On the face of it, that's true. In reality, it's not...
Your work machine is not your personal computer. The best possible machine is anything that makes you more productive and reduces friction for whatever you happen to do at work. That may very well be a Mac, or may very well be something else. If you company gives you a Mac but everyone else uses Windows and Outlook, that will increase friction and make you less productive, not more.
It's like asking for a red computer, because you like red.
I absolutely hate Linux on the desktop, yet I happily use Linux for work. It works just fine for work and reduces friction in a lot of ways. When I leave work, I switch to my personal Mac. It is actually better this way, I don't feel like I'm working when I'm using my personal machine.
My point is just this: if you impose a hardcoded set of requirements instead of finding our what works best for each particular context, you're probably as fixed-minded when actually working. Nobody wants a fixed-minded employee.
IF everybody else is using Windows, Outlook and Excel then the company is stuck in the 1990s and their other business practices (eg: emailing RTFs for specs instead of putting them in version control) are also going to be out of date.
But as someone who has used a Mac in an office full of people using Windows and Outlook, it didn't increase friction. And I was even using OS X.
Your perspective forgets that you can run Windows on a Mac. I said "Let me use a Mac", I didn't say I wouldn't dual boot into windows (though having to use windows all the time is a separate requirement.)
I put that down there because it is the machine that makes me more productive.
You're saying forcing me to use windows, which isn't even unix, makes me more productive simply because my pointy haired boss uses it?
I'm positive that there are many companies out there using Windows, Outlook and Excel being very successful in producing the kind of software that runs our world while being very innovative at that.
There are also many companies populated by "prima donnas" with their Macs on their standing desks being very productive at nothing that actually matters.
I fail to follow your reasoning. I also fail to follow your reasoning that this kind of trivialities implies something about the prospective employer (as I said, there are other items in your list that are perfectly reasonable). It does not, but it may imply something about the prospective employee.
I don't know you, so I'm not making a judgment on you personally. I am, however, making a judgment based on your list. Just like any potential employer would do (even those that would otherwise happily comply with all of the items). If you have to argue against this, therein lies the problem.
Your work machine is not your personal computer. The best possible machine is anything that makes you more productive and reduces friction for whatever you happen to do at work. That may very well be a Mac, or may very well be something else. If you company gives you a Mac but everyone else uses Windows and Outlook, that will increase friction and make you less productive, not more.
It's like asking for a red computer, because you like red.
I absolutely hate Linux on the desktop, yet I happily use Linux for work. It works just fine for work and reduces friction in a lot of ways. When I leave work, I switch to my personal Mac. It is actually better this way, I don't feel like I'm working when I'm using my personal machine.
My point is just this: if you impose a hardcoded set of requirements instead of finding our what works best for each particular context, you're probably as fixed-minded when actually working. Nobody wants a fixed-minded employee.