Macs End Up Costing 3 Times Less Than Windows PCs Because of Fewer Tech Support Expense, Says IBM's IT Guy (yahoo.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report on Yahoo (edited): Last year, Fletcher Previn became a cult figure of sorts in the world of enterprise IT. As IBM's VP of Workplace as a Service, Previn is the guy responsible for turning IBM (the company that invented the PC) into an Apple Mac house. Previn gave a great presentation at last year's Jamf tech conference where he said Macs were less expensive to support than Windows. Only 5% of IBM's Mac employees needed help desk support versus 40% of PC users. At that time, some 30,000 IBM employees were using Macs. Today 90,000 of them are, he said. And IBM ultimately plans to distribute 150,000 to 200,000 Macs to workers, meaning about half of IBM's approximately 370,000 employees will have Macs. Previn's team is responsible for all the company's PCs, not just the Macs. All told IBM's IT department supports about 604,000 laptops between employees and its 100,000+ contractors. Most of them are Windows machines -- 442,000 -- while 90,000 are Macs and 72,000 are Linux PCs. IBM is adding about 1,300 Macs a week, Previn said.

Comments

Were the users randomized?

[JMZero]

I mean, I'm sure our Linux users overall require the least tech support. But that's a function of who they are more than what they're using.

I don't doubt that Macs require less support, but 40% vs 5% says that something else is going on - and I doubt that sort of ratio will hold once people are converted in bulk.

Re:Were the users randomized?

[ColdWetDog]

No.I'm sure he's correct. I use a Mac at work in a Windows environment. If I have a question, I get 'duh, we don't know, we don't support Macs, figure it out by yourself'.

So I do. Costs the system a lot less.

Macs for the win!

Re:Were the users randomized?

[barc0001]

The problem is that not everyone is you. At a former job I supported PCs and then the director of marketing decided that he liked Macs so he unilaterally switched his group to Macs. Anecdotally I'd say the users had just as many problems that needed my help as they did when they were on PCs, and in addition had additional problems they needed sorting out in the first couple of weeks following the switchover due to their lack of familiarity with OSX. Most of their day to day problems were software related, so the underlying OS didn't factor into that one way or the other, and these peoples' self troubleshooting skills were practically nonexistent so it meant just as much work for me, and in some cases more as I was also then tasked to find them alternate software to do a given task.

For the average users, once you get past the enthusiasts skewing the numbers the IT savings will probably not be as significant as this article makes them out to be. People are still going to be having trouble mapping a drive, sharing a folder, logging into an SFTP site on Windows or OSX.

Hardware wise, the Macs generally use decent hardware that lasts, but also charge a premium for that. If offices used PCs that weren't the cheapest thing that fell off the turnip truck they'd see as good or better failure rates than the Macs. And Apple hasn't been 100% immune to shitty hardware slipping out the door so spending more on the Mac isn't a bulletproof guarantee either.

Re:Were the users randomized?

[Bigjeff5]

That actually costs your company a lot more, then, not less.

The trick, of course, is that it's a hidden cost that is virtually impossible to tally on a spreadsheet: your productivity is lost while you fix that problem. Did it take you an hour, where a tech might have taken 10 minutes? Did it take you several days when a tech might have had it cleared up in an afternoon? Who gets paid more for their time, you or the tech? That's a cost that's really hard to quantify, and so gets completely ignored.

My favorite example of this is when I worked as a hardware depot manager for one site of a huge global corporation. IT management issued a mandate that said hardware depots could only keep X amount of stock on hand at any given time and could only order new stock when it was gone. New stock orders also required the personal approval of the #3 guy in IT management.

I regularly went through my stock in about a week, week and a half, and it would take two weeks or more to receive a new pallet of computers to refresh my stock. Furthermore, as you might expect, the #3 guy in IT is a pretty busy guy, so he would sometimes take up to a week to approve my stock orders.

In the end, IT saved millions globally because their stock orders were drastically reduced, yet on the local level you had engineers being paid upwards of $1000 a day to twiddle their thumb while they wait for their $500 computer to arrive. But IT doesn't see one dime of that cost. In fact, unless a department gets hit with a flood of new hires who need new computers, it's likely none of the local departments will see a big enough impact on their budget to formally complain to IT about the process. Yet the company's cost saving methods caused a $500 computer to cost upwards of $20,000, and all of it is hidden from the bean counters.

Re: Were the users randomized?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at IBM until recently. There's some things you need to keep in mind.

One, the Linux numbers are *all* elective. There's almost as many Linux users as Mac, which means the Mac sample is largely being reported based on the people who explicitly requested it. They may have embarked on forced migration after I left, but the numbers are based on an opt-in pilot that was available when I left the company for greener pastures.

Also, ibm had long been using their internal IT as marketing collateral. When IBM had a big deal with Toshiba in selling their retail store business, they forced their users to start using Toshiba laptops as part of that arrangement.

Recently they've partnered with apple and microsoft is a bigger rival than ever. So their IT is tasked with supporting that partnership in technical and marketing capacities.

When dealing with any of these big companies, there's always an agenda that taints the messaging. It's really frustrating bring in this industry knowing that 99% of endorsements carry huge caveats and are motivated by marketing motives target than technical merit.

Re:Why?

[Oswald McWeany]

If 40% of his windows machines needed help desk support then his organization is doing something seriously wrong.

Not a fair comparison

[elcheesmo]

Having worked at IBM before, there was a lot of legacy software than ran on PC which would often stop working because of a problem with a remote server. The only way to report such problems would be by calling the help desk. It wouldn't matter whether it was a problem with Windows, or whether you knew exactly what the problem was. It all had to be reported through the help desk.

I imagine that if you use a Mac then it means you don't need to run any of the legacy software. And if you don't need to run the legacy software, there's no reason to ever call the help desk.

I would believe if there were fewer hardware-related help desk calls with the Mac, but I have a hard time believing that PCs require more help desk calls simply because Windows/PCs sucks.

Re:Why?

[NatasRevol]

The only people who doubt this story are those that have never used both Windows and Mac computers extensively.

I'd put one caveat.

*supported Win & Mac extensively.

I worked at a newspaper. We were 2/3 Mac, 1/3 Win. Windows users were at least half the support time, if not more.

Re:Why?

[__aaclcg7560]

What about when it's dumb users who can't even turn the systems / displays on or other stuff like can't work the web and need to call to get basic help?

When I worked at the Google IT help desk, I had to talk a recent computer scientist graduate student through the process of turning on his own workstation since no one was standing around to turn it on for him like they do at the university computer labs.

3rd party drivers

[perpenso]

Who else's fault would it be that Windows requires 3x more support?

The vendors who supply the 3rd party drivers.

Macs are more reliable/require less support because there is very little a corporation or end user can add to it, to customize it beyond built-to-order. I've been building my own PC desktop machines for decades and I have had very few problems because I tend to carefully select the parts and use "better" rather than "less expensive" parts. However my PCs are sort of anomalies in this respect. When helping friends and family "debug" their PC problems the BSOD was usually coming from a 3rd party driver, from a second tier low cost vendor. By maintaining a higher degree of control Apple is less susceptible to such problems.

The secondary benefit of my BYO approach is that I have had very few Linux compatibility problems over the decades.

Oh, and Windows has been running natively (dual boot) very reliably on my Mac laptops for many years now.