Try and price out a PC with those specs, it will come in around $6k minimum, but much more power intensive and very very loud
> That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.
Likely mostly running the same workloads such as web browsing.
> ... and run different software.
Maybe if Apple wrote it. Otherwise you can run the same Chrome/Firefox, Photoshop and Office on a Windows or even Linux Machine. Most software is shared between platforms nowadays with posix/windows being the lowest common denominator in terms of "cross platform".
Same goes if you prefer pages to word. Or software from Panic vs something else. The thing is if you’re most comfortable ale and productive on MacOS unless you build a hackintosh you need to buy a Mac and pay the mac tax but you get a whole integrated thing
Having a clever reason to justify how it was intentionally designed to be slower doesn't change the fact that it's slower.
Apple is great at other things and you do get other benefits when you buy an Apple computer, the performance/dollar just isn't one of them for desktop. Even for laptop, the M1 was the first time they were completive on that metric.
That's a narrative which I think has been proven to be not true for quite some time? If you look at the prices of Windows ultrabooks from brand names, they have been at the same level as Mac laptops for many, many years.