This article is NOT about prices at Best Buy, VanDeKoik. IBM does not buy computers from Best Buy, either Apple Macs or Windows PCs. Nor are they referring to the initial cost to purchase the computer. They and I am discussing the cost to OWN each computer over a period of time, including the cost to support it, run it, and finally dispose of it at end of useful life. In this instance, they are using four years as the useful life of each computer. IBM has compared these costs over that time period and the Apple Mac wins by a considerable amount.
Multiply that by the number of computers they operate and that totals a LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY! Just taking the smaller amount of $273 and multiplying it times 90,000 provides a substantial savings of $24,570,000. If the larger number of $543 per computer, then it's $48,870,000! That's nothing to ignore for IBM's bottom line.
In an earlier article on this subject last year, IBM found that it took ONE IT guy to provide service for every 497 Windows computers. If IBM has 200,000 Windows computers across their 2,800 locations around the world, they must have 403 Windows IT guys to service all those Windows computers. This article states as a fact that they only have to have FIVE (5) IT guys to provide service for 90,000 Mac computers! That's ONE IT GUY for every 18,000 Macs. One Mac IT guy is 36 times more effective and therefore more economical than one Windows IT guy! One Mac guy is worth 36 Windows guys!
IBM also found their employees using Macs were more productive as well.
Thats Total Cost of Ownership (TCE) analysis. Gartner started the ball rolling on that @25 years ago. It gets kind of hairy doing these comparisons.
You have to somehow back out application support, because presumably this will remain similar. And Im talking mainly specialized apps which soak most of this up.
Then you have to budget application conversion, which can kill the whole thing, that can be a #$#-&+ even when just upgrading Windows. In my experience thats the main (and large) cost of a Windows version upgrade in the first place, and if so consider the fallout of moving to Mac.
Its a very, very complex calculation that needs to consider all sorts of details, and I have seen way too many very lightweight proposals for this sort of thing.
“Debate over: IBM confirms that Macs are $535 less expensive than PCs”
“They and I am discussing the cost to OWN each computer over a period of time,”
Which isnt even any better. A completely subjective thing that some moron reporter entitles “debate over”, and you gladly shook with glee the minute you saw it.
Just a retarded troll click-bait article to massage your goofy near-fetish for a logo.