What it is: For years, Apple has been promoting the Macintosh as a more reliable computer than a Windows PC. Now IBM’s study proves this to be the case.
For the longest time, Windows enthusiasts promoted the idea that corporations needed to standardize on a Windows PC. While standardizing made work easier for the IT department, standardizing equipment made no sense for the actual workers who needed to be productive. After all, what someone in the accounting department needs may not be exactly what someone in the marketing or engineering department needs. Yet IT departments forced standardization for their convenience at the sacrifice of worker productivity.
In reality, the IT department should work for the other company departments, not the other way around. Standardizing makes no sense if it’s not the best equipment for that particular worker. Standardization was simply an excuse for IT departments to do as little work as possible in exchange for forcing others to use less than optimum equipment.
That’s simply a recipe for failure in any corporation.
A second reason why IT departments standardized around Windows PCs was cost. A Windows PC typically costs less than a Macintosh, yet IBM’s latest study showed that “just 5% of employees using Macs need help from IBM’s tech support helpline in contrast to 40% (eight times as many) of the employees using PCs.”
So while a Macintosh may have a higher initial cost, it has far less ongoing support costs. Those ongoing support costs completely destroy the initial cost advantage of a Windows PC. IBM even stated that “every Mac that we buy is making and saving IBM money.”
The choice is simple. You can save money initially but pay for it later in a never ending cycle if you buy a Windows PC. Or you can pay more for a Macintosh initially and enjoy much less support costs for the life of the machine. In the long run, the Macintosh is actually more cost effective than a Windows PC due to lower support costs.
Lower support costs also mean greater worker productivity because the less time the IT department needs to help an employee, the more time that employee can do productive work. So beside the higher ongoing support costs of a Windows PC, there’s also a higher cost in decreased worker productivity with a Windows PC as well.
Basically the choice boils down to the following: You can have a higher cost and decreased worker productivity with a Windows PC or you can have a lower cost and increased worker productivity with a Macintosh. Amazingly, you’ll still find IT departments arguing for the former option of higher costs and decreased worker productivity because they don’t want to do any actual work in supporting multiple platforms. IT departments want the choice that insures their own job security regardless of how it affects the rest of a corporation.
If your IT department dictates how a company should run, that’s a clear sign your IT department has lost sight of its true purpose, which is to support the rest of the company, not dictate terms that other departments must follow. IBM’s study clearly shows that the Macintosh saves money, so why would you want to spend more money for lower productivity?