Why PCs Trump iPads For User Innovation

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Bob Lewis argues that while the iPad may be opening IT's eyes to a new way to encourage end-users to innovate new solutions for their organizations, that work will better be undertaken on the PC. 'When the subject is PCs, the answer is to lock 'em down and run everything in the data center. When the subject is iPads, the answer is that there's an app for that,' Lewis writes. 'Before you decide the iPad is your platform, though, consider the factors that favor the PC. First, it's a sunk cost. Second, it's more capable. And third, your end-users are already familiar with it. Which brings us to what's particularly sad about the end-user innovation situation: Until the iPad resurrected the subject, most IT organizations have actively discouraged it. It goes beyond locking down the devices so that end-users can't install software they might find helpful in their day-to-day work or might increase efficiency in their departments.'"

Comments

Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) iPads are not replacements for PCs.

2.) If PC operating systems weren't so fragile then IT departments would not have had to lock them down.

2

Re:Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not true. I wrote my own app to code on my iPad. I use it all the time. It outputs to an OpenGL canvas and lets me prototype game concepts quickly and easily, without the bulk of my laptop. I also use it to explore simulations and algorithms.

It is also surprisingly useful for creating sketches with clients at meetings for graphics heavy projects. Even prototyping music on it is not bad.

Tablets are fantastic for consumption, but they aren't half bad for some basic development, prototyping and idea sketching.

Re:Dev environment

[fatalwall]

its a lot simpler and cheaper to continue on the pc platform then to throw out your existing code base, migrate all of your reports and provide training to your staff who are lucky as it is when they turn any electronic device on.

my company evaluated all of the tablet solutions and we realized to our dismay that a windows7 pro tablet allows better security control, easier document syncing, no extra cost compared to our existing system, does not require the user to have a second device just to install os updates, allows for remote support, doesnt require a user to register an account that we would then have to manage because you know they will forget the password and the device pin if your able to find a way to force the pin.

The only thing we found that the ipad had over say the asus is battery life and about .5lbs

Apple devices are great consumer devices. In fact I am using one right now to type this. Apple does not belong in corporate America. Nor do they really care about the market. They more then love the profit margins they have with consumers.

 

Re:I read the article

[catmistake]

The reason you don't see innovation at corps on the PC is because the IT guys first lock the living shit out of it THEN put some really shitty AV that sucks resources like Norton. What you have is a machine that is painful to use that just screams drudgery.

Trust me, if you're talking about Windows, even when IT guys DO NOT lock the living shit out of it, you still end up with the same thing... a machine that is painful to use and barely works.

I have to completely disagree with the premise, that IT locking down the machine is causing the issue. I believe that IT choosing an architecture that is general purpose, and then removing most of its general purpose functionality, is a part of the problem. Has anyone noticed that 90% of corp workers use their computer for only company email and browser-based Corp apps? What is wrong with the idea of ditching the general purpose boat anchor and choosing an extremely limited architecture that does everything those 90% need... making THAT the defacto standard for new employees, and then giving the general purpose machine to the other 10% that need to do heavier (real computer necessary) stuff?

I think big IT issue in most corporations is not the lowly IT tech guys, but their management, especially the corporate architects, the directors and veeps, that have their head shoved so far up their asses they have no idea that they are allowed to and even required to innovate. Instead, they concentrate on doing the same thing today that they did yesterday, i.e. maintaining status quo, and keeping Microsoft in business. After all, if everything just worked all the time, what would be the point of even having an IT department? No, they must build "broken" into the infrastructure.