Nearly half of U.S. corporations issuing Macs to employees

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014


With about 46 percent of corporations handing out Apple computers to their workers it would seem that OS X is slowly currying favor with chief information officers, though the final count depends on the workers themselves and many are not yet ready to make the leap to Mac.



Apple is seeing a bump in the number of businesses issuing Macs to their employees due in part to more appealing pricing, but the actual number of workers per company who are issued the computers is still a small slice of the overall enterprise pie, reports CIO Journal.



Apple's business sales grew 50.9 percent at the end of 2011 which accounted for a 34.9% year-to-year growth in total Mac shipments.



According to CBS Interactive CTO Peter Yared, the cost of rolling out an enterprise Mac solution is becoming a more viable option. About 100-150 Macs are being brought in to select CBS brands each quarter to replace older Windows PCs for roughly 2,500 employees.



"It used to be cost-prohibitive to run Macs in the enterprise, and that equation changed recently with the MacBook Air,” Yared said.



While the Air's price-of-entry is higher than offerings from competing Windows units, Yared said that the end cost is comparable as he would have needed to buy peripherals like docking stations and solid state drives for each employee.











Another factor is the contrast in desktop environment. Yared's decision to begin implementing Macs in the workplace was partly fueled by expectations of his charges in San Francisco who were accustomed to using Apple devices.



“People aren’t going to step into a time machine when they go to work, it makes them very frustrated and it makes it hard to attract and retain top talent,” Yared said.



According to research firm Forrester, a significant portion of Mac adoption relies on Apple's other products.



“The use of iPads and iPhones in the workplace is creating increased awareness and consideration of Macs,” said Forrester Vice President and Principal Analyst Frank Gillett.



The halo effect might be in force at some smaller startup companies, though cost structure is making the Mac more attractive for large multi-nationals like Cisco.



Cisco CIO Rebecca Jacoby said that about 16,000 employees, or one quarter of the company's 63,870 total workers, use Macs with the concentration of users hovering between 20-30 percent depending on country.



“It does cost a lot more than a standard-issue PC, so in order to absorb that cost, we made tradeoffs in the way we actually do the service structure for it,” Jacoby said. “IT backs it but it’s also the [Cisco employee] community that supports it, which ends up being a much more cost-effective support mechanism for us and we can make it cost neutral."



Despite the wider adoption, many corporations are finding that many employees are resistant to switch over to Mac after years of using enterprise solutions from Windows.



Forrester found that while 46 percent of corporations now issue Macs, only 7 percent of computers given to employees run Apple's OS.



Yared gave the example of accountants being hesitant in switching to Mac because they use programs like Microsoft Excel, which is presented slightly differently on OS X than Windows. The ability of running two operating systems is a non-factor as tech chiefs don't want to spend the money to purchase two licenses for one computer.











While Windows currently dominates the enterprise space, the evidence is pointing to marked Apple gains in the sector. Employees and managers are looking for ways to streamline the workplace, and the usability of the Mac ecosystem seems to be attracting more corporations. A testament to the platform's ease of use is what Yared called the biggest surprise in integrating Macs: people didn't need any training to get up and running.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,411member
    It's true that many users won't want to use a Mac for some of the stated reasons. But for more advanced users who can support themselves, it's great to finally have the option to use a Mac (at least in some places).



    Where I work, I had to fight very hard just to have the right to buy my own Mac for use at work, with virtually zero support. Nice to see that there are companies out there that are more enlightened than my employer.
  • gadgetcanadagadgetcanada Posts: 423member
    Mac Office 2011 is fully cross-compatible with Office 2010. The best part is VBA in Excel!!
  • djkikromedjkikrome Posts: 186member
    If Apple could get Intuit to give Mac OS X a REAL version of Quickbooks that is EQUAL to the XP version, then mac adoption in business would increase easier just on that ALONE. I run Macs for all my business stuff but have to use Windows XP on a laptop with Parallels software running to have my fully functioning Quickbooks working. Since the Mac version doesn't completely support payroll in the app like the PC versions do, I'm left with having to use a PC version that would just be great if it was truly Mac native.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,859member
    And so it begins: the REAL marketshare push.
  • majortom1981majortom1981 Posts: 306member
    I would love to know how they are integrating the macs with their active desktop domains.



    I am findining it difficult to lock users out of specific things on the mac . I have seen software that makes it able to control a mac via group policy but they can be expensive.



    Are they keeping them off their domains entirely and saying your on your own ?
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post


    I would love to know how they are integrating the macs with their active desktop domains.



    I am findining it difficult to lock users out of specific things on the mac . I have seen software that makes it able to control a mac via group policy but they can be expensive.



    Are they keeping them off their domains entirely and saying your on your own ?



    Or maybe they're not using Active Domains.





    I'm glad to see this. I took an enormous amount of heat from coworkers, IT departments, and bosses back in the 90s for using Macs.
  • jbfromozjbfromoz Posts: 91member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post


    I would love to know how they are integrating the macs with their active desktop domains.



    I am findining it difficult to lock users out of specific things on the mac . I have seen software that makes it able to control a mac via group policy but they can be expensive.



    Are they keeping them off their domains entirely and saying your on your own ?



    the AD schema can be extended to provide group policy to macs from AD.
  • stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    In view of this (and really, this trend has been predictable for a while), it's fascinating that Intel is investing in Windows-bsaed Ultrabooks. Why not invest the $300M in R&D to improve their chips more to help Apple sell more? Why not catch a new wave rather than trying to pull a receding one back into relevance?



    Intel is not a stupid company. So their strategy is intriguing. Is it because they don't like Apple's control? Or they simply want to expand this market? Or is Microsoft staking them in this $300M investment?
  • stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Or maybe they're not using Active Domains.





    I'm glad to see this. I took an enormous amount of heat from coworkers, IT departments, and bosses back in the 90s for using Macs.



    No offense but, back then, they were justified.
  • tinman0tinman0 Posts: 168member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    No offense but, back then, they were justified.



    No they weren't. Historically the Mac had a much lower TCO than a PC, the only problem was that the upfront cost of a Mac was that much more.



    Still remember in the mid 90s meeting the IT Dept head for Dennis Publishing. She ran 300-400 desks (all Macs) with 2 other guys. Her counterparts at Haymarket (iirc) had 500 seats, all PC and had a support department of 30. Same with E&Y in London. They binned Macs in the mid 90s, and a support dept of 6 went to 50.



    But of course, PCs are cheaper......
  • stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post


    No they weren't. Historically the Mac had a much lower TCO than a PC, the only problem was that the upfront cost of a Mac was that much more.



    Still remember in the mid 90s meeting the IT Dept head for Dennis Publishing. She ran 300-400 desks (all Macs) with 2 other guys. Her counterparts at Haymarket (iirc) had 500 seats, all PC and had a support department of 30. Same with E&Y in London. They binned Macs in the mid 90s, and a support dept of 6 went to 50.



    But of course, PCs are cheaper......



    In the 90s:



    All PCs - easy to manage.

    All Macs - relatively easy to manage

    Mixing in a few Macs in a PC environment? Mucho extra work.



    Hence, justified. There simply is no reasonable rebuttal to this. End of story



    Today's world is, of course, different.
  • mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 6,924member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    And so it begins: the REAL marketshare push.



    Agreed. This is how Microsoft took over the market--through business where you needed to learn Windows to get a lot of processing jobs.
  • mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 6,924member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    In the 90s:



    All PCs - easy to manage.

    All Macs - relatively easy to manage

    Mixing in a few Macs in a PC environment? Mucho extra work.



    Hence, justified. There simply is no reasonable rebuttal to this. End of story



    Today's world is, of course, different.



    In the 90s both Windows and Macs were junk. I dealt with both working within Heterogenous environments from Win3.11/System7+ to HP-UX/DecStations and much more.



    Windows for Workgroups to WinNT 3.5.1 were a pain in the rear. Macs were easy to set up for all Mac networks but their file sharing for Windows was crap due to Microsoft. Then the UNIX support was nearly as bad.



    OS X changes it all because its UNIX. Apple's entire ecosystem today is UNIX.



    Microsoft is the one catching up and losing in the big markets will be the nail on the coffin.



    When the big ports of Engineering Apps arrive and matched with their iOS brethren Microsoft will realize it's truly losing it.



    When ANSYS, all of Autodesk suites, Pro/E [Now Creo from PLM Software], CATIA, etc., have Cocoa versions Engineering schools around all major Universities will be thrilled.
  • neilmneilm Posts: 453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    With about 46 percent of corporations handing out Apple computers to their workers it would seem that OS X is slowly currying favor with chief information officers



    @Mikey Campbell:

    The expression "to curry favor" does not mean what you apparently think it does.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    No offense but, back then, they were justified.



    Not by any standard. There were plenty of studies showing the total cost of ownership being lower for Macs. And I was able to do everything that any of the PCs in the shop could do. In fact, our IT group often spent days getting the PCs onto the network and I had no problem in minutes.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    In the 90s:



    All PCs - easy to manage.

    All Macs - relatively easy to manage

    Mixing in a few Macs in a PC environment? Mucho extra work.



    Hence, justified. There simply is no reasonable rebuttal to this. End of story



    Today's world is, of course, different.



    The 'reasonable rebuttal' is that you're full of baloney. PCs were not easy to manage in the 90's. It was not uncommon to have one IT person for every 20-50 users. (We had 2 IT persons and only 40 users and the PCs were often out of operation a good bit of the time). It was well established that PCs were a nightmare in the 90's.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 17,391member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    And so it begins: the REAL marketshare push.



    Apple should tread very cautiously.



    If it's market share at the expense of profits, it's not remotely worth it.



    With business buyers, it inevitably becomes that way: they start trying to squeeze you like they will any supplier, for every extra buck and every extra cent of EPS. It becomes a creeping commitment to a bear hug that you can't easily escape from -- once you become beholden to the volume of sales from this segment, there's no turning back. Apple could get stuck.
  • genovellegenovelle Posts: 661member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Not by any standard. There were plenty of studies showing the total cost of ownership being lower for Macs. And I was able to do everything that any of the PCs in the shop could do. In fact, our IT group often spent days getting the PCs onto the network and I had no problem in minutes.







    The 'reasonable rebuttal' is that you're full of baloney. PCs were not easy to manage in the 90's. It was not uncommon to have one IT person for every 20-50 users. (We had 2 IT persons and only 40 users and the PCs were often out of operation a good bit of the time). It was well established that PCs were a nightmare in the 90's.



    They are still a nightmare.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,859member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    If it's market share at the expense of profits, it's not remotely worth it.



    Apple. Give up profits.



    I love this forum. Such great humor.



    Quote:

    With business buyers, it inevitably becomes that way: they start trying to squeeze you like they will any supplier, for every extra buck and every extra cent of EPS.



    I think of it more as "Apple's going to revolutionize yet another industry." In this case, by forcing businesses to realize that quality products that cost more at first (but less over the life of the device) and last longer is the right way to go.



    You're right in your fears, but I wouldn't be. Frightened, that is.
  • omegalinkomegalink Posts: 7member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post


    If Apple could get Intuit to give Mac OS X a REAL version of Quickbooks that is EQUAL to the XP version, then mac adoption in business would increase easier just on that ALONE. I run Macs for all my business stuff but have to use Windows XP on a laptop with Parallels software running to have my fully functioning Quickbooks working. Since the Mac version doesn't completely support payroll in the app like the PC versions do, I'm left with having to use a PC version that would just be great if it was truly Mac native.



    I agree. I wish someone would just takeover Quickbooks and develop the Mac version properly. If Apple was able to takeover Filemaker Pro maybe it should also look at Quickbooks. These are important moves to make--clear the obstacles that are preventing the use of an otherwise superior OS platform. The pragmatic issues are very real indeed. They may appear to be minor issues and come in various forms, but they are holding people back from adopting the Mac at the enterprise level.
  • mytdavemytdave Posts: 412member
    Most CIOs aren't likely to read this forum, but they still have a bit of learning to do. I'm an IT admin where I work, and I know about the costs of supporting multiple platforms. If some CIOs are claiming it still costs more to put Macs in their enterprise, then they're doing it wrong.



    I run a small dept. with about 80 desktops/laptops and a dozen or so servers. About 6 of those machines are Macs. The initial cost of most of them was less than the PCs (they're Mac minis). The long term support costs of the Macs is near zero. Once configured, they have operated without incident and without failure for nearly four years now. All that's been done to them are software updates - really easy with the built-in software updater.



    The PCs on the other hand are the typical nightmare. Windows crashing, equipment failures, anti-virus and other protections constantly needing to be maintained and repaired, etc. etc. I waste countless hours keeping the PCs running when I could be using that time on better projects like increasing our capabilities or implementing new back end systems. And don't even get me started on the costs of licensing M$ software and all the needed security software packages.



    But enough about Windows. We have made a huge stride in reducing our PC costs by moving about 1/3 of the systems over to Linux. The software costs for those systems have dropped to near zero, and the support costs are much better than Windows, but still not as good as the Macs. The last thing that I should mention about the Macs that keeps their cost effectiveness much better than the PCs is that the PCs are on a 3-year upgrade cycle, but we have found the Macs have a longer useful lifespan - we'll be updating them on a 5-year cycle (our 1st upgrade will be next year on a machine that's actually 6 years old already - we bought it used).
Sign In or Register to comment.