I think would be a better option if Apple release the service manuals, as for example Lenovo and HP does for the business devices, and open source the diagnostics tools, so repair shops have access to them.
I agree, but is that realistic? For the tools to verify a repair to the system, and for the system to trust them, they must have some kind of private key and you can't open source that.
artharg said: There was much hullabaloo yesterday about the alleged "spy chip" planted in servers Apple and ...
Apple should make their own servers if they are worried about security. The X-Serve was very proprietary and i dislike 1Us, but making a generic board to run Linux shouldn't be much of a challenge for Apple engineers considering there are many small manufacturers that can do it.
The only thing that bothers me is what happens when the hardware is 6 years old. In the past Apple has stopped providing repair service after 5 years. So, are they going to keep doing that? What happens to your iMac Pro when it needs a repair when it is 6 years old?
I guess all of the passive compoents (capacitors, resistors, or even speakers if no special tricks) and individual mechanisms can still be replaced, while all of the ICs (CPU, GPU, RAM, NAND Flash, etc..) are not.
Even though majority of them won't likely to running into issues, I'm still concerned about flash memory. It's ridiculous that you can't replace them (even iMac Pro have two dedicated sockets).
I am a real Apple FanBoy, but this sure seems like BS to me. OK during the Warranty period. "You want me to stand behind this machine, take it to an authorized facility".
But, once out of warranty, I should be able to take it any place I choose and there should NOT be any impediments to that. If I CHOOSE to put in cheapo parts, that's my business. I hope the inevitable lawsuits prevail on this one.
I think would be a better option if Apple release the service manuals, as for example Lenovo and HP does for the business devices, and open source the diagnostics tools, so repair shops have access to them.
I agree, but is that realistic? For the tools to verify a repair to the system, and for the system to trust them, they must have some kind of private key and you can't open source that.
I focused on a practical option, but forgot about the key, as you mentioned. Looks like the cost of owning a macOS device will get higher.
It never ceases to amaze me how beta most Apple users are. Anything Apple does is fine in their book. Make computer RAM, Hard drives and batteries non replaceable in a glued together computer that costs twice as much? Thank you Apple! Apple then creates programming to prevent people from fixing their own computers and people are actually applauding and defending this! Wow. No wonder Apple is doing this, it seems Apple users are willing to take unlimited amounts of abuse. I have been an Apple computer user exclusively since the early 90s. I have owned everything from a 7500 to a g3, g4, g5, core solo, core 2 duo and i5 mac minis, 5 imacs, and a mac pro tower but I am afraid I can not support the company anymore. I will continue to use my 3 macs until they are not functional but when they are dead, I am either building a hackintosh or just changing to PC.
I have no doubt Apple users will call me a hater, or liar. They will defend Apple as just caring about functionality and security... that is all total BS. Apple cares about turning a profit and forcing people to buy more computers and more accessories. Apple repairs are absurdly expensive so you will basically be forced to buy another computer if a stick of RAM dies, or your battery dies, or your hard drive dies. Those things happen ROUTINELY.
If the true reason behind this new restriction really is security and not to try and push for more first-party repairs, an easy fix would be to allow third party repairs under the proviso that security could be compromised. Even if a popup box appeared at each startup, it would allow the user to decide on their own security on their own machine, allowing a potential (but utterly minuscule) compromise versus a much cheaper repair.
IMO the closest legal precedent for this is non-OEM cartridge manufacturers trying to stop third parties from making non-OEM cartridges. The OEMs took third party cartridge manufacturers to court, and the courts ruled against the OEMs, forcing the them to stop attempting to break the non-OEM cartridges. If the same happens with Apple, this precedent may hint at the direction the ruling will go.
If the true reason behind this new restriction really is security and not to try and push for more first-party repairs, an easy fix would be to allow third party repairs under the proviso that security could be compromised. Even if a popup box appeared at each startup, it would allow the user to decide on their own security on their own machine, allowing a potential (but utterly minuscule) compromise versus a much cheaper repair.
What if the real reason is to make the computers less desirable for thieves?
If some of them have the security disabled it might be enough for the risk to be worth it…
I don't know if this is a brilliant security measure or a cynical cash grab, but either way it further escalates the long-term cost of owning a Mac.
This year marked the first time we have wanted to replace a computer but didn't because the cost was just too high.
Some of that cost comes from egregious configure-to-order costs. I don't particular want to buy third-party RAM and install it myself. The only reason I've done it in the past is because Apple charges DOUBLE the cost of third-party suppliers. Same with storage. The cost of increasing the storage on a Mac is staggering. For me the issue isn't that I want to tinker with the machine myself -- I don't -- it's about value returned for dollars spent. Apple forcing me to buy upgrades at their prices adversely affects that ratio.
The same principle applies to this repair policy. In most cases I'd rather have Apple-certified service, but when Apple's service policies and pricing make it a poor value, I'd like to have alternatives. Replacing half the chassis to repair a broken key is overkill on an older machine, and drives the cost past the point of being a good value. Since an Apple-authorized service facility is obligated to observe Apple's repair procedures, they're prohibited from applying creative approaches to cost reduction.
I've never expected to be able to get Apple products cheap, but neither did I expect them to become so expensive that I don't think I can afford them anymore. This seems like another step in that direction.
If the true reason behind this new restriction really is security and not to try and push for more first-party repairs, an easy fix would be to allow third party repairs under the proviso that security could be compromised. Even if a popup box appeared at each startup, it would allow the user to decide on their own security on their own machine, allowing a potential (but utterly minuscule) compromise versus a much cheaper repair.
What if the real reason is to make the computers less desirable for thieves?
If some of them have the security disabled it might be enough for the risk to be worth it…
Thieves still steal iPhones as they can't get into their thick drug-infused skulls that they're pretty much worthless with activation lock enabled. The same thing would happen with Macs, and Mac theft is much less than iPhone as they're not out and about anywhere near as much.
If the true reason behind this new restriction really is security and not to try and push for more first-party repairs, an easy fix would be to allow third party repairs under the proviso that security could be compromised. Even if a popup box appeared at each startup, it would allow the user to decide on their own security on their own machine, allowing a potential (but utterly minuscule) compromise versus a much cheaper repair.
What if the real reason is to make the computers less desirable for thieves?
If some of them have the security disabled it might be enough for the risk to be worth it…
Thieves still steal iPhones as they can't get into their thick drug-infused skulls that they're pretty much worthless with activation lock enabled. The same thing would happen with Macs, and Mac theft is much less than iPhone as they're not out and about anywhere near as much.
Actually, as these computers are getting more and more expensive these crimes are on the rise; and I think that this would be the perfect time for Apple to try to protect their customers by making even the parts of the computers unusable. And the only way of properly doing that is to lock down the service industry.
artharg said: There was much hullabaloo yesterday about the alleged "spy chip" planted in servers Apple and ...
Apple should make their own servers if they are worried about security. The X-Serve was very proprietary and i dislike 1Us, but making a generic board to run Linux shouldn't be much of a challenge for Apple engineers considering there are many small manufacturers that can do it.
You miss my point. Apple designing their own servers won't help against bad actors compromising a user's laptop. They could compromise it by swapping out the motherboard or SSD for one with a few "undocumented extras". Having T2 "checksum" the hardware does safeguard against that happening, but requires it to be aware of authorised changes in the hardware. And that requires trusted hardware components and trusted installers.
If the true reason behind this new restriction really is security and not to try and push for more first-party repairs, an easy fix would be to allow third party repairs under the proviso that security could be compromised. Even if a popup box appeared at each startup, it would allow the user to decide on their own security on their own machine, allowing a potential (but utterly minuscule) compromise versus a much cheaper repair.
What if the real reason is to make the computers less desirable for thieves?
If some of them have the security disabled it might be enough for the risk to be worth it…
Thieves still steal iPhones as they can't get into their thick drug-infused skulls that they're pretty much worthless with activation lock enabled. The same thing would happen with Macs, and Mac theft is much less than iPhone as they're not out and about anywhere near as much.
Activation Lock cuts the value of the phone as a whole device. People are willing to take them apart, though. In that situation, Activation Lock only renders the logic board worthless. You can still resell the screen and case.
In the MacBook Pro case, this is definitely an anti-theft measure, as it renders more parts valueless when stolen. The T2 interacts with the camera, which is hard to swap out from the display assembly, rendering the display assembly less valuable when stolen. It interacts with the cryptographic keys on the SSD (since around when SATA was introduced, most SSDs encrypt everything written to the storage for wear leveling purposes), rendering the drive (and the logic board it is soldered to) less valuable when stolen. The laptop's body, trackpad, and keyboard could still be used, but that's about it.
Comments
Even though majority of them won't likely to running into issues, I'm still concerned about flash memory. It's ridiculous that you can't replace them (even iMac Pro have two dedicated sockets).
But, once out of warranty, I should be able to take it any place I choose and there should NOT be any impediments to that. If I CHOOSE to put in cheapo parts, that's my business. I hope the inevitable lawsuits prevail on this one.
I have no doubt Apple users will call me a hater, or liar. They will defend Apple as just caring about functionality and security... that is all total BS. Apple cares about turning a profit and forcing people to buy more computers and more accessories. Apple repairs are absurdly expensive so you will basically be forced to buy another computer if a stick of RAM dies, or your battery dies, or your hard drive dies. Those things happen ROUTINELY.
IMO the closest legal precedent for this is non-OEM cartridge manufacturers trying to stop third parties from making non-OEM cartridges. The OEMs took third party cartridge manufacturers to court, and the courts ruled against the OEMs, forcing the them to stop attempting to break the non-OEM cartridges. If the same happens with Apple, this precedent may hint at the direction the ruling will go.
If some of them have the security disabled it might be enough for the risk to be worth it…
This year marked the first time we have wanted to replace a computer but didn't because the cost was just too high.
Some of that cost comes from egregious configure-to-order costs. I don't particular want to buy third-party RAM and install it myself. The only reason I've done it in the past is because Apple charges DOUBLE the cost of third-party suppliers. Same with storage. The cost of increasing the storage on a Mac is staggering. For me the issue isn't that I want to tinker with the machine myself -- I don't -- it's about value returned for dollars spent. Apple forcing me to buy upgrades at their prices adversely affects that ratio.
The same principle applies to this repair policy. In most cases I'd rather have Apple-certified service, but when Apple's service policies and pricing make it a poor value, I'd like to have alternatives. Replacing half the chassis to repair a broken key is overkill on an older machine, and drives the cost past the point of being a good value. Since an Apple-authorized service facility is obligated to observe Apple's repair procedures, they're prohibited from applying creative approaches to cost reduction.
I've never expected to be able to get Apple products cheap, but neither did I expect them to become so expensive that I don't think I can afford them anymore. This seems like another step in that direction.
https://gooddaysacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/09/26/davis-grab-and-go-coffee-shop-crime-spree/
In the MacBook Pro case, this is definitely an anti-theft measure, as it renders more parts valueless when stolen. The T2 interacts with the camera, which is hard to swap out from the display assembly, rendering the display assembly less valuable when stolen. It interacts with the cryptographic keys on the SSD (since around when SATA was introduced, most SSDs encrypt everything written to the storage for wear leveling purposes), rendering the drive (and the logic board it is soldered to) less valuable when stolen. The laptop's body, trackpad, and keyboard could still be used, but that's about it.