The last new intel model macs were 2020 models, and the last one being sold was the 2019 mac pro which was discontinued in 2023.
These last generation intel macs are still supported by the current version, and will be supported by the next version. Their support will be dropped by the version which comes out in late 2027.
Security updates for macOS 26 will continue until macOS 29 comes out, so users will still get security patches but not the latest features until late 2029.

So worst case someone who bought a mac pro in 2023 will receive security updates for 6 years. That said it was pretty foolish to buy an intel mac after it became publicly known that they were dropping the intel line, especially buying a model that had already been on sale for 4 years. Anyone who bought such an older model was either buying it because it was cheap, or had some specific niche requirements.

A tv set can run for years, i know people who had a clearance recently and threw out a monochrome set that still worked.
There are radio sets still working today, as well as all kinds of kitchen appliances. There are also plenty of classic cars on the roads today.

The difference is that Apple produce both the hardware and the OS. They provide a well understood support lifecycle for both.
A manufacturer of random hardware which bundles a given version of windows with it has no control over microsoft's support lifecycles. Even if the hardware can run the latest version, the manufacturer may not support upgrading and drivers may not be available or fully compatible etc.

A significant pain point here is support for WPA3. For Apple devices any device that was still supported when WPA3 support was introduced will have support. For windows you need both a version of windows new enough for WPA3, but you also need drivers for your individual wifi chipset. There are various corner cases where older drivers still work with win11 but no WPA3 support is available so networks will simply fail to connect, and the error messages given don't indicate why. This leads people to turn off WPA3 and go back to WPA2 which is less secure.

Linux users generally don't want to run 10 year old versions of anything because the new versions are available for free.
The cut off for dropping old hardware support is also very long - support for the 486 has only just been dropped recently.

Babies are impractical. They're noisy and they smell bad, except for their tiny pink toes which smell delicious.

There's always BSD, Solaris, and plan9.

These problems apply to windows too.

Hence why iOS and Android are successful. For typical end users they are simply vastly superior.

Business users generally still use traditional general purpose computers, but more and more applications are now web based rather than precompiled binaries so the platform doesn't matter.

But yes outside of business and certain niches, a general purpose computer was never a good tool for the average user. Too complex, too much to go wrong, they were used because special-purpose systems did not exist yet. Nowadays there are much better systems available for typical end user usage patterns.

A higher resolution makings things small is due to poorly designed software.
Sizes should be specified in real world units (eg 1pt is 1/72 of an inch), not arbitrary measurements like pixels.
A higher resolution screen when used properly just results in more detail. Things will only get smaller if you decide to scale them down, by default they should be the same size.

ChromeOS is a distinct brand, people expect a particular experience.
Windows is a distinct brand, people expect a particular experience. Giving users a restricted experience while using the same branding leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Thats why all the windows-ce laptops failed miserably too, as did windows mobile. People bought it expecting the normal windows desktop experience, got something inferior and incompatible, and word soon spread.

A professional is paid, an amateur is not.
Absolutely nothing to do with ethics.
A professional is less likely to have ethics because money is their primary motivator, whereas an amateur may have more altruistic motivations.

By drawing a mouse, he copied the appearance of a mouse. So he copied something that already existed and expanded upon it.
Without public domain, you have no source material to draw from, virtually everything is a derivative of something else.

Yes a mouse is a creation of nature, copyright does not exist in nature it's an artificial construct. Why should there be artificial constructs to protect some forms of work but not others?
Perhaps the copyright for all natural things should go to the government too, or perhaps an environmental fund for protection of nature?

And while the mouse is a product of nature, the steamboat is not. Should disney have paid licensing fees for his use of the image of a steamboat? Someone designed and built steam powered boats.

If you lock away the public domain in perpetuity you will absolutely stifle future work. Meanwhile people managed to create things just fine before the concept of copyright existed.

It's also not just reading a script, it can simultaneously have a feed of the original audio which allows it to better replicate it.

Replace "AI" with pretty much any technology.
Why should dubbing actors receive any special treatment? What about blacksmiths, factory workers, crop harvesters, and all manner of other professions that have been eliminated or severely reduced by advances in technology?

In some developing countries you get a guy in a booth who collects parking fees, in developed countries there is generally a machine. Should we rip out all those machines to protect the jobs of those who sit in booths to collect parking fees?

Or they clone the voice of the original actor, so the dubbed voice more closely matches the appearance.