There would be no complaining if Apple made a mid priced user upgradeable computer. A mid sized, mid priced Pro?
I don't think upgradeability is important for most users. For example, I don't care about upgrading a machine (upgrading is never efficient: when you upgrade to more RAM, more HD, or new CPU, you're investing money on an old machine, with the hope it will be as fast as brand new... but it continues being outdated and slow, no matter how you upgrade). For these reasons, I prefer to buy top-configured machines, so that they last as much as possible, and when they die or become unusable, I prefer to get a new one.
I believe complaints don't come from the lack of upgradeability, but actually from the fact that Apple is failing to meet the config the average user wants.
The average user wants a computer with good CPU and good GPU, and with the possibility of getting it without a display (because most users have at least a good display at home already).
Apple decided to cripple the Mac Mini by putting Intel graphics on it.
Then they make the only useful configuration into an iMac, which can't be bought without the display, and looks too delicate because of its thinness.
It's shocking, but the only way of getting a good Mac desktop today is to buy a Macbook Pro and use it on clamshell mode... and of course it won't be perfect because a laptop doesn't have good heat dissipation when doing heavy computing or when playing games.
Is it so difficult to put the Macbook Pro internals on a (as beautiful as you wish) desktop box with good heat dissipation?
Doesn't Apple realize such a desktop would sell in big amounts?
Shocking how Apple is missing the point.