Introduction

Apple has long been known for its sleek hardware, refined software, and a unique philosophy that sets it apart from its tech rivals. Nowhere is this more evident than in macOS, the operating system that powers every MacBook, iMac, and Mac Studio. While many operating systems have shifted toward more open models—Linux being the most notable example—Apple remains steadfastly committed to a closed ecosystem.

But why?

Why does Apple resist the call for openness, even as developers, users, and regulators push for transparency, interoperability, and freedom of choice? On the surface, Apple claims it’s about user experience, privacy, and security. And while those factors certainly play a role, the true answer runs deeper—through Apple’s business strategy, historical roots, competitive positioning, and, most importantly, its unrelenting desire for control.

1. Historical Context: The Roots of a Closed Ecosystem

To understand Apple’s closed philosophy, we must go back to its roots. Apple was born in the late 1970s with the Apple I and Apple II computers, but the company’s real shift toward a vertically integrated model began with the original Macintosh in 1984.

From the very beginning, Apple diverged from Microsoft. While Microsoft focused on licensing its Windows operating system to various PC manufacturers—creating a vast, hardware-agnostic ecosystem—Apple insisted on building both the hardware and the software. The result? Tighter integration, but less market share.

That integration philosophy continued into the 2000s when Apple acquired NeXT and transitioned to macOS, based on NeXTSTEP. This move set the stage for the macOS we know today: a Unix-based, visually polished, and tightly controlled environment that runs only on Apple-certified hardware.

Where Microsoft embraced compatibility and scale, Apple chose refinement and exclusivity. That decision would go on to define the company’s future.

2. The Closed System Philosophy

So what exactly does it mean for macOS to be a “closed” system?

In practice, a closed system is one where the creator—Apple—retains near-total control over how the software interacts with hardware, what kind of hardware it runs on, what kind of software it can execute, and how users and developers interact with it. Apple decides:

• What hardware macOS can run on (only Apple machines).
• What system-level modifications are allowed (very few).
• What software distribution is acceptable (encouraging App Store use, requiring notarization for outside apps).
• Which drivers and third-party tools are permissible.

This contrasts sharply with open-source platforms like Linux, where anyone can fork, modify, or compile their own version, and with Windows, which supports a wide variety of configurations, hardware, and drivers.

Apple justifies its control with a set of commonly repeated narratives: better security, improved user experience, and consistent system performance. While there’s some truth in each of these claims, they also conveniently mask the commercial and strategic advantages Apple enjoys from locking users in.

3. The Business Model: Hardware-Software Synergy

Unlike companies like Google that earn most of their revenue from ads, or Microsoft, which profits from enterprise software and cloud services, Apple’s core business remains centered around hardware—specifically high-margin devices like the iPhone, Mac, and iPad.

macOS plays a critical role here. It isn’t sold as a standalone product. You can’t go to a store and buy macOS to install on your DIY desktop. Apple gives away macOS “for free,” but it’s only available when you purchase Apple hardware. The operating system is the product—but only when it’s bundled with an expensive MacBook or iMac.

Keeping macOS closed ensures that users who want the macOS experience have only one option: buy a Mac. This tight coupling between hardware and software protects Apple’s hardware margins and prevents competitors from undercutting their product line with cheaper macOS-compatible devices.

Imagine if macOS could legally and easily be installed on any machine. Apple would instantly lose one of its strongest competitive advantages—exclusivity. Its devices would no longer be unique; they’d just be one of many options running the same software. The brand would be diluted, and revenue would suffer.

4. Ecosystem Lock-In: The Hidden Trap

Apple’s ecosystem is often praised for its seamless integration across devices. Your iPhone speaks fluently with your MacBook, iPad, Apple Watch, and even Apple TV. Features like Handoff, Universal Clipboard, AirDrop, and iCloud sync create a cohesive experience that’s hard to match.

This seamlessness is only possible because Apple controls every layer of the stack—from hardware design to OS development to cloud services. The closed nature of macOS isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. It’s what allows Apple to offer features that competitors can’t easily replicate.

But there’s a darker side to this integration: lock-in.

Once you own a Mac, you’re more likely to buy an iPhone to get the most out of the ecosystem. Then maybe you buy an Apple Watch because of its compatibility with both. This kind of cross-device synergy is great—for Apple. It makes leaving the ecosystem feel painful and inconvenient. And because macOS is closed, there’s no “halfway out.” You’re either in Apple’s world—or you’re not.

5. Security and Privacy: A Justifiable Excuse?

Apple often frames its closed ecosystem as a matter of user protection. And to be fair, macOS is more secure in some respects. Features like:

• Gatekeeper: blocks unverified apps.
• System Integrity Protection (SIP): prevents critical system files from being altered.
• Notarization: requires Apple’s approval for most distributed apps.
• App Sandboxing: limits what each app can access.

These create a fortified environment where malicious code has fewer vectors to exploit.

Apple also touts its strong privacy stance—refusing to sell user data, anonymizing Siri requests, and offering app tracking transparency. Compared to competitors like Google or Facebook, Apple does seem more respectful of user data.

But is security the real reason for macOS being closed? Or is it a convenient justification for retaining control?

Critics argue that you can have a secure system without locking everything down. Linux, for example, is highly secure but open-source. Even Microsoft has managed to vastly improve Windows security without closing it entirely.

6. Developer Control and App Store Tensions

Though macOS is more flexible than iOS—allowing third-party app installation from outside the App Store—it still places significant restrictions on developers. Notarization, sandboxing, and Apple’s review policies apply even to apps outside the Mac App Store. This gives Apple control over what kind of software is built for macOS, how it’s distributed, and in many cases, how it monetizes.

The Mac App Store itself, while less dominant than the iOS App Store, still demands a 15–30% commission on many transactions. This has led to tension with developers, some of whom have fled to direct distribution models. Even then, Apple insists on certain rules being followed, keeping developers on a tight leash.

By maintaining a closed platform, Apple ensures developers have no choice but to play by its rules. That means more revenue, more influence, and more control.

7. The Myth of User Experience

Apple argues that its control is all in service of the user experience—that the only way to deliver a polished, consistent interface is by owning the whole stack. And while macOS is beautiful and user-friendly, critics have started questioning whether Apple is using UX as a smokescreen.

In recent years, Apple has been criticized for:

• Delaying innovations that competitors implemented earlier.
• Introducing bugs in macOS updates (e.g., the problematic macOS Catalina launch).
• Prioritizing aesthetic over usability (e.g., skeuomorphism debates).

These criticisms suggest that closed control doesn’t guarantee great user experience. It just centralizes responsibility. Openness, in contrast, often fuels rapid innovation—something that’s less evident in Apple’s ultra-controlled environment.

8. Competitive Positioning and Premium Branding

Apple’s closed macOS strategy also serves its branding. The company doesn’t just sell devices—it sells status. The Mac isn’t a cheap, utilitarian machine—it’s a premium product, often associated with design professionals, students, and creatives.

Keeping macOS exclusive helps maintain that premium image. If macOS could be installed on a $300 Dell laptop, the brand’s mystique would erode. The closed nature of macOS is part of Apple’s marketing—an aura of sophistication that’s hard to replicate in an open-source world.

This is not just about pride. It’s about price. Premium branding allows Apple to charge far more than competitors for hardware that’s often only marginally better in specs. The closed OS reinforces the perception of superiority—and that perception feeds the bottom line.

9. The Legal and Regulatory Landscape

Apple’s closed ecosystem is now facing mounting legal pressure. Regulatory bodies in the U.S., Europe, and Asia are scrutinizing Apple’s dominance, particularly over the App Store and device interoperability.

Laws like the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) are pushing Apple to allow alternative app stores and greater third-party access. The U.S. Department of Justice is also investigating Apple for potential antitrust violations.

So far, macOS has avoided the harshest scrutiny compared to iOS—but that could change. If regulators determine that Apple is unfairly restricting competition through macOS’s exclusivity, we could see forced changes. Whether that includes allowing macOS on non-Apple hardware remains to be seen, but the pressure is increasing.

10. The Hackintosh Underground

Despite Apple’s efforts, a community of enthusiasts has found ways to install macOS on non-Apple hardware. Known as “Hackintosh” users, these individuals patch, tweak, and hack their way to run macOS on everything from gaming desktops to ThinkPads.

Apple has never officially supported Hackintoshes, and technically, it violates Apple’s End User License Agreement (EULA). Yet, the company has rarely gone after individuals or small communities legally.

Why? Some believe it’s a calculated move—fighting the Hackintosh scene too hard could spark a backlash and attract unwanted attention. By turning a blind eye, Apple avoids bad PR while quietly maintaining its closed philosophy in the mainstream.

Still, the existence of Hackintoshes shows that the only real barrier is Apple’s will, not technical feasibility.

11. Could Apple Ever Open macOS?

Theoretically, Apple could open macOS—license it to third-party vendors, allow certified builds for other systems, or even go partially open-source.

But doing so would:

• Undermine Mac hardware sales.
• Dilute the brand.
• Invite compatibility and support issues.
• Reduce Apple’s leverage over developers and users.

The risks far outweigh the potential rewards—especially since Apple is already the world’s most profitable company without opening up.

Unless legally forced, Apple is unlikely to budge. And even then, it would probably resist with everything it’s got.

12. The Real Reason: Control Is Power

Let’s strip away the PR gloss. Apple’s commitment to a closed macOS isn’t just about user experience, or security, or privacy. Those are benefits—but not the reason.

The real reason is control.

Control over hardware sales.
Control over developers.
Control over the user experience.
Control over data, monetization, and narrative.
Control over competition.

Control is power. And in Apple’s case, it’s a multi-trillion-dollar power.

The walled garden isn’t an accident. It’s the moat around the castle—the barrier that protects Apple’s empire from being eaten away by commoditization and open competition. It’s a strategy designed not just to win customers, but to keep them forever.

Conclusion: Necessary Evil or Strategic Greed?

In the end, Apple’s closed macOS is both a product of its philosophy and a weapon of its dominance. Whether you see it as a necessary evil or strategic greed depends on where you stand.

For users who value simplicity, security, and consistency—it works beautifully.
For developers and open-source advocates, it’s a frustrating limitation.
For Apple shareholders, it’s a masterstroke.

But the truth is clear: macOS is closed because Apple doesn’t want to give up control. And as long as that control continues to generate loyalty, brand power, and profit—it’s not going to change.