4 ms·

Apple are absolutely not going to do that. That would be illegal. Sony lost a class action over this, and Apple have a lot more to lose in the PR realm than the

Apple are absolutely not going to do that. That would be illegal. Sony lost a class action over this, and Apple have a lot more to lose in the PR realm than them. Please don't spread FUD like this. Apple have never, not once, locked down a Mac, post facto or otherwise. It always has been a platform open to third party OSes.

techrat 5y ago
> Sony lost a class action over this Sony explicitly advertised an OtherOS feature and then pulled it. Apple doesn't advertise support for booting another OS on their devices. Huge difference. You're being disingenuous and you know it. > Apple are absolutely not going to do that. That would be illegal. Illegality has never stopped Apple before. After all, this is the same company that prevents other web browser engines from being able to run on their hardware. If that isn't more restrictive than anything Microsoft did with IE (and they faced an antitrust suit over this)... I don't know what is. Take off your rose colored glasses and stop seeing Apple as a company that hasn't locked shit down whenever they could get away with it. Drawing a line between Macs and iDevices is ignoring all the big fucking warning signs. It's still the same company in the end... and their Macs are now using the same SOCs that their most restricted devices uses. Tick, tock, tick, tock...
- marcan_42 5y ago
  Of course Apple advertise running your own kernel code on these machines. Here's the official documentation on custom kernel extensions (which are functionally equivalent to allowing other OSes): https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/installing-a-custom-kernel-extension https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/inst... And here's the kmutil manpage that explicitly describes the option they added to support fully custom kernels, which is what we use: https://keith.github.io/xcode-man-pages/kmutil.8.html https://keith.github.io/xcode-man-pages/kmutil.8.html And here's a blog by the head of XNU development at Apple explaining how to build and run your own XNU kernel for these machines: https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2021/02/building-xnu-for-macos-112-intel-apple.html?m=1 https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2021/02/building-xnu-for-m... This isn't an accident. This is a documented, explicitly advertised feature that Apple put a significant amount of engineering time into developing.
  - techrat 5y ago
    Show me in a print advertisement that Apple advertises running another OS on the M1 based machines. THAT is what Sony did with the OtherOS feature on the PS3 and THAT was why they faced a class action lawsuit over it. A post on BLOGSPOT of all places does not strike me as OFFICIAL documentation.
    - crad 5y ago
      Are you familiar with BootCamp, an explicitly advertised feature to boot into Windows (https://support.apple.com/boot-camp https://support.apple.com/boot-camp) - They've advertised it quite a bit. They maintain Windows drivers for their hardware. Re on the M1 specifically, Apple suggests they'd totally be on board should Microsoft put in the effort: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/14/arm-windows-m1-macs-not-supported/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/14/arm-windows-m1-macs-not... > Apple's software engineering chief Craig Federighi last year said that Windows coming to M1 Macs is "up to Microsoft." The M1 chip contains the core technologies needed to run Windows, but Microsoft has to decide whether to license its Arm version of Windows to Mac users. I imagine that once Windows on Arm is supported, they'd be totally be on board. Perhaps if you weren't so hostile in your replies, you'd be down-voted less. You come across as angry.
      - _xy8h 5y ago
        Bootcamp is not allowing someone to fully boot any OS from the device. It is still a walled garden that limits hardware access, preventing the user from getting full performance out of the device. > Perhaps if you weren't so hostile in your replies, you'd be down-voted less. You come across as angry. You get what you read into it. Majority of my posts are statements of fact yet they get downvoted because there's no placating the Apple horde with the truth.
        wtallis 5y ago
        > It is still a walled garden that limits hardware access, preventing the user from getting full performance out of the device. What limits are you referring to, and by what performance metrics is Boot Camp unable to make full use of the hardware capabilities?
mtone 5y ago
They did it on iOS countless times to prevent rooting the device. Not sure how that's supposed to be different as the tech converges, but I never owned a Mac so that's all I know of Apple.
- floatboth 5y ago
  iOS devices never advertised support for booting whatever you want; Macs always did. Very, very different product lines.
  - mtone 5y ago
    So the 15" M1 laptop will let you custom boot if you manage to decipher its undocumented internals, but the 10" M1 tablet will actively shut down attempts on the next update. Great.
    - _xy8h 5y ago
      Yep. This seems to be the point the "FUD! FUD!" criers are ignoring. Apple has a long, continuous history of locking down hardware. Never having a bootloader unlockable iDevice, unibody, glue, soldered on components that are traditionally user replaceable, soldering in displays and backs when people try to repair batteries, serializing the components so you can't even swap official parts. Apple has never gone in the reverse direction to make components more easily user serviceable. It's always been in the more restrictive direction. More proprietary with every iteration. Now it's the CPU. Bootloader locking on an M1 Macbook is the next logical step.
      - floatboth 5y ago
        If that is the next logical step why would they go out of their way to design a whole mechanism for running custom kernels? They could've just released a locked down Macbook in the first place if that was the goal.
  - bscphil 5y ago
    I'm sympathetic to marcan's points and I don't think Apple is likely to do anything like this, personally, but this argument isn't very convincing. All this means is that they can't release a firmware update blocking use of a third party OS on existing hardware (contra techrat). OK, great, but we're talking about a manufacturer that makes products designed to go in the rubbish bin 2-4 years after manufacture (witness the half dozen comments by users in this thread saying they have already put their M1 computers in a drawer somewhere!). Apple are constantly iterating, and the goal of a project like Asahi is to stay ahead of the game and continue running on new hardware. The proper and correct point that techrat should have made is that the second something like Asahi is a threat to Apple for any reason, Apple can release new hardware that's locked down similar to iOS. You'll even have people on this site defending the changes too, in the name of security or something.

techrat 5y ago

> Sony lost a class action over this Sony explicitly advertised an OtherOS feature and then pulled it. Apple doesn't advertise support for booting another OS on their devices. Huge difference. You're being disingenuous and you know it. > Apple are absolutely not going to do that. That would be illegal. Illegality has never stopped Apple before. After all, this is the same company that prevents other web browser engines from being able to run on their hardware. If that isn't more restrictive than anything Microsoft did with IE (and they faced an antitrust suit over this)... I don't know what is. Take off your rose colored glasses and stop seeing Apple as a company that hasn't locked shit down whenever they could get away with it. Drawing a line between Macs and iDevices is ignoring all the big fucking warning signs. It's still the same company in the end... and their Macs are now using the same SOCs that their most restricted devices uses. Tick, tock, tick, tock...

marcan_42 5y ago
Of course Apple advertise running your own kernel code on these machines. Here's the official documentation on custom kernel extensions (which are functionally equivalent to allowing other OSes): https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/installing-a-custom-kernel-extension https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/inst... And here's the kmutil manpage that explicitly describes the option they added to support fully custom kernels, which is what we use: https://keith.github.io/xcode-man-pages/kmutil.8.html https://keith.github.io/xcode-man-pages/kmutil.8.html And here's a blog by the head of XNU development at Apple explaining how to build and run your own XNU kernel for these machines: https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2021/02/building-xnu-for-macos-112-intel-apple.html?m=1 https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2021/02/building-xnu-for-m... This isn't an accident. This is a documented, explicitly advertised feature that Apple put a significant amount of engineering time into developing.
- techrat 5y ago
  Show me in a print advertisement that Apple advertises running another OS on the M1 based machines. THAT is what Sony did with the OtherOS feature on the PS3 and THAT was why they faced a class action lawsuit over it. A post on BLOGSPOT of all places does not strike me as OFFICIAL documentation.
  - crad 5y ago
    Are you familiar with BootCamp, an explicitly advertised feature to boot into Windows (https://support.apple.com/boot-camp https://support.apple.com/boot-camp) - They've advertised it quite a bit. They maintain Windows drivers for their hardware. Re on the M1 specifically, Apple suggests they'd totally be on board should Microsoft put in the effort: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/14/arm-windows-m1-macs-not-supported/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/14/arm-windows-m1-macs-not... > Apple's software engineering chief Craig Federighi last year said that Windows coming to M1 Macs is "up to Microsoft." The M1 chip contains the core technologies needed to run Windows, but Microsoft has to decide whether to license its Arm version of Windows to Mac users. I imagine that once Windows on Arm is supported, they'd be totally be on board. Perhaps if you weren't so hostile in your replies, you'd be down-voted less. You come across as angry.
    - _xy8h 5y ago
      Bootcamp is not allowing someone to fully boot any OS from the device. It is still a walled garden that limits hardware access, preventing the user from getting full performance out of the device. > Perhaps if you weren't so hostile in your replies, you'd be down-voted less. You come across as angry. You get what you read into it. Majority of my posts are statements of fact yet they get downvoted because there's no placating the Apple horde with the truth.
      - wtallis 5y ago
        > It is still a walled garden that limits hardware access, preventing the user from getting full performance out of the device. What limits are you referring to, and by what performance metrics is Boot Camp unable to make full use of the hardware capabilities?

mtone 5y ago

They did it on iOS countless times to prevent rooting the device. Not sure how that's supposed to be different as the tech converges, but I never owned a Mac so that's all I know of Apple.

floatboth 5y ago
iOS devices never advertised support for booting whatever you want; Macs always did. Very, very different product lines.
- mtone 5y ago
  So the 15" M1 laptop will let you custom boot if you manage to decipher its undocumented internals, but the 10" M1 tablet will actively shut down attempts on the next update. Great.
  - _xy8h 5y ago
    Yep. This seems to be the point the "FUD! FUD!" criers are ignoring. Apple has a long, continuous history of locking down hardware. Never having a bootloader unlockable iDevice, unibody, glue, soldered on components that are traditionally user replaceable, soldering in displays and backs when people try to repair batteries, serializing the components so you can't even swap official parts. Apple has never gone in the reverse direction to make components more easily user serviceable. It's always been in the more restrictive direction. More proprietary with every iteration. Now it's the CPU. Bootloader locking on an M1 Macbook is the next logical step.
    - floatboth 5y ago
      If that is the next logical step why would they go out of their way to design a whole mechanism for running custom kernels? They could've just released a locked down Macbook in the first place if that was the goal.
- bscphil 5y ago
  I'm sympathetic to marcan's points and I don't think Apple is likely to do anything like this, personally, but this argument isn't very convincing. All this means is that they can't release a firmware update blocking use of a third party OS on existing hardware (contra techrat). OK, great, but we're talking about a manufacturer that makes products designed to go in the rubbish bin 2-4 years after manufacture (witness the half dozen comments by users in this thread saying they have already put their M1 computers in a drawer somewhere!). Apple are constantly iterating, and the goal of a project like Asahi is to stay ahead of the game and continue running on new hardware. The proper and correct point that techrat should have made is that the second something like Asahi is a threat to Apple for any reason, Apple can release new hardware that's locked down similar to iOS. You'll even have people on this site defending the changes too, in the name of security or something.