Macs in business: Making the case

Posted May. 6, ’08, 5:36 PM PT by Dan Pourhadi

Category | Business

The other night I got into a fight—I’d like to call it a debate…but no, it was a fight—with my cousin about deploying Macs in place of generic PCs in a business, in this case to a media/web team within a Windows-dominated corporation.

I’ve written about Macs in the workplace before, and how the platform is making inroads to the corporate world because of increased (sometimes fluid) compatibility, stability, efficiency, security, and other words ending in “y.” Apple’s switch to Intel processors has allowed for effective virtualization of Windows and has also made it easier for programs to be ported to OS X; and better networking and ease-of-use now make corporate integration far less hassle-prone than it’s been in the past—not to mention the ubiquity of the iPod and other Apple products in the consumer market.

The counter-arguments I was presented with seemed to fall in line with the same’-ol’ same-ol’ perception of Apple and the Mac, and the Mac’s capacity—or lack thereof—to work as an effective member of a corporate tech setting: the Mac is slower, its compatibility stinks, mission-critical business apps aren’t cross-platform, there’s some kind of intense and productivity-inhibiting learning curve, and it’s impractical to support a second platform in a mono-platform environment. Or, in other words: It’d be too much work to do it now, so it’s not worth it.

These arguments, to me, reflect what’s wrong in general with the classic corporate approach to and understanding of technology.

Click on to read some of my ramblings…

Most of the arguments presented—sans a few obvious ones, like the Mac being slower—are valid concerns for management. They have a system in place that works and has worked for some time; the goal of changing that presents an added layer of complexity, centering especially around time and cost.

Adopting—or even just adding—a new platform is more than buying a new computer: current applications need to be assessed for compatibility, sometimes requiring replacement or supplementation; employees need to be trained and conditioned to work in a different environment; and current support staff and procedure needs to be modified—and often supplemented—in order to span both the old and new platforms. The amount of time needed to successfully and effectively deploy something new is far greater than the time needed to throw out an old PC and buy a newer one.

Many businesses look at these challenges and are intimidated by the short-term costs, both in price and loss of productivity during the transition. The Washington-esque quick-fix approach then beats out the often more viable long-term solution.

In many cases, that’s exactly the situation with deploying Macs in Windows environments. Because long-term benefits are obscured by inexperience and uncertainty, adopting the Mac is dismissed as a risky and practicality-prohibitive business move.

But assessing long-term cost and productivity benefits is the most important aspect of upgrading tech in the corporate world, and management’s lack of insight into current tech trends and the instinctive, traditional approach to modernization may actually hurt businesses who stick with the status quo—in the very ways they attribute to adopting a new platform.

The Three S’s

Regardless of opinions to the contrary, it’s hard to dispute that the Mac almost always beats out its Windows counterpart in terms of stability, simplicity, and security.

Windows has greatly matured since its Blue Screen of Death days. System-wide crashes aren’t as commonplace as they once were and application stability has become less of an issue as developers have had time—lots and lots of time—to craft their apps to work effectively and efficiently in XP. Microsoft has done a better job catering to developers’ needs in APIs and strengthening dependability of XP through patches and service packs.

But to say Windows is intrinsically “stable” is giving too much credit to too little progress and failing to account for all the X factors inherent in running Windows in the first place. Hiccups, freezes, memory leaks, and app crashes are all still frequent, especially if the user doesn’t independently maintain his system (exceptions apply, of course, as these all vary on a user-to-user basis).

Too many apps, especially those installed recklessly, can affect the integrity of the entire system. Then there’s Windows’s innate problem with malware: viruses, Trojans, spyware, adware, you name it. These are not only a security and productivity risk, they also threaten the integrity of the entire system, draining memory and processor, hogging disk space, interfering with other, legitimate applications, etc.

And the malware problem runs deep: A Windows machine can be infected without the user ever actively, consciously, or knowingly doing anything risky. Browsing the web, checking email, or failing to run a security app is all that’s needed to open the floodgates for malicious code.

Because of this, IT needs to often wipe machines completely clean, frequently reinstalling the system—through ghost clones or other imaging methods—to restore the system’s integrity. Anti-virus and anti-malware apps need to be purchased, installed, and run constantly, often with extra costs attached to definition subscriptions, support, and maintenance.

Now consider security. The prevalence and frightening ubiquity of Windows malware threatens the data and security of the system; back-doors and vulnerabilities hang a big “Come in!” sign for hackers, Trojans, and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks that can cripple an entire Windows network.

No one’s saying the Mac is bullet-proof. There are vulnerabilities; by some accounts, there have been more vulnerabilities discovered in OS X than in most recent releases of Windows. But the existence of vulnerabilities isn’t the most damning aspect of the security debate: it’s how those vulnerabilities are exploited and put to use by those with malicious intent.

There are far more hackers and malware-creators targeting Windows than there are those targeting the Mac. This is where the security-through-obscurity argument applies: there’s far more gain—and far more money—in attacking the much-larger Windows-using community, then there is attacking a platform with single-digit market share.

And yes, OS X is arguably safer than Windows when it comes to fighting malware in general: the Admin (root) user is disabled by default in OS X, and installing a system-wide app always requires admin authentication, making it very difficult for a user to unintentionally or unknowingly install a malicious app. Vista has made advances in protecting its users from such malware, but at the cost of user-friendliness and fluidity.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are currently no real viruses—at least none in the wild—for the Mac. You’ll remember that a virus is a fully self-sustaining, self-propagating piece of malware that installs itself without the user’s knowledge and is then able to spread itself without the user’s help. And there are zero. Zilch.

Different != Bad

The one real problem that will prevent many companies from adopting Macs at all centers around the compatibility and flexibility of their mission-critical apps. It’s hard to justify adding a second platform that doesn’t support the program on which your entire organization runs. Not to mention that assessing cross-compatibility and the ability of the Mac to match its PC counterparts in functionality with regards to all apps and services an organization uses presents one of the greatest challenges to multi-platform integration.

But the challenge certainly isn’t prohibitive. In fact, the application issue for most businesses is more a problem of perception than actual limitation: For the vast majority of Windows apps that don’t have a Mac-specific version, there are alternatives that get the job done just as well—and often better.

This stumbling block rests on the simple-yet-massively-ingrained fallacy that “different” automatically means “worse”—because App X doesn’t exist on the Mac, then App Y, which does the same thing but looks different or acts different, isn’t as good. It’s a matter of open-mindedness, a component of decision-making that most management has trouble applying to situations.

Getting past the “different equals worse” assumption is perhaps the most integral part of approaching a tech upgrade; innovative products are by definition different, and accepting that an unfamiliar solution may be a better solution is key to long-term success. The button that does X in the Mac app may be in a different place than the Windows equivalent…but it may very well be in a better, more efficient location. Once the user abandons his previous habits and is conditioned to the new approach, he’ll immediately start to realize the benefits of the difference.

Business-centric services like VPN and Exchange are the most common areas of difficulty when it comes to finding good Mac alternatives. Cisco’s Mac VPN client is arguably inferior to its Windows counterpart and Entourage isn’t exactly Outlook’s better half. But the differences here, though seemingly concrete, are heavily subjective, depending entirely on both the business’s implementation and the user’s utilization of the app, its interface, and its features.

Most small and mid-sized businesses that use VPN have their networks optimized for as much flexibility as possible when it comes to configuration and maintenance. The more specific features that are implemented and essential, the easier it is to break the client and the harder it is to keep things working smoothly. (Admittedly, sometimes it’s the opposite: some organizations lock down VPN very tightly, sacrificing flexibility and convenience for security and maximum efficiency; but even then, true VPN is an open standard, regardless of configuration.)

IT likes to dictate detail-for-detail specs (such as which app to use, etc.) for technology like VPNs—it makes it easier for them to implement on a mass scale and limits the possible variables that may interfere with normal operation (also making troubleshooting a lot easier). But that doesn’t mean the same can’t be achieved on a multi-platform network: a second set of Mac-specific specs, though different, can be just as effective at maintaining functional stability.

The Exchange/Outlook question centers heavily around how the business uses it—with only a few exceptions, Microsoft’s own Entourage presents a viable option for employing Exchange on a Mac. The only counter-argument I got with regards to Entourage was that, after trying it for “about a week,” my cousin “didn’t like it.” It thus didn’t come down to matters of functionality or usefulness, but rather a subjective assessment of the app’s interface versus the more-familiar Outlook. (But, ultimately, business doesn’t care about how much its employees “like” a particular solution—if an employee is forced to use a particular app because that’s the company standard, it doesn’t matter whether he likes it or not. He has to get used to it.)

The Multi-Platform Edge

Even Windows-specific apps without legitimate Mac alternatives is a weakening argument against the use of Macs in the workplace. Thanks to Apple’s use of the same Intel x86 processors that power most PCs, users are able to run Windows apps on the Mac in a variety of ways.

The most common is virtualization through the use of programs like Parallels or VMWare Fusion. This method allows you to run an entire Windows system right on top of OS X, offering nearly full compatibility with any Windows app or service without having to reboot. It isn’t the fastest or most efficient way to run such an app, since you’re running two separate operating systems at the same time in two different environments, but the performance hit is often negligible, and features like Parallel’s Coherence Mode and Fusion’s Unity make the two environments seamlessly fluid.

Another increasingly useful solution is CodeWeavers’s CrossOver, which enables a user to run some Windows apps without running Windows itself. Not all apps run flawlessly under it, but most business apps, which are often simple, high-level programs that don’t require much from the system itself, run well, including Microsoft Office. (CodeWeavers provides a list of compatibility-tested Windows apps that work under CrossOver.)

Running a program non-natively is never the ideal solution in terms of essential, primary mission-critical apps. But the goal of these approaches isn’t to provide a long-term outlet to run such programs; it’s merely a means of assisting a long-term transition to an all-Mac solution, or providing long-term access to a mission-critical app that isn’t the centerpiece of the employee’s use of his computer. For example, it may be good for an employee who needs to use a Windows-only app to list expenses, but not for an accountant whose job revolves around a Windows-only accounting app.

And for resource-hungry apps, Apple’s own Boot Camp tool allows users to run a fully copy Windows in addition to and independent of OS X. Again, not the ideal long-term solution for running an incompatible program, but it is another tool to ease a user into a full transition to OS X.

The Hip Factor

In a recent MacJury podcast, I briefly discussed the growing appearance of Macs at my university. Nearly half of all notebooks I see on campus are Apple notebooks—iBooks, PowerBooks, MacBooks, etc. Half is a large number.

In fact, the MacBook is so popular among college students, it’s practically the default choice when purchasing a laptop for school. In my circle of non-techie friends, the only ones who don’t have Macs are those whose parents decided—despite their objections—which brand of laptop to buy.

This embrace of the Mac reflects a hugely important trend (which others, such as Peter Burrows at BusinessWeek, have recognized) that will potentially dictate how tomorrow’s employees and employers view tech, i.e. today’s Mac-using college student is tomorrow’s Mac-using employee. These kids are growing up on the Mac, much the same way today’s workforce and management grew up on Windows. And just as current employees look for jobs where they know the technology and modern companies hire employees who know the technology they use, so will future employees and companies.

Instead of having to retrain employees to understand how to use a Mac, mono-platform organizations who fail to adapt early to these trends will have to train the growing number of Mac grads to understand how to use Windows.

If companies recognize and begin to embrace these trends now, however, they won’t have to worry about the need for dramatic and potentially more costly long-term adjustments.

You gotta change anyway

There’s an assumption that going with Windows is the consistent “safe” path and going with the Mac is a full-blown and risky change, but let’s face it: that’s a fallacy.

Most corporations have gotten comfortable with Windows XP as the foundation of their tech environment. Their software runs on it; their support understands it; their employees know how to use it. But Windows XP is on life support, and Microsoft’s about to pull the plug. On June 30th, Redmond will cease sales and support of Windows XP, leaving its current users in the cold and attempting to force a widespread upgrade to Windows Vista.

But Vista is resource-hungry and buggy (“a work in progress,” says CEO Steve Ballmer), and has a sketchy record when it comes to backwards compatibility. Microsoft itself seems disappointed in the release, already hinting at the creation of its next iteration of Windows, Windows 7.

For most companies, upgrading is no longer a question of whether or not to maintain the status quo. Rather, it’s an issue of what kind of change is less costly, less hassle-prone, and a safer long-term solution: the shift to Vista or to the shift to the Mac.

Looking at it this way, the decision comes down to OS X, which in its sixth iteration is firmly established as the stability, simplicity, and security leader on the market or Vista, currently plagued by bugs and incompatibility, which will probably take several service pack updates to match Windows XP’s current state—not to mention a future clouded in uncertainty.

All of a sudden, the “safe” choice and the “risky” choice are no longer as clear cut; and indeed, the Mac seems to have the immediate edge.

It’s not always greener

None of this is to say all businesses should begin integrating Macs into their workforce; that’s just as foolish as stating the Mac has no place at all in business. There are obvious hurdles, for some companies more than others.

Where’s Apple?

Corporations need reliability and support, and that’s often why they turn to manufacturers like Dell and HP who concentrate heavily on corporate relations. A big part of their business models is appealing to corporate customers: providing custom products and services and offering dependable and focused technology support.

Apple’s corporate focus is practically non-existent. They’ve always been about the average consumer, building personal tech for personal needs. They’ve demonstrated no interest—in fact, they’ve largely demonstrated the opposite—in soliciting business customers, offering no real incentive for corporations to choose Apple over other corporate-oriented manufacturers. (As Burrows writes, the push for Macs in the workplace is more of a People’s Rebellion, instigated by corporate employes who are also Mac users, as opposed to coming from Apple itself.)

This isn’t a show-stopper for small and mid-sized businesses, or for teams within large corporations, but it is a good reason for large corporations to avoid widespread deployment of the Mac.

When even virtualization won’t do

Some companies use applications that are highly-tailored to their needs and they employ computers for the sole purpose of utilizing these apps. Then there are situations where apps act as a top level for the operating system itself—it’s not about using Windows or OS X, it’s about using this particular system, which is often written to work with a very narrow set of software guidelines. There are also organizations, particularly large ones, who maintain their computers with Windows-specific remote-management applications.

In situations like these, switching to the Mac is not only an unfeasible option, it shouldn’t be an option at all. Sometimes, software requirements are so platform-specific that sticking with a particular platform is an organization’s only viable solution.

Just call support

Most businesses have established technology-support departments, with a staff trained and certified to support and maintain their current software systems. Adding a second platform to the fray would necessitate a whole new component of their support offerings, requiring the staff to be retrained to understand the new system, and in some cases adding new staff entirely. This is not only costly, it adds more complications to an already complex field.

For a large corporation, allowing employees to freely choose between the two platforms —which would require supporting both—may very well be cost prohibitive. It doesn’t make much business sense to establish a second support team / retrain current support staff just to give employees the freedom to buy whatever computer they enjoy using.

But I’d argue support isn’t as big an issue as many management think—in fact, I’d say support is one of the strongest long-term arguments in favor of integrating the Mac into the work environment.

Macs don’t need as much support — they aren’t crippled by viruses or spyware or adware; errant apps (on the rare occasion they are installed) have far less influence on the entire system; and Apple’s hardware/software integration model all but eradicates compatibility and driver issues. The likelihood is that the amount of time per capita needed for support on OS X is likely less than the comparative amount for Windows machines.

Long-term, supporting a network of Macs could potentially cost much less than supporting a network of Windows boxes.

What’s the point?

Instead of focusing on immediate short-term costs and risks, it’s important for management to keep an open mind when deciding on technology upgrades, and attempt to assess long-term pros/cons of integrating Macs in business environments. This requires building a base of knowledge on both platforms and current tech trends, as well as practically exploring the adoption of the Mac. It also means taking a reasonable amount of time and not allowing one’s judgement to be clouded by subjective analysis of interface and familiarity, such as aspects of software-use that are highly habitual and aspects to which users quickly adapt.

The Mac is by no means the best choice for every company looking to upgrade. In fact, I’d say only a relatively small fraction are ready or suited for such a shift right now.

But generalizing the Mac platform as the wrong choice for all business is just as much of a mistake. Many organizations could benefit long-term from allowing employees to use Macs, or from deploying Macs throughout the company, both in terms of costs and productivity. The trick is adequately and completely studying the options and choosing what’s best for the company.

Too many individuals are still locked into old perceptions regarding the Mac, perceptions founded on outdated realities and stereotypes of the platform that no longer exist. Accurately assessing the place of the Mac in the workplace, then, relies not only on hard facts, but on shifting the old guard’s mindset about the platform wars, and understanding both systems as viable players in business tech.

I worked in IT for several years, managing a mid-size company’s Windows network, so I can appreciate the complexities inherent in allowing the integration of and supporting multiple software platforms. But looking past these complexities and weighing the long-term benefits of using Macs for certain business tasks could offer companies a safe, cost-effective alternative to the increasingly-costly requirements of deploying Windows as their sole computing platform.

That’s all I’m sayin’.