I can use more apps that I want to use, but some of the development stuff isn't as easy to use. Worse developer experience, but better overall user experience. That kind of thing makes MacOS overall a better choice for me personally. Oh, I'm into music as well, and there are some great apps for that on MacOS (like Logic Pro, etc.). It's just easier to be able to open them (LibreOffice is okay too, but can't compete with real Office). Sure, there are web-based alternatives for some of these for example, Google Docs is pretty good really, but people still send around Word docs and Excel spreadsheets. I can't use real Office on Linux, Sketch, Photoshop, or Affinity Photo, etc.
The move to MacOS was partly because I also just wanted to have great hardware support (although the XPS I was using was actually pretty great in that department, I was getting a bit tired of this inbetween phase moving from X to Wayland, Nvidia's weird driver support), and also to be able to use other apps that suit my current role better. Some things updating in the terminal, some in an app store, some with their own custom updaters, so on. On other operating systems it's WAY more disjointed. All in one place, completely centralised, no faffing around, and pretty much every app you can think of is already in the AUR. One thing I also really miss from Linux (particularly Arch) is how updates were handled. At some point I realised I was kinda wasting time with this though, and just wanted a DE that did everything already that I could let other people work on, leaving me to focus on developing other things.
I started off using i3wm, loved it, started building some applications to control i3 and make it more like a full desktop environment and more comfortable for me to use (e.g. This last stint of using Linux, I was using Arch Linux (not to sound like one of "those guys" that's like "btw, I use Arch Linux".). Native Docker (no permissions or performance issues), still has support for all of the development tools I use (editors, IDE, great terminal emulators, etc.), and is really lightweight and customisable. Purely for development, Linux was better IMO. Microsoft was slow to react to this change, but they're working to make up for it now. These days that requires a decent command-line, and a package manager in addition to an IDE, all with a $0 price tag. That has always been a winning strategy for them. Microsoft is doing a pretty good job of putting great development tools into the hands of developers, though. Linux is just the profitable strategy of the moment. was the best strategy for Microsoft's success, they'd do it. If firing Nadella and lobbying the FCC to ban non-Microsoft TCP/IP stacks from connecting to computers in the U.S.
Now that Linux-based tablets and phones and VMs are steadily chipping away at Windows in the market, Microsoft wants to be friends. But they spread a lot of FUD about Linux for as long as they could, and that was good enough reason for Microsoft, especially if they could use others to fund it. They have now have been refuted at length. SCO's claims were always transparent lies, but they had to be given their day in court. Those who followed that advice lost their money (excepting one group who filed a lawsuit and got SCO to return their investment). Remember that Microsoft encouraged investors to put their money in the SCO Group while SCO was filing lawsuits against people who used Linux.