Hacker News Reader

Comment by internet2000 | Hacker News Reader

internet2000

Because it sells the hardware, where they make the most money. I don't think they will do something like that, but I think the reason is that they just don't care enough to dedicate internal resources.

View on HN

Well, even for BootCamp, a marketed feature, they only dropped a halfarsed set of drivers which worked very poorly and were pretty never updated. We need to use hacked AMD drivers to get updates for the Radeons and the Macs still overheat and burn a lot energy due to lack of even basic power saving features. Heck, even the GPU switching isn't implemented.

Why would there be expectation they'd do anything more for Linux?

> Why would there be expectation they'd do anything more for Linux?

Linux is more complementary, compared to Windows which has been an existential threat to the Mac since the 90s.

I agree with an earlier comment: I don't expect Apple will provide any assistance, but neither do I see it as entirely unlikely.

Windows in the Bootcamp role was also compliment ary, in that it enabled a company or individual worker to consider Ape hardware where Windows was a requirement or desired as a personal preference.

This also enabled those users to spend time in MacOS or switch to virtualizing Windows and may lead to one or more personal purchases for themselves or members of their household.

Apple is turning into a services company, though, look at their numbers.

And one of those core services is the App Store.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Mac apps still aren't distributed on the App Store. The Mac App Store almost certainly isn't a big money-maker.

They're turning the screws, the ARM Macs are the first Macs that will not run unsigned binaries.

It's already at the point where macOS will treat apps as if they're radioactive if the developer didn't pay the $100 Apple tax before distributing it.

They don’t run unsigned binaries, but they run self-signed binaries (to the same extent that Intel Macs run unsigned binaries) and the linker automatically does the signing. It’s an architectural simplification, not a substantive tightening of the screws.

Self-signed applications are treated as if they're radioactive by macOS, too[1].

[1] https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html

Yes. My point is that blocking truly unsigned applications on Apple Silicon is not a substantive change from the status quo on Intel Macs.

Programs on Intel Macs can do some funny things to invalidate their code signature in was that Apple silicon won’t support, which I guess you could call a change. But I agree that the transition was probably mostly made for simplicity.

Yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com