this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
978 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

74532 readers
4023 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] QuestionMark@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Linux has an entirely different story.

The Linux Kernel Organization is managed by The Linux Foundation, which provides full technical, financial and staffing support for running and maintaining the kernel.org infrastructure.

Funding for the Linux Foundation comes primarily from its Platinum Members, who pay US$500,000 per year according to Schedule A in LF's bylaws, adding up to US$7.5 million. The Gold Members contribute a combined total of US$1.2 million and Silver members contribute between US$5,000 and US$20,000 based on the amount of employees, summing up to at least US$6,240,000.

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.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] QuestionMark@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

None of this changes the fact that macOS is free

I just don’t understand why you keep wasting your time arguing objective fact.

[–] QuestionMark@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com -2 points 6 days ago

It’s not a competition, kiddo. But telling me you finally give up isn’t really the insult you think it is.

Bye!