Floo just means that Apple used to charge for MacOS updates but they don’t anymore. They are old enough to remember the $129 upgrade fee. You’re also right because the hardware is obviously a license dongle that costs more than a retail copy of Windows. If you want MacOS, at least the $500 Mac mini and $800 MacBook Air are as good as anything you can buy at that price point. Kind of irrelevant but to this thread tho.
when you buy a banana at the grocery store, show me the receipt that you paid for the shipping of said banana. When you buy a computer keyboard, show me the receipt for the ‘F’ key. When you buy a TV, show me the receipt for the capacitors.
Technically not. MacOS wouldn’t be what it is today if apple didn’t get any money out of it. They get that money from selling the hardware the software is exclusively on among other things. Let’s say i. e. Ubuntu: When it first got released then it relied on its owners personal revenue for a long time. None of the hardware sold financed Ubuntu, because Ubuntu didn’t earn money through hardware. It’s obvious that the money earned by apple through its sales also go back into macOS, because if the hardware didn’t make any money, macOS ceases to be developed as well.
With OPs logic, every software is technically free. But no, you pay for macOS with the hardware you purchase. You purchase the hardware because of the OS, not because of the hardware. Technically, you could spin the argument and say that you pay for the OS, and for it to be run a certain way and the hardware that comes with it is free. If that sounds like bogus it’s because it is bogus.
Is hackintosh not still a thing? Did they neuter it somehow? Or are we just not considering that since it’s a pain in the ass to set up and works out of the box on a very limited selection of hardware?
I believe macOS 26 will be the last that’ll run on Intel hardware. So functionally, a year from now, Hackintosh is dead. Well, Hackintosh running the current macOS, of course. I imagine there’ll be a thriving community working to keep existing hardware chugging along.
It’ll be interesting to see the momentum of Linux on Macs though. If Asahi manages to crack those last few hurdles with the M1/2 hardware, it’ll be a rock solid OS, particularly as ARM64 software becomes more common. Suddenly you’ll have a bunch of incredibly capable Macs going cheap because they can’t run the largest macOS.
I don’t understand this argument. It makes no sense. Just because a piece of software is included for free with an Apple computer doesn’t mean you’re paying for it. It’s like you see the word “free” and just decide it means something different than what it really means.
Because I am capable of critical and complex thinking. Just because something is labeled as “free” does not necessarily mean there are no costs associated with procuring or using a product. If you’re handed a proprietary piece of technology for “free”, but the only way to use it is to pay for another piece of technology or software that you have to pay for… it’s not free. It’s complementary, but it’s not free. You still need to pay some amount to use it.
This is the same faulty logic as arguing that Linux also costs money because you have to pay for a computer to run it on. Any operating system requires that you own a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. It makes no sense.
To be extremely pedantic, there’s licensing costs involved with a bunch of 3rd party libraries included in the OS (HDR, h265, radios, etc), but they cover those royalties / fees via hardware sales and the license to use it follows the hardware
Do you also think the engine that comes with your car is free because the manufacturer doesn’t sell it as a separate item and it’s not listed on the receipt?
Edit: His answer proves he’s just a troll. Weird thing to troll about though but I don’t judge what someone gets off to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
The OS is a component of the whole product by Apple’s own reporting and marketing material. If you bought a Macbook directly from Apple and it came without MacOS preinstalled, would you consider that a fulfilled transaction?
If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.
So when someone buys [anything] with a screen, the OS on the screen if free?
I don’t have a receipt for the OS in my car, so it means I must’ve gotten it for free. Same with the seats, steering wheel, mirrors, buttons, doors, you bang it! But what did I actually pay for then?
Just because they stopped selling it doesn’t mean it’s free. The only legal way to aquire MacOS is to buy an Apple product, or somehow get an upgrade from one of those old paid versions (which since this happens through the App Store now, you still need an Apple product).
Windows is also not free even though you can download the iso. There’s license terms
I can show you many receipts where I bought a Windows laptop without a trace of any Windows licence on it.
Same, you can’t really install macOS on anything else than a Mac.
Sure you can do a Hackintosh, or run Windows without a proper licence (you can buy a Windows for like… $2 on the grey market). But you won’t have any support…
It is not free if you have to pay a specific hardware from the same company to run it. Same goes for Windows, it is not free if you are forced to buy Windows with the laptop.
In both case you pay for the software through the hardware.
You can download Windows for free too. But in both case you won’t have any support unless you are running it on the authorized hardware. Windows does it though a licence, Apple through the hardware kirks.
Go on, try installing your “free” OS on a Thinkpad, and tell me if you manage to get it running.
Unless they don’t provide ARM downloads or have some other problem, couldn’t you just use the ARM version, because part of what QEMU is is an emulator, to emulate other architectures?
I bought the cheapest MacBook Air for my wife. It’s pretty nice. Lightweight, sturdy, and such good battery life that she doesn’t keep track of her charger. Personally I have a physical KVM that I use to switch between my Linux workstation and my laptop.
This is a dumb argument. Apple does provide you the OS upgrades for free but getting an ISO file and installing it on a non-Mac computer is impossible so no it’s not really free
That’s not the point. You’re still going to have to pay money regardless if you want the operating system. Whereas windows and Linux allow you to use their ISOs is any laptop or computer so no buddy.
If I already owned a laptop beforehand and I wanted Linux on it, it’s free. If I want MacOS I WOULD HAVE TO GO SPEND MONEY ON A COMPLETELY NEW COMPUTER THAT’S A MAC. that’s the point I’m trying to get at.
You’re missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
Just because something doesn’t have a price tag doesn’t mean it’s actually usable without cost.
macOS is only ‘free’ if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.
I cannot believe there is this long, drawn out argument over whether MacOS is free or not when my intention was MacOS + Mac = me not buying because it’s too much money for a meh system that doesn’t run half of the games or apps (though that’s been changing).
I feel like reading between the lines is a skill, or an art form that has gone extinct with young folk.
You’re missing the point: macOS is free. Just because you have to buy hardware to run it on doesn’t make it any different than any other free operating system like Linux. There’s plenty of hardware that doesn’t support Linux , too, so your argument, especially falls apart there.
There’s a massive difference: Linux doesn’t require you to buy specific hardware from a specific vendor to legally run it. macOS does.
With Linux, if your hardware isn’t supported, it’s a technical limitation. With macOS, it’s an intentional restriction enforced by Apple through both legal terms (EULA) and hardware locks.
That’s the difference between open and closed systems. Linux lets you try on anything—even if it might not fit perfectly. Apple forces you to buy their clothes before you’re allowed in the store.
Yeah, the big reason to do that was so you could attach an EGPU which wasn’t supported natively. Now it is, though, so the need for that mostly disappeared. Plus, macOS is now so reliant on proprietary interval hardware like the T2 chip, then I won’t run on anything, but Apple hardware.
eGPUs? I ran a Hackintosh because Apple didn’t sell hardware in the configuration I wanted. Less to do with GPUs and more to do with the lack of hard drive slots or PCIe slots. I had a nice workflow with some pieces of shareware that slowly lost support with each major OS update and every major update also came with less customizing for Finder. By the time they switched to their own ARM chips, I was ready to drop it. Apple’s idea of game support was just mobile shit anyway. They should have become partnered with Valve on Proton.
eGPUs got pretty good support on Intel Macs in the years leading up to Apple Silicon. And that transition started 5+ years ago. And now all Apple Silicon Macs have no eGPU support.
I find it weird that you cite eGPU support since hackintoshes almost always have PCI slots. And the eGPU support still comes from Apple (at the driver level) even on a hackintosh. AFAIK.
I did a little digging. It seems like mainline Apple hardware with Thunderbolt 2 had limited eGPU support because of bandwidth constraints. Thunderbolt 3 had full support.
Whatever allows us to leave the clusterfuck that is Windows is a blessing. M$ has had a monopoly for too long and I’m not paying for MacOS.
macOS has been free for, like, 15 years.
Yes, you have to already own an Apple computer, but Apple users don’t pay for OS upgrades.
Technically, anyone could download the OS images, but there’s not a lot that non-Apple users can do with them.
Macos is free. At the cost of paying *2 for hardware
You have to pay for hardware to run any operating system.
I don’t have to solder my ssd to the system to use it
So what?
That doesn’t change the fact that macOS is free.
Bruh what? Did you really just say that not having to buy software exclusive to a certain hardware makes the software free?
That’s like saying the OS on a PlayStation is free because you only had to pay for the PlayStation.
Nah man, you purchased the OS with the hardware. That’s why it’s exclusive.
No, I said your argument is ridiculous. So is this one you just made.
It’s not like either of those things.
macOS is free. Just because it requires a computer to run doesn’t mean it isn’t free. That’s the worst rationalization. I’ve heard yet.
macOS is absolutely not free, and your argument is exactly the same as those examples the previous user provided.
Floo just means that Apple used to charge for MacOS updates but they don’t anymore. They are old enough to remember the $129 upgrade fee. You’re also right because the hardware is obviously a license dongle that costs more than a retail copy of Windows. If you want MacOS, at least the $500 Mac mini and $800 MacBook Air are as good as anything you can buy at that price point. Kind of irrelevant but to this thread tho.
Prove it
macOS is included with every Mac, not free.
Well, then show me a receipt where you (or anyone) paid for macOS. Should be interesting.
when you buy a banana at the grocery store, show me the receipt that you paid for the shipping of said banana. When you buy a computer keyboard, show me the receipt for the ‘F’ key. When you buy a TV, show me the receipt for the capacitors.
This is not how receipts work.
You’re comparing apples and bananas. But the only thing that’s bananas is your argument
As they need to be installed on Apple hardware, there’s an implicit cost associated with it.
If you want to be super pedantic for no reason, you’re correct, it is technically free.
Technically not. MacOS wouldn’t be what it is today if apple didn’t get any money out of it. They get that money from selling the hardware the software is exclusively on among other things. Let’s say i. e. Ubuntu: When it first got released then it relied on its owners personal revenue for a long time. None of the hardware sold financed Ubuntu, because Ubuntu didn’t earn money through hardware. It’s obvious that the money earned by apple through its sales also go back into macOS, because if the hardware didn’t make any money, macOS ceases to be developed as well.
With OPs logic, every software is technically free. But no, you pay for macOS with the hardware you purchase. You purchase the hardware because of the OS, not because of the hardware. Technically, you could spin the argument and say that you pay for the OS, and for it to be run a certain way and the hardware that comes with it is free. If that sounds like bogus it’s because it is bogus.
Is hackintosh not still a thing? Did they neuter it somehow? Or are we just not considering that since it’s a pain in the ass to set up and works out of the box on a very limited selection of hardware?
I believe macOS 26 will be the last that’ll run on Intel hardware. So functionally, a year from now, Hackintosh is dead. Well, Hackintosh running the current macOS, of course. I imagine there’ll be a thriving community working to keep existing hardware chugging along.
It’ll be interesting to see the momentum of Linux on Macs though. If Asahi manages to crack those last few hurdles with the M1/2 hardware, it’ll be a rock solid OS, particularly as ARM64 software becomes more common. Suddenly you’ll have a bunch of incredibly capable Macs going cheap because they can’t run the largest macOS.
I don’t understand this argument. It makes no sense. Just because a piece of software is included for free with an Apple computer doesn’t mean you’re paying for it. It’s like you see the word “free” and just decide it means something different than what it really means.
Because I am capable of critical and complex thinking. Just because something is labeled as “free” does not necessarily mean there are no costs associated with procuring or using a product. If you’re handed a proprietary piece of technology for “free”, but the only way to use it is to pay for another piece of technology or software that you have to pay for… it’s not free. It’s complementary, but it’s not free. You still need to pay some amount to use it.
This is the same faulty logic as arguing that Linux also costs money because you have to pay for a computer to run it on. Any operating system requires that you own a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. It makes no sense.
To be extremely pedantic, there’s licensing costs involved with a bunch of 3rd party libraries included in the OS (HDR, h265, radios, etc), but they cover those royalties / fees via hardware sales and the license to use it follows the hardware
Do you also think the engine that comes with your car is free because the manufacturer doesn’t sell it as a separate item and it’s not listed on the receipt?
Edit: His answer proves he’s just a troll. Weird thing to troll about though but I don’t judge what someone gets off to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I don’t see how cars and engines have anything to do with the fact that macOS is free.
And, yeah, if it’s not listed on a receipt as something I paid for, you can’t argue that I paid for it. Or that anyone did. That’s absurd.
The OS is a component of the whole product by Apple’s own reporting and marketing material. If you bought a Macbook directly from Apple and it came without MacOS preinstalled, would you consider that a fulfilled transaction?
If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.
So when someone buys [anything] with a screen, the OS on the screen if free?
I don’t have a receipt for the OS in my car, so it means I must’ve gotten it for free. Same with the seats, steering wheel, mirrors, buttons, doors, you bang it! But what did I actually pay for then?
I never said that. But it does show how this black-and-white all the nothing approach makes no sense.
macOS is free because it’s free.
I have a MacBook Pro 15” 2018. I paid around $3K for it new. What is the cost for me to update to macOS 26 Tahoe or the one that comes after it?
I’m running Sonoma on a 2016 MacBook Pro. didn’t cost me anything because macOS is free.
How much to upgrade it to Sequoia?
The last version of MacOS I used was $130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger
And in my original comment, I said they hadn’t charged for it in about 15 years. And it’s been almost exactly 15 years.
Just because they stopped selling it doesn’t mean it’s free. The only legal way to aquire MacOS is to buy an Apple product, or somehow get an upgrade from one of those old paid versions (which since this happens through the App Store now, you still need an Apple product).
Windows is also not free even though you can download the iso. There’s license terms
Sure, and if you got modern hardware with Windows 7 on it in 2009 then you had up-to-date free Windows since 16 years.
I can show you many receipts where I bought a Windows laptop without a trace of any Windows licence on it.
Same, you can’t really install macOS on anything else than a Mac.
Sure you can do a Hackintosh, or run Windows without a proper licence (you can buy a Windows for like… $2 on the grey market). But you won’t have any support…
What does any of that have to do with the fact that macOS is free?
It is not free if you have to pay a specific hardware from the same company to run it. Same goes for Windows, it is not free if you are forced to buy Windows with the laptop.
In both case you pay for the software through the hardware.
Of course it is. It cost me nothing to download and install it.
Unless you can show me how you’re actually paying for the operating system, then I don’t see how you can keep making this argument. It makes no sense.
It’s the same nonsense is arguing that you have to pay for Linux just because the computer you are running on cost money.
You can download Windows for free too. But in both case you won’t have any support unless you are running it on the authorized hardware. Windows does it though a licence, Apple through the hardware kirks.
Go on, try installing your “free” OS on a Thinkpad, and tell me if you manage to get it running.
Oh, there is.
I am a web developer and I use this to run Safari and the iOS simulator without paying Apple’s “debugging tax”.
That’s a limited time opportunity because x86 support is getting dropped with macOS 27.
Unless they don’t provide ARM downloads or have some other problem, couldn’t you just use the ARM version, because part of what QEMU is is an emulator, to emulate other architectures?
Well…looks like my employer will have to buy me a Macbook soon.
I bought the cheapest MacBook Air for my wife. It’s pretty nice. Lightweight, sturdy, and such good battery life that she doesn’t keep track of her charger. Personally I have a physical KVM that I use to switch between my Linux workstation and my laptop.
Anybody can download Windows images too. That doesn’t mean the OS is free.
I never said it did.
macOS is free because they don’t charge for it.
This is a dumb argument. Apple does provide you the OS upgrades for free but getting an ISO file and installing it on a non-Mac computer is impossible so no it’s not really free
Really? Did you pay for it? Because it’s free for me when I download it.
Sounds like you got scammed
That’s not the point. You’re still going to have to pay money regardless if you want the operating system. Whereas windows and Linux allow you to use their ISOs is any laptop or computer so no buddy.
If I already owned a laptop beforehand and I wanted Linux on it, it’s free. If I want MacOS I WOULD HAVE TO GO SPEND MONEY ON A COMPLETELY NEW COMPUTER THAT’S A MAC. that’s the point I’m trying to get at.
Compatibility has nothing to do with how much something costs. The fact is, there’s no way to actually buy macOS. Because it doesn’t cost anything.
As I’ve said elsewhere, by your logic, every operating system cost money to run because you have to pay money for a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple. That makes no sense.
You’re missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility. Just because something doesn’t have a price tag doesn’t mean it’s actually usable without cost. macOS is only ‘free’ if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden. That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.
I cannot believe there is this long, drawn out argument over whether MacOS is free or not when my intention was MacOS + Mac = me not buying because it’s too much money for a meh system that doesn’t run half of the games or apps (though that’s been changing).
I feel like reading between the lines is a skill, or an art form that has gone extinct with young folk.
I’m just wanting to see how far I can push his buttons 😉
You’re missing the point: macOS is free. Just because you have to buy hardware to run it on doesn’t make it any different than any other free operating system like Linux. There’s plenty of hardware that doesn’t support Linux , too, so your argument, especially falls apart there.
There’s a massive difference: Linux doesn’t require you to buy specific hardware from a specific vendor to legally run it. macOS does. With Linux, if your hardware isn’t supported, it’s a technical limitation. With macOS, it’s an intentional restriction enforced by Apple through both legal terms (EULA) and hardware locks.
That’s the difference between open and closed systems. Linux lets you try on anything—even if it might not fit perfectly. Apple forces you to buy their clothes before you’re allowed in the store.
Difference my guy.
Hackintosh is a thing (or at least used to be), but it’s against the EULA.
Yeah, the big reason to do that was so you could attach an EGPU which wasn’t supported natively. Now it is, though, so the need for that mostly disappeared. Plus, macOS is now so reliant on proprietary interval hardware like the T2 chip, then I won’t run on anything, but Apple hardware.
eGPUs? I ran a Hackintosh because Apple didn’t sell hardware in the configuration I wanted. Less to do with GPUs and more to do with the lack of hard drive slots or PCIe slots. I had a nice workflow with some pieces of shareware that slowly lost support with each major OS update and every major update also came with less customizing for Finder. By the time they switched to their own ARM chips, I was ready to drop it. Apple’s idea of game support was just mobile shit anyway. They should have become partnered with Valve on Proton.
The big reason to make a hackintosh was to use eGPUs?
eGPUs were not supported natively? And now they are?
What timeline are you talking about here? Is it all back 10-6 years ago?
Maybe, because I haven’t looked into it in a few years.
Ok, that makes a bit more sense then.
eGPUs got pretty good support on Intel Macs in the years leading up to Apple Silicon. And that transition started 5+ years ago. And now all Apple Silicon Macs have no eGPU support.
I find it weird that you cite eGPU support since hackintoshes almost always have PCI slots. And the eGPU support still comes from Apple (at the driver level) even on a hackintosh. AFAIK.
I did a little digging. It seems like mainline Apple hardware with Thunderbolt 2 had limited eGPU support because of bandwidth constraints. Thunderbolt 3 had full support.
Removed by mod
Exactly what nuance is there to blatant insults and ableism?
Removed by mod
Right, because I’m to blame because no one can prove that macOS costs money.
Being certain of a fact is not evidence of whatever bigoted thing you’re accusing me of.
Removed by mod
Right, I’m the one “fixated” on this, but all of the people like you dog pile on me, and trying to insist a fact isn’t true aren’t “fixated”.
Seems like projection to me. And deflection from the fact that you can’t prove your point.
Removed by mod