Computerworld: Mac switch revisited: An enterprise PC shop’s move to Apple isn’t as easy as expected
March 4 2008
The headline is a little deceptive... this was actually a great move to Apple, and a CIO who understood how to make the business case and "sell" it:
Frantz set up "town meetings" with about 450 workers on all three shifts and laid out the licensing math. "I talked about the fact that Microsoft requires up to five client licenses for just one PC, just so we have the legitimate right to attach to the network. With Apple, that's all included," Frantz notes. "Yes, it looks like the equipment is more expensive -- until you stack on all the client licenses to run Microsoft [software]."Now I realize ultimately, this former MS customer didn't migrate to IBM, not even for software. That's OK. What I like about this story is that the CIO made a business case, saw how he could actually save a lot of money with making a switch, and did it. He didn't let emotions and loyalties rule the day, like some recent switch decisions I've seen. And his organization is benefitting -- while breaking the mold.
This fact-based decision making is much more common outside of North America than inside it, which is probably why Computerworld thought this was a noteworthy case study.
Link: Computerworld: Mac switch revisited: An enterprise PC shop's move to Apple isn't as easy as expected > (Thanks, Charles)
Post a Comment
- 2
Mike Brown | 3/4/2008 7:49:09 PM
Good story. Although, I must confess that it's still not clear why they went for Macs.
Sure, they make it very clear why they dumped Microsoft: the horrendous licensing costs. But why pick Mac over something like Ubuntu, for example? Was the latter (or any Linux variant) even considered, I wonder? They could have reaped many of those same benefits from the switch, but the additional one of not having to change the hardware. That would have avoided all those "Lamborghini-level" accusations.
If the hardware was in need of replacement anyway, then fair enough: you can't go too far wrong with Macs.
Cheers,
- Mike
- 3
Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 3/4/2008 9:23:53 PM
Actually, Mika, Cubase is considered second to Logic, ProTools and MOTU by many engineers. And the new guys all use Ableton for performance level stuff.
Yeah, there are Cubase holdouts -- I'm one of them -- but if you want to get the cutting edge of music... Live, Reason and the Native Instruments Suite... it really doesn't matter which OS you use. DAWs are just as capable on Windows as they are on Mac. It's Linux that lags behind (for now.)
- 4
Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 3/4/2008 9:29:35 PM
Money shot...
"By getting off of Microsoft Active Directory and onto Open Directory, each individual server becomes separate and Microsoft can no longer view [and charge for] a broad enterprise network. This was a very significant change," Frantz says.
There's the key.
- 5
Bob Frank | 3/4/2008 10:38:04 PM
As a big Apple guy (who is biased towards Macs :-), I can say I've seen this news has been highlighted in Mac circles for a while.
I think everyone reading Ed's blog can see that the cost savings of getting out from under the MS license fees is substantial -- which by itself can almost pay for the hardware swap immediately in some cases.
In the article, after this was announced there was a lot of confusion and concern in the rank and file. But Mr. Frantz went around and explained the decision and the cost benefits and brought some Macs to show everyone. After that, almost everyone was on board. The financial ROI of switching were quite substantial for them.
@2 (Mike Brown) In a previous article (sorry can't find the link), there was actually a brief mention of them evaluating Linux (Red Hat I think) and basically the answer was that for their needs they determined that Linux wasn't a desktop solution that would work for them.
Also, its not an immediate global switch --- they're swapping out old fully depreciated machines first:
"Over the next year, we'll upgrade to Macs on a shop-by-shop basis, because it doesn't make sense to sunset brand-new PCs, Frantz says. He estimates that by 2010, all 28 of AWC's facilities will be completely switched over to Apple technology. By then, all remaining PCs will be fully depreciated and will be able to be cost-effectively replaced with Macs."
- 6
Bob Frank | 3/4/2008 10:46:51 PM
Ok, I found the Linux quotes:
{ Link }
Mullen also experimented with Linux as an operating system alternative to Windows. “I transitioned my full desktop from a Windows Vista enterprise desktop to a SUSE Linux desktop and was using the MacBook Pro as a laptop and SUSE Linux enterprise as my main desktop so we could see how well things worked,” he explains.
In the end, system stability and available support were the deciding factors.
“We went out on the Linux boards to begin cultivating support, and the message we got back was that the Linux community would love to work with us and wanted to know how many man-hours of development we could put toward the overall Linux project,” recalls Frantz. “That didn’t give me a lot of confidence about Linux as the production environment for what we do.” Meanwhile, the Apple testing was going extremely well. On the storage front, “I got off the Microsoft file store we were using and moved everything to the Apple server, and it worked phenomenally,” says Mike Collison, AWC’s director of IS operations.
- 7
Mike Brown | 3/4/2008 11:51:32 PM
@5/6,
Okey doke.
No, I didn't read the first article (doh!)
Cheers,
- Mike
- 8
Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 3/4/2008 11:58:00 PM
I think it's also interesting that Computerworld followed up, and the CIO was willing to admit publicly and unashamedly that they had hit some political hiccups along the way. Honesty. How refreshing. :-)
@1 - AWC is not an industrial manufacturing company. Not that you care, it doesn't matter to you want industry someone is in. With you there is only one answer to every possible question.
- 9
Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 3/5/2008 7:22:30 AM
"However Amiga was always the superior of the Mac, it even emulated it faster than a Mac itself would run."
So Amigas used the same chipsets as Macs at the time (Motorola 680x0 series), and they ran Mac OS faster than Macs? That's clever. I would suggest that perhaps their superior graphics chips had something to do with it (anyone remember Toaster?)
As for the switch to Macs, well, why not. As I've said before, my bustling enterprise is all-Mac, and has been since it started *cough*
- 10
Keil Wilson | 3/5/2008 10:49:42 AM
Nathan has (once again) highlighted what I think is the most important idea to take away from this for those of us that bleed yellow. The licensing equation that MS uses is complicated and can go exponential as different combinations of MS products are added to meet business requirements. Follow the "Licensing Math" link in the related content section to see a good example of this. The real cost of Microsoft's enterprise products are buried deep in the details of the licensing agreements, much like all those service fees in your cell phone bill.
- 11
Bart Declercq http://bartcentral.dommel.be/ | 3/6/2008 1:05:26 PM
@9 Ben : the main reason was that the Amiga (and the Atari ST) used an 8 MHz 68000 at the time, while the Mac was using a 6MHz 68000.
Ah, those were the days :)
- 12
Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 3/7/2008 2:46:00 AM
@11 6MHz?? That doesn't sound right to me at all. So, being a nerd ;) had a quick look, and here is the spec for the original 128k compact Mac:
{ Link }
... which states 8MHz as being the speed. As does Wikipedia:
{ Link }
LOL, what the... I thought it was always clear that Mac's are great computers for artists: Desktop Publishing, Music Sequencing (CuBase), and even some graphics. However Amiga was always the superior of the Mac, it even emulated it faster than a Mac itself would run.
If the CIO would have spent $10 for a professional IT consultant, he would have gotten the right choice immediately. But I guess he wanted to save the $10 and made the choice himself.
If you'd ask me how to organize a industrial manufacturing company's IT: Don't care about clients, just make sure they can run Firefox (all can do that). Focus on the server, make sure it's AIX and providing a kick ass HTML performance (doesn't really matter if it's Domino, DB/2, Oracle, MSSQL or whatever, as long as the software development costs stay in best ratio regarding time/price/productivity). Oh, maybe others than Domino have a LITTLE problem to compete there, but keep trying.