IBM Replacing PCs With Macs Within The Company

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The company is reportedly saving $543 for every PC they are replacing. I’m not sure if we’re getting the whole story here…

IBM found that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, they’re also three times more expensive. That’s right, depending on the model, IBM is saving anywhere from $273 - $543 per Mac compared to a PC, over a four-year lifespan. “And this reflects the best pricing we’ve ever gotten from Microsoft,” Previn said. Multiply that number by the 100,000+ Macs IBM expects to have deployed by the end of the year, and we’re talking some serious savings. Needless to say, the employees at IBM got it right. And with 73% of them saying they want their next computer to be a Mac, the success will only increase with time.
 
Did they factor in the cost of application development? I'm neither for or against Apple, but logically speaking going against inertia costs companies money. We'll have front row seats to see how it goes.
 
I wish I could send this news article back to 20 years ago when Apple vs IBM was one of the first big Internet culture wars.
 
TheSoldier said:
Did they factor in the cost of application development? I'm neither for or against Apple, but logically speaking going against inertia costs companies money. We'll have front row seats to see how it goes.
Click to expand...
IBM, I suspect, does a lot of work on *nix, and that'd make apple a good fit, since it's built on BSD. Also there's nothing preventing them from installing Windows on the Mac, while the reverse is not possible in a corporate environment.
 
MavericK said:
What? How the hell did they determine Macs are cheaper than PCs?
Click to expand...

Apparently things are quite different when pricing 100,000 units over the span of four years, as opposed to one unit bought by a consumer.
 
MavericK said:
What? How the hell did they determine Macs are cheaper than PCs?
Click to expand...
I believe the lower cost is coming from Apple themselves.

We all know how cheap the actual hardware is and that Apple has absolutely ridiculous price markups. That means Apple has a helluva lot of room to drop prices for bulk discounts. Apple can also pretty much give away the OS licenses free with the hardware. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury in the desktop and server space, only in their specialized notebooks like the Surface series.

Apple has a lot of money to take a risky bet like this and make very little profit. They are almost completely out of the server market and the demand for their desktops and laptops hasn't been enough to give them motivation to innovate with better models. However, move enough product and they will gain a foothold on Microsoft's bread and butter market that is the corporate world.
 
This was in it's way in when I left the company over a year ago. IBM signed a strategic enterprise partnership with Apple a couple of years ago, that probably gives them access to discounted hardware as a result.
 
I saw the story a few days ago. IT costs are supposedly much cheaper with Macs. I have no idea what kind of work they're using it for, but if PCs and Macs are interchangeable, there may be even cheaper options available for such low requirements (not talking about Linux lol).
 
Edited to a more socially acceptable response by self... I just needed to vent.

Okay, make a list about everything you 'dislike' about macs.

Make a second list of things you DO like about PCs and combine that with what you dislike about Macs.

Now, try to imagine your non-savy relative trying to accomplish those same things on the list and how easy it is to screw up.

Continue by thinking about being a tech support person and the phone calls that come in... now imagine trying to trouble shoot a problem that has many possible combinations versus trouble shooting a problem that has fewer possible combinations?

Over time, quicker phone calls with common solutions will cost less on one platform versus another. Overall ownership costs versus flexibility in a corporate environment is a better solution for a higher percentage of the workforce who need to access email, a spreadsheet, a presentation app, and a web browser.

Next up will be dumb terminals using the web with light front end needs and just a few 'Power User' solutions.
 
Last edited:
nilepez said:
IBM, I suspect, does a lot of work on *nix, and that'd make apple a good fit, since it's built on BSD. Also there's nothing preventing them from installing Windows on the Mac, while the reverse is not possible in a corporate environment.
Click to expand...

I agree from both of those points. There had to be some development towards running on the Windows kernel. I'm not privet to their environment architecture, however I would imagine they would have to reengineer some of the software. Whether that saves them money, I'm not sure. As for your second point, virtualization would increase tech support calls, unless you are talking about wiping out OSX and clean install Win. What are your thoughts?
 
TheSoldier said:
Did they factor in the cost of application development? I'm neither for or against Apple, but logically speaking going against inertia costs companies money. We'll have front row seats to see how it goes.
Click to expand...

Yea I was wondering about that too. In the video I saw about it I really questioned some of what they were saying. The guy mentions how they don't need to image the apples and then says they come with the ibm app installed that lets the user sign in and download everything it needs. What gets me is that with any big contract you can get the machines preimaged. I could make a custom windows image and give it to dell to install on my machines.

The apps are an interesting point. They talked about making a new directory app for the mac that runs over the internet. The speaker goes on to say it is a lot better than the old way which required people to hit the VPN first. They also covered how many other upgrades they have made to other systems. Other weird things are talking about the lack of docking stations and external apple mic and track pads. Apples mice really are not that good and they don't have the docking options a good pc laptop does. I'm guessing a good bit of savings can come from people just not wanting the apple mice/not having the cost of a dock.

I guess I wonder how much of the claimed cost saving(over 4 years with them being at it like a year and a half) will end up holding true. I've seen a lot of mac laptops not make it to year 4 for one. With the focus on updating interfaces and software for the mac I'm guessing a lot of the software works better as it is new vs old software that was continuing to work so it wasn't updated.
 
"And this reflects the best pricing we’ve ever gotten from Microsoft" - they aren't paying Microsoft for hardware.

Microsoft prices Windows 10 Enterprise subscription at $84 per user per year | ZDNet

That's the lower-end E3 subscription version of Win10 Enterprise. They didn't talk about the price of the higher-end E5 subscription. Over a 4 year period, $84 a year is $336, times 100,000 is $33.6 million. Who knows how much E5 is over four years, and who knows exactly what deal Microsoft has with IBM since they are getting it directly rather than through resellers, but OS cost could easily be a substantial part of that $273 - $543 being saved over a 4 year period.
 
Last edited:
evilsofa said:
"And this reflects the best pricing we’ve ever gotten from Microsoft" - they aren't paying Microsoft for hardware.

Microsoft prices Windows 10 Enterprise subscription at $84 per user per year | ZDNet

That's the lower-end E3 subscription version of Win10 Enterprise. They didn't talk about the price of the higher-end E5 subscription. Over a 4 year period, $84 a year is $336, times 100,000 is $336 million. Who knows how much E5 is over four years, and who knows exactly what deal Microsoft has with IBM since they are getting it directly rather than through resellers, but OS cost could easily be a substantial part of that $273 - $543 being saved over a 4 year period.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure for their setup they need enterprise. On the macs they are giving the end user admin rights and they use cisco vpn to get into the network. They do use disk encryption but that is included with windows 10 pro. The machines are using local user accounts from my understanding so it isn't like they need the remote domain support that enterprise has.
 
When Bavaria switched to Linux to stick it to old evil MSFT they thought it'd be cheaper.

It was not.
 
Coincidentally, IBM has seen its revenues, profits and share price drop every year for the the last 4 years
 
cageymaru said:
Here is another article on the matter.
IBM claims moving to Mac drastically reduced support calls, operating costs | ExtremeTech

Last year, Previn gave a bit more detail, claiming that 40% of PC users called the IT help desk, versus just 5% of Mac users.
Click to expand...
Two things that can be the cause of this...

1. The Mac environment is closed. They don't have to factor in drivers for every imaginable piece of hardware or configuration out there. This makes the software support simple. The only thing you then have to factor in is the reliability of the hardware, and replacing Apple hardware is an absolute pain in the ass when compared to your average windows PC. Fortunately, hardware reliability is almost a non-issue when dealing with a simple desktop or laptop.

2. Your average person is pretty damn dumb and barely knows how to Google something to fix it themselves. Most of the advanced functionality of OSX is hidden away already, leaving the basic setup like a Fisher Price toy to keep idiots from breaking it themselves unintentionally. This isn't really a knock against Apple, its more like a compliment to their programmers who seem to understand that the real money lies with the billions of idiot average joes. Unfortunately for Apple, Microsoft was the company that perfected the art of moving software in bulk.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
Here is another article on the matter.
IBM claims moving to Mac drastically reduced support calls, operating costs | ExtremeTech

Last year, Previn gave a bit more detail, claiming that 40% of PC users called the IT help desk, versus just 5% of Mac users.
Click to expand...

Probably helping to offset support calls for their horrible custom CentOS distro they hand out to all their Tech's. I'd also say the reason they see a lot of calls is for performance reasons, the Thinkpad fleet all ran on run of the mill 5200rpm mechanical disks and a metric tonne of encryption running on top (double encryption if you had the Linux image running a Win 7 VM). By contrast the Mac fleet would be entirely SSD based making real time disk encryption overhead far less of a concern.
 
TheSoldier said:
I agree from both of those points. There had to be some development towards running on the Windows kernel. I'm not privet to their environment architecture, however I would imagine they would have to reengineer some of the software. Whether that saves them money, I'm not sure. As for your second point, virtualization would increase tech support calls, unless you are talking about wiping out OSX and clean install Win. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking of a dual boot scenario. For actual tools, I'd be shocked if most of IBMs tools aren't available on multiple platforms. They're heavily involved in open source development that works on multiple platforms. I'm sure they're using something like Open Office internally (though the person who worked their up until a year or so ago could shed light on that).

I get the lower support costs (assuming their assumptions are correct). I'm not sure if that's how they get 1/3 the cost or not, however. The way it's worded, I think they're getting mac books for 1/3 the price of a comparable Windows PC, which is harder for me to believe. You can get a pretty sweet Dell laptop for 2 grand...4k screen, i7 6700, decent graphics 16GB of ram 500GB SSD. I don't see how you can buy a macbook for 1/3 that price. I don't believe cost on a similarly equipped Mac is 600 bucks. Which makes me think the wording is wrong and they're talking about total cost of ownership (TCO).
 
cageymaru said:
Here is another article on the matter.
IBM claims moving to Mac drastically reduced support calls, operating costs | ExtremeTech

Last year, Previn gave a bit more detail, claiming that 40% of PC users called the IT help desk, versus just 5% of Mac users.
Click to expand...

It's been a very long time since I worked help desk, but I would not doubt those numbers (Solaris and IRIX were even lower than either). That said, the PC problems were usually easy fixes. The Mac issues usually were not. Our per incident cost was much higher for Macs than for PC's but they kind of evened out in total cost because of call numbers. That said, everyone who worked both sides of the house hated pulling a Mac ticket.
 
I was at the conference where they gave these numbers. The savings are for total cost of ownership. The impressive thing was being able to provision out of the box macs without anyone from IT touching them. Windows computers need to be imaged still. MS is working on cloud provisioning PCs, but they are not there. The Thing is IBM deploys many more PCs than macs still and from the company side, they don't care what you pick.
 
So IBM no longer needs centralized user management or control over workstation security?

I can agree with others that Macs do need very little support, but I also have very little ability to enforce standardized IT policies without having to spend a lot of time with each individual iOS powered device, and even then I'm pretty limited at what options are available.

Ever used an AD-integrated iOS device? It's as buggy and inconsistent as anything Microsoft has ever put out, and in this case, has nothing to do with Microsoft. Try and get support from Apple and you get stuck in finger-pointing limbo with nowhere to escape.

Just wait until the first real Mac virus hits the world, and let them reassess their cost assessment. Hackers target the largest user base, which obviously is Windows; but if many large corporations follow IBM's example, that could change really quickly.
 
It is not any different to troubleshoot PCs in a corporate environment then it is a mac. When you order all your Dells or whatever in bulk they all have the exact same hardware and software also. They are cheaper because IBM and Apple partnered up and Apple is giving them a great deal on the hardware. All the other cost are the same unless IBM outsourced all their IT staff to apple also. Which I doubt as much as I doubt that any other company could get the same deal IBM is getting.
 
Athelstan said:
I was at the conference where they gave these numbers. The savings are for total cost of ownership. The impressive thing was being able to provision out of the box macs without anyone from IT touching them. Windows computers need to be imaged still. MS is working on cloud provisioning PCs, but they are not there. The Thing is IBM deploys many more PCs than macs still and from the company side, they don't care what you pick.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though, the macs were imaged by apple. In the conference they showed how during the setup the macs would run a custom ibm app that would then download the software needed. You could do the same thing with a windows pc. If I was ordering dell's for an organization with thousands of users I could setup an image that they could put on every machine they ship me. They also said if it didn't come that way the end user could download the app themselves. Since they are not putting them on a domain or anything and the users have admin access I don't see why that couldn't be done on a pc. Just order business machines that come pretty clean and run windows pro which has the built in encryption like mac os.

I'm not saying the apple machines might not actually be cheaper, just that some of the examples they were giving were really off.
 
swatbat said:
That's the thing though, the macs were imaged by apple. In the conference they showed how during the setup the macs would run a custom ibm app that would then download the software needed. You could do the same thing with a windows pc. If I was ordering dell's for an organization with thousands of users I could setup an image that they could put on every machine they ship me. They also said if it didn't come that way the end user could download the app themselves. Since they are not putting them on a domain or anything and the users have admin access I don't see why that couldn't be done on a pc. Just order business machines that come pretty clean and run windows pro which has the built in encryption like mac os.

I'm not saying the apple machines might not actually be cheaper, just that some of the examples they were giving were really off.
Click to expand...

IBM haven't put their machines on a Domain for years, they've relied entirely on VPN/Web based delivery of all the corporate services beyond what they built into their base SOE. The rest was deployed out of IEM.
 
It's a false economy. The hidden costs of Mac ownership are substantial. Have you seen what Peruvian llama pube beanies and boutique manbags cost these days? Not to mention therapists' bills.
 
Nope.

Ever trying changing a hard drive in a Mac? Upgrading the RAM? You can pretty much forget it in a laptop, and even the desktops are getting bad. Good luck keeping a current image, too, because they silently release drivers with new builds of the OS and provide no way to add those drivers to an existing image (and no way to manage drivers within the OS at all...apparently that's too complicated). Repairing them is training and labor expensive, at least compared to a Dell. They also lack enterprise-grade encryption tools. Apple doesn't even make docks for the @#$# things. FORGET about repairing an iPad...it's basically glued together.

It's been a while since I did this sort of work, so maybe some of this has gotten better...but I kinda doubt it.
 
When I was in desktop support, every year we'd get a visit from the sales guy on the Apple "enterprise team" wanting to know what they could do differently to make inroads in the enterprise market. The first few times we took them seriously, but then we noticed a few things. First, none of our suggestions were ever acted on. Second, we never saw the same person twice. It was abundantly clear to everyone -- including the Apple guys -- that Apple was very much form over function. Enterprise sales seemed to be where careers at Apple went to die... :p
 
And they think that they can directly give new apps to the end users? No sorry, you'll have to get all your users going through the apple store. lol.

I'd also wager that most support calls are for apple based things. Why won't my iPhone sync? Why can't I get the apple store? Plus people don't call for apple support because they just accept that whatever they want to do just won't do it because as something that's made to "just work", when it doesn't, it's a given design choice and they just accept it as being part of intelligent design.

Just wait for productivity costs, they'll be a real surprise to them that the workers are getting nothing done. Apple sucks at doing work on.
 
Kor said:
This was in it's way in when I left the company over a year ago. IBM signed a strategic enterprise partnership with Apple a couple of years ago, that probably gives them access to discounted hardware as a result.
Click to expand...

Ah the fine print, truth under the headlines... it's all over mac news though, they are rejoicing. Ah, doesn't matter to me, cest la vie.
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
It's a false economy. The hidden costs of Mac ownership are substantial. Have you seen what Peruvian llama pube beanies and boutique manbags cost these days? Not to mention therapists' bills.
Click to expand...

Giq5zh1.png
 
SanitaryMold said:
Next up will be dumb terminals using the web with light front end needs and just a few 'Power User' solutions.
Click to expand...

VDI. Virtual desktop infrastructure. It's already out there. I already deal with it. Thin client with a full blown OS running on it. There's bugs with it too or user issues. One thing we found right away, we had to hide the C: drive. Ppl were saving too it, even though the OS gets blown away as soon as you logoff. We don't have persistent VDI sessions. Already told them about it, they of course never listen.


Paul_Johnson said:
It's been a very long time since I worked help desk, but I would not doubt those numbers (Solaris and IRIX were even lower than either). That said, the PC problems were usually easy fixes. The Mac issues usually were not. Our per incident cost was much higher for Macs than for PC's but they kind of evened out in total cost because of call numbers. That said, everyone who worked both sides of the house hated pulling a Mac ticket.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of our guys ever wanted to touch a Mac ticket. We also finally got rid of the very few Macs we did have, like a year or so ago. They wanted to keep the monitors. Ya...those things are downright useless. One cord coming out the thing. WTF are we suppose to do with that? They sit in a warehouse collecting dust, cause no one wants to waste time/effort/money trying to find out if there's some stupid adapter for it to get power and a normal vga/dvi/hdmi/etc connection.
 
Our office went Mac a few years ago. It's been significantly less expensive for our IT department. We aren't tens of thousands of computers, we are tens of computers in our office. It still was noticeable, particularly because our IT department is halfway across the country - so most calls, if it can't be done via remote desktop, involves FedEx.

They do have a steeper up-front cost. But they last a lot longer and require fewer service callsthan your stock Dell/HP laptops. And on the occasions when you do need a service call, Apple Care is amazing. There for a while, we were going through Dells as fast as their warranty would expire.

When we did the switch, the company retained Windows for every user, and virtualized it via VMWare on every Macbook - people could keep using Windows if they wanted to, or they could switch to OS X native programs. About half stuck with Windows on the Apple hardware. As nice as I think the hardware is from Apple, I think just the switch to virtualized Windows saved more IT time than anything really. Now when Joe Bob wrecks Windows with whatever malware he swears he didn't get from looking at porn, IT doesn't even dork with trying to clear it, they just reprovision the VM image in a few minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top