They are the same thing. Unless Apple commits to documenting the hardware, designing with backwards compat(lol not gonna happen - but an example), or starts committing code to Asahi Linux - rest of it is all wishy washy - a variation of no guarantees anything will work or continue to work, you are on your own. It doesn't really matter otherwise if they are or are not spending time actively breaking things - as the article shows the net effect is the same.
Absence of beneficence is not evidence of malevolence.
Apple is busy making their custom OS work on their custom chips. They will change either or both, as needed, to serve their needs.
It's no minor thing to ask Apple to limit their own flexibility for a tiny non-revenue-generating external project. Remember Apple does not sell Mx chips on the open market like Intel/AMD/some ARM mfrs. They do not publish hardware specs as a service to customers, because they have no customers.
No one is claiming mal anything - I was pointing out that the results are such that it doesn't really matter if it was done purposely or not. To get different results they would have to actively think and invest in support for alt OSes. So long as they don't do that it doesn't matter if they actively hinder or passively - you can't prove one way or the other anyways - all you can hope for is better results.
You omitted "It looks like" before that sentence - for a person who is so bent on rigid meaning and precise wording omitting that part looks a little out of character :)
Again you cannot really prove this from where you and me sit - so it is implied that even without "it looks like" I meant their externally visible actions / results make it looks like they go out of their way to hinder - that can be a combination of thoughtless hardware design and resolve to not help anyone else. And none of those are necessarily "malevolence" (which is a word you used) - it's just business practices.
Apologies for improperly excerpting your quote, if that was the determinate clause!
...but it does not look like they do those things either.
You'd have to ignore all of the reasons it makes no sense for Apple to make decisions like that, in order to believe or even wonder about such a thing.
If you had said "I wish Apple would work with Asahi to make their distro a full-fledged citizen on Apple's desirable hardware." ... then I would have upvoted your comment and moved on.
Instead I saw you describing a hostile and active thwarting scenario, which is unfounded and nonsensical.
I won't even address your "thoughtless hardware design and resolve not to help anyone else", except to say that ... you're doing it again, and you're still wrong.
This is ridiculous reasoning (which is also being trounced by quesera), and you should just take the L at this point.
Helping Asahi would tangentially benefit Apple (such as increasing mac sales... something that is reasonable to assume might happen a little bit, given how much more efficient the M chips are to Intel, and the fact that most Linux stuff already compiles just fine on it) while also possibly garnering some goodwill. It'd be great if they sold or licensed the chip to others so that it would have to be documented publicly, but we're not there yet.
The thing is, we're moving from CPUs that at least had their external behaviors and interfaces documented to CPUs which are _not_. Apple has already missed plenty of opportunities to generate goodwill or even minimal assurances of interoperability, and the argument that "at least it's not as locked down as the iPhone" (where this would be outright impossible instead of just ridiculously complicated) is hardly reassuring.
Apple explicitly does not make an ARM CPU, they make an "Apple Silicon CPU", and the fact it currently resembles ARM (and not fully) is an implementation detail.
