Umm, that's not what I said. What I said was that Apple operates in a world in which most customers will "let it slide". See the parent for examples. But that _doesn't_ cut it in most corporate environments. If you've told me X is going to do Y, it sure as hell better do Y or there's 10 other vendors waiting to replace you.
"totally different marketing approaches, totally different primary target demographics, totally different history of corporate VIP shmoozing, really a totally different type SW/HW."
How in the _world_ is that at all in disagreement with what I'm saying? Apple markets itself to be 'cool'. Apple "hype" is substantively different than HP "hype". Being 'cool' means you're only accountable to keep being 'cool'. Hyping reliability, while perhaps still hype, is an expectation of the system. That's, for instance, why Apple stopped pushing the "just works" line for the Xserve. Too many people pointed out too many times that, in fact, it doesn't 'just work'. Apple "hyped" in a new direction, and they got burned for it.
Sorry, I had read your comment to mean that Apple was failing to gain traction in the corporate arena due to being hype instead of substance, versus the no-hype-all-delivery corporate vendors.
My experience with most corporate vendors is that they are 90% hype, old-boy-network, shmoozing, or a "safe bet". In general I'd rather use an Apple product than a more mainstream corporate vendor product, assuming they're solving the same need.
So my apologies, I'd mis-interpreted your post.
I will however take issue with the veracity of this: "But that _doesn't_ cut it in most corporate environments. If you've told me X is going to do Y, it sure as hell better do Y or there's 10 other vendors waiting to replace you."
I can't tell you how many times I've seen vendors who have caused week long delays, production system outages, failed uptimes, breech of contract, unreliable hardware (not just a single box, but an entire line), buggy software, and the consequences are.... an apology on a con-call. "Oh we can't replace them, it's a corporate standard" or "well, our contract with them is another 3 years, so..." or "replacing their system would cause too much disruption". I've seen a totally useless, misleading, etc... vendor replaced just once in 10 years in enterprise environments.
Quite frankly I think that is one of the reasons companies love targeting large corporations. It's slower to get in, but once you're in, it's almost impossible to be fired by your client. A home PC user can ditch a phone, computer, mp3 player, etc... a million times easier than a large corporation can replace a vendor who has a 5 year contract, whose SVP golfs with your CEO, who has 5,000 products in place in your org, that 5,000 people have been trained on, that have to be uninstalled by trained folks, and hauled off by union labor, etc...
How often have you really seen a vendor to a large corp being replaced versus the number of times they've failed to deliver?
Comments
Umm, that's not what I said. What I said was that Apple operates in a world in which most customers will "let it slide". See the parent for examples. But that _doesn't_ cut it in most corporate environments. If you've told me X is going to do Y, it sure as hell better do Y or there's 10 other vendors waiting to replace you.
"totally different marketing approaches, totally different primary target demographics, totally different history of corporate VIP shmoozing, really a totally different type SW/HW."
How in the _world_ is that at all in disagreement with what I'm saying? Apple markets itself to be 'cool'. Apple "hype" is substantively different than HP "hype". Being 'cool' means you're only accountable to keep being 'cool'. Hyping reliability, while perhaps still hype, is an expectation of the system. That's, for instance, why Apple stopped pushing the "just works" line for the Xserve. Too many people pointed out too many times that, in fact, it doesn't 'just work'. Apple "hyped" in a new direction, and they got burned for it.
Sorry, I had read your comment to mean that Apple was failing to gain traction in the corporate arena due to being hype instead of substance, versus the no-hype-all-delivery corporate vendors.
My experience with most corporate vendors is that they are 90% hype, old-boy-network, shmoozing, or a "safe bet". In general I'd rather use an Apple product than a more mainstream corporate vendor product, assuming they're solving the same need.
So my apologies, I'd mis-interpreted your post.
I will however take issue with the veracity of this: "But that _doesn't_ cut it in most corporate environments. If you've told me X is going to do Y, it sure as hell better do Y or there's 10 other vendors waiting to replace you."
I can't tell you how many times I've seen vendors who have caused week long delays, production system outages, failed uptimes, breech of contract, unreliable hardware (not just a single box, but an entire line), buggy software, and the consequences are.... an apology on a con-call. "Oh we can't replace them, it's a corporate standard" or "well, our contract with them is another 3 years, so..." or "replacing their system would cause too much disruption". I've seen a totally useless, misleading, etc... vendor replaced just once in 10 years in enterprise environments.
Quite frankly I think that is one of the reasons companies love targeting large corporations. It's slower to get in, but once you're in, it's almost impossible to be fired by your client. A home PC user can ditch a phone, computer, mp3 player, etc... a million times easier than a large corporation can replace a vendor who has a 5 year contract, whose SVP golfs with your CEO, who has 5,000 products in place in your org, that 5,000 people have been trained on, that have to be uninstalled by trained folks, and hauled off by union labor, etc...
How often have you really seen a vendor to a large corp being replaced versus the number of times they've failed to deliver?