And you don't see a problem with this?
Would I like to see more options? Yes.
But I also understand I went into this with "eyes wide open". The iMac - in any form - has never had a powerhouse GPU nor has it ever been able to be upgraded. Same with the iBook/PowerBook/MacBook/MacBook Pro and the Mac Mini.
And while the Power Macintosh had better standard GPUs and there were some third-party options, they were never to the level of a Windows PC. And the Mac Pro hasn't had third-party options since it launched years ago.
So I had no illusions that if I bought a Macintosh that it would be a machine that was optimized for gaming, period, much less "high-end gaming" with SLI configurations and 500-watt video cards.
Well Steve is not the end-all-say-all of what real people use their computers for.
But he seems to feel he wields that power for at least what real people use their Macintoshes for...
Video games are a HUGE market... both hardware and software.
Yup. And Steve apparently feels it's a market he'd rather not be involved in. And in a way, I can understand him.
The OS X / Mac / Apple philosophy is "power wrapped in simplicity and elegance".
If Apple was going to be real serious about being a "player" in the gaming market, the product life-cycles need to shrink from 12-24 months to 6. That is going to drive up costs, even if you can continue to leverage the same form factor for 12-24 months. And that form factor needs to become...cruder...to allow for the rise in thermal and power needs to drive those fancier cards. You need larger PSUs that generate more heat. And the GPUs and VRAM generate more heat. So you need more slots with more fans which means more noise.
All that being said, I do understand where you are coming from. And I do think that Apple should offer a more complete line of GPUs for the Power Mac now and support both BTO and third-party upgrades. I believe it would increase the value of the Mac Pro in the eyes of many people and likely would have convinced me to buy it instead of the 24" 2.4GHz iMac.