kirkrr's Profile

  • Oct 01, 2009
  • 6
  • 1

Latest comments made by: kirkrr

  • Acquisition cost is a nit in the total life cycle cost of a computer. The amount of support time spent in Windows is significantly more than an equivalent OS X machine. It is not the hardware, but the OS that is the culprit. In my experience - and granted, it is mostly major corporations with 10s of thousands of desktops - tracking the costs of managing computers shows tangible measurable costs for a PC at 4-5 times the cost of managing an OS X machine. The more the back end infrastructure cost is proprietary Windows, the lower this disparity is, but that is mostly in getting things to interoperate in the highly proprietary environment of Windows (data formats, protocols, ActiveX, Active Directory, etc. etc., etc.). Once running, it takes a fraction of the manpower to support the OS X user, than it does a Windows user. These lessons directly translate to personal relationships - my Windows running friends ask my help 10x more than the OS X folks, and their Windows requests take far more effort to resolve. It is not the acquisition cost, it is the life cycle cost, and that includes support as well as productivity. With Windows viruses topping the 1 million mark in Dec 08, and the Mac having zero, just malware maintenance alone is sufficient justification to acquire a Mac. If you compare feature to feature - IN A CORPORATE CLASS machine (Sony, Dell, Lenovo, etc. thin and light, corporate user targeted boxes) - those with consistent, quality, durable hardware, and not a consumer grade piece of cheap plastic, the price disparity leans strongly towards Apple as the low cost product, just in acquisition cost alone.
    kirkrr had this to say on Apr 16, 2009 Posts: 6
    Microsoft is Right About the Cost of Macs
  • Compared to an IBM/Lenovo, Sony, HP, Dell with similar features (equal resolution, DVI output, thin and light, etc), the Apple machines are consistently less expensive. Of these competitors, the top end Thinkpads are the only ones where the construction quality is comparable to an Apple machine. A Chevy is less expensive than a Mercedes. Should it not be so? On top of that, the life cycle cost of an Apple machine is a fraction of a Windows box, mostly due to a superior core OS architecture, and supporting a minimally diverse set of hardware and the associated drivers and testing complexity. From large scale (hundreds of thousands of desktops) data, the support cost of an OS X machine is a fraction of the support cost of a Windows box, even on top end hardware. Buy the same Dell machine in thin and light, corporate (consistent hardware) configuration, and a 1400x900 LED backlit LCD (not a 1024x768 cheap 15 inch chunky character display), and you'll get a nearly dollar for dollar equivalent, but not be up to Apple quality standards. (just type on the keyboard - you'll get the picture). If Apple built junk like this, they would get slammed in the press for, well, building junk. Just like Dell gets slammed for building junk at the consumer level (and even cost cutter corporate machines). In the desktop realm, the disparity is even higher. Mac Pros are radically cheaper than, say an Alienware box configured the same (but not as cheap as a consumer HP desktop), and XServes are 70% cheaper (with the OS licenses - 30% otherwise) than an equivalent Dell server. It's a pay me now or pay me later scenario. Me, I'll go for stability and security, along with buying quality gear and not cheaply made low end equipment. Enjoy your Yugo. It'll get you there, at least some of the time.
    kirkrr had this to say on Jul 28, 2008 Posts: 6
    Apple's Pricing Scheme Is Starting To Bother Me
  • I don't see the XP to Vista analogy. Vista was a major code / drivers / human interface / operational shift. Snow Leopard is reputed to be a speed / stability / security - clean up the code base for the future - release. From a support cost perspective, this is worth significantly more than a new feature release, as the majority of the cost of managing desktop computers is NOT in the acquisition cost, but in the lifecycle support and maintenance. From an individual perspective, I don't know what your time is worth, or whether you want to spend time tinkering with your computer (buy a Windows box - it is a lifelong tinkerers dream!), but personally, a computer is a tool to me, and anything that I can do to eliminate non-productive time spent screwing with what should have worked in the first place, is beneficial. Yeah, I love new features, but I would pay to get near-error-free computing. I want it to work like my car - turn the key and go, with some occasional scheduled maintenance, not an old Harley that needs constant fiddling to work. It sounds like the right analogy to Windows would be SP1, 2, 3, x, not XP to Vista. The SP stuff can be acquired free, but it is mostly bug fixes (and, hopefully, stability, security and speed :-/ It will be interesting to see what pricing does show up. My corporate hat say "I'll pay", but my home use says, "is there enough benefit over the minimal current problems to put out my money, as my time is not as quantifiable as IT support"????
  • Not GREEDY or SHORT-SIGHTED, and STUPIDITY only from their belief in data, not buying public ignorance. Apple believed - with what remains true today information - the the Gartner and IDG analysts reports that the total cost of ownership (TCO) for a Mac was (is) a fraction of the total cost of ownership of a PC. From this data, Apple priced there equipment accordingly. Too bad the buyers, both corporate and individual, did not understand TCO, and ended up with the massive IT support organizations that they have today, as a result of lower initial cost PC acquisition. It is my experience, running IT shops of over 200,000 desktop computers, that the TCO for a Mac is a 10-25% of the cost of supporting a PC desktop, with identical application capabilities. The lower number results from moving more of the back end infrastructure off Windows. Gartner was right, but stupid has enough blame to go around.....
    kirkrr had this to say on Dec 19, 2007 Posts: 6
    December 19, 1983: 1984 Nearly Killed
  • Windows is a monopoly - a situation where the vendor' proprietary actions define market conditions to the detriment of any others. Apple's deal with AT&T is exclusivity, a highly desirable marketing condition for AT&T and less so for Apple, unless Apple receives (highly likely) significant payments for this exclusivity. This situation is not unusual in any industry. Unlike Windows in the corporate world, if you want to use another product, another vendor, even another technology (CMDA vs. GSM), then go for it - AND it will seamlessly integrate across the board. If you don't like the iPhone, go someplace else, use some other product, utilize your freedom of choice. But leave Apple/AT&T alone. They are not holding a gun to your head to buy their product/service, nor telling you that, if you chose an alternative product, we will ostracize you from interacting with iPhone. Free market economies, freedom of choice, and capitalism rule. As you indicated, it is nice to see a device with such consumer acceptance, that a major services vendor is forced to upgrade their environment to the benefit of consumers - all [AT&T] consumer, not just iPhone ones.
  • Safari and Camino both integrate into system services, like keychain. Firefox may be a great browser, but platform independence means platform isolation. The RSS viewing in Safari is awesome - even using another browser would not preclude me using Safari for RSS. Firefox is frustrating in the close button on a tab is not on a tab - bad spatial design. Something on OS X needs to run ActiveX compatible with IE6 - this one thing is the only reason for Parallels and Windows on my MacBook Pro.
    kirkrr had this to say on Aug 30, 2006 Posts: 6
    Give Safari a Hand