Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So now it's speculating about dropping support for things that have been supported for <checks> 11 years, as 'evidence' of this apparent conspiracy to prevent Linux booting?

If any of this were a deliberate attempt to prevent it, surely they'd just not allow users to disable the secure boot option.


It's not my term. You claimed that Apple are deliberately preventing Linux booting because they don't want people to use it. The dictionary definition of conspiracy is . My point is that you have no evidence the lack of Linux support is anything more than a lack of support - and as I've said, there are multiple points of evidence to show that it is just a lack of support, rather than a deliberate attempt to prevent Linux on a Mac.


Sellers of what?


By chance are you referring to when Apple discovered 90% of the "genuine Apple" products sold on Amazon.com were in fact counterfeits? https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitch...one-chargers-on-amazon-are-fake/#7c42da8a5b07


I would say you "seem" determined to spread a conspiracy theory at all cost. This has nothing to do with whether you agree that Apple can or should prevent Linux on a Mac. For what it's worth I don't think it's worth their time to bother preventing it honestly. But regardless of that - you haven't shown any evidence that this is a deliberate action, and yet you keep insisting it is.


Again - you imply that they deliberately set out to prevent you from running Linux. Should all advancements in technology be constrained to using components with device drivers in every single available operating system?


And that's your choice to make.


I didn't bring up Microsoft. Someone else gave Microsoft's tactics (blocking Linux) as some kind of "precedent" for what Apple is claimed to have done, and I have repeatedly tried to highlight how the situations are different.

Here is a copy of some of the letters sent to sellers on Amazon:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We contacted amazon seller support on whether older discontinued apple products are impacted by this policy change and unfortunately they said yes… And also all conditions are affected, new - used - refurbished. Only the RENEWED program participants are not impacted but you have to proivde proof of $2.5M of Apple purchases every 90 days or $10M a year and so unless you are a big player you wont be able to qualify for the RENEWED program…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Seller,

This is Craig, the associate working with you on this case. I want to thank you for contacting us with your concerns in regards to discounted APPLE products affected by this. Thank you for replying back to this case to clarify another question.

All products under the brand Apple will be affected by this, including products that are no longer manufactured or even sold by Apple store. This is due to the agreement made between Amazon and Apple. Only products that Renewed Sellers are offering as part of the Amazon Renewed program are not impacted by this change. For more information on Amazon Renewed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In exchange for Amazon selling Apple TV and some other items, Apple demanded Amazon stop any sellers that were not a part of Apple's "renew" program. That program is part dictates what the items can be sold for. As a result I don't but Apple products on Amazon. You haven't actually refuted anything I have said, but continue on in your determine defense of Apple. Don't keep wasting your time because I can see for myself exactly what Apple is about. The fact that you think it is okay, doesn't make it right for me. At the end of the day, I can walk away from Apple, and because of the way they act, I don't use any of their services. I like MacOS well enough, but at the end of the day there are some fantastic Linux machines and distros out there to be enjoyed and can do as much, if not more for me.
[doublepost=1557948652][/doublepost]Just for the record everyone, I am a She, not a He. Gender Female.
[doublepost=1557948906][/doublepost]
Yep, no matter how others argue it, the OP can run Linux on the internal drive prior to the 2018 MBP and now he can't. The cause, the T2 chip.

We've been getting into deep weeds debating the causes and reasons, but for the OP, its moot as you said because he was willing to give apple nearly 3,000 for a laptop but that laptop no functions like prior models and does not work for his needs.

@Mendota, you may have stated this somewhere, but what distro are you using? As I said, I got a second drive my Thinkpad, and install Linux on that drive (keeping the primary drive for windows) Based on my research, Pop_OS is a good choice for my hardware and so far I've been happy with it

I have been using Mint, but lately I have become very interested again in KDE Neon, with Plasma. I am thinking of just buying a KDE Slimbook, and going with that. On my main desktop, I run Ubuntu in a virtual machine, and that is fine, except I am not always sitting at my desktop, and want to enjoy portable Linux. The PineBook I have has been fun, but I would like a bit more power for development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maflynn
You haven't actually refuted anything I have said,

The only thing I’ve been refuting the entire thread is that apple took deliberate steps to prevent you using Linux.

Just for the record everyone, I am a She
Apologies if I referred to you otherwise.

Here is a copy of some of the letters sent to sellers on Amazon:

I don’t know the full story but the media reports about that seem to indicate it’s an Amazon thing - they took similar action when they signed a deal to sell Nike gear, apparently. But every report I saw said that it’s expected to be positive for customers?
[doublepost=1557950412][/doublepost]
rather than blaming Microsoft every time Apple takes something away
Are you trying to suggest that’s what I’ve done here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: afir93
The only thing I’ve been refuting the entire thread is that apple took deliberate steps to prevent you using Linux.


Apologies if I referred to you otherwise.



I don’t know the full story but the media reports about that seem to indicate it’s an Amazon thing - they took similar action when they signed a deal to sell Nike gear, apparently. But every report I saw said that it’s expected to be positive for customers?
[doublepost=1557950412][/doublepost]
Are you trying to suggest that’s what I’ve done here?

There is nothing positive for anyone but Apple in this. As for Nike, that was about sellers selling Nike knock offs as the real thing. Apple's action is to put small sellers out of business and to force higher pricing overall for older products. They were not able to strong arm eBay so many sellers are there now.

I never stated that the T2 chip was just to prevent Linux installs. It has far wider reaching implications then that. It is clearly designed to exert maximum control and profit for themselves. I think it is a mistake because I think Apple over estimates the amount of money ordinary people are willing to spend.

They are as @Queen6 has mentioned driving professionals away with these changes and they are the ones who would be willing to spend the money on their products. So if you price out the ordinary consumer, and you lock out the professional, what is left?

Their IOS devices are nice and I use them, and I expect them to be locked and limited as they are just mobile type computers. But I for one will not accept this in a standard computer. So it looks like the 2015 version (if I buy it) will be my last Mac unless something changes.
 
As for Nike, that was about sellers selling Nike knock offs as the real thing.
So not at all like Apples case where.. oh wait.
By chance are you referring to when Apple discovered 90% of the "genuine Apple" products sold on Amazon.com were in fact counterfeits? https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitch...one-chargers-on-amazon-are-fake/#7c42da8a5b07


I never stated that the T2 chip was just to prevent Linux installs. It has far wider reaching implications then that. It is clearly designed to exert maximum control and profit for themselves.

I never said “only” at all. Your view is that Apple is deliberately blocking you from using Linux, but you have no evidence of said intentions and are ignoring that it can be circumvented with an external drive.


But I for one will not accept this in a standard computer.
And yet again, that’s your choice.


If the computer doesn’t work for what you want, don’t buy it - it’s that simple. Imagining up some kind of ridiculously ineffective anti-Linux conspiracy by Apple isn’t required to express your dissatisfaction with the product.
 
Not to be too dramatic, but I have just become aware that I will no longer be able to duel boot Linux on future Macs due to the T2 chip. I am downright depressed. I prefer duel boot because it is straight forward and everything works natively without having to go through emulations and install extra tools. Linux on Mac is so straightforward. Now it will be no more. In addition some 32bit applications I like, (to included some games) will also bite the dust. I just don't get why it is so important to Apple to take away things and control everything.

This is why Mac can never be my preferred system. Well I got that off my chest. Feel free to tell me why Apple's way is best. Maybe someone can convince me...

Virtualise it.
 
"Not to be too dramatic, but I have just become aware that I will no longer be able to duel boot"

Dual Boot. Duel is a sword fight.
 
I never stated that the T2 chip was just to prevent Linux installs. It has far wider reaching implications then that. It is clearly designed to exert maximum control and profit for themselves. I think it is a mistake because I think Apple over estimates the amount of money ordinary people are willing to spend.
How do you reach that conclusion? Because while the T2 isn't without its' downsides, that seems to be a bit of a leap from this one downside this thread is about, that for an overwhelming majority of people is a non-issue anyway.

How does it maximize profit? Because the 2018 MBPs weren't any more expensive than the 2017 ones without T2 chip, and the iMac Pros (where the T2 chip initially debuted) actually turned out cheaper in many comparisons than similarly-spec'd Windows workstation machines (that also don't have the T2 chip). Maybe they "maximize profits" by being one additional selling-point in their marketing, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

How do they exert maximum control for Apple? Because other than this thread's topic (which doesn't even seem to benefit Apple, because how do they profit from users no longer being able to natively run Linux on the internal drive? It's not like Apple gains money from users not installing Linux on Macs they have already bought), all the security features of the T2 chip that can be viewed as restrictions that I can think of can be turned off. Maybe it's giving more control to Apple, but it's definitely giving more control to the user aswell.

Personally, I think the T2 chip's main purpose is to engineer around Intel's recent lack of engineering. Intel has time and time again postponed chips and squeezed out underwhelming new CPUs, which is probably why Apple decided to switch to ARM in the long-term (assuming all the rumors are true), and rather than doing it all at once, it's a gradual process, with the T2 chip simply being the first small, but important step on a long staircase. Again, I'm not saying the T2 is without downsides, but I think they are clearly the side-effect, not the purpose, and the vast majority of its' features benefit the consumer and improve the experience, even if they are small or niche in nature. I certainly won't be surprised if we see a T3 chip soon (possibly as soon as this year's 16" MBP redesign, otherwise at the very latest when we see Face ID on the first Mac for the neural engine) that takes up even more tasks of the main CPU/GPU and brings even more improvements to the table.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen.R
One thing that I've heard with laptops with the T1/T2 is that Time Machine encryption is a lot faster on the post-2015 MacBook Pros. So there is one benefit to that chip. It may be that the Intel Architecture is lacking encryption/decryption hardware instructions to speed that process up. After doing a large backup, my Time Machine status is often in 'Encrypting Backup' mode for a long time. It doesn't cause any issues outside of my external HDD making tick sounds every once in a while.

I do like the idea of coprocessors but they add some complexity. I would really like Intel to just add instructions that make the other operations more efficient. Intel does (or did) have a program where large customers could request instructions for things where the market is large. They have been adding more and more to the AVX-512 instruction set which benefits certain math algorithms and multimedia processing. I'd personally like something in hardware to speed up Huffman decoding as the algorithm is very hard to make really efficient with the current instruction set. Huffman decoding is used to decode JPG files and maybe video files.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afir93
So not at all like Apples case where.. oh wait.





I never said “only” at all. Your view is that Apple is deliberately blocking you from using Linux, but you have no evidence of said intentions and are ignoring that it can be circumvented with an external drive.



And yet again, that’s your choice.


If the computer doesn’t work for what you want, don’t buy it - it’s that simple. Imagining up some kind of ridiculously ineffective anti-Linux conspiracy by Apple isn’t required to express your dissatisfaction with the product.

What are you talking about? Apple blocking resellers that are selling older used Macs has NOTHING to do with what Nike was upset about or that pointless article you keep referencing. Get a grip! The T2 chip... Once again it blocks access to the hardware. There are no drivers that can be written to get around it, and for all of Apple's vague comments about security they have never actually said what it is suppose to "protect" us from... No it is to "protect" Apple's earnings.
[doublepost=1558038411][/doublepost]
How do you reach that conclusion? Because while the T2 isn't without its' downsides, that seems to be a bit of a leap from this one downside this thread is about, that for an overwhelming majority of people is a non-issue anyway.

How does it maximize profit? Because the 2018 MBPs weren't any more expensive than the 2017 ones without T2 chip, and the iMac Pros (where the T2 chip initially debuted) actually turned out cheaper in many comparisons than similarly-spec'd Windows workstation machines (that also don't have the T2 chip). Maybe they "maximize profits" by being one additional selling-point in their marketing, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

How do they exert maximum control for Apple? Because other than this thread's topic (which doesn't even seem to benefit Apple, because how do they profit from users no longer being able to natively run Linux on the internal drive? It's not like Apple gains money from users not installing Linux on Macs they have already bought), all the security features of the T2 chip that can be viewed as restrictions that I can think of can be turned off. Maybe it's giving more control to Apple, but it's definitely giving more control to the user aswell.

Personally, I think the T2 chip's main purpose is to engineer around Intel's recent lack of engineering. Intel has time and time again postponed chips and squeezed out underwhelming new CPUs, which is probably why Apple decided to switch to ARM in the long-term (assuming all the rumors are true), and rather than doing it all at once, it's a gradual process, with the T2 chip simply being the first small, but important step on a long staircase. Again, I'm not saying the T2 is without downsides, but I think they are clearly the side-effect, not the purpose, and the vast majority of its' features benefit the consumer and improve the experience, even if they are small or niche in nature. I certainly won't be surprised if we see a T3 chip soon (possibly as soon as this year's 16" MBP redesign, otherwise at the very latest when we see Face ID on the first Mac for the neural engine) that takes up even more tasks of the main CPU/GPU and brings even more improvements to the table.

The problem with your hypothesis is that other than causing reboots, Apple has not said and it has not been demonstrated what this T2 chip does that couldn't be done without all the restrictions. Apple attacking Intel and making them the whipping boy isn't new for Apple. Intel isn't perfect and they have had their issues, but the fact is they have been more reliable and productive than Apple over these 40 years. Apple casting shade on Intel is the kind of thing they do to others. It is very much a part of their past and present. Just take the recent Qualcomm case for example. Apple is a bully, plain and simple. And like all bullies they attack others to try and hide their own vulnerabilities.

If Apple goes to Arm all well and good I suppose, but I would guess their real intention is to lock down the system even more. In my mind most of what they are after is to maximize profit. Sealed and glued items with T2 chips will not be repairable by outside parties. As a result resellers will not even be able to replace batteries or fix anything, so that will effectively force users to go to Apple or (more to the point) buy new. Microsoft also seals up their products, but the Surface exist to create new ways of using PC's, and they are not the only vender, so users have choices.

I use Apple products because some of them, such as the iPad and older Macs were worthwhile and interesting and I am a tech junkie. I don't take personally how companies or individuals act. For example I am not a celebrity chaser. If I like an actor's work fine. I don't care about their personal lives. Same with tech, some of Apple's products I like and use, but I am not a fan of them as a company.

I am disappointed in the current machines with their poor reliability and locked nature. I had intended to buy a 2016, but of course the current problems can't be overlooked. And with the T2 going forward and resellers being locked out, I may never be able to buy again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: No. 44
Apple blocking resellers that are selling older used Macs has NOTHING to do with what Nike was upset about or that pointless article you keep referencing.
Both companies found counterfeit goods sold on amazon, and consequently those who can sell products are now restricted.

Doesn’t seem unrelated to me.

Once again it blocks access to the hardware. There are no drivers that can be written to get around it
Then how can it possibly work for macOS and Windows?

for all of Apple's vague comments about security they have never actually said what it is suppose to "protect" us from
Relating to the SSD, it encrypts/decrypts data written to/read from the drive without the performance penalty of encrypting it in software. Seems like a pretty decent advantage to me.

No it is to "protect" Apple's earnings.

In four pages of this thread you haven’t yet explained how the inability to boot Linux from the internal drive “protects Apples earnings”.
[doublepost=1558066205][/doublepost]
Intel isn't perfect and they have had their issues, but the fact is they have been more reliable and productive than Apple over these 40 years.

take the recent Qualcomm case for example. Apple is a bully, plain and simple.


Those are some spectacularly rose coloured glasses you’ve got on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afir93
Both companies found counterfeit goods sold on amazon, and consequently those who can sell products are now restricted.

Doesn’t seem unrelated to me.


Then how can it possibly work for macOS and Windows?


Relating to the SSD, it encrypts/decrypts data written to/read from the drive without the performance penalty of encrypting it in software. Seems like a pretty decent advantage to me.



In four pages of this thread you haven’t yet explained how the inability to boot Linux from the internal drive “protects Apples earnings”.
[doublepost=1558066205][/doublepost]




Those are some spectacularly rose coloured glasses you’ve got on.

The only person that is wearing Rose colored glasses is you. You are obviously an Apple "fan" and as such feel some sort of emotional connection to them. There is no point in continuing this discussion with you because in your mind they can do no wrong, and anyone that disagrees is somehow suspect. I am finished responding to you, nothing personal, but we cannot ever agree as I am not, as you are, an Apple apologist.
 
Thing with Apple is that you don't really have any control over the hardware. To me a computer is hardware, one then chooses the software to be installed. Apple on the other hand produces appliances where choice and option is severely limited, if not completely biased in Apple's favour. Ultimately Apple has full control which is exactly the case we see today with modern Mac's.

I switched to Windows in 2016 for much the same reasons and the poor excuse the MBP currently is...

Q-6
Yeah, prior to the switch I was waiting for them to come out with a more powerful Mac Mini. I'm glad I didn't wait, and honestly glad they didn't release one because I'm much happier on PC and my wallet isn't as empty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota
anyone that disagrees is somehow suspect
Continually making claims that a company took steps to prevent you doing something, and then responding to people asking for evidence and reasoning of such deliberate steps with intended insults is not what rational people do, FYI.

I am finished responding to you, nothing personal, but we cannot ever agree as I am not, as you are, an Apple apologist.

Given that you still haven’t provided any evidence or reasoning for what you claim Apple is doing, what exactly am I apologising for?
 
Continually making claims that a company took steps to prevent you doing something, and then responding to people asking for evidence and reasoning of such deliberate steps with intended insults is not what rational people do, FYI.



Given that you still haven’t provided any evidence or reasoning for what you claim Apple is doing, what exactly am I apologising for?
Oh do come on. Most of the 4 pages of this thread are various people explaining their 'reasoning' to you. You just choose not to see it because you dont agree with it, and instead you reply with line-by-line pedantic dissections of single phrases from posts, shorn of their context.
That's entirely your prerogative, but do stop claiming that no-one has provided you with the 'reasoning' for what they're saying as this is clearly not the case.
 
explaining their 'reasoning' to you.
Saying "they want to prevent people running Linux to protect their revenue" is meaningless unless you explain how installing linux affects their revenue.

you reply with line-by-line pedantic dissections of single phrases from posts
Nothing is missing context. Replying to separate claims removes the ambiguity about what the reply is to.

but do stop claiming that no-one has provided you with the 'reasoning' for what they're saying as this is clearly not the case.

So show it then. Link me to exactly where anyone in this thread, or elsewhere, has posted a credible theory about how the ability to install linux on the internal drive of a modern Mac would harm Apple's revenues in some way, that booting from Linux on an external drive apparently doesn't.
 
It cant be done. I can't point out a 'credible theory'. And the reason? Because, sir, you are one of this site's Apple Fundamentalists. The hallmarks:

- the pedantic deconstruction of texts, line by line in order to obfuscate and not have to deal with the wider point being made;

- a need to systematically explain away and defend *all* points raised by others that may criticise or question Apple's commercial decisions and technical decisions, no matter how incongrous or reportedly unhelpful to some end users these may be;

- the constant reframing of others' opinions, arguments and language into terms that better reflect your preconceived view of the argument; suddenly asking for 'evidence' in an issue that largely boils down to mattters of personal utility and opinion;

- the claim that you are engaged in an open debate with others or are looking for 'proof' or 'evidence', when in fact its THE ARGUMENT that's all the fundamentalist is really after; for it's through the act of arguing itself that he gets to affirm his own faith and loyalty and beliefs. He doesn't really want to hear or engage with others' perspectives or experiences, and if he does they must certainly be argued against and shown to be wrong; he enjoys creating arguments over other people's expressions of subjective opinion because in doing so he gets to rationalise and reaffirm his own opinions and beliefs. Arguments aren't there to get to the bottom of an issue; they're there to allow him to experience the thrill of rehearsing the articles of faith and being a believer all over again.

- To that end, fundamentalists like to keep arguments going as long as possible, to prolong the ecstacy, long after most ordinary posters have left the room, because people quickly learn that arguing with a fundamentalist is a uniquely pointless and unsatisfactory experience for everyone except the fundamentalist. So at the end there's only him left, listening to his own echo, basking in the warm glow and certainty of a job well done, his faith and opinions reaffirmed and all correct.

So like I said, it can't be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota and No. 44
I can't point out a 'credible theory'. And the reason? Because, sir, you are one of this site's Apple Fundamentalists. The hallmarks:

Prepare for a line-by-line rebuttal buddy.

the pedantic deconstruction of texts, line by line in order to obfuscate and not have to deal with the wider point being made

For the second time - replying inline to a large volume of text is a deliberate attempt to remove ambiguity. Go read a technical mailing list, or heck, other forum posts. It's an extremely common solution to give a specific response to a particular claim or question. You're suggesting it's "obfuscating", so show me an example where I've quoted someone's text out of context, and then given a response that the context changes?

a need to systematically explain away and defend *all* points raised by others that may criticise or question Apple's commercial decisions and technical decisions, no matter how incongrous or reportedly unhelpful to some end users these may be

I've been pretty consistently trying to get some evidence on one single point: the OP's and other's repeated claim that Apple is deliberately blocking Linux from booting from the internal SSD, as some form of "control" to benefit themselves (Apple) in terms of "revenue protection". It strayed of course when someone else mentioned that Microsoft had precedent for doing this very thing, but the point I keep trying to make over and over is that the evidence at hand shows nothing more than hardware incompatibility due to a lack of device drivers. Oh and then it strayed off course because some people apparently believe that Linux and BSD developers don't reverse-engineer drivers for hardware devices.

the constant reframing of others' opinions, arguments and language into terms that better reflect your preconceived view of the argument; suddenly asking for 'evidence' in an issue that largely boils down to mattters of personal utility and opinion;

The OP's claim, or opinion is that Apple is deliberately preventing booting Linux from the internal SSD due to their (Apple's) desire for "control" to "protect their revenue". That is certainly an opinion, but she posted her opinion here, a public discussion board. If you hold an opinion, and when asked, you can't show any evidence that backs up your opinion, it's still your opinion, but that does not mean the person asking for evidence is a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism (in the religious context at least) is about unwavering belief of something.... Asking for evidence is the antithesis of Fundamentalism.

I don't even know what you mean by "personal utility".

the claim that you are engaged in an open debate with others or are looking for 'proof' or 'evidence', when in fact its THE ARGUMENT that's all the fundamentalist is really after; for it's through the act of arguing itself that he gets to affirm his own faith and loyalty and beliefs. He doesn't really want to hear or engage with others' perspectives or experiences, and if he does they must certainly be argued against and shown to be wrong; he enjoys creating arguments over other people's expressions of subjective opinion because in doing so he gets to rationalise and reaffirm his own opinions and beliefs. Arguments aren't there to get to the bottom of an issue; they're there to allow him to experience the thrill of rehearsing the articles of faith and being a believer all over again.

Oh great, so we're onto the part where you tell me what I want? Show me some evidence that Apple deliberately blocks OP or anyone else from booting Linux on the internal SSD, or **** it, even a credible theory about how it "protects their revenue" and I'll shut the **** up.

If OP had said she can't boot Linux, and I constantly proclaimed that she can, then sure, that's ignoring her "Perspective" and "experiences". But OP isn't doing that and neither am I. She, and others, made a claim that Apple is deliberately preventing Linux from booting from the internal SSD on new Macs, as a means of exercising "control" for the purposes of "revenue protection". I've asked numerous times how this activity, if it is true, would protect Apple's revenue, and why, if this was their goal, it's so trivially worked around with an external drive. No one's "perspective" is being ignored here.

Person A made a claim. Person B asked for some evidence of said claim. That so many people feel the need to label someone who simply says "show me some evidence" as a "fanboy" and "fundamentalist" is very telling.

To that end, fundamentalists like to keep arguments going as long as possible, to prolong the ecstacy, long after most ordinary posters have left the room, because people quickly learn that arguing with a fundamentalist is a uniquely pointless and unsatisfactory experience for everyone except the fundamentalist. So at the end there's only him left, listening to his own echo, basking in the warm glow and certainty of a job well done, his faith and opinions reaffirmed and all correct.

The irony that you're claiming someone who dare ask for some evidence is a Fundamentalist, intending to prove "faith and opinions reaffirmed" is not lost on me.


Tell you what - why don't you all band together and find a lawyer to file a lawsuit against Apple claiming some kind of Anti-Competitive Anti-Linux behaviour... Guess what the first thing any good Lawyer will ask you is?

DO YOU HAVE ANY ****ING EVIDENCE OF THIS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoNet and afir93
The problem with your hypothesis is that other than causing reboots, Apple has not said and it has not been demonstrated what this T2 chip does that couldn't be done without all the restrictions.
I respectfully disagree. Apple actually has a fairly extensive Security Overview for the T2 chip goes into a lot of detail about its' various security features; if you're interested in all the various stuff it does, or believe that Apple hasn't "said" enough what it does, I highly recommend giving it a read. I also don't think it's far-fetched to say that a lot of these security features would be possible entirely without some amount of restrictions, because many of them are restrictive in nature. But as I said in my previous comment – any of the major security-related restrictions of the T2 chip, other than maybe the rather niche restriction that you posted this thread about, can be turned off completely, so I don't really see how that is so much of a problem. The T2 chip isn't just giving the user more security, it's also giving him more granular control about how much security they want.

That document also mentions a lot of lesser-known advantages of the T2 chip BTW, for example that it prevents access to the microphone when your MacBook's lid is closed (shutting out spyware or any unwanted listeners), or that enabling/disabling FileVault is now instantaneous (instead of taking up hours or days and preventing you from doing Time Machine backups), among other things. Thought I'd mention because you asked.

In regards to the non-security-related features of the T2 chip, I kinda agree with you that Apple could communicate them a bit better. For example, they didn't officially start to talk about its' HEVC encoding capabilities until last year's October event, even though that's a pretty big selling point for some people. (Nevertheless, several reviewers and professionals did figure that out on their own prior to this point, which speaks about the value of this feature.) Even aside from the more commonly-known "Hey Siri" and Touch ID functionality, there are also a couple of other in some instances very useful but barely mentioned or talked-about features such as that it acts as an image signal processor and reportedly improves the camera image quality, or its' improvements to the speaker sound, or that it allows you to use your internal speakers while external ones are plugged into the headphone jack, something that you AFAIK can't do on Macs without it (I'm actually surprised that, with how many people to this day raise vocal criticisms about Apple's removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone, such a feature that benefits nobody else but headphone jack users isn't acknowledged more).

Either way, I'm not seeing any contradiction to my hypothesis if I'm honest. I agree with you that Apple could talk about some of these features more, but there are definitely a lot of (even if only minor) problems that Apple is solving with it. In a time where we learn about more and more security deficiencies of Intel's CPUs (and some of them pretty bad), I think Apple is taking the right path here by making security and privacy a big part of their approach to chip design on the Mac. The T2 chip is not without downsides (the kernel panics that some people experience to this date arguably being the largest one, IMO), but I definitely see where Apple is going with the chip, and consequences like your case OP, as unfortunate as it may be for you, are clearly the side-effect of what Apple is doing in my eyes, not the purpose.

Apple attacking Intel and making them the whipping boy isn't new for Apple. Intel isn't perfect and they have had their issues, but the fact is they have been more reliable and productive than Apple over these 40 years. Apple casting shade on Intel is the kind of thing they do to others. It is very much a part of their past and present. Just take the recent Qualcomm case for example. Apple is a bully, plain and simple. And like all bullies they attack others to try and hide their own vulnerabilities.
Apple isn't even "attacking" Intel and "making them the whipping boy", AFAIK (if they do, feel free to prove me wrong). I think their approach is quite the opposite of that: they are trying to silently fade out Intel and fade in their own chips for as long as they can. Someone in another thread a while ago pointed out that in the Mac-focused 2018 October event, the word "Intel" was said exactly once, and no detailed specs were mentioned for any of the new Macs. They still list all the necessary specs on the product pages, of course, but their way of dealign with Intel and their fiascos is by talking about them as little as possible, which is quite the opposite from attacking them.

I think it stands to reason how factual that "fact" that you dropped actually is (I think @Stephen.R is pretty on-point with his response to that), but even if it's true, I'm just not seeing why Apple should be villainized for their decision to move to their custom-made ARM chips. For comparison's sake, let's say you own a fish restaurant and have been getting fresh fish from that one vendor for almost 20 years now, and he has delivered you good fish for many years. But for a couple years in a row now, his products just has gotten worse and worse, to the point where you don't feel comfortable serving it to your customers anymore. So you instead send out your own fishers and they bring you much better fish, so you decide to transition to your own caught fish, and because you don't want to badmouth the old fisher, you just don't talk about him if someone asks you about him. Are you really the villain in this situation? Are you really bullying the old fish vendor just because you don't buy his fish anymore?

Of course, I'm oversimplifying here, and we can't say anything with certainty until Apple has actually announced their switch to ARM, which probably won't happen for at least another 1-2 years. But I do think that this is the gist of it: Apple is tired of mediocre, unexciting refreshes and of designing their Macs around thermal designs of CPUs that Intel then postpones way past any reasonable deadlines, and they believe that they themselves can do better. And if they actually can do better is something only time will tell, but judging by their excellent iOS chip improvements over recent years, I'd say the chances are good.
If Apple goes to Arm all well and good I suppose, but I would guess their real intention is to lock down the system even more. In my mind most of what they are after is to maximize profit. Sealed and glued items with T2 chips will not be repairable by outside parties. As a result resellers will not even be able to replace batteries or fix anything, so that will effectively force users to go to Apple or (more to the point) buy new. Microsoft also seals up their products, but the Surface exist to create new ways of using PC's, and they are not the only vender, so users have choices.
I don't think the T2 chip prevents you from exchanging batteries, whether you're Apple or a third-party repair shop? And I'm also not sure if the T2 chip has as much influence on whether or not the individual parts of the machine are replaceable or not as you think. MacBook Pros already had their SSDs etc. soldered onto the motherboard since a while now, even before they received the T2 chip, this is not exclusive to T2 Macs. Also Apple has also already said that the upcoming Mac Pro to be modular, yet I have a hard time imagining the Mac Pro to be released without the T2 chip or some successor or derivative of it; so it's even possible that the T2 does allow for some substitutability of parts (probably not the SSD, but other internals – the RAM for example in the 2018 Mac mini is replaceable despite T2 chip, it could be the same story for other parts of the new Mac Pro). I agree that Apple is generally gravitating towards making less and less parts of a Mac user-replaceable, but I just don't see this connection to the T2 chip that you keep talking about.

Similarly, I also don't think the T2 chip is "maximizing their profits" by any tangible means, other than by providing more features that make the Mac more compelling for some customers to buy, for reasons I've already went into. I would ask you to elaborate on that point and, well, if not provide evidence for it then at least explain how Apple is in your opinion earning more money by locking customers out of installing Linux or having them suffer from kernel panics (because if anything, shouldn't that have the adverse effect of pushing people away from the Mac?), but judging by how @Stephen.R was essentially crucified for doing that, I think I better don't. :rolleyes:

About the rest of your post – well, I generally do understand your frustration. I'm also not happy about many of Apple's decisions, design-wise and otherwise, and I had a lot of gripes with Apple over the recent years that I could go into, but this post has already gotten way too long. But the T2 chip, or the ARM-switch in general, is currently not something I have an issue with. The T2 chip isn't unilaterally good, it certainly does have issues, but it is overwhelmingly a good thing for the Mac, in my opinion. It is an (in some regards very successful) attempt to innovate in chip design, in a time where many other manufacturers don't or aren't able to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: whg and Stephen.R
I respectfully disagree. Apple actually has a fairly extensive Security Overview for the T2 chip goes into a lot of detail about its' various security features; if you're interested in all the various stuff it does, or believe that Apple hasn't "said" enough what it does, I highly recommend giving it a read. I also don't think it's far-fetched to say that a lot of these security features would be possible entirely without some amount of restrictions, because many of them are restrictive in nature. But as I said in my previous comment – any of the major security-related restrictions of the T2 chip, other than maybe the rather niche restriction that you posted this thread about, can be turned off completely, so I don't really see how that is so much of a problem. The T2 chip isn't just giving the user more security, it's also giving him more granular control about how much security they want.

That document also mentions a lot of lesser-known advantages of the T2 chip BTW, for example that it prevents access to the microphone when your MacBook's lid is closed (preventing unwanted access), that enabling/disabling FileVault is now instantaneous (instead of taking up hours or days and preventing you from doing Time Machine backups), among other things. Thought I'd mention because you asked.

In regards to the non-security-related features of the T2 chip, I kinda agree with you that Apple could communicate them a bit better. For example, they didn't officially start to talk about its' HEVC encoding capabilities until last year's October event, even though that's a pretty big selling point for some people. (Nevertheless, several reviewers and professionals did figure that out on their own prior to this point, which speaks about the value of this feature.) Even aside from the more commonly-known "Hey Siri" and Touch ID functionality, there are also a couple of other in some instances very useful but barely mentioned or talked-about features such as that it acts as an image signal processor and reportedly improves the camera image quality, or its' improvements to the speaker sound, or that it allows you to use your internal speakers while external ones are plugged into the headphone jack, something that you AFAIK can't do on Macs without it (I'm actually surprised that, with how many people to this day raise vocal criticisms about Apple's removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone, such a feature that benefits nobody else but headphone jack users isn't acknowledged more).

Either way, I'm not seeing any contradiction to my hypothesis if I'm honest. I agree with you that Apple could talk about some of these features more, but there are definitely a lot of (even if only minor) problems that Apple is solving with it. In a time where we learn about more and more security deficiencies of Intel's CPUs (and some of them pretty bad), I think Apple is taking the right path here by making security and privacy a big part of their approach to chip design on the Mac. The T2 chip is not without downsides (the kernel panics that some people experience to this date arguably being the largest one, IMO), but I definitely see where Apple is going with the chip, and consequences like your case OP, as unfortunate as it may be for you, are clearly the side-effect of what Apple is doing in my eyes, not the purpose.


Apple isn't even "attacking" Intel and "making them the whipping boy", AFAIK (if they do, feel free to prove me wrong). I think their approach is quite the opposite of that: they are trying to silently fade out Intel and fade in their own chips for as long as they can. Someone in another thread a while ago pointed out that in the Mac-focused 2018 October event, the word "Intel" was said exactly once, and no detailed specs were mentioned for any of the new Macs. They still list all the necessary specs on the product pages, of course, but their way of dealign with Intel and their fiascos is by talking about them as little as possible, which is quite the opposite from attacking them.

I think it stands to reason how factual that "fact" that you dropped actually is (I think @Stephen.R is pretty on-point with his response to that), but even if it's true, I'm just not seeing why Apple should be villainized for their decision to move to their custom-made ARM chips. For comparison's sake, let's say you own a fish restaurant and have been getting fresh fish from that one vendor for almost 20 years now, and he has delivered you good fish for many years. But for a couple years in a row now, his products just has gotten worse and worse, to the point where you don't feel comfortable serving it to your customers anymore. So you instead send out your own fishers and they bring you much better fish, so you decide to transition to your own caught fish, and because you don't want to badmouth the old fisher, you just don't talk about him if someone asks you about him. Are you really the villain in this situation? Are you really bullying the old fish vendor just because you don't buy his fish anymore?

Of course, I'm oversimplifying here, and we can't say anything with certainty until Apple has actually announced their switch to ARM, which probably won't happen for at least another 1-2 years. But I do think that this is the gist of it: Apple is tired of mediocre, unexciting refreshes and of designing their Macs around thermal designs of CPUs that Intel then postpones way past any reasonable deadlines, and they believe that they themselves can do better. And if they actually can do better is something only time will tell, but judging by their excellent iOS chip improvements over recent years, I'd say the chances are good.

I don't think the T2 chip prevents you from exchanging batteries, whether you're Apple or a third-party repair shop? And I'm also not sure if the T2 chip has as much influence on whether or not the individual parts of the machine are replaceable or not as you think. MacBook Pros already had their SSDs etc. soldered onto the motherboard since a while now, even before they received the T2 chip, this is not exclusive to T2 Macs. Also Apple has also already said that the upcoming Mac Pro to be modular, yet I have a hard time imagining the Mac Pro to be released without the T2 chip or some successor or derivative of it; so it's even possible that the T2 does allow for some substitutability of parts (probably not the SSD, but other internals – the RAM for example in the 2018 Mac mini is replaceable despite T2 chip, it could be the same story for other parts of the new Mac Pro). I agree that Apple is generally gravitating towards making less and less parts of a Mac user-replaceable, but I just don't see this connection to the T2 chip that you keep talking about.

Similarly, I also don't think the T2 chip is "maximizing their profits" by any tangible means, other than by providing more features that make the Mac more compelling for some customers to buy, for reasons I've already went into. I would ask you to elaborate on that point and, well, if not provide evidence for it then at least explain how Apple is in your opinion earning more money by locking customers out of installing Linux or having them suffer from kernel panics (because if anything, shouldn't that have the adverse effect of pushing people away from the Mac?), but judging by how @Stephen.R was essentially crucified for doing that, I think I better don't. :rolleyes:

About the rest of your post – well, I generally do understand your frustration. I'm also not happy about many of Apple's decisions, design-wise and otherwise, and I had a lot of gripes with Apple over the recent years that I could go into, but this post has already gotten way too long. But the T2 chip, or the ARM-switch in general, is currently not something I have an issue with. The T2 chip isn't unilaterally good, it certainly does have issues, but it is overwhelmingly a good thing for the Mac, in my opinion. It is an (in some regards very successful) attempt to innovate in chip design, in a time where many other manufacturers don't or aren't able to.

Well I respect your opinion, and maybe these security features mean more to Mac users. Still even the Pentagon uses Windows and they are happy enough with the security options provided. I personally find it difficult to believe that ordinary Mac users need all this extra security, and I still believe that it is more about Apple controlling what can be done with their machines in the name of profit. Machines that can only be repaired by Apple, and when they declare a machine "vintage"... Well what are your options?

On the Linux front, I have friends and I myself actually that have revived older non supported Machines both, Windows and Mac, by installing Linux. I have even donated some of them to the Boys Club of Omaha, where a friend of mine teaches coding to the boys there. It is nice for them to see and use actual computers such as Windows and Linux rather than just mobile devices. Moving forward that may not be such an easy thing to do with Mac.

Because Mac isn't my primary system, I don't have an issue if they go completely ARM. It could be interesting, and they have a right to do as they please. But I am with @Queen6 . When I pay $2000 plus for a machine, I expect to be able to put whatever software I please on it... But that is me, and if as a Mac user you don't mind, it is certainly not my place to tell you that you should.
 
Still even the Pentagon uses Windows and they are happy enough with the security options provided
This is laughable.

Even places like game studios insist on having full-disk encryption on laptops. Guess what? It makes **** slower. Guess what the T2 provides? Faster full-disk encryption.

I personally find it difficult to believe that ordinary Mac users need all this extra security
Great, then don't use it. Doesn't mean others shouldn't have the capability.

I still believe that it is more about Apple controlling what can be done with their machines in the name of profit

And yet you still can't explain how.

Machines that can only be repaired by Apple
Or.. you know.. that vast network of authorised service centres that literally covers the globe.

and when they declare a machine "vintage"... Well what are your options?
Buy the part from someone who sells refurbished parts? I've bought parts for an "obsolete" 2011 MBP both from a reputable US store (iFixit) and from a Hong Kong based store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afir93
Buy the part from someone who sells refurbished parts? I've bought parts for an "obsolete" 2011 MBP both from a reputable US store (iFixit) and from a Hong Kong based store.
This is laughable as well. Its a workaround rather than an option. Try that with a 2016+ MBP and a failed keyboard. Good luck with that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6
This is laughable as well. Its a workaround rather than an option. Try that with a 2016+ MBP and a failed keyboard. Good luck with that

Yes, we are not talking about previous Macs we are talking about the current ones going forward. Previous Macs didn't have the T2 chip. I bought my current 2012 from a small shop that refurbished it, new battery. SSD drive and upgraded the RAM. It has been flawless and I enjoy it. I hate the thought of having to give up Macs going forward, but it is looking like that is more and more going to be the case. I have every type of system except Chromebook, refuse to do business with Google.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.