[citation needed] — meaning that merely because developers perceive themselves as being directly influential doesn’t mean that they are necessarily. Sure, developers ultimately dictate the success or failure of a platform by choosing to populate its ecosystem of applications or give it a pass, but I assure you that if the only way to develop for iOS/iPadOS were a clunky UNIVAC fed with punched cards, developers would be hand-punching ‘em cards in order to get on the runaway bandwagon of the successful platform.

You're missing the point. We're not influential because we can make or break a platform. We're influential because we're early adopters and thus we can see where the future is going. And as early adopters we interface between a given technology and the general public. We're not just individuals working out of a dungeon. We have friends and family and a social cycle who turn to us for advice for their technology needs.

That's how it was 30years ago. Now companies market to laypeople directly with simple plug and play solutions

If there are any products in computing history that do not owe their success to the model you're describing, it's iPod/iPhone/iPad.

We got disintermediated with the very first iPod. Remember "less space than a Nomad. Lame!"? That was very much the attitude of the crowd you are describing.

I distinctly remember a pry-my-keyboard-from-my-dead-hands attitude when the iPhone came out. It's only benevolence that stops me from constantly reminding the "power user" among my friends that his first reaction was "Not even a stylus?"

> Tiny, but very influential with deep pockets.

While this is true, it doesn't follow that every product they produce should serve developers first and foremost. The Mac is the computer I use for development. The iPad is the computer I prefer to use for photo editing/ sketching/ house planning/ and casual use. If I wasn't a developer professionally, I suspect the iPad would be my "Big" computer.