I think the grandparent means that using an M1 implies using macOS, which had its share of potential privacy issues recently (regularly phoning home on launching apps, having Apple service circumvent VPNs and application firewalls).
X86 is on a completely different level, see: https://01.org/linuxgraphics/documentation/hardware-specific...
None of the above is at the same level as phoning home or ignoring the user's firewall.
I put Windows telemetry into same bag as the Apple calling mothership.
You are really jumping through hoops to try to make a platform designed to protect your privacy equivalent to one designed to sell it.
Maybe that feature was implemented correctly after all and the objectives are different than what the marketing says.
One could well argue that ARM/RISC is more elegant. But x86_64 besides backwards compatibility has the large benefit that it is an open platform when it comes to operating systems. Moving to ARM will be an excuse for many vendors to lock bootloaders to their blessed software (such as the iOS/Android ecosystems).
- The server and desktop markets move to ARM. The AArch64 instruction set becomes the default that people develop and deploy on. Optimizing for x86_64 CPUs becomes an afterthought. Intel only sells CPUs to organizations that have legacy systems somewhere that cannot be emulated. Intel has to enter the highly commoditized ARM market to stay competitive.
- The server and desktop markets largely stay on x86_64 as a result of Intel licensing x86_64 to three other vendors, increasing competition. The market is not commoditized, because Intel can decide who they license x86_86 to and also control extension to the instruction set. They lose market share due to the increased competition. But they can compete on their own architecture that they control.
Of course, these are extremes. But given that the current fastest supercomputer uses ARM and Apple showed that ARM is fit for the desktop, I am pretty sure that Intel is (or should be) worried about the first scenario.
In any event it's too late. They maybe had an chance of fending off Arm a few years ago - by the time any licensing now kicks in Arm will have established itself in the server / PC market.
So the only sensible strategy for Intel is to make the most of x86 whilst they can.
That’s not a feature of x86 itself. That’s just how the computers themselves are assembled. X86 machines could be just as locked down as Apple machines, if the vendor wanted them to be (and Microsoft tried!). ARM builds for multiple OSs exist, including multiple Linux distributions and Windows.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21302213/apple-silicon-ma...
(In PRACTICE, you probably want to virtualise instead, because of a lack of support for the hardware.)
> As for Windows running natively on the machine, “that’s really up to Microsoft,” he said. “We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that’s a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.”
He did a demo where he virtualized an OS. That doesn't mean you can't boot another OS.
When it comes down to it, Apple is still (largely) a hardware company. If someone wants to buy a Mac to put Linux on it, they still sold a Mac. And I think that having the Linux community testing their hardware would do nothing but make their hardware stronger.
This is not a privacy-vs-convenience battle, sadly; this is a very carefully planned circumstance where you can maintain privacy, or you can be effective in life. It's already impossible to use most mobiles in a private fashion, and within a few years, effective desktop computing will be exactly the same way. You're going to have to provide ID to do anything with a "normal" phone or computer.
Recently I learned that Apple will only give out NetworkExtension API entitlements for apps (that are required for VPN apps to work on macOS) to apps distributed via the Mac App Store. Aside from the obvious antitrust issues here (you can't self-distribute VPN apps, or run a competing app store that can distribute apps with the same functionality as Apple's), this means that you can't get access to e.g. the WireGuard app on macOS without IDing yourself to Apple to get an Apple ID and installing it via the Mac App Store.
Want privacy via a VPN? You're going to have to show ID first.
As has been discussed in various threads the last few weeks, the difference in power efficiency is not that large compared to recent AMD Ryzen APUs, accounting for a move from 7nm to 5nm node.