IBM Says Macs Are Up to $543 Less Expensive Than PCs Over Time

[fischersd]

Exactly this. What IBM have done is make a stupid statement without giving us any real detail.

• So is this hardware or software?
• If software, were those Macs running Windows?
• Which mac and which PCs are they talking, I know that a cheap PC can be more than adequate and if it only actually cost $543 then the figures can’t possibly stack up?
• Etc. etc.

Let me guess, you're an accountant or work in business intelligence? Most people don't need a granular breakdown.

But, by my experience?

- hardware or software? - yes (both) and then some - but mostly in support costs. Mac hardware is more expensive up front, but you get to use it longer, so by the depreciation model, it costs less over time.
- If they're running windows on them, then there really wouldn't be a benefit. Nadda.
- Again, doesn't matter which end of the performance scale you look - Macs have a longer usability lifespan.

Edit: The key here is OS X/MacOS guys. Much more stable, fewer patches (and what, 2 trojans out there?)

 

[dewski]

I have a 2011 iMac i5 2.7ghz I just put an SSD in after doing some surgery and it's just as fast as my MacBook 12" and wives MacBook Pro. The hard drive was the bottleneck since not much has changed with processors for many years. I'm able to do Final Cut and Logic X with large amounts of media just fine.

The SSD upgrade is incredible. You have to experience it to believe it. I have a 2012 macbook pro and the ssd has renewed its lease on life. It is blazing fast and runs windows 10 incredibly. People at work are asking for macbooks with windows 10 to replace their brand new laptops after seeing mine.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I agree...there are so many different ERP systems that mac just doesn't integrate well with. Until there's easy integration with 95% of business systems, there's no way mac is going to become the business hardware of choice...as much as I'd like it to be....

I don't stay up to date on all the ERP/MRP platforms out there but those that I've followed have been moving to web based access. Products like MS' Dynamics AX have had enterprise portals for some time and the Dynamics 365 offering now has full web based interface. NetSuite has the same. Even big legacy players like SAP have tools to extend out to web based applications. This approach makes them platform agnostic even to mobile/tablet devices.

 

[ancelrick]

This used to be true, but not so much anymore. Now a days, I get more calls from my friends with macs than PCs.

Maybe you have more friends with Macs these days.

 

[solipsism]

[…]
- If they're running windows on them, then there really wouldn't be a benefit. Nadda.
[…]
Edit: The key here is OS X/MacOS guys. Much more stable, fewer patches (and what, 2 trojans out there?)

There's certainly less of a benefit in terms of TCO when not running macOS (when there are equatable macOS apps), but there can still be a distinct benefit to using Apple's HW over some WinOEM or building your own machines.

Here are three off the top of my head:

1. Being able to take it into an Apple Store if some HW doesn't seem to be functioning properly Id est, customer service and support.
2. Longevity of use due to durable HW and the ability to repurpose to less severe users that want to run macOS. It was only two years that I was still using the original flatscreen iMac with the round base as an iTunes Server. Still works, but finally wanted to get USB 3.0/GigE instead of using FW400/100BaseT.
3. Better resale value.

 

[wood1208]

That $543 savings is 1/3 the cost of Mac.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I have seen some white papers on how IBM is deploying Macs to their users. Here is the big key, there is no need for a tech to touch a Mac before the end user. Everything is automated. It probably takes less than 10 minutes to get the user to their desktop and then the user can install the software they need through the Jamf App Store.

Not even more than a few years ago, the idea of "managing" an Apple device was crazy. The reason IT departments resisted Apple devices was not because they hated Apple or were afraid of being replaced, it was because it was very difficult to manage Apple devices at a company level. Tools to deploy Macs were almost non-existist and did not scale very well. Plus the desire of Apple to make devices user friendly made protecting corporate data (and even corporate property) very difficult.

New Apple tools such as DEP and investment in back end MDM and Profile Management has made managing Apple Devices extremely easy. With DEP and Activation Lock I can ensure that a lost iPhone can NEVER be used by an unwanted person. Even if they were able to break the Activation Lock, the first thing the iPhone will do is check in the company MDM server. You can't bypass it. (And no, restoring the phone won't work.)

Using MDM and Profiles, I can setup your computer just based on your user ID. I do not have do any imaging, I just start with factory O/S and run the standard macOS setup.

Very cool. Quick question that you may have an answer to. My partner had a work provided MacBook that had an apple ID assigned to the organization that had been used to install some Mac app store items. This made it impossible (from what we could tell) to directly update those apps. Did this organization just screw up by using an apple ID in that manner or is this a limitation of Apple devices staged in bulk?

 

[H2SO4]

Let me guess, you're an accountant or work in business intelligence? Most people don't need a granular breakdown.

But, by my experience?

- hardware or software? - yes (both) and then some - but mostly in support costs. Mac hardware is more expensive up front, but you get to use it longer, so by the depreciation model, it costs less over time.
- If they're running windows on them, then there really wouldn't be a benefit. Nadda.
- Again, doesn't matter which end of the performance scale you look - Macs have a longer usability lifespan.

Edit: The key here is OS X/MacOS guys. Much more stable, fewer patches (and what, 2 trojans out there?)

So you’re gonna eat it up with no back up? Great. Just the kind of person IBM needs to employ. Actually let me add this;
:^)
Anyway to the other points, as someone who can also rely on their own experience, With the exception of my last Dell that was return to sender. As much as I dislike Windows, it works great.
You run windows if you need Windows only software, that should be simple to see surely?
Also I disagree with the usability lifespan. The vast majority of the very old computers I come across in both private and commercial domains are PCs.

 

[longofest]

That's five systems engineers. They have a much larger support team.

The article said "admin"... that to me says support. I'd be much more willing to believe system engineers.

 

[ancelrick]

IBM just wait for the Apple Tax to kick in with the new Macbooks revealed next week.

I think you missed the part that mentioned a 4 year usage cycle, new macs means nothing since they aren't compelled to rush out and get the new shiny.

 

[fischersd]

There's certainly less of a benefit in terms of TCO when not running macOS (when there are equatable macOS apps), but there can still be a distinct benefit to using Apple's HW over some WinOEM or building your own machines.

Here are three off the top of my head:

1. Being able to take it into an Apple Store if some HW doesn't seem to be functioning properly Id est, customer service and support.
2. Longevity of use due to durable HW and the ability to repurpose to less severe users that want to run macOS. It was only two years that I was still using the original flatscreen iMac with the round base as an iTunes Server. Still works, but finally wanted to get USB 3.0/GigE instead of using FW400/100BaseT.
3. Better resale value.

Sorry, we're taking about corporations here. Personal use isn't the same at all.

1. They don't deal with the Apple store. They have an Apple reseller. Hardware service is managed by the internal help desk (typically swap any systems that are defective with spares), then units are sent back to Apple for servicing.

2. Sorry, nope. The actual internals being more robust than high end PC's? Sure, if you buy the really cheap stuff, like anything, it doesn't last. Most components have the same build quality.

3. Corporations don't. They use them until they're no longer useful, then they go to brokerage (pennies on a dollar in return).

 

[maflynn]

Let me guess, you're an accountant or work in business intelligence? Most people don't need a granular breakdown.

I work in IS and support both Macs and PCs, I think the breakdown would be nice, because I see many issues with enterprise apps not supporting platforms, or hardware and that translates into support calls at times.

Having a breakdown details how reliable the Macs are vs. PCs, where as the software, will detail how much headaches and support issues people are dealing with regarding Macs vs. PCs

 

[BuffaloTF]

Savings that are instantly wiped out by the ridiculous amount IBM charges for Lotus Notes email storage.

 

[Booch21]

I agree! As much as I like to dislikes Macs from time to time, but I generally only update my iMac every 6 years! I buy the top-end iMac and just wait for it to finally break before upgrading. I'm currently using a 2011 iMac as my main work machine and it doesn't feel slow at all. Only reason why I'm going to get next weeks iMac is because the display on my current one keeps going off!

I am using a 2010 27" iMac for video and audio editing with Adobe and the only thing I've done is add external hard drives. I'm nearly to the point that I want to double the RAM, because you still can on this machine very easily, but I have contemplated a new iMac after buying my daughter one in May. That 4K display on her 21.5" iMac was really sweet, but I don't like the new keyboard and mouse. I've had the wired keyboard from day 1 to use the USB ports on the keyboard and it's been a godsend as opposed to reaching in back all the time.

 

[fischersd]

I work in IS and support both Macs and PCs, I think the breakdown would be nice, because I see many issues with enterprise apps not supporting platforms, or hardware and that translates into support calls at times.

Having a breakdown details how reliable the Macs are vs. PCs, where as the software, will detail how much headaches and support issues people are dealing with regarding Macs vs. PCs

True, they're going to need to provide much more granular data if they actually want to change the mindset of many companies stuck on the windows hamster wheel.

 

[solipsism]

Sorry, we're taking about corporations here. Personal use isn't the same at all.

1. They don't deal with the Apple store. They have an Apple reseller. Hardware service is managed by the internal help desk (typically swap any systems that are defective with spares), then units are sent back to Apple for servicing.

2. Sorry, nope. The actual internals being more robust than high end PC's? Sure, if you buy the really cheap stuff, like anything, it doesn't last. Most components have the same build quality.

3. Corporations don't. They use them until they're no longer useful, then they go to brokerage (pennies on a dollar in return).

No.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

And all this time, I was banging my head trying to figure out WHO was still buying old Macs to substantiate Apple's sales claims. Now we know. IBM. Little do they know they are buying outdated hardware. But IBM was never very smart to begin with.

Seriously, though, this story doesn't make sense. The numbers just don't seem realistic.

 

[maflynn]

True, they're going to need to provide much more granular data if they actually want to change the mindset of many companies stuck on the windows hamster wheel.

Its not just enterprises but also the vendors that produce the software for those enterprises. I support a number of applications where Mac support is tepid at best, so when we get support calls, it may very well be because the product does not support a Mac. In those cases we're spending time, effort and energy trying to fix the issue. That would be an indication that the Pc is better suited for business, but its not the enterprise's fault per se but rather the application.

 

[fischersd]

So you’re gonna eat it up with no back up? Great. Just the kind of person IBM needs to employ.

Heh. I don't need a granular breakdown because I've already done business cases for Mac vs PC for various business units I've supported. The numbers they're quoting are light. Maybe they're being too aggressive with disposing of assets after they're depreciated (most companies use either a 3 year or 5 year depreciation model for PC's and Servers).
The Macs tend to have considerable lifespan left in them after they're depreciated.
Don't get me wrong - the end users that only use office apps and a web browser can limp along on just about anything (and may have a PC that's 7 or 8 years old) - but those systems also pose issues for supporting them - patching becomes an issue - you really want to author a distribution bundle for a group of 5 or 6 machines?
[doublepost=1477055466][/doublepost]

Its not just enterprises but also the vendors that produce the software for those enterprises. I support a number of applications where Mac support is tepid at best, so when we get support calls, it may very well be because the product does not support a Mac. In those cases we're spending time, effort and energy trying to fix the issue. That would be an indication that the Pc is better suited for business, but its not the enterprise's fault per se but rather the application.

I am actually surprised that more people aren't embracing the citrix extender for some of those stubborn apps. (we were doing that at BlackBerry - you could actually run native windows apps on the PlayBook)
It really depends on the app, how well it would work as a thin client, etc.
But, yep, not every business unit can go to MacOS. Sometimes you just have those Windows apps that you don't have a workaround for. So, you keep them on windows (but make it known to the software vendor that you really want a Mac solution).

Edit: You do the things that make sense for your business. If it's not less effort to support and manage, why would you roll it out?

 

[maflynn]

I am actually surprised that more people aren't embracing the citrix extender for some of those stubborn apps.

We use Citrix and how its been configured, and used in my company its not an ideal situation though it works in a pinch.

We've had to purchase a 30,000 dollar server to run Citrix to get around one incompatibility on an enterprise wide application (not mac vs. pc). The issue was upgrades to the client caused problems that were discovered too late, and so citrix was the work around until we could upgrade that application the following year.

 

[ObsidianIce]

90,000 Macs supported by FIVE administrators. Wow. 1300 new Macs provisioned each week by those five people? less than 10 minutes to provision each machine if they do nothing but provision new devices. That's some major assembly line economy of scale there.

This is a ridiculous statement. Ever worked in IT? You are aware as well that Apple can literally ship them provisioned already right? Especially with a major buyer like that? A custom install is easy to do...they do it for schools all the time...also what makes you think an IT guy would be working on one machine at a time? Line them up, power them up, access themand do multiples at a time. It's how we do them.

 

[fischersd]

This is a ridiculous statement. Ever worked in IT? You are aware as well that Apple can literally ship them provisioned already right? Especially with a major buyer like that? A custom install is easy to do...they do it for schools all the time...also what makes you think an IT guy would be working on one machine at a time? Line them up, power them up, access themand do multiples at a time. It's how we do them.

Apple's actually doing that now? (our VAR would do that - whether it was Mac's, PC's, blade servers, whatever - we authored the images, then gave them to preload).
So does Apple actually have reps for corporate clients then?

 

[CodeCowboy]

..and with employees have continuing to choose Macs over PCs...

Not intending to be snarky... but the article needs an edit:

Should be something like: "..and with employees having continued to choose Macs over PCs..."

-OR-

"..and since employees have continued to choose Macs over PCs..."

 

[whooleytoo]

Back when I worked with Motorola, I remember getting an email stating that all Macs were being phased out, in the interest of 'improved efficiency'. And at the time, I believe Motorola still were Apple's CPU maker.

Now IBM are championing them. It's a weird world.

 

[joueboy]

I've always been thought that owning a Mac is cheaper overtime. Just having the basic software for photo organization and video editing for majority of the users. On top of that keeping your computer like antivirus and firewall for a yearly subscription. I still have my white MacBook that my daughter uses and still works. I've been through different laptops and they just fail, maybe it's different from more expensive laptops. And one more thing the OS is now a free upgrade too, that's probably the reason of $543.