After some myth-busting, Auto Warehousing Co. proceeds with plan to dump Windows PCs for Apple Macs

“Less than five months after going public with plans to immediately start replacing its Windows-based PCs with Macs, Auto Warehousing Co. was forced to push back the project by more than a month. That was last December. The reason was not a lack of money, manpower or executive support. Rather, what stymied the project were protests from workers and objections from customers who perceived the technology switch as unnecessarily costly,” Julia King reports for Compterworld.

“‘I didn’t see this coming at all,’ says Dale Frantz, CIO of the Tacoma, Wash.-based company. ‘We never before had any of the workforce question our technological initiatives.’ But with the Mac project, ‘there was a perception that the equipment was much more expensive than traditional Windows PCs and that we were purchasing Lamborghini-level equipment with the company’s profits,’ he says,” King reports.

“AWC’s customers had similar concerns, raising questions about whether the technology migration might trigger increases in service rates. Computerworld story about AWC’s technology migration plans was published, both he and CEO Stephen Seher received a flood of phone calls and e-mails with questions, positive and negative comments, and even an anonymous death threat,” King reports.

MacDailyNews Take: Reports of a death threat should not be at all surprising: The combination of “Stockholm Syndrome” and “cognitive dissonance” produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.

King continues, “Employees wanted to know whether money that could go toward salary increases or other benefits was being diverted to what they perceived as a pricey high-tech project. Customers worried that the cost of the project would be passed on to them. AWC’s bankers wanted more details to determine whether switching to a new technology made sound business sense… A few key people were very anti-Apple, though they couldn’t articulate why. ‘They just didn’t want to switch,’ Frantz says.”

King reports, “As Frantz saw it, fully disclosing costs was the best way to do that. He spent the next month explaining to everyone who would be affected the many reasons for the technology swap. Among those is the more than $1.82 million the company calculates it will save over the next three years.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Old myths die hard. But, die they do.


  1. The last line there says it all:

    “Among those is the more than $1.82 million the company calculates it will save over the next three years.”

    When are folks going to learn. Macs may be slightly more expensive to purchase initially (probably more like dead even these days), but wind up being FAR cheaper to operate over the long term.

    What they should be worried about is folks in their IT department loosing their jobs or sitting around with nothing to do once things are up and running.

  2. “there was a perception that the equipment was much more expensive than traditional Windows PCs and that we were purchasing Lamborghini-level equipment with the company’s profits”

    There’s still way too much of this bullshit thinking out there.
    Kudos to AWC for sticking to their guns. You can buy quality and still save $1.82 million. It’s time for a savings halo effect.

  3. Whew, the ignorance of so many people is incredible! That is, those who saw this switch as extravagant… To save about $1.8 million for a company this size is a very wise use of their resources.

    Windows. Your Pain, Our Prerogative.

  4. Some see a dark tunnel and turn back, Others see the tunnel as an opportunity to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the view on the other other side.
    Right from their web site…”State-of-the-art technology – we are the technology leaders in our industry.” at least now they will be.

    Snappier cars coming soon to you soon.

  5. Anyone else come away from this story with the sense that there was some Microsoft influence going on here? Knowing the way Microsoft operates, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d been putting those bees in the bonnets of AWC’s workers/customers/bankers. They know what’s at stake for their Windows monopoly if this falling domino starts a chain reaction through the business world.

  6. I totally agree with you, Daniel. Going frontal against Microsoft can cost you your job, specially if you are very vocal about what you plan to do. I have seen this happen a couple of times, primarily with planned migrations to Linux, but the modus operandi is the same. Microsoft is today’s mafia.

  7. After purchasing a PC, then the spyware, then the virus protection, (and renewing every year) then all the additional software (photo/movie/etc) to make it actually function it still amazes me that people think it is more expensive to use a mac.

    Not to mention, do those idiot employees have any idea the licensing costs Microsoft charges for SQL or Server or even office?
    Obviously not.

  8. Such Orwellian groupthink. If they would have changed brands/suppliers of copiers, telephone service, insurance, outside legal support, accounting and audit firms, or any number of other suppliers that would have at least if not more cost and risk associated with them, no one outside the decision-makers would have given it a second thought.

    It is amazing what perceptions people hold about the place of Microsoft in the corporation. Like 25 years ago – no one ever got fired by choosing IBM. But then most of those companies no longer exist, or are non-competitive in the world economy. Eclipsed by companies willing to change and compete.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.