apple_badger

Mike Wuerthele said:

I bet it won't cause an enormous loss of developers, the same that the last two shifts didn't, nor any other move that promised to be the death of developers like Xcode was heralded to be. And, like I said, the mini and the MacBook are likely the first, as the A-series processor doesn't have any super-heavy lifters at present.

I'm also pretty sure that you realize that you are not typical of the Mac using public. You are an outlier. That's not a bad thing, mind you, but also not a giant market segment for the company.

Yeah, I'm an outlier and if Apple has to move away from a path that I can follow then I'll reluctantly go a different way. However, I'm also the reason that Macs are used in my department at work. I was the first to get one (back when they went Intel) and I created the conditions (and developed the software) that let them become viable options for others. People like me are outliers but we can also be halo users that bring others in.

It may be that developers won't leave, but this shift is fundamentally different than the previous ones in that it is the first shift away from the mainstream. Going to Intel made Macs viable in places such as Google (and now Amazon) and brought huge numbers of developers into the ecosystem. Maybe they'll stay; maybe they won't. But! Interesting times ahead at least 

The idea that old, Intel Macs would keep working, offered as a reason to not be concerned about a shift from Intel chips seems shortsighted to me. It only delays the day when Macs will no longer be viable for those of us with a need for Intel compatibility. 

I *have to* run Linux and Windows VMs and *want to* use a Mac; it's not the other way around for me and the loss of the ability to do the former would mean my very reluctant move away from Macs. Being able to run Docker containers on my Mac has further underscored my need for Intel compatibility. This is an upsetting thought to me, as I love using macOS as my desktop OS. Nearly every network and software engineer that I know who is a Mac user is in the same boat as I am. 

It may well be that this will come to pass, or it may be that it's just a rumour. Perhaps (and this is my hope) Apple will use its own CPUs for low-end systems and Intel CPUs in Pro machines. In any case, I think it's a mistake to underestimate the loss to the Apple community of what I think will be an enormous number of developers. Being dismissive of people's concerns is a little heartless. 

If I'm reading this correctly, the ad blocker in question requires the instatalatino of a root cert supplied by the blocker? That is an insanely bad idea. 

grangerfx said:

Letting the news get out that the entire development staff for the Airport routers have been reassigned without putting out an official statement on the matter is the first sign of serious problems in Apple's management. 

It's a rumour. It may bear out and it may not, but Apple has never (or very, very rarely) commented on rumours. 

To do a good job of routing packets to VOIP or NetFlix streaming requires deep network packet sniffing on the local network 

This is not true. Nothing about VoIP or streaming video requires any soft of deep inspection. Also, from a network equipment point of view, neither of those applications is especially taxing, even for consumer level gear. 

 and that requires very strong encryption on the router. 

The encryption used for all modern WiFi networks is the same. I'll grant you that shoddy implementations may (probably do) exist but barring that, it's the same protocol using the same encryption algorithm. If it weren't, devices would not interoperate. 

Also, the encryption on a WiFi device is there solely to secure the data that's transmitted via the radio interface. It has nothing to do with "deep network packet sniffing", which in turn has nothing to do with routing packets (or forwarding frames). 

Only a router can sense that there are insecure devices on the network such as Chinese IP cameras and firewall them. 

Also nope. There are no IPS/IDS functions built into Apple's network devices, nor into any consumer level devices that I'm aware of. They provide some *very* basic firewall functionality, but nothing beyond that of any other consumer level home router. 

This is a disaster for local network security. 

Maybe. One thing that I have found where Apple exceeds others as far as network device security goes is that they publish software updates (though very infrequently) for their Airport devices, let you know via Airport Utility, and make it really easy to install them. That's a huge plus for home network security.

Also, Apple has a demonstrated track record of (at least ostensibly) taking privacy seriously. 

*If* this rumour turns out to be true, those two things will be most missed by me. I say this as someone who's job it has been (of late) to deal with the fallout out of date software running on a plethora of Internet of (sh*tty) Things devices. (Thanks Mirai creators)

Network gear (especially consumer level stuff, but enterprise as well) has become extremely commoditized. Pushing frame and packets around is something that just about everyone does equally well (or poorly). I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple get out of this market, but I would be saddened. It may be a problem for home network security, but not for the reasons that you are expressing here. 

Soli said:

apple_badger said:

Soli said:

lorin schultz said"

I always shut down my Mac before stuffing it in my bag to change locations. It doesn't seem like a good idea to leave power applied to something that's being hauled around.

1) Define changing locations.

I also always shut down my MacBook(s) when changing locations. I manage IT security for my organization and this is simply good practice from that point of view. Some of the benefits of using Filevault are negated by leaving your computer in a non-powered off state. To answer your questions (not addressed to me ):

1. For me changing locations means leaving one site and going to another (work to home or vice versa, for example), or anytime that I may find myself leaving my computer out of my sight when it's not in my office. If I'm using it at home and I leave the house, it also gets turned off then. 

1) Thanks for the detailed answer, but I still don't get how turning off your Mac from "work to home" but not your iOS devices when these things are still in your possession is efficient. If I'm traveling a long distance without using the machine or crossing borders I will turn it off, but I assume when you say "work to home" you're not talking about international or even interstate travel.

It's not impossible that I have to run an errand on my way home from work and that may mean my leaving my computer in the car (locked in the trunk) while I go to the store or some such thing. Even if I carry my computer bag with me, there is always a chance that it can be put down and left behind (at a restaurant, for example). I just make it a habit to shutdown my computers when I'm moving from site to site; that way there is never, ever a question of what state they were in should they be lost or stolen.

My iPhone tends to be on my person or beside me pretty much 100% of the time, so the times when it's "necessary" to shut it down are far less frequent. Also, the iOS devices have a few more safeguards that make data recovery much more difficult than on Macs (even with Filevault). They also tend to have better network connectivity which makes remote wipe far more reliable. 

You (and I) may think that it's highly unlikely that we'd ever lose a computer, but in an organization of any size, that happens a non-insignificant number of times. It's happened several times at my workplace during my tenure as the ITSO, which is why I recommend that computers be powered down when in site to site transit. If I recommend it for others, then I do it myself. 

Edit to add: Powering down and starting up my computers takes about 20 seconds each way, so it's really not much of an inconvenience to me. Your mileage may vary, of course.