<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Abishek_Muthian</author><text>When Apple first mandated kext signing (Mountain Lion?) they explicitly whitelisted certain community built kexts used for Hackintosh. IMO Apple and the Hackintosh community has been mutually benefited until now. Many who have accustomed to macOS from Hackintosh has eventually invested in Apple products.&lt;p&gt;Considering Apple has only went after those who profiteered by selling pre-built Hackintosh and not everyone who are profiteering from Hackintosh scene; I would say Apple did care about the Hackintosh community in some way.&lt;p&gt;I thought the higher performance&amp;#x2F;price Hackintosh, especially with Ryzen might force Apple to act differently but now with M1, Apple needn&amp;#x27;t worry about Hackintosh performance&amp;#x2F;price anymore.</text><parent_chain><item><author>chongli</author><text>Apple does not want to offer to the hackintosh&amp;#x2F;enthusiast market because they are the most price conscious segment. Targeting that segment means putting out extremely performant, low-margin commodity machines. Doing so then cannibalizes the market for their ultra-high-end stuff.&lt;p&gt;Not only that, though. Enthusiasts are also extremely fickle and quick to jump ship to a cheaper hardware offering. If you look at all of Apple’s other markets, you’ll see loads of brand loyalty. Fickle enthusiasts don’t fit the mould.</text></item><item><author>xoa</author><text>Not to speak for anyone else, but one thing I gently disagree with:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;Given that Hackintoshers are a particular bunch who don’t take kindly to the Apple-tax[...]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have zero issues with an Apple premium or paying a lot for hardware. I think a major generator of interest in hackintoshes has been that there are significant segments of computing that Apple has simply completely (or nearly completely) given up on, including essentially &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; non-AIO desktop system above the Mini. At one point they had quite competitive PowerMacs and then Mac Pros covering the range of $2k all the way up to $10k+, and while sure there was some premium there was feature coverage, and they got regular yearly updates. They were &amp;quot;boring&amp;quot;, but in the best way. There didn&amp;#x27;t need to be anything exciting about them. The prices did steadily inch upward, but far more critically sometime between 2010 and 2012 somebody at Apple decided the MP had to be exciting or something and created the Mac Cube 2, except this time to force it by eliminating the MP entirely. And it was complete shit, and to zero surprise never got a single update (since they totally fucked the power&amp;#x2F;thermal envelope, there was nowhere to go) and users completely lost the ability to make up for that. And then that was it, for 6 years. Then they did a kind of sort of ok update, but at a bad point given that Intel was collapsing, and forcing in some of their consumer design in ways that really hurt the value.&lt;p&gt;The hackintosh, particularly virtualized ones in my opinion (running macOS under ESXi deals with a ton of the regular problem spots), has helped fill that hole as frankenstein MP 2010s finally hit their limits. I&amp;#x27;m sure Apple Silicon will be great for a range of systems, but it won&amp;#x27;t help in areas that Apple just organizationally doesn&amp;#x27;t care about&amp;#x2F;doesn&amp;#x27;t have the bandwidth for because that&amp;#x27;s not a technology problem. So I&amp;#x27;m a bit pessimistic&amp;#x2F;whistful about that particular area, even though it&amp;#x27;ll be a long time before the axe completely falls on it. It&amp;#x27;ll be fantastic and it&amp;#x27;s exciting to see the return of more experimentation in silicon, but at the same time it was a nice dream for a decade or so to be able to freely take advantage of a range of hardware the PC market offered which filled holes Apple couldn&amp;#x27;t.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery</title><url>https://www.singhkays.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-black-magic/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>socialdemocrat</author><text>What Apple could have done is to continue supplying something like the G4 towers. Those where stunningly beautiful machines and practical.</text><parent_chain><item><author>chongli</author><text>Apple does not want to offer to the hackintosh&amp;#x2F;enthusiast market because they are the most price conscious segment. Targeting that segment means putting out extremely performant, low-margin commodity machines. Doing so then cannibalizes the market for their ultra-high-end stuff.&lt;p&gt;Not only that, though. Enthusiasts are also extremely fickle and quick to jump ship to a cheaper hardware offering. If you look at all of Apple’s other markets, you’ll see loads of brand loyalty. Fickle enthusiasts don’t fit the mould.</text></item><item><author>xoa</author><text>Not to speak for anyone else, but one thing I gently disagree with:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;Given that Hackintoshers are a particular bunch who don’t take kindly to the Apple-tax[...]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have zero issues with an Apple premium or paying a lot for hardware. I think a major generator of interest in hackintoshes has been that there are significant segments of computing that Apple has simply completely (or nearly completely) given up on, including essentially &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; non-AIO desktop system above the Mini. At one point they had quite competitive PowerMacs and then Mac Pros covering the range of $2k all the way up to $10k+, and while sure there was some premium there was feature coverage, and they got regular yearly updates. They were &amp;quot;boring&amp;quot;, but in the best way. There didn&amp;#x27;t need to be anything exciting about them. The prices did steadily inch upward, but far more critically sometime between 2010 and 2012 somebody at Apple decided the MP had to be exciting or something and created the Mac Cube 2, except this time to force it by eliminating the MP entirely. And it was complete shit, and to zero surprise never got a single update (since they totally fucked the power&amp;#x2F;thermal envelope, there was nowhere to go) and users completely lost the ability to make up for that. And then that was it, for 6 years. Then they did a kind of sort of ok update, but at a bad point given that Intel was collapsing, and forcing in some of their consumer design in ways that really hurt the value.&lt;p&gt;The hackintosh, particularly virtualized ones in my opinion (running macOS under ESXi deals with a ton of the regular problem spots), has helped fill that hole as frankenstein MP 2010s finally hit their limits. I&amp;#x27;m sure Apple Silicon will be great for a range of systems, but it won&amp;#x27;t help in areas that Apple just organizationally doesn&amp;#x27;t care about&amp;#x2F;doesn&amp;#x27;t have the bandwidth for because that&amp;#x27;s not a technology problem. So I&amp;#x27;m a bit pessimistic&amp;#x2F;whistful about that particular area, even though it&amp;#x27;ll be a long time before the axe completely falls on it. It&amp;#x27;ll be fantastic and it&amp;#x27;s exciting to see the return of more experimentation in silicon, but at the same time it was a nice dream for a decade or so to be able to freely take advantage of a range of hardware the PC market offered which filled holes Apple couldn&amp;#x27;t.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple Silicon M1: Black Magic Fuckery</title><url>https://www.singhkays.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-black-magic/</url></story>