Hacker News Reader

Comment by saadn92 | Hacker News Reader

The real answer is probably simpler than anyone here is making it. Apple hardware margins are healthy enough that selling macbooks to linux users is pure profit, so no services lock-in needed. However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface. Every kernel panic becomes a genius bar visit. Every driver bug becomes a tweet at @AppleSupport. It's the value of plausible deniability. The Asahi team being unofficial is actually the best possible outcome for Apple in that they get hardware sales to Linux enthusiasts without any support burden.

View on HN

> However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface.

Apple documents lots of things the genius bar won't help with. For example, Apple provides instructions for compiling custom builds of the XNU kernel. However, if you replace the stock kernel and your Mac kernel panics, the genius bar isn't going to help you. (Maybe they'd help you wipe the computer and restore everything to stock, but I imagine they'd do that if a Linux user walked in too, even today.)

I suspect Apple hasn't shared documentation because it would take time to prepare for external release (legal stuff, plus the need to avoid leaking future products). What I don't understand is why Apple hasn't made an engineer available to talk on the phone for a couple of hours a month. This would amount to a rounding error in their budget.

You’d need legal to sign off on that too.

They don't have to support it, just document the system or release their own kernel code. They don't even have to mention Linux.

That’s called support. We count that as support.

Jesus, no, that's not called support.

As used by commercial hardware and software vendors, "support" can mean anything from "we'll come fix it for you when it breaks, or your money back" to merely "theoretically, it should work, and we won't get in the way of you trying". Likewise, "unsupported" can mean anything from "don't complain to us if it doesn't work" to "we're going to spend significant engineering effort to prevent it from working".

A stance of "here's some hardware documentation, implement the drivers yourself" definitely falls within that spectrum of "support", and is the kind of "support" for Linux that some hardware vendors have in the past been lauded for, eg. when AMD started documenting their GPUs.

That level of "support" from Apple for running Linux bare-metal on Apple Silicon would be an improvement from the status quo, and in practice would probably be sufficient to get good drivers written and upstreamed in short order, given how much interest there is in running Linux on these devices.

We're talking about "people walking into Genius Bar expecting help with Linux" support. It's not philosophical discussion on what support is, there's literally a specific thing discussed here.

That's one of the several forms of support under discussion, under the specious claim that it would become the expected level of support as soon as Apple declared any level of support for Linux. But as the comments you're refusing to understand have explained, Apple could meaningfully "support" Linux in the form of providing hardware documentation, without making any promises to help any customers troubleshoot Linux running on that hardware.

They could anonymously drop off a package to the Asahi team.

They do release their own kernel code.

> Apple hardware margins are healthy enough that selling macbooks to linux users is pure profit, so no services lock-in needed.

What do you mean by needed? A lock-in is more profitable so is needed to maximise profits.

> What do you mean by needed? A lock-in is more profitable so is needed to maximise profits.

You can't lock-in Linux users because vast majority of them won't switch to macOS and ecosystem at large. This is simply a currently untapped market they could easily almost entirely own if they wanted to. With growing Linux popularity, extra 3-4% of the laptop market share is nothing they can ignore in front of shareholders.

I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.

It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives. Losses could be quite significant: if an existing user switches to Linux not only might you lose software and services sales, but you also risk losing future hardware sales (longer replacement cycle, and no barrier to switching to other hardware).

> I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.

I am aware of that, but there's another factor here: accelerating Windows users switching to Linux on Apple hardware. Those Linux MacBooks would be killer devices that nothing in Windows world can compete against! I mean we can all agree the tech social media would go bonkers over that, wouldn't it? If a couple of YouTubers were able to bump those Linux numbers significantly and spearhead gamers questioning their choices, imagine the dent Apple would make. I am absolutely certain Apple would gain couple extra percentage points with Apple on Linux devices within first year and make Microsoft shit their pants in the process.

> It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?

But yeah, Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration? Sure, why not? iPhone integration? Why not? Apple TV app? Again, especially to attract those Windows users making a switch, who are much more used to paying for services and software?

Heck, they could even port AppStore over and improve Swift's cross-platform compatibility, especially considering Swift is fairly cross-platform already. I doubt many software products wold get ported, though. Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending. Also, many loyal macOS users would likely dual-boot and be happy to continue to buy and use macOS-exclusive software as needed.

This isn't unrealistic, I seriously think it's a matter of time when those numbers start making sense for Apple. Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.

> Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?

That needs clarification. They are loyal because they do not try anything else and often make assumptions that other OSes are worse than they actually are. They often assume a lot of features (e.g. shared clipboards across devices) are Apple only. They will not take the risk of buying non-Apple hardware to try another OS.

> Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration?

It reduces the lock-in the have with existing customers. Having that lockin over the whole stack is what keeps them in the ecosystem.

> Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.

I have less faith in the regulators than that. The push to open has never been that strong. No-one has challenged things like limiting software installation to the app-store, and Google is confident enough that no-one will to be switching to the same with Android in a few months time.

> Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending

Not yet. They have the option of gradually making "side loading" harder (for our own security, of course) and increasing that profit.

Well, agreed on all points. I guess the conclusion is time will tell, but I am sure Apple is legitimately looking into this on some level, especially since Steam is doing so well and keeps expanding Linux user-base.

I would be great if they did do it so i hope you are right.

> the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface

untrue. There are no obligations from other hardware vendors, yet you can sometimes get good drivers from them, or at least specs. I think Apple indeed want their hardware to fade out to enforce buying another. Imagine that 20% of your returning customers no longer return after 3-5 years of planned obsolence

No, selling laptops to Linux users is loss of services revenue, which is currently at 25% of total Apple takes and ~40% of all profit.

I am baffled by how people commonly parrot that flawed logic. Hint: by not seeling those laptops to Linux users they're not making money at all, neither on hardware nor on services.

By selling laptops to users who will never spend on highly profitable recurring revenue stream Apple would be depleting precious Ram stock for tiny one time profit.

So you're suggesting company would rather not sell a product now but rather wait until a "proper" Apple customer is ready for an upgrade? Product that has a significant profit margin upfront?

Also, have you heard about Apple's multi-billion RAM contracts they sign every few years to lock in the prices and supply?

It has already been reported Apple ran out of parts for NEOs. M4 minis are sold out. High end Mac Studio configs have been cancelled. Yes Apple does feel the crunch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com