To answer one of the questions posed in the post, Apple doesn't bother preventing hackintoshes because their target market isn't folks who want to search the web for hacked drivers, custom build their own computers, or even crack open the memory bay on their laptops. They're not going to make money on us. Apple is looking for customers who want to pay for their clever and attractive designs, who want a system (HW and SW) that is easy to use (no searching for hacked drivers required), and are looking for something other than the standard PC beige box. Otherwise, how could they justify their price premium? They can't beat the Dells nor Neweggs of the world on volume with their current market share so they're not trying to.
Its a little like the RIAA's argument that they're losing kagillions of dollars on music piracy. Actually, in my opinion, the pirated music is making its way into the hands of people who simply would not have bought it if their only option were to pay full price. They really don't lose anything. Apple is simply smart enough to not bother adding additional complexity to prevent what isn't really a loss (and could be seen as a free gain).
As an example, look at how much they charge for memory upgrades: Going from a base-model macbook to one with 4GB of RAM adds $500 to the cost of a new system. The same upgrade from crucial.com, which guarantees compatibility, costs $109. I would argue that upgrading the RAM on a laptop is even easier than doing so on most desktop systems. While I doubt they sell many Macbooks with 4GB RAM, I also don't think they're loosing much business to DIY upgraders like you and me.
I think the point is running OSX on your hardware of choice. Why should we be limited to the extremely limited choices of hardware that apple offers? (well, besides to make Apple more money.) This is why the Hackintosh exists.
"I already have a Mac but integrating that in to my normal desktop machine rather than needing to keep two sets of hardware and switching between them has a certain level of attractiveness to it."
obviously you're aware of the alternatives, but I have to wonder why you say this with no mention of 1) running Windows in BootCamp (which would give the exact same effect as your Hackintosh), or 2) running Windows in Parallels or VMWare Unity?
Both of these methods are legal and supported.
Because a lot of people don't want to run Windows at all. This isn't about a bootcamp situation, there's a lot of software that's just nicer on OS X than Windows, Twitterific, Handbrake, and Adium come to mind to start. I have a Mac Mini at the moment, and am mostly satisfied, but I crave better graphics performance. Even if the mythical xMac doesn't come to fruition, a Mini-esque box with either a better video card onboard, or a single PCIe card slot would be a huge deal for Apple, and probably squelch most of the Hackintosh attempts out there.
I also am a Mac user, and do agree with you that "a lot" or even most software is nicer on OS X - that's one of the main reasons I use Mac. I also run VMWare Unity for the single Windows application I can't live without - MS Money.
But the author clearly still wants to run both Windows and OS X, hence his comment "needing to keep two sets of hardware and switching between them", implying he runs both Windows and OS X for different reasons, and wants to integrate all his uses onto one machine. Which is a fine goal, but when broaching this subject, I would expect at the least some mention that this goal is already fully attainable using free (Boot Camp) or retail (Unity, Parallels) software on a Mac. If he has a reason not to use this solutions, that's fine, but I would expect him to at least acknowledge their existence.
Let me get this straight because you don't want to run windows at all (which isn't a goal of the Author), the the author shouldn't point out other alternatives to running hackintosh?
One could argue that if you want the extra slots or better graphics, you should invest in something other than the cheapest Mac.
Learned a lot from this. My buddy from https://www.werepairappliances.ca/ was telling me about how to build a Mackintosh, but now I know he was wrong lol. good stuff.
As a stone mason I find building anything interesting. When I read "Hackintosh" I had to see what this was about. If you like building as much as I do check out https://www.stonemasonryottawa.ca/ to learn about building stone walls and suchlike. Thanks for the article.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
Back to Article
heulenwolf - Monday, March 3, 2008 - link
To answer one of the questions posed in the post, Apple doesn't bother preventing hackintoshes because their target market isn't folks who want to search the web for hacked drivers, custom build their own computers, or even crack open the memory bay on their laptops. They're not going to make money on us. Apple is looking for customers who want to pay for their clever and attractive designs, who want a system (HW and SW) that is easy to use (no searching for hacked drivers required), and are looking for something other than the standard PC beige box. Otherwise, how could they justify their price premium? They can't beat the Dells nor Neweggs of the world on volume with their current market share so they're not trying to.Its a little like the RIAA's argument that they're losing kagillions of dollars on music piracy. Actually, in my opinion, the pirated music is making its way into the hands of people who simply would not have bought it if their only option were to pay full price. They really don't lose anything. Apple is simply smart enough to not bother adding additional complexity to prevent what isn't really a loss (and could be seen as a free gain).
As an example, look at how much they charge for memory upgrades: Going from a base-model macbook to one with 4GB of RAM adds $500 to the cost of a new system. The same upgrade from crucial.com, which guarantees compatibility, costs $109. I would argue that upgrading the RAM on a laptop is even easier than doing so on most desktop systems. While I doubt they sell many Macbooks with 4GB RAM, I also don't think they're loosing much business to DIY upgraders like you and me.
unatommer - Friday, February 29, 2008 - link
I think the point is running OSX on your hardware of choice. Why should we be limited to the extremely limited choices of hardware that apple offers? (well, besides to make Apple more money.) This is why the Hackintosh exists.agentlion - Friday, February 29, 2008 - link
"I already have a Mac but integrating that in to my normal desktop machine rather than needing to keep two sets of hardware and switching between them has a certain level of attractiveness to it."obviously you're aware of the alternatives, but I have to wonder why you say this with no mention of 1) running Windows in BootCamp (which would give the exact same effect as your Hackintosh), or 2) running Windows in Parallels or VMWare Unity?
Both of these methods are legal and supported.
AncientRelic - Friday, February 29, 2008 - link
Because a lot of people don't want to run Windows at all. This isn't about a bootcamp situation, there's a lot of software that's just nicer on OS X than Windows, Twitterific, Handbrake, and Adium come to mind to start. I have a Mac Mini at the moment, and am mostly satisfied, but I crave better graphics performance. Even if the mythical xMac doesn't come to fruition, a Mini-esque box with either a better video card onboard, or a single PCIe card slot would be a huge deal for Apple, and probably squelch most of the Hackintosh attempts out there.agentlion - Monday, March 3, 2008 - link
you've obviously missed my point.I also am a Mac user, and do agree with you that "a lot" or even most software is nicer on OS X - that's one of the main reasons I use Mac. I also run VMWare Unity for the single Windows application I can't live without - MS Money.
But the author clearly still wants to run both Windows and OS X, hence his comment "needing to keep two sets of hardware and switching between them", implying he runs both Windows and OS X for different reasons, and wants to integrate all his uses onto one machine. Which is a fine goal, but when broaching this subject, I would expect at the least some mention that this goal is already fully attainable using free (Boot Camp) or retail (Unity, Parallels) software on a Mac. If he has a reason not to use this solutions, that's fine, but I would expect him to at least acknowledge their existence.
nilepez - Saturday, March 1, 2008 - link
Let me get this straight because you don't want to run windows at all (which isn't a goal of the Author), the the author shouldn't point out other alternatives to running hackintosh?One could argue that if you want the extra slots or better graphics, you should invest in something other than the cheapest Mac.
DSson - Saturday, August 22, 2020 - link
Learned a lot from this. My buddy from https://www.werepairappliances.ca/ was telling me about how to build a Mackintosh, but now I know he was wrong lol. good stuff.EMspark - Friday, January 1, 2021 - link
As a stone mason I find building anything interesting. When I read "Hackintosh" I had to see what this was about. If you like building as much as I do check out https://www.stonemasonryottawa.ca/ to learn about building stone walls and suchlike. Thanks for the article.