[derefnull]

There is already much user demand & vendor support for running virtual machines (including for Windows) on Apple hardware, through Parallels, VMWare and Qemu.

Like there are options for containers, it is great to have another option for virtual machines.

[webmobdev]

Options are good. But the way Apple operates to exert control and cripples softwares that don't align with their goals, don't be surprised if Apple suddenly forces developers to only use their virtualisation API on macOS, just like they did for application firewalls (that are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability"). They are slowly squeezing macOS to make it more and more like ios.

[kitsunesoba]

They had the opportunity to do this when introducing the M-series Macs, because under the hood those work very similarly to iPhones and iPads. They could've done a direct copy-paste from the iDevice boot process and called it a day, but they didn't… they went out of their way to develop support for booting third-party operating systems, complete with a path for painless long term support with the flexibility of allowing the OS to choose which version of firmware to run on the hardware (so Apple can deploy compatibility breaking firmware updates for use with macOS without stepping on the toes of e.g. Asahi Linux).

In macOS itself the main goal is to get third parties out of the kernel to the greatest extent possible, which makes perfect sense. Third parties, ideally, should be operating solely in userland, because otherwise you get pointlessly insecure nonsense like cloud file storage apps installing kernel extensions (like Dropbox used to on macOS).

[webmobdev]

> They had the opportunity to do this when introducing the M-series Macs

No, they didn't because a Mac computer that is fully locked like the iDevices wouldn't have been popular and would have meant a lot of bad publicity for the M1 mac desktops. Apple Silicon M1 / M2 macs can only run crippled versions of other OSes and macOS is being slowly converted to be more and more like ios. It's the Boiling Frog strategy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog - to ensure that they don't scare away their users. With soldered harware, no viable alternate OSes, and taking away developer options from macOS, all Apple Silicon M1/M2 macs are now just a few more steps away from becoming like the iDevices.

[kitsunesoba]

What do you mean by “crippled”? As far as I can tell the only limiting factor on the capabilities of other OSes on Apple Silicon is the state of hardware support, which is marching forward at a brisk pace and it doesn’t look like there’s anything stopping third parties from fully leveraging the capabilities of that hardware.

[kergonath]

> No, they didn't because a Mac computer that is fully locked like the iDevices wouldn't have been popular and would have meant a lot of bad publicity for the M1 mac desktops.

Approximately nobody would have passed on a Mac because it could not boot Windows or Linux. This has been more or less the state of Macs since the release of the first M1 devices, and they sell rather well. There is demonstrably quite a lot of interest for these devices running macOS.

> Apple Silicon M1 / M2 macs can only run crippled versions of other OSes

How so? What do they do to cripple other OSes?

> It's the Boiling Frog strategy

Quoting Wikipedia for common phrases does not make you more credible. Again, people have been saying that for more than a decade. It is not inconceivable that it could happen in the future, but then anything could happen in the future. And in the meantime you still sound like a broken clock.

> to ensure that they don't scare away their users.

The whole history of iOS demonstrates the opposite. As said in the parent comment. They’ve had opportunities to actually go to that direction. Nobody was expecting third-party OS support.

[kergonath]

> that are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability"

You keep implying that there are ulterior motives without a shred of justification. Why do you think that? What power do they get by doing this?

Also, it does not prevent things like Little Snitch or the various Objective See tools from being developed. There are no fewer firewall apps than there used to be. There are no fewer virtualisation applications either.

What you don’t get is that they started from the position that kernel extensions were an attack vector and a factor of instability. Then, they started addressing each use case for kernel extensions by providing user-level facilities. You probably set the cursor at a different location on the security spectrum, but it does not mean that you are any more right than they are.

> They are slowly squeezing macOS to make it more and more like ios.

Some people have been making that tired claim for more than a decade now. You’be had year to see how it works and where they are going, and it keeps not happening. Why do you think this is more credible now?