A point that was never in question (at least that I saw).
If it's not in question, why do you keep trying to advance the claim that the Apple 1 and Apple II are now both "equally useless"? (That seems to be what you keep saying, I'm actually having a little trouble trying to parse it.) I mean, sure, I get that an 8-bit computer isn't going to get you on the Internet, but there are tons of applications out there still sourcing 8-bit MCUs to do the heavy lifting, and they do the job fine. I mean, obviously nobody is going to specifically design a practical commercial product today that specifically relies on an Apple II as the main moving part (that they haven't been made since 1993 just might be a factor there), but the flexibility and extensibility of the machine means that on the hobbyist level there's still tons of viable uses if you happen to have one lying around and are motivated to use it. Whether it's some sort of real-life control application or just writing a new video game an Apple II is still a great platform, as good as it ever was for any application realistically within its performance envelope.
By contrast, the Apple I is a horribly crippled machine that's really not good for much at all beyond teaching very basic computer literacy skills, and it's not even that great for that application. Just to play devil's advocate, here, let's compare a $666.66 Apple 1 (again, we're actually closer to a thousand bucks by the time you've added the keyboard and a TV set) with a $245 MOS KIM-1:
First we'll say where the Apple-1 wins: obviously it's nice to see more that six hex digits of your program at once and it comes with four times the RAM. But that's where the winning stops. The KIM includes a better software package in its 2K of ROM than the Apple I does in its 256 *bytes* and in addition to its built-in keypad it has built in support for bit-banging two serial channels, one of which can be connected to the serial terminal of your choice. (How about a
$275 CT-1024? Throw that on your wishlist along with the KIM and you're still paying $150 less than an Apple 1 (Of course, shortly after it came out the guy who invented the TV Typewriter introduced a video display board for the KIM that cost a whopping $35, so maybe you'd end up with some buyer's regret going with that full terminal.) Out of the box interaction with either machine is pretty much limited to entering hand-assembled machine code via hex digits, and the KIM-1 also includes the audio cassette interface so you can actually save your software programs, that's a $75 option for your Apple 1. Seems to me if you want to learn machine language, which was all you could do with an Apple-1 without spending $200 over the starting price for more RAM and the cassette interface, the KIM-1 wins this hands down. And if you're effectively spending a $1000 to run BASIC, well... there were better options already out there than either of these, really. But the KIM-1 was capable of growing into the role if you really insisted.
The Apple-1 was too expensive to do embedded microcomputing things (and for those things its TV terminal is completely useless anyway), costing almost as much as a starter configuration for a "real" computer, but with its limited I/O and brain-dead terminal it was too limited to compete with them and people saw this back in 1976. Strictly speaking, sure, both the KIM-1 and the Apple-1 have expansion connectors hanging off them that would allow them to be expanded to whatever arbitrary degree your heart desires, but only one of them was really intended to serve the role of being ultra-flexible electronic play-dough and priced accordingly, while the worst deficiencies of the Apple-1 that you might want to fix with expansions are also its only selling point. (IE, its trash terminal and I/O setup.) This is why they sold thousands and thousands of KIM-1s over a product lifetime of over three years instead vs. just couple hundred Apple-1s over a year and a half. (A year that ended with the leftovers going into a dumpster.) The Apple-1 was a big fat failure because it was overpriced for what it offered and wasn't even particularly good at what it did do. Which, you know, is fine, it was a first attempt. But like a lot of first drafts it deserved being crumpled up and tossed into the circular file, which is what actually happened to it.
Anyway, the point you keep trying to avoid is that people still love and use the Apple II for what it
offers, while the only reason to care about the Apple-1 is for what it
is. That's a huge distinction.