M4 MacBook Pro

I don't think Apple's behavior actually reflects this if you look closely (although I can certainly see how someone could form that opinion):

As a counter example, Apple assisted with their own engineers to help port Blender to Metal (https://code.blender.org/2023/01/introducing-the-blender-met...):

> Around one year ago, after joining the Blender Development Fund and seeding hardware to Blender developers, Apple empowered a few of its developers to directly contribute to the Blender source code.

I'm assuming similar support goes to other key pieces of software, e.g., from Adobe, Maxon, etc... but they don't talk about it for obvious reasons.

The point being Apple considers these key applications to their ecosystem, and (in my estimation at least) these are applications that will probably never be included in the App Store. (The counterargument would be the Office Suite, which is in the App Store, but the key Office application, Excel, is a totally different beast than the flagship Windows version, that kind of split isn't possible with the Adobe suite for example.)

Now what I actually think is happening is the following:

1. Apple believes the architecture around security and process management that they developed for iOS is fundamentally superior to the architecture of the Mac. This is debatable, but personally I think it's true as well for every reason, except for what I'll go into in #2 below. E.g., a device like the Vision Pro would be impossible with macOS architecture (too much absolute total complete utter trash is allowed to run unfettered on a Mac for a size-constrained device like that to ever be practical, e.g., all that trash consumes too much battery).

2. The open computing model has been instrumental in driving computing forward. E.g., going back to the Adobe example, After Effects plugins are just dynamically linked right into the After Effects executable. Third party plugins for other categories often work similarly, e.g., check out this absolutely wild video on how you install X-Particles on Cinema 4D (https://insydium.ltd/support-home/manuals/x-particles-video-...).

I'm not sure if anyone on the planet even knows why, deep down, #2 is important, I've never seen anyone write about it. But all the boundary pushing computing fields I'm interested in, which is mainly around media creation (i.e., historically Apple's bread-and-butter), seems to depend on it (notably they are all also local first, i.e., can't really be handled by a cloud service that opens up other architecture options).

So the way I view it is that Apple would love to move macOS to the fundamentally superior architecture model from iOS, but it's just impossible to do so without hindering too many use cases that depend on that open architecture. Apple is willing to go as close to that line as they can (in making the uses cases more difficult, e.g., the X-Particles video above), but not actually willing to cross it.

There's a massive difference between "pretty much every app is 80% faster" and "if you render a 4K ProRes video in Final Cut Pro it's 3x faster."

The most obvious view is that Apple price gouges on storage. But this seems too simplistic.

My conjecture is that there's an inescapable tension between supply (availabilty/cost) sales forecasts, technological churn, and roadmaps that leads them to want to somewhat subsidize the lowest end, and place a bit of back-pressure on consumption at the high-end. The trick is finding the tipping point on the curve between growth and over commitment by suppliers. Especially, for tightly vertically integrated products.

The PC industry is more diffuse and horizontal and so more tolerant of fluctuations in supply and demand across a broader network of providers and consumers, leading to a lower, more even cost structure for components and modules.

In real terms, Apple's products keep costing less, just like all computer products. They seem to make a point of holding prices on an appearance point of latest tech that's held steady since the first Macs: about $2500 for a unit that meets the expectations of space right behind the bleeding edge while being reliable, useful and a vanguard of trends.

Is there some reason your current computer isn't working for you? If not, why upgrade? Use it as long as you can do so practically & easily.

On the other extreme, I knew someone who bought a new MBP with maximum RAM specs each year. She'd sell the old one for a few hundred less than she paid, then she always had new hardware with applecare. It was basically like leasing a machine for $400/yr.