Apple is the #1 most restrictive company in the world. "the ability to install Linux" with zero commits and support from Apple themselves, all reverse engineered. Meanwhile Intel and AMD both contribute to the Linux kernel.
How much kool aid do you have to drink to think that 'ability' is actually something you can say is a feature with Apple devices?
Come back when I can unlock the bootloader of an iDevice and we'll talk about the 'ability' to install Linux.
> Apple is the #1 most restrictive company in the world
You really will not gain much credibility here on HN by throwing in some random, made-up ranking results. And I can guarantee that 99.99% didn't even read past that sentence /s
Apple: Prevents sideloading without a host MacOS computer.
Sideloading is temporary.
Blocks third party app stores.
Blocks any and all browsers using a non-Safari engine.
Not one iPad or iPhone has ever been bootloader unlockable.
They've locked out iMessage people from being able to port their number out of the service for YEARS.
Tell me what part of this screams openness.
Even the most restrictive devices are less restrictive than Apple's. If the "ability to install Linux" is the benchmark here, guess what... that's nearly every single fucking device in the world. Except the majority of Apple devices, of course.
Apple explicitly has gone out of their way to prevent this.
Apple does ZERO to allow people to use an OS outside of their sandboxes. With the Intel based systems, Bootcamp is still restricted and limits hardware access necessary to run Windows properly on their systems.
Yes. Apple is restrictive as fuck. As far as Technology companies go, yes, I'd put them up at the top.
The reason your claim is hyperbolic, revolves around consumer tech around choices that most people don't care about. They locked people out of porting your number from iMessage? Scary - wait until you find out what happens when Google locks you out of your Google account.
And #1 restrictive tech company? Did Oracle disappear while I slept?
That's pretty much the only product they support, no? I am no fan of Oracle (probably nobody is), but they do support some very heavy projects, the obvious ones being OpenJDK, MySQL, and the Linux kernel (mostly btrfs IIRC).
You're responding to a power efficiency result by citing a pair of raw performance results. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when discussing mobile hardware. Differences in power efficiency usually matter a lot more to mobile hardware than differences in raw performance.
Using the Mac Mini form factor and a comparable Ryzen mini PC to judge the processors' suitability as mobile chips is certainly less than ideal, but it's not as worthless as you seem to be implying. In particular, this kind of comparison makes it far easier to get a more apples-to-apples comparison of the chips themselves, without other system design decisions as serious confounding variables. You won't find AMD's top mobile chip in any form factor that remotely resembles a MacBook Air, for example. And when trying to compare a MacBook Air against a Ryzen notebook that's 3-4x as thick, you wouldn't be able to make as strong a conclusion that it's the chip itself and not merely the heatsink responsible when the Ryzen does deliver higher performance.
What do you lose? You get iOS apps, much better battery life, a cool and fanless computer, a Unix os with the ability to install Linux. What is the loss you refer to?
You are totally wrong. I too love my M1 MBA and I have a huge pile of other notebooks. The weight, the battery lifetime, and all this with stellar performance. It is literally the best notebook I have ever owned.
The M1 Air is a lot faster than it's intel predecessor, the battery runtime is at least 50% longer in real use and the thing is fanless, silent and I haven't burned a single body part yet. That alone is revolutionary.
Just because the machine hasn't changed in appearance (and sadly neither has it's so-so display), the chip difference alone makes it a whole different ballgame.
Fanboys have driven the word 'revolutionary' into the ground so deeply that it ceases to have any actual meaning anymore.
Meanwhile, through temporal prescience, the previous Intel based Macbooks were simultaneously revolutionary and merely tolerated before the M1 variants ever existed.
Don't you guys ever get tired of twisting your Apple apologeticism thought processes into a gordian knot all the time?
