Not sure. As long as Apple are hostile to running anything else on their hardware, reverse engineering it (for all the drivers and etc.) might be simply a waste of time and resources which could be better applied to something useful and actually friendly to openness.
Especially since such reverse engineering will require constant chasing after changes to stay relevant.
False. Respectfully it seems you didn’t read much of the thread.
From the thread Apple have actively left the door open so other (currently non existent) OS could be booted, but as the author said, they’ve left it open but have not provided documentation.
From the thread:
“Linus himself has said he'd love to see Linux running on M1 macs, but doesn't think it'll happen. Not because they're locked down, but because Apple won't help us with documentation.
The fact that Apple allows this in their secureboot policy is critical. Linux ports to game consoles / iPhones / etc are all fun and games, but you're always at the mercy of exploits, and the resulting cat and mouse game.
That means all effort is wasted unless exploits keep up, and regular users would never want to do this and severely limit their access to official upgrades and such. But this isn't an issue with M1 macs.”
I agree. Not locking the bootloader doesn't mean they're going to embrace running other operating systems.
As a long time mac user, the idea of them supporting other operating systems seems really un-Appley to me. What happens if I put linux on my (still under warranty) macbook and then have to take it in to an Apple store for some reason?
Presumably the same thing that happens if you put Linux on an Intel MacBook, which has always been possible. I don’t know what that is exactly. But in my experience, Apple does tell everyone to back up their data before handing a computer in for repair; there’s no guarantee the computer will come back with disk contents intact. So assuming you’re backed up, you could just wipe the drive and temporarily install macOS if it becomes an issue…
It's certainly possible, but I don't think it's supported. I'm not just talking about hardware issues, but like general support. As far as I know, if you have a mac under warranty/applecare you can book an appointment with a 'genius' to help you with any sort issue, hardware, software, or even just general instruction on how to do stuff.
I would guess that if you showed up with a mac under warranty but with a custom OS installed, they would boot macos in some fashion and run whatever their diagnostic tool is, and if the hardware checks out they'll tell you to buzz off.
I guess my point overall is that Apple seems to be pretty intent on curating and supporting a specific user experience with their products (which is a big part of their pre-occupation with controlling everything top to bottom in the first place), and supporting 3rd party OS's seemed at odds with that.
See the comment by Linus Torvalds about it. Leaving the door open is a poor excuse, because they can close it at any time putting all your invested effort down the drain. I'd say - don't waste your time.
People have been saying that since the first implementation of System Integrity Protection/Gatekeeper 5 years ago. It's been long enough to the point I think your comments counts as FUD... yes they can do it, but there hasn't been any indication they would.
I wouldn't trust Apple with anything. Lock-in is their bread and butter. Just because they didn't lock something down for some time means nothing given they are very aggressive with lock-in in other areas. You don't need FUD to know their infamous reputation.
The problem is this notion is not able to be disproved. While I'm completely confident that 10 years from now the Mac will still be open enough to be considered a "real" computer, I'm also confident that 10 years from now someone will be predicting its imminent demise because the water just keeps boiling hotter and hotter.
So we'll keep having this argument (and the argument over whether apps will be installable in the future without Apple's permission), over and again, year after year.
IMO it's not an unreasonable notion to have. I don't think its out of the question that they would change course and lock it down. I'm not saying it's likely or probable, but I don't think it's an unreasonable concern. In any event, it annoys me that the parent commentator is being dismissed out of hand and downvoted for expressing a legitimate concern.
It's a tired, un-nuanced concern that doesn't indicate any understanding of why Apple favors lock-in.
It's like an online political debate: it's possible to persuade someone, maybe, but you need a better argument than mean old Apple wants to take our toys away.
I'd say it's not tired and is completely legit. Apple have no one to blame but themselves for having such reputation. They simply didn't do enough to earn trust, while did a ton to earn distrust.
It's a tired, un-nuanced concern that doesn't indicate any understanding of why Apple favors lock-in.
Well, why do you think that is? As far as I can tell it's some combination of protecting users and protecting app store revenue, both of which apply equally well to macOS as iOS. The only difference is that the Mac app store isn't as established so they can't force everything to go through it today.
I think you're probably right in that this discussion isn't changing anyone's opinion.
That said, I don't know how it could be tired, as these laptops were just released. I also don't know what you mean by 'un-nuanced', but I don't see how understanding why they favor lock in is relevant. He's not talking about the merits of a closed ecosystem or locking things down, just about whether or not they might lock things down further in the future.
I think most people understand the motivation behind Apple trying to control every aspect of their products, whether or not they think it's a good practice.
Especially since such reverse engineering will require constant chasing after changes to stay relevant.