Don't be fooled by consumer tech bargains
Posted 11 December 2007 at 11:08AM by Hannah Gilchrist in Investment and finance
As businesses are warned of the cost risks of buying cheaper consumer PCs, many small firms are still choosing the cheaper models to keep initial costs down. So why should businesses be worried? And when it boils down to it - what's the difference anyway?
Many businesses make the assumption that buying consumer class PCs for company use will be cheaper in the long run, but actually the total cost of ownership can be much higher than expected.
IT research and advisory company Gartner believe that despite cost pressures, buying consumer focused devices is no match for professional business-class hardware. Speaking to silicon.com, Leslie Fiering, analyst at Gartner suggests that many shop-bought computers are not rigorously tested to meet business needs and as a result can lead to failure rates up to 50% higher than business technology.
But this isn't all, not only will computer disasters effect your business but it can also damage your cash-flow. And don't think that the customer guarantee will help you as these tend to run out much sooner than their professional counterparts.
So there's a cost difference and they're a business continuity liability, but what's the real difference? Well they're not designed for us - they don't have all the applications and tools to really help businesses. OK so they are fine for a bit of email writing and sending documents but when it comes to managing projects things may look a little tricky.
Put it this way, you wouldn't buy a toaster if it didn't make toast - no matter how cheap it was!
Tags: business continuity, computer hardware, Gartner, purchasing, silicon.com
New feature: Rate this post!
Average rating: 2/5
Comments
2. At December 11, 2007 4:24 PM, J G Dawson wrote:
This is extremely good advice and well worth heeding - However, it's not always possible for a small company to set out on the road to fortune with an all singing and dancing commercial computer - A niche market perhaps for someone able to strike a happy medium between domestic and business requirements?
3. At December 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Zen wrote:
I agree, being an IT service provider for small businesses, I've had to work with extremely slow PC's which have been flogged off to them as "state of the art" and simply do not stand up to the productivity of business needs
4. At December 12, 2007 11:43 AM, Rex Hanson wrote:
Many small businesses only use PCs "for a bit of e-mail writing and sending documents", plus of course spreadsheets and letters. Maybe a small accounts package too. They don't actually need Server Class kit on their desks. So why not buy cheap? If you want to drive up the side of a mountain, you need a Land Rover. Taking one child to school does not.
In answer to Zen, the issue of people being sold the wrong stuff, or failing to implement proper back-up strategies is nothing to do with the price of the PC. Is Windows Vista any better if you pay £350 for it than if you get it 'free' with your £400 PC? The PC is just one tool for small businesses, not the reason for the busines. Whilst a writer or journalist might be lost without a PC, most SMBs can supply their customers without owning a top model.
This looks like a 'scare marketing' bulletin from an expensive PC maker, written by someone who doesn't have to buy multiple PCs with his/her own money.
Fault stats prove that the failure rates of cheaper PC's is very low - software causes most problems. Anyway, the PC you buy today will be out of date within three years !
5. At December 12, 2007 2:05 PM, Stuart wrote:
I agree with Rex. I bought 15 cheap PC's for my business 7 years ago, they were used every day, and I only got rid of them recently because I wanted to go to flat screen monitors and the cost of a total package was very attractive. I hope to get another 7 years use.
6. At December 12, 2007 2:37 PM, Adrian wrote:
In addition to the above, I come across businesses who buy consumer PCs and expect them to work reliably every day. Nice idea but they are cheap for a reason.
If a business, like Stuart's, has good service from these then he is lucky. For the rest (and I talk from experience here) take regular backups (Acronis), and migrate to at least a basic business PC (like Dell, HP) that cost about the same. Note: most disk failures on consumer PCs occur within the first 3 months or after three years. Anything after then is borrowed time.
7. At December 12, 2007 3:54 PM, Scot wrote:
I'm sorry, but this sounds like a load of nonsense, which is exactly what I expect from Gartner these days. I wonder which hardware manufacturer paid for the "analysis".
There is no magic "business pixie dust" sprinkled on business oriented computers to make them more reliable - they all come from the same Chinese factories as the consumer computers and use the same parts. The main difference is the style of the case, the version of windows that's preinstalled and the cost.
As for "Well they're not designed for us - they don't have all the applications and tools to really help businesses" - neither do the "business computers", as they don't tend to come with business apps preinstalled either.
8. At December 13, 2007 11:31 AM, Jonah wrote:
It's good advice to consider what you're getting when you buy PCs for business (or even home use) however I don't really think buying business orientated PC's helps much. As Scot said they are made in the same factories and aren't really any more configured for businesses.
If you want a cheap PC and don't want to seriosuly research it have a look in a PC magazine, see if they have top 10 best buys and look for the computer in your price range.
PC Magazine will cost you around £5 but should help you choose a good value PC.
9. At December 13, 2007 12:19 PM, anjanesh wrote:
Check this out
-Sun Ultra II with dual 200 MHz processors, and 256MB of RAM.
-Dual Pentium II Servers donated by Intel,
-F50 IBM RS/6000 donated by IBM, included 4 processors, 512MB of memory and 8 x 9GB hard drives.
-Three 9GB hard drives and six 4GB hard drives attached to the Sun Ultra II.
-Rxpansion box with another eight 9GB hard drives donated by IBM.
-Homemade disk box which contained ten 9GB SCSI hard drives.
-Lots of corkboardThis was all that Google started with to run its backrub search software in 1998 .
Starting small is not neccesarily a bad thing ....
10. At December 14, 2007 8:09 AM, Colin wrote:
I think a lot of it comes down to 'what is the processor'. I would NOT buy a Celeron type processor for a business PC. That immediately rules out the cheapest PCs. I would expect at least Intel Core 2 Duo for today's (bloated) Microsoft Office packages.
My simile would be - I would not buy a Reliant Robin to tow a caravan.
My advice would be - buy sensibly, avoid a Celeron (or the AMD equivalent, go for a decent processor, plenty of RAM, avoid Vista until it is at Service Pack 1 and expect 3-4 years from you PC.
11. At December 14, 2007 9:50 AM, Rex Hanson wrote:
I was going to submit a post asking how you define a business PC or a consumer PC, how do HP, Dell etc manage to sell Business PCs as cheap as consumer PCs (See Adrian's post above) and how do the logos of these two companies turn a 'consumer priced' PC into a Business PC with the same price tag but Colin got there first. Sort of. To me, a Business PC is one which does the job required of it. I'm with Colin, I try to avoid Celeron (and Intel) and if possible to avoid the fat lazy operating system that is Windows (I wish). But a Celeron with plenty of memory is fine for writing e-mails, quotations, letters, doing expenses etc. All good, common Business tasks. Continuing the car analogy, Celeron is the Ford Ka of the bunch. If you want Desk Top Publishing or CAD then you need something a lot better, such as Colin's example. But who needs a minibus or tipper truck to drive one person across town to work ?
As with everything, it's horses for courses and paying Gartner so slag off a sector of the market called 'the consumer PC' which they don't seem to define is a sign of desperation on the part of someone. Or are they trying to say that any PC with the 'Home' version of windows is a consumer PC ? In which case the hardware is not the issue. And it's all a Microsoft marketing stunt to sell more of their higher priced 'Professional' software.
12. At December 14, 2007 10:09 AM, Bob HXC Holly wrote:
Colin, The Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Release Candidate is now available to the public, should be rolled out within the next few weeks id expect!
13. At December 14, 2007 11:41 AM, Joshua wrote:
Surely this is a marketing gimmick. Perhaps Gartner should define what they mean by CHEAP because as Scot puts it, "all PC's come from the same source and are manufactured with the same components."
14. At December 15, 2007 9:33 AM, John Flynn wrote:
Most of what I've read is true whichever way you look at it. PCs in my humble opinion are not the problem for small businesses (and I speak from experience) I see the main problem being all the ancillery bits and bobs.
My retail outlet has seven EPOS systems and the problem has always been getting 'Like for Like' on scanners,receipt printers and customer displays.
In order to maintain a 'PROFESSIONAL' look I have had to replace many items not in need of repair so that the one till with new parts does not stand out like a sore thumb.
All the PCs are hidden away and have not caused a single problem since their last upgrade 5 years ago.
15. At December 15, 2007 10:16 AM, anjanesh wrote:
Google started with low spec servers donated by Intel and Sun :storing data on off-the-shelf cheap hard disks ;seperated by corkboards in a small room at Stanford.
Starting small does not necessarily mean staying small.Besides, with the software as a service gaining popularity and arrival of web 2.0 means raw computing power has moved further upstream. Complete end to end service providers would stand to deliver more by offering targeted products at each level of business growth from one person startup to small business to massive corporates.
16. At December 20, 2007 2:09 PM, Allan wrote:
I do agree with the point that what seems like a good idea at the time, isn't always that way with the benefit of hindsight.
We bought two new apparently well spec'd PC's from Dell this spring and had one headache after another with them. Initially all to do with Vista being attrocious and nothing working properly, then one of the PC's failed completely. Dealing with Dell was a nightmare, we even had to pay for an engineer to come out to see us, even with the so called warranty.
I wish that I had stuck to my initial intention to buy two Apple iMac's, there wasn't that much cost difference and from my experience Apple computers are usually a lot more reliable than anything using Windows. We have actually upgraded our two Dells to XP now!
17. At December 22, 2007 7:27 PM, Tanvir Ahmad wrote:
I totally agree with Rex Hanson there. Some businesses only use computers for emails, internet etc and do not need the high end systems for the works they do. The report may be true for high end users. Our experience shows that some businesses fall into the trap of so called marketing guys or even by their IT support companies who make it look like they can't do without a server when they really can and end up spending a fortunte for a sytem they do not need.
If a consumer level computer can do your job then why not. And talking about warranty Hannah, even consumers can extend their warranties by paying a bit extra so I don't see why people should be worried.
Yes if your requirements are high then buy something that fits. If you need a PC that needs to run a specific application effectively, then think which one is best for it.
It even is true for consumers. There are lot of people who take their work at home and sometimes the pc they use is not capable of doing the job. So think before you buy. Lets not just think of the price of the hardware, think of the features that comes with it and if needed spend the extra.
Post a comment
As 14 days have passed, comments are now closed for this entry.
1. At December 11, 2007 11:42 AM, Vincent MCMahon wrote: