There are several problems with this idea, but the most obvious is that it isn't 'Apple and Microsoft' when it comes to physical devices, it's Apple on one side, and about 100 manufacturers on the other. Microsoft control a tiny segment of Windows hardware, whereas Dell, HP, Asus, Acer, Lenovo.... well, add your choice... all build their own systems on which the OS runs. The principle of the idea is basically sound, but it would mean that I'd have to get permission from a dozen manufacturers to service their hardware which my business has already bought and own.
Given I've been hardware servicing computers for 40 years, that might not be difficult permission to obtain, but what of a less experienced technician? Having a manufacturer control the right of access to the system internally isn't really the way you could reasonably do it.
There's another issue too, which actually goes right back to the reason Steve Jobs moved the original concept of the Mac from the 'open' hardware architecture of the Apple II and III, to the 'closed' concept we actually got in 1984. It is a large part of why he was keen on the 'computing appliance' philosophy, where the user got the box, plugged it in, used it, and never went inside it.
His experience of the systems designed by Woz, according to the lead industrial designer for the original Mac, was that with those systems, where the user added a card, or RAM, or a 3-rd party display, or a disk drive, when anything went wrong, it was 'Apple that got the call'. When it was an Apple component that was at fault this is fine, but open architecture means that system failures may, and often didn't, have anything to do with Apple-built equipment. Yet it cost Apple time and resources to troubleshoot and sometimes even repair what wasn't their responsibility.
In his mind, closing the architecture was how you solve this. And while Apple opened the architecture up after he'd gone, it began working to close it back down again - notably on consumer devices much more than enterprise ones - once he returned.
The philosophy there is, I think, right. Consumers are the tinkerers, enterprise are not. The problem is that Apple don't do much in the enterprise space any longer, and have ceded much of that ground for reasons we can only guess or assume, but are certainly related to the fact that these markets have become increasingly served by the same level of systems. It doesn't given them a great deal of motive to invest in the design and fulfillment of 'pro' level systems when (performance wise) the consumer level stuff they do make can outperform most pro-level user needs - even if not at the base configurations.
In that respect they'd be right. You could take an M1 or M3 iMac, and put it on the desk of almost anyone in 'the enterprise', and it would outperform their needs by a wide margin. Not a shock since our hardware needs are generally not hard to meet in real with even 5-10 year-old systems - which is why software lurches forward at 3, 4 or even 5 year cycles.
When you look at how the computer industry has stabilized in the last few years, I think a lot of manufacturers are more worried about their survival when demand for product is reducing. I don't think they'd see a business advantage in more specialist segmentation when in real terms it looks like greater 'commodification' is likely to work rather better (for them).
