If it’s useful: Pete wasn’t really being combative with me on this. I suggested we should check if the M3 really was faster so we could upgrade if it was, we agreed and then I did the analysis. The game aspect of this was more for a bit of fun in the article than how things actually work.
And in terms of why we didn’t have a process for this: the company itself is about two years old, so this was the first hardware refresh we’d ever needed to schedule. So we haven’t a formal process in place yet and probably won’t until the next one either!
I also worked at a company whose CIO put out an email noting how "amazing" a coincidence it was just how many company iPhones got broken/water damaged/lost or stolen in the 2 months following a new iPhone announcement event.
If you compare a jump between Intel and M1 and then numbers for newer generation I think they validate the desire to have a newer machine. It's not about having a new shiny object, but a tool that improves work. You only have one life and those seconds and minutes wasted on waiting on things add up. This is especially important for neurodivergent people, with conditions like ADD. Even waiting few seconds less for something to finish can have an impact - it may get the result just before one completely moved their train on thought on different tracks. I wouldn't like to work for an employer with such a patronising and nonchalant view of equipment. Your comment is actually toxic.
Chiefly, I think the problem is that the CTO solved the wrong problem: the right problem to solve includes a combination of assessing why company public opinion is generating mass movements of people wanting a new MacBook literally every year, if this is even worth responding to at all (it isn't), and keeping employees happy.
Most employees are reasonsble enough to not be bothered if they don't get a new MacBook every year.
Employers should already be addressing outdated equipment concerns.
Wasting developer time on a problem that is easily solvable in one minute isn't worthwhile. You upgrade the people 2-3 real generations behind. That should already have been in the pipeline, resources notwhistanding.
I just dislike this whole exercise because it feels like a perfect storm of technocratic performativity, short sighted "metric" based management, rash consumerism, etc.