The Total Cost of Ownership is What Matters!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
People usually think Macs are more expensive than PCs... no, no, wait, let me finish... they think Macs are more expensive because, hey, a macbook pro is at least $1000 but a PC laptop can be had for $500 or less.



But are Macs really more expensive? What about the ONLY figure that really matters: Total Cost of Ownership (TCO):



Quote:

Total cost of ownership (TCO) is a financial estimate. Its purpose is to help consumers and enterprise managers determine direct and indirect costs of a product or system. It is a management accounting concept that can be used in full cost accounting or even Ecological economics where it includes social costs.



Also from wikipedia:



Quote:

A TCO analysis includes Total cost of acquisition and Operating costs. A TCO analysis is used to gauge the viability of any capital investment. An enterprise may use it as a product/process comparison tool. It is also used by credit markets and financing agencies. TCO directly relates to an enterprise's asset and/or related systems total costs across all projects and processes, thus giving a picture of the its profitability over time.



For the the Mac versus PC cost problem, there are many obvious factors that come to mind:

- depreciation rate (NOT the $$ paid upfront for the computer!)

- cost of software and software updates

- hardware reliability and maintenance cost

- software reliability and maintenance cost

- overall user productivity



So when doing the Mac vs. PC cost calculation correctly (TCO), which comes up on top?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    Since you've mentioned productivity, you seem to be talking about computers for work purposes. If that's the case then the PC has a lower TCO. For a Mac there would be: the initial cost, the cost of replacing all your Windows software with Mac software, the time and cost of having to redevelop a lot of in-house software to make it work on a Mac, the time and cost of retraining 1000+ staff to use the Macs, the extra time and cost of maintaining and repairing the Mac due to the lack of easy access to the internals (apart from the Mac Pro). You avoid all of those time wasters and costs by sticking with a PC.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    mpwmpw Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buceta View Post


    ...So when doing the Mac vs. PC cost calculation correctly (TCO), which comes up on top?



    It depends on the user.



    For me? PC every time.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mpw View Post


    It depends on the user.



    And assumes he can calculate.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    mpwmpw Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist View Post


    And assumes he can calculate.



    This, coupled with your user name reminded me of this
  • Reply 5 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mpw View Post


    This, coupled with your user name reminded me of this



    Beautiful hahaha!



    But yeah, some people believe PC are lower TCO since they use it as a gaming box really. Others, that use it for work, throw the problem of paying for retraining their IT staff, which is really a silly argument when you realize you can downsize your IT department by a factor of 5-10 if using Macs.



    The only argument that I buy is that of having to redevelop in-house software. But I bet that can also be fixed relatively easily since cocoa is probably the best development platform even created and at any rate the final product, even in the hands of a so so developing team, will have a much higher level of reliability and polish than anything ever written for PC.



    But hey... to each their own I suppose.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist View Post


    And assumes he can calculate.



    That is right, and most people can't as we all know and as is evidenced in this thread.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    mpwmpw Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buceta View Post


    That is right, and most people can't as we all know and as is evidenced in this thread.



    Where's this evidence then?



    I doubt a company with an IT dept. of 10 would reduce the dept. size to 1, or even half it just by switching to Macs, but I don't see much else evidence of poor calculation in this thread.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buceta View Post


    Beautiful hahaha!



    But yeah, some people believe PC are lower TCO since they use it as a gaming box really. Others, that use it for work, throw the problem of paying for retraining their IT staff, which is really a silly argument when you realize you can downsize your IT department by a factor of 5-10 if using Macs.



    The only argument that I buy is that of having to redevelop in-house software. But I bet that can also be fixed relatively easily since cocoa is probably the best development platform even created and at any rate the final product, even in the hands of a so so developing team, will have a much higher level of reliability and polish than anything ever written for PC.



    But hey... to each their own I suppose.



    That's really all based on speculation and what 'probably' 'maybe' the case. I doubt many businesses would gamble so much money on something that may or may not benefit them instead of just sticking with what is tried and tested, and already gets the desired results.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    Windows 7 Home Premium $199.99

    Windows 7 Professional $199.99

    Windows 7 Ultimate $219.99



    Office Pro $499.99

    Office Ultimate $679.95

    PS Elements for Win7 $99.99

    PS Premier for Win7 $99.99

    AVG AV 8.5 $49.99

    Tweak $38.82



    Not including Hardware cost.



    Mac Mini $599.99

    loaded with programs

    Snowleopard $49.99



    Now which is the better deal?
  • Reply 10 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    That's really all based on speculation and what 'probably' 'maybe' the case. I doubt many businesses would gamble so much money on something that may or may not benefit them instead of just sticking with what is tried and tested, and already gets the desired results.



    I would hardly call the ridiculous IT to user ratio of PC systems "desired results". I would not be surprised if most businesses would save money short and long term switching to Mac. It all makes sense: i) reduce your IT staff by A LOT, ii) reduce software maintenance - after putting an upfront investment to rewrite software for mac, iii) reduce hardware costs since macs depreciate less and last much longer, iv) offset that by a small capital investment on training employees to learn a mac, which is small since macs are easy to use.



    Here is why even IT pros are demanding Macs:



    http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/why-e...nding-macs-969



    Quote:

    The rise of the Mac in the enterprise is increasing because users are finding ever more ingenious ways to work with Apple's accommodating platform. A mid-2008 Yankee Group survey of 750 senior IT executives found nearly 80 percent have Macs onboard, up from 47 percent in 2006. Nearly a quarter of these have 30 or more Mac boxes. Usability features such as Safari browsing, iChat videoconferencing, FileVault encryption, Back To My Mac remote control, Spotlight search, and Time Machine backup were cited as primary user attractants.



    and on and on...
  • Reply 11 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    more:



    Quote:

    At Guy Engineering, most management tasks are thus focused on the cloud, not desktops. Users manage their own boxes, he says, sharing between machines. "Updates are automatic from Apple, and viruses are not a factor if you follow reasonable security practices, such as never installing untrusted software. We've had no problems for more than a decade."



    Recently, our IT chief who manages both macs and windows said this:



    Quote:

    Macs do windows file sharing better than windows machines.



  • Reply 12 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cretony38 View Post


    Windows 7 Home Premium $199.99

    Windows 7 Professional $199.99

    Windows 7 Ultimate $219.99



    Office Pro $499.99

    Office Ultimate $679.95

    PS Elements for Win7 $99.99

    PS Premier for Win7 $99.99

    AVG AV 8.5 $49.99

    Tweak $38.82



    Not including Hardware cost.



    Mac Mini $599.99

    loaded with programs

    Snowleopard $49.99



    Now which is the better deal?



    The Mac.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    mpwmpw Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cretony38 View Post


    Windows 7 Home Premium $199.99

    Windows 7 Professional $199.99

    Windows 7 Ultimate $219.99



    Office Pro $499.99

    Office Ultimate $679.95

    PS Elements for Win7 $99.99

    PS Premier for Win7 $99.99

    AVG AV 8.5 $49.99

    Tweak $38.82



    Not including Hardware cost.



    Mac Mini $599.99

    loaded with programs

    Snowleopard $49.99



    Now which is the better deal?



    The PC.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mpw View Post


    The Mac.



    Fixed!
  • Reply 15 of 19
    irelandireland Posts: 17,751member
    Yes, Macs are more expensive, but in general you get less issues and the OS is less fiddley. I don't know if you get what you pay for with Mac, but you can have a nicer computer experience. But then you do end up on some Apple forum for half your life, LOL.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    sequitursequitur Posts: 1,910member
    Why do I get the feeling that this whole thread is a skit on the telly? I've seen Benny Hill shows that weren't this amusing. I DO NOT mean that as sarcasm.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    Hi buceta,



    Well,ost of ownership analysis (or total cost of ownership, TCO), is a business case designed especially to find the lifetime costs of acquiring, operating, and changing something.



    Those who purchase or manage computing systems have had a high interest in cost of ownership since the 1980s, when the large difference between IT cost and IT purchase price became known. The five year cost of ownership for major computing systems can be five to eight times the hardware and software acquisition costs.



    Today, however, TCO analysis is used to support acquisition and planning decisions for a wide range of assets that bring significant maintenance or operating costs across a usable life of several years or more. Total cost of ownership is used to support decisions involving computing systems, vehicles, laboratory and test equipment, medical equipment, manufacturing equipment, and private aircraft, for instance.



    Thanks
  • Reply 18 of 19
    mpwmpw Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buceta View Post


    Fixed!



    It wasn't in need if fixing; and please edit that quote falsely attributed to me.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    bucetabuceta Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geogexavier View Post


    Hi buceta,



    Well,ost of ownership analysis (or total cost of ownership, TCO), is a business case designed especially to find the lifetime costs of acquiring, operating, and changing something.



    Those who purchase or manage computing systems have had a high interest in cost of ownership since the 1980s, when the large difference between IT cost and IT purchase price became known. The five year cost of ownership for major computing systems can be five to eight times the hardware and software acquisition costs.



    Today, however, TCO analysis is used to support acquisition and planning decisions for a wide range of assets that bring significant maintenance or operating costs across a usable life of several years or more. Total cost of ownership is used to support decisions involving computing systems, vehicles, laboratory and test equipment, medical equipment, manufacturing equipment, and private aircraft, for instance.



    Thanks



    And your point is?
Sign In or Register to comment.