Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04...



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.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: