M1 is not the only option for productivity

A number of companies have announced that they are equipping their developers with M1 MacBooks, to improve performance of tasks such as builds and, I presume, tests.

The thinking runs along these lines: the tasks developers perform are important, some of these tasks take a long time, the new M1 MacBooks perform these tasks quickly, therefore providing developers with M1 MacBooks is an investment that improves productivity. (And an increase in productivity is a good thing.)

The supporting arguments often use the time to run a build, or the time to perform automated tests. The M1 MacBooks, according to the argument, can perform these tasks much faster than the current equipment. The implied benefits are often described as a reduction in expenses, which I believe is an incorrect result. (The company will continue to pay its developers, so their annual expenses will not change as a result of the new MacBooks -- except for the cost of the MacBooks.)

But there is another aspect to this "rush to faster computers" that I think has been overlooked. That aspect is cloud computing.

If one is using laptops or desktops with Windows, one can move that work to virtual instances of Windows in the cloud. Microsoft's "Windows 365" service offers Windows in the cloud, with different options for processor power, memory, and storage. One can rent a fast processor and get the same improvement in computing.

Let's look at some numbers. A new M1 MacBook Pro with a 14-inch screen costs $2000 and with a 16-inch screen costs $2500. (There are multiple configurations; these are the lowest prices.)

If those MacBooks last 3 years (a reasonable assumption) then the amortized costs are $56 per month or $69 per month.

Now let's consider an alternative: Windows virtual machines in the cloud. Microsoft's "Windows 365" offers different configurations for prices ranging from $31 per month to $66 per month.

Of course, one still needs a local PC to access the cloud-based Windows, so let's add that cost, too. But we don't need a high-end laptop: The local PC is simply a fancy terminal: a device to accept keystrokes and mouse clicks and send them to the cloud-based PC, and accept screen updates and display them to the user. We don't need a lot of processing power for that.

One can get a decent 14-inch laptop for $600 (less if you hunt for bargains) and a decent 15.6-inch laptop for about the same. Assuming a purchase cost of $600, the monthly addition is $17, which pushes the monthly costs for the cloud-based configuration to $73 or $86. That's a bit higher than the cost of the local MacBook, but not that much higher. And keep in mind that with Windows 365, Microsoft handles some tasks for you, such as updates.

I don't consider a cloud-based solution for MacBooks, because cloud-based MacBooks are different from cloud-based Windows PCs. Windows PCs are often virtualized instances running on high-end hardware; MacBooks in the cloud are Mac computers in a datacenter -- not virtualized instances. A MacBook in the cloud is really just a MacBook at a remote location.

My point is not that cloud-based Windows PCs are better than MacBooks, or that local MacBooks are better than local Windows PCs.

My point is that one has different options for computing. Local MacBooks are one option. Local Windows PCs are another option. Cloud-based Windows PCs are an option. (And if you insist, cloud-based Macs are an option.)

Some companies are pursuing a strategy of local MacBooks. That strategy may be good for them, It does not automatically follow that the same strategy is good for everyone. (Nor does it follow that the strategy is good for them; time will tell.)

My advice is to consider the different options for computing, review your needs and your finances, and select a strategy that works for you.