A middle finger from Apple would be locking the bootloader–keeping it open, plus providing minimal tooling and telling people to figure it out, is about as close to "we'd love to see what you'll do with it" as Apple could possibly give.
(Dealing with the GPU is going to be the majority of the work, I'd think.)
When Broadcom act like this they're considered villains and we're recommended to stay away from their hardware. But when Apple do it, they're being benevolent?
And that's ignoring the fact that I could actually get Broadcom documentation in exchange for dollars and NDA.
Maybe. Certainly people within Apple would have thought about Linux for this. But Apple would need to provide some form of mechanism for unlocked bootloaders anyway to facilitate kernel/driver developers and security researchers, so I'm pretty sure other OSes is not the main reason they do this.
It does work out for Apple in the end. Their current standard 10 years' support will look quite short now Moore's law is dead and their hardware has barely any moving parts. But they'll shush some complaints if up to date third party OSes are available in 2030.
While Correlium is a bit of a minefield for obvious reasons, I don't understand why Apple hasn't blessed Marcan's work. I wouldn't expect them to commit any development resources of their own, but I'd think it would be in their interest to (A) provide Marcan with some documentation and (B) make an engineer available to answer occasional questions.
Apple makes money selling hardware, and Linux support will sell more hardware. Perhaps not much more, but for a commensurately low amount of effort. What does Apple gain by forcing Marcan to reverse engineer everything?
I can't see why they would? Marcan is capable to be sure, but he's also a random guy with a Patreon. Why would Apple ever officially bless his work? I'd sooner seem them collaborating with Corellium, because that at least gives them a corporate entity to interact with. Plus, like, releasing documentation without giving away the stuff they want to keep to themselves, and without promising too much and having it break later, is work in and of itself that Apple is really not getting anything from. I mean, this is the company that still FairPlays apps, so…
Hypothetical question: If Microsoft wanted to port Windows to the M1 (as Phil Schiller said was their choice), would you expect Microsoft to have to reverse engineer everything? Or would Apple share documentation and expertise, under the logic that Windows support will increase Mac hardware sales, if only a small amount?
I realize that Marcan isn't Microsoft—but he's not quite "a random guy with a Patreon" either. He's a professional freelancer, and I'm sure he has an LLC† and a set of professional references he can point to.
Put another way—on a scale between "Marcan" and "Microsoft", where is the threshold in which Apple would be helpful? I don't personally see a huge difference between a one-person LLC and a 100,000-person company in this regard. If anything, the 100,000 person company offers more opportunities for things to get leaked.
It always comes down to "it doesn't benefit them" eh…
There are some interesting situations though. Like in the big GPU world it's very common to document the ISA. Even nvidia does. I suppose that's because it benefits the vendor when games and GPGPU compute programs optimize for their GPUs, down to the assembly level. It's sad that Apple's approach is "just use Metal" rather than fully enabling developers to get to the actual… well, "metal"
That would definitely be crossing the line. But I wonder if this behaviour of Apple is another avenue of stifling competition - that is how many smart people this will get involved that otherwise could have worked on a competing product? Then you can see how much resources any company dealing with Apple has to commit just to make sure their software keep up with Apple updates - that inhibits their growth and thus keeps Apple on top.
(Dealing with the GPU is going to be the majority of the work, I'd think.)