Yes, you cited examples from early 2000 and then you add current references that have the characteristics I have observed. Maybe you should develop your argument better at this point? Or are you keeping the best examples that show meaningful, present, contributions secrets just to make your argument weaker on purpose?

I pointed out flaws in your arguments which you keep not addressing by making arrogant comments, which makes me thing you don’t have any more arguments to use.

Also, I don’t hate Apple, I don’t care for it. I even mentioned in my very first comment that what Apple does is no different from what other organizations do, even if those make currently bigger contributions to FOSS (Microsoft contributions to the Linux kernel, google project zero reports etc.).

You also continue to avoid the argument that forbidding people to run what they want on generic purpose hardware is completely against the principles of FOSS, and yet all your argument is “why would they”. This fact alone would put any OSS contribution to shame, because it’s a clear as day demonstration that they don’t believe (let alone care) about the Freedom of users, and that opensourcing is a mere way to pursue business interests, which has no moral value on its own.

You cited a couple of mid-2000 projects (e.g. OpenCL), that Apple opensourced and that anyway hardly apply to the current Apple, since 15+ years passed and the company is under new leadership etc. Then you listed a bunch of links, which I have looked at, and I saw that the vast majority of the OSS projects are related to Swift-ui and other tools that are useful to build app (mostly) in their ecosystem (webKit, careKit, etc.).

So to understand better, your argument fully relies on contributions that happened 15 years ago, to claim that the current company “cares” about FOSS?

Also, you disregard the second part of the argument in order to write your arrogant reply:

Apple is even worse than them considering how they want to have the complete monopoly of what can run on their hardware, which is completely antithetical to the core idea of FOSS.

Which is an answer to your statement:

So? Why should they? It’s a major competitor. Should they provide windows support too? Lol. (They don’t anymore, btw)

Which begs the question: what caring about FOSS means to you? For me caring about FOSS means caring about the freedom of the customers who already paid for their hardware to run whatever they want on it. This freedom Apple opposes in whatever way they can, in basically whatever hardware they make.

I really don’t get which critical contributions they do. On their own website https://opensource.apple.com/projects/ they seem to list basically tools and frameworks for building apps, which is on their interest first and foremost that developers have. I don’t know what “Community projects” mean, and how big contributions they do there.

Also I don’t really like your argument “why they should provide Linux support, they are a competitor”. Well, this is what happens when a single company does both the hardware and the software AND doesn’t care about the “freedom” part of Foss.

To be fair though most companies can’t care less, open source is just a practice that some companies do to pursue their own interest. Microsoft does huge contributions to OSS (including the Linux kernel), same for Google, and yet I would not really say that those companies care about FOSS. Apple is even worse than them considering how they want to have the complete monopoly of what can run on their hardware, which is completely antithetical to the core idea of FOSS. Despite you paid already the 2.5k for your hardware and their OS, they can’t just let you run whatever you want on it.

Corporations can also act on behalf, or on the orders of nation states. So you don’t solve anything, if a state wants to get involved, it will. You have the additional cons that corporations tend to cater to their financial interests anyway, while a public institution might not always have ulterior motives.