4 ms·
Because it sells the hardware, where they make the most money. I don't think they will do something like that, but I think the reason is that they just don't ca
by internet2000 6y ago
Because it sells the hardware, where they make the most money. I don't think they will do something like that, but I think the reason is that they just don't care enough to dedicate internal resources.
- izacus 6y agoWell, even for BootCamp, a marketed feature, they only dropped a halfarsed set of drivers which worked very poorly and were pretty never updated. We need to use hacked AMD drivers to get updates for the Radeons and the Macs still overheat and burn a lot energy due to lack of even basic power saving features. Heck, even the GPU switching isn't implemented. Why would there be expectation they'd do anything more for Linux?
- macintux 6y ago> Why would there be expectation they'd do anything more for Linux? Linux is more complementary, compared to Windows which has been an existential threat to the Mac since the 90s. I agree with an earlier comment: I don't expect Apple will provide any assistance, but neither do I see it as entirely unlikely.
- tmzt 6y agoWindows in the Bootcamp role was also compliment ary, in that it enabled a company or individual worker to consider Ape hardware where Windows was a requirement or desired as a personal preference. This also enabled those users to spend time in MacOS or switch to virtualizing Windows and may lead to one or more personal purchases for themselves or members of their household.
- oblio 6y agoApple is turning into a services company, though, look at their numbers. And one of those core services is the App Store.
- Gaelan 6y agoI'm pretty sure the vast majority of Mac apps still aren't distributed on the App Store. The Mac App Store almost certainly isn't a big money-maker.
- heavyset_go 6y agoThey're turning the screws, the ARM Macs are the first Macs that will not run unsigned binaries. It's already at the point where macOS will treat apps as if they're radioactive if the developer didn't pay the $100 Apple tax before distributing it.
- comex 6y agoThey don’t run unsigned binaries, but they run self-signed binaries (to the same extent that Intel Macs run unsigned binaries) and the linker automatically does the signing. It’s an architectural simplification, not a substantive tightening of the screws.
- heavyset_go 6y agoSelf-signed applications are treated as if they're radioactive by macOS, too[1]. [1] https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
- comex 6y agoYes. My point is that blocking truly unsigned applications on Apple Silicon is not a substantive change from the status quo on Intel Macs.
- saagarjha 6y agoPrograms on Intel Macs can do some funny things to invalidate their code signature in was that Apple silicon won’t support, which I guess you could call a change. But I agree that the transition was probably mostly made for simplicity.