arm is much more proprietary and less open than Intel
That is exactly backwards. How many companies are licensed to make Intel/AMD comparable CPUs? 4? 6? How many for Arm? Hundreds of companies (Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, etc.).
I am not referring to the chips themselves, but to the ecosystem around and the more often than not unlockable bootloaders and lack of something like bios or UEFI. Even on UEFI you can disable Microsoft keys and install yours, at least on decent ones.
But yes, arm is an easier to reproduce architecture at this time, chip side at least
It seems like you are mixing up the “ecosystem” with the application: desktop, mobile phone, etc.
10 years ago there were mobile phones running Intel Atom and they were just as bootlocked as any other phone. I personally have two intel based chromebooks and unlocking their bootloader requires taking them apart.
Whereas my arm based Pinebook Pro requires no unlock at all. I have lots of Arm based SBCs and all of them came unlocked as well.
The overall success of the Intel platform is that bios/UEFI is open so you can install any OS you want. On Arm this is not always the case (see phones and tablets) where more than not vendors lock in OS with an unlockable bootloader and crypto keys.
Also, on Intel, hardware is more standard and so drivers are available, or easily reverse engineered, for non mainstream os (Linux…). On Arm again this is rarely the case, and you are stuck with old not supported kernels when you are lucky
There is one exception to all this on Arm and it’s the Pi (with all the clones). But as far as phones, tablets (including windows tablets) and even laptops (chromeos stuff…) the reality is pretty different and would bring us a locked in future where the choice we have today is luxury.
I think no, a part from much better power management, what advantage does arm offer over Intel compatible?
Also, arm is much more proprietary and less open than Intel, so I hope not
That’s not a small thing. This translates into lower heat generation and longer battery life.
That is exactly backwards. How many companies are licensed to make Intel/AMD comparable CPUs? 4? 6? How many for Arm? Hundreds of companies (Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, etc.).
I am not referring to the chips themselves, but to the ecosystem around and the more often than not unlockable bootloaders and lack of something like bios or UEFI. Even on UEFI you can disable Microsoft keys and install yours, at least on decent ones.
But yes, arm is an easier to reproduce architecture at this time, chip side at least
It seems like you are mixing up the “ecosystem” with the application: desktop, mobile phone, etc.
10 years ago there were mobile phones running Intel Atom and they were just as bootlocked as any other phone. I personally have two intel based chromebooks and unlocking their bootloader requires taking them apart.
Whereas my arm based Pinebook Pro requires no unlock at all. I have lots of Arm based SBCs and all of them came unlocked as well.
Then, I stand corrected …
Thank you
why do you need it to be open? im asking genuinely.
Oh pretty please let me pay a licensing fee on top of an already expensive part
To prevent enshitification.
Sharing is caring
Because monoplies are bad…
The overall success of the Intel platform is that bios/UEFI is open so you can install any OS you want. On Arm this is not always the case (see phones and tablets) where more than not vendors lock in OS with an unlockable bootloader and crypto keys.
Also, on Intel, hardware is more standard and so drivers are available, or easily reverse engineered, for non mainstream os (Linux…). On Arm again this is rarely the case, and you are stuck with old not supported kernels when you are lucky
There is one exception to all this on Arm and it’s the Pi (with all the clones). But as far as phones, tablets (including windows tablets) and even laptops (chromeos stuff…) the reality is pretty different and would bring us a locked in future where the choice we have today is luxury.