> Wholly dependent on Microsoft.

Not wholly, surely? As an OEM, Apple would need to provide drivers. Given that their system isn’t an off-the-shelf SBBR/ServerReady ARM64 device, that’s going to be a not-insignificant amount of work that isn’t Microsoft’s responsibility.

Seeing as the Asahi Linux project has had to reverse-engineer pretty much everything, I don’t see how Microsoft could be totally on the hook.

It's precisely it not being a SystemReady ARM64 device that makes it Microsoft's responsibility. The Windows kernel requires core changes to support this hardware; it cannot be done with just drivers. Nobody can make Windows work on this without Microsoft's help. Same reason we had to make a few changes to core Linux plumbing, besides adding drivers.

Ah, thanks for the explanation! That makes sense.

Apple has publicly stated that they’re willing to do that, but Microsoft refuses to license Windows for the M1: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/20/craig-federighi-on-wind...

I'm surprised Apple stated that as macOS (ARM) have stretchy support for dual booting, even with two macOS version installed. So how could Apple be willing to do that if they haven't flesh out the dual-booting for Apple Silicon? Strange they passes the ball to Microsoft (deflecting to their competitor) whereas Apple should be holding the ball until it is capable enough.

Microsoft doesn't offer Windows 11 unless it is bundled with hardware. I am sure that if Apple wishes to sell Macbook Pro with Windows, Apple could reach out and Microsoft would be interested. But I really doubt that Apple would want to go down this route.

Eh? You can go out and buy a retail copy of Windows 11 from loads of places without hardware. E.g. here in the UK Scan, Ebuyer, Insight, etc. All major software/hardware sellers.

My bad. I should have specified Windows 11 ARM.