3 ms·

Apple are religious about interoperability within their platform, making it easy and reliable. If they were to do as you suggested with some of their proprietar

Apple are religious about interoperability within their platform, making it easy and reliable. If they were to do as you suggested with some of their proprietary tech, there will be products that implement it badly. To the user they would have no idea who’s at fault, and would probably blame the tech in general, damaging Apple. Standardisation, in combination with certification to use the “label”, ensures that people developing on top of their innovation do so well enough that it doesn’t damage the brand. (Somewhat less relevant to an instruction set, and not something I particularly agree with)

viraptor 4y ago
This doesn't really make sense. There are already systems implementing connections to Apple stuff badly due to lack of documentation. The situation would only improve with the publication. For example we already have most of m1 hardware reverse engineered in Asahi - that's not going away. We've had things like air drop and earbuds charge state RE'd too. We'll get amx libraries as well soon.
- scarface74 4y ago
  “Apple’s stuff” is there hardware + operating system. The benefit of buying “Apple stuff” is the integration between their software and hardware ecosystem.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Yes, and... That seems irrelevant to the point of my post?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      It’s relevant because > For example we already have most of m1 hardware reverse engineered in Asahi - that's not going away. We've had things like air drop and earbuds charge state RE'd too. We'll get amx libraries as well soon. You’re trying to use Apple hardware with non Apple software. If you put Windows on an x86 Mac, do you expect the same experience (or battery life) that you get if you’re running MacOS on an x86 Max?
stephc_int13 4y ago
>interoperability within their platform Isn't this called an oxymoron?
- samwillis 4y ago
  Quite right, I should have said “ecosystem” really. And obviously this comment, about Apple in general, was a little off topic as a reply to the parent. I know what I was trying to get at, but didn’t convey it well in this context. Oh well.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  No I’ve seen platforms where interoperability is non existent but it’s still a platform.

viraptor 4y ago

This doesn't really make sense. There are already systems implementing connections to Apple stuff badly due to lack of documentation. The situation would only improve with the publication. For example we already have most of m1 hardware reverse engineered in Asahi - that's not going away. We've had things like air drop and earbuds charge state RE'd too. We'll get amx libraries as well soon.

scarface74 4y ago
“Apple’s stuff” is there hardware + operating system. The benefit of buying “Apple stuff” is the integration between their software and hardware ecosystem.
- viraptor 4y ago
  Yes, and... That seems irrelevant to the point of my post?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It’s relevant because > For example we already have most of m1 hardware reverse engineered in Asahi - that's not going away. We've had things like air drop and earbuds charge state RE'd too. We'll get amx libraries as well soon. You’re trying to use Apple hardware with non Apple software. If you put Windows on an x86 Mac, do you expect the same experience (or battery life) that you get if you’re running MacOS on an x86 Max?

stephc_int13 4y ago

>interoperability within their platform Isn't this called an oxymoron?

samwillis 4y ago
Quite right, I should have said “ecosystem” really. And obviously this comment, about Apple in general, was a little off topic as a reply to the parent. I know what I was trying to get at, but didn’t convey it well in this context. Oh well.
Jcowell 4y ago
No I’ve seen platforms where interoperability is non existent but it’s still a platform.