So yay, you can buy a device… and 99% of people will install the same OS on it that it would have originally come with anyway. What’s the point here?

You’d have to say desktop apps must support all competing operating systems. But, hah, good luck with that.

Even if that doesn't happen I would be happy with the end of vendor lock-in.

Why? The hardware people at companies like NVIDIA or Apple already have to write detailed documentation for their stuff anyway so that the software people can do their side.

Assuming they do a good enough job at writing documentation and testing their hardware, it should not be a problem for Linux developers to write appropriate drivers. Hell there are a very few select people able to write high quality drivers even with zero documentation (see Asahi Linux).

The only ones in trouble would be the vendors of crap SoCs who ship extremely buggy hardware and make up for the lack of QA in software quirks instead.

2. Good documentation and testing is probably not as common as you think.

3. It takes a huge amount of effort to write high quality drivers by reverse engineering. The thing about Asahi Linux is that the hardware does not have many variants, but there are a lot more different hardware for PCs.

Not to mention that documentation != the actual behavior of the card. both nvidia and AMD release a ton of day-one driver fixes for new games being released that provide stability and sometimes double-digit performance gains over a pre-patched driver. The only way this works in a disintegrated ecosystem is if game devs become pros at creating driver bug workarounds.

They already are, they have to because that is the reality on mobile games. IIRC the devs of Real Racing (or another Android car race game) made a blog post on that.

They can also open source their testing bench code. The only ones who have to be afraid are those who don't care about quality. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" also applies here - I'd really like to be able as a consumer to choose the product that demonstrates the better engineering!

> 2. Good documentation and testing is probably not as common as you think.

Oh, I'm aware of that, and the consequences of that are becoming more and more dire as electronic waste from defunct companies or unsupported and unsecure devices piles up, together with hacked IoT devices causing mayhem on the wide Internet in botnets.

It's high time for that to stop.

> 3. It takes a huge amount of effort to write high quality drivers by reverse engineering. The thing about Asahi Linux is that the hardware does not have many variants, but there are a lot more different hardware for PCs.

So what? Ordinary PC hardware at its core still conforms to decades old standards that can be used as a fallback. Given a sufficient supply of beers, coffee and pizza, every CS student worth their money can throw up a basic graphical OS that runs on any mainstream (i.e. non-embedded) x86 system. Input, output (video, serial, audio, keyboard, mice, accessories) and storage all have standardized interfaces - the only thing that does not is networking.

There is no reason at all to say that the ARM world can't standardize on basic components or at least interfaces. Apple can - their UART implementation, according to rumors, dates back to the early iPod/iPhone days, while Samsung has something like five or six completely different implementation, and Mediatek and all the other SoC vendors run their completely own stuff.

How are those Android updates working out compared to iPhones?

Way way too long, but to be fair a huge part of the issue are carriers and their insistence to pack the phones full of bloatware that needs to be tested against each update.

> and Windows manufacturers to take advantage of the latest OS features?

Windows device manufacturers tend to do what Microsoft demands of them.

> How are those Android updates working out compared to iPhones?

Samsung is fairly decent, although I'd be happier if they'd ... consolidate their lineup a bit and instead offer longer availability for spare parts.

Google’s first party phones don’t have third party bloat ware and still have a piss poor history of updates

It couldn’t possibly be your premise is flawed could it?

For modems, yes, but only because there's even less competition in that area (which is why they bought Intel's mobile modem business, but failed to produce a viable design in all the years since).

They've been running their own SoC designs since the iPhone 4 era in 2010.

Since manufacturers didn't demand long support, Qualcomm didn't provide updates for their SoCs. This meant Fairphone couldn't support their phones even if they wanted to, which is why they used am automotive chip in their new phone — which is nearly the same as a phone chip except the 13 years of updates.

Isn’t that the free market working the way it should without government interference?

It took Apple, flush with cash from iPhones and iPods, a decade worth of work to create a SoC able to throw punches at eye level with Intel and AMD, which themselves grew to the unholy duopoly over decades. Chipmakers have it even worse: TSMC has all the cards, Samsung and Intel have completely fallen behind with no chance in sight that they'll match TSMC any time soon. All the other competition has gone bankrupt or stopped at lesser nodes because they couldn't keep up the pace.

There's no disrupting that, not even if you are an actual nation state.

Geeks just always hate when normal people make their own choices using their own free will.

Every failure that you cited were well funded companies who failed to execute. Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft failed trying to introduce phones.

The market worked as it should - poor execution led to failure.

They have chosen not to.

Only if the hardware company refuses to share info with them, which - as you clearly laid out - is not in their interest.

I bet you also think that a company should set up a DevOps “department” to increase efficiency

Chris Lattner, the inventor of the Swift programming language and the open source LLVM was once interviewed on the Accidental Tech Podcast and he was asked whether bytecode could be used to allow Apple to switch architectures without forcing them to require developers to recompile and still have native compilation. He made up some half truth about whether that would be possible.

Years later when the S chips in the Apple Watch became 64 bit, he admitted that at the time of the interview, he knew that the 64 bit S chip was on the roadmap internally and he designed the LLVM with that in mind.

That’s what happens when you have software and hardware teams working together. The same is true with Nvidia and the their software developers who design Cuda and Intel and the compiler makers.

There were also reports that the software team responsible for the JS engine in WebKit worked with the processor team and the processor team did some design work around Apple’s ARM variants to make JS pre compilation faster.

This is also the whole idea of VLIW architectures where the processor manufacture depends on a team of compiler makers to ring out efficiencies and they work closely together.

Heck even back in the Apple // days, Woz a developer, designed hardware and software together.

>The only ones in trouble would be the vendors of crap SoCs who ship extremely buggy hardware and make up for the lack of QA in software quirks instead.

I.e. the every single vendor currently on the market...

I agree with you, no system (particularly not something as complex as an entire SoC) is free of bugs.

> I.e. the every single vendor currently on the market...

And yet, we have Apple, whose hardware quality alone is good enough for a dedicated team to reverse engineer and write drivers for, with almost zero documentation available.

The problem, as I expanded below, is the complete lack of competition in the SoC space. Everyone gets away with mediocrity because the largest players in town (Apple and Samsung) refuse to sell their chips to externals. The result is that the mobile ecosystem as a whole suffers, because that is what happens in markets where entities get too large.

Apple own software is pretty janky, my current MacBook cannot bring up GPU after sleep about once a month and needs a reboot to begin drawing GUI correctly again, used to be dying completely waking up before it was fixed couple OS updates back. My previous MacBook could not stay on WiFi for more than a couple hours straight, never had been fixed.

Also, reversing an existing working driver is different from writing a driver from scratch. In one case you just need to repeat the functionality, produce the same outputs for the same inputs, the quality of hardware is orthogonal here since it's already worked around in the existing driver. It's orders of magnitude easier than writing the thing from scratch.

I am guessing that AirDrop, Sidecar, etc have absolutely nothing to do with hardware-software integration, and have ≥ Layer 3 implementations. KDE Connect and Microsoft My Phone are competitors.

How hard is it for you not to use Apple products? Are you incapable of using your own free will?

Between Apple and the government, guess which one has the power to take away your free will?

That’s why PC OEMs didn’t support FireWire before USB 3 came out except for Sony and Dell on some of their high end offerings.

If you don’t like Apple’s offerings you are free to choose Android/Windows

How to make this work in practice is a really interesting question. Community and employee representatives on the board would be a good start. But I think just having the requirement that open specifications be made available, and writing that into legislation, would be great.

If governments had a good track record I'd advocate for that. No need for strawmen like five year plans, I think competition is a wonderful thing.

My underlying, strong belief is that corporations are legal fictions created primarily to benefit society, Milton Friedman's philosophy notwithstanding.

It’s also naiveté to think that government power isn’t the most dangerous kind of power imaginable even though almost every law proposed by the government with regards to tech is roundly criticized by the same people.

You want to see what government can do with power - look no further than Desantis or this…

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2023/aug/20/police-newspap...

Or this

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...

Government overreach is a legitimate concern in some cases, but not here. Regulating megacorps is something the US needs, and society would be all the better for it.

Do you like any of the previous laws the government has passed or tried to pass with relationship to tech?

And the EU isn’t exactly a role model for innovation and success in the tech industry.

That's only true if the market isn't free. If private businesses are not kept in check, they can (and have) overthrown government power. Ask me how I know!

Why do you think that the NSA needs Apple and Google’s help?

But isn’t that a reason to be more concerned about government power and not try to give the government power?

Google spies on you and targets ads. The government has the power to arrest you and send you to black sites and cause you all sorts of harm if you go against its interest. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s a publicized fact that the government went after MLK for upsetting the status quo and did wiretaps.

Because leaked NSA documents have implicated them since 2010.

> But isn’t that a reason to be more concerned about government power and not try to give the government power?

I mean, not when private interests are compelled to manufacture them. If anything, it's a reason to demand all software be Open-Source and let the malware-manufacturing cocksuckers suffer the consequences.

1. What speed can you transfer data through it?

2. How much power can it deliver?

3. Can it support video over USB C?

4. Say a random device comes with a USB-A cable on one side and a USB-c on the other. Now take a standard usb c/usb c cable, will it always charge the device?

Also when that same government first wanted to “standardize”. They wanted to standardize on micro-USB.

Oh, easy. Apple already solved this one; if it has the Thunderbolt logo, it's maxed out. If it's anything else, you're usually getting at least 5w charging and USB 2.0 speeds. In other words, the worst-case scenario is usually slightly better than Lightning.

So your solution to making sure that you get the most compatibility is to buy Apple cables for Apple devices…meet the new boss.

I’m slightly trolling. I have these….

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093YVRHMB

I travel with a portable monitor that gets power and video from one USB-c cable. It works with both my personal MacBook Air and my work Windows laptop.

I was hoping you'd bite the hook, but not like this...

Intel actually designed the spec, drivers and IC controllers for Thunderbolt. Apple consulted on it with USB-IF, but they don't own the spec like they do with Lightning. They're less of a new boss, and more subsuming their rightful position as a valued consultant on a shared standard. It's a good (albeit old) example of Apple doing the right thing through the right channels.

Maybe.

> Case in point

But this does not really support your statement no? What you described seems to me SW only functionality no? And if in requires any special HW (BT? I have no idea how it works under the hood), why does it need tight integration? I do not see a technical reason why Android and Windows could not provide the same feature out of the box, despite neither the Google nor Microsoft making the HW.

> Non-obvious is a requirement for patent protection that literally means your invention is not obvious to someone who is in the same industry. A new invention needs to be unexpected or surprising and cannot be anticipated by looking at the existing technology or prior art.

moreover, apple's software is generally very buggy.

Just copying them on the iPhone and pasting them on the mac is super convenient.

How else would it work across different devices? Apple devices can not connect to e.g. Android devices without a 'special program and configuration' nor can they do so with Linux or Windows or whatever other devices.

> Also, KDE Connect needs both devices to be in the same network - which is not needed for Apple devices

KDE Connect and other similar tools work fine over a VPN which is the preferred solution for such setups. You can choose which VPN you want to use, OpenVPN and Wireguard are two popular choices. Here again that VPN can be used to connect disparate devices - Linux, Windows, Android, Apple-things, whatever. Apple devices only talk to other Apple devices which is far more restrictive.

If you are a happy camper in the walled garden then things are good for you. I prefer the freedom of camping in the wild even if that means I may have to build my own fire and cook my own food since it enables me to go where I please without being held back by that wall and without having to pay the ferryman. To each his own I guess?

I was talking about Mac and iPhone having seamless integration - something I have not noticed of any other ecosystem. I have not been able to share clipboards with an android and a PC (Win and Linux) without installing an app, or doing some other hacky things. The integration, while possible, doesn't exist by default. It's not seamless. It doesn't _just work_.

> KDE Connect and other similar tools work fine over a VPN

I don't want to use a VPN? I want to use my regular home wifi or phone network, like a normal person.

How else would this type of interchange work between disparate systems other than by equipping all systems with a piece of software to bridge the gap? In what way is this a problem and what makes it 'hacky'? When you want to use your Apple-device to interact with something non-Apple you install a piece of software to enable this interaction - that was the premise of a 'smart phone' after all, a device which' functionality can be extended by installing software? This in contrast to a 'feature phone' where all functionality has been baked in by the manufacturer/distributor. You seem to be using your Apple devices more in the way of the latter - using only manufacturer-provided functionality.

> I don't want to use a VPN? I want to use my regular home wifi or phone network, like a normal person.

I do not want to use 'the cloud' and Bluetooth in ways I do not have control over [1] - as I said, to each his own?

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/02/26/simple-ap...

Circumstantially, yes. I am a KDE user though, on GNOME you do have to install a little app for it.

https://userbase.kde.org/KDEConnect

Also gsconnect can provide integration with gnome.

https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/1319/gsconnect/

KDE Connect is a project that enables all your devices to communicate with each other. Here are a few things KDE Connect can do:

    Receive your phone notifications on your desktop computer and reply to messages

    Control music playing on your desktop from your phone

    Use your phone as a remote control for your desktop

    Run predefined commands on your PC from connected devices. See the list of example commands for more details.


    Check your phones battery level from the desktop

    Ring your phone to help finding it

    Share files and links between devices

    Browse your phone from the desktop

    Control the desktop's volume from the phone

Firefox and I presume chrome let you push tabs from one machine to the other or with forefox simply pull up a list of tabs currently open on the other device.

Unified remote also gives you a great remote for our multimedia pc.

Basically every email service abd chat app has good integration between desktop and phone.

Mpd and mafa lets me easily listen to my music

Calibre and calibre companion let's me easily sync my books

I doubt one person making these things would make them better

Apple's clipboard/handoff/continuity automatically works as long as the devices are within wifi/bluetooth range.

It doesn't seem to be enabled by default though. I'm not totally familiar with the situation, but I'd assume it's a problem with multi-device handling and switching to the best backend. For most people/situations, the Wifi Direct option will be faster and lower-latency.

people buy apple products precisely because of how integrated they are. this idealism and desire to force companies to support everything (as much as i want gaming on mac/linux and drivers for things supported) is the single most dangerous idea that would completely ruin the user experience for millions.

I'm sorry, where did I proposed we do that? As far as I am aware my proposal would only force Apples to split itself in 2: a hardware company that sells top notch hardware (so top notch in fact that even the hardware interfaces are as clean and slick as an iPad's case), and a software company that sells a top-notch integrated software suite on whatever hardware they chose to support (and no other hardware).

This idea that Apple's hardware is somehow better because they don't publish their spec sounds incoherent to be honest. As is the idea that their software is better because it runs on company hardware. If there's still a company selling good hardware, one can still write good software for that particular hardware.

So… forcing hardware companies to support all software? Nope, though publishing their spec does automatically provide some level of support for arbitrary software. Forcing software companies to support all hardware? No more than they do now, possibly even less: hardware vendors will be incentivised to harmonise their respective interfaces to appeal to a maximum number of software vendors, so software vendors will be incentivised to support a relatively limited set of interfaces.

What I'm hoping to accomplish with this is: reduced or eliminated vendor lock-in, harmonisation and simplification of ISAs, the ability to support any hardware in any OS, and maybe even the the ability to actually write new OSes and see some real competition in this space.

Note one important component I haven't mentioned: ISA patents should be rendered null and void. Anyone should be allowed to design, make, and sell an ARM or x86 CPU without asking anyone's permission. Or a GPU clone, or a network card clone, etc. Without that we'll just strengthen monopolies, or maybe allow new ones to arise.

> I'm not proposing that we split companies.

Also you, only a couple comments up:

> As far as I am aware my proposal would only force Apples to split itself in 2: a hardware company that sells top notch hardware (so top notch in fact that even the hardware interfaces are as clean and slick as an iPad's case), and a software company that sells a top-notch integrated software suite on whatever hardware they chose to support (and no other hardware).

Which is it, split companies or don't split companies? You can't have it both ways. If you aren't proposing that we split companies then you can't propose we split Apple unless you want to be a pedantic twit and point out that that's just one company and not companies.

The law as I propose it would not legally force Apple to split. They would have 3 alternatives: stop selling software, stop selling hardware, or split. They could fire half the company, but we all know what they would actually do. Same deals with banks: enforcing the separation between deposit and investment wouldn't force the banks to split, but we all know that in practice they would.

Understand here that splitting Apple is not my goal. My goal is to separate the activities, in the hope of fostering more competition and personal freedom.

The second is an interoperability mandate: reproducing the functionality of existing hardware (a CPU ISA, a GPU clone…) must be authorized, and all relevant copyright and patents ignored.

This doesn’t mean that we would end all partnerships. The hardware company can still send prototypes to the software company, so driver development can begin before the hardware gets production-ready. That kind of workflow is common today.

People used to buy cocaine toothache drops and give them to children to get them to shut up. People used to send babies by post. Just because people like something doesn't mean it doesn't have terrible effects. [1]

> single most dangerous idea

I mean, sure after guns, drugs, superbugs, global nuclear war, climate change, super-plague produced by synthetic biology...

1 - https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/coca...

comparing apple’s integrated approach to cocaine drops for kids tells me all i need to know about your bias; consumers like apple products, they are privacy focused more then any commercial competitor and their chips and OS are better than anything else precisely because of their integration.

and people want those devices.

I do suspect however that we'd miss out on many benefits if we don't go all the way the way to disallowing vertical integration eventually. It's also something I rarely see spoken of.

... Except for the times when it makes things worse.

Like back in the good old days when lynching was an option. /s

You realize it was the government that enforced Jim Crow laws, against miscegenation, and “sodomy” (ie non heterosexual sex).

Not to mention the “War on Drugs”, civil forfeiture and using eminent domain to take away private property to give to another company.

I can much easier choose which corporation to use than the government.

And looking at some of the ideas on this submission, I damn sure don’t want some internet geeks deciding what products I can use and how they are made.

Even in the context of the extreme hyperbole of this entire comment chain, your analogy is pretty extreme and does not make sense. Jim Crow laws weren't stopped by regulation, they were stopped by dismantling government enforced rules.

And yes, it might sound crazy but individuals can actually decide what light bulb to buy or what computer to buy. And thinking so isn't even remotely libertarian or hyper capitalist. We aren't talking about labor rights or healthcare or other very asymmetric power imbalances. People just like to buy computers and devices that nerds and euh, let's say, activists dislike or ideologically disagree with. It doesn't make them sheep, or stupid, or ignorant.

Who says the software has to be open? It would be better for sure, but companies may be interested in selling software for assistive technologies.

Interest may go up if the barrier to entry lowers. Undocumented hardware is quite the turn off.

One reason for the blight of the blind here is the ludicrous complexity of the software, much of it comes from the ludicrous complexity and diversity of hardware interfaces, such that there is no competition and everything is terrible.

Most people however sharply underestimate the mountain of avoidable complexity we've accreted over the decades. I would situate it between 99% and 99.9% for personal computing. No silver bullet perhaps, but I know almost for a fact that there's enough silver dust around to gather 2 or 3 bullets.

Consider any sort of user-facing device (say, an electronic toy, or a music performance device, or for that matter, even a phone). These are all aggregates of hardware made by other companies. Yet they are also hardware. Being unable to develop such devices along with the firmware that runs them would make it more or less impossible to develop them at all. So where does "hardware" stop and "device" start?

Either the firmware can be modified by the user, or remotely, in which case it should not be shipped.

Or it is an implementation detail of the communication between the 3 pieces of hardware, not reasonably modifiable without returning the whole thing to the factory, in which case that firmware is actually part of the 3-piece hardware, and can be shipped.

Even a device as trivial as a keyboard, mouse, or SSD drive has firmware which can be updated. Shipping them without firmware would be completely ludicrous, and you'd basically buy a fancy brick. Hell, you need to flash firmware onto it in the factory to make future updates by the user possible!

I'm not proposing that no hardware ships with firmware. I'm proposing the hardware manufacturer choses: enable updates and don't ship the parts that can be updated, or disable updates entirely.

I would rather see a 'right to repair' extended to software bundled. Any device or software that can connect to a network or can be interfaced with in any way is prone to security (or any other) bugs, which the customer should have the right to fix themselves, because they bought it, and in order to do so, the company needs to hand out the source code and documentation for all their devices.

Also about vendor writing Linux drivers, you probably don't want them too, there are already vendor board support packages (BSP) out there that enabled their hardware on Linux, but those are overwhelmingly abysmal in quality.

What you rather want is for vendors to upstream their driver into the kernel, so that it is properly integrated, doesn't break the hardware of others and has a high quality, but that process is not something you can regulate and force.

We already do this! HP didn't write Windows, but they sure as hell sell laptops with Windows preinstalled.

i want safari, mail, and messages tyvm

Get rid of vertical integration, and the software job will be given to someone capable.

Lets say I create a new GPU IP core, i give it to a third-party chip manifactorer to produce it, then that delivers it to a fourth-party to burn a privat key into the fuses, then a fifth party signs its firmware with that key, which contains checks that Windows is running in secure boot mode with Microsoft keys. And then it is sold to the end user via a distributor, which did't do any other work on it.

How would preventing a 'vertical' integration forbid that?

I would rather just regulate that users should be given the full specs and possibility to use their own keys, to allow them to run their own software on/with it without any feature gates to the hardware. This can be argued for as a right to repair or as giving devices a second life and thus reducing electronic waste.

Your rule would likely make the work of smaller companies and startups more difficult, if they have to hire a third-party to write the software. A solo dev might has to create two companies in order to create one product, that seems painful. I guess a lot of OSH projects would not be possible with that rule.

There is precedent for this idea, in 1948 the Supreme Court forced the film studios to give up exhibition (theaters) with the paramount decision. This enabled the rise of independent film, and audiences benefited from more choice.

If you try to do this legislatively the Apples and the NVidias of the world will hire an army of lobbyists and storm Capitol Hill. But it might be to their benefit. After the breakup of Standard Oil, John Rockefeller became richer because competition forced out the less efficient portions of his old business from the market.

It’s true that it could temporarily degrade the user experience of some people, but that’s a small price to pay. People who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Windows laptops are worse in every vector than MacBooks. No consumer is asking for this.

So you want to degrade the user experience for “freedom” by giving the government more power???

"Open Standards" - There is no reason that your Mac or iPhone should only work with other Apple products through closed and proprietary standards. With adoption of open standards, all devices (irrespective of their manufacturer) can offer a decent integrated experience.

What’s the pairing process like? Mine is just - sign into iCloud and my AirPods show up.

Find a real argument if you want to waste our time. Right now you are embarrassing the constituent of reasonable and sensible Apple users who might otherwise advocate for middle-ground.

1. Your Bluetooth radio determines how many simultaneous connections you get. It is at least 2 on Bluetooth 4.0+.

2. You are conflating cloud pairing (Apple's feature) with multipoint pairing (everyone's feature). They coexist.

3. 8 devices is generally the hard limit on all consumer Bluetooth radios, from the iPhone to Nintendo Switch.

Furthermore, Apple's integrated solution quite literally depends on the Open standard of Bluetooth to operate. Whether or not you consider it a bad thing, quite obviously the integration and open solution both work fine alongside one another.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37733315

Yes and the phone also depends on standards when it comes to electricity. The fact is that Apple’s work on top of the standard provide a more robust more user friendly implementation.

This shows the power of an integrated solution. Apple released a better way to pair Bluetooth headphones with their devices and at the same time got the better method implemented across their computers, phones, tablets, watches and set top boxes.

That’s something you couldn’t do with an open standard as quickly.

I pair my headphones to one device that I’m signed into and they automatically get recognized by all my devices.

We have been saying this for days, across 30 fucking comments in this godforsaken chain, but you do not listen. Let me spell it out. If you ignore me this time, I won't bother responding.

You could do this with an Open Standard, just as quickly. This technology relies on Bluetooth MAC addresses and iCloud file sync, not fairy dust.*

With some people, I have no idea where they fall on the spectrum of self-serious argumentation. I usually don't even care; pretty much all feedback is valuable on a forum like this. When people preclude good-faith discussion around Apple hardware with weaksauce rhetoric though, it's pretty obvious that they're putting their emotions first. I'll field any discussion around Apple and their altruism, but I won't accept petty greed or speculation as a defense. They're an opaque company that deserves the scrutiny they recieve, regardless of the unofficial rationale people roll out.

This problem isn't specific to Apple hardware, or really the tech industry as a whole. Every field has it's pundits; you can usually identify them when they use weak rhetoric and avoid directly addressing your argument. It's still especially bad with Apple technology though, since so little of it is documented well enough to definitively refute any claim. You can't corroborate behavior on your iPhone with source code, or visit the iCloud datacenters to ensure everything is being handled with white gloves. People who know the platform well usually know that there is no definitive answer, and inflammatory riff-raff discussions float to the top.

Luckily I don’t have to because I use an integrated solution where the hardware, software and OS are made by the same company.

We aren’t talking about “simultaneous” connections we are talking about switching between them.

I’m not “confusing” anything. I’m saying that Apple’s integrated solution provides a better user experience. No one cares about how it’s done .

Thanks for making my point for me.

> No one cares about how it’s done .

Some markets do: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

Next though, you'll tell me that those democratically elected officials aren't "people", and are more profit-motivated than a business. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

> Next though, you'll tell me that those democratically elected officials aren't "people", and are more profit-motivated than a business. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose

It’s cute that you think politicians represent “the people” considering how PACs work or that you think they are “democratically” elected considering how gerrymandered most districts are.

Then you got to consider how each state has an equal number of senators regardless of population.

Again, why do you? Apple's products have worked just fine implimenting open standards (eg. HTML, TLS, AES, RSA, etc.). You could easily argue that the iPhone wouldn't be popular without open standards like Bluetooth and the Internet.

> It’s cute that you think politicians represent “the people”

Does the unregulated market represent it any better? I'd rather let gerrymandered electors regulate the market than allow the market to regulate itself.

Well, if I have a choice between a corporation - which I can choose not to support and a government with guns and the ability to take away my rights by force having power, I’ll choose private corporations every time.

To have a choice in the first place, you can't participate in a regulated market. Right now, you're complaining that your favorite player can't "win" a game of Blackjack by overruling the dealer. I don't know what to tell you; those are the rules of the game. Apple can go play their Calvinball economy in some other developing market, and so can you.

See? Freedom of choice.

I, as a user (and a vim-user, may I add), would like it very much if all the software and hardware in the world would be fully open, customizable, community-maintained. I, as a manufacturer, am less keen on that idea. So, to make it happen, every manufacturer has to be forced to make that happen. So, literally, we are stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom under a promise of a bright happy future.

And the realness of that promise is as questionable, as the means necessary to achieve the goal. As I've said, personally, I'm very excited about that promise. But it really is just a promise, and if it can be fulfilled is a very, very big question.

Ultimately, nobody really sells hardware or software. Everybody sells user-experience. It is very obvious in Apple's case, but it is always true. It's easy to forget that when you are choosing the cheapest light bulbs on the market, because the user-experience of having electric light in your house has been sold to you so long ago, there are so many basically identical products that the only apparent difference to you is the price. Now you perceive GPUs (or bluetooth, or whatever) as light bulbs. But at some point selling a GPU or a light bulb was quite similar to selling a novel iSomething. The seller had to explain to you, not so much what iSomething is, but how iSomething makes your life better. And if the technology that makes this promise of the user-experience a reality is hardware, software or just exceptional marketing — really is just details.

So, as much as I hate that my fitness-watch is basically a spying device and I don't even own the data it produces (and I mean, I really hate that), I don't feel like forcing Garmin to open-source the firmware is the right thing to do. Maybe I would support some more forceful moves to make the generated data my property, but even here the line is blurry. But forcing them (and better think: you, as a manufacturer) to make something other than you wanted to make — …why the fuck should I? Who decides what is that common standard I don't want in my product, but I have to, to be legally allowed to sell that? I think, I just like the idea of personal freedom a bit too much to support that. I'd much prefer Garmin just losing to competition that chooses open firmware, than legally forcing them to produce anything they didn't want to produce.

No, we are democratically balancing consumer rights with the rights of entrepreneurs to make money. Consumers need the right to repair and not be limited with closed, proprietary standards. That entrepreneurs may take take a slight hit on their profit due to this is acceptable as protecting the consumer enhances the well being of the overall society that both entrepreneurs and the consumers are part of. (And note that right to repair and open standards can also foster more competition in the "free market" and reduce monopolistic abuses - so it is really a win-win for both sides).

See Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - http://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/16-freedom-conduc... and the article The 16th of all EU-r rights: the right to conduct a business and how the Charter contributes - https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/eureka/the-16th-of-all-eu-r-r... - for the European perspective of it.

Right. By stepping farther from the open market and killing some personal freedom. (Also, word "democratically" is absolutely meaningless in this context, but that's the usual mode it is used in in western politics.)

No, it isn't. When a law / regulation / policy is made all stakeholders are consulted and their views sought on it. Consumers are one of the stakeholders in context of what we are talking about. Politicians than work out a compromise that balances everyone's concerns. That's basically democracy at work.

Perhaps that's the wrong question. Perhaps "making my everyday experience better as a customer" is not the be all end all.

Maybe that will cause the “Year of Linux on the Desktop” to happen.

I know, the point you are trying to make is buried beneath somewhere but it is really hard to make out. All I see is pettiness. So sad.

Perhaps you should ask the inverse - how good would your experience with Apple be, if there were no open standards paid for by someone else, and fought for by someone else?

You wouldn't even have GPS and navigation. You would not have HTML or the open web. Before we fought for video codecs compatibility you could not even get a video that was recorded on a Device A to reliably play on Device B. The phone would be almost useless.

The people that argue this, they only take from the commons and never give back.

And every Mac geek knew how to work around it either via free third party software or just using AppleScript

https://osxdaily.com/2007/01/30/play-quicktime-movies-full-s...

Also in 90's, there was no applescript support on macos classic qt, and third party players like vlc didn't exist yet either (not that they ever ran on classic). I know, I was mac user back then and I remember.

https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quick...

Someone doesn’t know their history…

Also, the look and feel lawsuit happened before Jobs came back and within a few months after he came back, he settled all of the claims.

Your memory is spotty

You can be sued for anything, whether true or not. In the court, it must be proven that you did what you are sued for. So it is either proven, or not, and then the court issues the verdict. If it is not, like in Microsoft's case, they are still innocent. It does not matter whether it was impossible to prove or Apple stopped pursing the case; the court said they are guilty. If you continue say they did it, it is a defamation.

Even without regarding the above, the case was really shaky. Microsoft using the same vendor through a chain (via Intel) as Apple does not mean they are "stealing". That vendor might learn something from working with them, but that does not imply what you said. Nevermind, that Video for Windows had somewhat different scope (video subsystem), than Quicktime (multimedia subsystem). For Apple, it was simply a negotiation card.

Look & feel lawsuit was literally the oh noes, they do similar thing as we do case.

Btw, the result was that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law].."

If you want to know how it looks when Microsoft did stole something, look at Stacker. Entirely different evidence, entirely different result, including entirely punishment.

https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_...

Your batting average isn’t too high on this topic.

Also, it is not an user friendly solution. Do you know, how it really worked? Mac users were sharing QT pro keys. Most had zero interest in the pro features, except full screen playback.

It took Apple almost two decades to fix this.

And your previous comments about the history of Apple makes me think that your memory or experience during that time is spotty.

But it is already established in this thread by others, that you have your own, RDF-like experience of what happened; no point in trying to discuss any further.

I actually used it shortly after it was introduced.

So what video were you playing on Windows around the time that QT was introduced?

Do you know what demo was on the QT 3.5 disk that Apple sent out?

Your “facts” are so wrong that you couldn’t have possible been working with Macs when these events occurred.

Large companies routinely buy out startups, kill their products, and absorbs the teams.

You really think a little startup is going to be able to do hardware at scale?

Was it big bad Apple that killed all of those phones or maybe it is just consumers made a choice using their own free will?

You really think that the startups didn’t have “being bought by a big company” as an exit strategy in the first place?

Out of all the companies that YC has funded (1000+) only six have ever gone public.

Were all the little companies that Apple acquired to integrate into their phone in an alternate universe going to create a phone?

Spoiler: it isn't.

I have a silent fanless MacBook Air running an Apple designed chip, with an Apple written OS where I can move my cursor between it and my iPad sitting right besides it and my keyboard and mouse can control both seanlessly. It also gets 16 hours of battery life.

And then I have a Windows laptop with piss poor battery life, sounds like a 747 at idle and runs hot enough that if I actually put it in my lap , it would endure that I don’t ever have any little Scarface’s

On the phone side, the day that Apple releases a new version of iOS, it’s immediately available worldwide for every iPhone that was introduced in the last four years. Is the same true for Android devices?

Perhaps with Asahi Linux they could. But even then, support isn't great.

The main reason Windows sucks is that Windows sucks. No specialized hardware can change that. The second reason is that hardware manufacturers make shitty drivers; because it shouldn't be their job in the first place.

And why is OS X so good? They scrapped the original MacOS, and started fresh with a fork of BSD. None of that has anything to do with monopolizing hardware.

It's also absurd to compare Apple's limited selection of exclusively flagship devices against every existing Android device. Compare them with their direct competition, and your point is moot.

If Apple's hardware division was broken off into a separate company, Apple's software division would be able to do everything they do today as a customer of that hardware company. The only difference would be that everyone else could too.

And it shouldn’t be the company’s responsibility that made the hardware to make drivers and they should depend on who to do it then?

This is also why the current vertically integrated Apple is able to write good drivers: it isn't an isolated hardware manufacturer writing a driver. Because it's all one company, the OS team can be involved with driver development.

The solution for everyone would be to simply publish the hardware spec such that Apple, Microsoft, and Linux devs are able to write their own drivers.

The notion that hardware specs must be kept secret (because driver development is integrated with hardware development) is harming everyone, except the select few who have their own seats in the backroom.

Vertical integration is creating the very problem that you see Apple solving with vertical integration. Unfortunately, Apple is solving it exclusively for Apple, while hanging everyone else out to dry.

This situation is not unique to Apple, which is why we have shitty NVidia drivers in Linux, and why Android hardware support ends.

You really think that Linux developers would know how to squeeze better performance out of Nvidia hardware than the Nvidia even with the design specs? Nvidia has the foremost experts in designing GPUs and software around it (Cuda).

The software and the hardware teams know the intricacies of their hardware better than anyone and they work in concert to design a better product.

How long would it take the hypothetical Apple Hardware company to release products that the hypothetical Apple Software company wrote drivers for if they were split up?

Could the new Apple hardware company say release the AirPods that paired seamlessly with multiple products just by pairing with one device signed into your account and release a new version of MacOS, iOS, TvOS, etc at the same time? Apple, Google and even AWS (in the server space) design hardware and processors in tandem with their software teams. They don’t just throw designs over the fence with documentation.

> This situation is not unique to Apple, which is why we have shitty NVidia drivers in Linux, and why Android hardware support ends.

That’s a poor excuse. The fact is that Google is just a shitty platform caretaker. Microsoft has the same business model where they make the OS and license it to OEMs yet they support hardware for years if not decades.

Google doesn’t support its own phones as long as Apple. There is no excuse.

Yes. Even more importantly, they would be able to keep it stable alongside Mesa and Wayland/Xorg updates.

> Nvidia has the foremost experts in designing GPUs and software around it (Cuda).

And breaking up the company wouldn't make those people disappear! On the contrary, it would liberate their work. They would suddenly be free to start making CUDA compatible with AMDGPU! It would be wonderful.

Even if those people kept their work closed-source, just having an open hardware spec would do wonders for nouveau development. Last I checked, nouveau can't even set the GPU clock speed!

> Google doesn’t support its own phones as long as Apple. There is no excuse.

And that's my entire point! Google is bad at handling this responsibility, so let's take it off their hands! The reality is that Google doesn't want us to, because long term support is bad for their bottom-line!

The chip designers at NVidia work alongside the software people iteratively. They don’t just design the perfect chip and throw it over the fence.

Cuda isn’t just great (I’m not in that space, it might suck. I honestly don’t know) software that could be ported to any architecture. Cuda is written to work on a specific architecture both the hardware and the software inform each other.

Plainly not true. Some are better hardware/quality wise. All are better when it comes to freedom with what you can actually do with the device.

Why would you doubt there are better options? The whole thing about the PC market is it has a much greater diversity of choices. It's silly to think Apple simply makes the best machine for a price point out of all available PC and Mac models.

Was this the best you could do - worse performance, loud, poor battery life, poor display, poor audio?

The very first review I found

https://www.theverge.com/23674395/dell-xps-13-2022-intel-rev...

I’ll do the bottom line up front

In the past, the XPS 13 was a hands-down contender for the best laptop on the market. But the Apple-silicon MacBook has since barrelled onto the scene, and it wipes the floor with most of the ultraportable Windows laptops that cross my desk on a daily basis. This XPS is no exception. Compared to the M2 MacBook Air, battery life is worse. Benchmark performance is worse. Screen, while good, is worse. Port selection is worse.

And the rest.

So anyway, I’ve been using the regular XPS 13 for the past few weeks. And, like, it’s fine. It’s just fine. It’s worse than its 2020 predecessor in some ways and better in others. It continues to bring some of the best build quality in the 13-inch space. The display is fine. The speakers are fine. There’s an off-purple color option! It’s certainly one of the best Windows laptops you can buy, and it also doesn’t come close to the performance or efficiency that today’s MacBooks can provide, which says a thing or two about the current state of the Windows laptop space.

And the resolution is worse

Specifically, you’re limited to a 1920 x 1200 60Hz IPS panel

A similarly configured M2 MacBook Air is currently selling for $1,699, which makes Dell’s pricing attractive — though the performance benefits Apple delivers for that extra price aren’t insignificant, as we’ll soon discuss.

One thing to note about the XPS 13, though — the fans get going very easily. They were audible with a couple Chrome tabs and Slack open

Speaking of things that have improved: battery life. I averaged six hours and 42 minutes of consistent use around

Go look at some of the Asus models than if you think an XPS can't compete. Weighed less than a macbook air, more port including ethernet (via a HDMI port), something like 21 hours of battery life, weight was slightly under a pound IIRC.

There's plenty of other models/companies.

The biggest benefit? It's not Apple locking you into their ridiculous ecosystem. But I suspect you're fine with that. Pretty funny in another comment you talk about governments restricting geeks, yet you advocated for the most locked down nannyed device you can hand over money to buy.

- 16 hours battery life

- fanless

- doesn’t scorch my nuts

- performance?

- a decent display

- and doesn’t weigh a ton?

So please tell me how the Mac keeps you from running the software you want.

But you named how great the objectively shitty Dell is.

You’ve already struck out with the Dell, care to try again with Asus? Can you cite a review of an Asus that compares?

Even though the Dell sucks in every dimension, at least you have “freeduhm”

Again, it's ridiculous to think Apple makes the very best lightweight powerful laptop given how diverse the PC market is. You're really durnk on that Apple kool-aid huh.

I didn't strike out with Dell at all. You found one review of one model and then exaggerated it.

You're the exact type of person that required coining the concept of an apple reality distortion field.

The problem here is you're addicted to the Apple kool-aid and will bend over backwards to deny any non Apple product could be superior.

Yet you can’t seem to find the magical XPS 13 and cite a review?

Did your “research” tell you that by every objective measure it’s worse? The resolution is four times worse, the battery is three times worse, it’s loud, it’s slow.

Here is the review of the Asus B series. The newest one I could find. The contemporary MacBook Air at the time which was better in every way came out in late 2020 and was cheaper.

Again from the Verge and it’s the nearest one I could find..

https://www.theverge.com/22239215/asus-expertbook-b9450-revi...

Just make sure you know what you’re getting — because the low-powered processor and deafening fans certainly aren’t ideal for everyone.

but potential buyers should be aware that the processor is mostly suitable for basic office tasks. More on that in a bit.

And it’s even worse than the Dell XPS 13 that you were bragging about.

The Core i7-10510U is a four-core processor that’s significantly lower-powered than the chips you’ll see in the best laptops on the market like the Dell XPS 13. It’s far from a workhorse.

So it’s slower, hotter, louder, with worse graphics and lower battery life.

I'm not putting any more effort into replying to you, other than typing in the reply box. Your point is asinine IMO, and I'm not interested in doing research to support what I already know, to someone who would bend over backwards to deny anything presented to them.

And that's the thing. You're going to believe whatever you want to believe, because Apple is the entity you worship religiously.

What exactly did I “lie” about? Were the quotes from the Verge inaccurate? What did I over exaggerate?

You have presented nothing. No websites, no reviews, no model numbers.

You said you “researched” your purchase before you bought the your laptop. What websites did you do your research at?

This is what evidence looks like since you haven’t posted a single link.

Just post a citation. It just needs to start with https://

Or if that’s too much trouble , which Dell XPS 13 do you have that has great battery life, performance, cooling, fanless and a decent screen resolution?

I’ve told you exactly what I have - a MacBook M2 air with 16GB RAM and a 1TB drive.

You can find models that compete with Macbook air on the vendor homepages.It's truly ridiculous to think Your Mac is the top of the top tier laptops available when it comes to balancing performance and battery. Believe whatever you want to buddy.

Markets Apple decided weren't worth their time.

There was a time when PCs started having vastly better graphics cards, and Adobe started prioritizing development for PCs, but still graphic designers were buying Apple because 'it's what creatives use'.

Creatives buying Apple has always been mostly a North American phenomen, in Europe Apple only started being market relevant after the NeXT reverse acquisition, with iPod and iMacs rescuing it from insolvency.

Not everyone can buy a Bentley.

Again, we are getting back to the advantage of an integrated solution.

Most Android aficionados think that the Pixels are the best Android phones - another integrated product

The reason Apple products are more popular in the US is partially because people in the US have higher incomes and in the US, because if 0% interest payment plans and carrier subsidies, they are more affordable.

When people can, they buy the integrated product instead of worrying about some theoretical “freedoms” or running Linux on the Apple Pencil

Everything you've just said above is nonsense. People in the US have significantly lower incomes on average then most other western countries. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about. At all. Yet you feel the need to insert yourself into every conversation.

I won't be replying to you again, and by gods how I wish HN had a block function for people like you.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...

You mean people like me who have facts on their side?

The US might have the 5th highest income, but I said people in the US don't have higher incomes than other western countries on average.

The US has a crazy skewed income disparity. It's an extreme minority making high incomes, and it certainly doesn't support your rather silly argument.

No, the reason people in the US have much more of an Apple fixation than other countries is because Apple is seen as an elite/luxury item, and due to cultural reasons everyone wants to be seen as being able to afford/own that, even when there is no truth to it. Same reason some people pay ridiculous amounts for Balenciaga t-shirts.

OK, now I'm done.

Again, you were wrong unless you can find a better citation. Because as of now, you have provided…nothing

> No, the reason people in the US have much more of an Apple fixation than other countries is because Apple is seen as an elite/luxury item,

Geeks just can’t stand the fact that when given the choice and have the ability, choose Apple devices and don’t care about running Linux on the Apple Pencil.

Can you name one country where higher income individuals don’t overwhelmingly by iPhones? It’s definitely true in China - the largest country in the world

I'm in the UK, and working in IT, I can assure you that everyone in my team can afford and iPhone.

Only one does.

The cashier at the supermarket have them, you can see them in the back pockets of folks stacking shelves. It's not a device that requires people to be wealthy to own, just a desire.

"Not being Apple" was a very major part of my choice to buy a Windows laptop.

Some other consumers share my opinion of Apple.

>So you want to degrade the user experience for “freedom” by giving the government more power???

Having open standards is not "giving the government more power".

Every time I see an Amazon delivery truck, part of me dies inside.

What fines are manufacturers held liable for if you buy a part for a car or a plane or a ship and it does not work as specified?

Forcing the separation between software and hardware companies may be more stringent, but it may be simpler to enforce, and likely even more effective at making sure the hardware is humanely specified than direct regulation would be.

Check out the idiocy around Broadcomm's WiFi/Bluetooth drivers on the Mac, it's absolute insanity, there are so many of them that to install Linux on one of the machines with such a chipset you need to copy your drivers from the Mac operating system (if you still have it installed...) in order to give Linux the ability to load firmware onto the devices so that they can work. Three different files iirc.

Intel has microcode.

Microsoft has Xbox which I'd guess would have issues getting game releases if excluded from a decent-sized market.

Also. My phone (hardware) came with an OS (software) already installed. As do other pre-assembled computers.

I'm willing to sacrifice the business model of game consoles.

I hate OEM deals, it just propagates the current monopolies and oligopolies. I'm okay with forcing everyone to buy their phone or laptop separately from the OS.

Some of the Spectre bugs were patched via microcode.

That seems like a rather useful ability to have.

This will drive up the costs, as well as the selling price, but if it means hardware will work out of the box more often than it does now I’m willing to pay that cost.

So, I would go buy a smartphone at a shop, and then buy an OS to run on it at another shop? Or would it be allowed for a third party to integrate the two and sell me a working phone?

Also, would “any software that can be changed remotely or by the user is off limits” mean Intel/Samsung/… couldn’t sell CPUs with microcode installed, or even write microcode? It may be hard to legally define where the border between “software that’s part of the hardware” and “software.” lies.

> You'll get the necessary specs required to make it work on all OSes

I don’t see how that follows. Software company C could pay hardware company H to build hardware according to specs they give, with the specs under NDA, possibly even forbidding H to sell that hardware design to others than C.

I think banning trade secrets (https://www.wipo.int/tradesecrets/en/tradesecrets_faqs.html) on the interface between software and hardware, rather than splitting companies into hardware and software parts is the way to achieve your goals.

Good point, by default you would. Perhaps allowing some third party to bundle the two could be a nice convenience, but then we must make absolutely sure that they never sell the bundle for less than the separate parts, that would be anti-competitive.

Also, I'm sick of paying for a Windows copy I never use. I'd very much like to see the OEM deals Microsoft make with laptop vendors just die.

> Also, would “any software that can be changed remotely or by the user is off limits” mean Intel/Samsung/… couldn’t sell CPUs with microcode installed, or even write microcode?

Depends whether that microcode can be changed by the user or remotely, or if doing so basically means returning the CPU to the factory. If it can conveniently be changed, that's software, and the actual interface to the CPU is not the final ISA, but how to encode that micro-code to make the final ISA. If however the microcode is etched or locked, then it's part of the hardware.

Another example would be an FPGA implementation of a RISC-V core: if the bitstream is locked into the NVCM it can no longer be modified, and thus counts as hardware. But if it's in the easily rewritable SPI flash, then it's software, and it can't be bundled with the FPGA itself.

While I'm not absolutely certain my border is the right one, I believe it's at least one that can be fairly easily delimited.

> Software company C could pay hardware company H to build hardware according to specs they give, with the specs under NDA, possibly even forbidding H to sell that hardware design to others than C.

Correct, some trade secrets need to be banned. Even further, I would void all ISA related patents and copyright. Specifically, cloning the functionality of any piece of hardware should be allowed, similar to how the IBM PC was cloned.

Note thought that splitting the activities is still worth it: when software is bundled with the hardware, we still need exploitable specs. Banning trade secrets doesn't force vendors to disclose them, and even if they do disclose them, nothing forces them to make especially readable beyond regulatory mandate, and nothing forces them to simplify their hardware interfaces. Exposing hardware interfaces to the competition however may provide very strong incentive to improve not only the hardware, but it's programming interfaces as well.

Nearly every non-Apple PC on the planet is sold with Windows preinstalled, yet Microsoft didn't manufacture them.

Allowing hardware manufacturers to ship their own software, even if that software must be free, even if the hardware specs must be released, will still allow them to ship crappy hardware interfaces and compensate that with bloated software. I’m also afraid some manufacturer would try to game the system, with, say, tweaking the instruction set of every new GPU so third party drivers can’t really keep up.

Hardware vendors then that install the vanilla, non-bloatware software will be seen as a feature. You can see this now: Google ships vanilla Android whereas some of the Android phone manufacturers ship it with their own crapware. Or on the other end of the spectrum Apple ships MacOS without advertising garbage but vanilla Windows ships games and ads in the start menu.

So I don’t really see how your argument stands.

Now, bloated software is still bloated software, even if it's open. I guess that with the sources the community can make it better, but there's still a limit to how well they can do: the hardware interface itself. It's a long tradition in hardware design to ship crappy interfaces and just say the software folks will make it nice. But if all you ship is the hardware, the interfaces have to be nice, else it will be harder to program for, and that definitely influences the ultimate success of the platform. See game consoles, I believe those who have a reputation of being hard to program tend to sell less (because they have fewer or worse games).

Another feature of forbidding vertical integration is that is prevents companies from competing with their own customers.

but i immediately disagreed with myself after posting because i don't think hospitals can make their own drugs. or rather, if a drug manufacturer owned a hospital and a health insurance company this might be considered a conflict of interest

i still don't think its a great example given this one comes from an ethical basis but this is more apt

The problem is that you cannot make a hard distinction between hardware and software. An Intel CPU simply isn't going to run without microcode, and having to get rid of microcode would easily set back chip design by a decade.

Even something as trivial as a USB cable isn't pure hardware anymore. It has a programmable eMarker in order to advertise its capabilities, so it is also a combination of hardware and software. Everything but completely trivial chips has some kind of computation embedded in it, requiring some firmware.

Chips are complicated and weird. Pretty much nobody writes code which directly interacts with hardware. Even people who write code for embedded microprocessors will use an SDK provided by the chip manufacturer to smooth out the nastiest details. How's that supposed to work when the hardware vendor can no longer provide any software?

And then there's the question of what exactly constitutes "firmware". Is code in a separate programmable flash chip okay if they hardwire the Write Protect pin? What if the exact same code is stored in programmable space in the MCU itself? Is it fine to place that code in One-Time-Programmable memory? Bake it into the chip during wafer manufacturing? If anything, being able to update the firmware in the field is better for the consumer when it comes to fixing bugs.

Yes you can make the distinction, and no it doesn't require getting rid of the microcode: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731829

Simply put, if the microcode can be updated by the user or remotely by Intel, then it count as "software", and Intel should stop shipping it. But if those update are either impossible or require a factory recall, then it's "hardware", and Intel can happily continue to ship it.

The same logic applies to the USB cable, and even FPGA: if the bitstream is locked into the NVCM, that's hardware. If it's merely written in the rewritable SPI flash, that's software. It's not a property of the bitstream itself, it's a property of how it is stored.

Obviously the cost of micro-code bugs will sharply increase. That's kind of a feature though: now hardware vendors must be really careful.

Or are you saying Qualcomm would be required to not provide drivers?

This is a super dumb take, like beyond stupid, and I get that it’s directed at apple.

Here’s the thing: since day 1 apple has been a hardware company, and what makes hardware good or bad is often the software that drives runs it. That goes for every product apple makes.

The idea that you can remove one half of that from the other is beyond stupid.

The only difference is that Microsoft Windows, Linux kernel devs, etc. would also be able to work with that hardware company to get their OS working on that hardware.

The hardware company would not be allowed to keep secrets between itself and Apple.

No. That's only 1 of 3 alternatives, the other 2 being stop making hardware, or split in 2.

> Or are you saying Qualcomm would be required to not provide drivers?

Yes. They'd have to provide an actual manual for a change.

> This is a super dumb take, like beyond stupid, and I get that it’s directed at apple.

It's not. Many more would have to rethink their entire business model.

HN routinely seems unaware that this is a totally solved problem in the tax law of virtually every industrialized country.

In the US, for example, the phrase is "Common Control": https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.414(c)-2

All sorts of modern tax schemes would have truck-sized loopholes without a rigorous definition of Common Control. It's already in the tax code of every industrialized country (possibly under a different name). All you have to do is reference it. The necessary definitions have been in the tax codes since the 1980s.

I'm kind of annoyed at how often this "but but but two companies with overlapping owners yadda yadda" comes up. Go ahead try that on the IRS and see how it works out for you.

I draw the line at "can it be updated without returning to the factory?"

If microcode can be updated by the user (or remotely by Intel), it’s software. If it’s immutable then its hardware. If an FPGA bitstream (say a RISC-V soft core) is locked into the FPGA’s NVCM, then it can no longer be modified, and it counts as hardware. If however it is merely stored in the SPI flash and can be modified, then it’s software.

At the time I was thinking of technologies like the Unisys GIF patent, Flash, various audio and video codecs, and peripheral drivers. If not having a technology makes an OS vitally less useful and appealing to a user then there's potentially a path to developer documentation. Who decides? I think the current system for DMCA exemptions works pretty well (noting that I despise the DMCA), so maybe a branch of the US Copyright Office or another government's similar branch? A viable OS is one with a notable following and which can use the technology. If I write RadiumOS for myself, that doesn't count. Likewise Widevine for the Atari 800 is out. But Linux anything would, the BSD family, and Amiga, BeOS/Haiku, etc. would have a fair shot. Making a free, public developers kit is always better, but offering an NDA to a developer representing each OS family would likely be common. No, it wouldn't be an instantaneous process, yes, there would be paperwork and maybe a lawyer involved, but the burden has to be bearable for each OS/developer. If you're Apple wanting the MS Office file formats, MS is allowed to charge a not insignificant amount, but if you're a free, open source OS, then the cost would be either free or nearly so. Not every vendor in a field would be cracked open. If AMD is very friendly to developers, then Nvidia could keep their video drivers proprietary. With all the open source code available today vs. 20 years ago, something like this is maybe a bit less useful, but IMHO still a significant step forward...and a hedge against companies suddenly taking their specs private.