I understand skepticism and not always giving corporations the benefit of the doubt, but they _clearly_ spent a lot of time and resources to make third-party OSes viable on Apple Sillicon Macs.
This actually isn't clear to me -- can you explain? Besides keeping an open bootloader [0], I'm not aware of any affirmative actions Apple has taken.
[0]: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Open-OS-Ecosystem-on...
It boots in a notably different way than iOS machines do, and has some (AFAICT) pretty unique capabilities, including a fully-verified signed-boot of macOS partitions, while allowing third-party kernels at the same time.
Asahi's "Introduction to Apple Silicon" [0], and specifically "Security modes, Boot Policies, and machine ownership" paragraph outlines some of that, Apple's "Platform Security" [1] whitepaper does too.
Asahi's docs also explicitly state the same thing [2].
If you still don't think that shows significant amount of work and care were put into deliberately allowing third-party OS's to work on those machines, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.
[0]: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Introduction-to-Appl...
[1]: https://support.apple.com/guide/security/welcome/web
[2]: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Apple-Platform-Secur...
Seems to me like they can’t decide whether they want Linux on their hardware or not. I bet different people in the org are pulling in different directions.
Why can't the same "there is no OS except iOS allowed on iPhones" argument be applied here? If the only os that boots on a macbook is macOS, that's starting to smell like anti-competitive behavior the same way that only app store approved apps can run on iOS is anti-competitive.
That is to say, unless I am truly off my rocker and remembering a fever dream: it's not just a "placate the anti-trust regulators" play.
I'm pretty sure I've also seen it mentioned on HN itself that Linux is still used within Apple for certain aspects of hardware development, so Apple themselves need it to work to a certain degree.
That would be strong evidence that there's at least _some_ support internally for them but doesn't explain why they bothered at all.
The lack of explicit endorsements and documentation certainly has me thinking that at least _some_ of apple doesn't want this happening at all so they're at least going to make it hard. It may not be a "what's the bare minimum support we have to do to avoid being a poster-child for anti-competitive behavior" that's completely driving it after all.
I mean, you're kind of glossing over my second point from my comment:
> I'm pretty sure I've also seen it mentioned on HN itself that Linux is still used within Apple for certain aspects of hardware development, so Apple themselves need it to work to a certain degree.
Anyway, I went and dug around and found the HN discussion of that Marcan tweet that's been deleted - you can browse it below if you missed it or are curious:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29591578
Notably, this comment from Saagarjha who I trust on Apple-related matters is what I was referring to regarding Apple using Linux internally for some of their work:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29599889
All this to say, if the people who have some level of vested expert knowledge in this domain - like Marcan or Saagarjha - don't buy the conspiracy theory angle, then I'm inclined to side with them.
But I have to say I don’t understand how what Saagar is saying is supporting your (our?) point. Apple has ability to do a whole lot of things that will never make it to end-users — just because some flavor of Linux is being used in the CPU bringup process doesn’t mean anything for the final products.
As evidenced by the fact that M1 is far from the first chip they brought up in-house - and even then only on Macs, not on iPads which use the same chip.
I hear they even have some non-Apple hardware running macOS in data centers, the absolute horror ;P
Maybe I'm just a jaded grey-beard but I suspect that this is more of a "placate the anti-trust regulators" play and not a genuine olive branch offering.
Apple gets to say "see, look! Not only are we not locking people out - there's a whole micro-niche community that's taken root. If that isn't proof we're not abusing our position, I don't know what is..."
They left the door open, but just barely. The reverse engineering efforts will always be a step behind making sure that there's always going to be a "non-apple" experience that will be objectively inferior in one way or another.