Another item added to the list of why I'm not buying one of these.
In fact macOS itself is more restrictive nowdays than it used to be.
Is the worry that Apple and its practices will dominate the industry to the point that you literally will not be able to turn on your current machine and use it?
I know you're joking, but I actually kind of am...
Apple has a tremendous amount of industry influence, just see removal of the headphone jack.
When macOS deprecates support for these ARM Macs in 5-7 years, Linux isn't an option for them unless Apple puts in a lot of work to support a mainline Linux kernel on their hardware. Apple has said they won't support running other operating systems on these ARM Macs unless they're virtualized.
Why would Apple need to "put a lot of work in"? Apple doesn't support Linux on 86 either. Third parties did the Mac Linux ports for 86, and will do them for the ARM Macs.
The only thing Apple needs to do is to not lock the ARM Macs from booting another OS, which is very easy to do -- Apple doesn't need to invest lots of work to run Linux on ARM Macs, just needs not to prevent it.
Because ARM SoCs are fundamentally different than 32-bit and 64-bit x86 machines. The prime difference is the lack of an enumerable bus that even some ARM servers have, but are missing in ARM SoCs.
I bought an x86 Mac when they were first released and I was able to boot an Ubuntu live CD when I got it. No work was needed to get a mainline kernel running on a x86 Mac, but work was needed to support things like Apple's SMC and cameras etc.
> The only thing Apple needs to do is to not lock the ARM Macs from booting another OS, which is very easy to do -- Apple doesn't need to invest lots of work to run Linux on ARM Macs, just needs not to prevent it.
This is not true. Given the lack of an enumerable bus, someone will need to either fork the kernel and hardcode addresses for hardware, or someone will need documents to build out the DeviceTree. If hardware doesn't conform to existing standards, which nearly every ARM SoC follows their own, someone will need to do further work port the kernel to the machine. All the special deviations from standards that Apple baked into their hardware either needs to be documented accurately, or Apple needs to put the work in to get mainline Linux running on their SoCs.
This is a general problem in the ARM SoC and Linux space, and is not unique to Apple's SoCs. There are millions of ARM SoCs that are either stuck on old kernel forks because vendors never put the work in to get mainline Linux to support their SoCs, or they will never run Linux at all, ever. I don't even think all of the Raspberry Pi models have mainline support yet, and those that do only have it because of the work put in by the RPi Foundation, which has access to some vendor documentation, but I don't believe all.
To get an idea of the scope of the problem concerning Linux support on ARM SoCs, check out this presentation[1].
'Purchasing' a Kindle book or video on Amazon is also renting for example and yet it does not mean you have to continue paying and yet you don't own the copy as Amazon's going to decide how you're allowed to consume it and if they're going to let you keep it[1][2].
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle#Criticism
2 - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/amazon-argues-user...
In particular, this is the first 5nm chip to be widely available, and by most accounts on performance it competes with top of the line hardware at a small fraction of the power use. Most existing ARM chips are designed for the very-low-power market, e.g. in phones, not to be used in a high performance laptop.
If there's a Dell or Thinkpad laptop with an ARM chip that's comparable, by all means, let me know.
That's part of the value proposition (leave it or take it).
There is a massive marketplace for tinkering on computers, from Arduinos to multi-GPU ML rigs. Trying to optimize for both classes of things seems like a foolish endeavor, especially when Linux users represent such a small fraction of the desktop market.
To be clear, I'm not saying that there couldn't possibly be any good reason for wanting to run Linux on a Mac desktop. But desktops are already a niche product for Apple, and people who want to run Linux on Mac desktops are arguably a tiny niche within a niche.