The Register points to a Gartner report that suggest that the iPhone may not be an enterprise device because of poor battery life, among other things.
We do not need the Gartner report to nitpick about details, to know that the iPhone is not an enterprise product.
The iPhone is a wonderful, groundbreaking, beautifully designed product, just like the first Macintosh was.
Businesses do not buy groundbreaking, beautifully designed products that give the impression they might be spending too much money, just like they didn’t buy the Macintosh. They will buy a good enough, slightly crappy phone that has a keyboard – the Blackberry.
[…] in Motion should be handing out the report to everyone. Web veteran David Galbraith says the iPhone will never be an enterprise product. “Businesses do not buy groundbreaking, beautifully designed products that give the impression they […]
As we have discussed, I do not agree with this argument — though I would not stick with a single product (the iPhone), but rather the change in the landscape of the class of devices that include Blackberrys and iPhones. The Blackberry will change because it must to compete with the potential the iPhone presents. Also, the current gen iPhone is not the device that will open the corporate world to Apple.
As to correlating early 80s lack of corporate adoption of the Mac to this — it is incorrect. Corporate unwillingness to adopt Apple computers had more to do with existing technology commitments and the future of distributing that technology to the desktop. IBM (and competitors) ruled this world of centralized computing, and from that the distribution of the tools to the desktop. Apple either had to develop the technologies to integrate to with this pre-existing model/investment (providing 3270 terminal emulation is not integration) *and* convince corporations that they would continue to improve the technologies that were defined by IBM, or stick with their enormous investments and grow within the world dominated by IBM and similar class technologies.
Note, too, that no corporation adopted PCs as PCs, per se. They implemented them as “smart” 3270 terminals (actually, they were not very smart) and ultimately as business document production systems that replaced typewriters or mainframe connected word processing systems. Wasting mainframe power on a word processor for 100s or 1000s of document producers is not an efficient investment in mainframe technology. Add to this the fact that these systems connected to the mainframe (not each other via appletalk) — the decision was a no-brainer.
One technology fit the existing eco-system. The other did not.