as a replacement for a considerable number of
low-end servers (usually Linux or Unix). As this can save considerably
on support manpower, this is one of the ways IT departments can cut
costs.
HP will be distracted for at least the next 12 months. Either
the takeover of Compaq goes ahead, in which case integration issues
will take up management time, or the takeover is voted down and a new
management team will be installed. HP helped Intel with the design of
the Itanium architecture and has been promoting it as the replacement
for HP's own PA-RISC. HP customers, though, will probably wait until
the takeover dust has settled before considering whether to adopt
it.
Compaq, too, is waiting to see what happens. Its own RISC
architecture, Alpha, was sold to Intel, so Compaq is hoping that
McKinley (the Itanium chip replacement due 3Q02) has the performance to
attract more customers. With the takeover, the limited future for Alpha
and the uncertain prospects of McKinley, Compaq Unix customers must be
looking at alternatives.
SGI probably has most to lose from any failure of Intel's
Itanium architecture. SGI has been weak financially ever since the
failed merger with Cray. Integration of the companies took management's
eye off the ball at a critical time, and SGI has lost money almost ever
since. While it still makes leading edge systems at the high end (for
example 512 MIPS processor based SMP systems) it has been promoting
Linux64/Itanium workstations. It may not now have the resources or the
customer loyalty to successfully launch a new range of workstations
based on a new architecture.
There has been talk about Apple buying SGI. There is no sound
commercial logic behind this. SGI has too many employees for Apple to
swallow comfortably. The leading edge graphics systems and SMPs are
MIPS based, and MIPS has a lot less secure future than PowerPC. SGI has
lost much of its Hollywood customer base, and in the last quarter it
sold a large portfolio of graphics Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
to Microsoft. Also SGI's current level of losses would leave Apple
struggling to make a profit.
Of the U.S. manufacturers, IBM and Sun are well placed, providing
Unix continues to hold its ground against Microsoft. Outside the U.S.,
Fujitsu (Fujitsu-Siemens in Europe), Hitachi, and NEC are important
vendors. However, with the exception of supercomputers, their major
Unix computers are based on U.S. technology.
Many of the systems are sold to smaller companies by Value Added
Resellers (VARs), together with their own software, software
customisation etc. As the industry moves increasingly towards Linux and
Solaris, VARs will no longer have such a high cost barrier to keep them
selling one manufacturer's computers.
Apple's opportunity
Apple owns the best user interface in the Unix world. This gives
Apple the chance to dominate a significant desktop market in
corporations.
Microsoft's refusal to allow dual-boot computers means that no other
OS can be installed on a PC that is sold with Windows installed. Unless
users are willing to spend much of the day rebooting, many Unix users
are forced to have at least two systems on their desktop - a PC for
company standard programs (Microsoft Office, etc.) and a Unix
workstation.
A Mac with OS X can replace these, leading to considerable savings
in hardware costs and IT support costs. The user also benefits from
much more space and not having to spend time transferring files between
the systems.
Also playing into Apple's hands is Microsoft's refusal to port
Office and other software to Linux. Until organisations are willing to
accept Star Office and/or Lindows gets off the ground, Linux can not
compete with OS X and Windows in the corporate desktop market.
Replacing two systems with a Mac should allow Apple to reestablish
its presence in large technology companies, such as Boeing, where Macs
used to be widely used. This time Apple can work with the IT department
instead of against it.
Some industries are already largely Unix. Clearly Apple has had its
eye on Bioinformatics for some time, with the appointment of Arthur
Levinson, CEO of Genentech to the board in August 2000. Recently
Genentech said it would buy 1000 iMacs and, Apple/Genentech announced a
version of BLAST optimised for OS X for protein and DNA
searches.
For industries like this, OS X gives companies an easy way to
standardise on Unix - or at least restrict Windows to enclaves like
accounting and therefore save money supporting a second OS.
Alliances with Sun and IBM are possible as Apple lacks a strong
server business.
Sun has been obsessed with Microsoft for years. Scott McNeely, Sun's
chairman, said, "the enemy of my enemy is also my friend." Using
Microsoft products on Apple to keep out Windows may well appeal. Last
week Apple, Sun, and Ericsson announced a marketing relationship for
using QuickTime to stream video to mobile phones.
IBM's PC business has been losing money for years. It has dropped
out of retail. It will keep selling PCs because of its Linux strategy,
but an alliance with Apple would cut the PC losses. Apple could also
agree to buy the PowerPC chips for these Macs from IBM.
As well as increasing the profits of IBM's Microprocessor Division,
this would give Apple a strong second source for G4s. Lou Gerstner, who
led IBM's comeback, is retiring soon, and this alliance would be a
strong move for his successor.
While Apple is exploring these alliances, it should also start
finding VARs. With the changes occurring at Compaq, HP, and SGI and the
general move to Linux at the server level, many VARs will be looking at
their options. Selling Macs isn't a high margin business, but selling
PCs with Linux is cutthroat.
Apple investors typically look at the effects of OS X on the user
base because the enthusiasm of current Mac users has kept Apple
profitable. With OS X, Apple can break out of its corporate niches
because it offers a cheaper alternative to Wintel/Unix users. Alliances
with major Unix Vendors and VARs will give Apple the corporate sales
force it has never had and can only afford to put into place to a
limited extent. 
