And I say, Go for that chili dog

Fist things first, we admire Charles Haddad. He writes intelligent columns in one of the most serious publications in the world, and he gets to do it about the Mac. Two things to be proud of.

But we frequently disagree with his arguments. Nothing bad in that :-).

But his column of this week (Macs and business just don’t mix) raises a real bone of contention. I think he’s seriously wrong, and a victim of a common misconception.

Once upon a time

Not so long ago, Macs were widely used in business. And not just in creative areas, mind you: I still recall the management consultants and accountants at KPMG, toting their black PowerBooks. I recall networks run on Unix-equipped Macs. And not exactly a few companies (from architectural studies to fashion houses) running on a strictly Mac-only infrastructure.

But the black PowerBooks went, and the networks became first Novell and then Windows NT. And slowly but surely, most companies outside of the most Mac-centered businesses turned to worship toward Redmond.

Does that mean Macs are no longer welcome in the corporate world? Well, that depends on why you think they left it... and in why they remain in the places where they do.

It’s not the cost of the computer, Mr Haddad

Mr Haddad states that the qualities the Mac is most renowned for are those that decide: “stunning graphics, stylish design, and ease of use -- are what corporate purchase managers value least. What they favor are cookie-cutter PCs at rock-bottom prices”.

He’s wrong. What corporate purchase managers seek (and I should know) is efficiency, not low cost. They will fight for rock-botton prices in whatever they are told to buy. But they won’t make the decision on what to buy: they get to choose the provider and haggle the price and conditions.

Let’s not mix our beans. The causes for the Mac’s exile from the corporate world are other. A few of them that come to mind:

- Doubts about the manufacturing company’s ability to survive.

- Lack of compatibility with middleware and network applications.

- Lack of specialized applications (clients for ERP and administrative applications, specially)

- Lack of any serious support and consulting arm to implement complex solutions based on their software and hardware, and to certify third parties’ knowledge.

- Lack of a serious commercial strategy for corporate markets.

We’ll study them one by one and see how they hold up today. I have reasons to believe that they are crumbling one by one. Let’s see if we agree.

a- Doubts about Apple’s ability to survive

In the present climate, and specially in the US, few industry analysts or corporate computing decision makers would question Apple’s ability to survive and thrive. They have made a striking turnaround that is based not just on stylish products but in hard-headed, efficient management. That shows. And the media repeat it constantly. And the people know. So this fact is not just corrected, but almost perfectly countered.

b- Lack of compatibility with middleware and network applications

Whether it was bad luck, competitive behaviour or lack of foresight, I don’t know. But the fact is that the Mac, and the applications that were used with it, got more and more isolated from the corporate networks. In the simplest form this implied the inability to exchange files with PC users due to incompatible file formats. Going down the line that became lack of access to modern groupware applications, and lack of access to network resources. This is what, in my opinion, killed off the Mac.

The consequence was a serious disadvantage for Macs is mixed-hardware companies (and most companies were mixing hardware, as less-value-added jobs could well be done with less-expensive Wintel boxes). That got many users ready for a switch... but even before, it got network administrators and systems planners against the Mac. It hugely complicated the support system, it was seriously limited, it wasn’t worth sticking to. So it only survived in those departments that fought for it... and then, frequently without access to the corporate collaboration tools. This describes the current situation quite well.

But things are changing, aren’t they? Microsoft can be counted upon (with a gentle legal nudging) to keep providing the essentials for a modern mixed-hardware network: a common file format (be that through Office or through the modern AppleWorks... or even through less-proprietary solutions) and specially a common middleware, in the form of Outlook. Most Microsoft competitors (Novell, IBM’s Lotus) are keen to enlist Apple users as potential purchase-drivers for their products, therefore making available their clients for the Mac platform. An the Mac itself is integrating better with the modern, TCP/IP based corporate networks thanks to Mac OS X.

The battle to regain first-class access to the network is not won, but the weapons are there, and getting better. No systems department can nowadays deny that they can give support to a Mac in the network... except on the grounds of their utter lack of knowledge of the Mac OS.

c- Lack of specialized applications

Corporates are run using a set of applications that are not commonly encountered outside them. JDEdwards, SAP, Oracle, IBM, CA, PeopleSoft, to name but a few, are household names because of a set of applications that are used to run the different departments of corporations, from personnel to manufacturing to accounting. They are not the only ones, as every industry and every country spawns lots of specialist developer companies... and even worse, the very customers tend to indulge in internal development. No computer may be used in an executive position if it won’t allow the user to access these applications... and of course, it can’t be used in administrative desks either.

This killed a lot of Macs too. First, because (again) the cheapest hardware was getting better access to those products. And second, because this was not casual: Microsoft was doing a serious, coherent effort to get developers to use their platform and development tools (Visual Basic and descendants), thus locking out other platforms. Just like Apple did when it started out, only better organized and more sustained. Many industries had dyed-in-the-wool Mac developers and stuck with specialist applications that did the job well for them, but the general corporation went for general products... and those had no client applications for Mac OS.

But that is changing in fundamental ways. First, there is a movement toward open standards and web access to those applications (and that opens the door to Mac users), pioneered by hard-core Windows users like MicroStrategy for efficiency reasons. Second, there is a very serious industry move away from Microsoft proprietary technology: most new corporate applications that appear on the market today are “J2EE compliant”, that is to say, platform-agnostic. That includes applications from Oracle, Documentum, BEA, and every other software giant that’s even remotely aware of who’s their potential competitor. They’re not eschewing Windows because they can’t, but they’re cutting the anchor with glee.

The fun part is, they don’t even know whether they’re Mac-compatible. One part of my job is to scout for interesting new corporate applications, and I come across J2EE products every day... and none of them ever mentions Mac OS X as a possible platform even though it evidently is. Why? Well, that’s Apple’s job not yet done ;-).

Which brings us to the recent news, also commented by Mr Haddad, about Apple’s hiring several of the many Indian software factories (set up during the bubble years to serve as development arms of companies and consultancies) to work on Mac OS X versions of software and, specifically, new Mac-compatible business applications. It’s a good move, though probably not the most profitable of the available range.

e- Lack of any serious support and consulting arm

Whatever people think, corporate decisions on which software to buy or implement are not often made by the corporate officers. They’re guided by consultants.

Linux’s only hope of survival at the high end of the corporate systems rests with IBM’s decision to support it. A company that’s half serious won’t trust their core systems to an OS they don’t fully understand or can’t administer properly... unless they can be persuaded to buy a support contract from a serious, substantial IT consulting company. Like Accenture, or Getronics, or IBM. And that goes for the Mac OS too.

We’ve repeated this argument till our throat ached. We’ve actually pursued the Spanish Apple delegation in search of information about this, and about Apple’s discreetest branch: the iServices. To no avail, yet. But we believe Apple’s moving (glacier-slow) in the right direction: iServices is not just in the business of implementing networks and doing small web consultancy and development work for Mac-dependent companies, but actually building the first step of any successful corporate software supplier: a certification procedure, complete with exams and training.

The missing part is still missing. I don’t know of any big consulting firm that will even admit to knowing that WebObjects is all about. Neither will they acknowledge the virtues of Apple’s splendid family of QuickTime products for a great number of uses. Or include Apple’s new solutions when discussing collaborative software for educational institutions. Apple’s got no serious partners, and that is deadly for its corporate credibility, as they can’t hope to build iServices into a full ITC consultancy any time soon. This, again, is Apple’s job not yet done. But at least they’ve begun and are walking in the right direction.

f- Lack of a serious commercial strategy for corporate markets

I believe Mr Haddad’s misconception about the Mac’s price being what keeps it out of corporate markets is already well countered above :-). Price’s not the issue.

And then again, it is. Because our respected Mr Haddad is twice wrong: Apple can undercut PC beige boxes. Perfectly well.

Look at the education market for an insight into what I mean. Apple’s adopted a serious strategy, with a clear idea of what that market wants (portables, cheap desktops, efficient network administration, collaboration tools and wireless networks) and who buys it. It has offered really impressive prices to big customers on iBooks; it has kept the CRT iMac G3 for educational users; it has pushed its difference for all it’s worth.

Apple can undercut anyone, if it can bundle value and aim it at the right customers. Make no mistake about that. Precisely because Apple’s margins on some markets and products are the highest in the industry, it can invest more in wrenching market share in others. It is already doing it. It can do it in the corporate space. And I don’t think it’ll take long in figuring our how.

To put it in a nutshell

Jobs’ best customers, back in NeXT, were corporates. Apple’s got all that NeXT had, and then some, with the only exception of credibility. This needs to be won with compatibility, applications, a serious link with IT consultants and integrators... and a clear business proposition toward the corporate buyers.

Mr Haddad likened the corporate market to “Some things (...) better left forsaken [like] a chili dog slathered with extra onions.“ I’d rather think about it as the key to long-term survival through serious market penetration. Apple knows it, and Jobs knows it better than most. Very slowly, the pieces for a corporate comeback are falling into place. Lots of things need to be done, and I believe I can spot a few mistakes, but the aim is the correct one.

Niches are nice. But they get cramped ;-).

[You can read other translated Macuarium articles at our English section.