If that's true, then it is anti-competitive behavior which hurts everyone, including AMD users.
If that counts then so was kneecapping OpenCL and very few complained about that from the Nvidia camp.
It isn't anti-competitive. Apple isn't blocking Nvidia to put in their own part. Apple isn't obligated to sign any driver that anybody submits without any cause for defect or non compliance. Normally when Apple doesn't sigh something a developer submits it means that there is a rules violation somewhere.
Even if this was a skew by Apple's part toward AMD part selection. AMD has no were near anything like a monopolistic present in the GPU market. Apple choosing something that is NOT the monopoly part is miles away from being anti-competitive. The reverse
might be he case; choosing Nvidia over AMD due to some bundling kick-back Nvidia offered.
The fact Nvidia makes no mention of what the rules violation might have been is more suggestive that this a public relations finger pointing exercise. "Don't look at me, it is their fault".
If Nvidia is not allowed to compete in MacOS, then AMD doesn't have to compete in MacOS.
Nonsense. The vast majority of Mac do not
ship with AMD GPUs. So again there is nothing to support the "monopoly" threshold necessary to invoke the statues.
The biggest spend of GPU dollars that Apple makes in the Mac product line up is to Intel ; not AMD.
That Intel is ramping up a discrete GPU business means there are multiple vendors even without Nvidia. If Intel pushed their dGPUs in bundling deals to squeeze AMD the rest of the way out in a couple of years ... that might meet the "smell test" of a anti-competitive case.
If Apple tells Nvidia they have to jump over 5 hoops to win a design bake off and they tell Apple to "jump in the lake. I'm not doing that" then Apple that isn't the sole blocker.