The one thing Apple understands is photography

[RustyTheGeek]

I have never, and will never own, an Apple product...period!
Over-hyped and over-priced products all!

Shhhhh...don't tell IBM. They're switching more and more of their employee base over to Macs. It seems only 5% of their Mac users need help from IT, whereas 40% of their PC user base needs frequent tech support. Plus, Macs have a longer useful service life. Overall, IBM expects to realize substantial savings from switching to Apple's 'overhyped and overpriced' products because they're easier to use and cheaper in the long run.

I've been in the IT business for a long time. Since the '80's. Every company or individual I have seen that has switched to macs for business switched back within a couple years. It was a train wreck every time. Macs are just harder to support in a enterprise environment.

Also, Macs don't last longer than PCs. That's a myth. Enterprise level PCs last for as long as you want to run them. I have clients still running hardware that is 8-10 years old. Macs do sell for more used but they were more expensive to buy in the first place so the ROI isn't any better.

The Apple-IBM thing is an experiment. I think the IBM+Apple thing has been evolving since 2007. It began with IBM allowing/supporting each employee to BYOD with their Apple devices and it grew from there. Apple and IBM arranged a partnership so Apple could learn more about Enterprise. They expanded it this year. If IBM can pull off Macs in the office, good for them, they have the resources and a very comfy agreement with Apple that gives them an advantage. But user support calls is only one part of the much bigger IT picture. My experience has been that using Macs in a work environment was not successful. There were too many adjustments, caveats and compromises. Apple however, has begun to address this in the past couple years as the Enterprise market is very lucrative and not averse to expensive hardware. (Enterprise level hardware is expensive compared to retail hardware and frankly much better than Apple products.) Apple Macs are essentially PCs now anyway except for a bit of firmware that the Mac OS looks for.

The problem is that Apple's culture is closed and it doesn't have experience in Enterprise or understand the needs of Enterprise. Apple is very bad at support and they don't move very fast. Apple does what Apple wants on their own timeline. Apple is good at selling & producing things but their answer for support is to make you buy another unit. Much like we say about Canon understanding the bigger photography "system" in contrast with Sony with all the support, lenses, long term camera life cycles, etc. That is why they connected up with IBM. Because they are clueless about Enterprise. The major PC makers (DELL, HP/Compaq, IBM/Lenovo) have Enterprise divisions that have evolved and matured for over 30-60 years. It is a very tough business and there is a huge amount of work involved in supporting Enterprise IT. It's incredibly complex. Which is why Apple sucks at it. Apple can barely support individuals. Enterprise has never been a comfort zone for Apple. IBM is one of the best.

So don't read too much into the Macs running at IBM thing. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket in the Enterprise IT world and frankly, the IBM world as well.

 

[takesome1]

I have never, and will never own, an Apple product...period!
Over-hyped and over-priced products all!

Shhhhh...don't tell IBM. They're switching more and more of their employee base over to Macs. It seems only 5% of their Mac users need help from IT, whereas 40% of their PC user base needs frequent tech support. Plus, Macs have a longer useful service life. Overall, IBM expects to realize substantial savings from switching to Apple's 'overhyped and overpriced' products because they're easier to use and cheaper in the long run.

I've been in the IT business for a long time. Since the '80's. Every company or individual I have seen that has switched to macs for business switched back within a couple years. It was a train wreck every time. Macs are just harder to support in a enterprise environment.

Also, Macs don't last longer than PCs. That's a myth. Enterprise level PCs last for as long as you want to run them. I have clients still running hardware that is 8-10 years old. Macs do sell for more used but they were more expensive to buy in the first place so the ROI isn't any better.

The Apple-IBM thing is an experiment. I think the IBM+Apple thing has been evolving since 2007. It began with IBM allowing/supporting each employee to BYOD with their Apple devices and it grew from there. Apple and IBM arranged a partnership so Apple could learn more about Enterprise. They expanded it this year. If IBM can pull off Macs in the office, good for them, they have the resources and a very comfy agreement with Apple that gives them an advantage. But user support calls is only one part of the much bigger IT picture. My experience has been that using Macs in a work environment was not successful. There were too many adjustments, caveats and compromises. Apple however, has begun to address this in the past couple years as the Enterprise market is very lucrative and not averse to expensive hardware. (Enterprise level hardware is expensive compared to retail hardware and frankly much better than Apple products.) Apple Macs are essentially PCs now anyway except for a bit of firmware that the Mac OS looks for.

The problem is that Apple's culture is closed and it doesn't have experience in Enterprise or understand the needs of Enterprise. Apple is very bad at support and they don't move very fast. Apple does what Apple wants on their own timeline. Apple is good at selling & producing things but their answer for support is to make you buy another unit. Much like we say about Canon understanding the bigger photography "system" in contrast with Sony with all the support, lenses, long term camera life cycles, etc. That is why they connected up with IBM. Because they are clueless about Enterprise. The major PC makers (DELL, HP/Compaq, IBM/Lenovo) have Enterprise divisions that have evolved and matured for over 30-60 years. It is a very tough business and there is a huge amount of work involved in supporting Enterprise IT. It's incredibly complex. Which is why Apple sucks at it. Apple can barely support individuals. Enterprise has never been a comfort zone for Apple. IBM is one of the best.

So don't read too much into the Macs running at IBM thing. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket in the Enterprise IT world and frankly, the IBM world as well.

At the workplace we use an IT company, the owner of the IT company has always told us if we switched to Apple he wouldn't service us. We all agree that is probably because we wouldn't need service.

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

 

[tcmatthews]

I have never, and will never own, an Apple product...period!
Over-hyped and over-priced products all!

Shhhhh...don't tell IBM. They're switching more and more of their employee base over to Macs. It seems only 5% of their Mac users need help from IT, whereas 40% of their PC user base needs frequent tech support. Plus, Macs have a longer useful service life. Overall, IBM expects to realize substantial savings from switching to Apple's 'overhyped and overpriced' products because they're easier to use and cheaper in the long run.

I've been in the IT business for a long time. Since the '80's. Every company or individual I have seen that has switched to macs for business switched back within a couple years. It was a train wreck every time. Macs are just harder to support in a enterprise environment.

Also, Macs don't last longer than PCs. That's a myth. Enterprise level PCs last for as long as you want to run them. I have clients still running hardware that is 8-10 years old. Macs do sell for more used but they were more expensive to buy in the first place so the ROI isn't any better.

The Apple-IBM thing is an experiment. I think the IBM+Apple thing has been evolving since 2007. It began with IBM allowing/supporting each employee to BYOD with their Apple devices and it grew from there. Apple and IBM arranged a partnership so Apple could learn more about Enterprise. They expanded it this year. If IBM can pull off Macs in the office, good for them, they have the resources and a very comfy agreement with Apple that gives them an advantage. But user support calls is only one part of the much bigger IT picture. My experience has been that using Macs in a work environment was not successful. There were too many adjustments, caveats and compromises. Apple however, has begun to address this in the past couple years as the Enterprise market is very lucrative and not averse to expensive hardware. (Enterprise level hardware is expensive compared to retail hardware and frankly much better than Apple products.) Apple Macs are essentially PCs now anyway except for a bit of firmware that the Mac OS looks for.

The problem is that Apple's culture is closed and it doesn't have experience in Enterprise or understand the needs of Enterprise. Apple is very bad at support and they don't move very fast. Apple does what Apple wants on their own timeline. Apple is good at selling & producing things but their answer for support is to make you buy another unit. Much like we say about Canon understanding the bigger photography "system" in contrast with Sony with all the support, lenses, long term camera life cycles, etc. That is why they connected up with IBM. Because they are clueless about Enterprise. The major PC makers (DELL, HP/Compaq, IBM/Lenovo) have Enterprise divisions that have evolved and matured for over 30-60 years. It is a very tough business and there is a huge amount of work involved in supporting Enterprise IT. It's incredibly complex. Which is why Apple sucks at it. Apple can barely support individuals. Enterprise has never been a comfort zone for Apple. IBM is one of the best.

So don't read too much into the Macs running at IBM thing. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket in the Enterprise IT world and frankly, the IBM world as well.

In truth it depends on what you mean by Enterprise IT. I am sure that IBM will be running on their own Enterprise software. Which means they will likely be running Unix/Linux. No Microsoft to integrate against until you get to desktop. It would be very easy to integrate a Mac OS X (BSD) because it is basically Unix. So it is likely easier to integrate

I think the primary drivers for PC in the workspace is the number of software tools Engineering etc. that basically run only on Windows that have no Mac OS equivalent and the reluctance of IT to support Mac OS. (This is changing as some have started supporting OS other than Windows such as RedHat but all support Windows.) It is not that Macs are harder to maintain it is that you cannot get rid of all of the PC and end up supporting both.

If Apple was serious about Enterprise they would not have killed their server products and would still sell expandable upgradeable Laptops. They no longer sell any consumer level PCs. Lets face it they sell a bunch of thin pretty un-upgradeable smart appliances. And, the Mac Pro a High end PC workstation built out of server parts that is really more powerful and expensive than almost anyone needs.

Enterned on my pretty un-upgradeable smart appliance MacBook pro.

 

[CSD]

Two markets I'll address, if anyone know's mobile photography it was Nokia. Sure the Windows Phone didn't have all the hipster apps for photography but what it did have is the ability to appeal to professionals with full RAW output and the tools to take those shots the 808, Lumia 920, and the Lumia 1020 was ground breaking at the time in that they introduced new features that's still not fully used by the competition. The Lumia 950 promises to be another phone that will likely set the standard for mobile images, that is if the preview images released are to be believed. One aspect of the PureView systems is the optical image stabilisation which comes into it's own under low-light.

I've used the 920 and the 930 and edited the DNGs in Photoshop, some images from the 930 was used for a publication because they was the only camera I had to hand.

The other problem is desktop/laptop. Apple just doesn't get the professional photographer. Their AiO's are designed for the consumer and notoriously too bright to calibrate and have glossy screens which over-saturate the colours. Same with laptops as they've reduced the amount of laptops that have IPS/matte screens. Almost all their displays are 6 or 8 bit which is pretty much a no go for professional video or photographic editing, ideally you'll want a 10bit display. Yet neither their OS or displays have never supported that. Under Windows you have to buy a professional card like a FireGL or Quadro and have a suitable display but it works. Apple hardware is very limited in how and what you can upgrade them with and their Apple Pro is a joke against professional PC workstations but it does look pretty.

Compare this to Microsoft who at present is probably producing the best tablet that's designed for the creative industry; Surface Pro. Is it perfect? No, but it's probably the best tool just now that's ideal for photography if you're looking at a tablet. They are actively listening and responding to criticism about their devices, and hopefully they'll address the lack of customisation for buttons on their pen and scaling issues. However with the Dock you can easily edit on a 4K display if you wish or dual displays.

 

[CSD]

In truth it depends on what you mean by Enterprise IT. I am sure that IBM will be running on their own Enterprise software. Which means they will likely be running Unix/Linux. No Microsoft to integrate against until you get to desktop. It would be very easy to integrate a Mac OS X (BSD) because it is basically Unix. So it is likely easier to integrate

I think the primary drivers for PC in the workspace is the number of software tools Engineering etc. that basically run only on Windows that have no Mac OS equivalent and the reluctance of IT to support Mac OS. (This is changing as some have started supporting OS other than Windows such as RedHat but all support Windows.) It is not that Macs are harder to maintain it is that you cannot get rid of all of the PC and end up supporting both.

If Apple was serious about Enterprise they would not have killed their server products and would still sell expandable upgradeable Laptops. They no longer sell any consumer level PCs. Lets face it they sell a bunch of thin pretty un-upgradeable smart appliances. And, the Mac Pro a High end PC workstation built out of server parts that is really more powerful and expensive than almost anyone needs.

Enterned on my pretty un-upgradeable smart appliance MacBook pro.

Reasons why Enterprise use Windows? Simple really, mass deployment and system/software management tools with SCCM. User, network and hardware security though Active Directory making life easier to administer thousands of users quickly and easily. Basically MS understands Enterprise, how it works, operates and it's requirements. Apple lacks the breadth of tools and experience to even make a dent in it. It also has the widest software base and compatibly that goes back decades.

IBM prefers in-house tools, even to the point of forcing you to use Lotus Notes and Lotus Symphony, at least when I worked for them. Compared to Office and Outlook they are awful time wasters, which often led to a lot of frustrating calls to tech support to fix something that 'broke' often for no reason. It didn't even handle Office documents properly. More often than not we ended up borrowing client laptops to get things done properly. IBM is notoriously anti-MS and PC for a lot of reasons.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

That's all great martti, thanks for the great info about some good phone camera apps. But I fail to see how Apple should get credit for understanding photography based on those points. It sounds like it's the 3rd party apps that impressed you and those apps are available for android and other phones as well. Having a camera in a phone and a phone being multi-functional is pretty standard and it was standard before Apple even started making phones.

Without Apple there would be no Android. These apps would not exist if not for the market created by Apple's devices. Yeah "pretty standard"...sure. Whatever. Apple might lose their market share but the camera makers already did lose the point and shoot market to the smartphones. Do you actually remember how the Palm devices failed when they tried to accomodate cellular phone in their personal data manager? Do you remember how the Blackberry lost their game...how Ericsson went out of business and got sold to Sony like Nokia got sold to Microsoft?

Samsung stole industrial secrets and bought people from Apple and that's how they got Android going with their brain power and Google's money. But well, what's the point. It is more fruitful to discuss the size of Allah with Sunni extremists than devices with the fanboys and the nonfanboys.
Keep your opinions. Dogs bark, caravan advances.

I think you are reading more into my comment than it deserves. I'm not saying Apple didn't shake up the smartphone market. And I'm not saying iPhones suck. Far from it! I'm just commenting on the topic of this thread which is that Apple doesn't "understand photography" or is doing anything other than selling a lot of expensive products that happen to contain a camera device because that is what is required to be competitive.

I repeat, Apple definitely made a huge impact on the phone market with their iPhone. At that time, other companies ruled that market. And FWIW, my Blackberry from that time was the best phone I ever owned. Built like a tank and it worked flawlessly for what I needed which as to be productive. (Not play games and watch movies.) But the industry saw the iPhone's success as a sign that they needed to abandon everything else and chase the iPhone which I think was a mistake. Now we have a gillion products that are essentially the same. What I wouldn't give for a decent physical key phone again that hasn't become a niche product. Oh well!

 

[RustyTheGeek]

At the workplace we use an IT company, the owner of the IT company has always told us if we switched to Apple he wouldn't service us. We all agree that is probably because we wouldn't need service.

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

Comparing what you do at home with Enterprise IT is not a valid comparison. There is so much more to IT than the individual PC or the software. More than I can explain here.

The reason your IT Service won't support Macs is because Apple doesn't support Macs. It's hard to support something when the vendor won't provide the tools necessary to make it feasible. The Apple KB resources are pathetic. Their response time is pathetic. Often they won't even acknowledge a problem exists or simply say that the problem isn't a problem. For Apple, even simple problems are PR issues instead of technical issues. It's very frustrating. So IT folks don't want to mess with it because it's not profitable and it makes the service provider look bad.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I think to a certain extent your mistaking existence resistance to WiFi with the priority of wifi. When I think of absolute needs in a camera body wifi isn't one of them. Nice to have, but, I can think of many other things that are a higher priority.

I don't think so. Perhaps we all just have to agree to disagree. But, before we do, let’s beat this poor horse one more time.

This is not and never has been about what I or anyone else personally view as a priority. It's about how the camera industry failed to recognize a truly disruptive change in technology and the price they have already paid for that – the near total annihilation of the market for casual consumer cameras – and the fact that despite the high cost of their failure, they continue to cling to old habits, which limits the options available to their customers and handicaps them across all categories, from beginner to professional.

Everywhere you turn today, you read that the future will be an “Internet of Things.” Soon, everything in our lives will be connected. This is already happening and available on several fronts – home thermostats, kitchen appliances, automobiles, our bank and credit cards, etc. etc. Now, it really doesn’t matter if people like it or not, it’s already here and growing daily.

So, if heating and air conditioning people and kitchen appliance makers and banks can figure it out and see the value in connecting to the internet, I ask a very simple question – what’s wrong with camera manufacturers?

Someone wrote that I don’t understand how difficult it would be to make cameras connect to the internet. Really??? Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that the engineering teams of Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony are comprised of idiots.

The point of the original article, which was actually just a rewrite of a previous story covering a technology presentation, is that camera manufacturers were woefully slow in adapting to the internet. And, due to their inability to adapt, they left themselves vulnerable to competition that has swallowed up much of their market.

And…even in the face of those market-destroying changes, they continue to lag behind the rest of the world.

To say it is just something nice to have, but isn't a priority, might be a legitimate criticism. Except that it's hard to gauge priorities when something isn't readily available and easy to use. Auto exposure and auto focus were not priorities until they became readily available and easy to use. Digital cameras weren't a priority until they became readily available and affordable. When video was first added to DSLRs it was just a minor add on that no one expected to be important. There was no one demanding that DSLR's offer video. Yet now it is considered an essential feature.

I am confident that eventually the industry will get a clue and when they finally do, the very people who insist they don't need this, will be using it daily, demanding improvements with each new camera release and threatening to switch to another brand because Canon's connectivity is "behind" XYZ's.

Canon is continuously excoriated here for silly things like dynamic range. Yet the entire industry totally misread and apparently continues to misread what is probably the single most obvious and important trend in society today and it mystifies me why anyone feels compelled to defend them in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.

The industry screwed up. They are paying for it. We are paying for it twice – our cameras lack features and flexibility that every smart phone has and as consumers the collapse of a large portion of the market will inevitably force price increases and cost-cutting for the cameras we want to buy.

The flaw in this line of logic is assuming wifi cameras would save that segment of the market, which I highly doubt it would. It's again the factor of ease. One device that does it all vs having to carry 2 devices. I just don't see the addition of wifi breaking that trend, unless, you go full on and have your point and shoot be your phone, which would be awkward. That's your mass market, and I really have a hard time seeing this go down any differently, because unless they turned P&S cameras into phones with full browser and app capabilities then it goes back to 2 devices vs 1 device, 2 data plans vs 1 data plan (let's be real, wifi is nice but to do what a phone does it needs 4G coverage too).

And back to the dead horse, then you get into DSLR's. And, for entry level wifi makes sense. But as you scale up the ladder into the pro/semi - pro segment wifi is a neat add on that's largely un-necessary unless you are in a niche that needs instant access. That's where you end up in priority land. Improved IQ at base ISO or wifi? Better af or wifi? Battery life or wifi? Improved high ISO performance or wifi? Dual card slots or wifi? DR or wifi? FPS or wifi? Built in flash RT or wifi

Now with that said, some kind of nice for semi/pro gear would be great. I'd love to have it be easier to sync the time on my cameras. But, even if Canon did that, what if my second shooter is on a nikon? Back to manual sync.

 

[chauncey]

we all just have to agree to disagree.

NOooo...lets just get the torches and pitchforks. ;D

 

[takesome1]

At the workplace we use an IT company, the owner of the IT company has always told us if we switched to Apple he wouldn't service us. We all agree that is probably because we wouldn't need service.

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

Comparing what you do at home with Enterprise IT is not a valid comparison. There is so much more to IT than the individual PC or the software. More than I can explain here.

The reason your IT Service won't support Macs is because Apple doesn't support Macs. It's hard to support something when the vendor won't provide the tools necessary to make it feasible. The Apple KB resources are pathetic. Their response time is pathetic. Often they won't even acknowledge a problem exists or simply say that the problem isn't a problem. For Apple, even simple problems are PR issues instead of technical issues. It's very frustrating. So IT folks don't want to mess with it because it's not profitable and it makes the service provider look bad.

What I have at home is comparable for a small business, seven machines all synced and operating together.
You are right, it would be unprofitable. In 7 years I had to take one machine in for service. It reminds me of the old maytag repairman commercials.
For large business I agree there would be no comparison.

 

[Loswr]

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

+1

My previous company, I had 9 computers over a 10 year period - 8 PC laptops for the first 7 years (2 end of life, 6 died), and one Mac for the last 3 years, still going strong when I left last year.

But for some applications, e.g. Spotfire for data visualization, there's no Mac version so I need to run a VM. My current work Mac is as powerful as the higher-end corporate laptops, much smaller/lighter, and I feel sorry for all my colleagues always hunting for a place to plug in as I cruise along with 8-9 house of battery life.

 

[martti]

I think you are reading more into my comment than it deserves. I'm not saying Apple didn't shake up the smartphone market. And I'm not saying iPhones suck. Far from it! I'm just commenting on the topic of this thread which is that Apple doesn't "understand photography" or is doing anything other than selling a lot of expensive products that happen to contain a camera device because that is what is required to be competitive.

I repeat, Apple definitely made a huge impact on the phone market with their iPhone. At that time, other companies ruled that market. And FWIW, my Blackberry from that time was the best phone I ever owned. Built like a tank and it worked flawlessly for what I needed which as to be productive. (Not play games and watch movies.) But the industry saw the iPhone's success as a sign that they needed to abandon everything else and chase the iPhone which I think was a mistake. Now we have a gillion products that are essentially the same. What I wouldn't give for a decent physical key phone again that hasn't become a niche product. Oh well!

I was very happy with the PalmV which had absolutely beautiful and simplistic designs adn very robust SW for people who wanted to present figures in monday meetings...you could share through IR and you could SMS and fax. Nobody wanted high grade pictures let alone video. Now, still today my 'user experience' with the PalmV/Nokia combination was the best I could hope for. Everything that could go wrong was right there in your eyes and you could fix it. I was impressed with the Apple Newton that was so much ahead of its time that there just was no support...I used my Nokia phone as a modem to send faxes because the wireless data networks were not there yet.

I was mad at the color Palm. It was like an overfed prostitute trying to please everybody with the skills it had not.
Why did they have to put their effort in the cosmetics when connectivity would have been the correct address.

Nokia got stuck with their OS and Ericsson went wrong with Ebony. I had one of those. FOOBAR. It's maximum uptime was two hours. Clearly not for somebody like me. And then there all of a sudden was the iPhone. There had been iPods and iPod touches before but this changed the game as the 2G and 3G networks started to spread. I ordered my first iPhone 1 from Australia. Things started to change. I still had my iPod nad Nano for music but now the iPhone took care of that. Photos were miserable but they were working on it.

How many decent phone cameras would we have today if iPhone had not started to create some standards. But of course everybody wanted to use the winning formula. You need quite a lot of expertise to tell one of the clones apart from another so evidently the original Apple concept got a lot of the things right.
So easy to underestimate the Apple influence when in fact they changed the way music and videos were sold and how people made and shared the content they made at home and on the streets.
You have to be pretty determined not to see all this.


I asked our IT guy whether to get a Win laptop because they are so much more effeicient and fast and everythin compared to the Macs...he said, take the MacBook Pro and then you see just how much windows you need and I\ll install it for you. Three months, no needs thus far...so he knew what he was talking about.

 

[takesome1]

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

+1

My previous company, I had 9 computers over a 10 year period - 8 PC laptops for the first 7 years (2 end of life, 6 died), and one Mac for the last 3 years, still going strong when I left last year.

But for some applications, e.g. Spotfire for data visualization, there's no Mac version so I need to run a VM. My current work Mac is as powerful as the higher-end corporate laptops, much smaller/lighter, and I feel sorry for all my colleagues always hunting for a place to plug in as I cruise along with 8-9 house of battery life.

Like the movie "Bettlejuice" I just said (or typed) the word IT one to many times today. I just now wasted 20 minutes of my life dealing with the IT guys about an issue with my PC at work. Unlike fishing where it is said you gain time to your life while you are doing it, I am pretty sure I not only lost that 20 minutes but may even die sooner because of the stress of dealing with IT.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

+1

My previous company, I had 9 computers over a 10 year period - 8 PC laptops for the first 7 years (2 end of life, 6 died), and one Mac for the last 3 years, still going strong when I left last year.

But for some applications, e.g. Spotfire for data visualization, there's no Mac version so I need to run a VM. My current work Mac is as powerful as the higher-end corporate laptops, much smaller/lighter, and I feel sorry for all my colleagues always hunting for a place to plug in as I cruise along with 8-9 house of battery life.

I'm sorry but a small office 9 computer environment or a home environment with a few networked computers is NOT an Enterprise environment. It's no wonder you think Macs are sufficient. And Macs are literally the exact same Intel CPU, memory, chipsets, etc as a PC so the Mac is NOT more powerful. That is simply your perception. Most all quality laptops (usually enterprise level) for the last 2-3 years have exceptional performance, battery life and reliability... actually better than a Mac laptop. In fact, they are probably all made in the same factories in China.

I'm not saying PCs, Windows or current Enterprise solutions are perfect. Far from it. I'm just saying that Apple and Macs are in a totally different universe and they are not a good fit to sweep in and replace current Enterprise IT solutions. PCs are not perfect but neither are Macs. Macs suffer from many of the same problems as PCs. I've supported both. I didn't see that much of an overall difference after a given period of time. Except that people that used Macs tended to ignore and forgive the problems more with their beloved Macs and complain quicker with their cursed PCs. It's mostly a perception issue. And I have several clients that switched back to PCs after they felt like their Apple experience was a waste of their time and money. I'm not making this up.

 

[Don Haines]

But, what you posted is spoken like every IT guy I have met. From experience much of what you say is not based in what I have found to be actual fact. I have both systems, at home everything is MAC. At work it is windows. The system at home is just as sophisticated as what I have at work, simple to set up and in the last 7 years I have never once had to contact support. The Mac's I started with are still running, I have never had to replace one machine. Contrast that with work my Dell laptops I am on my second and it is failing. There is a reason to go with PC's, and that is software. From what I have found none of the other reasons you gave matter, after 25 years of listening to IT guys eventually you figure out the truth.

+1

My previous company, I had 9 computers over a 10 year period - 8 PC laptops for the first 7 years (2 end of life, 6 died), and one Mac for the last 3 years, still going strong when I left last year.

But for some applications, e.g. Spotfire for data visualization, there's no Mac version so I need to run a VM. My current work Mac is as powerful as the higher-end corporate laptops, much smaller/lighter, and I feel sorry for all my colleagues always hunting for a place to plug in as I cruise along with 8-9 house of battery life.

I'm sorry but a small office 9 computer environment or a home environment with a few networked computers is NOT an Enterprise environment. It's no wonder you think Macs are sufficient. And Macs are literally the exact same Intel CPU, memory, chipsets, etc as a PC so the Mac is NOT more powerful. That is simply your perception. Most all quality laptops (usually enterprise level) for the last 2-3 years have exceptional performance, battery life and reliability... actually better than a Mac laptop. In fact, they are probably all made in the same factories in China.

I'm not saying PCs, Windows or current Enterprise solutions are perfect. Far from it. I'm just saying that Apple and Macs are in a totally different universe and they are not a good fit to sweep in and replace current Enterprise IT solutions. PCs are not perfect but neither are Macs. Macs suffer from many of the same problems as PCs. I've supported both. I didn't see that much of an overall difference after a given period of time. Except that people that used Macs tended to ignore and forgive the problems more with their beloved Macs and complain quicker with their cursed PCs. It's mostly a perception issue. And I have several clients that switched back to PCs after they felt like their Apple experience was a waste of their time and money. I'm not making this up.

We have about 400 laptops.... average age about 3 or 4 years old.... about 99 percent PC... very few ever die, they just get obsolete and replaced. Batteries are a different thing, they only last about 5 years....

We have about 600 PCs and perhaps 20 Macs. They all run until they are obsolete.... very few ever die. With the exception of fans wearing out, very few hardware problems. I just tossed a trio of 30 year old 8086's that were still functional... I still have a WORKING TRS-80....

 

[takesome1]

And Macs are literally the exact same Intel CPU, memory, chipsets, etc as a PC so the Mac is NOT more powerful. That is simply your perception. Most all quality laptops (usually enterprise level) for the last 2-3 years have exceptional performance, battery life and reliability... actually better than a Mac laptop. In fact, they are probably all made in the same factories in China.

This statement is off. While PC's may have the same chipset, they may also have cheaper or better. They are not the same. The Dell laptop at work is crap IMO, and it is a workhorse that we paid over $3K for. It had all the good hardware with it as well. I have a very low opinion of Dell that comes from years of experience using them. PC manufactures are not all equal, even with the high end models.

 

[Loswr]

My previous company, I had 9 computers over a 10 year period - 8 PC laptops for the first 7 years (2 end of life, 6 died), and one Mac for the last 3 years, still going strong when I left last year.

But for some applications, e.g. Spotfire for data visualization, there's no Mac version so I need to run a VM. My current work Mac is as powerful as the higher-end corporate laptops, much smaller/lighter, and I feel sorry for all my colleagues always hunting for a place to plug in as I cruise along with 8-9 house of battery life.

I'm sorry but a small office 9 computer environment or a home environment with a few networked computers is NOT an Enterprise environment. It's no wonder you think Macs are sufficient. And Macs are literally the exact same Intel CPU, memory, chipsets, etc as a PC so the Mac is NOT more powerful. That is simply your perception. Most all quality laptops (usually enterprise level) for the last 2-3 years have exceptional performance, battery life and reliability... actually better than a Mac laptop. In fact, they are probably all made in the same factories in China.

Small office 9 computer environment? LOL. My previous company is a Fortune 100 global company with 75,000 employees and a $150B market cap. Hopefully you'd agree that's an Enterprise environment. I was part of a pilot group of Mac users there, the pilot was deemed a success and more Macs are being deployed. My current company has 135,000 employees globally and a $225B market cap (even more Enterprise, right?) and on my first day I was offered a choice between PC and Mac. The stock Macs have more RAM than the Enterprise PC builds, many corporate laptops have HDDs vs. the stock SSDs in a Macs, etc.

Sometimes it's the little things - I held an offsite meeting for my department last week in Germany, nice hotel on the Rhine but limited power outlets in the meeting room, which meant power cords snaking everywhere in a very EH&S non-compliant manner. Unsurprisingly, two of those power cords were tripped over, mine and one of my PC-using team members. The MagSafe plug on my Mac's power cord pulled easily free as designed, and I plugged it back in at the next break. My team member's PC laptop was pulled off the table by its standard plug connection, cracking the case and the display. On its way off the table it knocked over her water glass, which spilled into the keyboard of the person next to her. My Mac laptop cost the company more than one PC laptop...but far less than four of them.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

And Macs are literally the exact same Intel CPU, memory, chipsets, etc as a PC so the Mac is NOT more powerful. That is simply your perception. Most all quality laptops (usually enterprise level) for the last 2-3 years have exceptional performance, battery life and reliability... actually better than a Mac laptop. In fact, they are probably all made in the same factories in China.

This statement is off. While PC's may have the same chipset, they may also have cheaper or better. They are not the same. The Dell laptop at work is crap IMO, and it is a workhorse that we paid over $3K for. It had all the good hardware with it as well. I have a very low opinion of Dell that comes from years of experience using them. PC manufactures are not all equal, even with the high end models.

Not all laptops are equal, PC or Mac. Some makes/models are better, some are not. There are hundreds of variations every year of multiple makes/models. Every vendor has good years and bad years depending on a multitude of factors, not the least of which is Intel's ups and downs.

My statement didn't address the obvious variables that any product in any market faces. I simply said that the hardware is essentially the same and so the performance is essentially the same between Mac and PC. Each vendor can either improve or diminish the end product design as they see fit resulting in a good or bad review. I'm sorry your DELL is an expensive lemon for you but there are millions of other PC based laptops that provide solid and reliable service for millions of users all over the globe.

And I might add that some of that success is due to the talented IT dept that set it up correctly in the first place. Or, unfortunately, the reverse can be true as well. Any good system can also be compromised by poor IT staff. There are several key factors to the equation, it's not just the hardware.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My previous company, I had 9 computers over a 10 year period - 8 PC laptops for the first 7 years (2 end of life, 6 died), and one Mac for the last 3 years, still going strong when I left last year.

But for some applications, e.g. Spotfire for data visualization, there's no Mac version so I need to run a VM. My current work Mac is as powerful as the higher-end corporate laptops, much smaller/lighter, and I feel sorry for all my colleagues always hunting for a place to plug in as I cruise along with 8-9 house of battery life.

I'm sorry but a small office 9 computer environment or a home environment with a few networked computers is NOT an Enterprise environment. It's no wonder you think Macs are sufficient. And Macs are literally the exact same Intel CPU, memory, chipsets, etc as a PC so the Mac is NOT more powerful. That is simply your perception. Most all quality laptops (usually enterprise level) for the last 2-3 years have exceptional performance, battery life and reliability... actually better than a Mac laptop. In fact, they are probably all made in the same factories in China.

Small office 9 computer environment? LOL. My previous company is a Fortune 100 global company with 75,000 employees and a $150B market cap. Hopefully you'd agree that's an Enterprise environment. I was part of a pilot group of Mac users there, the pilot was deemed a success and more Macs are being deployed. My current company has 135,000 employees globally and a $225B market cap (even more Enterprise, right?) and on my first day I was offered a choice between PC and Mac. The stock Macs have more RAM than the Enterprise PC builds, many corporate laptops have HDDs vs. the stock SSDs in a Macs, etc.

Sometimes it's the little things - I held an offsite meeting for my department last week in Germany, nice hotel on the Rhine but limited power outlets in the meeting room, which meant power cords snaking everywhere in a very EH&S non-compliant manner. Unsurprisingly, two of those power cords were tripped over, mine and one of my PC-using team members. The MagSafe plug on my Mac's power cord pulled easily free as designed, and I plugged it back in at the next break. My team member's PC laptop was pulled off the table by its standard plug connection, cracking the case and the display. On its way off the table it knocked over her water glass, which spilled into the keyboard of the person next to her. My Mac laptop cost the company more than one PC laptop...but far less than four of them.

Well, first let me say that there was no way for me to interpret that you work in such a large enterprise environment from your post. Yes, the environment you just described is obviously an Enterprise environment. What part of the IT dept do you work in?

Second, the hardware/feature configuration (SSDs, hard drive, display, etc) is determined by the buyer. All enterprise laptops have had SSD options available for years. Apple doesn't have any kind of advantage on that.

Please keep in mind that when I refer to Enterprise IT, I'm not just talking about buying laptops or desktop computers. That is a small part of the bigger picture. Buying mac laptops doesn't affect the infrastructure that much. It's simply another host on the network.

And FWIW, I have always considered the "MagSafe" power connection a great innovation. And some PC vendors have adopted it on a few models as well. IMO, I think it should be on everything. But Apple seems to have adopted it first. So I suspect that part of the reason it hasn't happened on PC laptops very quickly is due to the fact that it would cost too much to 1) pay royalties to Apple or 2) defend all the lawsuits Apple would file for stealing their MagSafe power connection idea. They tend to do that a lot you know.

 

[Loswr]

What part of the IT dept do you work in?

With all due respect to my IT colleagues and the necessary jobs they do...I think I'd shoot myself first.