3 ms·

> It should be possible to buy a license for macOS for non-Apple PC's that includes a number of drivers to make it work. This will literally NEVER happen and i

by apfsx 7y ago

> It should be possible to buy a license for macOS for non-Apple PC's that includes a number of drivers to make it work. This will literally NEVER happen and it makes me so sad. Apple would rather drop macOS completely then let this happen. In my opinion this is also the only reason for the T1/T2 security chips on the recent Macs. Yes I understand the other features of the T1/T2 chip (secure boot, touch id, etc) but to me these have got to be bullshit reasons. There is no reason why Apple's special little security chip should be controlling the exposure of your webcam[0]. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862

xkemp 7y ago
I've been using a "Hackintosh" desktop for the last five years, and once it was set up, it has worked flawlessly. That includes all the hardware except the Intel Bluetooth, which was replaced by a tiny dongle that came with something or other. Even the yearly major update has never been a problem. It's far less hassle than my last Linux-on-Desktop attempts, even though Apple isn't even trying. So that would seem to be evidence against your theory that Apple is concerned about people running MacOS on generic hardware. While some cryptographic hardware would indeed be needed to reliably prevent such shenanigans, I'm somewhat certain they could sabotage such systems with minimal effort and raise the pain to levels where it's just not worth it. They don't even bother to, say, check the CPU and refuse to run on AMD. That could probably be done in a single line of sourcecode. Not doing anything like that and instead designing custom silicone just isn't rational behaviour.
- apfsx 7y ago
  I think the reason you've been having a good Hackintosh experience is solely because of the amazing Hackintosh community and the advancements that have been made within these past few years. I've been involved in that community for a little over 10 years now. Sometime back we did not have these incredible tools (new bootloaders like Clover/Open Core, vastly improved audio/storage/graphics kexts, advanced SSDT/DSDT tools & patching) that now in its current state make Hackintosh much easier and straightforward. I agree with you that Apple hasn't been actively going against the community but its definitely begun. To approach what you said about sabotaging the Hackintosh systems with minimal effort... they definitely wouldn't just start pushing software updates hunting for Hackintosh systems. It would work but it'd be feeding more into the cat and mouse games we see. (This behavior is not out of line with them... see their war on iPhone app sideloading & iPhone jailbreaking). The best approach would be to begin integrating these chips in the lineup and soon enough after some generations of new hardware and software, Mac's without these chips won't be supported by macOS. Effectively choking out the Hackintosh community silently.
  - ValentineC 7y ago
    Apple has deprecated kernel extensions [1], but I'm sure the Hackintosh community will soon find a way around it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22251076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22251076
simonh 7y ago
>There is no reason why Apple's special little security chip should be controlling the exposure of your webcam... Er, yes there is. The custom image signal processor on the T2 enables the face detection feature that drives tone and white balance mapping _on_ _faces_. That requires custom silicon to do in real time. The T2 is a custom ARM chip, so I expect the image signal processor is a subsystem taken from one of the recent iPhone chips, which also have hardware enabled dynamic face detection and mapping.
- gumby 7y ago
  There are no depth cameras on any Macs. The Tx chips manage fingerprints the way the iPhone button did.
  - zenexer 7y ago
    I think simonh is saying it was economical for them to re-use the design from the iPhone ICs, which do handle facial recognition. That sounds pretty dubious to me, though.
    - gumby 7y ago
      I assume they used a version of the the iPhone button which included a Secure Enclave and finger recognition bonded to the sensor. However the T1/T2 do other stuff like disk encryption that AFAIK the phone does not have. The two devices (iOS devices and Macs) share quite a bit of DNA but have many different design criteria.
  - simonh 7y ago
    I suppose they could be lying, but I've no reason to suspect that and this is what they say. There are ways to do facial recognition and mapping for this sort of thing with a single camera and no 3D sensor, it's just not as good.
gumby 7y ago
Apple could have trivially blocked hackintoshes but couldn’t be bothered doing so as they constitute a trivial number of devices. The Tx chips may indeed spell the end of hackintoshes (I hope not, but who knows) but I’m sure hackintoshes played no role in any decision to use them.

by apfsx 7y ago

xkemp 7y ago

I've been using a "Hackintosh" desktop for the last five years, and once it was set up, it has worked flawlessly. That includes all the hardware except the Intel Bluetooth, which was replaced by a tiny dongle that came with something or other. Even the yearly major update has never been a problem. It's far less hassle than my last Linux-on-Desktop attempts, even though Apple isn't even trying. So that would seem to be evidence against your theory that Apple is concerned about people running MacOS on generic hardware. While some cryptographic hardware would indeed be needed to reliably prevent such shenanigans, I'm somewhat certain they could sabotage such systems with minimal effort and raise the pain to levels where it's just not worth it. They don't even bother to, say, check the CPU and refuse to run on AMD. That could probably be done in a single line of sourcecode. Not doing anything like that and instead designing custom silicone just isn't rational behaviour.

apfsx 7y ago
I think the reason you've been having a good Hackintosh experience is solely because of the amazing Hackintosh community and the advancements that have been made within these past few years. I've been involved in that community for a little over 10 years now. Sometime back we did not have these incredible tools (new bootloaders like Clover/Open Core, vastly improved audio/storage/graphics kexts, advanced SSDT/DSDT tools & patching) that now in its current state make Hackintosh much easier and straightforward. I agree with you that Apple hasn't been actively going against the community but its definitely begun. To approach what you said about sabotaging the Hackintosh systems with minimal effort... they definitely wouldn't just start pushing software updates hunting for Hackintosh systems. It would work but it'd be feeding more into the cat and mouse games we see. (This behavior is not out of line with them... see their war on iPhone app sideloading & iPhone jailbreaking). The best approach would be to begin integrating these chips in the lineup and soon enough after some generations of new hardware and software, Mac's without these chips won't be supported by macOS. Effectively choking out the Hackintosh community silently.
- ValentineC 7y ago
  Apple has deprecated kernel extensions [1], but I'm sure the Hackintosh community will soon find a way around it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22251076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22251076

simonh 7y ago

>There is no reason why Apple's special little security chip should be controlling the exposure of your webcam... Er, yes there is. The custom image signal processor on the T2 enables the face detection feature that drives tone and white balance mapping _on_ _faces_. That requires custom silicon to do in real time. The T2 is a custom ARM chip, so I expect the image signal processor is a subsystem taken from one of the recent iPhone chips, which also have hardware enabled dynamic face detection and mapping.

gumby 7y ago
There are no depth cameras on any Macs. The Tx chips manage fingerprints the way the iPhone button did.
- zenexer 7y ago
  I think simonh is saying it was economical for them to re-use the design from the iPhone ICs, which do handle facial recognition. That sounds pretty dubious to me, though.
  - gumby 7y ago
    I assume they used a version of the the iPhone button which included a Secure Enclave and finger recognition bonded to the sensor. However the T1/T2 do other stuff like disk encryption that AFAIK the phone does not have. The two devices (iOS devices and Macs) share quite a bit of DNA but have many different design criteria.
- simonh 7y ago
  I suppose they could be lying, but I've no reason to suspect that and this is what they say. There are ways to do facial recognition and mapping for this sort of thing with a single camera and no 3D sensor, it's just not as good.

gumby 7y ago

Apple could have trivially blocked hackintoshes but couldn’t be bothered doing so as they constitute a trivial number of devices. The Tx chips may indeed spell the end of hackintoshes (I hope not, but who knows) but I’m sure hackintoshes played no role in any decision to use them.