Of course nothing is absolute but it doesn't mean that we should be that wise to miss the main point with all nuances and be fooled like idiots to accept things that should never be acceptable. Nuances do matter but only after the main thing is defined and protected.
I am sorry but in that case with all your expertise knowledge and nuances you seem to miss the main thing which is a tendency to close every platform and make it controlled remotely or brick it otherwise stripping the owner from the computer respecting freedom completely.
Apple computers were able to boot from the usb now they don't. I am aware about nuances but you cannot boot in DFU something other then their thing unless they permit it, isnt' it?
Could they do it differently? I presume yes. They choose it to be exactly this way and they choose it to be this way just to keep control because they perfectly know where line is . They keep the very control they could and should give to the owner if he chooses so but they didn't and they didn't because the whole tendency is to make people slowly accept the idea of closed/remotely controlled platform.
Their iphone/ipads are closed completely just because they have found a way to make it acceptable by people. They can't do it with Macs ... for now. They are not idiots and they understand that if they close Macs today they will meet strong opposition with the chance that people would reject to use it completely. And they made a lot of efforts using 'nuances' tactics to make sure that one who wish to fool himself would find a way to do it by saying - look it is not perfect but they are trying to keep it open and there are nuances. Nevertheless they have managed to push things that never perceived as the norm like phoning home for some parameters, this 'secure' (for them) bootloader that owner doesn't have a choice to turn off or this DFU requiring another Mac to boot. What the F is that? Why can't I boot from usb without other Mac? Why there should be some hacking to achieve something like that? Could they do it differently? Of course they could but they didn't and they didn't on purpose because 'frog boiling' is in progress.
>But that's a repairability/longevity argument; while the thing has a proper bootloader installed, it isn't phoning home anywhere during normal operation.
Today, what about tomorrow?
>Can Apple sell me a backdoored M1? Yes. But the entire point of their design is that nobody else can backdoor it for me. Not even you, if you get ahold of it. Their user-controlled secureboot delegation requires authenticating using your machine owner credentials to install your own kernel, after having asserted physical presence, unless you wipe the whole machine and start fresh. And even then you can't backdoor the recovery mode used to do this, so you couldn't backdoor someone using the Asahi Linux installer since it runs from that secure recovery. Their design is such that compromised third party chips can't compromise the main system. You can't backdoor the motherboard and replace the flash. Etc. You have to trust Apple to an extent,
My concerns about third party in general and third party chips are much less then my concerns about Apple itself. Why should one afraid third party less then Apple? What is the difference? Apple as far as I am concerned IS third party as much as another third party is because they can communicate between them and they do such things and Apple is known to accept shit from dictatorships.
"You have to trust Apple to an extent" NO, I do not have to. We do not have to. They should be obligated to deliver something that doesn't require that after their product is shipped. We should demand from suppliers to supply something that doesn't require their control and it should be illegal if they introduce something like that.Only then they could be potentially "trusted" to the certain extent.
>Can you build a signing and key storage facility on par with the security of Apple's? Highly unlikely. So yes, you might have full control over the device, but you're getting less security against other attackers as a result.
What if I prefer that and not some 'big daddy' caring about my safety more then I do? Freedom does matter and it IS the answer and it comes with responsibility. THIS is the main issue here. THIS is what separates society with responsible citizens from the society with 'naive children' who wish to trade their freedom for 'safety' resulting in loosing both.