Linux's 'failure' in getting people to spend "that kind of money" in a consumer context is most likely due to the fact that it's not a centrally-owned commercial entity with a product line and shareholders (i.e. what Apple Inc. is), not due to do any actual 'failure'.
I'm not saying that the users of Apple products and those of Linux distributions don't differ in their purchasing habits (and I'm not saying they do, either)--I'm just pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning.
And I don't know why you keep repeating this "biggest non-Exxon company in world history" argument, too. It's sensationalist and by two of the most common metrics, false:
* By market capitalization they've been the biggest in only three quarters in history (most recent), all of which are smaller than other companies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_...
* By revenue there are many, many non-Exxon (i.e. oil?) companies bigger than Apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
