PBS columnist: IT hates Macs because 'Macs reduce IT head count'

PBS's I, Cringely, the pulpit via MacDailyNews ^ | August 15, 2003 | Robert X. Cringely

[Swordmaker]

"Why aren't Apple Macintosh computers more popular in large mainstream organizations? Whatever the gigahertz numbers say, Macintoshes are comparable in performance to Windows or Linux machines. Whatever the conventional wisdom or the Microsoft marketing message, Macs aren't dramatically more expensive to buy and on a Total Cost of Ownership basis they are probably cheaper. Nobody would argue that Macs are harder to use. Clearly, they are easier to use, especially on a network. So what's the problem? Why do Macs seem to exist only in media outfits," asks Robert X. Cringely for PBS?

Cringely writes, "Apple is clearly wondering the same thing because the company recently surveyed owners of their xServe 1U boxes asking what Apple could do to make them more attractive? For those who own xServes, they are darned attractive -- small, powerful, energy-efficient, easy to configure and manage, and offering dramatic savings for applications like streaming. Yet, Apple appears to be having a terrible time selling the things."

"I used to think it came down to nerd ego. Macs were easy to use, so they didn't get the respect of nerds who measured their testosterone levels by how fluently they could navigate a command line interface.  Now, I think differently. Now, I think Macs threaten the livelihood of IT staffs. If you recommend purchasing a computer that requires only half the support of the machine it is replacing, aren't you putting your job in danger? Exactly," writes Cringely. "Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job."

Cringely writes, "Now another question: Why are Linux computers gaining in popularity with large organizations while Macs, which are based after all on BSD Unix, aren't? While there is certainly a lot to be said for Linux in competition with various flavors of Windows (Linux is faster, more memory-efficient, more secure, has more sources of supply, supports many more simultaneous users per box in a server environment, and is clearly cheaper to buy), the advantage over Macintosh computers is less clear."

"Again, it comes down to the IT Department Full Employment Act. Adopting Linux allows organizations to increase their IT efficiency without requiring the IT department to increase ITS efficiency. It takes just as many nerds to support 100 Linux boxes as 100 Windows boxes, yet Linux boxes are cheaper and can support more users. The organization is better off while the IT department is unscathed and unchallenged," Cringely writes.

"I am not claiming that every organization should throw out its PCs and replace them with Macs, but the numbers are pretty clear, and the fact that more Macs don't make it into server racks has to be based on something, and I think that something is CIO self-interest," writes Cringely. "Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that."

Amen.

[HamiltonJay]

Yes, they make them, but can you walk into a typical store and find them in stock? You can't talk about corporate enterprise and be talking about everything being special order, or difficult to find. You are taking your MAC to give the presentation of your life... your video card dies... its 6pm, your presentation is at 9am sharp and you are in Hershey PA..... what do you do?

And don't tell me this doesn't happen, as someone who has had to find hardware for systems by various vendors and OS's last minute for "MAKE OR BREAK" situations...

I don't dislike Macintoshes, since they have moved to an UNIX based OS, I think they are on the right path, but they aren't going to ever be enterprise desktop standard...they lost that battle, and they aren't going to make a comeback.

[cmsgop]

I did iChat last night for the first time with a frind in San Diego. It was just incredible, Smooth Picture,Easy to use,Just amazing...

[Swordmaker]

Macs are fine machines, and the company does some neat stuff, but arguing that MAC will ever own the desktop enterprise market is humorous.

Neither I, nor the author of the article, are arguing that Mac would or should "own" the desktop market... merely that it has a place and one that can make things less expensive.

As to Robert X. Cringely, he has been writing about and advocating the MS standard for years. I recall reading his articles in 1981. He is pointing out a theory for the lack of attention the Mac has received... and correlating information and quoted remarks received from the very IT managers about that lack of attention... and making a strong case.

Perhaps, large businesses with their tunnel-visioned IT departments, will never switch to Macs... but they represent only 40% of American business. 60% of Business in America is small business. I can tell you from my own experience that in the small business environment Macs offer a much more economical TCO than the PCs once you figure in maintenance costs, upgrade costs, and the cost of fighting the various virii that infect your prefered world.

The small business owners that I work with that have switched to Macs from PCs are grateful for the switch... and snicker when their competitors complain of MSBLAST.EXE and SOBIG-F or the latest problem du Jur that requires either their preventive intervention or someone else's corrective intervention.

A few that were forced to move from Macs to PCs because of single platform software requirements look longingly back at the Macs and swear at the costs their PCs bring them... one found a Mac solution to his application needs and it was amazing how fast he moved back. With the Macs now being UNIX, many more vertical solution and business applications are available for those who choose a Mac solution.

It is absolutely amazing how quickly PC snobs appear on these discussions claiming superior knowledge about something they have only tangentally looked at or read about in articles mostly written by people with the exact same mindset. It is also amazing how quickly they turn insulting in their attempts to "set us Mac users straight."

Your snide commentary about the Mac being "...a nice dorm room porn downloader, and "niche" egalitarian fringe toy... " show that your mind is completely closed and that you actually have very little knowledge of the Macintosh and its capabilities.

Others are not so closed minded:

Business Week Article: Picking Apple as a Server Solution

[RJS1950]

No, becaus macs and especially the latest desk lamp version are overpriced, overhyped and just plain crap with their proprietary OS. They are commonly referred to as crapintosh's or macincraps. They still crash more than winXP or win2000 machines and they don't play well with others. The macs can't raise the productivity by themselves and considering their lameness in realworld client-server and mainframe/midrange (yes, there are still a load of mainframes out there crunching)and other networking issues they remain CRAP.

[Swordmaker]

Ah, another knowledgable PC user enters the fray...

...proprietary OS... = BSD UNIX with an elegant GUI

...latest desk lamp version = Several other models have been released since the iMac... such as the $794 17" flat screen G4 eMac... and the new Workstation class G5s

...don't play well with others... = simple connection to Windows and other networks and award winning networking tools.

...still crash more than winXP or Win2000... = statistically untrue. UNIX is a much more stable than either windows environment.

[HamiltonJay]

Sword,

Look, I am no MS biggot, in fact I'd rather have a Unix server in front of me than any other machine, but that's not the point, nor does it cloud my judgement. Certainly small business can run whatever it wants, and please don't think MACs (or any OS for that matter) are virus free.

I despise MS Windows for a multitude of reasons, security of course being a big one of them... Effectively they are a marketing driven company, not a technology driven company and it causes them to perpetually put out "problematic" software to say the least.

However I don't agree with the premise that MAC's are inherently cheaper. They certainly aren't cheaper to acquire, are not cheaper to upgrade or maintain in terms of parts or service, and because of their smaller footprint in the marketplace are inherently more expensive to administer, because the cost per competent admin is indeed greater because they are in more limited supply.

I have no issues with a small organization choosing a mac, and I can think of pleanty of places where effectively they really are not using their desktops for anything more than glorified word processors and emailers... and maybe some file swapping... and if that is all you are asking of your desktop, ANY OS can deliver it. A 6 person fashion design company doesn't do much with their PC's... so, certainly there is nothing to worry about there.

However when you talk enterprise, and are talking desktop nodes in the thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands, doing all sorts of different tasks and specialized processes as well, the MAC replacement is comical. It just doesn't fly.

You may not be jumping on this MAC for enterprise claim, but plenty in this thread are, and its rediculous and borderline insane to even put that argument forward. Claiming your MAC never needs an OS upgrade or security patch on your home PC compared to your work environment wintel box is just a completely unrelated comparisons. I have have had win 95 boxes in my home that have run without bluescreen for years as well, but I know I can crash a typical desktop running it at will if I so choose.... MS does have pleanty of weaknesses, and i am not a fan of their OS... I think any OS that does not sandbox applications memory space, and doesn't recover that memory after that application dies... isn't even an OS to me.

Macs are fine hardware, and with the newer OS's do bring some very fine things to the table, but there is just no way the enterprise is moving Mac.. that war was lost a long long time ago.

[HAL9000]

However when you talk enterprise, and are talking desktop nodes in the thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands, doing all sorts of different tasks and specialized processes as well, the MAC replacement is comical. It just doesn't fly.

It does fly with Apple Remote Desktop.

[First_Salute]

With the exception of your point about available software applications, the many other assertions are easily disproved on a daily basis.

The establishment of maintenance routines can bias turnaround in either direction. While each platform has its strengths and weaknesses which play into or against such routines.

Yet, Apple most hurts itself in the software area about which you wrote. The engineers and bean counters DO NOT want to go into an Apple Store and be greeted by "Have you seen iPhoto?!" quizzlings.

They want to see production machinery --- real tools.

And on that note, you nailed Apple to the fence.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[avenir]

"The point is that the Mac can have whatever type of input device the user wants... one button, two button, three, wheel, trackballs..."

Serious question (since I even looked at the "switch" site and couldn't get a clear answer): Does OS X have context-sensitive menus that can be accessed by that right-mouse button...just like Windows?

If not it should cause that's one of my favorite features for some reason.

[tubebender]

A friend of my taught Mac lab at the local HS and backed up the IT dept on the Mac end. He said they had 1 tech for every 35 to 50 pcs and 1 tech for every 130 to 150 Macs. He said the Mac techs had time to help on the pc side.

[Swordmaker]

Does OS X have context-sensitive menus that can be accessed by that right-mouse button...just like Windows?

Yes. Absolutely. The contextual menus are also available with the one button mouse... just point, click and hold for a second... or hold down the Control Key while clicking.

With a two button mouse, right clicking brings up the contextual menu instantly.

[avenir]

"Yes. Absolutely."

Good to know that. Thanks.