Re: I hope...
>> "They tried it back in the 90's and it nearly killed them because there was the usual race to make cheaper and cheaper macOS compatibles."
I'm glad someone reminded the resident Apple bashers of that fact !
Back in those days, I was working for a large Apple reseller that was also an AASP (Apple Authorised Service Provider). The same reseller also sold and repaired many of the clones.
My role gave me an "all areas" pass.
First, looking at and playing with the Apple units side-by-side with the clone units on the shop-floor. This was the 90's remember, so industrial design had not yet made it into IT, so neither the Apple or clone units were particularly pretty to look at, but it was clear whose hardware was better built, 1-0 to Apple. The tech-specs also frequently told a similar story. 2-0 to Apple.
But the service department is where the story was really told. At the rear of the service department there were rows of shelves dedicated to the temporary storage of customer equipment in various stages disrepair.
Walking through the service shelving, the number of clone units vastly outnumbered the Apple units. This was not down to lack of Apple sales, the reseller was doing good business in Apple units and had a strong corporate/educational customer base, so they were doing the volumes.
The number of clone units awaiting repair was simply down to what has already been said by the other poster. The introduction of "authorised clones" simply ended up following the same old sad IT story of a race to the bottom.
Speaking to the service engineers, and looking at the machines opened up on their anti-static benches, the difference in quality between Apple and the clones was palpable. Whether we're talking the neatness of the chassis cabling or the quality of parts. When you saw them side-by-side there was little argument. 3-0 to Apple.
The 90s clone era is thus not one I would like to see repeated.
One of Apple's core strengths is the structural integration of hardware and software.
This integration is *NOT* as the Apple bashers would like you to believe, some sort of "closed garden just to be spiteful".
The integration is there because the user experience matters to Apple. Unlike Microsoft and Linux they don't want to bloat their software with a litany drivers, kludges and work-arounds just to it will work on any old random hardware. Apple optimise the hardware to work with the software and vice versa.
Apple continue to spend more money on R&D than the vast majority of manufacturers out there, and if you put your subjective Apple-bashing hat to one side and look at it on a purely objective basis, it does show in terms of the quality of the products that Apple puts out.
I'm not saying Apple is perfect. No manufacturer is. Apple like any other has had their fair share of issues whether manufacturing defects or otherwise. But when considered objectively as a whole, the old SWOT test would easily show you that Apple's strengths far outweigh any perceived weaknesses.
P.S. Before the Apple-fanperson accusations start flying... to this date, I use Apple, Microsoft, Linux and BSD in equal measure. In a business environment each have their own purpose and utility. Yes "at home" I personally use Apple kit, but that's because I prefer to invest in robust, well-built and reliable equipment and software that I know from practical experience that the "whole package" (hardware+software) will outlive "cheaper" PC desktop or laptop. Headline price is not everything in this world.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
