This brings up the question of why Apple is still using Intel CPUs when AMD CPUs are at a minimum comparable in terms of speed and cost. They're both x86 and both can run macOS so why is Apple sticking with Intel?
They're not. Haven't you heard that Apple is going ARM?
And from what I've read about AMD hackintoshes, there are some compatibility issues with AMD running certain software.
Of course I’ve heard Apple is supposed to be going to ARM on laptops/desktops but when? Don’t believe everything people say. In the meantime, why hasn’t Apple considered AMD?
You must not be a very good pro if you’re complaining about $5000. Seriously, you can write that shit off as a business expense. Go bother some other forum.
Or pro enough to get your money's worth. My MBP is due for an upgrade. I can not in good conscience buy a 4c 10nm / 8c 14nm+++ laptop when AMD is shipping CPUs like the 4800u. If you're on this forum reading posts like these, waiting for hardware you're way past the point where price is your concern, this is about performance.
I have been prepared and have been paying the premium for macOS, just please, give me pro hardware as well.
This is a scam. This is why they demand payment in bitcoin. So you can’t get your money back when they don’t ship. This is why they don’t care about Apple’s lawyers nor the OpenCore name use concerns etc.
Some company demanding payment only in bitcoin selling an illegal machine and the company/criminals don't even have a contact address.
Anybody dumb enough to order one of these deserves to be scammed.
Yes that is the most probable case. A pure scam that will vanish as soon as the first call comes in from someone wondering why their system hasn’t shipped. There is no way in h*** that they will be around more than a few weeks, a couple of months tops. Apple will shoot them down hard, unless they fold and escape with their stolen profits . That’s IMO the only two possible outcomes.
Reminds me of L international Computers. Anybody remember them? They had a website that looked like Apple made it and supposedly made custom high end PCs that were supposed to compete with Macs and were designed for the professional who needed a fast machine to do graphics, video and audio. They never really shipped anything that I could find and last I checked tried to go public to scam more people.
If you want to make a Hackintosh, you probably can still make one, but what is your time worth fixing any weird issues that you may come across? It’s good to learn more about how Apple makes their software and hardware work together, but I wouldn’t want to make one to run a business with. Especially when a software update will probably end up bricking it.
You must not be a very good pro if you’re complaining about $5000. Seriously, you can write that shit off as a business expense. Go bother some other forum.
Or pro enough to get your money's worth. My MBP is due for an upgrade. I can not in good conscience buy a 4c 10nm / 8c 14nm+++ laptop when AMD is shipping CPUs like the 4800u. If you're on this forum reading posts like these, waiting for hardware you're way past the point where price is your concern, this is about performance.
I have been prepared and have been paying the premium for macOS, just please, give me pro hardware as well.
According to the Geekbench Benchmarks, the current highest performing 2019 16 inch MBP is 33% faster than its 15 inch counterpart. Apple's US base price for fastest 2019 16" MBP is $3099, which is less than $40 a week when paid within the 18 month interest-free promo scheme.
A consistently 33% faster machine means doing what used to take 40 hours a week in 27 hours, saving 13 working hours a week, or being able to do an extra 13 hours of work a week in the same 40 hours. At a minimum wage of $10 an hour, that's $133 a week, $10,374 over 18 months. Hopefully as a skilled pro, your rate is worth more than minimum wage.
So as a pro who likes to get their money's worth, can you, as you exercise your good conscience waiting for a 4800u MBP, afford not to upgrade and lose $100 a week, $7800 in 18 months of potential revenue?
Apple should really tap into this market by releasing a bare - Mac Pro, which can use consumer hardware. It should have a small 128GB SSD that has the OSX recovery on it, and that can be used to do a bare minimum OSX install. People just buy that and put in their own CPU/RAM/GPU/HDD etc. Provide a QVL and we should be good to go.
Another option could be PCI-E compute cartridges, which come with a CPU, small SSD & RAM in one package
It will provide people with the best of both worlds without compromise and without having to sell a kidney
Problem with this is WHEN (not if) the consumer starts filling one of these base Mac Pros with crap hardware and things don't work, they yell at Apple and say it's their fault. There's no way Apple would ever produce this kind of product but if they did, it would come without any warranty and a big "buyer beware" sticker on the front. Use at your own risk. Even with this, the first consumer having an issue will find an ambulance lawyer who will sue Apple for $1B and a stupid judge will take the case. As for a qualified vendor list, good luck. All you're doing is passing the liability onto the vendor. I buy RAM and other parts from MacSales but only after the warranty period is over. It makes absolutely no sense to build my own Mac from parts bought from Fry's or Amazon when I can get a warranted Mac from Apple.
According to the Geekbench Benchmarks, the current highest performing 2019 16 inch MBP is 33% faster than its 15 inch counterpart. Apple's US base price for fastest 2019 16" MBP is $3099, which is less than $40 a week when paid within the 18 month interest-free promo scheme.
A consistently 33% faster machine means doing what used to take 40 hours a week in 27 hours, saving 13 working hours a week, or being able to do an extra 13 hours of work a week in the same 40 hours. At a minimum wage of $10 an hour, that's $133 a week, $10,374 over 18 months. Hopefully as a skilled pro, your rate is worth more than minimum wage.
So as a pro who likes to get their money's worth, can you, as you exercise your good conscience waiting for a 4800u MBP, afford not to upgrade and lose $100 a week, $7800 in 18 months of potential revenue?
You raise a good point. My first MBP right after college generated €20k, the next one did €70k. The next one will probably do double that. Whilst the 16 inch is a great machine and will be adequate for 99% of my work for 2021 it's a big laptop. I'm getting a €3500 13" mbp with: dated bezels, webcam, the subpar 1068ng7 because I have to.
I should've written my original post differently where what I'd like to bring across is: I'd be happier spending more for a better device (as ridiculous as the price tag in Europe is already) because this is a tool that I depend on. Whilst I'm still buying an Intel MBP, I write these with the hope that we see AMD CPUs sooner because I'd much rather buy that.
This brings up the question of why Apple is still using Intel CPUs when AMD CPUs are at a minimum comparable in terms of speed and cost. They're both x86 and both can run macOS so why is Apple sticking with Intel?
Because Apple is moving toward ARM and away from X86. Sorry but you will NEVER see an AMD Macintosh in your lifetime, even if your are 16 years old.
This brings up the question of why Apple is still using Intel CPUs when AMD CPUs are at a minimum comparable in terms of speed and cost. They're both x86 and both can run macOS so why is Apple sticking with Intel?
Drivers. Hackintosh'es aim to replicate real Mac Configs, so as to minimize any incompatibilities.
In the case of AMD sure the CPU is x86, but things like SATA Controller, Northbridge/Southbridge, LAN, Sound, will all differ for AMD machines and need drivers.
To be fair, his question is not why don't Hackintoshes use AMD, but why Apple doesn't. I'm sure they could work out the software support for AMD chipsets if they wanted to.
Apple should really tap into this market by releasing a bare - Mac Pro, which can use consumer hardware. It should have a small 128GB SSD that has the OSX recovery on it, and that can be used to do a bare minimum OSX install. People just buy that and put in their own CPU/RAM/GPU/HDD etc. Provide a QVL and we should be good to go.
Another option could be PCI-E compute cartridges, which come with a CPU, small SSD & RAM in one package
It will provide people with the best of both worlds without compromise and without having to sell a kidney
Apple isn't interested in selling a device that uses off-the-shelf hardware. They design their OS and hardware together, eliminating the endless variables that would be introduced by random parts of varying quality being cobbled together by someone of unknown skill or knowledge to construct such a device. Not doing that is how Apple ends up with solid devices that work well, which is why they can charge a premium for those devices. If you want a cheap DIY box, you can run Windows or some form of Unix or whatever on it.
Dropping a Mercedes AMG V8 engine into some sort of a cheap kit car body doesn't get you a Mercedes on the cheap. It gets you a mess that's probably going to crash. And Mercedes certainly isn't going to sell their engine in a bare-bones kit specifically to enable you to cobble together a jalopy with their name on it. Why would they ever want to do that? Why would Apple ever want to undermine their name and reputation by essentially doing the same thing?
P.S. Apple has no interest in "tap[ping] into this market." "This market" is a low/no/negative profit garage sale market. They've never been interested in that market. This is, for instance, why Android has the bulk of the smartphone market share, while Apple has the bulk of the smartphone profit. They don't sacrifice quality to chase pennies in the volume-sales junk business.
I wonder if these cloners, at any point in the discussion phase of stating this product, ever for once stop and say "You know, Psystar tried this once and got busted. Maybe we shouldn't do it?".
A consistently 33% faster machine means doing what used to take 40 hours a week in 27 hours, saving 13 working hours a week, or being able to do an extra 13 hours of work a week in the same 40 hours.
That's not even remotely true in any common use case.
Comments
According to the Geekbench Benchmarks, the current highest performing 2019 16 inch MBP is 33% faster than its 15 inch counterpart.
Apple's US base price for fastest 2019 16" MBP is $3099, which is less than $40 a week when paid within the 18 month interest-free promo scheme.
A consistently 33% faster machine means doing what used to take 40 hours a week in 27 hours, saving 13 working hours a week, or being able to do an extra 13 hours of work a week in the same 40 hours. At a minimum wage of $10 an hour, that's $133 a week, $10,374 over 18 months. Hopefully as a skilled pro, your rate is worth more than minimum wage.
So as a pro who likes to get their money's worth, can you, as you exercise your good conscience waiting for a 4800u MBP, afford not to upgrade and lose $100 a week, $7800 in 18 months of potential revenue?
I should've written my original post differently where what I'd like to bring across is: I'd be happier spending more for a better device (as ridiculous as the price tag in Europe is already) because this is a tool that I depend on. Whilst I'm still buying an Intel MBP, I write these with the hope that we see AMD CPUs sooner because I'd much rather buy that.
Dropping a Mercedes AMG V8 engine into some sort of a cheap kit car body doesn't get you a Mercedes on the cheap. It gets you a mess that's probably going to crash. And Mercedes certainly isn't going to sell their engine in a bare-bones kit specifically to enable you to cobble together a jalopy with their name on it. Why would they ever want to do that? Why would Apple ever want to undermine their name and reputation by essentially doing the same thing?
P.S. Apple has no interest in "tap[ping] into this market." "This market" is a low/no/negative profit garage sale market. They've never been interested in that market. This is, for instance, why Android has the bulk of the smartphone market share, while Apple has the bulk of the smartphone profit. They don't sacrifice quality to chase pennies in the volume-sales junk business.