Apple: 'Enterprise' is as enterprise does

Is Apple an enterprise software or hardware company? That's the question Gartner's Nick Jones asks, ultimately answering with "you have to have a pretty relaxed definition [of enterprise] before Apple fits it."

"Enterprise" is defined by the company you keep.

It strikes me, however, that "enterprise" isn't something you define. It's just what gets used within the enterprise.

With this definition in mind, Apple clearly fits the "enterprise" moniker, whether Apple wants it or not. As BusinessWeek reported back in 2008, the Mac is finding its way into enterprise computing, with or without the IT department's blessing. Ditto the iPhone.

Is it somehow less enterprise because the CIO didn't issue a policy giving permission?

Maybe "enterprise" means something more than "gets used a lot within the enterprise." In fact, Jones points out a few reasons he, personally, doesn't feel Apple is an enterprise vendor:

Apple does the bare minimum for enterprises, they aren't deeply committed to security, management, road maps, low TCO and so on. And they don't open up the architecture of iPhone enough for third parties to fill the holes.

But, again, is this really how we should define "enterprise?"

It reminds me of the criticisms leveled at open-source software early in its adoption. Originally Linux, for example, wasn't considered "enterprise grade" or "enterprise ready," presumably because it didn't meet Jones' hurdles above.

Now, however, Linux is considered an essential enterprise technology. What changed? Nothing...except adoption.

Here's a test for Jones: while Gartner pooh-poohs Apple's iPhone as an enterprise mobile device, perhaps for a variety of good definitional reasons, will it hold to such a rationale once the iPhone's market share within the enterprise dwarfs that of Windows Mobile, which has lost a third of its market share since 2008?

Seriously, at some point it won't be enough to listen to Microsoft's Ray Ozzie deprecate the iPhone's enterprise credentials because its 100,000-plus applications are "not very deep" and lack the "thousands of man years" that have gone into the applications that run on Windows. It won't make sense. Why? Because no matter how "enterprise grade" those Windows Mobile applications are, few within the enterprise are using them.

Enterprise is as enterprise does. Would you rather work for the company that builds software for the enterprise, or would you prefer to work for the company whose software gets used by the enterprise?

If you can have both, great. But it's silly to say Apple isn't an enterprise company simply because it sells to the enterprise without even trying.

[Splashes]

Gartner is an example of a company desperately trying to manufacture a need for itself.

[Random_Walk]

I'm thinking that Gartner needs a new sugar daddy in the mobile space, since Windows Mobile (and the pimping thereof) likely won't pay the bills for much longer... especially if (if) WinMo 7 flops and there's no marketshare left for Microsoft.<br /><br />It's not like they have any stellar track record in predicting trends or anything...

[Splashes]

Huh? You mean Gartner's prognosticative ability is something less than stellar? Aren't you being a little harsh?<br /><br />I mean, sure, Gartner suggested, back in October '06, that Apple abandon the computer hardware business and license Mac OS X to Dell -- a suggestion they made two days before Apple reported record 4Q results.<br /><br />And of course, back in August '06, Gartner predicted that "Vista will be the last version of Windows that exists in its current, monolithic form. Instead, Microsoft will be forced to migrate Windows to a modular architecture tied together through hardware-supported virtualisation."<br /><br />And yes, Gartner predicted, back in July '07, that "critical malware aimed at the iPhone will appear within weeks of its release."<br /><br />And it's true that Gartner predicted, back in 2002, that by 2008, "the typical desktop computer will have 4 to 8 CPUs running at 40 GHz, 4 to 12 gigabytes of RAM, 1.5 terabytes of storage, and 100-Gb LAN technology. By 2011, processors will clock at 150 GHz, and 6 terabytes of storage will be common."<br /><br />But other than that, Gartner's predictions have been pretty dang solid.

[Super2online]

Enterprise is what enterprise does, not what people do. Employees can bring in anything they want and use it as long as they get away with it. However, that doesn't make it Enterprise.

[Random_Walk]

"Employees can bring in anything they want and use it as long as they get away with it. "<br /><br />A lot of how Windows got into the Enterprise in the first place began a very long time ago, as some employees, and small departments in large corps, brought Windows in to the LAN, usually against the (then mainframe-based) "enterprise" regulations set forth by then MIS departments of the time.<br /><br />Evolution is weird that way...

[Michichael]

I'm mildly amused that "The Open Road" a blog about open source is praising one of the most closed and restrictive hardware/software combinations out there. 'm just saying. These are questions we should ask. :P

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

Open source is about open software. not about hardware. apple works and has created numerous open source projects. They tout their open source BSD kernel for their server OS. As well as they show off all the open formats they use for their server's services (though open source and open formats are different).

[FellowConspirator]

Much of OS X is open source, so I suppose that's the connection.

[Matt Asay]

Guilty as charged. I'm not religious about open source, and love my Mac (and OS X, and iLife, and...). But I also love Handbrake, Adium, and other open-source software that runs my Mac life. The two go well together, and Apple uses a TON of open source in its products (like that search function within iTunes...yep, it's Lucene/Solr).

[toddbernhard]

You know what else is "enterprise"?<br /><br />Toilet paper.<br /><br />After all, "It's just what gets used within the enterprise."<br /><br />I love Apple, have a ton of their products, develop for the iPhone, etc. But as long as Apple prides itself on a secretive roadmap, serious enterprises cannot trust their workplace and server platform to such a consumer-oriented gadget company. As a CIO, I would want to know plans for a beefier Xserve, for RAID arrays, for upgradeable desktops (under $2,000), netbooks, and more before I embraced Apple as an Enterprise provider.

[Jeremy Chappell]

Oh you were so nearly on to something! As a CIO I don't give a fig about the things you care about I care about the following:<br /><br />1) How long is an Apple product lifecycle?<br />2) How far in advance will Apple let me see the next OS upgrade so I can test my apps on it?<br />3) What commitment do Apple have to this or that product I might deploy?<br />4) What's the road map?<br /><br />I care about continuity - that's key. Typically Enterprise computers don't get upgraded, they get replaced. There are other questions but I think Apple have answers, the ones I've given are those I think still need clarification. I'd additionally like to see a robust replacement for EOF in the Cocoa APIs.

[Random_Walk]

1) typically 4-5 years; remember, there's hardware involved, too. No idea how far one can stretch AppleCare, though... the dual G5 was the longest I kept any given Mac (5 years), and it's still eligible.<br />2) an ADC Select or Premier sub (think "TechNet") would let you get hold of the betas with a decent lead-in time... just like Windows.<br />3) Commitment - pre or post? Pre, they have stuck with promised improvements/additions to a tee (by comparison, have you seen WinFS lately? ;) ). Post, they've supported a given OS release for 4-5 years on average, and still do security updates for OSX 10.2 last I peeked.<br />4) Roadmap - get it from ADC. <br /><br />"Typically Enterprise computers don't get upgraded, they get replaced."<br /><br />You do realize you just threw out a huge (but infantile) argument that the Windows fanboys have been throwing around (you know, "OAMG you can't upgrade a Mac!!!111!one"). :)

[ikramerica--2008]

TCO of Apple is not high. It is actually quite low, when compared to like configured machines. But the myth is that TCO is high, so why should a research company like Gartner do research?<br /><br />But they are right that Apple doesn't focus on Enterprise. They focus on consumers, creative, education and research. And so far, it's been doing them well.

[Splashes]

There's a very good reason that IT departments resist Macs -- it's the TCO. Specifically, the TCO is way too low. Companies that run on Macs have need for far fewer IT employees, so resistance to Macs is easily explained as self-preservation.<br /><br />Think I'm exaggerating?<br /><br />http://www.cio.com/article/127050/Eight_Financial_Reasons_Why_You_Should_Use_Mac_OS/1<br /><br />Or just Google for "Mac TCO." It's common knowledge to anyone that doesn't have a vested interest in IT staffing levels. And Microsoft shills, of course.

[FellowConspirator]

@splashes: There's probably some truth to that...<br /><br />The company I work for is 100:10:1 Windows:OS X:Linux -- almost exactly. Linux workstations are generally used by the chemists and bioinformatics folks. The Macs are used by some commercial folks, but mostly by the scientists in research, and everyone else gets a Windows box. Mind you, that's at the desktop -- server-wise we're probably 3:1 Linux:Windows.<br /><br />For desktop support, we have 76:1 Windows:OS X allocated (namely because there's a single deskside support guy allocated for OS X support, and divides his time 3:1 Windows:OS X support). There is no desktop support allocated for the Linux workstations, they're managed by the Linux server admins. There are about 4:1 Windows:Linux server admins.<br /><br />So, at least for a large biotech company, Windows appears to be the cash-cow of employment. We hire more people per-system to manage Windows than either other platform by a dramatically large margin. That said, it's also in part because the researchers are typically more tech savvy than their counterparts in, say, legal or commercial, and the Windows servers typically host applications while many of the UNIX servers host computational services and infrastructure (except directory services, we use AD for that).

[MaggieRed]

Splashes expresses a very valid point.

[Random_Walk]

"So, at least for a large biotech company, Windows appears to be the cash-cow of employment. We hire more people per-system to manage Windows than either other platform by a dramatically large margin."<br /><br />I can confirm that - my Linux (and FreeBSD) machinery are mostly on autopilot, with the periodic check for security, and for kernel/glibc patches (kernel patches are the only ones which require a reboot, and glibc requires a very close eye for compatibility; everything else can kick over their respective services during the maintenance windows). I haven't had to bother with ESX (the OS) at all - except for the roughly annual upgrades and the occasional once-over just to see how they're doing. <br /><br />Windows OTOH? Constantly in there to fix something gone haywire, to reboot them on occasion (with or without patches - esp. the Citrix servers), and nail the occasional jello to a tree.<br /><br />No Macs to speak of yet (boss drank the koolaid, what can I say?), but we are piloting iPhones for a couple of folks, and I expect that to spread like wildfire once we're done (users in the upper echelons will get to pick, Sales will all get them anyway, and everyone else will be last to get the option).<br /><br />Without Windows, I wouldn't need to scream for more FTE (it's tight in here - me, two junior admins, a network admin, and two help desk guys for 1500 employees). By comparison, my previous position was 100% Linux, and I was both sysadmin and user support for the ~400 people (mostly programmers and EE's) in my local Group... and I was in slack mode a good share of the time.

[jasonlackey]

It is amazing the number of stories and excuses you hear from IT people about why you can/shouldn't use the best possible technology. Reminds me of dating, nothing but Stop, No and Don't. <br /> <br />Fortunately when something is so good that even the corner office likes it, IT is easily over-ridden, which is exactly what has happened with the iPhone.

[renGek]

There is a difference between the best hardware and what is practical. In most cases just because someone manufactured a really good piece of hardware doesn't mean it will succeed nor does it mean its better for your business. In the corporate environment its about licensing deals, support deals, warranty terms and quarterly revenue. You can build a computer that can let you move water with your mind and it won't necessarily replace your work environment because it may take years to incorporate it. No company would risk that kind of inactivity. In a lot of cases you can't just do one desktop a week and in a year go "ta da, we're done". In most cases you have to do massive rollouts in stages and its just not practical.

[rob90278]

I wonder what Apple's IT department would say about how "Enterprise" the hardware and software is?

[KeithCu]

Linux has been ready for use in enterprises for a long time. Just ask Red Hat.<br /><br />Apple might be usable in enterprises today, but I wouldn't want to spend that kind of money. It is a closed, limited platform. If you want to go the closed platform route, Windows/PC make sense. If you want the open platform, Linux makes sense.

[solitare_pax]

On the other hand, you can run Linux, or Windows on a Mac; and the hardware/software combo is pretty solid, so you cut some major IT costs there; and on the cheap side, you can get the Mac Mini which uses less power and takes up less space than a generic PC.<br /><br />But - like the Compugraphix users of old, most IT departments won't dare look at something different lest it render them obsolete.<br /><br />So sad.

[rapier1]

Its not so much about the desktops but the servers. I don't like Apple's server offerings and feel that generally a unix solution fits our needs better. In some cases we will deploy window servers or clusters. We have not and I don't believe we have any plan to deploy OS X based servers in the next 3 to 5 years. One of our main issues is that we don't feel that their network stack is as performance driven as it needs to be. It's not an issue for some people but we deal with 1Gb to 40Gb networks to transfer terabytes of data. So what might seem a minor issue to some people is a major issue for us.

[Random_Walk]

The real funny part is, the underlying *nix architecture is packed to the rafters with enterprise-grade goodies... you just have to look past the GUI to find them.

[saracen25]

I've worked for three companies in the top 25 of the Fortune 500, and another in the top 200. the only place I've seen Apple adopted by the enterprise is in the marketing department.<br /><br />The only exception to this is the iPhone at companies that have allowed people to use their own phone to receive email (and then, only when it became able to integrate with Exchange.).<br /><br />Unix, Windows, and yes, Linux are enterprise technologies.<br /><br />Until you see wide spread adoption of OSX or its replacement and large scale implementation of OSX Server and Xserver at large enterprises Apple is and will remain primarily a consumer business.

[Splashes]

By your logic, the reason marketing departments don't use Windows is because Windows "isn't graphics technology," the reason iPods have 70%+ of the music player market is because Zune "isn't music technology," and the reason WinMob is going down in flames is because it "isn't mobile technology."

[renGek]

@splashes. Nowhere does saracen25 mentions anything about marketing department = graphics technology. Thats a nice little leap you made in logic. You mind as well say apple = better graphics = enterprise = starship enterprise. Thats family guy logic.<br /><br />Marketing is more than just graphics you know. In fact, most of marketing has nothing to do with technology. Its PR. Its spin. Its shiney and oohs and ahs and not necessarily substance.

[technewsjunkie]

Steve Jobs isn't interested in the making computers for Big businesses, he's said as much throughout his being at Apple. He wants to make computers that are the best they can be in ease-of use and innovation, particularly creative applications.<br /><br />If and when someone succeeds Jobs at Apple, it may pursue the Enterprise actively rather than passively or with choices (licensing for instance) Businesses can't ignore. But that would also remove the<br />line that Apple and Microsoft have agreed to - that Apple won't compete for the Enterprise where Windows is the choice of Windows slaves.

[dbargen]

Sadly, you have it right. IT doesn't know Mac OS, for the most part. It being outside the MS education materials will keep it off of our desks until they either get a directive or employees need software that only works on the Mac platform. <br /><br />For instance, in our company of 500+, only 2 or 3 are granted the privilege of using a Mac as their main work machine. If those people have technical issues, where do they go? Our IT department can't get very far beyond the basics, so these users either have to find the answers themselves, or sometimes they ask me. <br /><br />There are plans in the works to move to a new software platform that will require new workstations for hundreds of us, but you can bet your ass there won't be any Macs in that purchase order.

[Otto Holland]

by Random_Walk November 19, 2009 4:28 PM PST <br />I'm thinking that Gartner needs a new sugar daddy in the mobile space, since Windows Mobile (and the pimping thereof) likely won't pay the bills for much longer... especially if (if) WinMo 7 flops and there's no marketshare left for Microsoft. <br /> <br />It's not like they have any stellar track record in predicting trends or anything... <br /> <br />That was a very stupid remark! Foolish at the core. Apple is not an enterprise but work very well in the enterprise. For your information, WIN7 will not and can't flop. It has sold more any any version of Apple so far in less than one month. <br /> <br />Enterprise is: Software that runs the backend. example: Windows 2008 server, enterprise and datacenter servers. Messaging servers (Exchange, Domino etc) Redhat, Oracle, DB2 etc. Hardcore multitasking backend stuff. Not to mention Mysql, Novell, IBM version software and a host of others. <br /> <br />It is about time people understand that Microsoft will not go under is a desktop software flop, they make very little money selling workstation software. If anyone wants to talk enterprise then look at Datacenter that cost $10,000 per processor and unlimited connections; over 64 TB RAM, hard drive space that takes so many zeros that one would have pain in the fingers just tp type that many. Think about one OS running a server farm of almost unlimited processing power and ARRAYS beyond the imagination of normal mankind. Stop the nonsense, read and understand before talking garbage. <br /> <br />I use hardcore stuff and I know what enterprise is. Try for yourselves.

[ckurowic]

Speaking of talking garbage, sounds like someone has some ego issues.

[Random_Walk]

Wow - did I pinch a nerve or something?<br /><br />"For your information, WIN7 will not and can't flop."<br /><br />Hint: I was talking about Windows Mobile 7, not the desktop OS. That's why I used the word "mobile" a lot. It would help if you knew what I actually wrote before you went off on a rant about it, you know? ;)

[JessicaInPink]

By far, this is the best CNET article that I have ever read!<br /><br />Kudos on a job well done!<br /><br />Other CNET writers take note, this is how you write an article!

[cvaldes1831]

Gartner is useless for anything except generating mindless pageviews.

[bananaphonerules]

" Why? Because no matter how "enterprise grade" those Windows Mobile applications are, few within the enterprise are using them" <br /> <br />Are you serious? I know heaps of companies using custom Windows Mobile apps; especially in the warehousing and logistics areas. <br /> <br />IPhone apps seem to be limited to entertainment or just plain comms. Nothing wrong with that but I wouldn't buy iPhones for truck drivers; I'd buy a rugged device.

[Random_Walk]

"I know heaps of companies using custom Windows Mobile apps; especially in the warehousing and logistics areas."<br /><br />List 'em.

[miniguy]

UPS, Fedex, BMW iDrive, Ford Navigation/Sync, US Army, the Gap. APPLE STORES UNTIL A SHORT TIME AGO.<br /><br />Windows Mobile is a crap product, even Ballmer admits it, but it's fairly easy to develop for, and more importantly, it's easy to deploy to, i.e. send a url to IE. With an iPhone, you have a single option, app store, and it's not your's you can't control it.<br /><br />The iPhone is a consumer device, with little or no enterprise features in it. Security is terrible, enterprise management features don't exist, the parts that do are bolt ons, see Active Sync support.<br /><br />What's the road map for iPhone OS, I know what it is for Blackberry and Windows Mobile, even Android, which is probably the long term corporate solution, but Apple will not allow those plans outside of a locked closet, so it is what it is.

[msalsbury]

@RandomWalk: <br /> <br />For a while, a computer company named Apple was using Windows Mobile for its point of sale solution in its retail stores. They stopped after people wondered why Windows Mobile was being used to sell iPhones and Macs... <br /> <br />http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/10/ah-apple-finally-prepping-to-stop-using-windows-mobile/ <br /> <br />It's not that hard to find large organizations using WIndows Mobile. Here are a few others: <br />The U.S. Army <br />The U.S. Customs Service <br />The SAS Group <br />Sharp Electronics

[lmasanti]

quoted quote:<br />"Apple does the bare minimum for enterprises, they aren't deeply committed to security, management, road maps, low TCO and so on. And they don't open up the architecture of iPhone enough for third parties to fill the holes."<br /><br />OK, Apple just makes people/employes productive. But, CIOs do not care about "employes' prouctivity," just how the IT dept works less-

[myles taylor]

I was just thinking about this today because while at work campbell soup checked in several repairs. Macs. It's spreading, whether Apple likes it or not. My company has a whole business group and it's growing like crazy.

[Riquez-001]

What exactly does "enterprise" mean?<br />What is an "enterprise company" &#38; how is it different from a normal company?

[Canok]

You have brought up a very valid point - a point CIO and Gartner will defend to the death otherwise they will have not relevance or value.

[rapier1]

Depends on what you mean but generally its a matter of scaling. For example, if you have a company with 20 workers you can probably perform all of your administrative needs on a laptop using off the shelf software. You have limited needs and as such a limited system will work very well for you. An enterprise class company might have tens of thousand of employees scattered all across the globe. To handle administrative issues - such as payroll, expense accounts, reimbursements, PTO tracking, and so forth you have a vastly different set of needs. There are similarities in the task but the amount of data and the complexity of the situation requires different solutions. Quite a few companies actually have mixed needs - some aspects of their compute needs can be meet with OTS consumer grade solutions. However, other tasks will require enterprise class solutions that will provide them with the power and SLAs they require. <br /><br />You might wan to think of it this way - if all you have is a cable modem or fios you aren't going to need much more than cheap linksys router you can pick up at Best Buy. If you are handling hundreds or thousands of megabits of networking, managing your own AS, maintain your own route servers, and hundreds of VLANs you really are going to need a beefy enterprise class solution. <br /><br />So an enterprise class company is generally a company or organization that has significantly higher and more complex computing needs along with high reliability and methods for enforcing reliability standards via SLAs from vendors.

[smithjones]

@ random_walk <br /><br />lol, "list 'em"<br /><br />Yes, I saw mobile in your post as well, and wondered how Otto missed it when reading through his post with his Panties all up in a wad.<br />All good points here.<br />I tend to agree with a few of the posters here. IT depts. as a whole, tend to shy away from what they do not understand. (Human Nature) so change only comes when it has to. I had a similar experience with my IT department when I got my 1st gen iphone 2 years back.<br />I went to the lead and asked about support for exchange to my iphone, and the first thing out of his mouth was " why did you buy a piece of $**t phone we will never support?" I was a little dumbfounded by his statement, then realized he was a dipstick nerd, that was only secure in his own environment that he knew. Needless to say, the big boss got a iphone...., now we have exchange. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to go to the IT guy since the boss got a iphone, and tell him, " Why don't you go tell Joel what a piece of $**t phone he has." But self control in the office place is a fine line sometime not to cross. : )

[Random_Walk]

'tis true, 'tis true. :)<br /><br />(we're going through similar changes w/ the iPhone now - it went from being radioactive, to being implemented in very short order).

[rapier1]

I'd disagree with this - it often isn't that IT department are allergic to new technology as much as they don't want to make the support logistic more complicated. There is a significant difference between supporting a heterogenous environment versus a homogenous one. A homogenous environment is often far less expensive which is a significant issue when you are planning your support budgets. For example, where I work we support a large number of Macs, PCs, linux boxes, windows clusters, solaris, netbsd, freebsd, susa, centos, and other varieties of operating systems in desktop, server, laptop, and other form factors. Maintaining an equivalent set of capabilities across all of these operating systems can be challenging and often requires customized solutions to manage it. Even just maintaining the same version of SSH across all of them is problematic. So I wouldn't say that all IT departments are lazy as much as they are dealing with constrained resources and don't want to introduce additional complexities into the system.

[UrbanBard]

I keep getting irritated at the use of the word "Enterprise." What does it mean? Is it every form of government and business market? If so, then Apple is interested in only a portion of Enterprise and avoids the rest like the plague. <br /><br />Apple seems interested in the Small to Medium sized Business market and the servers which would be sold to them. These articles constantly get things wrong because Apple finds that government and Big Business organizations which have IT departments would demand advanced planning that would screw up Apple's consumer marketing. <br /><br />Also, Apple seems uninterested in providing service contracts for 24/7 hardware repair. As well, Apple does not want to sell huge orders where the IT department can shave pennies off the contract per computer by leaving out features. <br /><br />Apple feels better off leaving this market to Wintel. But, this cannot keep employees from sneaking Apple products into companies. Employees often detest the computers which their IT departments provide them.

[miniguy]

This is exactly right. No, Apple is is not, an probably has no designs on, the enterprise market. The fundamental difference isn't hardware or software, its planning and roadmap. It's not like Apple doesn't have them, but they don't share them. Its good for them, especially as a consumer focused company, a big product/marketing push every year with some WOW products gets people to buy their products, at a premium price with premium margins. <br /><br />In an enterprise environment you have to plan 3-5 years out, and you just can't do that with Apple products. You don't know what the big next thing is, you can't do integration testing, heck, with an iPhone you can't even distribute apps that aren't through the store without jailbreaking it, and do you really want to have supporting iTunes part of your business? If you spend 3-6 months doing that testing, then the new "ithing" is out, and everyone wants that. <br /><br />They laid off their enterprise sales team last year, so if you want to order 10k new Macbook Pro's, you go to a reseller, the web site, or an Apple store? Also, if I'm buying 10k units, I want a price break, more than the 10% that apple offers now for the education or corporate markets. As an enterprise, I probably have a MS enterprise agreement, silly but most do, where I own perpetual licenses for the OS, Office, and other things. So when I call Dell, I can ask for a Latitude blah de de blah, get a fat discount, and pull the OS licensing costs out of the unit price, and that could save $300 a unit, and if your talking 10k units a year, well, that's enough to get me a raise, ha. I'll get 17" pro's or Airs, or iPhone's for the PITA execs, but everybody else gets a plain old windows machine. I'm also buying cheap desktops for call centers, servers, printers, etc, so my discount continues to mount as I go to a single source vendor, and that doesn't even talk about service and support.<br /><br />I'm the enterprise strategy and architecture director for a 70k user shop, and this is exactly what I run into every day. I'm also an Apple shareholder, writing this on a Macbook Pro, with a Macbook, a Mini, and 2 iPhones, so I'm definitely not anti Apple, but I don't think I want Apple to mess with their business to cater to a market that they really aren't positioned to compete in.<br /><br />I've seen a few companies, IBM in particular, who've moved to a model where they issue the employee $750 a year, and you bring what you want. It's an option, but IBM's a, theoretically speaking, tech company and this is an opt in program, so the issues you have with non sophisticated users is largely absent, "sorry sir, your netbook's wifi doesn't support our Cisco wireless encryption dongly doo, you should have asked". Could you imagine what would happen if you did that in a health care company?