employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
I don’t follow, isn’t this a study performed by IBM about IBM? Who is IBM trying to pump up?
Rather, I would say, who in IBM is trying to pump this up? If the numbers were reasonable I would have never raised the point. But, to me, they fail the smell test.
Added: That's not to say that things aren't better with the Macs. Just that these numbers reek of a sales pitch -- they are unreasonably high.
employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
Why would it fail the smell test. IBM was never a Mac user because they were Apple's biggest competitor. For most people, it's hard to go public and tell the world that what you used to sell and support is garbage.
It's like the CEO of Ford telling the world that now, 40% of his workforce drives GM cars and they are more productive, happier, etc.
IBM still has a vested interest in Lenovo, which is one of the biggest PC mfg. and that's the brand IBM uses. So why would IBM go around basically telling the world that PCs (Lenovo) suck in comparison to Macs? And that doesn't pass the smell test?
Why does it fail the smell test? Because the numbers are just too high for credibility.
As for rest, your facts are wrong: IBM never sold Windows -- quite the opposite really; instead they competed with it. And they sold their ThinkPad line to another company (yes, Lenovo) and no longer have any interest in it. Does IBM use Lenovo? Probably because most large businesses do: the ThinkPad line is still some of the best, most reliable business machines ever made. And, IBM never mentioned Lenovo -- that's you.
... But none of that has anything to do with anything either IBM or I said.
employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
Your criticism is what's suspicious because it fails to point out a single flaw in IBM's study. Your sole basis is that it simply does not pass your unarticulated subjective "smell test"
As we all already could have predicted but nice to see in print.
Not surprised at all! I work in a MS only workplace and see what the support people go through and frankly I suspect even Linux would be dramatically less trouble. The biggest problem with Apple in the corporate world, especially manufacturing, is suitable hardware. The Mac Mini is not a universal solution and all in ones are completely unacceptable. I still don’t think Apple gets it but then again neither do many corporate IT managers.
And for my own personal business I have no issue with my new iMac AIO and it’s kickass 5K display, it’s incredible sharp and less expensive than buying a stand-alone plus 4+ K monitor.
Looks at his superb Phillips IPS 43” 4k monitor (not tv) that is nearly 1/5th the price of the cheapest iMac 27” 5k and is glad he spent the time researching this matter.
that said he also realises only a mac mini, mac pro or a mac laptop will plug in. which while diverse does not quite hit the price/power of the iMac hardware.
if you are ever wanting a second screen, i would recommend it for your iMac.
employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
Why would it fail the smell test. IBM was never a Mac user because they were Apple's biggest competitor. For most people, it's hard to go public and tell the world that what you used to sell and support is garbage.
It's like the CEO of Ford telling the world that now, 40% of his workforce drives GM cars and they are more productive, happier, etc.
IBM still has a vested interest in Lenovo, which is one of the biggest PC mfg. and that's the brand IBM uses. So why would IBM go around basically telling the world that PCs (Lenovo) suck in comparison to Macs? And that doesn't pass the smell test?
Why does it fail the smell test? Because the numbers are just too high for credibility.
As for rest, your facts are wrong: IBM never sold Windows -- quite the opposite really; instead they competed with it. And they sold their ThinkPad line to another company (yes, Lenovo) and no longer have any interest in it. Does IBM use Lenovo? Probably because most large businesses do: the ThinkPad line is still some of the best, most reliable business machines ever made. And, IBM never mentioned Lenovo -- that's you.
... But none of that has anything to do with anything either IBM or I said.
I think you really don't understand IBM. I worked there five years (suffered really, hated it mostly), but one thing I can tell you is that neither scorned past employees nor its biggest competitors attack IBM's integrity - in fact if you've ever seen internal Accenture presentations, they always explicitly tell their employees do not attack IBM's integrity. To assume they are making things up (or that they would allow JAMF to misrepresent reality) is simply not understanding them at all. I'll never recommend IBM as a place to work, but their products including their internal IT infrastructure processes, top top top (the best I've experienced, and I've worked 30 years across big and small companies), I have nothing but the best things to say about them in those regards, they are truly above reproach.
Healthy doubt is one thing, but blind cynicism is quite another.
employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
Why would it fail the smell test. IBM was never a Mac user because they were Apple's biggest competitor. For most people, it's hard to go public and tell the world that what you used to sell and support is garbage.
It's like the CEO of Ford telling the world that now, 40% of his workforce drives GM cars and they are more productive, happier, etc.
IBM still has a vested interest in Lenovo, which is one of the biggest PC mfg. and that's the brand IBM uses. So why would IBM go around basically telling the world that PCs (Lenovo) suck in comparison to Macs? And that doesn't pass the smell test?
Why does it fail the smell test? Because the numbers are just too high for credibility.
As for rest, your facts are wrong: IBM never sold Windows -- quite the opposite really; instead they competed with it. And they sold their ThinkPad line to another company (yes, Lenovo) and no longer have any interest in it. Does IBM use Lenovo? Probably because most large businesses do: the ThinkPad line is still some of the best, most reliable business machines ever made. And, IBM never mentioned Lenovo -- that's you.
... But none of that has anything to do with anything either IBM or I said.
I think you really don't understand IBM. I worked there five years (suffered really, hated it mostly), but one thing I can tell you is that neither scorned past employees nor its biggest competitors attack IBM's integrity - in fact if you've ever seen internal Accenture presentations, they always explicitly tell their employees do not attack IBM's integrity. To assume they are making things up (or that they would allow JAMF to misrepresent reality) is simply not understanding them at all. I'll never recommend IBM as a place to work, but their products including their internal IT infrastructure processes, top top top (the best I've experienced, and I've worked 30 years across big and small companies), I have nothing but the best things to say about them in those regards, they are truly above reproach.
Healthy doubt is one thing, but blind cynicism is quite another.
My cynicism on this may well be incorrect but it is not blind: For me, the numbers are simply too large to be reasonable or credible.
And, I agree with you that IBM's integrity is not to be questioned. That is part of the basis for the truism: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". But, it is a very large, complex organization with many moving parts. My suspicion here is that this came from some segment of the organization that is trying to promote more Macs within the organization -- and using phony / exaggerated numbers to do it. And, while they can no doubt back up these numbers with mathematics, there are innumerable ways to phony up statistics to make them prove whatever it is you want to prove.
As a former IT support person of over 15 years who now refuses to use Windows (and almost refuses to support friends & family using it), these results aren’t remotely surprising to me.
One of my “favorite” pastimes was watching a room full of identical PCs, with identical hardware & identical drive images, boot up at entirely inconsistent speeds, showing entirely different behaviors every time we started up the room. I’d start machines a pair at a time just to showcase this voodoo.
And that’s one of the harmless observations. I HATE supporting PCs and Windows.
I support PC's and Mac's. If things are working well it's hard to say MacOS is better than Windows 10 for a pro user. But when things go bad with Windows, they turn into a complete and utter nightmare than can suck your soul dry. Plus the hardware , at least Dell machines, is of a measurably lower quality. They just fail more often. I have had 3 or 4 motherboards replaced out of 20 machines.
Without questioning the other numbers (though I could), this fails the sniff test because with fewer than 25,000 U.S. employees left, it's hard to believe that IBM has 200K even worldwide.
Plus...7 staff for 200,000 machines? Unless there's a lab with 180,000 of these machines in it, I don't think that works. Do the math... (Ok, I said I wasn't gonna question the other numbers, but c'mon!)
I’ve seen first hand just how bad MS based solutions are and the support structure to keep them running.
We use Macs for everything except our accounting software which has been running on Windows for more than 20 years. Just for the sake of legacy compatibility we still use Windows in that department. I have no issues with Windows 10. It works fine in my opinion, but for our programming, publishing and design projects we are all Mac. I haven't upgraded anything to Catalina yet due to various issues that have been reported.
The former CEO of Apple's software subsidiary, Claris, back in the day, buddy of Steve Jobs and Chair of Apple's board until his death a few years back was William Campbell. After Apple pulled Claris back into the main company and dissolved Claris in the 90s, Campbell went on to become the CEO of Intuit, the maker of Quickbooks. After a stint as CEO he became a board member at Intuit. All this time he was on the board of Apple. In all that time Intuit couldn't get out a Mac version of QB that was multi-user, could trade files with a PC-using accountant or be even remotely feature-comparable with the Windows version.
I blame Campbell personally for the loss of countless millions of unit sales of Apple computers when he really could have made a difference. Companies that actually liked Macs, but had to make a decision so they didn't have to support two OSes (a problem proved imaginary by IBM's experience) had to go with PCs because someone in the company HAD to use QuickBooks and the Mac versions never crawled out from the swamp they wriggled around in. I used to write on my Apple stock proxy voting materials on the reelection of board members page, "Everyone but BILL CAMPBELL!" Then the guy went and died and now I feel a little bad. Just a little.
employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
I don’t follow, isn’t this a study performed by IBM about IBM? Who is IBM trying to pump up?
Rather, I would say, who in IBM is trying to pump this up? If the numbers were reasonable I would have never raised the point. But, to me, they fail the smell test.
Added: That's not to say that things aren't better with the Macs. Just that these numbers reek of a sales pitch -- they are unreasonably high.
And by the same token, your statement. with not a shred of evidence backing it up, could simply be your attempt to discredit the figures because if they're true, Apple is making the machines it should be making, instead of the hefty room heaters you want it to make.
I support PC's and Mac's. If things are working well it's hard to say MacOS is better than Windows 10 for a pro user. But when things go bad with Windows, they turn into a complete and utter nightmare than can suck your soul dry. Plus the hardware , at least Dell machines, is of a measurably lower quality. They just fail more often. I have had 3 or 4 motherboards replaced out of 20 machines.
That had been my experience as well -- the hardware was most of the problem. But, at the same time, unless they invested in equivalent quality hardware (such as ThinkPads), the hardware cost about half as much -- so you could say we got what we paid for. My place used mostly HPs -- pure junk.
employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Employees generating sales deals has 16% larger proceeds from Mac users as well. ...
I guess having read enumerable medical studies proving that black is white and the sun rises in the west, and having started as an accountant fully cognizant of the truth behind the saying that: "Figures lie and liars figure", I have become quite cynical of statistics -- particularly those that fail the smell test.
In the case of medical studies it has become generally accepted in the medical community that the primary determinant of the outcome of a study is who funded the study. And, we all know about accountants and lawyers...
This one fails the smell test. It reeks of using statistics to prove a point. Are Macs better in the business environment? Very likely -- particularly if you it's a favorable environment. But, these stats sound highly suspicious to me.
I don’t follow, isn’t this a study performed by IBM about IBM? Who is IBM trying to pump up?
Rather, I would say, who in IBM is trying to pump this up? If the numbers were reasonable I would have never raised the point. But, to me, they fail the smell test.
Added: That's not to say that things aren't better with the Macs. Just that these numbers reek of a sales pitch -- they are unreasonably high.
And by the same token, your statement. with not a shred of evidence backing it up, could simply be your attempt to discredit the figures because if they're true, Apple is making the machines it should be making, instead of the hefty room heaters you want it to make.
So, you're accusing me of having some agenda? "with not a shred of evidence backing it up". Got it.
I’ve seen first hand just how bad MS based solutions are and the support structure to keep them running.
We use Macs for everything except our accounting software which has been running on Windows for more than 20 years. Just for the sake of legacy compatibility we still use Windows in that department. I have no issues with Windows 10. It works fine in my opinion, but for our programming, publishing and design projects we are all Mac. I haven't upgraded anything to Catalina yet due to various issues that have been reported.
The former CEO of Apple's software subsidiary, Claris, back in the day, buddy of Steve Jobs and Chair of Apple's board until his death a few years back was William Campbell. After Apple pulled Claris back into the main company and dissolved Claris in the 90s, Campbell went on to become the CEO of Intuit, the maker of Quickbooks. After a stint as CEO he became a board member at Intuit. All this time he was on the board of Apple. In all that time Intuit couldn't get out a Mac version of QB that was multi-user, could trade files with a PC-using accountant or be even remotely feature-comparable with the Windows version.
I blame Campbell personally for the loss of countless millions of unit sales of Apple computers when he really could have made a difference. Companies that actually liked Macs, but had to make a decision so they didn't have to support two OSes (a problem proved imaginary by IBM's experience) had to go with PCs because someone in the company HAD to use QuickBooks and the Mac versions never crawled out from the swamp they wriggled around in. I used to write on my Apple stock proxy voting materials on the reelection of board members page, "Everyone but BILL CAMPBELL!" Then the guy went and died and now I feel a little bad. Just a little.
I didn't know all that. But, for myself, I still maintain my finances on a Windows machine because that is where Quicken has always run. Yeh, there were Mac versions but they were always limited. As for companies forced to use Windows because of QuickBooks: it wasn't just Quickbooks, most enterprise software ran either on a mainframe or Windows.
But, having worked with both QuickBooks and Quicken, I saw both degrade into junky, quirky products. I can no longer speak about QuickBooks, but it looks like Quicken has moved on as a separate company and is making an effort to improve stability and quality.
Without questioning the other numbers (though I could), this fails the sniff test because with fewer than 25,000 U.S. employees left, it's hard to believe that IBM has 200K even worldwide.
Plus...7 staff for 200,000 machines? Unless there's a lab with 180,000 of these machines in it, I don't think that works. Do the math... (Ok, I said I wasn't gonna question the other numbers, but c'mon!)
I support PC's and Mac's. If things are working well it's hard to say MacOS is better than Windows 10 for a pro user. But when things go bad with Windows, they turn into a complete and utter nightmare than can suck your soul dry. Plus the hardware , at least Dell machines, is of a measurably lower quality. They just fail more often. I have had 3 or 4 motherboards replaced out of 20 machines.
Odd Loopless on a percentage bases I have had a higher percentage of out of box failures on apple products - logicaboard, keyboards, USB C ports etc, than I do with Dell's though we do stick with the Latitude and Optiplex lines.
With Apple we endure 5-10 days of down time to remote diagnose with Apple to have to box and ship the thing off and wait for them to repair it offsite and ship it back.
With Dell it usually a 10-30 minute phone call resulting an on-site coming to our office with replacement parts to service the machine the next day. Total down time 2 days on par.
A typical Apple Hardware support ticket needs about 16 hours of our help desk staff's time to work with Apple, ship it, receive it, and reload software before it can be returned to the user. Plus the 5-10 days at the repair center. - The closed Apple Store is over 4 hours away
A typical Dell Hardware support ticket needs about 3 hours of our staff's time to diagnose report, greet the tech the next day, and push a clean image to workstation after the repair is complete.
Our Cost to support Apple is 5x what we spend on Dell by machine not including the over inflated cost of apple hardware.
Comments
If the numbers were reasonable I would have never raised the point. But, to me, they fail the smell test.
Added: That's not to say that things aren't better with the Macs. Just that these numbers reek of a sales pitch -- they are unreasonably high.
that said he also realises only a mac mini, mac pro or a mac laptop will plug in. which while diverse does not quite hit the price/power of the iMac hardware.
if you are ever wanting a second screen, i would recommend it for your iMac.
The current MBP keyboards are a sh**-show.
Healthy doubt is one thing, but blind cynicism is quite another.
One of my “favorite” pastimes was watching a room full of identical PCs, with identical hardware & identical drive images, boot up at entirely inconsistent speeds, showing entirely different behaviors every time we started up the room. I’d start machines a pair at a time just to showcase this voodoo.
And that’s one of the harmless observations. I HATE supporting PCs and Windows.
Plus...7 staff for 200,000 machines? Unless there's a lab with 180,000 of these machines in it, I don't think that works. Do the math... (Ok, I said I wasn't gonna question the other numbers, but c'mon!)
I blame Campbell personally for the loss of countless millions of unit sales of Apple computers when he really could have made a difference. Companies that actually liked Macs, but had to make a decision so they didn't have to support two OSes (a problem proved imaginary by IBM's experience) had to go with PCs because someone in the company HAD to use QuickBooks and the Mac versions never crawled out from the swamp they wriggled around in. I used to write on my Apple stock proxy voting materials on the reelection of board members page, "Everyone but BILL CAMPBELL!" Then the guy went and died and now I feel a little bad. Just a little.
But, for myself, I still maintain my finances on a Windows machine because that is where Quicken has always run. Yeh, there were Mac versions but they were always limited. As for companies forced to use Windows because of QuickBooks: it wasn't just Quickbooks, most enterprise software ran either on a mainframe or Windows.