5 ms·

First of all the feature wasn't available in the initial Big Sur release and it only got available during the Betas for the first minor patch. Second of all, so

First of all the feature wasn't available in the initial Big Sur release and it only got available during the Betas for the first minor patch. Second of all, some Apple developer stated on Twitter that (during M1 unveil) he's finally able to show all the boot policy work they worked on the past year(s) to allow users to boot foreign OSes and without opening up holes for attackers. Basically it boils down to: they could have just used iBoot without changing it at all to keep it as a brick like the iPhone/iPad/Watch, but instead they invested plenty of resources to allow it. With all that work done to allow it, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people inside of Apple who'd protest if someone changes their mind and decides all this has to go away.

raverbashing 6y ago
I'd say there might be ongoing work to support Windows/BootCamp but in true Apple tradition (or maybe due to MS delays) it is being kept secret
- brundolf 6y ago
  That would make a lot of sense. Windows is in a tight spot right now because OEMs have lagged on ARM. Apple could offer MS a way out of that, while at the same time giving people one more reason to spend money on a Mac.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    Right, if MS is serious about Windows on ARM, they should support the Mac as a show case and also to allow all future Mac buyers the chance to run Windows. Of course, Apple can't announce much until Microsoft makes an announcement about Windows on AS Macs.
    - tibbydudeza 6y ago
      Is MS not busy looking at doing their own ARM silicon for future Windows powered Surface devices after release of M1 and the failure Qualcomm with the Snapdragon 8cx (we just use ARM reference designs) ???. They do have the chops for it since they have done Xbox and Hololens and various other devices in-house.
      - Hamuko 6y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-processors-chips-servers-surface-report https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-p... There are rumors.
      - unilynx 6y ago
        Maybe they are already developing their own "MS1" in secret ? But even if they are, it would make sense to release Windows 10 for the M1 and getting Win-developers to start porting their applications to ARM, so they could leap-frog Apple on ARM if they manage to build a 'better' ARM SoC
      - solarkraft 6y ago
        It's a rumor. If they're starting now I expect results in 2-5 years and in Azure first. > They do have the chops for it since they have done Xbox and Hololens and various other devices in-house. Not sure about the Hololens, but the XBox contains an x86 AMD processor.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    Linus Tech Tips actually just released a video a couple of hours ago where they compared the Surface Pro X SQ2 with the M1 MacBook Air. It was not pretty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhESSZIXvCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhESSZIXvCA
    - uncledave 6y ago
      It’s 100% on the mark that video.
      - vlovich123 6y ago
        He’s off on the strategic focus of Apple (where he says that the M1 benefit because Apple is taking a mobile OS and adapting it for the desktop vs Microsoft is taking a desktop OS and adapting it for mobile architectures. The truth of the matter is that Apple has been consistently making CPUs for about a decade that blow away the competition on compute per watt. Like 2-3 years before the industry catches up to where Apple was. They’re just bringing that same power to laptops/PCs as they’ve saturated what that buys them on mobile (not fully but it’s not a big enough sales driver as mobile sales growth has slowed). That’s why you see AirPods and M1 - “where else can we deploy our perf per watt and vertical integration advantage”. As for “why are there so few ARM versions of apps”, that’s purely the vertical integration piece again. Apple makes it very clear the old tech line is dead so developers have a clear thing to explain to their management. Microsoft tries to keep everyone happy which means devs are like “I’ll wait until this actually has industry buy in” which then Microsoft uses as “well there’s no interest here and maybe the tech won’t work out/vendors won’t materialize” and “we can’t ask our customers to pay this transition cost”.
    - danudey 6y ago
      So basically, the M1 Macbook Air is two to three times faster than the SQ2, including comparing ARM Windows on the SQ2 against ARM Windows in a VM on the M1 Air.
      - granzymes 6y ago
        The virtualized Windows comparison was just brutal.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    There is a significant number of people working at Microsoft who use Windows on a Mac as it's generally nice (and expensive) hardware. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to see Bootcamp operational on ARM Macs.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    Or they could take significant market share away from Windows, possibly permanently, by offering increasingly more performant machines. Seems like a better move to me.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Apple's outright said it's a matter of Microsoft agreeing to license Windows on ARM for consumers. Right now putting Windows on an ARM Mac is about as legal as Hackintoshing.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I don't think that's what Apple said at all–they just said the ball is in their court, which means that they want Microsoft to write Bootcamp essentially.
    - DCKing 6y ago
      Yeah. Someone - cough cough Microsoft - would need to be convinced to write a Boot Camp Assistant app equivalent (okay), a Windows bootloader (okay), various device drivers for Apple Silicon hardware revisions for Windows (big ugh), graphics drivers for Apple Silicon GPUs for Windows (VERY big ugh). Microsoft will need to very motivated to distribute Windows on ARM for this to happen, even if Apple gives them access to all the info they need which is not a given by any means. ...I don't think this is going to happen, and Apple probably doesn't either.
      - Twisell 6y ago
        Apple have developed Bootcamp and provided drivers so far for Intel Mac. But shipping Bootcamp for Windows ARM would be an EULA violation until Microsoft loosen theirs conditions. Changing this is literally step 1. Wether Apple would develop Bootcamp for ARM or not is purely theoretical discourse until then.
        DCKing 6y ago
        The only driver Apples needed to develop for Windows are Mac specifics though, like the stuff that was managed by the T1. Not trivial, but not the end of the world to have to make. Things like wifi drivers and especially the graphics drivers are just the chip vendor's standard preexisting Windows drivers. Apple is now the vendor of at least the GPU. I don't think they're going to write a Windows driver for that - the incentives are just not there.
- Technically 6y ago
  Is there any point of running windows outside of intel processors? I'm aware they have an ARM offering but it's not clear what the "killer apps" of the OS/arch pair are. I'd think linux/BSD drivers would be the concern here!
lrvick 6y ago
Kind of like all the work Sony did to allow Linux on the PS4 only to kill it later? You don't own a mac. You can only do on it what it is profitable for Apple to let you do, today. As much as I respect the incredible RE skills required for this task, I feel like this is shaky foundation unless an unpatchable bootrom exploit is discovered. Even then new models would be patched leaving existing users with an insecure platform that they can't replace when it breaks.
- monocasa 6y ago
  PS3, and supposedly that was because some jurisdictions treated game consoles and computers differently for import tariffs (computers being cheaper to import), but those jurisdictions changed to not having a distinction. Agreed with the underlying point you're making though. They allow this because it aligns with their current strategic objectives, and changes to those objectives can be arbitrary and capricious, at least from the viewpoint of the consumer.
  - pricci 6y ago
    I remember it was because geohot "jailbreaked" the PS3 using the Linux capabilities to some extent. But I could be wrong.
    - svenpeter 6y ago
      There were two versions of the PS3: The original model and a slimmed down version released after a few years. the timeline was something like this: - Sony released the original PS3 with Linux running under a hypervisor that locked certain things (e.g. 3D rendering and their DRM) - Sony released the PS3 slim without Linux. They claimed they didn't have the resources to make Linux run on it. (We later figured out all that was required were a few incredibly simple kernel patches) - geohot found a somewhat unstable hardware glitch that, with some luck and a few tries, could escalate to hypervisor mode and enable e.g. 3D rendering from Linux. Their DRM was still untouched at this point and no one really cared. - Sony released an update for the old PS3 models to disable Linux as well citing "security concerns" After that more people started looking into the PS3 and marcan, me and others at fail0verflow eventually figured out their security wasn't all that great. It was actually so bad that we could calculate their private keys. Then they sued us for that but that's another story.

raverbashing 6y ago

I'd say there might be ongoing work to support Windows/BootCamp but in true Apple tradition (or maybe due to MS delays) it is being kept secret

brundolf 6y ago
That would make a lot of sense. Windows is in a tight spot right now because OEMs have lagged on ARM. Apple could offer MS a way out of that, while at the same time giving people one more reason to spend money on a Mac.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  Right, if MS is serious about Windows on ARM, they should support the Mac as a show case and also to allow all future Mac buyers the chance to run Windows. Of course, Apple can't announce much until Microsoft makes an announcement about Windows on AS Macs.
  - tibbydudeza 6y ago
    Is MS not busy looking at doing their own ARM silicon for future Windows powered Surface devices after release of M1 and the failure Qualcomm with the Snapdragon 8cx (we just use ARM reference designs) ???. They do have the chops for it since they have done Xbox and Hololens and various other devices in-house.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-processors-chips-servers-surface-report https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189450/microsoft-arm-p... There are rumors.
    - unilynx 6y ago
      Maybe they are already developing their own "MS1" in secret ? But even if they are, it would make sense to release Windows 10 for the M1 and getting Win-developers to start porting their applications to ARM, so they could leap-frog Apple on ARM if they manage to build a 'better' ARM SoC
    - solarkraft 6y ago
      It's a rumor. If they're starting now I expect results in 2-5 years and in Azure first. > They do have the chops for it since they have done Xbox and Hololens and various other devices in-house. Not sure about the Hololens, but the XBox contains an x86 AMD processor.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Linus Tech Tips actually just released a video a couple of hours ago where they compared the Surface Pro X SQ2 with the M1 MacBook Air. It was not pretty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhESSZIXvCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhESSZIXvCA
  - uncledave 6y ago
    It’s 100% on the mark that video.
    - vlovich123 6y ago
      He’s off on the strategic focus of Apple (where he says that the M1 benefit because Apple is taking a mobile OS and adapting it for the desktop vs Microsoft is taking a desktop OS and adapting it for mobile architectures. The truth of the matter is that Apple has been consistently making CPUs for about a decade that blow away the competition on compute per watt. Like 2-3 years before the industry catches up to where Apple was. They’re just bringing that same power to laptops/PCs as they’ve saturated what that buys them on mobile (not fully but it’s not a big enough sales driver as mobile sales growth has slowed). That’s why you see AirPods and M1 - “where else can we deploy our perf per watt and vertical integration advantage”. As for “why are there so few ARM versions of apps”, that’s purely the vertical integration piece again. Apple makes it very clear the old tech line is dead so developers have a clear thing to explain to their management. Microsoft tries to keep everyone happy which means devs are like “I’ll wait until this actually has industry buy in” which then Microsoft uses as “well there’s no interest here and maybe the tech won’t work out/vendors won’t materialize” and “we can’t ask our customers to pay this transition cost”.
  - danudey 6y ago
    So basically, the M1 Macbook Air is two to three times faster than the SQ2, including comparing ARM Windows on the SQ2 against ARM Windows in a VM on the M1 Air.
    - granzymes 6y ago
      The virtualized Windows comparison was just brutal.
- r00fus 6y ago
  There is a significant number of people working at Microsoft who use Windows on a Mac as it's generally nice (and expensive) hardware. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to see Bootcamp operational on ARM Macs.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  Or they could take significant market share away from Windows, possibly permanently, by offering increasingly more performant machines. Seems like a better move to me.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Apple's outright said it's a matter of Microsoft agreeing to license Windows on ARM for consumers. Right now putting Windows on an ARM Mac is about as legal as Hackintoshing.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I don't think that's what Apple said at all–they just said the ball is in their court, which means that they want Microsoft to write Bootcamp essentially.
  - DCKing 6y ago
    Yeah. Someone - cough cough Microsoft - would need to be convinced to write a Boot Camp Assistant app equivalent (okay), a Windows bootloader (okay), various device drivers for Apple Silicon hardware revisions for Windows (big ugh), graphics drivers for Apple Silicon GPUs for Windows (VERY big ugh). Microsoft will need to very motivated to distribute Windows on ARM for this to happen, even if Apple gives them access to all the info they need which is not a given by any means. ...I don't think this is going to happen, and Apple probably doesn't either.
    - Twisell 6y ago
      Apple have developed Bootcamp and provided drivers so far for Intel Mac. But shipping Bootcamp for Windows ARM would be an EULA violation until Microsoft loosen theirs conditions. Changing this is literally step 1. Wether Apple would develop Bootcamp for ARM or not is purely theoretical discourse until then.
      - DCKing 6y ago
        The only driver Apples needed to develop for Windows are Mac specifics though, like the stuff that was managed by the T1. Not trivial, but not the end of the world to have to make. Things like wifi drivers and especially the graphics drivers are just the chip vendor's standard preexisting Windows drivers. Apple is now the vendor of at least the GPU. I don't think they're going to write a Windows driver for that - the incentives are just not there.
Technically 6y ago
Is there any point of running windows outside of intel processors? I'm aware they have an ARM offering but it's not clear what the "killer apps" of the OS/arch pair are. I'd think linux/BSD drivers would be the concern here!

lrvick 6y ago

Kind of like all the work Sony did to allow Linux on the PS4 only to kill it later? You don't own a mac. You can only do on it what it is profitable for Apple to let you do, today. As much as I respect the incredible RE skills required for this task, I feel like this is shaky foundation unless an unpatchable bootrom exploit is discovered. Even then new models would be patched leaving existing users with an insecure platform that they can't replace when it breaks.

monocasa 6y ago
PS3, and supposedly that was because some jurisdictions treated game consoles and computers differently for import tariffs (computers being cheaper to import), but those jurisdictions changed to not having a distinction. Agreed with the underlying point you're making though. They allow this because it aligns with their current strategic objectives, and changes to those objectives can be arbitrary and capricious, at least from the viewpoint of the consumer.
- pricci 6y ago
  I remember it was because geohot "jailbreaked" the PS3 using the Linux capabilities to some extent. But I could be wrong.
  - svenpeter 6y ago
    There were two versions of the PS3: The original model and a slimmed down version released after a few years. the timeline was something like this: - Sony released the original PS3 with Linux running under a hypervisor that locked certain things (e.g. 3D rendering and their DRM) - Sony released the PS3 slim without Linux. They claimed they didn't have the resources to make Linux run on it. (We later figured out all that was required were a few incredibly simple kernel patches) - geohot found a somewhat unstable hardware glitch that, with some luck and a few tries, could escalate to hypervisor mode and enable e.g. 3D rendering from Linux. Their DRM was still untouched at this point and no one really cared. - Sony released an update for the old PS3 models to disable Linux as well citing "security concerns" After that more people started looking into the PS3 and marcan, me and others at fail0verflow eventually figured out their security wasn't all that great. It was actually so bad that we could calculate their private keys. Then they sued us for that but that's another story.