I live in a country where there is no market for a decent business laptop with good support (like a P1) and everything is plasticy or RGB-laden tat.

I was kind of forced onto a mac as it was the only thing that had decent-enough support or I could buy an identical new one and restore a backup on, without having to use something grey market

That doesn't seem to be a common situation though, having access to premium Apple hardware, and not business laptops.

Same here, as well. To be able to configure and buy a nice business laptop, I need to talk with specialized dealers, and these doesn't come cheap because they're one-offs (CTO or otherwise). Mac is much more obtainable.

Unless it's a very specific hardware, most Linux distros will boot up fine from the same disk image on different machines or even inside a VM.

> Not only they are more powerful than comparable Apple hardware at the same hardware price point[0]

Allow me to doubt. Results vary between specific scenarios (gaming or other GPU intensive tasks being an obvious example), but the raw performance of Apple silicon for the price is unmatched.

Someone failed to read my last paragraph only to leave a comment.

I don't understand why you would say that. Your last sentence doubles down on how the bang-for-the-bucks is worse with Apple and I disagree with this. You'd have to spend more money on a x86 CPU to have the same power.

Only if one ignores the whole package, between CPU, GPU, number of available ports without having to carry falling dongles, external screen connections, industry standard graphics and gaming APIs.

Your power comes with a one or two ports, maybe a memory card reader or not, a GPU API that is only relevant thanks to iOS games, a broken keyboard that took six years to fix, an OS that even hardcore podcasts like ATP routinely complain about.