Apple's Consumer Marketshare Much Higher?

[jocknerd]

This is nothing new

UVA does a yearly study of incoming freshmen and technology. Check this article out: http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=1361

Mac usage is 20% now compared to 3% in 2002. Princeton University said that 40% of their computer sales were Macs.

And if you go to any developer conferences, there is a huge number of Macs being used. A coworker of mine went to the Python Developers Conference in 2005 and talked about how many Macs were there. I went to the ColdFusion Developers Conference this year and Macs made up about 30% of the laptops there. And more impressively, the majority of the well-known ColdFusion gurus were using Macs. And go to Ruby on Rails Conference. They actually give out awards to users who don't have Macs. They call them non-conformists.

Yep, if you don't count the sales of PC's to businesses, Macs have a very good market share.

 

[Consultant]

PowerPC users seem to be a lot of the old guard Macintosh users.

Intels are switcher machines.

Well, I had a PowerBook 1.5 17" before getting the latest MBP 17" Santa Rosa. I guess I am a switcher... =p

Still have PowerMac G4 and iMac G5. Selling G5 soon. (Also had SE30, LC2, PPC clone, various PowerMac, various iBook, and G4 Cube which is incredible for the time because it's silent!)

 

[Consultant]

hmn....if you remove business sales from the most expensive 25% of laptop sales, you have basically removed all but the 25 lb "extreme gaming" laptops and Apple's Pro models.

So all this particular bit of info means is that the MBP costs more than most other high-end laptops...as much as most expensive business laptops.

You have to max out one of Dell's 3lb ultra-portable 12" enterprise notebooks (or get one of the aforementioned cinder block XPS gaming rigs) to get up anywhere over 2,000 dollars....

So MacBook Pro's are expensive compared to most laptops...I'm sure glad someone told me!

Also, I'm very curious about how they determined how many of Apple's laptops sold were in the top "quintile" when Apple doesn't release detailed sales information of its product lines...did he just make it up by guessing? Standing in an Apple Store and taking a count of who bought which machine?

Bah.

MacBook Pro:
- has a better design
- weights much less than the competition
- is thinner than the competition
- has better battery life
- has ambient light sensor
- does not need anti-virus, etc. (windoze machine require it, which takes a hit on CPU, as much as 10%)
- cannot be infected into a spam botnet (most spams, as much as 90% of spam are sent from infected windoze machines)
- actually sleeps / hibernates when you close the lid
- does not slow down inexplicably a few months after a clean install
- does not have noisy fans on the bottom blowing hot air
- makes minimal noise compared to other laptops
- has a smaller power supply and better cord management (1/2 the size of others)
- has slot loading dvd drive
- has integrated microphone that actually works
- has standard set of keyboard for all laptops across the line
- has Mac OS X
- requires minimal support (saves you time, is your time worthless?)


The upfront cost might be more, but due to the longer usable life and lower support costs, it actually costs less to own a Mac. That's without mention the usability issues with windoze machines.

 

[b33k34]

Personal vs Business use

In the UK almost everyone i know either personally or through work is planning to make their next PERSONAL computer purchase a Mac. I suspect there's a major switch brewing in the 'home/personal' market (remember this will take time to feed through - they're not going to junk a good PC).

However, i don't see any sign at all that Apple is making inroads into businesses and that's ultimately what will limit their market share. Businesses generally have a regular 3 year replacement cycle as well whereas, outside the geek/enthusiast market, home users keep their computers much longer.

 

[Pixbae]

At my college, (just graduated), it was interesting to watch people snatch up Macs as their PCs died before graduation. Most of the people with macs made it through all four years on the same machine...

I know Apple's popularity among college students has a lot to do with the iPod and the "coolness" factor... but didn't a lot of this generation (myself included) use macs in public elementary schools? Sure, most of those schools then switched to PCs before we graduated high school, but the concept of using a mac isn't 100% new. Maybe Apple's early education investment is finally paying off?

 

[0racle]

Don't most college kids "Think Different"

Statistically, no. You were probably closer to the mark saying Apple has become trendy.

 

[Digital Skunk]

That's not really true. A lot of it boils down to Apples support. Do they provide on-site support? What if my company wants to standardize on one particular model, what happens when Apple updates their computer-lineup? Can we still get that older model we standardized on? What if we didn't want our user-machines to have DVD-burners, could Apple modify their machines accordingly?

The difference between PC's and Macs as far as corporate IT is concerned is that with PC's they IT-department can pick and choose the hardware to suit their needs. With Macs they need to modify their needs to fit the hardware, due to the fact that Apple has a lot narrower product-lineup than PC-manufacturers do.

As to the "shortsighted one-size fits all"-philosophy... It simply makes sure to standardize. Ideally there would be just one model of computer provided to the users. Having more than one makes things more complex. Having different OS'es mixed in to it would make things A LOT more comples.

It's nice to think that "I want to provide my users a choice!". But in reality that road leads to madness. Trust me, I have been down that road. For example: We support four different types of laptops (from one manufacturer). Two of those use one type power-adapter, while the other two use different type. So we need separate power-adapters in stock for every type. two of the machines has 15" screens, two have 12" screens, so we need two diferent sizes of privacy-screens. Batteries are different in every model, so we need four different kind of batteries in stock. If we had Macs as well, things would be different in software-side as well. The systems that we have designed for Windows in mind suddenly would not work or would require extensive modifications.

The list goes on.

Totally agree. My communication department went with Avid on their file servers mainly because Avid worked in a deal for a few high end editing systems and a 20TB server with 50 seats or so of a lower end editing system. The total package was a bit more expensive than the Xserve and FCP but in the end we ended up with more seats, and when you have to purchase that stuff legally and by the books it gets expensive. We would have loved to go with Xserve, FCP and Xsan but Apple just wasn't working with us.

We will still teach our students FCP along with the others but Avid made us a better offer in terms of IT, Licensing, and Support. When it comes to buying things for personal use Apple is changing the game and making it easier for users to buy and understand their entire computer system out of the box. But when it comes to big business and large infrastructures that need multiple licenses of software and racks of servers to run it Apple is still a bit shaky. We could have gone with Apple budget wise, but we saved more in the long run going with Avid and I am sure many IT guys are thinking the same way when they have to make decisions.

 

[Doctor Q]

That's not really true. A lot of it boils down to Apples support. Do they provide on-site support? What if my company wants to standardize on one particular model, what happens when Apple updates their computer-lineup? Can we still get that older model we standardized on? What if we didn't want our user-machines to have DVD-burners, could Apple modify their machines accordingly?

The difference between PC's and Macs as far as corporate IT is concerned is that with PC's they IT-department can pick and choose the hardware to suit their needs. With Macs they need to modify their needs to fit the hardware, due to the fact that Apple has a lot narrower product-lineup than PC-manufacturers do.

As to the "shortsighted one-size fits all"-philosophy... It simply makes sure to standardize. Ideally there would be just one model of computer provided to the users. Having more than one makes things more complex. Having different OS'es mixed in to it would make things A LOT more comples.

It's nice to think that "I want to provide my users a choice!". But in reality that road leads to madness. Trust me, I have been down that road. For example: We support four different types of laptops (from one manufacturer). Two of those use one type power-adapter, while the other two use different type. So we need separate power-adapters in stock for every type. two of the machines has 15" screens, two have 12" screens, so we need two diferent sizes of privacy-screens. Batteries are different in every model, so we need four different kind of batteries in stock. If we had Macs as well, things would be different in software-side as well. The systems that we have designed for Windows in mind suddenly would not work or would require extensive modifications.

The list goes on.

I've been on both sides of this, since I do support (where I have to deal with the variety of equipment out there) and I've helped frustrated employees who have to fight for every application and customization of "their" desktop computer (usually a PC). I've learned to favor the employee's side. I vote to let IT's job be "a lot more complex" or "a road to madness," as you put it. Spend more on support. Stock 10 different power adapters. And let employees use what makes them most efficient.

I don't dispute your concerns; I just draw a different conclusion about the lesser of two evils. I'm presenting one side of an argument that can't really be entirely one-sided. It has to be balanced with common sense, or IT would have no way to keep everyone operational and the network secure. Perhaps give employees choices from among half the available models; not all models, and not a single model. Centrally control virus checkers, but let people use whichever office suite they prefer. And so on.

As for Apple's changing hardware models, the salvation is Apple's proven record in compatibility. New models run the same software, so upgrades should be painless and a mix of models should not require different versions of software. At my office, we've spent months upgrading some staff members from XP to Vista, with installers for old software failing, driver problems, etc. Meanwhile, a Mac upgrade from an early model PPC Mac to the latest Power Mac was a simple matter of moving files over and re-running some installers. Done in minutes. Just an anecdote, but it reinforced my instincts.

 

[Evangelion]

I don't dispute your concerns; I just draw a different conclusion about the lesser of two evils. I'm presenting one side of an argument that can't really be entirely one-sided. It has to be balanced with common sense, or IT would have no way to keep everyone operational and the network secure. Perhaps give employees choices from among half the available models; not all models, and not a single model. Centrally control virus checkers, but let people use whichever office suite they prefer. And so on.

Well, I don't want to sound like the "dictatorial IT-guy", because I don't consider myself to be one. Our users are admins of their own machines. If they want to install their own app on their machines, they are free to do so. And we do provide them with choice: they can choose from several (well, in our case, two) laptops. One is a regural 15" laptop, the other is 12" tablet-pc. So our shop does give users choice, it's just not "free for all".

My previous workplace was "free for all". The employees who got laptops were allowed to select whatever they wanted, as long as it fit inside the budget (and ran certain custom-built apps, which basically mandated Windows). Desktops were self-built machines. What was the end-result? Well, everyone used a computer that was slightly different from each other. So installation of OS was 100% manual, since we couldn't have standardized images that could simply be dropped to the machine. Every model had their own quirks that we had to take in to account. Every machine had slightly different drivers. When I went to work on a machine, I could not really make any assumptions as to what kind of machine I would be working with, since they were different from each other.

As for Apple's changing hardware models, the salvation is Apple's proven record in compatibility. New models run the same software, so upgrades should be painless and a mix of models should not require different versions of software.

That's not what I'm talking about. Of course all PC's run same software as well. But when we select the models that we will be using, each model goes through rigorous testing. When we find a machine that we are happy with and that works, we stick to it. New models introduce all kinds of problems (as these forums demonstrate. "Never buy rev. A Apple"). With PC-manufacturers they can guarantee us certain longevity.

At my office, we've spent months upgrading some staff members from XP to Vista, with installers for old software failing, driver problems, etc. Meanwhile, a Mac upgrade from an early model PPC Mac to the latest Power Mac was a simple matter of moving files over and re-running some installers. Done in minutes. Just an anecdote, but it reinforced my instincts.

I don't dispute your experience, but it's just not what I was talking about.

 

[Doctor Q]

Evangelion: You've clearly seen both sides of the issue too! It sounds like your balanced approach is sensible.

I'm sure the tradeoffs change depending on the size and nature of the business. If I ran a massive customer service call center, I'd be more inclined to standardize all equipment, since jobs would be similar across employees. For that purpose, perhaps I'd choose PCs built to my exact specifications, and buy and support them in bulk. If I ran a small studio for digital artists, I'd give people plenty of freedom and it would be just the opposite.

 

[JonboyDC]

This isn't really new, is it? It's always been clear to me, since at least the early '90s, that whatever Apple's overall market share was, a significantly higher percentage of people were buying Macs for their home use. Apple's problem has always been with business sales. Admittedly, there was a period of time when people who would prefer Macs at home sucked it up and bought Windows machines so they could be compatible with work, and that phenomena is definitely passing. But I don't think Apple's share of the home market has ever been nearly as low as its overall market share.

(And, as noted, Apple's installed user base is higher still, because the machines have a longer useable lifespan.)

 

[sushi]

Business will be changing when all the new colloege students start entering the work force and want a Mac not a pc at work.

I think this will help shift things a bit in the work place.

The other enabling factor is the Intel Macs which can run Windows natively via Bootcamp or via emulation using Parallels or VMWare. The compatibility issue with Windows software becomes much less of an issue if any.

On a side note, I sure wish that Apple would coordinate with Microsoft for OWA access to be the same on the Mac as it is with Windows, or simply create the software themselves. OWA on the PC gives you so many more usable options.

That, I've discovered, is the downside of a Mac. Unless you have money to spend at will, upgrading your Mac is a much longer process vs PC because the old ones just keep going. I could never fully justify selling my 1Ghz Powerbook because it was so stable and reliable and quick enough that I never did it. Until last week. I'm starting to dive into Aperture a lot on my work Macbook and I need something that can run that. So.... hopefully first of November I'll get a new iMac with Leopard. Bring it on!

I hear ya! I definitely have the funds set aside for a new purchase, and even have a supporting wife.

But my PB15 (4 years old in a month) and PM933 (6 years old in a couple of months) still work fine for me. Curses to you Apple!

At work we have the white Intel iMacs. So I get to use those and they are faster. I think that you'll like the new iMacs with Leopard.

We also recently purchased a nice Sony laptop. Came with Vista. What a dog -- it is so slow. So I put XP on it. Took a bit of effort with the drivers. But it works a whole lot better now.

One thing about Apple, is that each release of Mac OS X seems to get faster and works better. Hopefully Leopard will continue in that fashion.

As for Vista, I am waiting for SR2.

I've also noticed this very same phenomenon. Macs generally work fast enough for up to 5 years but Windows people begin to complain after half a year. Not many are using their generic PC laptop for 3 years, most feel justified to buy a new one after 18(ish) months of use. And that's one of the reasons why they settle for "the cheapest" computer available.

One of my PC-using friends just recently made this observation on his own. He decided that once his now 6 months old "new laptop that has already begun to noticeably slow down" has reached the age of 18 months, he will surely be buying a Mac laptop. He would want to buy one right now, but cannot justify the purchase to his wife because his PC laptop is still rather new

And my father has just reached a point where he feels his 5 year old iBook has served him long enough.

Over the years, I've helped numerous friends who have Macs since around the military and government there are few Mac support people. (Although that does seem to be changing these days which is good to see.)

One of the most common questions, do you think that it's time to upgrade. And this comes from folks who are happily using their Macs that are over 5 years old. In many cases, their Macs do what they need and there is no reason to upgrade so it becomes more of a case of want verses need.

On a side note, I recently showed a PC IT type who manages about 200 PCs, the Mac OS using a Intel iMac 17 inch. She was floored. Especially when I showed her how easy it was to run Windows natively and via Parallels. And how you could easily make backups.

Her mouth really hit the floor when I showed her in real time how easy it was to make backups of Windows. At work she uses Ghost. So I showed her the steps to do it on a BootCamp partition:
- I backed up my BootCamp partition with Disk Utility.
- Deleted it.
- Created the partition again -- even burned the driver CD.
- Formated the partition using the Windows install CD.
- Restored the files.
- Booted into Windows XP.

Did this in about an hour and 20 minutes. And most of the time, we spend chatting about different topics as we were waiting on the computer to complete the task at hand.

Of course I showed her how to do this in Parallels in the time it took to copy an image.

Now she wants to get a Mac.

Quite a difference? The PC guy buys is soon to buy a fifth laptop before the Mac guy decides to buy #2. Surely the Mac guy pays less for his "expensive" hardware...

Good point!

I guess the bottom line is you get what you pay for.

Doctor Q and Evangelion you both made some interesting posts regarding the IT side.

To share. I have a friend who worked in an IT shop for a medical unit where they have about 250 computers of varying makes and models. Their backup guy has images for each type of computer they use. So he must have one of each model in his backup room. I think that the current count is 8-9 computers. Simply amazing. With more freedom comes more work for the IT guys.

One organization I belonged to, used to have a very open policy. Then things started to go wrong and people were messing up their computers. They slowly went from open to being locked down to were you couldn't do anything. And the boot times went up considerably.

I think as an IT, you have to balance flexibility with standardization. Not an easy task to begin with and it gets way more complicated as the organization grows in size. Also, if you have a situation where you have widely dispersed offices that creates additional headaches as well.

Sometimes I think the best policy is have completely open systems, then smack the person repeatedly when they mess up their computer.

Anyhow, I've enjoyed reading the posts that you both have made.

 

[Eidorian]

On a side note, I recently showed a PC IT type who manages about 200 PCs, the Mac OS using a Intel iMac 17 inch. She was floored. Especially when I showed her how easy it was to run Windows natively and via Parallels. And how you could easily make backups.

Her mouth really hit the floor when I showed her in real time how easy it was to make backups of Windows. At work she uses Ghost. So I showed her the steps to do it on a BootCamp partition:
- I backed up my BootCamp partition with Disk Utility.
- Deleted it.
- Created the partition again -- even burned the driver CD.
- Restored the files.
- Booted into Windows XP.

Did this in about an hour and 20 minutes. And most of the time, we spend chatting about different topics as we were waiting on the computer to complete the task at hand.

Of course I showed her how to do this in Parallels in the time it took to copy an image.

Now she wants to get a Mac.


Good point!

I guess the bottom line is you get what you pay for.

I guess they were easily impressed.

A virtual machines creation and duplication are just as easy in Windows. Boot Camp Assistant isn't anything special either. A lot of new users believe there's some special magic behind it.

Then again backing up in Windows is a pain even with enterprise software.

Doctor Q and Evangelion you both made some interesting posts regarding the IT side.

To share. I have a friend who worked in an IT shop for a medical unit where they have about 250 computers of varying makes and models. Their backup guy has images for each type of computer they use. So he must have one of each model in his backup room. I think that the current count is 8-9 computers. Simply amazing. With more freedom comes more work for the IT guys.

One organization I belonged to, used to have a very open policy. Then things started to go wrong and people were messing up their computers. They slowly went from open to being locked down to were you couldn't do anything. And the boot times went up considerably.

I think as an IT, you have to balance flexibility with standardization. Not an easy task to begin with and it gets way more complicated as the organization grows in size. Also, if you have a situation where you have widely dispersed offices that creates additional headaches as well.

Sometimes I think the best policy is have completely open systems, then smack the person repeatedly when they mess up their computer.

Anyhow, I've enjoyed reading the posts that you both have made.

Imaging and deployment is much less of a pain in OS X. You just don't have to deal with the driver and application situation that you do over in Windows.

Even with the plethora of Macs that I have, I rarely need to make model specific images. The Aluminum iMac and MacBook Pro Santa Rosa are the only outstanding models right now.

 

[contoursvt]

-better design meaning what? Looks cooler? I have yet to see another respectable brand with keys that rub into the screen and leave a permanent imprint.

-there are thinner notebooks available than the Macbook Pro - may not be exactly the same spec but if someone wants THIN then they have better options elsewhere

-weighs much less? without much searching, I found an Asus with the same size screen with similar dimensions thats within 0.3 lbs of the Macbook Pro.

-Better battery life how? You realize these are all based on Core 2 Duo and battery life will be similar to other notebooks with the same number of cells. Infact you can get extended batteries for the others with 9 and 12 cells. These will give a longer runtime.

-Slot loading DVD may look cool until some little kid jams a penny or something into it when you're not looking

-Low noise but high CPU temps compared to other notebooks. I'd rather not have a notebook hitting 85C + on the cpu temps

-I have yet to see a notebook within the last 3 or 4 years that has a problem with sleeping or coming out of sleep. Heck even my old PIII 450Mhz HP did this fine with XP SP2 so maybe you borrowed some mystery notebook in sad shape and based it on that.

-My Asus 12" notebook was purchased 3.5 years ago and its got the same XP on there with no slow downs or 'mystery' problems. As far as AV. I dont run any on my notebook or desktop. I exercise basic common sense when it comes to security and I dont surf for P0rn or install P2P apps on any of my computers. This is probably 99.9% of all cases where people get viruses. If I was not someone who had a clue and needed AV, I'd go with AVG free edition. Its fast and light weight and works without any big performance impact.

-Backlight keyboard - this one is kinda cool at night but I dont think its critical because there is light coming off the LCD which illuminates the keys anyway so I'm not sure if its more of a wow factor than anything else.


...I could go on with your other points but I'm sleepy. I use both OSX and Windows and all the Windows bashing regarding its stability is getting real old. It was old years go. Its not 1998 anymore.

MacBook Pro:
- has a better design
- weights much less than the competition
- is thinner than the competition
- has better battery life
- has ambient light sensor
- does not need anti-virus, etc. (windoze machine require it, which takes a hit on CPU, as much as 10%)
- cannot be infected into a spam botnet (most spams, as much as 90% of spam are sent from infected windoze machines)
- actually sleeps / hibernates when you close the lid
- does not slow down inexplicably a few months after a clean install
- does not have noisy fans on the bottom blowing hot air
- makes minimal noise compared to other laptops
- has a smaller power supply and better cord management (1/2 the size of others)
- has slot loading dvd drive
- has integrated microphone that actually works
- has standard set of keyboard for all laptops across the line
- has Mac OS X
- requires minimal support (saves you time, is your time worthless?)


The upfront cost might be more, but due to the longer usable life and lower support costs, it actually costs less to own a Mac. That's without mention the usability issues with windoze machines.

 

[sushi]

A virtual machines creation and duplication are just as easy in Windows. Boot Camp Assistant isn't anything special either. A lot of new users believe there's some special magic behind it.

Then again backing up in Windows is a pain even with enterprise software.

You proved my point!

Making images/backups on PCs are a pain. With the Mac is was so easy for the Bootcamp (native) installation.

Sure virtual machines are much easier on both platforms. Just seemed a bit easier on the Mac than the PC. Then again, personally I have not done a backup of a virtual machine on the Windows side for a couple of years so things may be easier now.

Yes, enterprise solutions don't always work well. And they can be a pain to maintain.

Imaging and deployment is much less of a pain in OS X. You just don't have to deal with the driver and application situation that you do over in Windows.

Even with the plethora of Macs that I have, I rarely need to make model specific images. The Aluminum iMac and MacBook Pro Santa Rosa are the only outstanding models right now.

Sure, it has always been this way on the Mac. Even back in the Mac OS 9 and earlier days. If you installed for all Macs, you could use that system build on any Mac. However, if you did an install for a specific machine then you were limited to that machine unless you DL/added the Enabler for that particular machine.

 

[Eidorian]

You proved my point!

Making images/backups on PCs are a pain. With the Mac is was so easy for the Bootcamp (native) installation.

Sure virtual machines are much easier on both platforms. Just seemed a bit easier on the Mac than the PC. Then again, personally I have not done a backup of a virtual machine on the Windows side for a couple of years so things may be easier now.

Yes, enterprise solutions don't always work well. And they can be a pain to maintain.

In all honesty, I believe it's Windows handles a file that's in use.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Windows bashing regarding its stability is getting real old. It was old years go. Its not 1998 anymore.

The same could be said about any argument. I could care less about how Apple's computers look, but the industry has awarded them more than any other company in terms of design and appeal.

I could care less about thin notebooks and all-in-ones, but the industry, the ones who do care, still give Apple all the attention. The MacBook Pro may not be the thinnest, but it is thinner than the comparatively spec'd machines.

PC manufacturers do a much better job at making machines IMHO, Microsoft is finally getting the software piece of it down, but they slipped up with the Vista editions below Ultimate. Not having 64 bit across the board in this decade is a mistake.

Everyone that asks me why Apple gets the same answer from me. The software. Not just Mac OS X, but all of them. From consumer to professional it all works together. There isn't a single app in the Apple lineup that isn't connected in some way to the other apps and the OS. And Apple makes my job easier, something Windows can't do for me and most users. Some choose Apple because they are cool looking, or because they feel it's the best looking machine in the world, or because they had a bad experience with Windows even though they took all the precautions.

Most reasons can be shot down by user error or drinking the Apple cool-aid, but when it comes to full integrated applications that work with each other flawlessly and without hiccups and out of the box, Apple is the champ.

In my perfect world, I would be buying HP desktops and Alienware laptops running Mac OS X, but Jobs has me by the chain, he won't let his best asset out to the world, so I am happy with my pro (mid-range) MacBook Pro laptops and Pro (over priced and outdated) Mac Pros

 

[Evangelion]

Imaging and deployment is much less of a pain in OS X. You just don't have to deal with the driver and application situation that you do over in Windows.

Yep, you are absolutely right there. But that only applies if you run 100% Mac-shop. If you don't, then you invariably add complexity to the system. We currently have automated imaging-processes for our machines which are about as easy as they are on Macs. If we introduced Macs to the workplace, we would have to implement a separate, yet similar scheme for Macs. Then we would have to implement a scheme for updating those machine. No, running "Software Update" is NOT the solution! And so forth. We would be adding duplication and complexity to the system.

Point is that running certain OS and certain hardware is simple. If you run several different kinds of hardware on several different kinds of OS'es, you add complexity. And complexity is bad. It adds points of failure. What you need to do is to pick one, and stick to it. Don't go halfway, if you decide to use something, then move over 100%. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but still.

And, like I said, Apple can't give us the flexibility or longevity. We couldn't get MBP's without DVD-burners for example. We couldn't rely on getting certain model of machine for long period of time, so we would have to constantly test and evaluate machines as Apple introduces them. And when we decided to use certain model, we would find out six months later that that model is no longer available. And could we get machines from Apple that was preloaded with our customized image? Our current supplier does that, would Apple do it?

Sure, there are lots of successful Mac-only-shops. But in order to do that, company must make some compromises. Yes, they need to do no matter what they decide to use. It just boils down to what compromises you are willing to make. If you are willing to make the compromises that Mac-only-shop requires, then go for it! But not all companies are willing to do that, while they are willing to make the compromises Windows-shop requires. And there's nothing wrong with that.