Occasionally you do see PC OEMs that try for taste in the Windows ecosystem. Sony did that with their VAIO laptops, with the somewhat-inflated price tag to match. In fact, it impressed Jobs so much he literally just offered them an OSX license (which they didn't bite on).
I just googled this and it's based on an unsubstantiated boast by Sony's president in 2014, I'd be skeptical:
https://www.appleworld.today/2021/01/06/from-the-vault-did-s...
Although this article seems to think it holds water:
https://9to5mac.com/2014/02/05/sony-turned-down-offer-from-s...
Not sure if that survived his return to Apple.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189309/apple-sony-iphone...
https://youtu.be/AnrM4n6S3CU?t=5973
[Definitely worth a watch. Also Jobs makes a few mistakes such as calling the PowerBook a Power Mac and referring to iTunes as iMusic.]
Look at all the fields where superior quality is a completely natural criterion (whether it exists may be another question): Watches, cars, pens, paper notebooks, furniture, fashion, jewellery, architecture, bikes, coffee machines ...
What's more - if you look at the visual representations of computers - i.e. marketing material, art, illustrations, unix porn etc - all that highly values aesthetics and beauty. But the actual products are a disgrace to all of that!
We buy computers by comparing sets of numbers. Your GHz and Mb are bigger than my GHz and Mb? And the $ are lower?
But luxury items are some times about the feel. And if you have a nice computer running Windows. Well, the primary way in which we interact with the machine is budget so why bother with the rest of it?
Because it needs to be affordable to the masses as a whole, and not just the upper middle class and up.
Some old Swiss everyday products are affordable yet beautiful; I am convinced both is possible.
This is also why good computers are affordable by almost everybody, but things like good bicycles, furniture, watches, coffee machines etc are not.
You can buy a decent computer for the same money as one chair.
Sometimes aesthetics is part of practicality: how many doors does one run into with a "push" or "pull" sign because otherwise it's not possible to tell in which direction things work?
I think many of us here really appreciate the beauty of Cray Mainframes and Apple hardware, but computers are so associated with work and utilitarianism, I think they’ve often been overlooked for their value as design pieces. I mean, brutalist architecture is a thing, so it’s probably just a matter of time.
The question is why you don’t seem to have a choice of quality. It’s basically seems to be quite high (Apple), or somewhere between crap and acceptable.
Where are the very high PCs? The nice PCs? The good PCs? There aren’t many, they’re basically niche.
I don’t have much experience with recent PCs. Most of it has been quite bad. Even the relatively well spec’ed Windows laptops at work are sad (despite decent reviews).
Cheapest PC mech keyboard will get you blinking RGB.
Cheap PC case with front mesh airflow. Most likely will come with RGB fans. If it's real cheap you won't be able to even turn it off.
Same with cheapish mouse with decent sensor.
Needless aesthetics is almost unavoidable on the budget end. Unless you specifically go out of your way to pay extra to get models without RGB.
A good watch can be passed down through generations. A computer passed on from my father would likely just be a storage and disposal cost instead of any real use.
Outside of specialist enthusiasts and collectors, I suppose. But for every working Apple 1 there's thousands of c64s that no longer function quite right.
Conversely, nowadays that is less and true though. Currently, getting a latest Ryzen 5000 APU laptop can very easily last you 10 years or more -- until something physically breaks inside. The machines themselves are very energy-efficient and fast enough for everything except special work niches.
So I suspect we're witnessing a culture shock: what used to be the best strategy no longer is, and the players (the producers) haven't adapted yet.
The interval of replacement due to performance is getting longer through. A 10-year old high-end laptop is still pretty good for average user today, especially with an SSD. Most people need just something that can run web-apps and stream HD videos via browser. Buying a new laptop solely for performance is getting harder and harder to justify. I guess that's why Macbooks are attractive, they offer more than just performance.
A bit of creakiness and flakiness is tolerable when you’re a home gamer and only have to deal with it for a couple of hours at a time during the weekend, but when it’s a full time job it gets old fast.
No such thing as a "correct" design: it's all about market positioning and design trade-offs. I'm typing this on a sub-$300 laptop, it's made of plastic, it bends and flexes, but it is very light, and has a 1980x1024 display, a 9-hour battery, and again - it bears repeating - cost less than $300 brand new. These factors may not be important to you, but they were to me as I wanted something I could bike with, and wouldn't be too stressed if it broke in a fall[1]. I also have a MacBook, but it's heavy and expensive to repair.
1. It is also something I would have been my dream machine as a poor student in a place with unreliable electric service, yet still attainable, unlike the other "well-made" laptops that have a premium on aesthetics & build-quality.
It can seamlessly install and run Linux apps and compilers via virtualization (Crostini). I usually use vim, but I also have VS Code installed and it works pretty well. It won't win any CPU perf awards though: it has a dualcore Celeron.
