Apple Developing ARM-Based Mac Chip to Handle Low-Power Functions Alongside Intel Processors

DevNull0

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2015
2,253
4,336
If Apple eventually attain full or as close to full control of the silicone, then we can assume that will give Apple a greater ability to combat against backdoors and potentially have the most secure hardware and operating systems on the planet for the end user.

When you see how Chinese made security cameras (I have direct experience of hardware flooring a network due to it being compromised out of the box) are loaded with malware, the NSA intercepting hardware and Andorra devices coming loaded with malware etc. etc. this has to be a real goal for Apple
You understand that Apple licenses the major portions of their silicon design from a variety of companies (much as a software developer will license software libraries from a variety of companies). There is nobody at Apple who knows what the majority of the CPU is really doing because Apple didn't design the modules.

Intel on the other hand, designs every transistor in-house.

And you think cheap Chinese cameras being insecure means Intel's latest Silicon is insecure? I've seen some odd logic in favour of Apple CPU's, but this one takes the cake.
 

Omega Mac

macrumors 6502
Aug 16, 2013
424
268
Yea makes me look like such a tit. :rolleyes:
[doublepost=1491873480][/doublepost]
You understand that Apple licenses the major portions of their silicon design from a variety of companies (much as a software developer will license software libraries from a variety of companies). There is nobody at Apple who knows what the majority of the CPU is really doing because Apple didn't design the modules.

Intel on the other hand, designs every transistor in-house.

And you think cheap Chinese cameras being insecure means Intel's latest Silicon is insecure? I've seen some odd logic in favour of Apple CPU's, but this one takes the cake.
What about the guy who designs their ARM chips? I'm no expert but the ARM chips are Apples customs designs based around the license tech. This is the difference, their chips are unique to their device. Maybe that's the case with all users but Apple seem to have the edge over the entire industry here. How? Custom design surely.

If they could buy ARM then what would the difference be? They might hack other competitors chips know they know the back doors. ;)

I was inferring issues around control of silicon as a desired and stated aim of Apple. There are many reasons why this would be desirable. In light of the current context of global interconnectedness, where security and privacy are a growing and important concern. That there is a market to sell into and Apple may be the best placed to cater to.

Intel chips are compromised as we know from recent years of revelations, big brother style. My point was with so many devices easily compromised these days by so may entities that one brand or flagships device or range in the market place that is seen and is actually the most hardened against such compromise would be ideal and a value that many would happily pay extra (or at least help Apple maintain margins). I would imagine $$$ are an important goal for Apple.
 

hiddenmarkov

macrumors 6502a
Mar 12, 2014
689
363
Japan
Intel chips are compromised as we know from recent years of revelations, big brother style. My point was with so many devices easily compromised these days by so may entities that one brand or flagships device or range in the market place that is seen and is actually the most hardened against such compromise would be ideal and a value that many would happily pay extra (or at least help Apple maintain margins). I would imagine $$$ are an important goal for Apple.
How exactly are they compromised. CPU's carry out actions, they don't think for themselves.

Your camera incident was more likely one of the following.

A daughterboard like component was doing the communication. Intel is not responsible for vendors who tack on stuff after they send out the processor. Intel is not responsible for spurious comms if after a trip to the electronics market in Seoul I scored a killer card that "fell off the back of a truck". Who made it? I don't know...but its a killer knock off for a handful of won. Guess I got the added payload built in as a free gift lol.

In your planning no actually did controlled network load testing in the confines of the current network, camera's eat up bandwidth.

Your camera's bought may have used less than stellar codices. this is where the expensive stuff rates its high cost. they use advanced codices and technologies. Camera 9 is staring at a wall all day long. Codex used says lets make this a static image of sorts and be reduced in size.

Camera basically goes If something changes I will record and notice. If not...I will not kill the network broadcasting in high res a wall that has not changed in 4 hours. Cisco does this. we tested this as we implemented a cisco based CCTV system...high traffic areas eat up some bandwidth. A cam in a much less active area, less bandwidth use. Same model camera, same settings, talking to same dedicated cisco switch.

And tbh a mid to large scale camera implementation should be on its own network. For the 2 above reasons. Cisco doesn't advise and sell CCTV systems with VSOM, switches and routers, etc because its a nifty way to make people spend lots of money. Its done to avoid this very reason your implementation hit. On a segregated network even if it kills the network...it kills only the camera network. Business side network is fine.

the camera network is closed off. you can better monitor traffic. Since there should be no say sql server in the camera network....seeing port 1443 traffic is a quick sign something is awry. and you can kill this traffic. you can set the network to allow only those ports needed for the cams plus others admin side may need.

Chinese snuck in evil code to lead to the destabilization of the US on doom port (port 666)...sucks to be them. That traffic dies in a bit bucket. routers can be ghetto firewalls...acl rules says no 666, that traffic no longer passes. Or put a real firewall in.


tl;dr the issue you had was not intel's fault. IoT took off rather quickly and many hacks that exist are there because it took off with consumers too well before good security policies could be in place. With IoT too many people said why the hell would I pay cisco so much damn money for CCTV system when this does it for so much less. Well...now you know why. Cisco uses that same IoT tech. Thing is they build in security around it. And you pay for it. Pick your poison as always.
 

Omega Mac

macrumors 6502
Aug 16, 2013
424
268
Please stop conflating general points. I used the Security camera of an example of a type of electronics that is compromised these days (my example was a low cost camera that was connecting to servers in places it shouldn't have, needless to say they were returned).

Here is an example the issues -https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/28/25000_compromised_cctv_cameras/

Cisco routers have been compromised according to reports. Intel back doors etc. etc. You all know the lists and recent revelations. It was a very broad point to compose the advantage Apple might have if they had as much control of the silicon.
 

DevNull0

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2015
2,253
4,336
Please stop conflating general points. I used the Security camera of an example of a type of electronics that is compromised these days (my example was a low cost camera that was connecting to servers in places it shouldn't have, needless to say they were returned).

Here is an example the issues -https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/28/25000_compromised_cctv_cameras/
Who's conflating things? You take a cheap Chinese camera that phones home with info it shouldn't and say of course that means anything non-Apple must also be compromised. Especially Intel.

Which is Bizarre when Apple outsources the majority of their chip designs while Intel is their chip designs.

Cisco routers have been compromised according to reports. Intel back doors etc. etc. You all know the lists and recent revelations. It was a very broad point to compose the advantage Apple might have if they had as much control of the silicon.
As far as Cisco routers....there was a flaw and it was patched. Do you think Apple has never released software with major security holes and then patched after they saw the exploits?

WRT Intel, are you talking about the Management Engine? It's an essential tool for enterprise management of a large network. Just what do you think it can be used to exploit? And i did just google to see. It was a funny experience, from the guy who said it would help the NSA circumvent AES256 which would otherwise take the power of 10 million suns to crack (whatever that means) and the guy who said Intel's 4096 bit encryption was too weak because it's broken as soon as someone gets around to running Shor's algorithm on one of the US government's many quantum computers. You're not in good company if you tie yourself to those nuts.
 

Delgibbons

macrumors 6502a
Dec 14, 2016
683
1,437
London
runs slow, photoshop looked laggy even the simple game.... btw is NOT running full windows 10 IMO, its just running emulation of win inside of arm windows. You could have done the same w the surface rt if it would have been powerful enough to emulate win/exe. I still use my RT as my tablet and its a great machine, but with limitations.
If you actually WATCHED the video, you would see it's running x86 code on ARM. Look at the system details he shows.

You're welcome.
 

I7guy

macrumors Core
Nov 30, 2013
20,394
8,225
Gotta be in it to win it
If you actually WATCHED the video, you would see it's running x86 code on ARM. Look at the system details he shows.

You're welcome.
What would be impressive if this makes into production and actually works. Emulation strategies never seem to go very far. However the x86 code has to be within a message loop, everything else has to be recompiled.