What are the top excuses by biz for not switching? Lack of software?

[ELYXR]

I disagree with both jholzner and medea. If price was the main concern, businesses wouldn't use any Microsoft products either (especially now with their new pricing model). No, it's about peoples perception of Mac's and widespread industry adoption. People in businesses spend most of their time dodging obstacles and being thrifty. There's also the "buzz" among your peers. If everyone buys Dell, then 25% of America buys Dell (even if they suck*).

It's worse than high school.


*Editors note... I am writing this from a Dell 8200 desktop that truly does suck.

 

[thedude]

on the 3d front

well, what can i say? I have used macs since the plus, and ended up getting a dell to do my 3d work. I held out for as long as I could.

1. Lack of good video cards
2. Poor software development (i.e. maya, shake, realviz suite, boujou, etc)
3. Speed (I might get flamed for this, but a dual 1ghz g4 is slower than a dual xeon 1.5 in everything, period.)
4. Bang for the buck (see above)

Hopefully with the 970, apple will be able to put out some serious hardware. That should turn some into switchers. But for the others, video cards, software and resonable prices will be deciding factors. Don't want apple to turn into SGI overnight!

 

[jrober]

In my experience most large companies have tranches of people who only use basic Office apps and e-mail. True there are teams who use custom apps but given Apples stability and the requirement for less desktop support per machine surely there is a cost benefit in replacing worn out PC's with longer lasting macs especially for the travelling person where the laptops are head and shoulders above the competition. Mac OSX should make the integration excellent even onto a PC network.

Thoughts?

 

[will]

Re: The list so far...

Originally posted by GeneR

6.) The "Speed Myth"... Don't see how there can be an effective attack on this one unless you have two people -- one with a PC and the other with a Mac doing the same job. And then the Mac wins in speed, even though the MHz is clearly lower than the PC.

CONCERN: Is it really a myth? Some people on this boardsite have been saying that it isn't a myth. (I can't remember who or where) If this is to be attacked effectively then do we have something that will make it more obvious? [/B]

It isn't a myth, a 3Ghz P4 is much faster than a 1.25 Ghz G4. Even a dual 1.25Ghz G4 is often slower than a single 3Ghz G4. See http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2003-01/2003_01_07_macpc.html for an example.

MHz are still a very bad way of measuring performance, it's just that Intel/AMD have increased their clockspeed massively and made architectural improvements (like HT). What was true two or three years ago isn't true today. Basically the unpleasant truth is that Apple machines are underpowered compared to the x86 alternative.

Apple must adopt a new CPU soon or else they will be in trouble, see: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18156

 

[e-coli]

price. it's simply not justifiable.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: An Insiders View

Originally posted by robbieduncan
Before I make any comment: I work in IT for CitiGroup (the world largest financial company for those who don't know). Any comments I make here are my own views and do not necessarily represent the views of the company, it's managment and so on.

The biggest reason that we don't/can't switch is shareholder value. Would a switch (of more than 250,000 desktops + servers) improve shareholder value. Well lets look at it. 250,000 Mac desctops would cost at least $250,000, but would probably cost nearer $500,000. In addition we would have to negotiate re-licensing with all of the vendors we have bought software from. But the biggest cost would be redeveloping all of the custom win32 apps that we have developed. These apps are all proprietary and are part of what gives us our competative edge. The cost of redeveloping all of these apps would be in the multi-million dollar range. All of our desktop support staff are PC specialists so we would need to retrain them all, or get new staff. A conservative estimate for this would be another $200,000. We would also need to retrain all desktop staff to ensure that they could use the new desktops. Again this would be a cost greater than $250,000. So the costs are massive (I have skipped many, many more costs). What is the benifit. The machines might be more stable, but most of our desktops seem to be stable with win2000 (mine crashes sometimes, but most last Mon->Fri without rebooting). They might be easier to use, but not to start with and most of the ease of use is dependent on our own apps. As they will be written in-house we can assume that they would be about as easy to use as before.

So in conclusion we would simply be burning a massive amount of profit/shareholder equity in making this switch for very little corporate benifit. If senior management made this decision serious questions would be asked and the company might even get sued by the shareholders.

I think he hit the nail right on the head. There isn't a compelling reason for large companies (or governments) to spend millions more switching to a new platform. And I say millions more 'cause it could easily cost millions just to upgrade their current WinTel systems (case in point the Indiana state government just spent a few million a year or so ago upgrading everyone from win95 to win2k).

Apple hasn't seemed to be going after the business/corporate market anyway. They've been targeting consumers and creatives in the a/v world. Maybe Keynote was the first stone thrown towards MS's business world domination?


Lethal

 

[chicagdan]

Forget Windows, Go After UNIX



Here's a really smart piece on news.com explaining how X11 will help OS-X attract businesses running UNiX/LINUX. When you compare UNIX boxes to PowerMacs on a price/performance basis, Apple looks very attractive.

 

[JonL]

I have a very small business, and I went PC solely because Autocad wasn't available for Mac and I wanted file compatibility with vendors. I have chosen all my other software to be relatively easy to switch later (MYOB for accounting, office for everything else). In retrospect, the cad file compatibility was probably not so important (but it would be if I were working more interactively on larger products). Cost was only a secondary issue.

Now, this thread has me thinking about something else.... MARKLAR. The speculation has been that Marklar is a hedge against Moto or IBM failure to produce chips. Perhaps Marklar is really destined to allow Apple hardware (with a proprietary x86 chipset) and OS to more easily run Windows apps. Thus, a large company like Citigroup could transition slowly away from MS without needing a wholesale changeover.

 

[crazytom]

Unix is the way to go

IMO, once a computer starts running UNIX, the hardware becomes a generic piece of material. From what I can tell (and it's very limited knowledge), the 'underground' is gaining steam on taking over (that is the GNU/Debian/Linux groups). It's not the computer that is stable or not (for the most part), it's the operating system. Apple did a great thing by using Unix as it's backbone, it's inherently a MUCH more stable system and definitely a better way to go. It also opens more possibilities for the advancement of software (freeware/open source). I'm just beginning to explore the Unix side of the mac so maybe someone else can explain further about what can be done and what it's potential is...

My $.01