Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I’m glad that Apple is finally updating their Macs again, but at the same time Apple has doubled-down on its refusal to sell user-serviceable, upgradeable, and expandable hardware at prices that are within reach for most customers. The laptops have soldered RAM and soldered storage. The Mac Mini and iMac Pro thankfully have DIMMs, but in order to keep the warranty, you have to visit an Apple-approved repair center to have a specialist perform the upgrade, which costs more than doing it yourself. After over two years of waiting, the Mac Pro announcement was a huge letdown since the cost of the only user-serviceable Mac has doubled from $2999 to $5999, alienating Mac Pro users who can afford a $2999 computer but not a $5999 one.

It’s one thing for me to buy a “disposable computer” when it is priced very low. It’s another thing for me when you can’t upgrade or service computers with premium-priced parts in them. This is a trend I don’t support.

Unfortunately the only way to protest Apple’s business decisions is to leave the Mac, which means giving up macOS, which I find a more productive environment for me than Windows or any of the Linux desktops like KDE and GNOME. I started using macOS back when Macs were user-serviceable, upgradeable, and reasonably affordable. I continue using the Mac for macOS, but I’m finding myself alienated by Apple's business decisions.

I wish the situation for personal computer operating systems were better. I want PC hardware with an operating system that has the same power, attention to detail, usability, and reliability that macOS has. At this point I am willing to spend my spare time on such a project.

Actually, I'm in the middle of writing an e-mail to the Tim address at Apple, saying that if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far) they really need to take the next step, be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.

Apple in the last 20 pushed the boundaries in terms of sleek and slim, but I argue those are last century's imperatives. Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'. Conspicuous non consumption might be the new fashion statement.

Tim from Apple is paying money to its PR department that gives away money to "green" organizations exactly to be able not to do anything that would really matter for our planet (and would hurt Apple income). Imagine Tim from Apple shows up on the stage and tells people that there is no good reason to switch to the new phone model every 2 years. It will not happen.

I have many "progressive", "pro-eco" friends who just can't understand I am still using that old crappy Nexus 5X although I could afford a new, fancier phone (and my cell phone operator would subsidize it partly and nice person from call center would add another 4 GB of free internet to existing 15, as if I could ever use so much using cell phone).

They also cannot understand that I am still driving my 10 years old car instead of leasing/buying a new car which would be more "eco friendly". I am trying to explain them that cars are not growing on trees and producing a new one is not really that environment friendly and that during past 10 years cars were not improved so much in terms of CO2 emission to justify the change (giving recent car makers test scandals it is hard to say if they improved at all. Even if I could buy electric car, which is not really an option in my country due to lack of infrastructure and my usecase - I don't drive in the city, only long travels - still producing a new car emits more CO2 than my car will emit during its remaining lifetime).

Same with driving to work (they buy those new cars for a reason, not to sit in a tram among those sweating people), same with using electric laundry dries (it is so unfashionable to air-dry laundry at home), etc.

People love to talk about being pro-eco and taking actions that make them feel good, but they can't face the truth that their consumption habits change would be infinitely more beneficial.

>I am trying to explain them that cars are not growing on trees and producing a new one is not really that environment friendly and that during past 10 years cars were not improved so much in terms of CO2 emission to justify the change

If anyone else is wondering, I think you're right about this. I've looked into it and there are a few people who've tried to tackle the question of what's better but I find they all have some problem with the assumptions they make, largely because it's just a difficult problem with a lot of variables. Mileage, age of each vehicle, expected life of each vehicle, what emissions can be attributed to production, whether to include emissions of the inefficiencies of recycling one but not the other, etc.

I decided that a new eco-friendly car and a similar old used car were close enough in emissions - i.e. within the same magnitude - that it wasn't worth it if it's your only reason for spending the money on a new car. What's far more effective is reducing mileage done in a car.

The new trend should be, in my eyes, to make electronic hardware similar to that of a good leather jacket or pair of denim jeans. If it tears, you patch it. If it fades, you dye it. That same mentality of repair used to exist, but as design has become obfuscated and electronics micro-sized, there's little you can do as a consumer. Collective thought should have been "Well, if it can't be repaired by the consumer, the onus of responsibility for repairing it therefore lies with the manufacturer for making it so difficult." Instead it seems to have gone the route of "Well, it can't be repaired by the consumer. I guess the only choice is to pay the manufacturer hundreds for repairing it, or dispose of it and buy a new one for near the same price."

If any company is going to go this route though, it's not going to be Apple. It harkens back to the days where Wozniak and Jobs argued whether or not to put slots into the Apple 2, and Jobs won that one of course. His legacy runs strong in the company.

[EDIT] Apologies, Jobs relented in the instance of the Apple 2, mainly because that was Woz's baby. Later models did not allow for playing with the hardware however.

> It harkens back to the days where Wozniak and Jobs argued whether or not to put slots into the Apple 2, and Jobs won that one of course.

The Apple ][ had expansion slots.

Aromasin is almost certainly thinking of [1]

"Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was a strong believer in hardware expandability, and he endowed the Apple II with luxurious expandability [....] Steve [Jobs] was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports."

"Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate [...] He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board, [...] But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party."

[1] https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

Exactly that. I misremembered the Apple 2 incident - but from that point onwards, Jobs vehemently fought any type of expansions or customization on any of his future models.

>be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.

I don't mind if they are not expandable or repairable, if they were design to last, heavily tested for reliability, then I am fine. It should be so reliable to the point Apple is willing to offer 2 years standard warranty to Mac products for the same price, with AppleCare going up to 4 years.

The problem is I am seeing lots and lots of small details that simply ignores reliabilit. And they are not fixing it, such the the Thunderbolt high voltage placement right next to the CPU pin with no separation, cables failing for no reason. Keyboard etc.

And if these were fixed in each iteration of MacBook Pro, we wouldn't have much problem. Except the same problem in 2016 exists as in the 2019 model as well.

And these quality issues were apparent with many newer Apple products. iPad Pro bending when you Open it in box. AirPod 2 with rough finishes that cut your ears, ( and Apple even refuse to exchange it ).

There is a reason why Repair Shops for Apple products are thriving, its because they fail and lots of people are repairing them instead of going to Apple store where their Staff simply suggest a price that you might as well buy a new one.

local man writes email, changes tech giant's course of operation

seriously tho, the way i see is to boycott companies hindering repairs, and plaster the repair manifesto everywhere

EDIT: political rant below

the issue at hand is that these companies actions are dictated by their boards of investors, most of them members of the so-called 1%. and for some philanthropist exceptions those people only care about acquisition of wealth. they do not care about environmental damage, as they live in a different world than all of us, they do not have to go to work to secure their basic needs.

their very lifestyle is not threatened by global warming, social injustice or wars.

when the sea level rises they still will be residing in climate-controlled mansions, but at that time build of island further away from equator,

they will still have access to best medical treatment,

they will still have best food on their plates, even if the produce on those plates will cost 10'000$ a serving they will still have the funds.

they will still roam the seas on their super-sized yachts

they world is not in danger. ours is

>Actually, I'm in the middle of writing an e-mail to the Tim address at Apple, saying that if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far) they really need to take the next step, be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.

That's not how capitalism works.

Between green and more profit, it will always pick more profit.

The green "recycling" etc is just ecology theater. Recycling = tons of parts just ending up in China (under "recycle" programs where they're paid to get western trash), where most of it is discarded and thrown away anyway.

> Between green and more profit, it will always pick more profit.

Absolutely. If your customers start choosing you rather than your competitors due to your green credentials, then in can lead to more profit.

In exactly the same way that Apple is gambling that security will lead to more profit, despite the fact that selling customer data is clearly a profitable short term opportunity.

>Absolutely. If your customers start choosing you rather than your competitors due to your green credentials, then in can lead to more profit.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen either. That will be the last concern of the majority of consumers...

And of course companies need to sabotage their sales (tell customers "just keep upgrading your existing model, buy less, etc") to get those actual (not ecology-theater) green credentials, which no company and no competitors are gonna do either.

This isn't totally true. China began refusing most (all?) of foreign recycling a couple of years ago. Now much of the recycling stream just goes to the local dump instead of China's.

>Actually, I'm in the middle of writing an e-mail to the Tim address at Apple

He won't read it. His PR team will respond instead.

>if it takes the environment seriously (and I commend them on what they have done so far)

They don't it's just PR. The stuff that they should do if they took the environment seriously are offloaded to companies like Foxconn which don't care about their public image.

>be truly 'courageous' and prioritise repairability and expandability in their forthcoming products.

They won't do that unless they get to a point that they just can't increase their margins or expand to other countries anymore. They even further invested into locking their computers on a semiconductor level( t2 chip).

>Apple has the clout and profile, that if it took a stand and said 'we are going to make our products a few milimeters thicker, we are going to make them so that they can be upgraded, we realise that this will hit sales and profits, but this is the planet we are talking about', they could probably pull other members of the industry behind them'.

That doesn't make them money. They didn't become the biggest tech company by not focusing on making money.

He probably won't read it - that's correct. Although about 20 yeasrs ago, I did actually get a response from sjobs when I wrote about an issue.

> That doesn't make them money. They didn't become the biggest tech company by not focusing on making money.

It does if they catch a new wave of consumer enthusiasm earlier than their competitors. I eliev such a wave exists.

> in order to keep the warranty, you have to visit an Apple-approved repair center to have a specialist perform the upgrade, which costs more than doing it yourself

At least in the US (and presumably in the EU which is much better about this sort of stuff) this is not legal. You can upgrade it on your own and Apple still has to honor the warranty.


In Australia too, Apple has gotten in trouble for their "error 53" technical measure to discourage third party repairs and not repairing devices that had that error https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-agai...

This follows an earlier infraction over refusing to repair faults after a year without AppleCare https://www.crn.com.au/news/apple-agrees-to-two-year-warrant...

I've done user-upgrades of the RAM on all my desktop Macs, and subsequently had repairs done under warranty here in the UK. Never had a problem and one at least two occasions the Apple engineers knew about the RAM upgrades. In fact the last HD replacement on my iMac was done free even out of warranty, I think because I mentioned I'd had it happen before on a previous Mac.

I feel the same way. Macs have become more expensive and less friendly for upgrading RAM and storage, the two most important things that need to be user upgradeable for longevity and reducing e-waste (I don’t care much about CPU/GPU upgrades).

Even the new Mac mini is quite expensive compared to its predecessors. Mac mini used to be the cheap and beginner level entry into Macs/macOS. The current hardware may be worth the price, but Apple has clearly missed making something that’s a lot more affordable (with cheaper parts, fewer ports, etc.).

The 2012 Mac Mini was the high point of the Mini. Strong hardware, decent prices (I think I bought mine for 600 Euro), very serviceable. RAM was replaceable by removing the cover on the bottom (no screwdriver required). Replacing storage was a bit more work, but definitely easy for someone who has built a PC.

The Mac Mini 2014 showed the Apple to come: an overpriced, non-serviceable slab of metal.

I’ve been using my 2013 MBP every day since it came out, through my previous startup, an acquisition, and now my new startup. It’s been perfect, except for the fact that it only has 8GB of ram, and cannot be upgraded.

Meh. After one too many failures, my upgrade is a Thinkpad "mobile workstation" running Linux. Awesome keyboard, great battery, and room inside for me (!) to install the SSD from my dead, also-2013 MBP. Came with 16GB, and still has three more sockets waiting for more if I need it.

Which Thinkpad model is this, exactly?

Used my 2010 MBP through uni life, startup life and acquisition. After which I allowed it to retire. But it served me a solid seven years.

I'm actually one of these few people who's also happy with the new MBP.

Outside HN and other techie watering holes, happiness with the new MBPs is absolutely fine[1]. I'm not saying there aren't problems, I passed on getting a new MBP due to the keyboard issues myself[2], though I'm ok with the touch bar. There are real weaknesses in the current designs, but for the vast majority of users none of this is much of an issue.


[2] Though this means I wouldn't be included in purchaser satisfaction ratings, because I didn't purchase.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that a product that is added to the keyboard repair program on release day is absolutely fine. Apple doesn't have confidence in the new MBP and neither should anybody else.

The new MBP is basically gambling. You take your money to the Apple Store. They give you a computer, and a year down the line you see if that computer still works.

Apple products used to last an age, that is what justified the price. There are many people in this thread using old MBPs, including myself.

The more expensive a computer, the longer it is expected to last. It is quite normal to expect 5 years of use out of these things. I see plenty of evidence that this keyboard design is not capable of that.

I have a late 2013 MBP as a second work machine, which was upgraded to SSD + 16GB of RAM, and it runs like a champ. Admittedly, the upgrade was quite delicate, and the WiFi stopped working afterwards.

Anecdotally, a friend of mine built a beefy PC running macOS for his main work computer (i9, 64GB RAM, etc., for about half the price of a Mac Pro). It's completely built of generic, modular parts (other than the proprietary OS), with ability to extend and repair. Apparently, Apple is listening but money speaks louder than user freedoms.

The problem is that, statistically, nobody cares about the issues you raise. You can maybe get your problems addressed by a niche retailer, but Apple has bigger fish to fry.

How long will it have to take for people to realize that this tendency to only ever care for a virtual customer that's an average of all customers across all characteristics is in fact a market failure?

Looking at Apple's sales and customer satisfaction ratings, I'm not quite sure you understand what the term Market Failure means.

Actually I think they fully understand it. "Market failure" does not mean that a company fails to sell something. Here's the definition:

> Market failure is the economic situation defined by an inefficient distribution of goods and services in the free market...In traditional microeconomics, this is shown as a steady state disequilibrium in which the quantity supplied does not equal the quantity demanded.


GP claimed there are demands not being met, because suppliers make more money selling to a "virtual customer that's an average of all customers across all characteristics." If that's correct, arguably it is a market failure, and that's consistent with those suppliers making lots of money selling to that average customer.

So by that standard, any market situation in which a vendor makes high profit margins on a product in high demand would be a market failure. I really don’t think that’s what it means. The limited supply and subsequent high prices of Bugattis isn’t a market failure.

It seems to me it’s more like cases where poor infrastructure prevents distribution, or excessive regulation obstructs trade, preventing vendors and purchasers from linking up. That’s a problem on both sides. It’s an actual failure of the market itself.

As long as it remains a market success. It’s not a market failure yet. I think all these little slights pile up to make it collapse, but I’ve been waiting 30 years and it seems to be getting worse in that more companies are getting huger by meeting the 95% at the expense of the 5%.

With Apple making the Mac Pro so expensive it opens up the grey market for Hackintosh PCs to run MacOS at a fraction of the cost. If Apple wants to beat the Hackintosh they need an ATX based Mac that doesn't cost $5999 but more like $999 that can be upgraded with a better graphics card and etc.

Hackintosh is fun for a tinkerer but not really practical for someone that just needs to get work done. I say this as someone who dislikes macOS and has tried the hackintosh approach in an attempt to build iOS apps without having to buy a mac. You can make it work, but it's a big pain and all bets are off when an update comes down the line.

I know a few people who work from home as freelancers in the visual effects industry around here. They are all rabid Apple fanboys/fangirls, owned pre-trashcan Mac Pros, but just couldn't stomach the trashcan version. They all switched to Hackintosh or Windows in the last few years.

Even for technically challenged artists, it is not difficult because there are several technicians around here that install Hackintosh machines for this industry and update them from time to time. Their names are passed by word-of-mouth.

The bigger production houses will probably buy the new Mac Pros, but the entire freelance sector will keep their Hackintoshes or move to Windows. The pricing is just crazy.

> there are several technicians around here that install Hackintosh machines for this industry and update them from time to time. Their names are passed by word-of-mouth.

Like I said, it can work, but relying on "word of mouth technicians" isn't very practical. There are also times when, after an update, things just break, and the "technician" may not even be able to fix the issue in a timely fashion, especially issues related to sound or QE/CI. I've done enough digging around and tinkering with kext files and video drivers to know that it can sometimes take days of concerted effort to fix these issues. I'm sure mileage varies depending on one's needs or the particular hardware configuration but you're rolling the dice every time you update.

> but you're rolling the dice every time you update.

Definitely, they've all become paranoid about updates or installing anything which is not absolutely necessary. They are a version or two of macOS behind, and never update without confirming with the technician.

I shudder at the security implications, but I'm told it has become quite common after the trashcan came out.

I think that the new low level security chips, replacement parts with signed firmware and more and more software features getting baked into encrypted hardware is gonna be the end of hackintosh quite soon

They will have to support Macs without T2 chips for many years into the future.

I predict that MacOS's premier status will be disappear before Apple manages to lock it down. The Mac app development community is dying. Apple strangled it to death with the heavy handed Mac App Store sandboxing policies. Nobody wants to develop exclusive Mac apps anymore.

Wasn't a pain even with an AMD CPU back 6 years ago. Doubt it is pain now.

A friend of mine has used a hackintosh for a whole year to do professional, paid work. Not only was it reliable, but it was dirt cheap.

Featuring a used i7 3770k and rx580, it cost $200 to build and its CPU benchmarks were on par with the macbook pro i7 2017 but much more graphically capable (which is surprisingly noticeable when doing innocuous tasks like maintaining smooth animations when switching between desktops)

There’s no way that computer costed only $200 to build unless you were reusing many parts from a previous computer.

All I've ever had to do after an upgrade is re-run my MultiBeast config. What's so difficult? My quad-core i7 hackintosh is still going strong after 9 years of daily use.

If the Mac Pro is too expensive and a Hackintosh is the alternative you are not the target audience. Then you are probably better served with a iMac Pro or a upgraded Mac Mini.

Unfortunately Apple has no direct options for users of pre-2019 Mac Pros who were able to afford them at the previous entry level price of $2999 but not at the $5999 price point, which is the price of the new base model Mac Pro. Apple no longer sells any user-serviceable computers under $5999. And even if the iMac Pro met their needs, the iMac Pro would still be too expensive at $4999.

These users will either have to give up user-serviceability and buy a Mac Mini or iMac, somehow pony up more money to get a $6000 Mac Pro, or abandon macOS unless they go the Hackintosh route, which is not an option in corporate environments and other places where EULAs are enforced. This is the choice that Apple presented us with.

The Mac Mini is a great substitute for the old Mac Pro is they really want user serviceability. You can configure it up to a 3.2GHz i7 with 64G RAM and 2TB SSD for around that $2999 price (I'm in Australia so I can't check, but it's AUD$3500 which is less than US$2999).

The (non-Pro) iMac is a great substitute if they don't want user serviceability.

The problem with the mini and iMac (both varieties) is the GPU, which is too weak for many. External GPU via TB3 is a cool idea but it’s bottlenecked compared to raw PCI-E, which isn’t ideal.

I personally don’t even care if it’s AMD instead of Nvidia, I just want stronger card options. The fact that the GPU in the top config iMac Pro is just on par with my now-old 980Ti really sours it.

Note that I’m saying this as a long time Mac user and iOS dev using a hackintosh tower alongside a couple of MacBooks.

The EGPUs do give pretty decent real world performance (although they are expensive).


How is the market more open with the MacPro out, than it was with no MacPro at all? If this argument made any sense at all, Apple should have been struggling against a flood a users bailing for hackintoshes for the last 5+ years.

A $999 ATX upgradable Mac would kill the product line stone dead. The profit margins would be tiny, reverting to industry averages, and wipe out Apple's ability to invest in high grade materials, design and software engineering.

What happens to Apple when their capacity to devote resources to differentiating their products is no better than Dell or Samsung?

Apple will sue companies trying to make money on hackintosh. They did that in the past. And enthusiasts were running hackintosh for a long time and it seems that Apple is OK with that.

Or... they can just kill the Hackintosh by preventing the OS from running on unsanctioned hardware.

I’d reckon this is part of the long term plan for the T2 chip, they just need a few years before they can stop supporting the “normal” computers.

And yet, they haven’t...

Indeed. I could be wrong but I genuinely suspect that Apple just aren't that bothered about hackintosh users.

Although it’s purely anecdotal, I know people for whom their Hackintosh served as a gateway drug for switching to a real Mac.

They’ve been sticking to Macs since.

The group of people that really need a super powerful mac but can’t afford 6k is a pretty small niche, not sure they should worry too much about them.

However Apple prevents their OS from being loaded on hardware other than their own. While you can do it they do put effort into insuring you do not. They do not sell a retail version of their OS.

Is that a good thing? I am not so sure. People complain about the power they have over their app store, or their efforts to prevent people from loading apps purchased outside of the store, but turn a blind eye to the restrictions on using the OS.

Windows for what few warts remains is much more free to do with as you please.

Still, I no longer buy Apple products if they are labeled as made in China, that is a bigger affront that all the locking of software ever was.

I so much agree. The price difference to all its predecessors is killing the otherwise brilliant new machine. I actually had set aside about 5 to 6k for a Mac Pro with a screen, but no luck for me. I am currently using a 27" iMac, but I would like to have a desktop class graphics card and the 27" screen is a bit small compared to the 30" available before. My only hope is, that on the footsteps of the Mac Pro, there will be other updates to the Mac line upcoming. And if Apple is actually listening: stop screwing users up with memory and storage pricing. A healthy premium I would happily pay, but not several x factors vs. market prices. At least give users reasonable upgrade abilities.

Having an iMac on my desk also makes it difficult just to add a PC to my setup, as I would need a screen on top of this (and my desk space is scarce), but one day I might do the step - recent Gnome desktops have become very nice, and with Wayland the Linux display stack is getting nicer too.

If the desktop graphics card is your primary reason to upgrade, consider an egpu. They’re a stable solution in osx and not that expensive. Turned my ageing macbook into a nice vr rig.

Just that I would need a new machine, my iMac still has TB2.

> you have to visit an Apple-approved repair center to have a specialist perform the upgrade, which costs more than doing it yourself

That has not been my experience. The Apple store just refreshed my 2015 Macbook pro: new screen, new bottom case, new fan, etc. Did not charge me anything.

Apple products last much longer than others and are much cheaper to maintain.

Sadly I don’t believe this will be true of the newer generation butterfly keyboard laptops. Seems like the keyboards are more or less guaranteed to fail at some point and if it’s outside the 4 year extended guarantee window, tough luck, given the risk requires replacing the whole logic board. Real shame and I hope there is a new design soon addressing this!

Can you develop in which way this is supposedly worse than for say the hp laptop of my wife that ran out of warranty after 1 year without official removable battery parts sold by the manufacturer?

Also touchscreen start to literally fell off after 2 year, but can’t tell if it was weak design or if my wife was careless to be honest.

The logic board does not need to be replaced. The top case includes the keyboard, touch bar and battery.

> Apple has doubled-down on its refusal to sell user-serviceable, upgradeable, and expandable hardware at prices that are within reach for most customers.

This is like saying Ferrari has doubled down on its refusal to sell a budget hatchback for families.

No, it's saying like a company building "computers for the rest of us", that had traditionally had lines affordable by common pros, now only sells stuff suitable high end pro studios and cheaper mass market stuff, with no in-between regular pro tier.

They already have models in the "regular hatchback for families" range (and had since forever).

It's the mid-tier that suffers.

I agree.

I want an upgradeable Mac tower, but I certainly don't need a Xeon workstation with ECC memory even if I can afford a Mac Pro.

I'm quite happy with my 5K iMac so far, but I'm worried about future repairs and upgrades.

MacOS with regular PC hardware? Just build a Hackintosh.

It’s far easier than I thought it would be. Pick the right parts and it will work flawlessly.

Last I checked, you have to disable signature checking on kernel extensions. For some, having to trade off that level of security is a pretty big flaw.

I mean, that was standard until what 2 years ago? Not checking extensions was okay for about 42 years, I’m not sure anything really changed in the last 2. I doubt that most security experts will tell you otherwise when getting a signing certificate takes all of 5 minutes. The benefit you get is revocation but it really depends on your threat model right?

Have you recently tried to get Apple to hand out a kext signing certificate?

Convincing Donald Trump of climate change being real seems easier than that.

I assume you're being downvoted because of the unnecessary political commentary.

However, I am curious as to the process for getting a kext signing cert, as that plays a part in the value of having the certs in the first place or not.

I didn't mention anything about serial numbers and the fun and games that goes on there when trying to get a Hackintosh working with iMessage/Facetime/iCloud services, which is a bit of a mixed bag. There could be security implications related to that, that haven't been worked out of the woodwork yet, but the kernel extensions feels like the biggest risk there.

I got scared and fed up with Windows 10 and retreated to Mac OS for 5 years until I had a fiasco of a time trying to upgrade my mac pro to Mojave. During the time I used Mac OS I became familiar with Bash and some Unix ways of doing things. I found Bash to be really useful and powerful compared to the command interpreter in Windows.

I had a big interest in virtualization and along the years of using the mac I tried all kinds of linux servers in VMs for research and self education. I never did like ubuntu's standard desktop. I tried them all. After the Mojave fiasco I thought I'd buy a mid range computer with the latest Nvidia card (partially just because I could do that and I could not do that with mac). My mac was on the cliff edge of planned obsolescence anyway (Apple decides for you when it is time to upgrade).

Long story short it is indeed difficult to get used to Linux. You have to develop a survival attitude first. I found that changing one thing like fstab could make the system unbootable. Sudo can ruin your system fast if you are not careful and an expert. I did not want to be either careful or an expert just to get work done. So to survive my poor administration skills I found I could lean on a program called TimeShift which works a lot like timemachine for Mac. Its really like the best parts of Time Machine combined with Windows' restore points. Anytime I am about to install something new or tweak something that has the potential for causing a disaster I take a few minutes to make a snapshot via TimeMachine/Rsync. I can always go back, and if I really mess everything up I can boot into a live cd and run TimeShift from that.

TimeShift unfortunately does not do home directories very well but there is another gui/cli program called BackInTime that I use for the Time Machine like solution for my home directory and a couple others.

I use rotating backups. I have backups on a big 8 TB external drive and then I rsync that to a copy drive and leave that one offline in case my main machine gets poisoned by ransomware.

So thats my survival technique..

But is it worth it? It took me about a month to figure out what to do for disasters and bad configurations and I spent about a month deciding what "distro" to use. I tried all flavors of Ubuntu, and tried Mint but settled on Debian with the Cinnamon desktop. I got to say I really like cinnamon, it is very ram hungry but ram is cheap so it isn't a problem for me. It supports high dpi (well 2x at least). The file manager is great, it even has ftp built into it. Context menus work good, right click to open as root, or open a terminal. Cinnamon is a classic take on well established principles in UI design that were perfected over a decade ago, instead of changing things just to change them.

But so what if there are no good applications! I have a multimedia background so that was my interest. I used to use Photoshop cs6 for years but Adobe is too incompetent and greedy to rely on for the future. My photo editing needs have not changed much since I bought it in 2008 so Gimp isn't too far behind what I owned since then. I just tried using lightwave recently but it fails to work even in a VM so I decided to learn Blender. I could not justify purchasing Modo even though it is available for Linux. Main thing is Muscle memory. The proof is in the pudding for art programs. If people are doing amazing things with it, the software has merit. So I have a lot of optimism that I can still get some nice work done.

Visual studio code on linux is really nice. There were some snafus I had to get around but when it is setup its terrific.

I never used Microsoft office at home and my office requirements are simple. But if I did need it, I could use Office 365 on a web browser I presume. I just need the occasional word processor and spreadsheet.

Video editing on Linux is still a sore point but I like Olive editor and I am trying to support it with Patreon. It feels a lot like an early verion of Sonic Foundry Vegas. I in no way will ever miss Adobe Premiere

Debian has tens of thousands of software packages that are just a apt install away. That is a gigantic value. I don't have to worry about Window's malware as much as linux malware. I don't have to upgrade my hardware according to Apple's schedules and demands. I have access to the latest or near to the latest Nvidia hardware.

Desktop computing today is a disaster. I hate windows, I can't afford to waste money on inferior hardware and pray that the designers don't forsake my professional platform for consumerish goals. Debian isn't the only or the best linux perhaps. But if I didn't have Linux I would just give up on computing entirely and work at a factory or something.

I was worried about all of the above when switching to Arch (Manjaro KDE) from Windows as a web developer/CGI artist/graphic designer, however it's been easier than expected and I've decided to stick with it. Maybe these programs are worth your time:

DaVinci Resolve for video/audio editing on Linux, which has a great free version and may be the best editing software on the market for any platform. I've done a few professional jobs with it and greatly preferred it to Adobe Premiere/After Effects/Audition. Highly recommended.

Krita is great for photo editing/digital painting and Inkscape does a good job of replacing Illustrator for most uses. GIMP is still unbearable for professional use. This is the biggest gap in quality software for me - nothing can truly replace Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator or InDesign yet.

Figma is perfect for UI design/wireframing/prototyping and has a fully featured web app.

Blender is insanely powerful for free software these days (see Next Gen on Netflix for a feature-length movie created entirely in Blender) and Octane/Redshift render engines are available for industry quality 3D images.

VSCode handles all of my web development and native Linux terminals are much, much faster than WSL when installing and running tools like Webpack, Gulp etc.

LibreOffice covers 99% of use cases and looks pretty slick with a good theme, however I use Google Docs or Office 365 to ensure compatibility with clients' machines.

You can protest by using a Hackintosh. I'm sure Apple's aware of how big the Hackintosh community has become and I think it's part of the reason we're seeing niceties like upgradable RAM on the new Mini and iMacs.

I seriously doubt the Hackintosh community has gotten any bigger than it was 5 tears ago. Any numbers to back that claim?

Also, the Mini and the iMacs have always had upgradeable RAM.

Here's subscribers over time to /r/hackintosh [1] - about 600% growth over the last 5 years. Also, the 2014 Mac Mini removed the ability to upgrade RAM [2], but now it's back with the 2018 Mini.

[1] https://subredditstats.com/r/hackintosh

[2] https://www.macworld.com/article/2836399/new-mac-mini-restri...

Not convinced about the subreddit stats tbh. I've been subscribed for many years but I stopped building hackintoshes 3 years ago. It's a shame the comments/posts are limited to 1 year only.

Thanks, I didn't know the 2014 model didn't have upgradeable RAM. The last one I bought was the 2013.

Or Ubuntu

> which means giving up macOS, which I find a more productive environment

Get Ubuntu, install Docky and Macbuntu theme if you want to keep familiar desktop around before you fully convert to Linux.

Ever considered building yourself a Hackintosh? It's a no-brainer these days.

Yeah, NUC8i5/8i7 with 64GB + TB3 eGPU and you are set for a few years...

Does Ubuntu run Final Cut?

What's the point of this question? Stating the obvious that voluntary platform lock-in has consequences? That software from Apple doesn't run on anything else than Apple hardware (iTunes being an exception)?

It runs DaVinci Resolve and Pixar's RenderMan natively. CS6 runs reliably under Wine as well.

Can you run 3DS Max on macOS? So, isn't macOS a pro environment then?

The point is that he wants to use a program that isn't available on the OS you are suggesting.

Yes, so? If she is not happy with Apple hardware, switching a platform and learning another workflow is a way to solve it. It's not like there aren't other pro options nor that Final Cut Pro is the best pro tool in its category. I do it all the time; I can't do something in Ableton Live? I do it in FL Studio. I can't do something in After Effects or am fed up with Adobe's business practices? I do it in Vegas Pro or DaVinci Resolve. I have a Threadripper-based workstation with RTX/Tesla cards that matches what new Mac Pro could provide (with the exception of 1.5TB RAM), so I am using software for platforms that can run on it for some of my production tasks, as well as for all Deep Learning (tricky to run on default macOS hardware). Not sure why I'd need to make compromises if Apple decided that pro users with a lot of cash like me are no longer welcome.

The thing is most people aren't using software because of the OS, they are using an OS because of the software it has. The requirement isn't "i want to run macOS" because macOS by itself doesn't really do much, it is just a platform - something for other things to stand on.

Most people aren't asking "does $OS run an image editor?" they are asking "does Photoshop run on $OS?". Replace Photoshop with any widely known or niche application (as both are reasons to select an OS).

I get it; if you are pro you usually have to learn whatever software gets you where you want to go; if you are just a casual user, you can afford the luxury of falling in love with a certain platform and getting accustomed to certain software there. For those users if something on their platform changes to their dislike and the company is not willing to appease them, then well, tough luck I guess...

For what it’s worth, you can run 3dsmax in Parallels like you can run CS6 in Wine...

OK, so the same with running macOS in VirtualBox or VMWare under Linux/Windows. But that's probably not what they asked for.

So, about the cost. This Mac Pro is for editing 8k raw video. Which is Hollywood stuff, shot on cameras that cost 10s of thousands of dollars, on top of 100s of thousands of dollars of lenses and budgets 10s to 100s of millions.

I don't work in Hollywood, but I work heavily in production engineering for television productions that work on A LOT of 8K RAW video and multicam where time is critical, we have days to edit where hollywood has months and multicam is pretty damn taxing vs how a lot of movies operate.

Our budgets are a fraction of a hollywood production though.

The base model Mac Pro isn't going to be doing much at all. The higher end model with a lot of upgrades is going to be the sweet spot. You really need to push up to a 12-16 core, with 64-128gb RAM, 11+gb GPUs and then add the afterburner card (cause Apple won't play nice with Nvidia) if you want to be doing anything with 8K RAW on a high resolution display.

Yes, the Mac Pro is essentially an infinitely upgradable machine. That's awesome. But third party support is questionable and without Nvidia that leaves a lot of speculation as to what the afterburner card will truly be able to do.

I'd kill for that motherboard in a smaller CPU buildout. In a high budget post-facility environment, it may be an ideal candidate. Currently there isn't a Mac in our reach that doesn't overheat or choke on big media projects (we refuse to look at the iMac Pro seriously).

We've been holding off buying new gear for several years. Most of the editors I work with would prefer to stay on macOS, but the base model should have been $3500 8-Core with a lot more GPU horses. Apple delivered a $6000 box without anything to back it up. At a minimum we'd have to upgrade to a bigger GPU and add the afterburner cards and a little RAM, probably pushing us close to $10k mark.

AMD Ryzen 3000 and Threadripper builds are going to be increasingly more common for normal budget media work. The Intel i9 is our current sweet spot for budget to power ratio.

If I was in an unlimited budget post-facility, yeah, I'd get one cause it looks pretty damn cool and I love macOS. But I don't expect it to solve a lot of real world problems if upgrades are bottlenecked to proprietary offerings from Apple. We're going to have to wait and see if they can keep up with the rest of the industry.

Do you have your production software for Windows/Linux or is it only for MacOS? If you do, then you can very likely get the same specs for much lower cost from Taiwan based ODM builders like AIC, Gigabyte etc. They have these server-class motherboards in datacenter class mechanical/thermal chassis. After that, you can ask them to slap on whatever Intel CPU with how much ever RAM and how much ever PCI-E cards (GPUs, NVMe SSDs, custom ASIC accelerators, 50Gbps NIC etc) you want.

Get a Mac-Mini, 8-core with 64GB Ram, and an eGPU. You will have no problem hitting that $3500 target, make it $4000 for a fantastic eGPU.

Also, why are you refusing to look at the iMac Pro? Best machine I ever had.

The place I work decided that the iMac Pro was a no buy (much like a couple of models of Mac mini) because so little of it can be serviced locally and the RAM is not upgradable.

We have actually started buying Intel NUCs for our student labs instead of Macs. Adobe and Office work on both.

Serviceability of an iMac in a short deadline environment that is running close to 24/7 with sustained graphic and 8K renders / conversions. It's just not the right tool for the job. If I worked on single track edit with long deadline client work, like at an agency, I think it would be fine for most basic media stuff.

I'm fairly positive the iMac Pro would melt though. Even if it didn't melt at first, the load it lived under would greatly reduce the lifespan of the machine.

The Mac mini caps out at a 6 core.

Mac Mini also uses a laptop CPU, which takes a notable performance hit compared desktop CPUs.

My bad, was confusing it. Still, there is not much you can do with 8 but not with 6.

eGPU isn't an option. Nvidia if you're working with RAW becomes pretty critical and the support for that was greatly reduced with Mojave. RTX cards have been a gamechanger for most of the work we do.

You will not be editing raw 8K video using the tiny 8 core CPU and 256GB storage space of the base model which the parent was referring to ($6000). Its true that for Hollywood projects, the price of this might not be a huge deal, even with the baller fully speced out model. Heck in my own industry (pharma) we're paying thousands and thousands of dollars for software that doesn't do much except have the magical 21CFR compliant sticker that regulators look for.

I wouldn’t put much emphasis on the storage. Most places that are doing video editing at this level are using all flash based SAN networking over 10/100GB Ethernet/fibre.

As for the CPU, I agree. However I’m not 100% sure on how much can be offloaded to the GPU these days, 5-ish years ago when I was working with video editors a lot, it wasn’t much that could be offloaded.

Maybe it’s improved a lot.

I got Vegas Pro Edit from a Humble Bundle recently. Almost everything seems to be GPU accelerated.

I’m hearing this excuse way too much. People that aren’t doing that deserve a version of a Mac Pro they can buy.

What's wrong with Mac Mini or iMac Pro?

Here are my issues as a user of a 2013 Mac Pro:

- Neither the Mac Mini nor 2019 Mac Pro are user-serviceable; you have to take your Mac to an Apple-approved repair center if you want to upgrade your RAM (see https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205041#one and https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208377). I guess it's nice to have DIMMs when the computer is out of warranty, but I'd like to preserve my warranty and not have to pay Apple's prices for RAM upgrades plus labor costs.

- The storage is soldered onto the motherboard in the Mac Mini, which precludes upgrading or replacing storage.

- The storage for the iMac Pro is a special proprietary design, precluding the use of industry-standard M.2 NVMe flash drives. (Granted, the 2013 Mac Pro doesn't use industry standard M.2 NVMe drives, either, although I've read that it's possible to use some standard NVMe drives in the 2013 Mac Pro with the help of an adapter.)

- The iMac Pro at $4999 is still much more expensive than the previous generation base Mac Pro, which was $2999.

- The iMac Pro is an all-in-one design. I prefer desktop computers that are not housed inside a monitor; what happens if the monitor fails?

For most consumer PCs, I have no problem with most things being soldered on like RAM, CPU, etc...but soldering on the storage is unforgiveable. And it has nothing to do with being able to upgrade it, but rather it's about the problems this introduces (and the options it limits) when it comes to data recovery when your machine inevitably @#$@#s up.

Indeed. I was able to recover 10 years of photos and data from my brother-in-law's non-booting 2009 iMac earlier this year after he extricated the disk from behind the flat panel. He bought a new disk and I transferred the data onto it. His family now has a functioning computer again and all of their photos back, as if nothing ever happened.

The data recovery difficulties you refer to have nothing to do with soldering anything. It's a consequence of being secure by default. Pulling an encrypted drive from a machine with a dead motherboard shouldn't give you access to the data on that drive.

Apple has been providing a totally painless backup solution for a very long time, and there's no excuse for not using it.

If the monitor fails you put it under the desk and connect another monitor to it, pretty much what you would do with a desktop anyway... The storage for the iMacPro is freaking fast, what do you need standard stuff for? You can connect to external storage via TB3, you know ...

I think your issues really just exist in your head. Which is fine, because it is YOUR head after all, but these issues are not relevant outside of your head.

Sorry for the rant in advance, just getting fed up reading all these comments that make no sense whatsoever. It pretty much all boils down to people not wanting to pay for quality.

The Mac Mini got a nice refresh, but it is still limited in CPU, has no real GPU, doesn't have much drive space. So to turn it into a nice deskop machine, you have to get an external GPU enclosure and an external drive bay. At which point the whole desk is covered by computer parts stringed together. Makes any beige box look elegant in comparison. I really wonder when someone makes a box which has slots for a graphics card, drives and a mac mini...

The iMac Pro is quite nice. But extremely expensive, the computer is tied and limited to the 27" screen (which I consider on the small side), you are tied to the graphics card ordered (not sure how the top choice compares to a full desktop card), CPUs are Xeons, so quite expensive for what they do, RAM and SSD are not accessible, not even the cooling fans can be cleaned (and eventually cooling fans have to be cleaned). Once again limited to external drives.

The standard iMac now offers an i9 CPU which seems to be a sweet spot, but you don't get the same graphics cards as the iMac Pro, but at least accessible RAM. For all iMacs of current design, its a $300 bill to get anything done on the inside, due to the glued nature. A non-glued iMac would become instantly more attractive. But all have in common that you are limited to the builtin screen which you have to dispose of, once you don't use the contained computer any more.

And what is a very practical limitation: they don't have any screen inputs. I would like to connect my (work) MacBook Pro to my iMac screen, but that is not possible. Sometimes I even used via VNC screen sharing out of desparation, but that sucks.

The cooling.

Which is fine. But when are they going to announce a product for the rest of us?

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact