macOS has been free for, like, 15 years.

Yes, you have to already own an Apple computer, but Apple users don’t pay for OS upgrades.

Technically, anyone could download the OS images, but there’s not a lot that non-Apple users can do with them.

That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.

Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.

Any windows license always cost money.

That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.

Yeah, the big reason to do that was so you could attach an EGPU which wasn’t supported natively. Now it is, though, so the need for that mostly disappeared. Plus, macOS is now so reliant on proprietary interval hardware like the T2 chip, then I won’t run on anything, but Apple hardware.

You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost.
macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.

Ok, that makes a bit more sense then.

eGPUs got pretty good support on Intel Macs in the years leading up to Apple Silicon. And that transition started 5+ years ago. And now all Apple Silicon Macs have no eGPU support.

I find it weird that you cite eGPU support since hackintoshes almost always have PCI slots. And the eGPU support still comes from Apple (at the driver level) even on a hackintosh. AFAIK.

Well, then show me a receipt where you (or anyone) paid for macOS. Should be interesting.

As they need to be installed on Apple hardware, there's an implicit cost associated with it.

If you want to be super pedantic for no reason, you're correct, it is technically free.

So when someone buys [anything] with a screen, the OS on the screen if free?

I don't have a receipt for the OS in my car, so it means I must've gotten it for free. Same with the seats, steering wheel, mirrors, buttons, doors, you bang it! But what did I actually pay for then?

Here you go https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/10/30/h-265-hevc-license-pricing-updated-for-low-cost-devices/

The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.

You keep repeating this argument of "show me where I can possibly pay for it" presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.

What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly

Apple doesn't need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.

Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.

Are you ASD? I'm not saying MacOS isn't free man since anyone can get a copy and use virtual PC. I'm saying I will never get a Mac because they are too damned expensive.

Nuance, man. Nuance.

If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.

It's paid for as a part of the hardware and not listed separately on the receipts. All those 3rd party components in the OS are not free and has to be paid for. That comes from the hardware sale.

Legal - Software License Agreements - Apple

Apple Legal (www.apple.com)

You agree that the terms of this License will apply to any Apple-branded application
software product that may be preinstalled on your Apple-branded hardware

you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.

to download, install, use and run for personal, non-commercial use, one (1) copy of the Apple
Software directly on each Apple-branded computer running macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura, macOS Monterey, macOS Big Sur, macOS Catalina, macOS Mojave, or macOS High Sierra
(“Mac Computer”) that you own or control

and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

You're only allowed to use Mac OS and software for it on a Mac computer, which you have to pay for.

The license additionally calls out included 3rd party licensed fonts which which you can't use unrestricted without a specific license from the market of that font

Exactly what nuance is there to blatant insults and ableism?

You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost.
macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.

You’re missing the point: macOS is free. Just because you have to buy hardware to run it on doesn’t make it any different than any other free operating system like Linux. There’s plenty of hardware that doesn’t support Linux , too, so your argument, especially falls apart there.

I cannot believe there is this long, drawn out argument over whether MacOS is free or not when my intention was MacOS + Mac = me not buying because it's too much money for a meh system that doesn't run half of the games or apps (though that's been changing).

I feel like reading between the lines is a skill, or an art form that has gone extinct with young folk.

You sent me the license of agreement for a completely different piece of software and think that’s evidence of macOS costing money?

Are you hallucinating?

The first link is evidence that video codecs cost money and, as per that source:

Most video codecs such as H.264, H265/HEVC, MPEG-2, MPEG-4… requires the manufacturer to pay a license fee. The fees are then added to the final product, but the actual codec fees are usually unknown to the end user.

This was in response to the earlier discussion about third party libraries costing money.

There’s a massive difference: Linux doesn’t require you to buy specific hardware from a specific vendor to legally run it. macOS does.
With Linux, if your hardware isn’t supported, it’s a technical limitation. With macOS, it’s an intentional restriction enforced by Apple through both legal terms (EULA) and hardware locks.

That's the difference between open and closed systems. Linux lets you try on anything—even if it might not fit perfectly. Apple forces you to buy their clothes before you're allowed in the store.

Difference my guy.