In a wide ranging piece for PBS, Robert Cringley offers some opinions about IT policies.
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?I'm not convinced that this is a conspiracy, if by conspiracy we mean intentional and secretive activity. But if we step back and look at some of the arguments made against Macs by sysadmins and Windows users, we can start to sketch the outlines of some of these policy decisions.[...]
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.
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.
First, that Macs don't allow users to control the system in deep and powerful ways. Let's leave aside the fact that this isn't true at all--many geeks hack their systems down to machine code levels. The point of the Mac, though, is to facilitate use without requiring in-depth tweaking (at least in theory). This philosophy is absolutely opposed to that of many Windows users--and just as importantly, opposed to the tendencies of many people who go into IT careers.
It's not a conspiracy, but an attitude. One that probably isn't examined seriously by those holding it.
Second, that (as Cringley points out elsewhere in the article) Macs are more expensive. But Total Cost of Ownership studies show, over and over again, that when the cost of troubleshooting and training is taken into account, Macs are on par or cheaper that Windows systems. But here again we see another unexamined tendency: IT staffs tend not to look at TCO because of the conflict of interest: it's difficult to ask someone to consider every hour of their work as a negative effect on the bottom line (which is what TCO studies ask for). This isn't, I think, a conscious decision, but it's still striking.
Posted by johndan at August 15, 2003 07:50 PM
| TrackBack