I regard all Intel Macs as useless, worth $0 to me. But I’d be willing to put up with that, if I liked the display and form factor. The resale value of iMacs 2014-2020 is entirely the display.
That's (a) your opinion and (b) not rooted in fact, nor (c) how the used Mac market works AT ALL. Maybe that's how you view the Intel iMacs, but that's not how they are valued in the used market, despite you not feeling that way.
The Studio Display is a stopgap until the new large iMac. It’s not a forever replacement.
Apple's marketing strategy clearly begs to differ with you here.
Intel used to be half of the industry dominating WINTEL monopoly.
Okay. Lots to unpack here. For one, the words "half" and "monopoly" are inherently in conflict with one another in your sentence. Also, "WINTEL" isn't a monopoly. Mac and Windows are a duopoly. Intel hasn't ever been a monopoly when it comes to PC hardware. AMD has always been there and, in much earlier times, you even had other x86 processors out there too. What happened now is fairly similar to what happened to Intel during the Pentium 4 era. It isn't the end of Intel. It's the end of a lot of businesses that Intel hadn't fully invested in, but not the processor market.
You couldn’t build a computer without paying them.
Unless you're talking about x86 royalty fees, you're completely wrong here.
Now it isn’t even present on smartphones and tablets, the most prevalent kind of computers.
ARM isn't what Intel specializes in. Never has been. That's like saying that Toyota is a horrible computer company.
Even without the competition of AMD and AS in the ever shrinking PC sub-market, it is a dying company.
Losing Apple as a customer doesn't a dying company make. AMD is kicking Intel's ass right now because Intel got complacent and let too much slide. They're rectifying that and will probably be back in action (for everyone but Apple) just as they've always been. The war between AMD and Intel has been on-going for the last 35 years. It's not about to end now just because AMD is currently kicking Intel's ass.
And ignoring that means extinction is guaranteed.
They are not ignoring it. You, however, are ignoring what has been happening over at Intel since Apple announced they were dropping Intel.
You mean, those who "just work™".
Yes. IT buys PC hardware that just works. Because THEY HAVE TO. If an IT department buys any kind of computer that doesn't work, then they have to spend much more money in man hours trying to resolve issues. So, they turn to Dell Latitude (not Inspiron), HP EliteBook (not Laptop), and Lenovo ThinkPad (not IdeaPad) because those are business class computers that won't give them or their users any grief whatsoever. And if/when a bad model is purchased, it's usually replaced with a more reliable one. That's how things work in IT.
Windows, that’s what sucks on PCs.
That's just your opinion, man.
I've had nothing but stability and hassle-free experiences on every Windows 10 and Windows 11 PC that I've set up for myself and for others both in and out of work in the past 7 years. In the past 7 years, I've had to deal with the dumpster fires that is macOS High Sierra, macOS Catalina, macOS Monterey, the butterfly keyboards, and the nonsense that is the T2 chip. And you say Windows is better? That's...Apple loyalty taken to the next level right there! 🤣
Aesthetics and stability are the same.
Oh? If you believe that, then I may have a class action lawsuit's worth of butterfly keyboards to sell you. 🤣
Things look good, if they work good.
Do tell me more about how great the 2013 Mac Pro was for Pro users. Or about how Apple's thinnest MacBook Pros were their best. Your take on form over function is so disconnected from reality that it brings me genuine and legitimate amusement!
Aircraft engineers say: "A beautiful aircraft flies best."
That's not how engineering works.
If the wings look too small to carry the plane, they probably are!
While probably true, that's still not how engineering works.
People who buy Apple Silicon Macs.
No, I buy Apple Silicon Macs AND PCs. If Apple's releases are less stable and more buggy than Microsoft's (which IS the case these days, on average), the shiny exterior won't mean crap to me; I'll still kvetch about Apple and not Microsoft who would be providing me the more stable and smoother running desktop computing environment. Plenty of Mac users only care about how sleek the computer is. To suggest that ALL of us are that way is an insult to those of us who aren't that way (even if you ARE that way).
I find that Apple has yet to release a bad AS Mac. They all run amazing!
Apple has two kinds of M1 MacBook Air, two kinds of M2 MacBook Air, one kind of M1 13-inch MacBook Pro, three kinds of M1 Pro/Max 14-inch MacBook Pro, two kinds of M1 Pro/Max 16-inch MacBook Pro, two kinds of Mac Studio, one kind of M1 Mac mini, and two kinds of M1 iMac. Do the math and that's 15 different possible Apple Silicon Macs. Are you telling me that you've used them all? And for what tasks are you using them for. When the world revolves around you and your perceptions, that kind of hot take is one thing. But, there are definitely Apple Silicon Macs that (a) are better than others, (b) run cooler than others, (c) have better battery life than others, and lastly (but not leastly) (d) are better suited to certain workloads than others. Your statements here are loaded at best.
