YMMV… but in my experience that whole “time to maintain arch”-idea is overstated.

I defintiely spend less time on issues like “oh, there’s a bug. let’s role that update back and try again in 6-24 hours when it’s fixed” or “defaults changed in a new version, let’s take a quick look at the changes” on arch than on annoying bugs persisting for years in fixed distros. And that’s before calculating the whole “distro upgrade every otehr year”-stuff. Which likes to kill a whole weekend at least and barely ever works (followed by the same “oh, defaults changed” but now on dozens of components at the same time).

And because of that second point in particular even if archlinux wouldn’t be my choice I could never go back to a non-rolling release.

Not that I […] want to minimize the experience.

But isn’t that something that happens at pretty much all companies

Pick one…

The majority of “Linux issues” is created intentionally. It’s often not enough to not support Linux officially (even if there would be no additional work involved anyway) and let players figure out problems on their own. A lot of studios, publishers and developers actually go out of their way and actively invest time to block Linux.

So nothing will obviously change. Windows could run on a fully compatible Linux kernel tomorrow and games would still check for Linux to artificially create issues.

with Apple dominating Europe…

Your own map diagrees, with 100% of the picked examples from Europe having Samsung as market leader.

It’s the other way around. All those PCs are bluescreening at boot. So that prevents fixing the system remotely and on a large scale. Now poor IT guys have to fix evey single one by hand.