The implication I assume that there would be pushback on Microsoft for doing the same would be because of the possibility of nefarious undocumented changes. What possibly nefarious things could an undocumented ISA extension do?
If they can’t be trusted, they don’t need to add opcodes.
It's similar to how Microsoft doesn't make all APIs on Windows public and uses non-public ones for various reasons--except this is in hardware.
It's possible the undocumented ISA is used to speed up x86 emulation and might be kept secret due to intellectual property concerns or similar.
Ouch. It's exactly this mentality that enables malicious actors - "it could be worse". It could always be worse, but that doesn't make it sufficient justification.
Functional equivalent: "It could always be even more anticompetitive. Let's be happy with what we got."
I said we should be happy Apple decided to open their platform - because they didn't have to, at all. It's entirely their right to not open anything, not write any documentation, or not even allow 3rd party software at all. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced premium products - it's not for you. I wouldn't want my own company to be forced to do/not do stuff, so of course I don't wish that upon Apple. There are enough entirely open computing platforms that are VERY cheap to obtain and easy to use, perhaps that would be a better choice for you.
Completely agree about forcing them to do or avoid strategies, though governing bodies may disagree!
Jokes aside, it seems that despite occasional marketing/rhetoric from Apple, their platform represents the minimum bound of "openness". It's only open enough to allow further business - e.g. allowing 3rd parties to develop apps in the store (from which they take a cut of proceeds) - rather than being open for the spirit of it, if that makes any sense.
They are a business so that's not exactly something one could fault them for, though.
> though governing bodies may disagree!
That's why I am reacting so strongly. If people begin to apply your thinking too broadly (e.g. to businesses like Apple) it will lead to governing bodies behaving like that. Let's apply this kind of thinking to platforms that claim to be open.
Why would they? They sell hardware, not really software.
I really wish they (or any one with modern fast CPU and motherboard designs) would sell hardware only bare-bones with no OS or even bootloader, but history shows a mass market won't support that.
But they make more money from the Apple Store and the other services and they are always giving advantages to their own stuff on iOS like using private APIs or bypassing security rules .
https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-re....
(within this, you probably want to break out 5/6 of the services revenue and tack it onto iOS, and then treat the remaining 1/6 sliver as applying to the mac).
This is honestly one of the biggest peace-of-mind things for being an apple customer, and it's definitely a big cultural trope within their support network as well. You pay your "union dues" by buying the hardware, and then "you're in". There's no money to be made after that fact, so there are an enormous number of small interactions after that that are fully trustworthy - for example, unlike many internet-ad-revenue companies, you're not worried about being profiled or having your info sold to advertisers. You're also not worried about "product collapse based on shaky revenue streams" - one thing that's always been scary about using various consumer apps is there are a fair number of programs out there that just have really shaky revenue models, so it's scary to commit to them because a lot of them eventually have to pivot, or sell out, or otherwise do something brutal to stay alive. When using some of apple's hardware, you know if it's selling decently, the business is stable and certain rugs won't get pulled out of under you.
I don't know why, but they are already doing it with browsers on iOS: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG...
Are there any WebKit functions that Apple allows Safari to use but that competing browsers are not permitted to use?
WebRTC for videoconferencing, Intelligent Tracking Protection, Fullscreen API
It's not about EEE it's about Apple taking this attitude in the first place.