While it is clear why Apple do not support bunch of hardware, because they do not want people to use their proprietary OS on some "hackintoshs", they need people to buy their crap or they'll lose money.
Nonsense. Clearly, you don't understand what Apple is trying to do. I would suggest that you read about how Apple "works", and then go talk to a whole bunch of Apple employees in leading positions in the company to understand it. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but you live in a fantasy world of your own conspiracy theories.
Apply tries to make money. They deliberately do not try to make money by pushing hardware alone. In particular, they don't try to push "crap", if one understands that to mean cheaply made hardware being sold at high prices. Instead, Apple is about selling more, and more high-priced, stuff by selling an experience, which "delights" their users (they deliberately use that specific word!) by the smooth usability, seamless integration and perfectionism of the complete experience. I know that the preceding sentence contains many long words, so you probably need to read it several times. What it comes down to is Apple's theory of the "walled garden": If you use all Apple devices for your computing needs (laptops, desktops, phones, tables, and accessories such as earphones), then things are easy and consistent, everyday tasks work smoothly, and data and information can seamlessly follow you. One example is using mail programs that look and work very similar on a laptop/desktop environment, and tables and phones. Another example is: once you have all your music imported into iTunes (or even purchased through iTunes), then consuming that media becomes easy and universal.
That's the theory behind Apple: They don't sell a Mac here and there; they try to sell the components of a lifestyle, one in which information and data (I used the examples of mail and music above) is easily consumable. This actually works really well for those people who wish to live in that universe, or "walled garden" in Apple language.
The reason that Apple refuses to support Mac OS (or any of their other operating systems, like iOS) on non-Apple hardware is the premise of their relationship with customers: If you buy something from Apple, you expect a high level of perfection and integration. With hardware that they don't control, Apple has a much harder time guaranteeing that this level of integration works. In order to preserve their reputation as a perfectionist high-quality company, they simply refuse to participate in that market. Apple knows that it is better off (both in terms of customer satisfaction and profit) to play in a smaller market, but play well in it.
Now, that doesn't imply that Apple gear is utterly useless for people who don't want to or can't have all their data in the walled garden. For example, the Mac on my lap right now has X installed, and I display graphics from programs running on Linux on its screen all the time. My personal music collection is actually created, organized and stored on a FreeBSD machine (using only CLI tools), and then imported to iTunes manually. I don't use an Apple phone, and the mail program on my cellphone works fine with my non-Apple ISP and the Apple mail program on my Mac. I also develop personal software that runs on FreeBSD, using the Mac as a development platform (in both C++ and Python). While Apple's universe is a "walled garden", it is not a hermetically enclosed prison, and you can get data in and out, although that's not always frictionless.
By the way, I know lots of people who run Windows or Linux on their MacBooks. It turns out that the MacBook hardware is actually pretty good (not necessarily in having the hottest chips or best specs, but in fit and finish, durability and sensible compromise between weight, size and performance); for its quality and performance, it is actually quite cost-effective (a similar machine from HPs or Lenovo's high-end line is not significantly cheaper, and Microsoft Surface products are actually more expensive).
... FreeBSD, which will only win if its community will grow, ...
... and still pretends to be a Linux competitor.
Three very nasty comments.
First, is FreeBSD an entity with a single central management, which can have a single goal? No. While there is a very coherent organization (foundation with staff and board, development core team, and various technical teams like release engineering) the overall FreeBSD community also has a large set of developers and users, which are not under control of the foundation or core team. All three entities (core, developers, users) together decide which direction FreeBSD goes in. I don't see FreeBSD as a whole being willing or able to say "we will do X", for some single value of X (such as in your mindset, better support for GUIs on laptops, such as GPU integration and suspend resume).
Second, you implicitly define FreeBSD's "win" (the goal) as "grow". It isn't at all clear to me that growing FreeBSD's market share is necessarily a good thing, nor that it is the thing the FreeBSD is aiming for. Just like Apple, it might be better to serve a smaller set of users and problems, and serve them well.
Third, competing with Linux is not the purpose of life. If you look at non-commercial operating systems, Linux has won, by a huge margin. I keep bringing up its 100% share of the top500 as the starkest example of Linux' domination in certain markets. The goal of FreeBSD can not be to damage Linux, since that will simply fail. Not everything in life is a race, where winning or at least coming in second is the only goal. Often, it is more pleasant and more productive to take a stroll through the meadows and mountains, and sniff the flowers, while the runners in the marathon are going by, seeing nothing but the back of the runner in front of then.
I respect other religions as well 
