For them to call it Bootcamp 2 (a "product" per se), they'd have had to have another OS they could actually demo installing. Otherwise "Bootcamp 2" is just a mysterious empty chooser window.

But at the time there was nothing, because Apple Silicon wasn't a platform anyone but them was targeting, because they had just created it.

So they built the infrastructure, and then waited for someone to actually start taking advantage of it, before bothering to acknowledge it.

And because that "someone" isn't a bigcorp (i.e. Microsoft) wanting to do a co-marketing push, but just FOSS people gradually building something but never quite "launching" a 1.0 of it — Apple just "acknowledged" it quietly, at developer conferences, exposing it only via developer-centric CLI tooling, rather than with the sort of polished UI experience they would need if Microsoft was trying to convince Joe Excel User to dual-boot Windows on their Apple Silicon MBP.

> announce « The most secure Mac ever » silently releasing with closed bootloader

That's extremely unlikely to happen, as Apple's hardware and OS developers build Macs and macOS (and all the other hardware + OSes) using Macs and macOS. And those engineers (and engineers working at Apple's hardware and accessory manufacturing partners) will always need to be able to diddle around with the kernel and extensions "in anger" without needing to go through a three-day-turnaround code-signing process.

There's a whole proprietary, distributed kernel development and QC flow for macOS, that looks a lot like the Linux one (i.e. with all the same bigcorps involved making sure their stuff works), but all happening behind closed doors. But all the same stuff still needs to happen regardless, to ensure that buggy drivers don't ship. Thus macOS kernel development mode being just one reboot-and-toggle away.

> And because that "someone" isn't a bigcorp (i.e. Microsoft) wanting to do a co-marketing push, but just FOSS people gradually building something but never quite "launching" a 1.0 of it — Apple just "acknowledged" it quietly, at developer conferences, exposing it only via developer-centric CLI tooling, rather than with the sort of polished UI experience they would need if Microsoft was trying to convince Joe Excel User to dual-boot Windows on their Apple Silicon MBP.

It's also important to remember that Microsoft was in the middle of their Qualcomm exclusivity deal at the time of the M1's release, and thus Windows for ARM wasn't available on anything other than a few select devices or unofficial use of Insider builds.

That deal didn't actually expire until 2024[1], at which point Windows for ARM finally started to be sold in an official capacity with stable builds widely available.

It's entirely possible, though unconfirmed, that Apple was intentionally leaving the door open for "Boot Camp 2", and Microsoft simply never took them up on the offer, either because they were stuck in a deal made prior to the M1's release that prevented it, or because they no longer saw a financial benefit to being able to sell Windows to Mac users (possibly since Windows license sales are effectively a rounding error to Microsoft at this point; they make way more off of subscription services and/or Office, all of which are already available on macOS without having to dual-boot Windows).

[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/windows-on-a...

[flagged]