Floo: Do you think I’m acting in bad faith because I acknowledge a fact, and you won’t?
Ah, yes. Projection.
It’s amusing that you’re accusing me of what you’re doing.
It’s extremely amusing that you’re accusing others of accusing you of doing what they’re doing, while in fact you’re accusing others of doing what you’re doing.
is not a very convincing argument. I’m sorry you want to turn this into some sort of psychological mind game. But the fact remains that macOS is free. I’m sorry you struggle so much to accept that.
And if you equate “stating facts” with “acting in bad faith”, then that’s your own problem.
The arguments were provided by others, I simply stated what I observed. You are right that Apple doesn’t make you pay for macOS separately, but in my opinion, it’s like saying that Apple processors are free because you don’t pay for them when you buy a Macbook. You also don’t pay for Windows separately when you buy a Windows laptop, you know, but the manufacturer is paying for Windows which is added to the overall cost of the laptop.
MacOS developers have an income, and where does that income come from?
You have to pay money to buy the computer you used to run Linux. So, by your logic, Linux isn’t free either. You see how this argument is nonsense.
And you can speculate all you like about how Apple makes money to pay for its developers. I don’t know, they make this other thing called the iPhone that seems pretty popular. I bet that makes them a lot of money.
Therefore, Google cannot close Android’s source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.
When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, …, which Google can profit from.
So Google does profit from Android. It’s free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.
Apple’s situation is different from Google’s. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there’s a high probability you’re also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free (which it is). This reasoning is so ridiculous. And it doesn’t get any less ridiculous them or you keep repeating it. You’re wasting your time arguing with an objective fact: macOS is free.
Unless Apple starts charging for it, there is literally nothing else that will change that. I’m sorry you just can’t accept that.
Are our definitions of “free” not the same? The way I think of “free” implies that, if the cost of a CPU/RAM/operating system is added to the overall cost of a device, that CPU/RAM/operating system is not free. You are paying for it.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free
You’re right, because you didn’t read my comment carefully. I wrote, clearly, that Linux is funded. That’s where the money for its development comes from.
Linux’s license means Google can’t close Android’s source and make manufacturers pay for it, it has other ways to profit from Android.
Windows is paid.
Every major operating system has some way to obtain money for its development. The most logical thing for Apple is to add macOS’s cost to the price of Mac devices. Given this definition of not-free, the probability of macOS not being free is higher.
I have written four comments here regarding this (five when I send this one). How many have you written? I won’t argue over this any further. It’s not worth the time, for both of us.
Ah, yes. Projection.
It’s extremely amusing that you’re accusing others of accusing you of doing what they’re doing, while in fact you’re accusing others of doing what you’re doing.
is not a very convincing argument. I’m sorry you want to turn this into some sort of psychological mind game. But the fact remains that macOS is free. I’m sorry you struggle so much to accept that.
And if you equate “stating facts” with “acting in bad faith”, then that’s your own problem.
The arguments were provided by others, I simply stated what I observed. You are right that Apple doesn’t make you pay for macOS separately, but in my opinion, it’s like saying that Apple processors are free because you don’t pay for them when you buy a Macbook. You also don’t pay for Windows separately when you buy a Windows laptop, you know, but the manufacturer is paying for Windows which is added to the overall cost of the laptop.
MacOS developers have an income, and where does that income come from?
You have to pay money to buy the computer you used to run Linux. So, by your logic, Linux isn’t free either. You see how this argument is nonsense.
And you can speculate all you like about how Apple makes money to pay for its developers. I don’t know, they make this other thing called the iPhone that seems pretty popular. I bet that makes them a lot of money.
Linux has an entirely different story.
You can also donate to them.
But what about Android? Android is definitely not paid.
Android is based on the Linux kernel, which uses the GPL license.
If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL.
Therefore, Google cannot close Android’s source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.
When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, …, which Google can profit from.
In its earnings reports, the company combines revenue from multiple sources, under the sub-heading “Google Services”. This includes income from Android, Chrome, Maps, and hardware (like Pixel and Nest smart home devices). In the first quarter of 2022, this “services” division brought in $6.8 billion in revenue for the company. … Oracle’s attorneys estimated that Android had generated a total of $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profit.
So Google does profit from Android. It’s free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.
Apple’s situation is different from Google’s. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there’s a high probability you’re also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free (which it is). This reasoning is so ridiculous. And it doesn’t get any less ridiculous them or you keep repeating it. You’re wasting your time arguing with an objective fact: macOS is free.
Unless Apple starts charging for it, there is literally nothing else that will change that. I’m sorry you just can’t accept that.
Are our definitions of “free” not the same? The way I think of “free” implies that, if the cost of a CPU/RAM/operating system is added to the overall cost of a device, that CPU/RAM/operating system is not free. You are paying for it.
You’re right, because you didn’t read my comment carefully. I wrote, clearly, that Linux is funded. That’s where the money for its development comes from.
Linux’s license means Google can’t close Android’s source and make manufacturers pay for it, it has other ways to profit from Android.
Windows is paid.
Every major operating system has some way to obtain money for its development. The most logical thing for Apple is to add macOS’s cost to the price of Mac devices. Given this definition of not-free, the probability of macOS not being free is higher.
None of this changes the fact that macOS is free
I just don’t understand why you keep wasting your time arguing objective fact.
I have written four comments here regarding this (five when I send this one). How many have you written? I won’t argue over this any further. It’s not worth the time, for both of us.