Solved - Why has Apple gone for this locked down approach?

[Quackers]

in respect of refusing to boot anything else, when Microsoft got slated for years for similar behaviour (but not quite so severe).
I like more than one system on my computers and am constantly playing with different OSes. It's a sickness I have
It'll be an ex sickness if I get a new M1.
It also changes the spec of a prospective new M1 for me. I won't need as much SSD space and I probably won't choose the 16GB option for ram, whereas with more OSes I would.
Similarly with virtualisation looking more and more iffy on an M1 the same applies.

I know Apple say it's for securty reasons but I'm a big boy and I really can make my own decisions re: risk.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[digitalbreak]

New technology and pushing the boundaries do come at a cost. And, Apple is known to control its hardware and software to provide the best performance/optimizations they can build using the combo - so it’s not surprising that M1 chips today lack a lot of features for use cases like yours.

Me personally am a Mac user and loving all the improvements from M1 chip so don’t necessarily bother about running different OSes.

And on security: An average user or even a tech savvy user is prone to a lot of security issues - you may never be the security expert to determine what is going on. So, Apple does sure know what could happen or what one could take advantage of and exploit others as a result, if not done properly.

 

[BeatCrazy]

A simplistic answer - Apple gains the most "new" customers (aka switchers from Windows) when those customers are simply frustrated by Windows inconsistencies and want the familiar experience of their iPhone/iPad.

The more Apple locks things down, the more they can put on the guardrails that ensure a better experience for the "new" users.

 

[Quackers]

I'm not sure that pushing boundaries and improved hardware necessitate the change in policy to be honest.
I'll have to wait and see what reaction there may be.
Any security issues I may open myself up to are of my own making. Or would be if I had the choice.
So I can either stick with Intel and use whatever OSes I want or I can have massive performance improvements with an M1.
I'm not sure the choice should be that stark.

 

[Quackers]

A simplistic answer - Apple gains the most "new" customers (aka switchers from Windows) when those customers are simply frustrated by Windows inconsistencies and want the familiar experience of their iPhone/iPad.

The more Apple locks things down, the more they can put on the guardrails that ensure a better experience for the "new" users.

Hmm, maybe.

 

[leman]

Do we actually have any evidence that they prevent anything else from booting? Is it possible that they just use their own proprietary hardware and protocols that would need to be reverse-engineered first to allow third-party OS? Intel Macs run on standard software, with standard EFI, so booting Linux or Windows is fairly straightforward (as in — plug your USB stick in straightforward). But Apple Silicon Macs that went full custom? And I am not taking about something as complex as a GPU driver... but already getting storage to work is going to be far from trivial.

 

[deeddawg]

in respect of refusing to boot anything else, when Microsoft got slated for years for similar behaviour (but not quite so severe).
I like more than one system on my computers and am constantly playing with different OSes. It's a sickness I have
It'll be an ex sickness if I get a new M1.
It also changes the spec of a prospective new M1 for me. I won't need as much SSD space and I probably won't choose the 16GB option for ram, whereas with more OSes I would.
Similarly with virtualisation looking more and more iffy on an M1 the same applies.

I know Apple say it's for securty reasons but I'm a big boy and I really can make my own decisions re: risk.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I've missed where this is documented as policy rather than a bug?

Until that's settled, it may be a bit premature to grab the pitchforks and torches...

 

[Quackers]

Do we actually have any evidence that they prevent anything else from booting? Is it possible that they just use their own proprietary hardware and protocols that would need to be reverse-engineered first to allow third-party OS? Intel Macs run on standard software, with standard EFI, so booting Linux or Windows is fairly straightforward (as in — plug your USB stick in straightforward). But Apple Silicon Macs that went full custom? And I am not taking about something as complex as a GPU driver... but already getting storage to work is going to be far from trivial.

Fair enough, in view of it being the first iteration and all. Maybe things will change in the future.
We'll have to wait and see.

I've missed where this is documented as policy rather than a bug?

Until that's settled, it may be a bit premature to grab the pitchforks and torches...

I thought an Apple Boff said as much in a presentation.
And nobody's grabbing pitchforks
Just asking.

 

[leman]

Fair enough, in view of it being the first iteration and all. Maybe things will change in the future.
We'll have to wait and see.

To make it clear: I don't think that Apple will ever officially support Linux boot support (maybe Windows if they can come to an agreement with MS, but who knows). That is not the use case they care about. As far as they are concerned, they are not selling you hardware, they are selling you an integrated package. Fully custom hardware allows them to tweak things in ways not possible until now.

But it is possible that there will be some open source effort to make Linux run on Apple Silicon Macs... even if I don't expect them to grow beyond a tinkerer's garage.

 

[Gnattu]

Similarly with virtualisation looking more and more iffy on an M1 the same applies.

But it is not. Current software is not ready yet, but Apple does provide a complete framework for virtualization.

 

[Gnattu]

Regarding to boot alternate OS: Linux booting has lot of problems on post-T2 Macs, due to lack adequate of firmware and drivers. Windows works because Apple provided a complete bootcamp driver package. To support alternate OS, there is more than "not being locked down". An alternate OS is not going to work if an opened up boot loader is all it has. Spending time to solve software problem for alternate OS is way out of scope here. The best thing Apple can do is to provide more technical documents to let others write drivers/firmwares for alternate OS if they don't want to do it themselves, but if Apple has no intention to support alternate booting in the first place, the chance they will provide such document is also very low.

 

[Quackers]

Regarding to boot alternate OS: Linux booting has lot of problems on post-T2 Macs, due to lack adequate of firmware and drivers. Windows works because Apple provided a complete bootcamp driver package. To support alternate OS, there is more than "not being locked down". An alternate OS is not going to work if an opened up boot loader is all it has. Spending time to solve software problem for alternate OS is way out of scope here. The best thing Apple can do is to provide more technical documents to let others write drivers/firmwares for alternate OS if they don't want to do it themselves, but if Apple has no intention to support alternate booting in the first place, the chance they will provide such document is also very low.

You don't (or didn't) have to use Bootcamp to install Windows. Certainly not on my 2012 rMBP. I installed it in EFI mode and it worked very well. Sadly it did not have drivers for sound but everything else was fine.
Similarly 2013 and later MBP's (at least for a while) could install Windows natively.

My point really was that Apple's intention is quoted as locking its bootloader which doesn't leave much room for manouevre afaik.
The term locked down has actually been used in the press.

However, time will tell their intention.

 

[The Cockney Rebel]

Talking of lockdown, can you believe we're going back into Tier 3 re: COVID.

When will this ever end?

 

[Quackers]

But it is not. Current software is not ready yet, but Apple does provide a complete framework for virtualization.

That's partly my point.
Current software is not ready and Parallels and VMWare won't commit to a timeline at all.
I realise there has been some success with qemu.

 

[Maconplasma]

I thought an Apple Boff said as much in a presentation.
And nobody's grabbing pitchforks
Just asking.

Nothing of the sort was ever said.

 

[pmiles]

Talking of lockdown, can you believe we're going back into Tier 3 re: COVID.

When will this ever end?

I suppose the folks that suffered through the Spanish Flu asked the exact same thing...

Good news is, it will be another 100 years before the next pandemic!

Waiting for the class-action lawsuits to come out over the Government forced closures and imposed poverty. It will happen... just wait.

 

[Quackers]

Nothing of the sort was ever said.

“We’re not direct booting an alternate operating system,” says Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering. “Purely virtualization is the route. These hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn’t really be the concern.”
From The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21302213/apple-silicon-mac-arm-windows-support-boot-camp

 

[Maconplasma]

“We’re not direct booting an alternate operating system,” says Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering. “Purely virtualization is the route. These hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn’t really be the concern.”
From The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21302213/apple-silicon-mac-arm-windows-support-boot-camp

A Mac should be used a Mac. That's why Apple allows virtualization but they are done with allowing a full OS to be installed "basically" in place of their OS.

 

[Quackers]

A Mac should be used a Mac. That's why Apple allows virtualization but they are done with allowing a full OS to be installed "basically" in place of their OS.

Change in message there?
What about Apple developers that want a second version of macOS for development purposes?
Virtualisation? Well, not yet anyway.

 

[Maconplasma]

Change in message there?
What about Apple developers that want a second version of macOS for development purposes?
Virtualisation? Well, not yet anyway.

Partitioning the storage drive to install MacOS has not been blocked and had always been a feature even long before Apple switched to Intel.

 

[leman]

What about Apple developers that want a second version of macOS for development purposes?

That is explicitly supported.

 

[Quackers]

Partitioning the storage drive to install MacOS has not been blocked and had always been a feature even long before Apple switched to Intel.

Nobody is questioning partitioning the drive. It's booting from another partition that they'll need.

That is explicitly supported.

I'm glad to hear that
Is this what I was reading the other day about allowing a dual boot environment?
Is it only for Devs, do you know?
Surely they can do that for everyone?

 

[leman]

Nobody is questioning partitioning the drive. It's booting from another partition that they'll need.

I'm glad to hear that
Is this what I was reading the other day about allowing a dual boot environment?
Is it only for Devs, do you know?
Surely they can do that for everyone?

You create a new partition and install another version of macOS there. I don't really know what to tell you more

Of course, right now there is not much choice since only 11 is supported...

 

[Quackers]

You create a new partition and install another version of macOS there. I don't really know what to tell you more

Of course, right now there is not much choice since only 11 is supported...

Well, on an M1 it's not that easy but even if it was how are you going to boot that second system?
Or, more accurately how will the Devs boot that second system? There must be some amended booting arrangement that isn't currently available for others. No?

 

[David Hassholehoff]

in respect of refusing to boot anything else, when Microsoft got slated for years for similar behaviour (but not quite so severe).

It really isn't a comparable situation. Apple sells you specific hardware with tailored software, whereas Microsoft dominates an industry. You can't run macOS on a DELL (officially, not technically). I would have no problems with Microsofts own hardware (Surface) not booting anything but Windows.
I have huge problems with Microsoft conspiring/extorting all hardware manufacturers they can get their claws into to make Windows the only option available anywhere.

I get where you're coming from though, I went from casual to full time Mac when Apple switched to OS X because I came from GNU/Linux and BSD and the environment was familiar to me. Every OS has its use.