4 ms·

Apple can make tools that use the undocumented ISA, which they don't have to release to the public, potentially using it to develop applications with performanc

Apple can make tools that use the undocumented ISA, which they don't have to release to the public, potentially using it to develop applications with performance advantages that no one other than Apple can attain. It's similar to how Microsoft doesn't make all APIs on Windows public and uses non-public ones for various reasons--except this is in hardware. It's possible the undocumented ISA is used to speed up x86 emulation and might be kept secret due to intellectual property concerns or similar.

emteycz 6y ago
They didn't have to open the platform for other software (OS) at all. Let's be happy with what we got.
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  > Let's be happy with what we got. Ouch. It's exactly this mentality that enables malicious actors - "it could be worse". It could always be worse, but that doesn't make it sufficient justification. Functional equivalent: "It could always be even more anticompetitive. Let's be happy with what we got."
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Eh, what? What malicious actors? What sufficient justification, and justification of what and to whom? What could be worse? What could be more anticompetitive, and competing with what exactly? I said nothing like this, your "equivalents" are from an entirely different world. I said we should be happy Apple decided to open their platform - because they didn't have to, at all. It's entirely their right to not open anything, not write any documentation, or not even allow 3rd party software at all. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced premium products - it's not for you. I wouldn't want my own company to be forced to do/not do stuff, so of course I don't wish that upon Apple. There are enough entirely open computing platforms that are VERY cheap to obtain and easy to use, perhaps that would be a better choice for you.
    - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
      Meh, nothing serious, just that the "it could be worse" line of thinking can be a little dangerous if broadly applied since it could always be at least marginally worse, that's all I meant. Completely agree about forcing them to do or avoid strategies, though governing bodies may disagree! Jokes aside, it seems that despite occasional marketing/rhetoric from Apple, their platform represents the minimum bound of "openness". It's only open enough to allow further business - e.g. allowing 3rd parties to develop apps in the store (from which they take a cut of proceeds) - rather than being open for the spirit of it, if that makes any sense. They are a business so that's not exactly something one could fault them for, though.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        Yes, what I am saying is that we can't fault them for being a business. We should be looking for our open computing platform elsewhere - I think there is more than enough options. If a supposedly "open" platform wasn't open then that would be bad, but Apple is about something different - offering a premium vertically integrated product for people that don't even know what a CPU or OS is. If they were forced to open their platform it is very much possible there wouldn't be any Apple platform at all, and I don't want that kind of world. > though governing bodies may disagree! That's why I am reacting so strongly. If people begin to apply your thinking too broadly (e.g. to businesses like Apple) it will lead to governing bodies behaving like that. Let's apply this kind of thinking to platforms that claim to be open.
user-the-name 6y ago
> Apple can make tools that use the undocumented ISA, which they don't have to release to the public, potentially using it to develop applications with performance advantages that no one other than Apple can attain. Why would they? They sell hardware, not really software.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  Hardware doesn't work without at least some sort of software. I really wish they (or any one with modern fast CPU and motherboard designs) would sell hardware only bare-bones with no OS or even bootloader, but history shows a mass market won't support that.
- simion314 6y ago
  >They sell hardware, not really software. But they make more money from the Apple Store and the other services and they are always giving advantages to their own stuff on iOS like using private APIs or bypassing security rules .
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    If they make money from the App Store, why would they want to hobble the software in the App Store?
    - simion314 6y ago
      Only the software that directly competes with Apple own software. So for example Spotify was denied access to the special APIs for a while, browsers can't use their own engine, Apple apps can bypass firewall rules but games with lootboxes are welcomed because they don't compete with Apple and a 30% cut gets in Apple's pockets.
  - Jetrel 6y ago
    It's starting to grow, but on any given platform of theirs, the overwhelming majority of their income still comes from the actual hardware, and the services revenue for that platform is maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of what they make from the hardware for it: https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-revenue-of-apple/#:~:text=Apple's%20iPhone%20sales%20accounted%20for,contribution%20to%20Apple's%20net%20sales https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-re.... (within this, you probably want to break out 5/6 of the services revenue and tack it onto iOS, and then treat the remaining 1/6 sliver as applying to the mac). This is honestly one of the biggest peace-of-mind things for being an apple customer, and it's definitely a big cultural trope within their support network as well. You pay your "union dues" by buying the hardware, and then "you're in". There's no money to be made after that fact, so there are an enormous number of small interactions after that that are fully trustworthy - for example, unlike many internet-ad-revenue companies, you're not worried about being profiled or having your info sold to advertisers. You're also not worried about "product collapse based on shaky revenue streams" - one thing that's always been scary about using various consumer apps is there are a fair number of programs out there that just have really shaky revenue models, so it's scary to commit to them because a lot of them eventually have to pivot, or sell out, or otherwise do something brutal to stay alive. When using some of apple's hardware, you know if it's selling decently, the business is stable and certain rugs won't get pulled out of under you.

emteycz 6y ago

They didn't have to open the platform for other software (OS) at all. Let's be happy with what we got.

_underfl0w_ 6y ago
> Let's be happy with what we got. Ouch. It's exactly this mentality that enables malicious actors - "it could be worse". It could always be worse, but that doesn't make it sufficient justification. Functional equivalent: "It could always be even more anticompetitive. Let's be happy with what we got."
- emteycz 6y ago
  Eh, what? What malicious actors? What sufficient justification, and justification of what and to whom? What could be worse? What could be more anticompetitive, and competing with what exactly? I said nothing like this, your "equivalents" are from an entirely different world. I said we should be happy Apple decided to open their platform - because they didn't have to, at all. It's entirely their right to not open anything, not write any documentation, or not even allow 3rd party software at all. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced premium products - it's not for you. I wouldn't want my own company to be forced to do/not do stuff, so of course I don't wish that upon Apple. There are enough entirely open computing platforms that are VERY cheap to obtain and easy to use, perhaps that would be a better choice for you.
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    Meh, nothing serious, just that the "it could be worse" line of thinking can be a little dangerous if broadly applied since it could always be at least marginally worse, that's all I meant. Completely agree about forcing them to do or avoid strategies, though governing bodies may disagree! Jokes aside, it seems that despite occasional marketing/rhetoric from Apple, their platform represents the minimum bound of "openness". It's only open enough to allow further business - e.g. allowing 3rd parties to develop apps in the store (from which they take a cut of proceeds) - rather than being open for the spirit of it, if that makes any sense. They are a business so that's not exactly something one could fault them for, though.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Yes, what I am saying is that we can't fault them for being a business. We should be looking for our open computing platform elsewhere - I think there is more than enough options. If a supposedly "open" platform wasn't open then that would be bad, but Apple is about something different - offering a premium vertically integrated product for people that don't even know what a CPU or OS is. If they were forced to open their platform it is very much possible there wouldn't be any Apple platform at all, and I don't want that kind of world. > though governing bodies may disagree! That's why I am reacting so strongly. If people begin to apply your thinking too broadly (e.g. to businesses like Apple) it will lead to governing bodies behaving like that. Let's apply this kind of thinking to platforms that claim to be open.

user-the-name 6y ago

> Apple can make tools that use the undocumented ISA, which they don't have to release to the public, potentially using it to develop applications with performance advantages that no one other than Apple can attain. Why would they? They sell hardware, not really software.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Hardware doesn't work without at least some sort of software. I really wish they (or any one with modern fast CPU and motherboard designs) would sell hardware only bare-bones with no OS or even bootloader, but history shows a mass market won't support that.
simion314 6y ago
>They sell hardware, not really software. But they make more money from the Apple Store and the other services and they are always giving advantages to their own stuff on iOS like using private APIs or bypassing security rules .
- user-the-name 6y ago
  If they make money from the App Store, why would they want to hobble the software in the App Store?
  - simion314 6y ago
    Only the software that directly competes with Apple own software. So for example Spotify was denied access to the special APIs for a while, browsers can't use their own engine, Apple apps can bypass firewall rules but games with lootboxes are welcomed because they don't compete with Apple and a 30% cut gets in Apple's pockets.
- Jetrel 6y ago
  It's starting to grow, but on any given platform of theirs, the overwhelming majority of their income still comes from the actual hardware, and the services revenue for that platform is maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of what they make from the hardware for it: https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-revenue-of-apple/#:~:text=Apple's%20iPhone%20sales%20accounted%20for,contribution%20to%20Apple's%20net%20sales https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-re.... (within this, you probably want to break out 5/6 of the services revenue and tack it onto iOS, and then treat the remaining 1/6 sliver as applying to the mac). This is honestly one of the biggest peace-of-mind things for being an apple customer, and it's definitely a big cultural trope within their support network as well. You pay your "union dues" by buying the hardware, and then "you're in". There's no money to be made after that fact, so there are an enormous number of small interactions after that that are fully trustworthy - for example, unlike many internet-ad-revenue companies, you're not worried about being profiled or having your info sold to advertisers. You're also not worried about "product collapse based on shaky revenue streams" - one thing that's always been scary about using various consumer apps is there are a fair number of programs out there that just have really shaky revenue models, so it's scary to commit to them because a lot of them eventually have to pivot, or sell out, or otherwise do something brutal to stay alive. When using some of apple's hardware, you know if it's selling decently, the business is stable and certain rugs won't get pulled out of under you.