[beagle3]

Everything is possible, of course, but Apple makes money from selling hardware, not from selling an OS; They're likely to keep letting you run what you want (which is in their interest so you don't buy hardware from another vendor even if you want to run Windows or Linux) -- although they might condition warranty and service on your computer running a blessed, signed and secure OS/X.

[bad_user]

> Apple makes money from selling hardware, not from selling an OS

This reasoning is overused and wrong.

Apple's hardware is no good for other operating systems, it doesn't run well with either Linux or Windows, the support being shitty due to Apple's proprietary stuff. As an example the experience with the touchpad becomes much poorer and the battery life is reduced to about half.

Running Windows or Linux well puts Apple in the commodity hardware market and that's what they tried to avoid ever since Steve Jobs came back.

So as a matter of fact they do sell MacOS as a core part of the package and they don't intend for it to be replaceable. Just like they sell iOS. It's not like you can install another operating system on their iPhones and iPads. Those devices don't even belong to consumers that bought them actually. All you're getting is a license to use them.

Apple is definitely not in the hardware business. What they sell is licenses.

[beagle3]

> So as a matter of fact they do sell MacOS as a core part of the package and they don't intend for it to be replaceable.

Ahhm. BootCamp[0] is an integral part of MacOS for a while. (and before that, for a couple of years, it was a free add-on). It is the apple mandated, supported, sanctioned way to run Windows on a Mac, including needed drivers. Battery life is not quite as good, true.

Your claim that "Apple is definitely not in the hardware business. What they sell is licenses." is contradicted, both by the existence of BootCamp, and by your inability to buy a license without the hardware (and/or at a price that does not include a profit premium on that hardware).

[0] https://support.apple.com/boot-camp

[bad_user]

That you cannot buy a license to MacOS is actually proof for my claims. Another fact is that you cannot run MacOS on non-Apple hardware.

And Bootcamp is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, a checkbox to tick in order for apologists to have amo.

Having used Windows on a MacBook Pro 2016 for two years, my experience has been worse than with a commodity Levono at 1/4 the price.

[aspenmayer]

>That you cannot buy a license to MacOS is actually proof for my claims. Another fact is that you cannot run MacOS on non-Apple hardware.

Given that you were running Windows on your Mac, I gather that your argument is more one related to the licensing issues of running macOS on non-Apple hardware, rather than an argument that it isn't technically possible. In any case, there is this. Curious how the project will be impacted by these new changes. From the article, it seems that in No Security mode the bootloader may be modifiable in the ways that it needs to be for modifications like Clover to work.

Clover EFI bootloader https://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/

Features

Boot OS X, Windows, and Linux in UEFI or legacy mode on Mac or PC with UEFI or BIOS firmware

Boot using UEFI firmware directly or CloverEFI UEFI firmware emulation

[beagle3]

I last used boot camp in 2012, and it was fine; buying a MacBook for the purpose of running windows is ... uneconomical, at best. But it does work.

However, could you elaborate on why the fact that you cannot buy an OSX license proves your point that Apple is in the business of selling licenses? I am at loss.

[darpa_escapee]

People still buy iPhones and iPads despite the hardware platform lockdown.

[GW150914]

In many cases they buy it because it’s a walled garden and locked down. When the alternative is Android it’s not hard to see why. People here seem to miss that while some people want freedom to experiment and play, others want the freedom to just have the device work as intended and not have to worry about fraudulent or malicious apps.

It would be weird if a dev preferred the lockdown, and weirder still if my grandmother didn’t.

[scarface74]

I’m a Dev and my phone is not my computer. I want a device that “just works” where I can download any random app with abandon and have some type of assurance that an app can’t do crazy things.

I am much more careful about what gets downloaded on my computer but I want to be able to do anything.

[jsjohnst]

> It would be weird if a dev preferred the lockdown

I’m a Dev and I prefer the lockdown, on my daily driver device that is. If it was forced on every device, I’d be opposed, but having it be something I can opt out of on my dev devices is perfect IMHO.

[dwb]

I'm also a dev and I prefer the lockdown. There's plenty of other computing equipment that is not locked down, and the restrictions only really apply to a tiny amount of use-cases. For instance, I would have had no trouble learning to code if I was growing up now on a modern Macbook – or even an iPad. (In fact it would be loads better than QuickBASIC. I am so envious of techie kids now.)

[userbinator]

Those serve very different use-cases and were locked-down from the start, unlike Apple's early desktops and laptops (with the notable exception of the Lisa) which, while still not as open as the PC, were comparable, especially when they switched to standard PC architecture a little over a decade ago.