That's my point.
Some people would.
Quoting myself
people with lots of money to waste.
Does that mean that Apple is Winning over the power users (that) generally precedes larger adoption?
Absolutely not.
Anyway: spending less for the same output is better than spending more for the same output. At least make it scale linearly.
Apple HW doesn't equal double productivity, hence double price is not a price that will appeal general population, but only **some people**
It's not a critique against Apple M1, only to the assumption that a good enough CPU will make wonders on the market.
It won't.
WOW that's kind allot TBH.
It's so funny see Mac fans argue about everything and its contrary that it's worth the obvious down votes.
I think the word durable has more of a connotation of being resistant to damage rather than meaning "able to be used for a long time".
Let's say you use a laptop for 6 hours a day, five days a week, 48 weeks a year, and that it lasts for 3 years. That's 4,320 hours of usage. For many people, it's worth paying 35 cents per hour to use a machine that's even just a little bit better than one that costs half that. I'm writing this on a high-end Macbook Pro that's 8 years old. It was very expensive when I bought it, but the "cost per hour" has actually been quite low. The benefit of a better experience during the entire duration of usage is well worth the added cost, in my experience.