That's an interesting point however I don't think it will be beneficial. 2 years is a long time. Other companies like Microsoft, Google even Meta will take over.
Nobody is suggesting that Apple should stop regular "minor" upgrades (which could even add new features provided they don't take existing ones away) or not update its Apps independent of the OS. The problem is the
major overhaul, with compatibility-breaking changes and, inevitably, that Apple imposes every year - despite every sign suggesting that they lack the capacity to carry this off with adequate testing and quality control.
Neither MS or Google make a big hooplah of releasing a major new, top-to-bottom OS version
every year, on the dot, with a new brand-name and a load of compatibility-breaking features. Sure, there have been a string of releases bringing new features to Windows 10 - and you can argue the toss over which ones are analogous to "major" MacOS releases - but the only high-profile, ground-up release in the last 6 years has been Windows 11. (Forget that Apple went 10.1, 10.2, 10.3... etc. for a while - each of those releases was a "big bang" with major look & feel changes, significant compatibility issues, and named after a new big cat/California landmark) - and usually a 6-8 month wait for the initial bugs to be fixed! It's not like Microsoft haven't had a few disasters (but two wrongs don't make a right) but they do seem to be on a more flexible schedule.
With Apple, the annual MacOS release is clearly largely driven by marketing rather than need, or whether any worthwhile changes are "ready to go". I also get the impression that they make so many changes between the last developer's beta version and the public release that some developers don't bother testing (that's part of trying to do it too quickly and running into the "mythical man month" phenomenon)...
I agree. Basically AIO can seem to be a fantastic value when purchased (at least based on historical Apple pricing). The loss is at the end when either something in the guts conks or Apple obsoletes it with macOS updates. Then, the WHOLE thing gets tossed even though some crucial pieces may be perfectly fine and have years left.
This is what I'm finding having just gone from an iMac (which I bought somewhat reluctantly in 2017 when there was no viable desktop 'separates' alternative) to a Studio. Normally, I'd be able to make good use of the old computer and old display, but not when they're welded together and the display is incapable of being used with anything else.
I think the Mac Studio + your display of choice (whether it's the Studio Display, a Pro XDR, something specialised or a cheap alternative) is a far better model. There's still the 24" iMac for people who really want a compact, medium-powered solution. There
is a hole in the product line caused by the lack of a M1 Pro Mini/Studio to pair with a display (interestingly, if you imagine a M1 Pro Mini to replace the current Intel i5 Mini, then guess the 'cost' of upgrading to M1 Max, 32GB etc. from MacBook Pro pricing you get pretty close to the Mac Studio Max price...)
As I've pointed out before - the higher-end i9 iMacs didn't cost much less than a Mac Studio Max + Studio Display combo, which could be argued as being more comparable to an iMac Pro.
(Of course, there are other criticisms of the Studio Display...)
