Everyone should remember that until Apple makes an announcement about this, it's nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. I'd take it as a given that Apple has an ARM version of macOS running internally, but this alone is not indicative that they will make the jump. Apple made an x86 version of System 7 "just in case" and never used it, and made x86 versions of Mac OS X for almost 10 years "just in case" before announcing a switch to Intel.
Apple knows very well that running on the Intel architecture has been a huge boon to the Mac, with Windows (and to a lesser extent Linux) VMs having facilitated the Mac's introduction into many environments. Similarly, running on Intel has also allowed for WINE (and more importantly, its commercial counterparts, Crossover and above all TransGaming's Cider engine), which have formed the platform for nearly all Mac game releases in the past 10 years. Abandoning Intel for ARM would be a huge loss in this regard.
Additionally, as it was explained to me by an OpenBSD kernel developer, the ARM architecture has (compared to Intel, PPC, m68k, etc) some significant limitations regarding how it handles hardware enumeration or dynamic kernel module loading or something, the upshot being there has to be a specific OS build for a given hardware configuration, without the possibility of a build for multiple models. Unless Apple fundamentally changed this in its ARM implementation, it would make any expandable Mac impossible (including Thunderbolt, which is essentially PCIe over a serial cable).
Both sides do that. Apple does have more of a cult following but I know lots of Mac users who are not stereotypical Mac cult members, they just like the machine for one reason or another and I have no reason to care.
Having sold Macs for years, I can agree and expand: the
vast majority of Mac users are not "cult members", they just want a computer that works without fuss. And frankly, that's been the case from the beginning. The "cult" myth is based largely on a small percentage of super enthusiastic users, who do not actually represent the majority. But every platform has those. People's perception of Apple is wildly distorted due to the bizarre way the media treats Apple, schizophrenically bouncing between adulation and baseless criticism, since they a) know that putting "Apple" in a headline will get reads, regardless of what the article says, and b) fundamentally do not understand the reasons behind Apple's success.
Something that has bothered me for decades is how much time and effort people spend childishly promoting their platform of choice while bashing the other platform, instead of actually doing something useful with their computer.
You are absolutely correct! Especially regarding your last point. It seems the Apple lovers out there seem to get their knickers in a knot every time someone is critical of their beloved platform, I suspect that it's because they've spent so much money locking themselves into a particular 'ecosystem' (whether they knew it at the time or not) and now find it difficult to revert to anything else.
When you put forth an argument, they revert to the old "oh you haven't provided proof", "you just have something against Apple"... and so it goes...
If there is resistance to argue with you, it's got nothing to do with buyer's remorse or investment in the platform. It has to do with years of stupid arguments with Apple haters who argue with you based on stereotypes, myths, and willful misinformation. We get defensive because of being constantly attacked and dismissed as "idiot" (we're not) cult-like lemmings (we're not) who are "too stupid" (we're not) to use "real computers" (Macs
are real computers) and "wasted" money on "overpriced" (also untrue, given lower TCO and the value of time), when in fact we merely like using devices that work with less fuss, or just work in a way we prefer. In my experience, the majority of people who "discuss" Apple and its products and are not actually Apple users themselves, do so with little basis in facts and reality. (I've been a Mac user since 1992, FWIW, and have heard every myth in the book, and then some…)
To be sure, there's misinformation among Apple users about the competition, but I don't think it's
quite as factually untethered from reality.
As for the ecosystem argument: everyone has some kind of investment in a platform, meaning that switching will incur some kind of cost, be it monetary (re-buying things you already have for the existing platform), time, learning, etc. It is eminently reasonable to factor this into a decision, and certainly isn't a valid reason to deride someone for staying on a platform. For example, I have a significant investment in hardware and time on the Nikon camera platform, and so there would have to be some massively huge benefit to switching to justify the cost of rebuying hardware and spending the time to practice with the new hardware until I knew it as intimately as I do the Nikon gear. Does this mean I hate Canon or Sony, etc? Not at all. But the friction to switching is significant.
Finally, as always, we mustn't forget that we are, by definition, not "normal" users. We are engineering types, and as such, atypical compared to the 95%. Most people don't know how computers work, don't want to know, and don't need to know. They need a tool they can use which has been designed to eliminate errors (or allow recovery from them) with as little learning curve as possible — basically, a tool that gets out of the way. The Mac's designers understood this from the beginning, Windows' designers learned this eventually, and these days Mac, Windows, iOS, and Android are all reasonably good for the typical user. (The open source world like Linux, on the other hand, is struggling to wrap its head around this concept.)