Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Could Use ARM Coprocessors for Three Updated Mac Models (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

According to a Bloomberg report, Apple could be working on three new Mac models for this year. From a report: All three of them could feature an ARM coprocessor to improve security. Apple isn't switching to ARM chipsets altogether. There will still be an Intel CPU in every Mac, but with a second ARM processor. Currently, the MacBook Pro features a T1 chip while the iMac Pro features a T2 chip. On the MacBook Pro, the ARM coprocessor handles the Touch ID sensor and the Touch Bar. This way, your fingerprint is never stored on your laptop's SSD drive -- it remains on the T1 secure enclave. The Intel CPU only gets a positive response when a fingerprint is validated. The iMac Pro goes one step further and uses the T2 to replace many discrete controllers. The T2 controls your stereo speakers, your internal microphone, the fans, the camera and internal storage.

119 comments

  1. Next by 110010001000 · · Score: -1, Troll

    Maybe they will fix the myriad root exploits at some point too. That would be nice!

    1. Re:Next by cmaurand · · Score: 1

      Of course none of that info is secure any longer due to spectre and meltdown on the Intel side. Everyone is going to need to replace their CPU's. There's going to be a huge class action lawsuit (or several of them.)

    2. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Too bad you can't afford an Apple product on your $50K per year tech job in Silicon Valley.

    3. Re:Next by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1, Funny

      They will; but it will cost an ARM and a leg.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loool he doesnt have a tech job, have you not seen the nonsense this guy posts? He isnt even out of basement yet

    5. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. He's been bragging for months that he's the best I.T. closet cleaner in Silicon Valley.

    6. Re:Next by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      (slow clap)

      "Oh good, my slowclap processor made it into this thing." - GLaDOS

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Next by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will fix the myriad root exploits at some point too. That would be nice!

      Typical bullshit Apple Hater comment.

      Some drive-by hate-filled-bullshit, with zero substantiation.

    8. Re:Next by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Of course none of that info is secure any longer due to spectre and meltdown on the Intel side. Everyone is going to need to replace their CPU's. There's going to be a huge class action lawsuit (or several of them.)

      Apple released their OWN Spectre and Meltdown patches for the past 3 macOS versions. I haven't heard that their versions of the patches have the same issues as the Intel ones that everyone is rushing to un-install...

    9. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it will probably create new ones.

    10. Re:Next by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      So a fingerprint or other auth is stored externally, then tells an Intel chip, yeah, go ahead and boot.

      In possession of that machine, we just fake the auth to the Intel chip and move on from there.

      There is no Apple hate here; Apple *thinks* they're smarter than the rest of the world, but have become vastly insular, and a cult unto themselves.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    11. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical fanboy who willingly lives in the Reality Distortion Field.

    12. Re:Next by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will fix the myriad root exploits at some point too. That would be nice!

      When the company gets word of a root exploit, it gets patched quickly. If you know about 10,000 of them, Apple would be really interested.

    13. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The auth works with encrypted security tokens. The app establishes a security key with Touch ID. Touch ID then countersigns that token back to show that it has been authenticated. You can't just fake the auth without access to key material and algorithms.

    14. Re:Next by postbigbang · · Score: 0

      EZ PZ. Monitor the transaction with a logic analyzer. Cough the stream to your favorite GPU board, or perhaps an ASIC or FPGA that knows the algorithm. Somewhere, the security key is stored. Hammer that as an alternative. Voila: unlock.

      Or just find where the state is termed valid somewhere downstream of this logic path and flip (or pound) a few bits.

      The sheer sanctimoniousness of inter-process systems designers galls the shit out of me. With a clever enough hammer, you can break anything, and Apple is and has never been an exception to this.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    15. Re: Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an apple fanboy, quite the opposite, but if you will make such a statement, please back it up with sources.

    16. Re:Next by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      So a fingerprint or other auth is stored externally, then tells an Intel chip, yeah, go ahead and boot.

      In possession of that machine, we just fake the auth to the Intel chip and move on from there.

      There is no Apple hate here; Apple *thinks* they're smarter than the rest of the world, but have become vastly insular, and a cult unto themselves.

      In practice, Apple's "Go/NoGo" is a LOT more complicated than a simple Logic-Level. That's why you can't swap-out the Fingerprint sensor in an iPhone/iPad. It has a unique cryptographic pairing with the SoC. I'm not sure how that's handled with the Intel CPU in the MacBook Pro; but I am sure Apple has more than just "Pull this pin low for an "Unlock" Signal".

      And yes, Apple IS smarter than the rest of the world (or at least as smart as the top people in this field); at least in this regard.

      Ask the FBI. BTW, the phone they (had someone else) crack was FAR less secure than later models.

    17. Re:Next by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      EZ PZ. Monitor the transaction with a logic analyzer. Cough the stream to your favorite GPU board, or perhaps an ASIC or FPGA that knows the algorithm. Somewhere, the security key is stored. Hammer that as an alternative. Voila: unlock.

      Or just find where the state is termed valid somewhere downstream of this logic path and flip (or pound) a few bits.

      The sheer sanctimoniousness of inter-process systems designers galls the shit out of me. With a clever enough hammer, you can break anything, and Apple is and has never been an exception to this.

      Then why is the FBI ranting and raving?

      They sure as HELL don't have to do so for Android phones!

      And the "Knows the Algorithm" part isn't necessarily so "EZPZ" when BOTH ends are non-discoverable, like in an iPhone. It might be possible in a Mac, unless Apple has convinced them to put some custom hardware in their CPUs (which they very may well have).

      With a clever enough bolt, you really do need the proper tool to remove it.

      I'm not saying it's impossible; but Apple has a VERY good track-record in this regard.

    18. Re:Next by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      In possession of that machine, we just fake the auth to the Intel chip and move on from there.

      I doubt if the "auth" is something as simple as a voltage change on a pin. You have no reason to believe that it is easy, or even possible, to "fake the auth".

    19. Re:Next by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      EZ PZ. Monitor the transaction with a logic analyzer.

      This will only work if Apple's protocol is designed to total morons supervised by other total morons.

      You can't just play back a bitstream to defeat encryption, because every transaction uses different "salt" and timestamp.

      ... an ASIC or FPGA that knows the algorithm.

      Many of the most robust cryptography is based on published algorithms. "Knowing the algorithm" is obviously not enough. You also need time, like quadrillions of times the life of the universe. Good luck.

    20. Re: Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Then why is the FBI ranting and raving?...

      It has nothing to do with whether or not they can gain access tithe device. It has everything to do with conditioning the public to accept less secure devices, because, terrorism...children.

    21. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the FBI. BTW, the phone they (had someone else) crack was FAR less secure than later models.

      LMAO.. fuck the FBI. Let's see what the NSA, Mossad, and GCHQ are doing with it.

      And no, the FBI and the NSA do not play nice with one another.

    22. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has to replace their CPUs, but you will have to live with less processing power than Intel led you to believe you had. Well, you did have it, but it wasn’t safe. So you can choose: fast or safe. Hey, look: a car analogy!

    23. Re: Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can.. but that auth wont decode any of the stored data. duh.

  2. Security by obscurity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long it will be before the security enclave is hacked (if it hasn't been already). Nice PR, though.

  3. They already do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, didnt notice that even the mighty Fruit could not get Intel do deactivate the ARM core in the chipset, a.k.a Intel ME?

    1. Re:They already do! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      What, didnt notice that even the mighty Fruit could not get Intel do deactivate the ARM core in the chipset, a.k.a Intel ME?

      No the ME hardware is based on Intel Quark processor

    2. Re:They already do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from TFWP: "Starting with ME 11..."

    3. Re:They already do! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      He's probably thinking of the old ARC chip that they used formerly.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:They already do! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      He's probably thinking of the old ARC chip that they used formerly.

      Still not ARM though!

    5. Re:They already do! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      from TFWP: "Starting with ME 11..."

      And prior to that ARC (not ARM)

    6. Re:They already do! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What? It's only off by one letter! It has to be nearly the same...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Attack Surface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At first glance this appears to be a whole new way to attack the machine...

    1. Re:Attack Surface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reducing the exposure of the Intel chips to the outside world increases the security.

    2. Re:Attack Surface? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      In terms of security centralized devices are the bane of security. Decentralized components that do one thing and does them well helps security, by making each process easy to code and manage without conflicting with other actions. If your fingerprint scan will need to be handled by the main CPU. that means your fingerprint data is going down the main CPU Bus, which is possibly visible by other applications and hacks. Vs. in essence its own little computer in the computer to do the work and send back a good or bad bit. Outside what the rest of the computer is dealing with. All the extra data in the processing is not accessible from the rest of the computer. This in general makes things much safer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Attack Surface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every feature is a potential bug. Every connection a potential attack pathway. You aren't saying anything. Everyone who works in computer security knows that security is at odds with functionality. Add more functionality and you've added more potential holes. Not a good reason not to do something (at least not without a reasonably thorough risk assessment).

    4. Re:Attack Surface? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      In terms of security centralized devices are the bane of security. Decentralized components that do one thing and does them well helps security, by making each process easy to code and manage without conflicting with other actions. If your fingerprint scan will need to be handled by the main CPU. that means your fingerprint data is going down the main CPU Bus, which is possibly visible by other applications and hacks. Vs. in essence its own little computer in the computer to do the work and send back a good or bad bit. Outside what the rest of the computer is dealing with. All the extra data in the processing is not accessible from the rest of the computer. This in general makes things much safer.

      Exactly!

      Amazing that Slashdotters can't see that; but it is most likely their inherent Anti-Apple bias.

    5. Re:Attack Surface? by Khyber · · Score: -1

      No, those of us with actual hardware knowledge know that ADDING hardware only increases an attack surface, you fake fuckwit troll.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Attack Surface? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If you are attacking it with a bat, or soldering a bridge, then yes.
      But most attacks are done with Software nowadays. That means access to the main memory and bus is key, and more complex information that goes on will increase the chances of a problem.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Attack Surface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the whole point is that Apple may attack the user privacy even more, when they offload the spyware functionality into discrete chips with their own private firmware.

    8. Re:Attack Surface? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      No, those of us with actual hardware knowledge know that ADDING hardware only increases an attack surface, you fake fuckwit troll.

      As an embedded hardware/software developer for the past several Decades, I have plenty of hardware knowledge.

      Theoretically, true, anything you add, whether software OR hardware, increases an attack surface. So, why would you even bother to make a comment that is true no matter what, other than to Troll yourself?

      So look, NOW who's trolling???

    9. Re:Attack Surface? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      If you are attacking it with a bat, or soldering a bridge, then yes.
      But most attacks are done with Software nowadays. That means access to the main memory and bus is key, and more complex information that goes on will increase the chances of a problem.

      Exactly.

      In the TOTAL analysis of the system, getting information such as raw biometric scans, whether encrypted or not, off of the main system bus(es), be it the main memory bus, or a miscellaneous SPI or I2C bus, etc. is ALWAYS a Good Thing as far as INCREASING security (a/k/a DECREASING "Attack Vectors").

      Only stupid, basement-dwelling trolls with no REAL design experience like the GP don't know that fundamental truth.

    10. Re:Attack Surface? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      At first glance this appears to be a whole new way to attack the machine...

      At second glance this appears to be removing many ways to attack the machine.

      By moving access control and security to a separate dedicated chip with its own memory, rather than running it on the general purpose CPU which also runs random apps and webpages, this should make exploits more difficult.

    11. Re:Attack Surface? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, those of us with actual hardware knowledge know that ADDING hardware only increases an attack surface

      Bullcrap. Many mission critical systems require a separate CPU for WDTs, memory scrubbing, etc.

      The primary CPU, which runs application code, is always going to be the most vulnerable. Moving critical functions to a separate CPU with its own memory will make a system much harder to attack.

    12. Re: Attack Surface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Intel said the same thing about ME. Interesting.

    13. Re: Attack Surface? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Fuck, you are dense. You're asking why he asked the question, it's because you're clearly not understanding the point. Big fucking whoosh over your head. You need to STFU a lot more.

    14. Re:Attack Surface? by windwalkr · · Score: 1

      You're both right, at least to some degree. Increasing the amount of hardware does increase the attack surface, undeniably, but it also moves critical functions from the main component (with the large attack surface) to the specialised sub-component (which may have a much reduced attack surface). The system as a whole may be technically less secure as a result, but the stuff you care most about is more secure.

  5. Intel be gone by shmlco · · Score: 1

    Only a matter of time before the Intel chips disappear completely.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:Intel be gone by DonkeyG5 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Hundreds or maybe thousands of years but, still, just a matter of time.

    2. Re:Intel be gone by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have said, "Only a matter of time before the Intel chips disappear completely from new Mac models."

      For those unable to read context.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  6. The writings on the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are already getting rid of 32 bit support, soon they will fully iOSify MacOS from OS X to OS i. With an ARMed walled garden. The $5000 iMac Pro is the swan song for Intel Macs. MacOS 10.14 will be full Facebook machines

    1. Re:The writings on the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. You forget Twitter.

      MacBook will be fully Facebook and Twitter.

    2. Re:The writings on the wall by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1, Troll

      They are already getting rid of 32 bit support, soon they will fully iOSify MacOS from OS X to OS i. With an ARMed walled garden. The $5000 iMac Pro is the swan song for Intel Macs. MacOS 10.14 will be full Facebook machines

      They are getting rid of 32 bit support because it is a gigantic drain on development and testing (especially the latter) to keep both architectures going.

      I don't like it much myself; but I understand their point of view.

      It has NOTHING to do with "IOSifying" macOS.

  7. Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Interesting way to make hackintosh machines more difficult to build, but an arm core can be emulated with qemu.

    1. Re:Hackintosh by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting way to make hackintosh machines more difficult to build, but an arm core can be emulated with qemu.

      Nice try.

      macOS will still have to install on the dozens of Mac models WITHOUT an ARM coprocessor; so, for the next foreseeable while, that paranoid fantasy will remain just that.

    2. Re:Hackintosh by KingRatMass · · Score: 1

      TonyMac will steal code from legitimate developers and make it possible.

    3. Re:Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      But they can just abandon the intel-only macOS tomorrow after they pushed the CPU speed downgrade as final upgrade.

    4. Re:Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, and I believe that most people will be ok with using qemu to emulate the chips they are missing for, let's face it, not the most necessary functions of their computer.

      An x86-64 hackintosh can spare a few CPU cycles to pretend an arm chip is there. The software is free. You can emulate an arm CPU as easy as any other.

    5. Re:Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they can just abandon the intel-only macOS tomorrow after they pushed the CPU speed downgrade as final upgrade.

      Suuuuure. But what would you need a Hackintosh for then anyway?

    6. Re:Hackintosh by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      They'll ditch compatibility when convenient, regardless of what the community has to say. Never forget that Apple is the king of planned obsolescence.

    7. Re:Hackintosh by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Interesting way to make hackintosh machines more difficult to build, but an arm core can be emulated with qemu.

      Nice try.

      macOS will still have to install on the dozens of Mac models WITHOUT an ARM coprocessor; so, for the next foreseeable while, that paranoid fantasy will remain just that.

      Are Hackintoshes even still a thing?

      Honestly, that's the first time I've heard that term in what must have been 5 or 6 years... I don't think many have bothered on a serious level because Windows 7 was good enough and Apple made it too hard. I imagine the only people doing it now are doing it just for the LoLs.

      However welcome to the beginning of the end. The Mac User is now just an Ipad user with a bigger bill, its only a matter of time before the Intel processor is dropped and MacOS and IOS become one. No-one does serious work on a Mac, despite your forthcoming protestations.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re: Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesnt have to.. just the key. or hack the driver that looks for the chip.

      its a hackintosh anyways. its not supposed to run now'even.

    9. Re:Hackintosh by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      They'll ditch compatibility when convenient, regardless of what the community has to say. Never forget that Apple is the king of planned obsolescence.

      They've been "looking the other way" regarding the Hackintosh community since OS X debuted nearly TWENTY years ago.

      I really don't think they are using the ARM coprocessors to do that, overtly; but if macOS starts DEPENDING on their presence...

    10. Re:Hackintosh by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Interesting way to make hackintosh machines more difficult to build, but an arm core can be emulated with qemu.

      Nice try.

      macOS will still have to install on the dozens of Mac models WITHOUT an ARM coprocessor; so, for the next foreseeable while, that paranoid fantasy will remain just that.

      Are Hackintoshes even still a thing?

      Honestly, that's the first time I've heard that term in what must have been 5 or 6 years... I don't think many have bothered on a serious level because Windows 7 was good enough and Apple made it too hard. I imagine the only people doing it now are doing it just for the LoLs.

      However welcome to the beginning of the end. The Mac User is now just an Ipad user with a bigger bill, its only a matter of time before the Intel processor is dropped and MacOS and IOS become one. No-one does serious work on a Mac, despite your forthcoming protestations.

      Hackintoshes are most CERTAINLY still "a thing", especially with the long-time since the Mac Pro refresh, and the fact that some have been pining for the "return of the tower" since the Cylindrical Mac Pro came out in 2013. Plus, some people are just "cheap"...

      Apple will not be dropping Intel (buy they may switch to AMD, if they can get their power consumption down to a reasonable level); because they know they sell a LOT of MacBook Pros (and some iMacs) to people running primarily Windows or Linux, and those aren't switching to primarily ARM any time soon. There is just TOO MUCH software out there that is still x86, and Apple is WELL AWARE of that!

      As far as "no one does serious work on a Mac", you're simply full of shit. Period.

  8. I hope it's not lumped on the DMI bus by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    so storage will be cut down to 1 pci-e x4 bus mixed with co-processor traffic. nice way to cut the power of the new mac pro (at least it has the lanes to not stuff it on the DMI bus that also has network and all other io on it)

    For the ones with less pci-e they should do pci-e like this.

    X16 cpu to switch and switch X8 video card X4 TB (one bus) X4 (storage + co cpu)
    and DMI for all other IO.

    mac pro at least 1 open pci-e X16 + video card X16 + at least 2 TB buses. and maybe X4 storage 2 (non boot) and (X4 boot + co cpu) = 48 pci-e other IO on DMI or swap storage 2 for X4 10G network and put storage 2 on DMI.
    If AMD EPYC then to go 3 X16 slots one filled with video card + 2-4 TB buses + 10 GIG-e duel port + x4 co cpu + 3X4 M.2 slots + other IO.

  9. Sounds like an Embedded Controller by peppepz · · Score: 2

    PC manufacturers have been using these for a long time. They started out as 8-bit MCUs with a builtin ROM and have been getting more and more powerful with time.

    1. Re:Sounds like an Embedded Controller by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For the most part it is. For some crazy reason we moved to integrated systems, back in the 1990's. I think it was because the OS started to support software drivers, so devices can be made much more cheaply, because things like controller boards, or supporting an open protocol can be skipped. A modem is just a DtoA and AtoD converter, which could had been made cheaply. However the expensive part of them was the Hayes AT command processing, which boosted its cost way up. However if you have the driver handle the stuff, you can release a cheap modem (which could probably double as a sound card)
      This came at a cost of security though. Integrated means your OS which sees all that is going on. And any security flaw can effect everything.

      Today we are getting more attention in security, also the price for components are getting cheaper and smaller too. So it seems that we are going back to this method. Perhaps we may get to a point where these things can be on a removable socket again too, so we can upgrade and repair again.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Sounds like an Embedded Controller by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      ARM embedded controllers with a huge number of peripherals are extremely cheap now. As such they get thrown in to all sorts of things. In a way it's good, they offload work from the main CPU. In another way it's bad, because they rarely even consider security in the design.

      Sadly I doubt sockets will be coming back. They are expensive. Back in the day they made more sense because you might need to issue a firmware update which meant replacing chips. That an parts were unreliable or had to be matched during manufacture in some significant percentage of systems. Nowadays flash memory is so cheap and parts are reliable that there isn't much call for sockets.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re: Sounds like an Embedded Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EC on Macs is called the Sysyem Management Controller, and has been a stable of the logic board design for quite some time. It's pretty sophisticated, much more so than anything on PC which tend to be garbage running stock code.

    4. Re:Sounds like an Embedded Controller by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Hey AmiMoJo, remember how I adopted the sig "The one straight white male in new Star Trek will be portrayed as evil or incompetent" back before Star Trek Discovery premiered? You know, because he was the only straight white male on an SJW show, and so I knew that he would ultimately have to be revealed as either evil or incompetent--because SJW's, as much as they would deny it, really HATE straight white males.

      Remember how an enlightened SJW like yourself corrected my foolish misinformed view back in October, responding to my sig, with:

      By the way, your signature makes you look silly now. Your prediction was way off the mark.

      Then remember how I replied with:

      LOL. Keep watching, You'll be eating those words soon.

      Well, go watch the latest two episodes. And enjoy your meal.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Sounds like an Embedded Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey AmiMoJo, remember how I adopted the sig "The one straight white male in new Star Trek will be portrayed as evil or incompetent" back before Star Trek Discovery premiered? You know, because he was the only straight white male on an SJW show, and so I knew that he would ultimately have to be revealed as either evil or incompetent--because SJW's, as much as they would deny it, really HATE straight white males.

      Remember how an enlightened SJW like yourself corrected my foolish misinformed view back in October, responding to my sig, with:

      By the way, your signature makes you look silly now. Your prediction was way off the mark.

      Then remember how I replied with:

      LOL. Keep watching, You'll be eating those words soon.

      Well, go watch the latest two episodes. And enjoy your meal.

      None of this is really helping to solve your problems.

    6. Re:Sounds like an Embedded Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Suru is still a white male. :P

  10. Not important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what, Apple is going to use a small ARM CPU to control some functions to free up resources for main CPU. Makes sense right? Not a lot different then how GPU's have progressed in similar fashion to move CPU tasks to the GPU. It almost seems like these story sort of want you to believe Apple is moving their Mac's to ARM CPU's as main processor and that's not even close to what is happening.

  11. Ecclesiastes 1:9. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Remember the NuBus DOS card you could get to run DOS at 'native' speeds?

    That said, I welcome it and other similar endeavors. I wish I could buy a more 'modular' desktop for exploratory development. For my work I'd rather have a boatload of ARM cores or FPGA devices on a x16 PCI link than a video card.

    1. Re:Ecclesiastes 1:9. by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Some porn for you... 48 MIPS cores on a PCIe board:

      http://parpro.com/product/o3e-...

    2. Re:Ecclesiastes 1:9. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about this http://www.adapteva.com/introduction/
      1024 core 64 bit RISC processor. Is that enough of a "boatload" for ya?? I know it's not on a PCIe x16 slot.... I guess we can't have everything.

  12. Re: Full Facebook machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a load of bull droppings. Not all Mac users use Faecebook or any other antisocial media for that matter.
    I've never even seen a FB screen or app and don't want to.

  13. Stronger Walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It's much more about the walled garden; the product is escaping; they must be forced to stay inside the garden.

  14. Huh? Why not switch from Intel to AMD? by blind+biker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apple could kill Meltdown and still have perfect Intel compatibility by just using AMD. I am not necessarily saying they should not have the ARM coprocessor, just that using AMD instead of Intel would increase security drastically. Also because AMD doesn't have the management Engine. They have something equivalent, but that doesn't have a full IP stack and other "niceties" like that.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Huh? Why not switch from Intel to AMD? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apple could kill Meltdown and still have perfect Intel compatibility by just using AMD. I am not necessarily saying they should not have the ARM coprocessor, just that using AMD instead of Intel would increase security drastically. Also because AMD doesn't have the management Engine. They have something equivalent, but that doesn't have a full IP stack and other "niceties" like that.

      It would take the better part of a year for Apple to "qualify" macOS for AMD CPUs.

    2. Re:Huh? Why not switch from Intel to AMD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People already build hackintosh systems with AMD.... it's more work than an Intel hackintosh, but that doesn't sound like a year of effort for Apple.
      Oh, just noticed the quotes.... maybe you're attempting to imply some nefarious dealings with Intel or something.....
      Probably the most realistic problem would be AMD developing enough capacity to meet the demands of someone like Apple.

    3. Re:Huh? Why not switch from Intel to AMD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple probably already has MacOs "qualified" for AMD CPUs. If you remember back when Apple shocked the world by announcing that they were switching from Motorola CPUs to Intel, they'd been running various flavors of MacOS for years in their development skunkworks. They never stand still, and like all good companies, continually plan for multiple contigencies.

  15. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then Apple would have to include an industrial grade air conditioner to prevent 3rd degree burns due to the copious heat emitted from the CPU.

    1. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, try mailing that to the pre-Ryzen era, Intel shill.

    2. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beefing up the cooling system would be a great move for Apple. More than a couple of their products have had issues with overheating, one of them being the Macbook. None of them had AMD CPUs.

  16. There goes Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I highly suspect that this change will render hardware compatibility with off the shelf components a thing of the past for Apple (again).

    This means no more Hackintosh should a future OSX require this chip be in place.

    1. Re:There goes Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Honestly, I would not care less. OSX is a poor Linux imitation. If you wanted UNIX experience, just install Linux. It is much easier and gives you a better OS to boot.

    2. Re:There goes Hackintosh by tgetzoya · · Score: 0

      I'll go a bit further: If you want a rock-solid and very stable OS, get FreeBSD. If you want a pretty UI on top of that, install KDE. Taking the time to learn how to get it running and put it all together is absolutely worth it.

      I admit, Linux (with its various distros) are much easier and simpler to install and use. However, I prefer BSDs for philosophical reasons.

    3. Re:There goes Hackintosh by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I would not care less. OSX is a poor Linux imitation. If you wanted UNIX experience, just install Linux. It is much easier and gives you a better OS to boot.

      That's why all the developers who care to diversify beyond Windows write for Ubuntu.

    4. Re:There goes Hackintosh by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Were I to switch to BSD, I'd prefer Mate to KDE. I use lots of KDE tools and libraries, but their screen has gotten too noisy.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:There goes Hackintosh by tgetzoya · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm with you on that. I just said KDE because it's a more "pretty" UI like OSX.

    6. Re:There goes Hackintosh by DonkeyG5 · · Score: 2

      Honestly, I would not care less. OSX is a poor Linux imitation.

      Actually, since macOS is the successor of NeXTSTEP and NeXTSTEP predates Linux the opposite is more accurate.

    7. Re:There goes Hackintosh by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      And the remaining use a Mac and write for CentOS or SUSE or Red Hat in Java ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. Repair costs skyrocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fun fact: check out all the exponentially more-expensive repair costs, as well as things you just can't do (like netboot or USB boot) on the iMac Pro as a result of this chip. The tech repair docs and service training for the iMac Pro almost made me want to throw up my hands and quit repairing Macs. It's asinine and consumer-hostile.

    There's no actual reason it has to be this way, but Apple uses it as a convenient excuse to charge even more when they're already charging 5 times too much.

    (and that headphone jack on the back of your iMac is STILL not a replaceable part according to Apple... even though it is. Headphones damaged the jack, like commonly happens? Apple makes you buy an entire new iMac chassis and a full disassembly and move-over. That's a fun time, and not cheap labor).

    -Authorized Apple Repair Tech

  18. Cool idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the idea of having several cpu (whether intel or ARM) is very neat. I guess it'll add complexity to the development, but...

    1) Do they work autonomously (ie, does the main processor intervene somehow in the coprocessors)? Because this could make the coprocessors hackable AND with the total inability to be fixed by a system update. Am I right? say the one controlling Touch ID is exploited to send your fingerprints to whoever (kind of like having several intel MEs) . How do you fix it?

    2) If the main processor only requires an OK signal from these coprocessors... can it be tricked? can it be made to "believe" a fingerprint is right when nobody actually touch the touch ID?

  19. Re: Full Facebook machines? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    What a load of bull droppings. Not all Mac users use Faecebook or any other antisocial media for that matter.
    I've never even seen a FB screen or app and don't want to.

    I have absolutely ZERO social media accounts.

  20. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very, very good. Intel, welcome to your death knell lol...

  21. Re: Full Facebook machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Slashdot social media?

  22. SMC? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    So how exactly is this different from the SMC (System Management Controller for those that don't know)? AFAIK the SMC already does these tasks.

    Sounds like they're just replacing whatever the SMC used to be (I'm assuming an FPGA of some sort) to an ARM CPU?

  23. Goodbye Linux and Hackintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more Apple lock-in to their hardware. If they had a brain, they'd not waste so much time on lock-in chips and put more time into making their hardware worth buying. They keep undermining the reason to stay using them as everybody else surpasses "good enough" to being about equal.

    I know it would be impossible... but apple could turn their pro laptop into something configurable more than other laptops. Sure they could require use of the store... but being able to bolt on a thicker battery, replace the battery, SSD, RAM... are not different than the others-- but if those tiny boards used to connect the ports on the side of the computer had some more space internally with a nice strong faceplace attached... users could swap out either the left or right side boards/ports on the laptop. at a premium price at the apple store. None of what I'm suggesting would add much in size to the laptop; furthermore, the next gen batteries would more than make up for space lost. I can't understand why they don't just sell a bolt-on bottom plate with more battery power... so many actual pros prefer battery for weight... not that we are talking much at all-- laptop protection covers probably add as much.

    Ironically, making apple laptops the most configurable while still being proprietary (it is a hardware company after all)

  24. put in co in coprocessor! by corando · · Score: 1

    On first glance I immediately dismissed the "security" bit in the preview as click-bait... The interesting idea, at least to me, is the idea of having low power ARM acting like a hybrid south-bridge that functions as CPU for simple web browsing or media playback [I think these may already exist in some forms]. Unfortunately while there is a brief mention of the ARM chip handling sound there was not much other detail. I would guess the difficulty is in how to seamlessly transfer data and processing to the Intel CPU when needed.... so had hoped that's what this would be about. I suppose I read way too much into "coprocessor" in the title... but forming strong opinions on as little information as possible is what Slashdot is about after-all :-)

  25. This isn't surprising by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

    Every PC has dozens of microprocessors, so adding an ARM chip into a computer is no big paradigm shift. A typical PC has a SATA controller, USB controller, video card, etc. One of the big things that Intel has been good at over the years is integrated more features onto a single die. Around 2000 is when they started adding wireless directly onto the die ("Centrino") followed by integrated video. I forget when the memory controller got integrated.

    1. Re:This isn't surprising by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Every PC has dozens of microprocessors, so adding an ARM chip into a computer is no big paradigm shift. A typical PC has a SATA controller, USB controller, video card, etc. One of the big things that Intel has been good at over the years is integrated more features onto a single die. Around 2000 is when they started adding wireless directly onto the die ("Centrino") followed by integrated video. I forget when the memory controller got integrated.

      Few computers have multiple general purpose CPU's of different architectures. A SATA controller, GPU or even a Northbridge or Southbridge are nothing like a CPU because they have different purposes. An ARM and Intel (or AMD) CPU are built to do the same thing but are fundamentally incompatible (you cant even get Intel and AMD CPU's to work together well).

      Given that either of those processors are capable of handling modern OS's without any trouble, there's no benefit to increasing complexity to hand of different instructions from the same OS.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  26. I think I know why they're doing this by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Watch for a forthcoming OS that will run macOS apps and iOS apps simultaneously, with a touchscreen for at least the laptop models. At first such a machine will primarily for developers, replacing the iOS simulator that is now part of Xcode, but we may then see the long-awaited convergence of laptops and tablets.

    1. Re:I think I know why they're doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just let you run iOS apps in an iPhone/iPad emulator on the desktop? That would be easy to grasp and avoid the deadly "convergence" that always fails.

  27. And yet it can no longer make a boot chime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that is beyond their technological prowess.

  28. Long awaited by whom? by Texmaize · · Score: 2

    Personally, I never asked my computer and cell phone to be the same. I am very comfortable with them being different tools for different jobs. I am fine with them being optomized differently so that they can do their job in as an effective way possible.

    I think of all the non-sense that has hit Mac Os in recent years, in an effort to make it more IOS like. I do not like how they removed management controls away from iTunes. I LIKED having more robust photo options. Almost everything they have added in to merge the two operating systems has made my MacBook pro's interface worse.

    To me, it is culmination of the split between Jobs and Cook. Jobs wanted to make technology insanely great. Cook wants to make it insanely the same.

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  29. You can see how this went by Hizonner · · Score: 2

    Reasonably intelligent person: Hey, this fingerprint stuff is sensitive. Let's isolate it in separate hardware!

    Non-stupid detail person: ... and since it's specialized hardware and has information we want to control let's lock it down and have it only run code we've signed!

    Well-meaning idiot: ... and since it only runs our code, let's make it More Secure by having zero transparency!

    Fucking worthless moron: ... and since it's More Secure, let's put it in control of more stuff! And add more software! And funnel everything through it! Let's have it run the keyboard! And the camera! And the disk!

    (Intel): ... and let's give it direct network access, too!

    Hacker: Pwnt!

    This pattern happens over and over again at company after company. People build these "secure" enclaves to isolate things, and then as soon as they have them they blow that isolation by shoveling in every damned thing they can think of so everything can be "more secure". And since it's in charge of everything, it has to have control of everything. And then it gets cracked.

    THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO FUCKING WORK!. If you have a sensitive function, you put it in its OWN FUCKING COMPARTMENT. And you give it no more privilege than it needs to do that one thing. You don't dump in a shit-ton of unrelated software into a coprocessor that's trusted for everything (and, by the way, is usually pretty much invisible to the OS).

    Morons.

  30. Apple and FOSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Of the major manufacturers in computers and smart phones, nobody does more for security and user privacy than Apple. It's really commendable.

    HOWEVER...

    There's a lot of other issues still outstanding. Because they never open source the code, you still have to rely on and trust Apple, not only in terms of not backdooring you but also that they have found all the bugs (unlikely). Is that better than trusting other mainstream providers? Probably. Is it ideal? No.

    Apple's whole business model revolves on its closed ecosystem. I get it. It makes sense. But they could open source the code and still keep the ecosystem closed. It would put thousands of more eyes on the code and identify and correct problems faster.

    Sometimes open source on small projects actually is a bad idea and gives attackers valuable information. FOSS projects with only a few people working on them may actually be weaker than proprietary systems. But Apple is one of the largest tech companies on Earth, and after a certain size, the security benefits of FOSS far outweigh those of proprietary.

    Apple should start by opening the source code on previous OS version releases after 1 year. See how it works. See what challenges or benefits emerge. Eventually, maybe they will be willing to open source everything, while still maintaining their (understandable) closed ecosystem.

  31. Re: Full Facebook machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He lies a lot for apple.

  32. Re: Full Facebook machines? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I have absolutely ZERO social media accounts.
    You are mistaken. You have an account on /.
    And I would not wonder if there is one or two more Wiki/Forum/Discussion sites where you have an account. An old delicious account perhaps, or on reddit?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  33. Re: Full Facebook machines? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    I have absolutely ZERO social media accounts.
    You are mistaken. You have an account on /.
    And I would not wonder if there is one or two more Wiki/Forum/Discussion sites where you have an account. An old delicious account perhaps, or on reddit?

    If you consider tech forums "Social media" (more like anti-social media around here!), then I have a VERY few of those (but no Delicious or Reddit); but I consider "Social Media" the usual subjects: Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, etc, which are not "Tech-focused". I don't even know very many, because I just don't give a shit about that stuff.

    I only put up with Slashdot because it's like beating oneself over the head. It feels so good when you stop!

  34. Re: Full Facebook machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only in somebody's dreams.

  35. After Intel ME flaws by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    After Intel ME flaws, Apple ME flaws?

  36. Hooray for OOB vulnerabilities! by sabbede · · Score: 1

    What could go wrong, right?

  37. Re: Full Facebook machines? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Well, look at it this way:
    American immigration officers ask you for your social media account passwords.
    Would they want your /. password, too, or not?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  38. Re: Full Facebook machines? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Well, look at it this way:
    American immigration officers ask you for your social media account passwords.
    Would they want your /. password, too, or not?

    I honestly don't think so.

  39. Re: Full Facebook machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's for interacting with 40-year-old virgins on another continent, so it's one of the safer ones.

  40. Die Intel, Die!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here we go, an ARM zealot (or at least an Intel hater).

    Let me guess, you have been cheerleading for ARM servers for what, a dozen years now? How's that going?

    Your need to inflate your ego construct with the actions of others says a lot about you. Maybe you should consider basing your self-worth on something a bit more solid and closer to home, hmmm?

    I mean, Apple could go with ARM, or AMD, or even build their own CPUs. But what if they stay with Intel? Would you be able to go on living? Or would you have a total meltdown at the mall, over fries and a pop?