This used to be true, but not so much anymore. Now a days, I get more calls from my friends with macs than PCs.
PLEASE READ: THIS IS MY OPINION. KEEP YOUR TROLLING AND FLAMING TO YOURSELF. MY OPINION DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF TIM COOK, THE APPLE CULT, THE DIE HARD APPLE FANS, ANDROID FANS, OR TAYLOR SWIFT.
The primary issue is that there are various "factors" to cost of ownership... There is the cost of the hardware, there is cost of software, there is cost of user training, there is cost of resolving issues that are "user issues", there is reliability of hardware (and software) and so on.
Every home user is different, and a particular home user could buy a "lemon" mac which constantly has problems... which will translate to Macs being more expensive.
Similarly, an unexperienced Mac user who has only used PC's may be lured into buying Anti-Malware software for their Mac, thus adding up the price, when in fact they usually won't need to.
Lastly, an unexperienced Mac user may consult professional assistance to help them solve problems because they've messed things up while they attempt to learn their way round a new system.
In any case, the point being is that a typical home user isn't really qualified to make such statements in an authoritative manner because the margin of error in such a low sample would make such a statement wholly statistically meaningless. While it may be valid that *you* have found Macs to be more expensive overall, there will almost certainly be others who find the opposite to be true.
IBM have many thousands of users, many thousands of machines, have budgets that they can measure against etc... Their statement will absolutely be true for users in a corporate environment because the numbers they are talking about will even out any issues across the whole group.
[doublepost=1477080767][/doublepost]
That depends on what PC you buy.
My company issues both PC laptops and Mac laptops.
Users are issued these for a 3 year period before they are refreshed.
The ThinkPads we use last just as long, if not longer than the Macbook Pros.
We dropped Dell as an option because those were barely lasting a year.
Absolutely... And this is why all of these "total cost" type articles should be taken with caution. The facts may well bear our in IBMs case, and it can be reasonably assumed that companies that are similar might get the same results.
But not every company operates in the same way that IBM does so other companies will find they get different results.
The point to remember is that there are many smaller businesses that say only have maybe 5-10 Macs in a sea of PC's... In those cases, then Macs are likely to cost more than PCs as there will be a "ramping up" cost to train IT staff on the relatively few Macs, and costs of software like Casper Suite etc won't scale well for such a small number of Macs.
But clearly, the evidence is there that on a larger scale, then Macs may well for many enterprises be more cost effective than PCs.
