So, what you are saying is that Apple business model for Macs (especially desktops) is not viable. They have way lower volumes than their PC counterparts (in part due to specialization among the PC component vendors) thus guaranteeing that Macs will always be way more expensive (and not because of better technical specs or quality)
That's one way to look at it.
How else to explain 2013 Mac Pro, 2019 Mac Pro and 2023 Mac Pros very long replacement cycles?
When Apple was designing Apple Silicon chips they looked at the typical use cases of their current user base and what are the next big things that would benefit from acceleration.
Hopefully this translates to better sales in the future with the margins they want.
Over time these change so that what were design priorities in the past are now niches that diminishes over time to the point that it isn't worth servicing anymore.
At which point Apple is willing to let other businesses service them.
Everyone threatening to leave over certain features that were omitted are expected to leave by Apple not because they want them to but because they're too expensive to cater to relative to the revenue they bring in.
So say feature Y is used by less than 1 of 5 users but when Apple just ignores that need it means a higher than 20% ROI then I think it is worth doing resulting in a significant increase in net revenue.
Like say video and photo editing Apple Silicon excels in that based on the number of benchmarks being used.
But when it comes to top end scientific computing that requires more than 192GB memory then are there equal or more scientists than video & photo editors?
That is when you question if customer S's very peculiar requirements worth the R&D resources over a customer VP?
