Yeah, that was my first thought too. Has Apple ever seen a single dime from the "Hackintosh community"? Why would they care about what people who by defintion are not customers want?
My first three Mac systems as a poor student were Hackintoshes. Couldn't afford a real Macbook. The first one was a Dell Mini 9, which was a $200 netboook that could somehow run Snow Leopard flawlessly (with significant contributions from the community of course).
As a working professional, I have spent close to $10k on Apple hardware in the past two years. I've also helped them make quite a bit of money through their App Store cut.
I recently put together a dual-booting Windows 10/OSX system for usage at home, used for both gaming and development. I spent about $1200 on it, and I couldn't even get an equivalent desktop from Apple no matter how much I spent. My ceiling would have probably been around $3k.
That gets you real close to buying an iMac for development and a PC for gaming. I think this is part of the reason Apple has pulled back from the high end. Hardware is cheap enough that we can use different devices for different purposes now. There are often some good advantages to doing it too. I like having my workstation in the office, my gaming PC in the living room, and a tiny little laptop for travel. That would have cost me close to $10k a decade ago!
Even people who never bought anything from Apple before are customers by definition the moment they do buy something from Apple. If Apple is trying to make money, it doesn't seem smart to take a dogmatic stance that the money of new customers isn't worth having. Everyone is by definition a possible future customer.
Apple has a long history with tactics like gluing things shut, obfuscating software, enforcing walled gardens, banning the GPL, and an unusual degree of legal aggression toward people trying to interoperate with their products. There seems to be a well-established groupthink among Apple and its fans that this is the only possible future for Apple.
But when Apple is more extreme on these tactics than almost any company that's still in the PC business, yet is not selling all that well, it really proves the viability of softer approaches. Apple can make money, depending on its execution maybe even a lot more money, by leaving this playbook behind. They could end Windows, taking all their existing fans, and adding new ones. But they can't do it until they can learn some humility from their epic steamrolling by the IBM PC clone market in the 80s and 90s. Apple swallowed their pride about PowerPC and started using the "Intel" from "Wintel" so why does it have to keep re-enacting the anticompetitive tactics from the dawn of the personal computer?
If Apple's products really are the best on merit, it shouldn't be necessary for Apple to lock everything down at a technical level or at a licensing level or to use the law aggressively against people who just want to interact with Apple products.
I think for many people (including me), the Mac Mini was the next logical step, since it was affordable. Especially when it was still expandable (memory and disk). I think they make a mistake with making the Mini so unattractive. It may not be a blip on their radar, but I think it was a gateway machine for many people who later buy more Macs. However, now it's so unattractive that I can't see anyone buying them.