I concede Apple does not sell low bandwidth spec parts. Only one bandwidth. What is the memory bandwidth of the AsRock compared to the Mac Mini? Is it a bottom binned spec? At this point it is well known that they solder the memory dies onto the chip to get a specific memory bandwidth that a slot would not be able to provide. Some of the magic of the M1 is due in part to this design.

Yes for storage the M1 is more opaque. They claim this is the only way they can provide truly secure trusted boot. Its questionable but at least the theory seems to be holding up. I give them the benefit of the doubt just because the machine truly feels like it is from the future. It is like the desktop perfected. If it was anything less than the rocket it is we'd be having a different conversation and I'd give more credence to your claims. As it stands to me, the value of the platform exceeds that additional memory/storage upcharge.

>>The Mac option turns out to be roughly twice as much, for a pretty comparable system (including single core speed!). Even if I want more storage, I can have it for an extra $100 or so.

Are you sure about this being "comparable"? This is so much legacy in these x86/64 designs that either they are slower per given clock or they have to compensate with increased fan speeds/power consumption. The minisforum I have was a popular Ryzen 5 machine being pushed by all the youtuber people two years ago. (Minisforum DMAF5). It was slow out of the box and is now even more slow about 2 years later. Even this system being advertised here has to use a GaN Charger to cover up the fact that they are needing a more powerful wattage than the equivalent Mac would need (65w vs ~45w) That right there is more evidence that the design can't possibly be more efficient than the M1. (not to mention the PSU is integrated into the case on the Mac!)

This is such a common trope with PC people, they ignore design and value it at 0.