4 ms·

I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that

I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. It may be a sound security decision, but I have doubts whether it's worth it for the end user. It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. On the other hand, do all these things matter to users and developers as long as external components are hidden behind buses and abstractions?

tomsmeding 7y ago
> It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. Is this really already an industry trend? It feels more like some parties experimenting with the platform, not necessarily with intentions to move to it wholesale at any point in the future. But I'm probably missing stuff, since I'm not following that space well.
- easygenes 7y ago
  The short answer is that since RISC-V is open source, it's a bypass around all the IP restrictions that are coming from the US-China tradewar and all the Chinese silicon companies want everything to be RISC-V yesterday and it's a strategic priority.
- Laforet 7y ago
  Western Digital has comitted to go 100% RISC-V in the near future, with Seagate and Samsung not far behind. As far as storage devices are concerned there is definitely a trend.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "with Seagate and Samsung not far behind" Reference? I can find one reference to Samsung using Risc v for an IoT thing, and nothing for seagate.
- fluffything 7y ago
  > Is this really already an industry trend? Probably not, or not yet. > It feels more like some parties experimenting with the platform, not necessarily with intentions to move to it wholesale at any point in the future. Some big players are moving / have moved to it already. Western Digital is already replacing its ARM HDD controllers with RISC-V chips, nvidia is replacing some chips in their GPUs with RISC-V chips, etc. These are all shipping products. If you need a chip to do something relatively simple and low cost, you are probably already better off with RISC-V today than you are with ARM mainly because its cheaper and has no licensing issues. I don't know of any big player doing anything complex with RISC-V yet. There is no bit manipulation ISA, no vector ISA, no encryption ISA, ... and many other things that you would need for a general purpose SoC that's not only cheap but also competitive in performance and TDP with ARM.
Torwald 7y ago
> I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. But this is only a feeling. If you look at it rationally, you would have to point out at least one way in which Apple is suffering from third party repairs. Then you would have to make the case how said point is a cost heavy enough to justify these deep architectural changes. Go ahead.
- majewsky 7y ago
  > you would have to point out at least one way in which Apple is suffering from third party repairs When a third party messes up their repairs, it'going to give Apple bad PR because people just see broken Macs. This is not a problem for Windows PCs because enough vendors are involved and they can blame each other when something breaks. With a Mac, it's Apple all the way down, from software to hardware, and 99% of the blame will hit them, no matter how justified that assignment is.
coldtea 7y ago
>I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. Not very cynical: Apple is against "third party repairs" period, and wants to sell you the whole thing as a black box. They also believe that's their whole value proposition: that software and hardware comes as much as possible as a black box, and works well together (not perfect, but better than if it wasn't a black box for the aspects that they focus on - simplicity, integration, security, sandboxing, etc). That's their stance, and they got to where they are from near bankruptcy, sales wise, in pursuit of that. >It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. What "wider industrial trend"?

tomsmeding 7y ago

> It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. Is this really already an industry trend? It feels more like some parties experimenting with the platform, not necessarily with intentions to move to it wholesale at any point in the future. But I'm probably missing stuff, since I'm not following that space well.

easygenes 7y ago
The short answer is that since RISC-V is open source, it's a bypass around all the IP restrictions that are coming from the US-China tradewar and all the Chinese silicon companies want everything to be RISC-V yesterday and it's a strategic priority.
Laforet 7y ago
Western Digital has comitted to go 100% RISC-V in the near future, with Seagate and Samsung not far behind. As far as storage devices are concerned there is definitely a trend.
- benj111 7y ago
  "with Seagate and Samsung not far behind" Reference? I can find one reference to Samsung using Risc v for an IoT thing, and nothing for seagate.
fluffything 7y ago
> Is this really already an industry trend? Probably not, or not yet. > It feels more like some parties experimenting with the platform, not necessarily with intentions to move to it wholesale at any point in the future. Some big players are moving / have moved to it already. Western Digital is already replacing its ARM HDD controllers with RISC-V chips, nvidia is replacing some chips in their GPUs with RISC-V chips, etc. These are all shipping products. If you need a chip to do something relatively simple and low cost, you are probably already better off with RISC-V today than you are with ARM mainly because its cheaper and has no licensing issues. I don't know of any big player doing anything complex with RISC-V yet. There is no bit manipulation ISA, no vector ISA, no encryption ISA, ... and many other things that you would need for a general purpose SoC that's not only cheap but also competitive in performance and TDP with ARM.

Torwald 7y ago

> I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. But this is only a feeling. If you look at it rationally, you would have to point out at least one way in which Apple is suffering from third party repairs. Then you would have to make the case how said point is a cost heavy enough to justify these deep architectural changes. Go ahead.

majewsky 7y ago
> you would have to point out at least one way in which Apple is suffering from third party repairs When a third party messes up their repairs, it'going to give Apple bad PR because people just see broken Macs. This is not a problem for Windows PCs because enough vendors are involved and they can blame each other when something breaks. With a Mac, it's Apple all the way down, from software to hardware, and 99% of the blame will hit them, no matter how justified that assignment is.

coldtea 7y ago

>I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. Not very cynical: Apple is against "third party repairs" period, and wants to sell you the whole thing as a black box. They also believe that's their whole value proposition: that software and hardware comes as much as possible as a black box, and works well together (not perfect, but better than if it wasn't a black box for the aspects that they focus on - simplicity, integration, security, sandboxing, etc). That's their stance, and they got to where they are from near bankruptcy, sales wise, in pursuit of that. >It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. What "wider industrial trend"?