IBM Claims Macs Are Cheaper Than PCs in The Long-Term
John Williamson / 8 years ago
The Mac versus PC debate has been ongoing since the early days of computing and shows no sign of slowing down. It seems many people prefer a specific platform and cannot fathom why others use something different. Recently, IBM weighed in on the debate and discussed the notion of pricing. It’s commonly perceived that PCs are significantly cheaper and Apple charges an extortionate fee for the same components. During the Jamf Nation User Conference, Fletcher Previn, VP of Workplace as a Service at IBM made a rather interesting statement and argued that PCs are three times more expensive:
“But isn’t it expensive, and doesn’t it overload IT? No. 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.”
Not only that, IBM employees appear to agree and 73% claim they want their next computer to be a Mac. To maintain hefty demand for Macs within the IBM workplace, they’ve decided to use an extra 1,300 machines each week. Previn went on to say that moving to Macs made employees more aware and possibly improved their performance:
“The shortest distance to engaging employees is by what’s in their hand or what’s on their desk,”
Previn reiterated the costing savings and said:
“Every Mac we buy is in fact continuing to make and save IBM money.”
This isn’t a theory I completely agree with because Macs are not invulnerable to viruses, spyware and other security flaws. Despite Windows 10 having some annoying privacy issues, it’s quite a reliable operating system. Evidently, IBM has encountered issues using Windows machines and this has made them move towards Macs for the foreseeable future. It’s important to note that the savings are based on a four-year period and not the initial purchase.
Do you think IBM is right or simply trying to justify their partnership?
