Mac v. Microsoft TCO

NickFitz writes "MacWorld UK has some comments from industry analysts on the question of whether Total Cost of Ownership, Microsoft's favourite metric, is lower for Apple Mac versus Windows. The MS website has no figures to refute the claim that 'An Apple technician may cost twice as much, but he comes to see you half as often.'" Bottom line: neither platform is the clear winner.

Comments

My snappy comeback

[Fished]

My snappy comeback to those who claim Macs are more expensive is:

That's right, they are more expensive if your time has no value.

That usually elicits at least a thoughtful look. With that line as a starting point, I've converted three organizations over to Macs in the past 2 years, so it's got something going for it.

Re:My snappy comeback

[prockcore]

That's right, they are more expensive if your time has no value.

Your time does have no value. You're sitting here posting on slashdot. Fact is, your time is worth nothing.

great.

[pb]

So here's a story that outright says "we have no idea, and the whole thing is bogus anyhow".

Well, at least it's honest.

You might remember me....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such computer-battle movies as "Because I said so: Nyahh!" and "Microsoft vs the Smog Monster". The TCV (total cost of viewing) is a mere $9 at your local metroplex! Now that there won't be any damn hobbit movies, maybe the Troyster is up for an academy award in 2005? Let us see.

Lower TCO, higher ROI?

[rqqrtnb]

Is a Mac cheaper to run and does a Mac make a user more productive?

If the answer is yes, does it really matter?

More importantly, does ANYBODY in corporate America consider this when buying their machines? I'll betcha, TCO means buying a "reliable" PC that's not made of crappy generic parts, and nowhere does a Mac come into the equation, even though it might very well be the better choice.

ROI means handing that machine down the line from programmers to office support, to milk as much out of it until it heads for a landfill, and nobody figures out how productive their people are on the thing during its lifetime.

Why? Because there's really no choice. Not in any practical sense.

So, it's really about how well a machine runs Windows, not how Windows compares to any other OS. That's because the market perception is that "the battle is over and Windows won." We feel enough anxiety about upgrading our machines, adding new software. To open up the decision process to worrying about entire platforms again ... just ain't gonna happen now.

So Apple finds itself in a tough spot, appealing to those who want to "switch" in hopes that if it can gain enough market share and mind share, it can pry open the door of possibility eventually.

But it's going to be almost impossible, not because Apple can't offer a better product, but because people have become so shellshocked from the PC/Internet experience that they just want to settle down and go with the flow... the Windows flow.

So when I saw the above article, I thought to myself that even if Apple were to offer irrefutable truth to lower TCO/higher ROI, how much would it really, really matter?

Not much, unfortunately. Not right now. But perhaps, little by little...

Re:Lower TCO, higher ROI?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is amazing is the dichotomy. In so many facets of corporate america we always hear how "bottom line" oriented today's corporations are.

Yet, when it comes to computers, it hardly seems that the lower bottom line cost matters. Almost as if computers have a different yardstick.
But why should they? The current "standard platform" only means one kind of PC which translates into lower costs since there is one company to look to for support, the OEM of your computers. But it still is not the most cost effective solution.

It is as if you had Chevy's in your corporate fleet and to lower costs, you standardized on something else, that cost less to buy, but got 1/3 less gas mileage and more maintenance.

Tired...

[Apreche]

I'm tired of all these slashdot stories that all have the same answer. The right tool for the right job. If you are screwing in screws you need a screwdriver. If you are hammering nails you need a hammer. If you want to buy hammers to screw screws it will probalby work, but with all the screws you bend it will cost more money and vice versa too.

There is a best selection of hardware and software under a given circumstance. There is no way to say that linux is cheaper than windows, period. There might be a guy who gets linux for free, but he runs weird hardware and would have to hire someone to write a driver. Windows might be cheaper for that guy. There might be an artist who already has a copy of photoshop for mac, but not for windows. A G5 might be cheaper for that guy. TOS can only be determined on a case by case basis.

The rule of right tool for the right job applies to so many slashdot stories I don't know if it's still worth posting it every time I see it. So next time someone says "my programming language is better than yours" or "this wireless protocol is better than that one" or "this software is cheaper/better than that one" point them here.

Re:Tired...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comments like yours, which *seem* insightful, have a pretty heavy assumption that everybody completely evaluates every tool available.

Think about this: if you don't *know* a better tool exists, how can you know you've got the best tool for the job?

I've opened a lot of people's eyes over the years by showing them mac and linux. Heck, I've even opened my own eyes, when I discovered that OpenOffice actually is *useful* now (bye bye windows).

Yes it's true, some people actually *do* have the best tool for their job (including functionality, *licensing*, and other intangibles), but some are living in blissfull ignorance.

Just something to keep in mind when using that tired phrase "best tool for the job".

Bashing MS isn't worth my intellectual integrity

[orthogonal]

The MS website has no figures to refute the claim that 'An Apple technician may cost twice as much, but he comes to see you half as often.'

Yeah, and the article was no figures to support that claim.

"In this coooorner, Anecdote, ladies and gentlemen! And in the opposite coooorner, Another Anecdote! Truly this will be the inconclusive fight of the century! Roarrr! Yeaaaaarrg!"

Sure Microsoft sucks, but it doesn't suck so much that I'm going to sacrifice honestly reasoning from real evidence for the sake of becoming a zealot able to bash Microsoft even in the face of no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

But, uh, thanks for offering me the chance.

Re:You just do less with a Mac

[cbiagini]

No, the parent is right. I have no good software for my Mac, and neither do you.

It's about time we faced the cold, hard truth and got on with our lives. And to think, before I read the comments on this article, I thought OS X was a viable platform! If only his comments had been available sooner, I could've saved months of despair and just bought an eMachines instead of a Powerbook...

I fix PC's by day... and use Macs at home.

[dbirchall]

Some people might consider me a "PC technician" as various people pay me good money to take care of their beleaguered (Apple in-joke) PC's. I don't have A+ or Network+ certifications, but I've got 15 years of IT experience and familiarity with a good bit of hardware and more OSes than most people would ever want to touch.

At home, I use primarily Macs running OS X. (There is one PC running Linux.) Why? Well, no one pays me to work on my own computers, so I choose hardware and software that won't require me to fix it all the time.

Just an anecdotal data-point.

Techincian count

[goombah99]

At my 10,000+ employee facility, we have loads of overworked microsoft techs and way too few linux techs. Whenever our institution tires to force us to standardize on a platform the techs vote and of course windows always wins because there are so many techs.

if you actually normalized their numbers by number of machines they support I suspect that the mac techs would win. Hard to say about the linux techs. Linux techs tend to support giant computer farms. They have huge problems getting them all working nicely but they arent running around putting out virus and worm fires every week or searching for some stupid third pary driver.

But I have many brands of tools...

[csoto]

Trust me, my Wiha tools are FAR better than the "junk drawer" tools I lend to my neighbors. As both a Mac fan and woodworker, I've learned that it does not pay, in terms of time, hassle or quality of work to use "any old tool." If I'm shaving a piece off the bottom of a door, I'll grab a decent Stanely hand plane. For fine furniture, nothing beats my Lie-Nielsens, which at over 8x the cost, are well worth it.

Mac and Windows PCs do essentially the same things. There are a jillion more crappy games available for WIndows, but the good ones are on both. My G4 is an excellent gaming platform, plus it lets me talk to my friends, family and even get work done. My G4 Powerbook, even more so. I could do the same things my Dell, but the experience just isn't the same. Ergo, the Mac is a "better quality tool" for me.

TCS (Total Cost of Sanity)

[chia_monkey]

It's funny that this debate still rages on and I'm sure it will for some time to come. While some may say "ok, it's time to stop talking about it", I disagree. I'm sure the TCO race is much closer now than it was a decade ago when Macs were rather flaky and there's wasn't as much hard core business and research software for the Mac, thus making it rather useless for non-creatives and such.

Now for the sanity issue...time definitely has a value that nobody seems to take into account here. Same with sanity. For instance, with the PC you're constantly looking for drivers and DLLs that you need, that break, that disappear, that need to be updated, etc. With the Mac...it just WORKS. Any of you have a girlfriend that has a PC and it's constantly not working and YOU get all the abuse because of it? Then you suggest using a Mac because it simply works ("Look, all you gotta do is plug in your digital camera, and it works. And now you can view the pictures with no additional software. And check this out...you can burn them onto a CD now with no additional software..."). It really is that easy. I know if my gf had a PC, I would be a lot more sane from not having to listen to "great, I can't use my camera now because it changed the settings to HP instead of Sony and I can't find the software..."

Sanity...it's a good thing. Just as "goodwill" isn't a concrete number to put on a company's spreadsheet, it still has a value. Same with the value of time and sanity. Let's not forget that.

Fishing?

[microcars]

Take a look at this catalog looks like plenty of stuff available there to me.

plus, you might want to read the story here about the NY Vespa dealer that decided to go with Mac and Filemaker Pro rather than deal with the Windows software that was "offered" by the Manufacturer.

Why did they choose to use Macs and Filemaker Pro when an existing Windows package was available?
Here's a quote from the story:

"And the default choice for their new Vespa dealership was a PC-based software package, "because that's all the manufacturer had to offer,"

"When we talked to other dealers about the Vespa software package, everyone complained of horrible setup problems, errors, crashes. We checked the software vendor's update schedule, and every few weeks there was a new update. Not to mention the huge investment -- a seven or eight thousand dollar setup cost, plus an annual fee of several thousand dollars. And that didn't even include hardware! "

It appears this shop looked very closely at TCO and even though a Windows package was available, they chose not to use it!

My wife works in Real Estate, she uses a Mac. She has no problems.

The other agents are constantly hit up to buy all these little Windows apps that will "help" them work better and more efficiently, but mostly these apps just line the pockets of the IT guy who is recommending them.

Her TCO by using her iBook is MUCH lower than that of the agent in the next station who was told she had to buy a $2000 sub-notebook in order to be competitive.

I'm not even going to mention all the time everyone ELSE wastes patching their Windows computers while my wife just keeps working.

"...Next thing I tried: Fishing? Fishing is not the most obscure hobby. You are out of luck using a Mac to enhance it: 15 titles for Pc, NONE for Mac.

No Fishing apps for the Mac? How sad.

Re:If you have an orchard, Apple is rotten.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll find this "something on the PC, nothing on the Mac" situation to hold true for almost anything you try.

Yeah, you're right-- I've got a few more where this holds true:

Viruses.
Worms.
Spyware.

Sigh...

[Mildew Man]

I don't know how this can be debatable.

Everything that I have heard and read show that Macs are cheaper when factoring in TCO. In addition to less support (how many times have heard "...my company has 1000 PCs with 100 PC support techs and 2000 Macs with 3 Mac support techs...") and longer lasting hardware ("...we have a SE/30 that we still use as a mail server...") to increased productivity ("...virus? What stinking virus?...It just works!)

Here's a few examples I found when googling for info on Mac vs. Windows TOC:

Macs Shine In Total Cost Of Ownership
"The TOC (total operating cost) for the Wintel machines amounts to $253.86 per year, every year until it is retired," Canterbury told Sellers. "The Macs run us $53.25 per year. Quite a difference and one our board and parents heard loud and clear."

Return On Investments between the Macintosh and Windows platforms.
[NOTE: of course this is where the Mac shines but I think that it translates to other areas of general productivity]
"This benchmark supersedes a common but misleading bench-mark: cost-of-ownership. An ROI benchmark correlates the cost of ownership and productivity of media producers to revenue and profit. Detailed ROI analysis reveals that a Macintosh-using creative professional produces $26,441 more annual revenue and $14,488 more net profit (per person) than a Windows user of comparable skill engaged in similar work."

Why most people should buy a Macintosh rather than a Windows PC
A study from technology research company, Gartner has found Apple Macintosh computers to be up to 36 percent cheaper to own and run than competing PC products. The study utilised Gartner's Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) methodology, which takes into account the direct and indirect costs of owning IT infrastructure.

And there are just so many other ones that I grow tired of providing the information

An older study from 1988:

[bob_calder]

quote found here:
University of Wollongong
In 1997, Gistics, Inc. published the following*:
Macintosh users:
spend 38 fewer hours per year 'Futzing" with files
save US $4,950 annually on support and training
use more tools (14.3 versus 8.3)
Save US $2,211 in three-year cost of ownership
Earn US $5.01 more per hour
Earn US $12.22 more revenue per hour of labor
Create US $14,550 more profits per year per person
Earn 32 percent more net profit per project and
Achieve platform payback in 7.2 months (versus 13.9)

*Page 56 Vaughan, T. 1998. Multimedia, Making it Work, Osborne McGraw Hill, Berkeley

110 macs == less work than 15 ms boxes

[SgtChaireBourne]

I find it hard to believe that there is any speculation. I've seen two technicians take care of 110 macintoshes with less time than they spend repairing the 15 windows machines remaining.

Then there is the Total Cost of Sanity that many have mentioned. The Macs just work, but more importantly they are pre-installed. At a conference spanning several days, the first day and a half it looked any participant with a note book computer was runing either an iBook or a PowerBook. By the end of the week the ratio of Mac to Windows had droped to about 1:1 -- the Windows users had averaged about 20 minutes each with a technician to get the wireless cards working.

Mac just work, but more importantly they are pre-installed. The common Linux distros are very easy to install and maintain since about 4 years ago, especially compared to Windows. But having OS X work out of the box beats even Linux and really creams Windows. When you start talking about corrective maintenance, then you couldn't pay me to put up with the garbage that I've had to watch Windows technicians deal with. However, the end user, not the technician is the real benefactor of OS X. They can use the computer for their job rather than having to call twice a week about problems which prevent daily activities.