While I applaud the OP’s enthusiasm and positive demeanor, I’m still scratching my head. A few points I would like to make ...
Being an audiophile has never been about winning the popularity contest. Whether it’s our choice of music, equipment, or room setup, audiophiles always have and always will be a niche group that does not represent the broader music industry in any shape or form. Throwing around metrics about apple, etc. is kinda useless and not relevant to this crowd.
Unlike what the OP thinks, many of us started with multi-channel systems and have come to prefer two-channel audio, despite its supposed weaknesses. Not everyone is looking for an immersive experience where you’re in the middle of all the action. So the assumption that most audiophiles don’t know what they’re missing vis-a-vis multi-channel (with or without atmos) is rather naive. We tried it, many of us still have it in our home theater systems ... and we still prefer two-channel. My nephew is big into spatial audio (headphones) and I’ve tried listening to it several times. Yes, it is different and enjoyable but not something I would like to listen to for hours at a stretch. Perhaps that might change as more artists convert their recordings to spatial.
As far as allocating budget goes, it is a very personal decision. Some of us want to invest in one system and take it as far as we can. For example, if I have $1000, I will build the best 2-channel system for $1000. If I have $50,000, I will build the best $50,000 2-channel system I can for $50,000. It’s all about your priorities. Telling people how they should allocate their budgets will always make you look like a pushy know-it-all, hence the pushback from some members.