This isn't Claude specific. Developers can also write apps that call Google's server based Gemini models.
> At WWDC, Apple announced that it's opening its Foundation Models framework to third-party cloud model providers. Starting with iOS 27, macOS 27, iPadOS 27, visionOS 27 and watchOS 27, model providers can implement the new public LanguageModel protocol to provide a common interface for model inference. We've made Gemini models available to the Foundation Models framework through the Firebase Apple SDK.
This provides a fully native development experience — cloud-hosted Gemini models can plug directly into the Foundation Models framework using the same API. That means the on-device Apple model and cloud-hosted Gemini models sit behind a shared API surface, so you can easily swap between local and cloud inference to fit your use case.
The important part is Apple rebranding “OpenAI-compatible API” to “language model protocol” and I think we should all rally around this immediately before we’re cursed with that awful tongue twister.
Apple designed a bootloader for Apple Silicon Macs that allows you to run an unsigned OS without degrading security when you boot into MacOS. This wasn't an accident.
M series macs are weird tho, yes the bootloader allows it but absolutely no documentation on the hardware, drivers etc. Can't help but to think the goal of this wasn't to actually allow third-party OSes, but for development purposes(and ye they could hide the feature behind apple account with paid dev license) or anti-anti-trust measures à-la Google with Firefox: in front of a jury of normal people they can simply say "look there's these nerds making Asahi" the same way "look we're not a monopoly Firefox has .2% market share".
More weird than the opaque Management Engines on Intel or AMD chips that can take full control of your system at any time that you have no control over?
> Can't help but to think the goal of this wasn't to actually allow third-party OSes
Apple has explicitly stated that allowing third party OSes is exactly the purpose of the new bootloader.
You should probably do do some reading on the subject to gain a bit more understanding:
> This puts [Apple Silicon Macs] somewhere between x86 PCs and a libre-first system like the Talos II in terms of freedom to replace firmware and boot components; while a number of blobs are required in order to boot the system, none of those have the ability to take over the OS or compromise it post-boot (unlike, say, Intel ME and AMD PSP on recent systems, or the DMA-capable chips on the LPC bus running opaque blobs that exist on even old ThinkPads).
> the subsystem is "responsible for creating, monitoring and maintaining the security environment" and "its functions include managing the boot process, initializing various security related mechanisms, and monitoring the system for any type of activity or events and implementing an appropriate response".
Critics worry it can be used as a backdoor and is a security concern.
Now explain to me how Apple's Secure Enclave does not do this:
> the subsystem is "responsible for creating, monitoring and maintaining the security environment" and "its functions include managing the boot process, initializing various security related mechanisms, and monitoring the system for any type of activity or events and implementing an appropriate response".
It implements TPM or something similar. It is used in the boot process for a secure boot chain. And the last generic point is probably just that it implements the hardware random number generator for the CPU, which Secure Enclave also does (in a different way).
I could worry about Secure Enclave being used as a backdoor and being a security concern, too. Doesn't mean it actually is!
Yes, more weird than that. x86 PCs have fairly standardised boot and autoconfiguration (UEFI and ACPI). ARM based systems, including the Apple M series, don't. You just have to know what's there (device trees), and Apple isn't going to tell you. Hence why it's difficult to make another OS run on it, because you first need to find out what hardware's even there, and how to talk to it. It's initialised by Apple before iBoot runs, sure, but you don't even know what it is, so good luck writing a driver for it.
The Intel ME / AMD PSP are creepy, and probably a security risk to the device owner, but they're not weird, you can run an OS without even knowing they're there, and they like it that way.
Apple's Secure Enclave and ARM's Truszone work the same way as Intel ME and AMD PSP. All of them have a separate specialized minimal OS running on a specially protected memory that cannot be accessed by the normal OS.
Apple can lock your Mac just like other manufacturers can do via Intel ME. All of them are backdoors.
They don't. ME and PSP are separate cores with full memory and configuration bus access. TrustZone is nothing like this, it is a higher privilege level on the main cpu cores, more similar to SMM and used for pretty much the same purposes. Secure enclave is yet again nothing like any of the former and is similar to a TPM.
It's true that UEFI and ACPI cover a lot of ground whose equivalent on Apple Silicon is undocumented. But note that Linux on x86 does still rely on lots of reverse-engineered drivers to talk to various devices - not necessarily on servers which are designed to run Linux, but very much so on desktops and (especially) laptops.
>ARM based systems, including the Apple M series, don't.
You're thinking of old SBCs, most likely. ARM SystemReady devices (which is a requirement for Thunderbolt 4+ on ARM, so Macs are included) have +/- same level of auto-configuration and hardware resource discovery as x86 PCs.
> ARM SystemReady devices (which is a requirement for Thunderbolt 4+ on ARM, so Macs are included)
Either this is untrue or misinterpreted - the SystemReady DeviceTree band (the only one Macs could possibly fit into, given they don't implement ACPI) still requires that devices implement EBBR, which requires that devices implement UEFI. Macs don't, and so are very much not SystemReady compliant.
>More weird than the opaque Management Engines on Intel or AMD chips that can take full control of your system at any time that you have no control over?
Considering they're pretty much fully undocumented (officially, that is) and could contain any number of IME equivalents since we know that they already have independent processors like the secure enclave running its own OS: yeah, probably more weird. Just because Asahi did not find one doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's just a normal part of Mac development. Apple sees documentation as a net negative for them, something that can constrain them in the future. So they only document the major highways and leave everything else as an exercise to the reader.
If you're using an unstable API they expect you to figure everything out yourself. It doesn't mean that they don't want you to use it though.
The design of the exposed mechanism is explicitly about booting unsigned versions of MacOS. There is zero support for booting anything else, but no enforcement that it must be MacOS.
However, apple's justification for exposing this mechanism to users appears to explicitly include "booting linux" even if the mechanism has zero explicit support for booting linux.
And if Apple were going to change their mind and try to block linux, they would intentionally modify the bootloader to remove that functionality, not break the boot picker.
Reminds me of when the Xbox 360 came out, Microsoft had to buy a bunch of Macs because Macs had PowerPC processors, so it was kind of a no-brainer to get the darn thing going quickly enough. Ultimately Windows was the standard way to build Xbox games but it is kind of funny to think, one day someone at Apple saw an order for easily several dozens of Macs from Microsoft, and wondered if hell froze over.
Back in the 2000s MS agreed to port Office and Internet Explorer to the Mac. This was a good move for both companies. Bill Gates appeared on screen during an Apple Conference to talk with Steve. Huge boos. Steve had to work the crowd back from the ledge.
Then Office and IE were ported. It was so weird running Word on a Mac. It was a good port too. They did a good job of embracing Mac UI ideas. I found the Mac Word better than Win Word.
I was kind of new to the Mac back then.
I imagine Apple donated a bunch of early OS 10 machines to MS for development. I wonder if the MS Mac Dev team was a pariah at MS.
Word was originally released for the Mac in 1985, so the deal was not that Office would be ported, just that MS would keep developing Office for the Mac.
> I think it would be nice if we could run unsigned apps on iOS
Apple enforces those restrictions via the permanently locked bootloader. The main benefit of unlocking the bootloader on an iPhone would be to run a modified version of iOS that allows for the installation of unsigned apps. Apple wouldn't like it and might even get litigious over it, but still.
> (in the US)
Apps intended for release onto alternative app stores in the EU, Japan, and Brazil still need to be approved and signed by Apple. These laws were nearly useless.
I think iPhone hardware is better for the price on the used market. (I refuse to buy new phones. They're too locked down and shitty to warrant spending that much.)
I have fond memories in the early 2000s of getting the first MacBook Pro's with Intel Core i7's and the first thing we did at my company was build and install gentoo.
IDecices should absolutely be treated as laptops and desktops which allow another OS to run on the device. This why I have not bought an Apple device for years.
EU is the only governing body that would push owning the device you _buy_. Unfortunately their seem more geared moving to a surveillance state at the moment with chat control.
They're different for now, but it's frog-boiling. Apple has been steadily adding more and more hoops to the process for Macs, and eventually they are going to end up as locked down as iPhones.
Handing full access to the data on a user's device over to a company with the scruples of somebody like Facebook is a privacy nightmare, not "opening their platform a tiny bit".
Because when you open it to Proton, you have to open it to Meta. And when Meta does Meta things, the first thing the average user will complain to is Apple - "didn't you advertise to me about privacy?!"
Yeah, but you get to choose who gets to rip off your data. Joking aside, perhaps there would be some privacy focused alternatives and most importantly for Europeans, they would be hosted in the EU.
Apple could make settings for controlling exactly what is shared with the various assistants installed including Siri itself. No need for defaulting to full access.
Apple is not abiding, because they want to use time to really ensure they have the best assistant, before they allow competitors to build assistants for iPhone that can replace Siri (in the EU only probably)
EU rejected that. DMA says that 3rd parties must have the same access to data as Apple does, and obviously Apple does not want to turn Siri into a cookie banner party.
> allowing end-user equipment with limited capabilities to upload Telescript programs to servers to allow them to take advantage of the server's capabilities. Telescript could even migrate a running program... transfer it to another Telescript engine (on a device or a server) to continue execution, and finally return to the originating client or server device to deliver its output.
Thought getting sleep right was something that happened before MS decided they need to be able to wake your PC any time they want and not hardware related much.
> At WWDC, Apple announced that it's opening its Foundation Models framework to third-party cloud model providers. Starting with iOS 27, macOS 27, iPadOS 27, visionOS 27 and watchOS 27, model providers can implement the new public LanguageModel protocol to provide a common interface for model inference. We've made Gemini models available to the Foundation Models framework through the Firebase Apple SDK.
This provides a fully native development experience — cloud-hosted Gemini models can plug directly into the Foundation Models framework using the same API. That means the on-device Apple model and cloud-hosted Gemini models sit behind a shared API surface, so you can easily swap between local and cloud inference to fit your use case.
https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-...
reply