Slashdot Mirror
Ford's Astoundingly Better Idea
Here's of the most telling statistics ever offered about Microsoft: In l996, a New York City telecommunications consulting firm concluded that Bill Gates could buy a computer for every unwired kid in America for roughly $6 billion, a fraction of his total wealth. In fact, said the study on the uneven distribution of technology in American education, if Gates invested the interest on his wealth for a couple of years, he could buy those computers without even dipping into his principal.
The industry of which Gates has been the titular head of for years has historically exhibited scant generosity, empathy, or social vision, although recently having discovered the need for better public relations, has begun making some gestures towards charity. Bill Gates has personally given hundreds of millions to charitable causes, along with some Silicon Valley moguls, but bold and dramatic moves towards technological equality and empowerment are not in the nature of modern corporations.
In corporate America, it's practically illegal to do anything with money except distribute it to stockholders as quickly as possible. This is great for the stockholders, but is short-sighted, especially tough on the social fabric of a country in which politicians campaign for office mostly on vows to do little or nothing.
That's why Ford Motor's announcement last week was potentially the most significant technology news in years, vastly more important than the river of hype about mergers and IPOs. Ford will offer each of its 350,000 employees worldwide, from factory workers in India to designers in Michigan, a high-speed desktop computer, a color printer and unlimited Internet access for just $5 a month. This announcement was potentially the most significant technology news in years, vastly more important than the river of hype about mergers, IPOs and stock prices.
Company founder Henry Ford came from a different business era, a time when the individuals running companies could, and sometimes even did, make moral as well as financial decisions about the way their companies worked.
Although by all accounts, Ford was neither an admirable individual nor a likeable boss, his vision of technology had enormous impact on the world. He brought mobility to countless millions who never had it. He understood that workers who were treated well did better work than workers who weren't. He's the reason the automobile quickly became a universal work and recreational option for people of many income levels.
Presented with a number of ideas about how to sell automobiles, Ford became obsessed with the idea of the cheap car, a well-made technological product that almost everyone had a shot at buying. For better or worse, he changed the world, and made a ton of money in the process.
Modern corporations aren't run by individuals but by amalgams of lawyers, directors, stockholders, analysts. Companies aren't interested in bold visions, which is why Ford's computer initiative sent shock waves through the business world. Nobody could remember a move like it.
It's ironic that few computer companies are as visionary. Although several are scrambling to market cheap PC's, the industry for years has been marked by high costs, poor quality, confusing products and service, and endemic arrogance. The industry has always focused on hardware and software; technology's users and their needs are rarely in the forefront of design. Apple computers stunned the industry simply by making computers that were pleasant to look at.
Computing has spread throughout the U.S. and much of the world despite the people who sell and design computers, not because of them. If Ford's initiative spreads - it should - the Net would rise to a completely different level almost overnight. Technology would mean something radically different to many millions of people cut off from it now.
It was ironic how short-lived the publicity was over this astounding business move - especially when you compare the coverage of the cracking of Yahoo. Ford's move didn't get a fraction of the attention and discussion it deserved. It may - almost surely will - turn out to be a much-remembered turning point in the way corporations view technology and their own inter-actions with employees.
The computer give-away harks back to Henry Ford's genius. Companies like Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Apple ought to be particularly mortified that they didn't think of it first. So should schools, universities and governments.
Ford once enraged other fat cats when he doubled the wage for assembly-line workers to $5 per eight-hour day in 1913. The move reduced training costs at a time when laborers were so hard to find in Detroit that only one in 10 Ford employees stayed for more than a few months, a scenario familiar to contemporary tech workers and companies.
Now his company's trying something even more radical. Ford's new Web sites will link employees all over the world, and give the company new ways of communicating with its staff. It will affect the way the company does business and the personal lives of the people who work for it.
Ford says it will offer Internet home pages in 14 languages, and provide home page links to Ford Web sites, with UUNet as the ISP.
Ford thus not only makes its employees happy, but gives them a strong incentive to stay in their jobs. It gives employees' children the tools they need to compete in the 21st Century workforce. It helps develop a technologically-skilled labor pool that can communicate internally, and promotes interactivity (not readily available in most corporations) and promotes computer literacy abroad. As computing spreads overseas, it could also have broad social, cultural and political consequences. The Internet promotes freedom, education, democracy and prosperity.
If other American companies adopted Ford's model, the technological gap looming between the middle-class and underclass would begin to close. The United States workforce would become the most technologically sophisticated in the world. The high-tech workforce would expand dramatically, along with the educational, cultural, social and economic benefits of computing still unavailable to more than half the American population.
New kinds of programmers and computer users would surge online, perhaps bringing new ideas and approaches to programming, software and the nature of the Net and Web.
Ford's move could upend a few of the conventional stereotypes (many enthusiastically advanced by yours truly) about greedy corporatism. It hasn't yet, of course.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore talked incessantly about building bridges to the future in the last election, but their administration has done relatively little to wire up the country. It could be argued that this is a role for government, but Ford has challenged that notion. If corporations grasp the benefits for themselves and their employees, and take it upon themselves to provide their workers with computers and Internet access - increasingly, a necessity, not a privilege - they can begin rewriting their own sorry history.
Ford really did have a better idea this time. Perhaps even ground-breaking, if it catches on.
The only problem with this is then Ford thugs will descend upon you and have a right (based on the ruling in the recent Northwest Airlines incident) to take THEIR computer back and go through it to see what you've been doing.
Let's not forget Henry Ford himself was famous for blatantly having thugs beat senseless employees who wanted to unionize. What do you think they'll want to do if you're emailing to incite sickouts?
"More organs means more human." - Zim
what do you mean, schools should have thought about this a long time ago? there arent colleges giing out laptops at very low prices?
Fight Spammers!
This really is too bad. There have been a lot of different business and charitable grass roots efforts to get a particular segment wired, etc. Most don't receive any press at all unless there is a bill in front of congress and some politician is pressing the flesh. Thiswas a real opportunity to show off the benefit of having a corporation commit to helping it's staff ramp up and become more technical. Way to go Ford! Hopefully when all the press from the recent DoS attacks fades away someone like 60 minutes will do a rah rah on the whole effort.
It's sad but because this wasn't a "sexy" story involiving violence, bad guys, scandle etc., the press will just do a quick fly by to do diligence and say we covered it and then move on to the next Lewinski type story.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Clarkson was the first in the nation ('85?) to give a computer to students as part of their tuition. Heck, I got a 286 SBC and passive backplane - little did I know that I'd be getting back into that technology 10 years later (a bit more advanced too).
Hartwick gave its students laptops starting in..'93? Maybe 92. My brother went there and got a 386 laptop. IIRC, this was also part of the tuition.
To say that schools aren't doing this is really silly, given that it's been going on for 15 years!
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
The main and primary outcome from this will not be an educated middle/lower class. Computers not put to actual productive use do not educate. Just the opposite.
The immediate and primary outcome will be the fact that the employer will have all the rights necessary to search and desist when it comes to all employee data, including personal. See the NW airlines case today on slashdot.
And offtopic to commander Taco. GET THE BLOODY JAVA BANNER OUT . I do understand that you worry about user security but increasing the security on most slashdot user machines by making sure that they have turned tha jabba off is deinitely not my idea of advertising.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Somebody has to ask the question:
How much of me does my employer own?
Disney makes its animators sign statements that the company owns everything--every sketch, every thought, every image--on or off duty, at home, on vacation...
It's arguable that Disney contractually owns the dreams of its animators.
I'm excited to hear that Ford is creating a "minimum level of computing" for its employees, taking advantages of the tremendous network effects of having a totally wired workforce. They will benefit.
But will there be an acceptable barrier between work related and non work related reporting of computer resources? Will people unintentionally donate the fruits of their free time--hammered out on company resources--to their employers? More importantly, will we finally see a standard of privacy explictly formed for non-realtime(logged by protocol necessity, like email or ICQ) yet highly informal conversation? Or will all mutterings and water cooler talk end up the domain of the corporate censor?
I've *had* a coworker lose her job over a minorly snide comment on a discussion forum. When the lines of communication are owned by the corporation, are the dangers and rights violations posited by the Founding Fathers merely executed by the Corporate rather than the Governmental? Or is Ford explicitly delineating what it can and cannot monitor?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
So with Gate's worth around $100B, I guess it seems quite reasonable to you that he should give away $6B (" a fraction of his wealth") to buy computers for all the kids who don't have them. How generous of you.
So what are *YOU* worth Katz? Middle age, reasonably successful... I'd guess you're worth at least $250K, probablt more... So 6/100 of your wealth would be a measly $15,000. How much do you give to charity, I wonder....
Last time I read anything about Gates, his charitable contributions were in the Billions, not 100's of Millions. He seems to prefer humanitarian causes than getting America wired. More power to him. He's still runs a company that produces shit, but at least give him some credit where due.
The swedish goverment gave extreme tax reductions to all companies (private and the states) who sold computers to their employees. The computers were extremly cheap, good ones with good backup and warrants. Almost all swedish companies jumped on the bandwagon, pressing the computersales in sweden at a new all high. This singlehandedly spread computers into a lot of homes, that didn't have one before. So Ford was in no way revolutionary with this.
In corporate America, it's practically illegal to do anything with money except distribute it to stockholders as quickly as possible.
Which is a damn good thing really. When I invest in a company I want a return on my money, not it going to whatever touchy feely charity some higher up in the company thinks it should go to. If I want to give money to charity I am more than capable of deciding which ones to give it to, I don't need a company to make a donation by proxy for me.
I don't really object to this Ford thing though becuase as I understand it, this was part of the UAW's renegotion of their contract with Ford, so really its a cost of compensation....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Ford's announcement last week that it was giving away computers, color monitors and Net access to each of its 350,000 world-wide employees and their families didn't make as much news as the cracking of Yahoo and AOL. But it deserves more attention. [fragment] It was ground-breaking, technological history in the making. If this idea spreads, it could take the Net and the Web to completely new levels, and upend stereotypes (many advanced by yours truly) about greedy corporatism. Computer companies, schools and governments ought to be mortified that they didn't think of it first. Read more. Here's [one?] of the most telling statistics ever offered about Microsoft: In l996, a New York City telecommunications consulting firm concluded that Bill Gates could buy a computer for every unwired kid [children without wires?] in America for roughly $6 billion, a fraction of his total wealth. In fact, said the study on the uneven distribution of technology in American education, if Gates invested the interest on his wealth for a couple of years, he could buy those computers without even dipping into his principal. The industry of which Gates has been the titular head of [redundant] for years has historically exhibited scant generosity, empathy, or social vision, although recently having discovered the need for better public relations, has begun making some gestures towards charity. [run-on] Bill Gates has personally given hundreds of millions to charitable causes, along with some Silicon Valley moguls, but bold and dramatic moves towards technological equality and empowerment are not in the nature of modern corporations.
I can't take anymore.
Just because Ford hands out computers to its employees? The people employed by Ford are already the "middle-class" - the real poor in this country are a lot worse off than those "lucky" enough to work for Ford
Yet in the same article he says that Ford realized that a happy worker is a productive worker and that workers get pay raises when there's a labour shortage...hmm, let's connect the dots for him - at the moment there's a shortage of labour ( in the US at least) and this is a cheap way to make workers happy and get them to rely on the company for their personal communication more. Nope, definitely not greedy corporatism there.
Computer-related benefits have been around in the high-tech world for a while. When I worked at Trusted Information Systems from 1993 to 1996, they had a matching-funds program for computer purchases, and employees could get dial-up shell access to e-mail, USENET, and ftp. When Digex made me a job offer a few years back, one of their benefits was an ISDN connection (this was pre-DSL) to my house.
So this isn't quite as new or radical as Katz makes it out to be.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Many companies (especially banks) have given free PC's to all their employees the last couple of years. The idea is
1) To give them something they don't have to pay tax off.
2) A vague hope that they will be better at using computers (which is why the Danish politicians doesn't tax these gifts, liuke they tax everything else).
I don't think there are anything signficant about it, like the US (and unlike the rest of EU) Denmark has had a booming economy and low unemployment the last few years. In such a situation, companies will do their best to make themselves an attractive place to work. Tax-free gifts are one way, especially since the strong unions prevents raising the pay.
I think it's simple why they're doing it...
From the Evil Overlord list:
100. Finally, to keep my subjects permanently locked in a mindless trance, I will provide each of them with free unlimited Internet access.
Simple, really...
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
As opposed to those black'n'white monitors that most companies give to their employees.
Hmmmm... wonder if you can even get a black'n'white VGA monitor, anyway.
RP
I think he needs an editor. This is something that would have been caught elsewhere.
Well...color me confused...but I really don't get it. Sure this is nice of Ford...thet get tons of great PR to go along with a nice tax write-off, but how is this "ground-breaking, technological history in the making" I really don't get it.
Maybe I'm different but I would rather have them give me an extra $1000 in stock perks than a new computer that will be obsolete in 3-4 years.
If Ford wants to make a difference why don't they institue programs to give computers/internet access to the lower class families who can't afford them. THAT might help make a difference.
Or maybe go to inner city schools and give them computers and pay for some quality technology proffessionals to go in and help the kids learn how to use them. THAT might make a difference.
Color me cynical but I really don't see this as anything special or groudbreaking.
As a (paid) editor, I disagree with the comments you've made about Jon Katz's piece.
Are you really so concerned about grammar that you'd let it override meaning? Is "unwired kid" in the context of this article truly confusing or ambiguous? It wasn't for me. The run-on sentence you identify isn't. The fragment you point out is a fragment, but so what? Persuasive writing is about more than formalisms; short connectors are useful. Can you name a political columnist, for instance, who never uses sentence fragments?
Are there a few typos, the occasional misplaced or missing word? Sure. Are they worse than ones that regularly appear in other news services? Not by a long shot. Slashdot is growing (in readership and staff), and it's coped well so far.
Cheers,
timothy
p.s. Full-time editorship is less than a month away, so relax.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Jon... you have a /. E-Mail address. I assume you have a /. login. Use it! Also, on the topic of Linux worshipping... If you would just start being more technology savvy then people would call you a technology mogul instead of some guy who reads the first 3 sentences of some NYT.com, writes a way too long article about it that is stating the obvious, then claiming that you are shaping the views of society. Jon, start writing about interesting things in an interesting manner, not just fluff. Everything I have read by you from this to your movie reviews just seems like the fluff you would see on the back of a VHS tape (you know... where they try to sum up the movie in 2 paragraphs).
Your on to something here. Now I know why Ms is renaming Win2K to Wind*ws Excursion just before the launch. (G)
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
The overall program will be coordinated by PeoplePC, Inc. of San Francisco. The computers and printers will be provided by Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, Calif. UUNET, an MCI WorldCom company based in Fairfax, Va., will provide the Internet service.
The base computer will have a 500-Mhz Celeron chip, 64 MB of RAM, a 4.3GB hard disk for storage, a CD-ROM, software, a 15-inch monitor, speakers and a modem. The printer will be a color inkjet. Employees can upgrade to three more powerful computers at their expense and the monthly fee will cover incidental personal use.
I believe that the program would be much more useful if the employees were allowed to choose from a wider range of hardware & software. These systems seem to be little more than cheap Wintel boxes. Buying 350,000+ of them ought to get a bit of a discount, so on the scale of corporate employee benefits, "this ain't that big."
It seems that Ford is attempting to create a corporate culture here; unfortunately, this culture looks to have all the variety and creativity of the model T. ("Any color they want, so long as its black." paraphrase attributed to H. Ford)
The Internet has no garbage collection
There are some obvious reasons that Fnord did this, and not just for altruism alone.
The first is obvious: people in the offices can be required to take work home with them. Heck, they have a computer, why not?
The system can check to see if an employee is really at his (fith or 6th) granmother's funeral, or if he's on the web.
UUNET can spike their email to Fnord Motor Company as official communication. This is unlikely, but possible since they still OWN the computers.
The Fnord connected websites can easily coerce employees into doing extra work, like commenting on conditions on their own time. I see nothing wrong with this, but it raises the possibility.
I just can't personally see a company computer. It reminds me too much of the "company store"
whatddya get? another day over and you're deeper in debt.
Lowmag.net
Likewise for advertising etc, all that goes towards raising the price of the product. I'd rather see a simple technical detailing of the merits of the product and then I'll decide between them on a rational basis - screw clever superbowl ads
I think I've noticed you posting this point before and I agree with it - but I draw different conclusions from it than you do. The money flows inn investment patterns, people get little cuts of it if they're small guys providing services. Those services they provide are creating real value, it's productive, they make something (knowledege or material), they labour. They add to the world by work. However, BillG (as an example) controls the flow of the money and takes the labour that this little guy does. He allows him to have as little of it as he can (enough to satisfy his lowly needs for a Lexus and a nice PC and a mortgage and health-care) as determined by how many other people can do the labour that little guy can. With the excess labour skimmed from this guy and many others like him Bill G is able to control the labour market, the policies of the government and the social conditions (to be sure there are limits to this and it needs the aquiesence and complicity of the little guy - otherwise you get a revolution) and the media (good propaganda is necessary to make sure that the little guy gets a picture of the world that makes him believe that this is the best way). So the money definitely doesn't lie idle in the simplistic sense that Katz would have it, nor yet is it simply flowing through BillG's hands and into the hands of his technicians and plumbers without any other effect.
I'm most definitely not a fan of Microsoft, but he has done more for people by creating a company that employs and enriches thousands than most charities ever do.
Why pick on Bill Gates to give PCs to kids? Why not Warren Buffet? Eric Raymond (he's flush at the moment)?
In the real world, people don't get rich to give money away, they get rich to enjoy the proceeds that it brings. In creating a company, they enrich other people (employees, customers, suppliers etc) in the process.
You seem to mis-understand why companies exist. You seem to think they are there to swan about the world doing good deeds, and giving people jobs. They're not. They are there to enrich their owners by providing a good or service that people want. That's all they are there to do, and that's all they owe anybody.
If Ford are giving PCs to employees cheap, then good luck to them. But I hope they are doing it for sensible financial or business reasons, not to impress the gullible.
And honestly, Jon, you really are a hack. Your stories are all written to a formula.
- Take a big event in the news
- Tie it into how it proves that the internet is great
- Bend your logic to show that it proves open source is the way of the future
- Mention Linux
- Mention Microsoft and how it proves that they are evil.
The irony is you are writing these stories for the most die-hard bunch of Linux loving, Microsoft-hating open source evangelists ever gathered together in one place, and you still get no respect. It is a tribute to their discernment that sucking-up gets you nowhere.
Try leaving the odd band wagon un-jumped upon. Your writing might improve.
While I don't disagree with Jon Katz' post, I do think it is important to take care in realizing just how truly malevalent Henry Ford himself was when talking about his "positive accomplishments".
As well as the extremely violent strike-breakers he regularly employed, who murdered and mutilated a large number of his employees, Henry Ford was certainly the most infamous and most prominent anti-semite of his time. He was an extremely enthusiastic supporter of Adolf Hitler's rise (this is not Goodwin's Law in this context)... going as far as direct monetary support of that regime. As well, Henry Ford republicized and brought to prominence the hate tract _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_. Probably worst of all, Ford himself was author of the millions-selling _International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem_.
Just something to keep in mind when thinking of the basis of Fordism.
Buy Text Processing in Python
THe year after my freshman year, they discontinued that program, and offered packages students could buy with a few options. Zeniths and NECs were the 2 brands. You paid for the computer in June, and got it in August. Yeah, that's nice. They realized that was a failure and dropped it altogether - now they "very strongly recommend" that you come with your own PC, and if you can get a NIC installed before you arrive, they're even happier.
Liverpool, NY's high school proposed last week that all incoming 10th graders be required to own and bring a laptop. 10th graders!. And last I heard, no subsidies from the gummint or the school. Those machines would get destroyed in a matter of days. Or stolen. Or you'd have kids sitting in the library/class playing games instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing.
That program was discontinued in '97. Students were bringing better computers than Clarkson could offer at the same price.
This becomes basically carte blanche for the company to legally search and seize everything you do, at work or at home. Legally you end up not having a private life since so much activity can be done and coordinated over a computer that the company actually provided. There's no way a present-day court would allow a citizen any rights under these circumstances. I mean, if you can get your computer seized when _you_ bought it, and impounded and searched, what possible excuse can you have for privacy and right to your own property when the _company_ buys the computer for you?
Jon, Jon, Jon. You really ought to read slashdot...
Probably not, but it's dead simple to monitor where the users go, and who's going to argue that the company shouldn't monitor the usage of these computers that they themselves supplied? Then it's simply a matter of the 'chilling effect' of wondering whether you can be fired from Ford because they know you read slashdot and fear you are a hacker :)
blah blah blah
/already/ had a computer and internet access? I sure would rather get a raise or better health coverage. This is just a ploy. Sort of like how dumping tons of money into computers for public schools was supposed to be some sort of panacea that would magically make everything better.
Ford gives computers to employees...
How is this an "astounding better idea"? Better than what? How is it even relevant to the business they're in? It's nice and all, but wouldn't raises accross the board be a better idea? I mean, it's not going to be some great boon to internet society that an extra few thousand or hundred thousand come online. If I were a Ford employee I'd feel screwed. What if I
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Used in this fashion computers are same as TV - opium for the masses. A distractive factor so the people do not read and think.
Do you really think that Ford is giving (well, subsidizing) computers to employees so that they'll be used in this way? In my more cynical moments I might think so, as television is indeed an opium for the masses, and one that indoctrinates and sells things to them too. But in my more logical moments I know better. If distraction and indoctrination were the real motive behind this apparent act of generosity, why wouldn't Ford just hand out televisions? Or subsidize cable for those employees who can't afford it?
Computers can be used like television, i.e a mindnumbing distraction. I've used them that way myself. But they can also be used like books or telephones, i.e. a stimulant to the mind. I use them for that even more. Watching television is not a valuable workplace skill, but literacy definitely is. Ditto for the ability to use a telephone. I think Ford - and the other, unsung corporations and individuals who are contributing computers to those who would not otherwise have them - are doing this out of a mix of generosity and enlightened self-interest, not mere greed.
Okay, seeing as nobody actually knows what's going on with how the computers are going to be purchased, I thought I would enlighten people.
My Girlfriend's dad works for Ford in KC and was telling me about all of this over Christmas break. Its been in the works (at least in KC) for a couple of years and this is what is going to happen: Every year, each Ford employee due to union contracts get a certain amount of money to be spent upon educational persuits. Most of the time this lets employees to go to a local community college and get a few classes in each year. The money that would be used this year (and I think next year too) will instead be spent on the computers and the associated internet access. The only thing that Ford is actually going to own here is the contract that is getting the employee's computers at the incredibly massive discount. At no point will Ford or the union is going own the computers! This is money that has already been set aside for the empolyees that is being spent by the employees.
Okay, hope the clears up a few things.
They did so send thugs. The thugs they sent were wearing police uniforms, with search warrants, but what does that matter? If they get obviously illegal search warrants, and pursue it in that matter, it's still a thug pounding on the door, demanding compliance under pain of injury or death, no matter what uniform they wear.
Any big company can toss around enough money to get the government to look the other way, which is what Northwest did. They had no good legal leg to stand on, but that didn't seem to hurt their ability to get a search warrant. Wonder if that judge has a new car, or free flights, or something...
A thug by any other name will still beat you senseless for not complying.
"Up next: several web sites were brought down by a distributed DoS attack..."
"Huh? Distribu-what? I bet channel 5 has better news. *click*"
"Up next: several web sites were hacked..."
"Oh my god there's HACKERS around and they're probably STEALING IDENTITIES and SODOMIZING OUR CHILDREN right now! I'd better watch!"
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
There are many things that are considered a commodity-- a 'must have' item.
Let's assume the following numbers (which are completely fabricated, as I have no knowledge of the Ford company):
Company 'X' has 300,000 employees, making an average of $50k/year. Those people might each pay an average of 35% in state and federal taxes. They give each employee a $2k computer. It's like giving each employee a $3k raise, as that's what it'd have cost them to get that computer.
You wonder 'but didn't it just cost them $600k to do it?' Probably not. When you're buying in bulk like that, people cut you deals. On the order of 30-40%, but we'll be conservative, and say 25%.
So it only costs them $450k [$1.5k per machine].
[I'd have looked at the possibility of taking it as an operating expense for the company, but salary qualifies, I think, so they'd have saved that money either way]
So, anyway, you've just made a person happy, without paying $3k/person, but only spending $1.5k/person. It makes sense to me.
Also quite possible, is that they're using the purchase of the computers as some sort of a bargaining chip, too: 'If we agree to buy X units from you, will you agree to buy Y units from us?', which results in big sales for them, and drives their stock price up while they're at it.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.