Apple’s T2 security chip blocks some third-party repairs of new Macs | Hacker News Reader

Apple’s T2 security chip blocks some third-party repairs of new Macs

theverge.com

54 pointsccwilson1036 comments

> “This could be an attempt to grab more market share from the independent repair providers. Or it could be a threat to keep their authorized network in line. We just don’t know.”

Good grief. "Apple adds systems integrity hardware to reduce the risk of local compromise" becomes "Apple is out to destroy your repair business" because reasons.

Both sentences can be true. They might even both be intentional.

"... and as a bonus, it will help bring more of the hardware repair business in-house."

Well, it’s Apple so it gets clicks!

Thee articles are getting ridiculous. I recall the complaints about 3rd party repairs to the fingerprint reader on iPhone. I never understood the spin that Apple is blocking repairs on the device. The fingerprint reader is used to unlock sensitive information and make payments. Locking that prevents all kinds of Backdoor hacks around fingerprint security.

It was fine when they were blocking the readers, however the whole outcry started because Apple started bricking these phones with error 53.

Well it's a damn shame that apple allows backdoors into their os as it makes this point mute.

This doesn’t seem like a very big deal.

Unless I read it wrong this only applies to repairs that could interfere with the operation of the T2 security chip, but I’ve only ever had my Macs repaired by Apple or authorized third-parties when I couldn’t do it myself so maybe it’s just me not seeing the issue.

I agree.

Even in Denmark where Apple doesn't have any officials stores, there are still plenty of small tech repair shops that replace phone screens, and from what I've noticed at least 50% of those are Apple Authorized Service Providers who are able to repair any Apple product and also provide the service free of charge if you are under warranty.

And by blocking some third-party repairs, it is also making it harder to replace components with "backdoored" ones like the "big back" bloomberg article posted recently. These types of changes at their core are good, even if they're annoying.

If all the apple shops in the world will get that tool, you can assume anybody capable of a hardware backdoor will also have access to it and a way to use it without raising flags (presumably the tool will phone back home for authorization).

Hence me saying it makes it harder, not that it makes it impossible.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/22/aws-ceo-jassy-follows-apple-...

Apparently that was debunked.

I realize it was debunked, but the core attack vector still exists. This type of thing makes it harder (but definitely not impossible) to pull off.

Pretty much at the end of my 2008 Mac Pro rope. Along with repair-ability, the base and upgrade pricing is just getting out of control. With a high spec mac mini approaching 2k, I can only imagine what the new MacPro will end up being. I sure as hell am not spending $6000+ on one. Next machine will be a coffee lake Hackintosh, it really takes very little effort to install nowadays.

You have a (probably) $6k machine that is still giving you a workable system 10 years later - doesn't that tend to suggest something?

A 10 year old desktop PC with similar specs would have lasted just as long. I just upgraded my PC from 2008 (original Intel Core i7) to a Ryzen system this year, and a Mac Pro had much more power to begin with.

That's apples to oranges. A laptop includes many pieces of hardware you probably don't understand as part of your desktop PC (think keyboard, screen, loudspeakers, ...), is carried around all day, and sometimes suffers some abuse :)

A Mac Pro is a desktop computer, not to be confused with a MacBook Pro. :-)

https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

Mine's a mid-2010 MBP, only paid $1600 new (later upgraded the memory and swapped to an SSD). It's still my main system eight years later. Unfortunately, I can't install newer versions of the OS. I'm stuck at no higher than 10.12(?), so now there's mainstream software I can't install because of OS version requirements.

Kind of a bummer since it's still a good machine. 8+ years is a pretty good run, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to replace it. I guess my point is, yeah, even if initially expensive, it's been a good value. I hope the new ones are similar...

You can definitely install a newer MacOS, they run fine. It's a 5 minute patch to the installer, and away you go. My 2008 has been running High Sierra without any issues.

http://dosdude1.com/software.html

Very interesting! I have looked for ways to fake what version MacOS reports to installers, but was unaware of methods to install the newer OSes. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate the link :D

I still have a $1.5K system doing the same. I'm pretty sure it suggests that after Moore's Law computers now last significantly longer than they used to.

Only major hardware improvement in that period is Nvidia's GTX 1060/1070/1080 series graphics cards and faster PCI based SSD storage. CPUs and memory have barely moved.

I think it's just as much Intel just not having competition/incentive to improve as it is Moore's Law.

Until Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses there was very little performance improvement generation by generation in intel processors.

For example: Over 2011 - 2017 there was a ~18% (userbenchmark) improvement in the *700 i7 model.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs...

But then Ryzen came out and the very next model (released in the same year) was already a ~23% improvement.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-...

The "Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses" portion is definitely in full effect here. It got Intel to move from 4 to 6 cores on the *700 i7 part.

However, both in the SC Mixed results on the benchmarks you linked, and in individual benchmarks at Anandtech ( https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127), the single threaded results track previous generations.

Intel still had to go wide to increase performance due to competition from AMD. They didn't increase generational improvement on their individual cores.

The 2008 MacPro was $3000 at the time, and was actually an outrageously good deal. A pair of the Xeon CPU's were roughly the same cost retail, nevermind the rest of it. Judging by the existing trash can one, it will be ridiculously overpriced this time around.

The 2008 Mac Pro cost only $2299: https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-qua...

Even accounting for inflation, that's under $2700 today.

And the only reason my 2008 is still "workable" is because I used a third-party tool to enable me to run a recent macOS installer. Apple's official macOS installer refuses to update a 2008 Mac Pro beyond OS 10.11 (El Cap, 2015), even though the hardware is perfectly capable of running newer versions.

FWIW, it takes a lot more engineering to squeeze high-end components into a tiny case. I would there to be a much lower form-factor tax to pay on a Pro.

That said, I'll probably always build my own just for the upgradeability and performance angle.

No one asked for a $10,000 small as humanly possible trash can. What pro user cares about how small their desktop machine is? All we wanted was the cheese grater with upgrade components. Unfortunately for them, I'll be building another machine this time around. Especially since I've moved all of my dev environments, and resource intensive tasks to PC.

What I meant was that I would expect the Pro to have a much smaller form-factor tax than a Mac Mini. Your $2k price point is probably not directly comparable to the price ranges you'd see from a larger case.

The iMac Pro starts at $5000. I'd expect the Mac Pro to start somewhere around there. At the very cheapest, $4000 since you don't get a screen.

Is there a technical reason why the T2 chip can't be disabled wholesale for situations like this? Obviously, this would disable features like touch ID, but that seems like an okay trade off.

As I understand it - the T2 chip is also the storage controller for the Flash storage used in these new machines, so if it were disabled you'd have to use external storage.

That's interesting - are the encryption keys for the storage in a secure enclave then?

Yea. https://www.apple.com/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overvi...

The newest Above Avalon podcast makes the case that Apple is embracing secondhand markets and key to that is increasing device longevity.

If it’s true they’re thinking about devices as likely to have multiple owners it makes sense to take precautions against hardware backdoors.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/podcast/2018/10/26/above-avalon-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com