It is baffling to me that Apple, ostensibly a hardware company (that happens to be pursuing services revenue the way a crackhead pursues crack), ridiculously flush with cash, doesn’t throw 2 or 3 of their thousands of FTEs on this. The goodwill/brand marketing alone is worth their comp, and it will absolutely move units as well. Linux people LOVE laptops, and Apple makes the best laptops by a parsec. It seems like 10x ROI would be a conservative estimate.
Apple is a digital services company that happens to sell hardware. Their big money maker is their app store, and no Linux user is ever going to buy apps from the app store.
They still have the Darwin kernel open,but more and more of the open core is moving to closed components, a recipe for what Google started doing to Android. Now that they're no longer the hipster underdog, I don't think they care much about the brand marketing. You already believe they make the best laptops by far, what more marketing do they need?
AFAIK Apple’s “services” revenue is a little over a quarter of their total; everything else is hardware, dominated by the iPhone. Mac hardware is <10% of total revenue.
iPhones are largely locked to their App Store so no risk there. Macs (currently) aren’t locked to the App Store - and I’d guess that Mac App Store usage is middling as a result.
Which is to say, I doubt that a marginal Mac App Store revenue hit from a small proportion of users switching to Linux over MacOS is the driver for not supporting Linux development. I’d guess it’s more about an inflexible company culture and maybe not wanting to extend their area of responsibility and risk.
Revenue wise, the services part is not that large. Profit-wise, though, I don't believe the same is true. Their 30% cut is barely costing them anything compared to manufacturing hardware and physical logistics.
I don't think the Mac App Store is going to get to iPhone levels of lock-down soon, but Apple thinks in ecosystems, not just in laptops. If you have an iMac, you probably have an iPhone, and you're probably going to buy an iPad should you ever want a tablet.
If they wanted, they could open source all of the drivers necessary to boot an OS as part of their Darwin core, but they choose not to. That actually breaks with their older, more open development style. I guess they just don't see the benefit of being open any longer.
Yeah probably they want to be free to bork it, but if they released some documentation or patches, they'd be expected to keep them up to date and working at the very least.
>Apple is a digital services company that happens to sell hardware. Their big money maker is their app store, and no Linux user is ever going to buy apps from the app store.
You do realize that Apple is a public company and one can just go look at their financials like their latest 10-Q [0] right? For the most recent 6 month half (ending March 28 2026) I'm seeing $194 billion for product sales and $61 billion for service sales. The gross margins are certainly higher on services, at 77%, but 40% product margins are nothing to sneeze at either, and the disparity in absolute sales means the absolute dollar gross margins are $77 billion for products vs $46 billion for services.
So I don't see how you can assert that their "big money maker is their app store" from those numbers. Hardware matters a lot, and furthermore Apple sells services (like AppleCare+) that are specific to hardware and thus even a Linux user might still be interested in.
And without their hardware, their services would evaporate. There is a much tighter link there than with many companies. So they're on the hook for continued R&D and capex on that no matter what, you can't really separate that out, and in turn it's always going to be useful to have more volume to amortize it with.
I think primarily it comes down to corporate DNA, which is powerful. There are plenty of Mac hardware, software and service markets in pro/business/enterprise Apple has neglected or abandoned over the years, including ones making oodles of money, not out of any 4D chess but just because it doesn't fit them as an organization.
why do people just make stuff up ? apple is a hardware company with supply chain excellence that eclipses most pc manufs giving them entire verticals of control, that joined the services game later on. their services don't even come close to the offerings of other tech giants and they're largely okay with it. the bulk of their revenue has always been and continues to be hardware and the bulk of their r&d war chest funds the development and advancement of hardware.
I think Apple sees the writing on the wall with hardware feature increases and hardware longevity.
Sell a phone that is good for a few years, or get sell a phone and also get monthly 100% margin payments indefinitely? Given that phones are going to be useful for longer and longer periods, the replacement/upgrade cycle is definitely going to slow. They’re running out of compelling reasons you MUST have the new phone, falling back on dumb shit like making it stupid colors so you can wield it like a $1400 status symbol. It already does all of the camera and video stuff any normal person could ever ask for, which was previously the main way of differentiating smartphones.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the internal mandate/goal is equal services profit to hardware profit. It is a LOT cheaper and easier to vibe code new services than to design and build new features into the best phone in the world that has already been aggressively iterated on for two decades. Additionally, new signups are all profit as the marginal cost of additional subscribers is zero. Apple’s future is in subscriptions, that’s clear.
Are they there now? No. Does almost every single product decision they have made in the last 10 years point to this future? Absolutely. This “sign up pretty please” user-hostile bullshit (which now everywhere in all products, or nudged toward by all products) is the most un-Apple thing that I have ever witnessed in my 30+ years spent watching hawk-eyed at every single product, accessory, product variation, and service they have ever released.
I sometimes wonder if Jobs would have reached the same conclusion and pulled the company into the same direction in service of profitmaxxing vs spending the company’s time and resources producing and selling things that are insanely great. Can you name one Apple service that is insanely great? (iMessage’s uptime comes to mind, but that doesn’t directly generate subscriptions, and certainly doesn’t generate a single shred of the unalloyed glee in customers that was the characteristic phenomenon that originally put Apple on the map for decades.)
(Unrelated to this topic, the closest I get to that feeling anymore mostly gets caused by DJI and Anker.)
If there was a Linux Apple App Store, I would buy stuff from it. I already buy from Steam. OSS doesn't have the answer to everything. Boutique software has value that people are willing to pay for.
Linux applications are being sold. In fact, GPL-licensed applications get sold, so it's not even the OSS part that's holding you back. ElementaryOS even has its optionally-paid app store: https://appcenter.elementary.io/ Autodesk and other industrial software providers are quite happy to sell you software, though unfortunately not through a unified app store.
In practice, I expect a paid Linux app store to go down about as well as the Microsoft Store has. Especially now, in the age of vibecoding.
Apple's profit margins on many services are at 76% (according to Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2026/01/13/apples-de...), over twice that of their hardware sales. Margins are higher on reselling licensed content (their Spotify and Netflix alternatives), but their customer base for those is still rapidly growing according to their 2025 report.
That's not what you said. Their margins on software and hardware are irrelevant to what they, as a company, make most money off on — which was your original claim on which you are wrong and got called out on.
So annoying when people can't just admit they're wrong and instead gaslight people with their changed narrative.
Hardware revenue is 3x the services revenue, even with half the margins it still generates more profit than services. I get that Apple would like to increase service revenue but they are a hardware company at heart and their financial statements show it too
Because Apple is not just a hardware company anymore. They track users and they sell ads. Sure, they are not at the same level as Meta and Google, but their ad platform is not insignificant anymore. Also that same software platform allows to get more money out of their users via their App Store.
Selling hardware with the software that helps them track means more revenue than the same hardware with the software.
I believe Google's Safari payments are a significant chunk of services revenue too (around $20 billion a year.) Then there's Apple TV and Apple Music, which are not nothing.
The activities you're proclaiming to be Apple's bread and butter in an effort to conflate them with Google and Meta are actually a rounding error. What is it about Apple that makes people have these crazy ideas?
> Because Apple is not just a hardware company anymore. They track users and they sell ads. Sure, they are not at the same level as Meta and Google, but their ad platform is not insignificant anymore.
Presumably, tightly controlling what software runs on their hardware (by not supporting alternatives like Asahi) enables Apple to surveil their users through the OS and associated services (app store, iCloud, email, location services, etc.)
My father purchased a new MacBook just in time to avoid the recent price increase. It wasn't because his old one didn't work anymore; it was because Apple wouldn't support it on more recent macOS versions, and some applications he runs daily (like Teams) don't work anymore on the latest supported macOS for that MacBook. Apple is an hardware company, and forcing you to upgrade your hardware gives them revenue. Admittedly, his MacBook lasted longer than many other laptops would have. But, if it wasn't for the outdated OS, he would have been happy to keep using it because the hardware was still fine for office use.
Depends on the point of view, as it is Apple not supporting that MacBook anymore, and Microsoft could have a point in not supporting macOS versions that Apple doesn't want to support anymore. You could even argue that he forced the update on himself, since the web version still worked. The point remains that somehow without upgrading the hardware some software he uses everyday doesn't work anymore.
I would put it squarely on Microsoft in this case. They decided to make their software not function anymore. Why not let older Teams clients still function and communicate with the newer?
Apple still pushes updates and security updates to OS versions which are not the latest. So I don't see how they can be blamed much here.
That's over 10 years of service. But if it's a Pro, then the latest OS officially supported is Monterey, which received its last update in 2024. So I would consider that very fair of Apple, even impressive.
It is fair if you compare Apple with other manufacturers, but it is still unfair in absolute terms. The hardware still works, and the work they're doing to support other models would let macOS work on that laptop as well, as proven by tools that let you do the upgrade unofficially.
Eh, with prebuilt PCs it’s muddy because the bulk of heavy lifting is done by Microsoft, not the manufacturer. It’s not unusual at all to pull up the firmware/drivers/etc page for a random laptop and find that updates stopped rolling out about 2 years after its introduction to the market, despite Reddit and similar being filled with reports of firmware bugs for that particular model.
Food for thought: Apple’s services make more revenue than Macs and iPads combined, and they do so at a higher profit margin. There’s your answer.
I don’t agree that Apple makes the best laptops by a parsec. Not anymore, many alternatives are closing the gap. This is aided by the fact that Apple hasn’t touched the MacBook Pro chassis in 5 years, making it quite dated especially with the underutilized, oversized notch and the horrendous menu bar software implementation that plagues the notch as a real problem for me and something that doesn’t just “disappear into the background.” The software solution is to just disappear menu bar items that don’t fit, making them unusable.
Apple is still the gold standard, don’t get me wrong. But I’ve got my Framework 13 Pro preorder in, and the list of compromises compared to a Mac is very short. My existing Framework 13 is already close enough and the Pro appears to fix 100% of the gripes I have with my system.
CNC machined chassis? Check. Haptic trackpad? Check. Graphics performance? Better than the M5 (non-Pro). Battery life? 20 hours of video playback.
And I’ll be getting numerous advantages over a MacBook: cross-compatible modular hardware, upgradable RAM and storage, customizable I/O, low cost DIY repairs, 3:2 screen ratio ideal for coding.
But this is just one laptop. If you explore the windows laptop space, there are a lot of great machines these days. Windows is really the weakest part of the equation, and you can just get rid of that.
I’ve myself eyed the Zephyrus G14 or G16 as a gaming and general purpose system in a MacBook Pro-sized form factor. It’s refined, it feels premium, the OLED display is gorgeous. Apple’s best chips can’t touch the graphics performance of a dedicated Nvidia GPU, so long as a huge amount of VRAM isn’t a requirement for you.
There are also laptops in the Lenovo Yoga line that are extremely compelling against a MacBook Air.
Yeah, they pretty much lied about that. It is only in a special Windows ultra-power saving mode that heavily throttles background tasks, forces the screen to be 30% lower brightness, heavily downclocks the CPU (50%+ less performance!), etc; The MacBook has to do no such tricks.
You're not gonna see Frameworks that equal the perf-per-watt of Apple until they release a model with a Snapdragon chip.
Frameworks have one benefit that other laptops don't: there's only a few parts. So for example for your Framework speakers you can find an EasyEffects / Pipewire (+bankstown?) tune profile that makes them sound better than 99% of laptops on the market. It's basically the Raspberry Pi effect.
It is well-documented that Panther Lake is highly power efficient. I wouldn’t personally argue against that.
The days of assuming that Apple has the best chip efficiency are coming to an end, especially if the Windows/Qualcomm platform is a workable choice for your needs (maybe someday Linux support will get better).
Apple still has a lead but it’s small enough that it’s not a good reason to choose an Apple system on its own. The M1 MacBook systems got double the battery life of competitors, now 5 years later, Apple systems are at best getting ~10% better battery life than competitors, and some systems like the XPS 14 have Apple beat entirely.
Obviously getting 20 hours in real world productivity use was never realistic, and it’s not realistic on a MacBook Pro, either. I disagree that framework was “basically lying.” They live-streamed the laptop hitting 20 hours, it doesn’t matter that they changed settings to get there. MacBooks have a brightness slider, too. You aren’t getting anywhere close to 20 hours on a MacBook without turning the screen brightness down.
IIRC the MacBook Air/Pro can’t even make it to 20 hours regardless of settings.
The point is that the new framework 13 Pro laptop isn’t a 5-7 hour battery life experience like the previous models. Instead, you can expect 10+ hours depending on what you’re doing it, so it’s a full work day.
As far as I can tell, Framework’s claimed battery numbers require Windows to achieve, which is more than enough reason for many to not consider the FW 13 Pro as an option. If it can’t run Linux without sacrifice compared to Windows there’s no point.
Standby time is likely also a major issue, unless Intel suddenly reversed course and decided to support proper sleep again.
It’s still going to be a respectable performer in Linux. The whole point of the 20 hour stunt was to show that it’s a major improvement and not a small one. Maybe it would have been better to show a default-settings Linux and Windows for comparison but I can understand why they wanted to hit 20 hours for marketing.
Framework specifically has stated that they worked very hard to improve standby time and claim that it’s dramatically better. Being able to use LPDDR5x LP-CAMM2 modules aids in standby time significantly. We’ll find out soon when the first reviewers get their retail units in, probably within a month or so.
For standby time, my current framework 13 has never bothered me. It’s great that Macs have incredible standby but it’s much less of a dealbreaker than I originally thought it would be. I just have sleep to hibernate set up in Linux.
My system sleeps for 2 hours then hibernates afterward. If I am putting my system down for 2 hours I’m likely done using it for the day anyway.
If you can point out where my goalposts moved I’d be happy to entertain the idea, but I’m not seeing it.
To clarify for you, “moving the goalposts” means that I changed my definitions over time. You’ll notice that in my comments I never changed my definition of what it means to have good battery life. I know sometimes turns of phrase are easy to misuse so I hope that helps you out.
There’s no winner or loser here. We’re just discussing technology. I’d appreciate if you tried to add conversation value rather than just dissing me personally.
Panther Lake is an impressive chip. The only MacBook Pro that can achieve 20+ hours of battery life at all with any setting is the 16” model that comes with the largest battery capacity allowed on a commercial airplane. It’s really not framework’s achievement, it’s the chip that’s so good, and that’s great for consumers because you can find a lot of competition on the market that has the coveted “all day battery life” without compromising on performance.
Panther Lake is impressive for x86, but decidedly middling when stacked up against a field including ARM.
The problem is that x86 can (almost) match ARM battery life but at much worse performance, or match the performance at much worse battery life. That's what the statistics don't show you when they show either max performance or max battery life tests.
I repeat it rather often on this site but it's because they're such impressive numbers: an M1 Ultra gets 70% of the performance of an RTX 3090 at 25% of the power envelope, and it beats out a desktop class Core i9 from that era at 30% of the power envelope.
Nvidia, Intel and AMD would commit murder for those kind of perf per watt numbers.
Is there a laptop with super-awesome battery life on Linux? I'll buy one if so.
I'm not sure it's fair to ding Framework specifically for not being able to make Linux battery life as good as Windows. Is that actually something they could reasonably fix?
It’s not about dinging Framework specifically and more about if you want *nix and top tier battery life, MacBooks remain the best option.
My understanding is that the reason why Linux still struggles in this front is that nobody has put in the hardware-specific optimization work to make it happen. There’s also some friction with how the bulk of Linux dev attention is paid to servers rather than portable consumer hardware.
Along those lines, IMO these "spec wars" are not that important. I get that some people want the best bang for their buck, but pretty much everything has more than enough speed and battery life for most practical uses in my opinion.
I am probably not competent to improve linux battery life myself (or at least I certainly don't have the time to get into that). But I can choose to spend my money on hardware and companies that explicitly support Linux, even if they aren't at the very top of the spec sheet. This has the best practical chance of convincing big-money companies and Linux kernel experts to actually spend time and money on this. Meanwhile, buying a Macbook and installing Linux on it is fine, I guess, but also invisible to the corporate world.
On this note, the world where buying a Framework or really any other Windows PC meant getting roughly 1/2 the battery life of a MacBook really doesn't exist anymore like it did in 2020, so long as you do your research and buy the right system.
I think there's a lot of assumption among the group of people who have stuck with MacBooks since the M1 days that shopping the competition means compromising with a huge performance/battery life/value gap, but that reality that existed in 2020 is much different than the current situation in 2026.
If you are in the market for a MacBook Air for the kinds of things that most people use MacBook Airs for, the average user won't notice that the battery life or performance on a computer equipped with a Panther Lake or Qualcomm chip is different from a MacBook Air at all.
Are these chips exactly the same price/performance ratio of an M5? Maybe not. But, if it's close enough, it's close enough.
There are ones with decent to good battery life. There are none with awesome battery life and abso-fucking-lutely none for super-awesome battery life.
That was one thing I never realized I needed until I had it. Having my laptop basically be optional to charge 99% of the time I use it changed my life. I can take it out with 20% left having not charged it in a week and still get a workday out of it. wtaf
Killer battery life is a defining feature of a laptop in my opinion, unless we’re talking hulking desktop replacement workstation laptops or something. Aside from physical attributes, nothing modulates portability like battery life does.
The user of a laptop with top tier battery life isn’t tethered to the wall, doesn’t need to care about availability of power outlets, and in many circumstances doesn’t even need to carry a charging cable and brick (or if they do, they can get by on trickle-charging with a tiny 15w phone brick overnight). This kind of laptop is in its own class of ultraportability.
I checked a 16” framework last week comparing to the 24/48GiB MBP. The ssd is significantly faster, the RAM is almost twice as fast, the CPU has more cores. The only benefit is having a dedicated gpu. At more or less the same price.
Admittedly, the screen ratio is better with the framework. But prefer the matte screen of the MacBook.
I personally think the 13 Pro is the one that’s truly competitive, the 16” is a very different story and not something I recommend specifically.
Someone looking that machine who wants strong GPU performance, I’d probably send over to a Zephyrus G16 or something like that, and give up the modularity.
SSD and RAM speed specs aren’t really something that impacts the user experience unless you’re doing local LLM work.
What does impact the user experience, for example, is having access to hundreds of thousands of PC games by not being platform locked. Or maybe your user experience is impacted by having upgradable storage.
This obviously depends on individual needs, and I’m certainly not saying either system is bad. But I am saying that the Apple “experience” is often assumed to be the best when it does have some downsides.
Even the fact that there’s no charge port on the right side of the MacBook Air/Neo is a user experience downside (of course, not every PC laptop has that feature, but you can find them in the same price category as the Air).
I sold my MacBook Pro because I needed 2TB and couldn’t afford it from Apple. Being stuck with 512GB when 2TB drives cost under $200 at the time was stifling.
I’m mainly looking at the 16” mbp because of the beautiful screen and the refined hardware. For the work I use the laptop on my lap for (or in the evening at the kitchen table) to compare products, research holidays etc, I notice that 13” is too small to comfortably hold two browsers next to each other plus room for notes.
Then sometimes when I’m on the go I like to play a game or two, but nothing seriously requiring graphics power
SSD speed and RAM speed start mattering when memory pressure is high. And when doing stuff with video and photo editing.
The storage price is indeed steep and now the RAM price as well. I wish I hit the buy button when I had the chance before the price increase.
The battery life stinks, the build quality is subpar and the fan runs all the time. If you don't care about anything that makes the MacBook Pro a premium device, then sure you can be overpriced consumer-grade slop that has a slight edge in specs (except CPU). But it's a miserable trade-off.
I would recommend something like a Zephyrus G16 to someone who is interested in a 16” laptop with powerful graphics and a MacBook Pro-like footprint.
It’s easy to diss Apple alternatives and call them unrefined and all that, but to the right person, there are downsides to a Mac.
For example, the current MacBook Pro models with higher end chips prioritize quietness over heat and get very hot to the touch under heavy workloads.
Unless you are in music production, a little fan noise never hurt anyone, and the idea that windows laptops sound like hair dryers when doing basic tasks like browsing the web is very outdated.
Apple is revered for refinement and quality yet they get some basic ergonomics wrong like the sharp edges near your wrist and the notch blocking the menu bar.
Never thought I'd think about switching from Apple. M1 was handsdown the best buy ever and I was sure my next laptop would be an Apple as well. But looking at framework, this looks really nice. Apple-ish but without some of the drawbacks (also, while windows stinks, not really a MacOS fanboy tbh). Makes me kinda regret I was lazy and locked myself in using Apple passwords app.
Every dollar Apple would spend on Linux support, they could instead spend on other improvements which makes their products better for much more important customer groups.
Goodwill among Linux people have very low value, since this is a group who doesn't want to pay for stuff. Such goodwill might even have negative value.
And Apple has aggressively been making new offers for these customer groups. Such as their Creator Studio, which is probably hated among Linux people, but a great offer for normal people who need and want to get real stuff done on the computer.
They've been like this long before they were a digital services company. 25 years ago Yellow Dog Linux (another RPM based distro) had the same challenges working with PowerPC. The scientific community was clamoring for an open platform to use their native Linux software with the PowerPC, YDL filled that niche, and Apple watched their struggles supporting Linux on their platform with detached amusement.
Kinda think Asahi is not going to fair too much better in this fight. It’s an interesting exercise but most people won’t buy a Mac to use Linux. The only reason I’d buy an overpriced piece of hardware is because it can run Linux very well. But apparently people like me is negligible.
The big difference I see is in the chip. The PowerPC arguably had its benefits (vectorization) which made it super attractive for bioinformatics, etc., and a lot of that software was Linux-based. People could either buy a super-computer or a G4 (or a cluster of G4s) and get the work they needed done for a fraction of the cost. MacOS (and OSX) were behind on a lot of this stuff compared to Linux then.
Today from what I see the M3-M5 chips are a big leap forward compared to their competitors, and it just happened to hit at the same time LLMs became popular. I imagine there are some similar, specialized needs with the M[1-5] chips that might benefit from Linux but with OSX's stronger BSD underpinnings it's a different world.
Apple open-sourced their container tooling and they also support Linux in their Virtualization framework. Anyone can run any compatible Linux now in a VM, with bare-metal speed but limited to virtio devices. To me it's baffling that more people don't run Linux this way.
> To me it's baffling that more people don't run Linux this way.
Why? People have been using Orbstack, Lima and Docker long before Apple shipped first-party container tooling. The virtualization support was never ever a problem.
For actual dedicated server usage, macOS itself is the problem. You want to be running Proxmox on baremetal, nobody wants to administer headless macOS machines by-hand.
Their amazing laptop hardware pushes you into their ecosystem. Once you're on macOS, might as well get iphone rather than Android and benefit from the synergy, same for airpods or the apple watch.
The only reason I'd see support for Asahi making sense for Apple is a Firefox situation, keeping the project alive to prove to regulators that there are alternatives.
Nobody gets promoted for building open-source software at corpos. It is allowed, at best, not condoned. So what manager is going to go for this? Let's dedicate our limited resources to gratuitous goodwill work. Carrer suicide, I expect. Unfortunately.
How would you fit Red Hat in this picture? I think the situation could be different, if it is about improving some software the company is using for its business. Not that this happens often, but I think the possibility to persuade managment that improving a piece of software crucial for the company's business is there.
They still have people working on FOSS, right? I didn't know about what your saying,but if this is the problem, then what if I gave Canonical as an example?
> It is baffling to me that Apple, ostensibly a hardware company (that happens to be pursuing services revenue the way a crackhead pursues crack), ridiculously flush with cash, doesn’t throw 2 or 3 of their thousands of FTEs on this.
Why should they when they have macOS already?
> Linux people LOVE laptops, and Apple makes the best laptops by a parsec. It seems like 10x ROI would be a conservative estimate.
How many people who buy Apple silicon laptops do it to run Linux on it? less than 10,000 or 20,000 people?
You should not expect Apple to care about what Linux users want. The closest you are getting from them is being able to boot a custom OS or kernel.
Everything else from the drivers to the secure enclave they do not care.
> No one buys Apple Silicon laptops to run Linux because they can barely run Linux.
Almost no-one bought Intel Macs for dual-booting Linux either (Unless you are Linus Torvalds and a tiny amount of people who use Linux on Intel Macs).
> But if they could, Apple would sweep the market for Linux laptops.
Not true. They cannot even run Windows on them.
The entire point of Intel Macs was for running Windows on a Mac which that cohort is just as tiny as the Linux on Intel Mac customers.
Dual booting is generally reserved for those who are highly technical, so I would not expect Apple to care about either customer anyway. So that was tested already and Apple still did not care.
So of course they also do not care about Linux users who have Apple Silicon Macs either.
> The entire point of Intel Macs was for running Windows on a Mac
That wasn't the point for Apple. After pointing out that PowerPC hadn't hit 3GHz (as he had promised two years prior) and that there was no PowerBook G5, Steve Jobs clearly explained the rationale for intel Macs:
> As we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you, and we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC road map.
Windows on the Mac requires cooperation from Microsoft and Apple, and benefits Apple’s competition. It was always a strategy to get Windows users to switch sides, not to sell hardware.
Linux on the Mac requires only Apple’s initiative, and does not benefit their competitors.
> Not true. They cannot even run Windows on them.
Why does the Linux laptop market care about running Windows?
> Dual booting
I’m not talking about dual booting at all. Before Apple Silicon, if you wanted to buy a laptop to run Linux, the Intel Macbooks have always been a top-tier recommendation.
The market isn’t large, but it’s a soft power they’re giving up. Walk into a big tech’s office and you’ll no longer see only Macbooks, and it’s not because they have to run Windows.
I don't think they would. What market would that exactly be targeting? Devs, who are overwhelmingly just provided macbooks via their employer? They'll still run macOS because IT requires them to.
Linux Gamers? The arm story for proton still needs work (hopefully the steam frame will help). Nvidia+Microsoft are working on it with that new surface ultra, but verdicts out on whether that will boot Linux or not as its specifically a Microsoft partnership.
General non-dev, non-gaming, non-creative users? I don't think they'd buy a mac specifically for Linux either. That market is much better served by Framework, System76, Tuxedo, Lenovo (thinkpads), etc.
And Apple certainly isn't going to win over any FOSS purists either.
I think the intersection of "I want macbook pro hardware" and "I must run Linux natively on it for my workflow" is a lot smaller than you think.
Outside of the US, macOS is not that popular. Where I grew up, no school had Macs on their computer labs, but they did have Linux. You could have lived your entire life near computers and never been in contact with macOS. I had. The first time I saw macOS was in college in a digital media lab.
I like macOS, but I do prefer Linux.
I can't ask for a Framework, System76 or Tuxedo laptop at work because they don't sell them directly and locally (within my country). They don't want to risk importing these machines, sending them back if they're broken, and not having a local replacement. But since the iPod, Apple has had a meaningful global presence, so of course, I can ask for a Macbook.
For a while we could pick Intel Macbooks and install Linux, and maybe I live in a tiny bubble, but many people I know did just that.
Because Apple cuts support for old MacBooks eventually, even if the hardware still works perfectly. See also my other comment: https://hackertimes.com/item?id=48745199
That’s not a sales tactic. Apple supports their old hardware with updates longer than anyone in the industry. The recent ones have been due to the architecture transition, maintaining BC with amd64 has significant costs.
This is what I assumed as well, but online I found people who were able to update a ~2015 MacBook Pro to a version of macOS more recent than the latest supported one, and it still worked.
Both are true. Apple's official qualification, continuous integration, bug fixing, backporting, etc. takes more effort than a hobbyist getting things to (mostly) work. But the main issue for Apple is focus: Apple wants its product development organization to focus on the next new thing, not on the past.
I'm mostly OK with Apple's 7-10 years of support, but I also have older Macs that still work fine and that I wish were safe to connect to the internet while running macOS - without relying on various hacks or workarounds.
Why do you think that Apple doesn’t have developers internally that develops Linux for their own chips?
They obviously have a ton of people developing with linux and even asahi, else they wouldn’t been able to make adjustments in their uefi to shape the support of 3rd party OSes exactly how they wanted.
As apple no longer develop their own servers (OS), they even run some internal ”production” system on Linux, on their own hardware.
see homebrew, they could have made this an official thing but no, they prefer to let people work do their work for them and sleep on their mattress of cash
