One of the challenges any business unit in a corporate environment will face is justifying the Macs. This isn't a fangirl argument; in fact, most of the engineers I work with will readily acknowledge that OS X is a robust platform, and they find just as many flaws with Windows as they do with OS X (one thing engineers are good at - finding flaws). The problem is that if you are a business manager, say a technology manager, the easiest way to drive down costs is to make everything as uniform and consistent as possible. Supporting two kinds of computers instead of just one just spikes your costs.
When you combine that with the fact that even today, Macintoshes are minorities in most environment, it's not wonder the Mac gets short shrift. Against, it's not malicious. Unlike a real business, IT doesn't generate revenue; it justifies its existence by cutting costs. It's a lot cheap to offer thirty-one flavors of vanilla than thirty vanilla and one chocolate.
If you're in an environment such as the one I work in, where there are about 26 Windows computers for every Macintosh, it's common for managers to focus their attention on Windows. After all, there are "only 1000" Macintoshes.
But here's another way to look at it: what is the value-add of the Macintosh? Typically, these are machines used in content creation or other relatively specialized fields (never mind the fact that spec for spec, Apple is rarely more than $150 more than a comparable Dell - and Apple gets consistently better ratings on service). The Macintosh may be only 4% of the population but it functions in a role that generates 40% of the value chain. Windows may be fine for people in the other non-revenue departments of a business - accounting, for example - but when a Mac is in play, it's often because it is being used for something that Windows either can't do or can't do as well.
Its not enough to say "Macs are used for my business!". You have to quantify it and paint a very clear picture.
