So the blind users commenting here saying Apple is not the best are, what, lying? Or maybe you are not the target for those features and could instead listen to both sides of this argument and stay on the sidelines? Apple is not the clear winner (if a winner at all) in the eyes of the people commenting here that use the features discussed. Several are pro Apple but at least as many write long comments about how Linux and Windows are better for them.

I think we should listen to these commenters and not just tell others to go away and look at a list of features, with no background to tell if it is good or bad.

I'm visually impaired but still have a lot of vision left, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that this is an area where Apple's approach to accessibility falls down for my use cases because Apple's approach to scaling means that

  - their maximum font sizes for UIs are small
  - UI scaling breaks more apps than on other operating systems because Apple emphasizes pixel alignment more than reflowing
  - the unified menu bar means that app menus swallow up menu bar icons if you scale the UI up at all

My mother, who also still has some vision but is already legally blind, is in the process of switching to an iPhone after many years of low-vision Android use, can confirm that iOS has much the same problems, including small maximum font sizes and worse reflowing/cutoff behavior than she saw on Android. She's enjoying the transition overall because she's relying more on TTS than she used to, and also because the person who is training her on phone accessibility features knows iOS better than he knows Android.

But for me and my sister, who have the same disease as my mother but whose cases are not as advanced, Apple devices are a worse fit due to their inflexibility with respect to font sizes and reflowing, which makes taking advantage of our remaining vision more cumbersome for us, even though doing so is generally more efficient for us at this point.

Apple devices don't have moar accessibility than other devices. They have different accessibility than other devices. Whether they work well will vary for different disabilities, including different presentations or stages of the same condition. And the usability of those accessibility features is also mediated socially by things like what apps or kinds of apps a person needs to use, as well as what training and support happen to be available to them where they live and work.

This kind of feature checklist thinking you're doing is a profoundly impractical way of thinking about accessibility needs. Checklists have their place in all this, but accessibility needs in the real world are highly varied and contingent on nitty gritty specifics.

That Apple puts considerable resources into accessibility features is great, but it's not like there's a certain 'level' they can reach where there are no more gaps. More crucially, there's no level they can reach where criticism from disabled users is no longer valid or meaningful.