14 ms·

Apple does not want to offer to the hackintosh/enthusiast market because they are the most price conscious segment. Targeting that segment means putting out ext

Apple does not want to offer to the hackintosh/enthusiast market because they are the most price conscious segment. Targeting that segment means putting out extremely performant, low-margin commodity machines. Doing so then cannibalizes the market for their ultra-high-end stuff. Not only that, though. Enthusiasts are also extremely fickle and quick to jump ship to a cheaper hardware offering. If you look at all of Apple’s other markets, you’ll see loads of brand loyalty. Fickle enthusiasts don’t fit the mould.

momokoko 6y ago
I would be extraordinarily grateful for some insight into why this comment was downvoted.
- sidm83 6y ago
  Agreed. Do not see anything worth downvoting at all.
- hrktb 6y ago
  I think the parent comment is just completely ignoring the argument of the post they reply to. Just looking at the first sentences: GP: > I have zero issues with an Apple premium or paying a lot for hardware. parent: > the hackintosh/enthusiast market [...] are the most price conscious segment
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Then buy the new Mac Pro? I don't understand why that's not an option for GP.
    - tolien 6y ago
      Because as the sibling comments point out, the price of a Mac Pro isn't just an "Apple Tax^WPremium" over a desktop machine but is an order of magnitude more expensive (assuming you don't care about workstation-class components, i.e. Xeon Ws, Radeon Pro GPUs and ECC RAM). There's an enormous price gap between a Mac Mini and the Mac Pro (especially when the Mini now has higher single-threaded performance than the base Pro...) which Apple has widened in the last decade or two.
      - m463 6y ago
        I've had a continuous string of Mac Pros from G3 to 2012 (MacPro 5,1) my main workhorse. I have continually updated and expanded it. The 2013 mac pro was a mess. pass. The latest mac pro... I think it wasn't just expensive, it was sort of sucker expensive.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        > The latest mac pro... I think it wasn't just expensive, it was sort of sucker expensive It's the kind of Mac that makes you get an iMac to put on your desk and a beefy Linux server-grade box you hide somewhere, but that does all your heavy lifting.
        metalforever 6y ago
        Yep, thats what I did.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Some tools and OSs make it easier than others. I used to do a lot of work from my IBM 43P AIX workstation (great graphics card, huge monitor, model M keyboard) that actually ran on a more mundane Xeon downstairs. X made it even practical to browse the web on the 43P. It attracted some really confused looks in the office.
        brian_cunnie 6y ago
        > The 2013 mac pro was a mess. I appreciate that the 2013 mac pro wasn't for you, but it was perfect for me: small but powerful. Firstly: RAM. I was able to install 64 GiB on it, which enabled me to run Cloud Foundry on ESXi on Virtual Workstation on macOS. Non-Xeon chipsets maxed-out at (IIRC) 16 GiB and then later 32 GiB—not enough. Secondly, size & esthetics: it fits on my very small console table that I use as a desk. I have a modest apartment in San Francisco, and my living room is my office, and although I had a mini-tower in my living room, I didn't like the looks. Third, expandability: I was able to upgrade the RAM to 64 GiB, the SSD to 1 TB. I was able to upgrade the monitor to 4k. It has 6 Thunderbolt connections. My biggest surprise was how long it has lasted: I typically rollover my laptops every year or so, but this desktop? It's been able to do everything I've needed it to do for the last 7 years, so I continue to use it. [edited for grammar]
    - hrktb 6y ago
      I don't totally agree with GP, but I think their global point was that during a long time (all the 2010s ?) there was just no decent Mac Pro. Outside of the Mac mini, the most powerful desktop machine was actually iMacs, with all the compromises that come with the form factor, and the trashcan Mac Pro who was thermally constrained. In that period, no amount of money would have helped to get peak storage + network + graphic performance for instance. We are now in a slightly better place where as you point out, throwing insane amounts of money towards Apple solves most of these issues. Except for those who don't want a T2 chip, or need an open bootloader.
- pulse7 6y ago
  There are many readers who don't want to see Apple being criticized so they are downvoting it...
socialdemocrat 6y ago
What Apple could have done is to continue supplying something like the G4 towers. Those where stunningly beautiful machines and practical.
- Heliosmaster 6y ago
  What if they simply decided that they didn't care for that part of the market? At some point we should just accept that.
  - rini17 6y ago
    Okay, but offering no machine suitable for developers and power users will eventually hurt them when they leave whole ecosystem.
    - unicornfinder 6y ago
      Quite possibly - I was a huge Apple fan who's now using a PC because I was fed up with the lack of viable options for me.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        Apple will certainly offer an ARM-based MacPro, but I'm assuming it'll be a very different beast - current one maxes out at 1.5TB of RAM and it doesn't seem likely anyone will integrate that much memory on a chip anytime soon ;-) Memory bandwidth is one key feature impacting M1's performance. When Apple builds an ARM-based MacPro, we can expect something with at the very least 5 DDR5 channels per socket. It's clear, from this, the M1 is a laptop/AIO/compact-desktop chip.
        sliken 6y ago
        The M1 already has 8 LPDDR4x channels per socket, running at 4266MHz.
        6y ago
Demiurge 6y ago
Being “fickle” is kind of hard to apply to a market segment, because it not a synchronized monolith. There clearly is demand for decent machines hackingtoshes make. It’s just that the mobile market is much higher ROI. So, any R&D other Apple products get are some coincidental opportunities. This entire M1 change is a happy accident. So it’s not that hackingtosh builders are anything, at all, it’s that they’re outnumbered by iPhone buys 1 to a million.
Shivetya 6y ago
Considering how much the gaming side of the PC market will drop on just a single card I am more of the opinion that Apple chose to avoid this market because it did not want the association with gaming as if that were beneath their machines. At times there seemed to be a real disdain for the people who loved upgrading their machines as well as those who gamed on them. Apple's products were not meant to be improved by anyone other than Apple and you don't sully them with games. The Mac Pro seems to be the ultimate expression of "You are not worthy" from the base system which was priced beyond reason to the monitor and stand. It was the declaration of, "fine, if you want to play then it will cost you" because they didn't really care about the enthusiast of the wrong use - games and such.
- llampx 6y ago
  Why do they highlight games at every WWDC and product announcement?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    To let the fans have a bathroom break.
valuearb 6y ago
A big part of saving Apple was Jobs killing the clone program. That lesson probably still resonates in the halls of Apple even if allowing hackintoshes is a different thing without the same risks.
bitL 6y ago
> Apple does not want to offer to the hackintosh/enthusiast market because they are the most price conscious segment. Targeting that segment means putting out extremely performant, low-margin commodity machines. Doing so then cannibalizes the market for their ultra-high-end stuff. Looking over the shoulder at a 64-core Threadripper with 256GB of ECC RAM, 3090FE, Titan RTX and Radeon VII, yeah right. Some of us do Hackintoshing because we want more dope specs than what Apple offers and customizability that comes with PC hardware.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
When Apple first mandated kext signing (Mountain Lion?) they explicitly whitelisted certain community built kexts used for Hackintosh. IMO Apple and the Hackintosh community has been mutually benefited until now. Many who have accustomed to macOS from Hackintosh has eventually invested in Apple products. Considering Apple has only went after those who profiteered by selling pre-built Hackintosh and not everyone who are profiteering from Hackintosh scene; I would say Apple did care about the Hackintosh community in some way. I thought the higher performance/price Hackintosh, especially with Ryzen might force Apple to act differently but now with M1, Apple needn't worry about Hackintosh performance/price anymore.
raxxorrax 6y ago
They certainly wouldn't want to scare away developers, others have suffered greatly due to neglecting them and developers seems to be getting rarer. You always want the enthusiasts and of course they buy new hardware to look for ways how they can make it work for them. Many devs also have a high income so that price isn't as important anymore.

momokoko 6y ago

I would be extraordinarily grateful for some insight into why this comment was downvoted.

sidm83 6y ago
Agreed. Do not see anything worth downvoting at all.
hrktb 6y ago
I think the parent comment is just completely ignoring the argument of the post they reply to. Just looking at the first sentences: GP: > I have zero issues with an Apple premium or paying a lot for hardware. parent: > the hackintosh/enthusiast market [...] are the most price conscious segment
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Then buy the new Mac Pro? I don't understand why that's not an option for GP.
  - tolien 6y ago
    Because as the sibling comments point out, the price of a Mac Pro isn't just an "Apple Tax^WPremium" over a desktop machine but is an order of magnitude more expensive (assuming you don't care about workstation-class components, i.e. Xeon Ws, Radeon Pro GPUs and ECC RAM). There's an enormous price gap between a Mac Mini and the Mac Pro (especially when the Mini now has higher single-threaded performance than the base Pro...) which Apple has widened in the last decade or two.
    - m463 6y ago
      I've had a continuous string of Mac Pros from G3 to 2012 (MacPro 5,1) my main workhorse. I have continually updated and expanded it. The 2013 mac pro was a mess. pass. The latest mac pro... I think it wasn't just expensive, it was sort of sucker expensive.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        > The latest mac pro... I think it wasn't just expensive, it was sort of sucker expensive It's the kind of Mac that makes you get an iMac to put on your desk and a beefy Linux server-grade box you hide somewhere, but that does all your heavy lifting.
        metalforever 6y ago
        Yep, thats what I did.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Some tools and OSs make it easier than others. I used to do a lot of work from my IBM 43P AIX workstation (great graphics card, huge monitor, model M keyboard) that actually ran on a more mundane Xeon downstairs. X made it even practical to browse the web on the 43P. It attracted some really confused looks in the office.
      - brian_cunnie 6y ago
        > The 2013 mac pro was a mess. I appreciate that the 2013 mac pro wasn't for you, but it was perfect for me: small but powerful. Firstly: RAM. I was able to install 64 GiB on it, which enabled me to run Cloud Foundry on ESXi on Virtual Workstation on macOS. Non-Xeon chipsets maxed-out at (IIRC) 16 GiB and then later 32 GiB—not enough. Secondly, size & esthetics: it fits on my very small console table that I use as a desk. I have a modest apartment in San Francisco, and my living room is my office, and although I had a mini-tower in my living room, I didn't like the looks. Third, expandability: I was able to upgrade the RAM to 64 GiB, the SSD to 1 TB. I was able to upgrade the monitor to 4k. It has 6 Thunderbolt connections. My biggest surprise was how long it has lasted: I typically rollover my laptops every year or so, but this desktop? It's been able to do everything I've needed it to do for the last 7 years, so I continue to use it. [edited for grammar]
  - hrktb 6y ago
    I don't totally agree with GP, but I think their global point was that during a long time (all the 2010s ?) there was just no decent Mac Pro. Outside of the Mac mini, the most powerful desktop machine was actually iMacs, with all the compromises that come with the form factor, and the trashcan Mac Pro who was thermally constrained. In that period, no amount of money would have helped to get peak storage + network + graphic performance for instance. We are now in a slightly better place where as you point out, throwing insane amounts of money towards Apple solves most of these issues. Except for those who don't want a T2 chip, or need an open bootloader.
pulse7 6y ago
There are many readers who don't want to see Apple being criticized so they are downvoting it...

socialdemocrat 6y ago

What Apple could have done is to continue supplying something like the G4 towers. Those where stunningly beautiful machines and practical.

Heliosmaster 6y ago
What if they simply decided that they didn't care for that part of the market? At some point we should just accept that.
- rini17 6y ago
  Okay, but offering no machine suitable for developers and power users will eventually hurt them when they leave whole ecosystem.
  - unicornfinder 6y ago
    Quite possibly - I was a huge Apple fan who's now using a PC because I was fed up with the lack of viable options for me.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Apple will certainly offer an ARM-based MacPro, but I'm assuming it'll be a very different beast - current one maxes out at 1.5TB of RAM and it doesn't seem likely anyone will integrate that much memory on a chip anytime soon ;-) Memory bandwidth is one key feature impacting M1's performance. When Apple builds an ARM-based MacPro, we can expect something with at the very least 5 DDR5 channels per socket. It's clear, from this, the M1 is a laptop/AIO/compact-desktop chip.
      - sliken 6y ago
        The M1 already has 8 LPDDR4x channels per socket, running at 4266MHz.
        6y ago

Demiurge 6y ago

Being “fickle” is kind of hard to apply to a market segment, because it not a synchronized monolith. There clearly is demand for decent machines hackingtoshes make. It’s just that the mobile market is much higher ROI. So, any R&D other Apple products get are some coincidental opportunities. This entire M1 change is a happy accident. So it’s not that hackingtosh builders are anything, at all, it’s that they’re outnumbered by iPhone buys 1 to a million.

Shivetya 6y ago

Considering how much the gaming side of the PC market will drop on just a single card I am more of the opinion that Apple chose to avoid this market because it did not want the association with gaming as if that were beneath their machines. At times there seemed to be a real disdain for the people who loved upgrading their machines as well as those who gamed on them. Apple's products were not meant to be improved by anyone other than Apple and you don't sully them with games. The Mac Pro seems to be the ultimate expression of "You are not worthy" from the base system which was priced beyond reason to the monitor and stand. It was the declaration of, "fine, if you want to play then it will cost you" because they didn't really care about the enthusiast of the wrong use - games and such.

llampx 6y ago
Why do they highlight games at every WWDC and product announcement?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  To let the fans have a bathroom break.

valuearb 6y ago

A big part of saving Apple was Jobs killing the clone program. That lesson probably still resonates in the halls of Apple even if allowing hackintoshes is a different thing without the same risks.

bitL 6y ago

> Apple does not want to offer to the hackintosh/enthusiast market because they are the most price conscious segment. Targeting that segment means putting out extremely performant, low-margin commodity machines. Doing so then cannibalizes the market for their ultra-high-end stuff. Looking over the shoulder at a 64-core Threadripper with 256GB of ECC RAM, 3090FE, Titan RTX and Radeon VII, yeah right. Some of us do Hackintoshing because we want more dope specs than what Apple offers and customizability that comes with PC hardware.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

When Apple first mandated kext signing (Mountain Lion?) they explicitly whitelisted certain community built kexts used for Hackintosh. IMO Apple and the Hackintosh community has been mutually benefited until now. Many who have accustomed to macOS from Hackintosh has eventually invested in Apple products. Considering Apple has only went after those who profiteered by selling pre-built Hackintosh and not everyone who are profiteering from Hackintosh scene; I would say Apple did care about the Hackintosh community in some way. I thought the higher performance/price Hackintosh, especially with Ryzen might force Apple to act differently but now with M1, Apple needn't worry about Hackintosh performance/price anymore.

raxxorrax 6y ago

They certainly wouldn't want to scare away developers, others have suffered greatly due to neglecting them and developers seems to be getting rarer. You always want the enthusiasts and of course they buy new hardware to look for ways how they can make it work for them. Many devs also have a high income so that price isn't as important anymore.