So therefore it should never be tried again?
Apple invested millions in developing hardware, which consumers like - which is demonstrable because they sell like the proverbial hot cakes. When it licensed MacOS so other producers could build and sell Macs, what happened is that for each 'clone' that was sold, Apple made a small amount of money on the MacOS license. Much like Microsoft did and still does. But each clone sold was a net loss of sales to Apple, which quickly robbed it of money available to pay for hardware already developed, as well as to plough back into new hardware development. Essentially (unlike Microsoft), they gave away their hardware market and robbed themselves of cashflow.
Not just that though, because since the clone systems were still running MacOS, Apple ended up fielding the majority of support. It was a rapid form of corporate financial suicide.
Could they try again? It is hard to see why they should or would. There are huge costs associated with the development of Apple hardware, which is only returned when Apple product sells.
...borderline illegal prices for devices...
I am really curious what law(s) you believe Apple is close to breaking. That is what 'illegal' means.
....not selling devices capable of upgrading..
This is a choice they have made which is entirely consistent with their history. It is, you might even say, extremely well known that they do this. I'm not sure why, if they think this is how their systems ought to be, you'd have any right to expect otherwise.
The question is: Should hardware and software be married on the same device? Why not sell devices that the user gets to choose what OS they want? I can buy laptops with an OS [Win] or without, not pay for the Win licence..
Apple should sell laptops/phones with or without an OS, and the OS should be my choice..Just a thought!
That isn't the question at all, because you already know the answer - because they want to do it that way.
Incidentally, while true that
some PCs come with no OS, most do actually come with Windows. Yes, you can refuse the EULA at first startup, and end up with no viable Windows to use, but you did still pay for the license, you just refused their terms of use, and you likely won't get that cost back, because the hardware manufacturer already paid it to Microsoft. The only certain way you get no OS cost is to buy a Linux box, in which case you might not be able to even run Windows, but even if you do, the cost to you is not minor.
Anyway... there are plenty of people using Macs to run Windows or Linux, and quite a few people running Mac OS on systems built on PC architecture, so these things are to some degree possible for those who want to. I use DOS on my Mac, and ironically MacOS 7.1 on my Windows PC. Strange things are possible for those who need them. But commonly, since Microsoft don't build hardware, they don't care what you run Windows on as long as they can profit from it, and between them and he PC builders, they can fix the market so that upgrading Windows can force you to upgrade your PC too. It isn't sweetness and light by any means on that side of the fence, and that's before you discover the wealth of hardware/driver/OS issues that splintering software, OS and hardware across thousands of manufacturers and programmers can cause.
On Apple's side, you may see it as a simple matter of Apple being greedy, which is probably true. But there is another part to this which is crucially important, and that is users. You can stamp your foot and demand that you're a user just like everybody else, but actually you're not. Apple's 'typical' user is someone who buys a computer (or other device), and just wants to use it. No fuss, no decisions, no fiddling, no juggling with screwdrivers and parts. Apple's typical customer is a consumer.
Why it matters is that for these people, all those choices you want to make are things that get in the way, and so Apple make devices which couple the hardware, operating system, and much of the most commonly needed software together in a package that you can just power up, and enjoy. And because they control the whole thing so tightly, it means that when there are extras you might want, the hardware and drivers it might need have to be written so they integrate easily too.
I get that this approach doesn't suit your needs, desires or interest, but if not, then Apple's stuff isn't for you. Which is fine because there's Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Asus, HP... there are even micro systems such as Raspberry Pi (which are stupendously good, and dirt cheap). You can run Linux of a thousand varieties, ChromeOS, Windows, and even in some cases MacOS on these. You have a great deal of choice, lots of options and can spend (almost) as little as you want on them.
But those of us who want to buy a computer to just unbox and use, and who like the relative simplicity of macOS, and the relative neatness of the ecosystem, don't have all that choice and largely don't want it. So the question to you is, why do you want to take
our choice away and impose yours on us instead? Because that would be the result of Apple bowing to your demands. You'd gain nothing more than one more choice, and we would loose all of ours.
