As
@maflynn implied, MacOS may not be sold but its intrinsic cost is included in the high price of a Mac computer.
Which is irrelevant. The argument is that Apple wants to force people to run macOS on Apple hardware (which obviously ignores that Bootcamp is a thing that exists and is supported).
My point is that Apple gains nothing by blocking Linux deliberately - they're not going to support it, but the lack of compatibility with Linux is a case of "not our problem" not "oh no you don't"
People may claim that Apple is a hardware company but, I believe that very few people would purchase the hardware without MacOS.
Again irrelevant. You cannot buy macOS from Apple, and in their eyes you cannot run macOS without buying Apple hardware. There is zero threat to them of people buying Apple hardware, and running Linux on it - those people have already paid their share of macOS development costs.
Windows revenue accounts for only about 20% of Microsoft's
Windows 10 is about 4 years old, Microsoft revenue since that time is about $444B, and 20% of that is $88.8B, so that's
double what I guesstimated as how much Microsoft "makes" from Windows.
The argument here was that Microsoft took steps to prevent competitors to Windows being installed on PCs. They have a reason to: if Aunt Fanny is happy to use Ubuntu why does she need to pay $130 for a new Windows licence?
Apple doesn't have the same drive: no one pays for macOS directly (so installing Linux means they've still been paid for the software even if you only use the hardware), there's no cost advantage to the 'competition', and they
already support Mac hardware for a long god damn time. I just replaced a 2011 MBP last year. 7 years, they provided software updates for it. If they wanted to force people to keep buying newer hardware, they'd start by dropping software support for machines they don't even sell parts for!
And yes, you pay big time for MacOS and iOS. Just because it is not a separate charge on the invoice doesn't mean this cost isn't included.
And, irrelevant to my point.
[doublepost=1557853003][/doublepost]
Business is different, you may not be aware but enterprises pay a subscription
So, literally
more incentive for Microsoft's actions? Are you trying to make my point for me now?
They also sell hardware period.
How many PCs that might conceivably run Windows or Linux, do Microsoft sell?
Really, someone should tell Apple not to sell software
When did I say they don't sell software?
You raised this whole topic of "well Microsoft were ****** about letting Linux boot" - my point is that the two companies have very different business models, and thus what you see as "similar" end result, is not necessarily similar intention.
[doublepost=1557853296][/doublepost]
I think you're missing the point period.
One of us certainly is.
Apple like MS tried to lock down their hardware
But you haven't shown any evidence that Linux' inability to run on a T2 equipped Mac is anything but lack of support in drivers - there is zero evidence that it's a deliberate attempt to prevent it from running, if they wanted to prevent it, why would they allow safe boot to be disabled at all, hell why would they allow ****ing bootcamp if they don't want people to run anything but macOS?
Have you never heard of Hanlon's Razor?
