4 ms·

It's just like the keyboard in a sense. Before the keyboard problems were a wildly-acknowledged issue I had to listen to people online argue that the field fai

It's just like the keyboard in a sense. Before the keyboard problems were a wildly-acknowledged issue I had to listen to people online argue that the field failure rate was perfectly fine, when they didn't know either the actual failure rate nor know anything about reliability engineering. Maybe the failure rate is fine, maybe it's not. All we know right now is that they added an additional single point of failure. The _very best case scneario_ for Apple is that they understood they were adding a single point of failure, ran the math to find what the increased expected failure rate would be (basic statistics say they definitionally raised it), and decided they didn't give enough fucks to do anything differently. I'm perfectly fine with with a person who frequently deals with the people experiencing that failure doing some old fashioned New York shittalking towards that design decision.

close04 6y ago
> Maybe the failure rate is fine, maybe it's not. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I can just pick the second option. This is like digging up an old comment and saying "it's like when you were wrong that time". > All we know right now is that they added an additional single point of failure. Do we know that? TPM and encryption are also single points of failure, for your data at least. Apple didn't add that to increase the failure rate, they added it to have more control and to offer features that differentiate them from most other OEMs using COTS components for this. They did the same with phones, TouchID and FaceID, the secure enclave, things that gave Apple enough control to turn the iPhone into the gold standard for keeping your data secure on a phone. It stands to reason that they want to do the same on laptops.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  >I can just pick the second option. Sure. I prefer to live in the possibility space of uncertainty. Until something comes along to reduce that uncertainty. >TPM and encryption are also single points of failure, for your data at least Indeed they are. >Apple didn't add that to increase the failure rate, That's never the goal, but every design decision shifts the likelihood of certain failure types up and down. As I said before, the best case scenario is that Apple ran the math/experimentation to quantity it and was happy with their balance of likelihood of various failures. You can argue until you're blue in the face Apple chose well. That's fine, doesn't mean someone who is close to the pain of end users experiencing failure is acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you. Your last paragraph is just an ends justify the engineering-means argument. I don't find those interesting anymore.
  - close04 6y ago
    > You can argue until you're blue in the face [...] doesn't mean someone who is close to the pain of end users experiencing failure is acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you Since you didn't actually provide any evidence either way (and nobody did to my knowledge) it stands to reason that indeed your only point is to argue. There's no reason to assume Apple introduced something like the T2 chip for any other reason than to offer genuinely useful features to users and profit from it. Genuine criticism should be based on more than "maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong". Otherwise it's just shilling. ...And losing an argument, whether you found it interesting or not. Care to see how others read your "brilliant" maybe this, maybe that "argument"? All manufacturers should offer no features to have no point of failure. Any single addition to any product can only be another point that can fail. Thus it should be assumed by default that this must be the intention of every manufacturer. It even begs the conclusion that all of them are the same so singling one out is purely grudge based.

close04 6y ago

> Maybe the failure rate is fine, maybe it's not. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I can just pick the second option. This is like digging up an old comment and saying "it's like when you were wrong that time". > All we know right now is that they added an additional single point of failure. Do we know that? TPM and encryption are also single points of failure, for your data at least. Apple didn't add that to increase the failure rate, they added it to have more control and to offer features that differentiate them from most other OEMs using COTS components for this. They did the same with phones, TouchID and FaceID, the secure enclave, things that gave Apple enough control to turn the iPhone into the gold standard for keeping your data secure on a phone. It stands to reason that they want to do the same on laptops.

finnthehuman 6y ago
>I can just pick the second option. Sure. I prefer to live in the possibility space of uncertainty. Until something comes along to reduce that uncertainty. >TPM and encryption are also single points of failure, for your data at least Indeed they are. >Apple didn't add that to increase the failure rate, That's never the goal, but every design decision shifts the likelihood of certain failure types up and down. As I said before, the best case scenario is that Apple ran the math/experimentation to quantity it and was happy with their balance of likelihood of various failures. You can argue until you're blue in the face Apple chose well. That's fine, doesn't mean someone who is close to the pain of end users experiencing failure is acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you. Your last paragraph is just an ends justify the engineering-means argument. I don't find those interesting anymore.
- close04 6y ago
  > You can argue until you're blue in the face [...] doesn't mean someone who is close to the pain of end users experiencing failure is acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you Since you didn't actually provide any evidence either way (and nobody did to my knowledge) it stands to reason that indeed your only point is to argue. There's no reason to assume Apple introduced something like the T2 chip for any other reason than to offer genuinely useful features to users and profit from it. Genuine criticism should be based on more than "maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong". Otherwise it's just shilling. ...And losing an argument, whether you found it interesting or not. Care to see how others read your "brilliant" maybe this, maybe that "argument"? All manufacturers should offer no features to have no point of failure. Any single addition to any product can only be another point that can fail. Thus it should be assumed by default that this must be the intention of every manufacturer. It even begs the conclusion that all of them are the same so singling one out is purely grudge based.