Since you've asked for it, you'll get it.
So first of all, Apple did not give you X+ technology for X bucks. What they did yesterday rather looked like X- technology for X+ bucks. The rest of the PC industry normally gives you X+ technology for X- bucks with every new product cycle. I think the difference is quite obvious. And don't tell me I'm wrong, I'm in this game for thirty years now.
Then, we're all PAYING CUSTOMERS. That means we have earned the right to complain about the company we are doing business with. Apple wants our money so they better sell us what WE want.
Most of us entered the vendor-lock in with Apple because although we knew the risk, it made sense for our business at the time. But once you've invested into Apple hard- and software, switching to something else becomes a very expensive proposition, so you usually don't do it but suck Apple's (expensive) policy up as long as it is bearable or acceptable.
In other words: Many of Apple's customers don't have much of a choice, and Apple is taking unethical advantage of that by selling overpriced products to professionals and by NOT offering sufficient choice.
So for people who made a commitment to the Apple platform the game is not as simple as you depict it. You whole points are only valid from a low-end consumer perspective, and that is not the perspective from where I and many others here are judging what is going on.
We're buying those Mac Pros not because we're in the "we love the premium design" corner. We're buying the Mac Pro because we need an expendable hardware platform that gives us enough computing power to run professional software, and some of this software only runs on OS X. So we spend some extra bucks. But there's a limit to this "extra", and once the vendor over-does it, people begin to jump ship.
Apple hasn't fully realized that they are in the PC industry now. The only real difference between their PCs and the others is the operating system running on them. They don't want us to run that OS on other hardware, but the problem for Apple is that we now can. And that in many countries, their EULA is not legally binding. So we can now take our software and move on. And in the next step, we might even consider leaving the software platform behind as well. After all, there's MUCH more choice in the Windows market. We only chose Apple because we enjoyed their products more, not because they are really better from a strictly factual point of view.
OS X is NOT more stable or reliable than Windows. Whoever says that hasn't used Windows in more than 15 years. It's also very debatable if OS X is more user friendly than Windows XP or Vista. I know MANY users who disagree. And I also know for fact that on -- MY -- Mac Pro, Vista Ultimate Edition 64 Bit runs much faster than OS X Leopard. So much for your "registry argument", which is pure nonsense from fantasy land.
But you're right here: Apple doesn't owe me anything. But neither do I owe anything to Apple, and neither do I have to say "thank you" just because they slightly upgraded their machine specifications and the price along with it. It's a business relationship, and I expect to get a proper value for my money. But lately, it is becoming more and more of a problem to justify an investment into Apple -- and that, eventually, will become a problem for Apple, too.
A successful company ships products that people WANT at a price that people can afford. And ideally, they even sell it at a better price than the competition.
When Microsoft began charging too much for their software, many companies migrated to Linux in their server rooms. It took Microsoft a good while to wake up and "correct" their pricing, but they did it. But Microsoft also listened to their customers and implemented features that are very competitive and add unique value to their platform.
IBM, on the other hand, never really woke up to the competition in the hardware market. The end of the story: IBM sold their PC business completely.
Now which way do you propose Apple should go?