4 ms·

Its not like it would matter if they didn't. It's your hardware.

by jaimex2 4y ago

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Tell that to Nintendo.
- Forgeties79 4y ago
  It’s baffling how outright hostile Nintendo sometimes can be to its most devoted fans. And it’s not even new - they’ve gotten away with it since the moment they stepped into video games.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    It’s not baffling at all. That’s what kept them alive. In Japan the Famicom was open, and it got flooded with junk like the Atari 2600 did. This threatened the same problems as Atari ran into. The Famicom Disk System relied on a strange copyright check on the physical disks to make them harder to pirate. It worked better than nothing, but not perfectly. The NES came out after the disk system but before the first mapper chips (which Nintendo controlled tightly for a few years) in 1985. By that time they had been through the problems in Japan and seeing what happened in America with the Atari crash Nintendo, rightly, knew they couldn’t let it happen again in America. They needed to show their console wouldn’t be full of complete trash, so they used the lockout chip to ensure all publishers had to through them. It’s a big part of why they were successful and able to reinvigorate the US market. It worked until the chip was cracked later in the console’s lifecycle. But by then the threat passed, the NES was safely ensconced. They’ve never forgotten that lesson. (No comment on fans)
    - musictubes 4y ago
      All the best games for the 2600 were by third parties. There were very few good Atari games and none of them came close to the quality of the best third party games. Pretty sure it was Atari's own horrible ET game that sank them, not other companies.
      - philistine 4y ago
        Pretty sure doesn’t cut it. You’re wrong. It wasn’t as easy as OP make it out to be, that the glut of third-party games killed the 2600, but it wasn’t Atari’s own games who cratered the price of a 2600 title and took the whole console market down.
      - Forgeties79 4y ago
        E.T. was just one more line item on a massive list of reasons for why the video game industry imploded on itself with Atari standing pretty much dead center of the blast zone.
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      > Nintendo, rightly, knew they couldn’t let it happen again in America. They needed to show their console wouldn’t be full of complete trash, so they used the lockout chip to ensure all publishers had to through them. It wasn’t just about protecting the brand, it was also every bit about collecting money at every single step of the production pipeline. They were able to not only have some better QC, but they were able to literally tell developers “no, you cannot make your game for anyone else. If you do, you’re not allowed to make it for the Nintendo, and that sucks for you because we have ~80% of the market.“ They did it so they could enforce what was functionally a monopoly on the games industry. Sega went to great lengths to undo Nintendo‘s grasp, and ultimately they weren’t even successful - they got a notable carve out of the market but it was still Nintendo’s industry. It took Sony going on a revenge tour (touting their CD format and wildly generous/unsustainable licensing deals) after Nintendo backstabbed them to finally dethrone Nintendo and end the norm that was their walled garden/top down control of the console games world.
est31 4y ago
On a technical level, you can't install third party OSs without accepting the EULA first. Whether such acceptance has legal meaning, I don't know, and it probably depends on jurisdiction.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > On a technical level, you can't install third party OSs without accepting the EULA first. You absolutely can (no EULA when booting into recovery partition), and I’m also fairly sure that acceptance would be legally void, as it only applies to the software. The hardware you own, it’s not licensed to you. And thanks to the first sale doctrine, there’s nothing stopping someone from starting to sell M1/M2 MacBooks running Asahi commercially.
  - est31 4y ago
    I base this upon what I read in OP. From OP: > You do have to click through Apple's EULA in order to use the machines at all. > Owner control is asserted on first boot (you become machine owner by going through the macOS setup flow and creating the first admin user). > The SEP maintains a database of machine owner users. The first such user is created when the user goes through the macOS boot flow on first startup from a factory-fresh state (or after a full DFU wipe). Subsequent machine owners can only be created by authenticating with an existing owner's credentials. > Permissive Security allows for ~all security features to be disabled, and third-party kernels to be installed. No phoning home is required. Downgrading to Permissive Security requires booting in 1TR paired to the specific OS involved, and authenticating using machine owner credentials. It seems to me that you can boot into the recovery partition but in order to be able to boot Linux, you need to authenticate using machine owner credentials, which you only get if you go through setup of the OS, for which you need to accept the EULA. However, on the good news front, OP also writes that no internet access is required for any of these steps.
- owow123 4y ago
  "On a technical level..." Sorry, what? Does buying a device from Apple contractually oblige me to turn on the phone and agree to the EULA on "first run"? What about second hand markets? What if I was smart / tooled up enough to replace the Iphone flash storage with my own OS (without running "first run")? At what "technical level" would what your saying make any sense? Because it seems far more like a "contractual condition of purchase" (I appear to have made that term up) issue vs a "technical" issue to me.

Its not like it would matter if they didn't. It's your hardware.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

Tell that to Nintendo.

Forgeties79 4y ago
It’s baffling how outright hostile Nintendo sometimes can be to its most devoted fans. And it’s not even new - they’ve gotten away with it since the moment they stepped into video games.
- MBCook 4y ago
  It’s not baffling at all. That’s what kept them alive. In Japan the Famicom was open, and it got flooded with junk like the Atari 2600 did. This threatened the same problems as Atari ran into. The Famicom Disk System relied on a strange copyright check on the physical disks to make them harder to pirate. It worked better than nothing, but not perfectly. The NES came out after the disk system but before the first mapper chips (which Nintendo controlled tightly for a few years) in 1985. By that time they had been through the problems in Japan and seeing what happened in America with the Atari crash Nintendo, rightly, knew they couldn’t let it happen again in America. They needed to show their console wouldn’t be full of complete trash, so they used the lockout chip to ensure all publishers had to through them. It’s a big part of why they were successful and able to reinvigorate the US market. It worked until the chip was cracked later in the console’s lifecycle. But by then the threat passed, the NES was safely ensconced. They’ve never forgotten that lesson. (No comment on fans)
  - musictubes 4y ago
    All the best games for the 2600 were by third parties. There were very few good Atari games and none of them came close to the quality of the best third party games. Pretty sure it was Atari's own horrible ET game that sank them, not other companies.
    - philistine 4y ago
      Pretty sure doesn’t cut it. You’re wrong. It wasn’t as easy as OP make it out to be, that the glut of third-party games killed the 2600, but it wasn’t Atari’s own games who cratered the price of a 2600 title and took the whole console market down.
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      E.T. was just one more line item on a massive list of reasons for why the video game industry imploded on itself with Atari standing pretty much dead center of the blast zone.
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    > Nintendo, rightly, knew they couldn’t let it happen again in America. They needed to show their console wouldn’t be full of complete trash, so they used the lockout chip to ensure all publishers had to through them. It wasn’t just about protecting the brand, it was also every bit about collecting money at every single step of the production pipeline. They were able to not only have some better QC, but they were able to literally tell developers “no, you cannot make your game for anyone else. If you do, you’re not allowed to make it for the Nintendo, and that sucks for you because we have ~80% of the market.“ They did it so they could enforce what was functionally a monopoly on the games industry. Sega went to great lengths to undo Nintendo‘s grasp, and ultimately they weren’t even successful - they got a notable carve out of the market but it was still Nintendo’s industry. It took Sony going on a revenge tour (touting their CD format and wildly generous/unsustainable licensing deals) after Nintendo backstabbed them to finally dethrone Nintendo and end the norm that was their walled garden/top down control of the console games world.

est31 4y ago

On a technical level, you can't install third party OSs without accepting the EULA first. Whether such acceptance has legal meaning, I don't know, and it probably depends on jurisdiction.

sgjohnson 4y ago
> On a technical level, you can't install third party OSs without accepting the EULA first. You absolutely can (no EULA when booting into recovery partition), and I’m also fairly sure that acceptance would be legally void, as it only applies to the software. The hardware you own, it’s not licensed to you. And thanks to the first sale doctrine, there’s nothing stopping someone from starting to sell M1/M2 MacBooks running Asahi commercially.
- est31 4y ago
  I base this upon what I read in OP. From OP: > You do have to click through Apple's EULA in order to use the machines at all. > Owner control is asserted on first boot (you become machine owner by going through the macOS setup flow and creating the first admin user). > The SEP maintains a database of machine owner users. The first such user is created when the user goes through the macOS boot flow on first startup from a factory-fresh state (or after a full DFU wipe). Subsequent machine owners can only be created by authenticating with an existing owner's credentials. > Permissive Security allows for ~all security features to be disabled, and third-party kernels to be installed. No phoning home is required. Downgrading to Permissive Security requires booting in 1TR paired to the specific OS involved, and authenticating using machine owner credentials. It seems to me that you can boot into the recovery partition but in order to be able to boot Linux, you need to authenticate using machine owner credentials, which you only get if you go through setup of the OS, for which you need to accept the EULA. However, on the good news front, OP also writes that no internet access is required for any of these steps.
owow123 4y ago
"On a technical level..." Sorry, what? Does buying a device from Apple contractually oblige me to turn on the phone and agree to the EULA on "first run"? What about second hand markets? What if I was smart / tooled up enough to replace the Iphone flash storage with my own OS (without running "first run")? At what "technical level" would what your saying make any sense? Because it seems far more like a "contractual condition of purchase" (I appear to have made that term up) issue vs a "technical" issue to me.