10 ms·
macOS updates for Apple Silicon Macs are larger than reported
- roody15 3y agoI am uneasy with the idea that a more locked version of a Mac m1 or m2 based has 1.1 gig download that appears to be individualized and must be downloaded directly from Apple.
- audiodude 3y agoBut why do Apple Silicon macs require an addition 1.1 GB of updates?
- mike_d 3y agoBecause the original download is a combined Intel+Non platform specific data. It then downloads the ARM specific binaries.
- arcticbull 3y agoI don’t think that’s exactly right, I think the second ARM package is personalized, ie, signed by apple for your device. That’s why it’s not cacheable per the article.
- mike_d 3y agoSix of one, half dozen of another.
- arcticbull 3y agoNot trying to be pedantic but the intel package has everything you need, it’s equivalent to packages 1 and 2 from the ARM update. I don’t think ARM package 1 contains any intel code at all.
- mike_d 3y agoI'm just going by what the article says. Feel free to disagree with the author if you have better data.
- arcticbull 3y agoMy comment is supported by the article. > …but the second 1.1 GB always has to be downloaded direct from Apple’s software update servers and can’t be served from the cache, making it slower to download. Why can’t it be cached? Because it’s unique per device. Only thing that makes sense. There’s no reason to think the ARM package is supplemental binaries to overlay on top of an Intel package in the way your original comment stated. All the article says is Intel gets 1 500mb package, ARM gets two packages, a 700mb and a 1.1GB. It doesn’t opine on the contents. All we know is that Intel gets 1 cacheable package and ARM gets 2, 1 cacheable and one not, and that the Intel one happens to be roughly the same size - but not exactly - as one of the ARM ones.
- TazeTSchnitzel 3y agoThe “Intel” version actually contains a lot of Arm-specific code in Universal Binary form.
- bitwize 3y agoProbably because Apple Silicon is the only ISA platform Apple still has fucks to give about. I keep running headlong into driver bugs on Intel Macs -- that work just fine on Apple Silicon.
- speed_spread 3y agoIts okay, they'll switch ISA again in a few years then ARM will get parity with Intel in updates
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoCalling 15 years “a few” is a tad dramatic.
- heavyset_go 3y agoI don't think it'll take 15 years for RISC-V processors to be competitive with ARM.
- epcoa 3y agoWhat’s the point if they’re merely competitive? There has to be some compelling advantage - why would Apple throw out their ARM ISA for RISC-V. Unlike other companies the licensing isn’t really an issue.
- smoldesu 3y agoWell, Apple already designs their own processors; the math also works out for them to cut out the middleman with ARM if you disregard their Softbank relationship. They don't rely on Cortex designs like Qualcomm and they already have extended the ISA for their own purposes. It appears that Apple could stand to benefit from an ISA they can truly control. Whether it's worth another transition is unclear, but Apple's desire for control over their digital supply chain is obvious. It's not like you can argue that they can't pull off a RISC transition, either.
- Someone 3y agoThey may be running multiple updaters. https://eclecticlight.co/2021/12/15/how-recovery-works-on-m1-series-macs/ https://eclecticlight.co/2021/12/15/how-recovery-works-on-m1... (emphasis added): “for M1 models, their ‘firmware’ update also brings a new Recovery system which is based on the latest macOS, in this case 12.0.1 even when the update is 11.6.1”
- dangus 3y agoI imagine it isn’t a surprise that a company as philosophically dedicated to the graphical user interface as Apple wouldn’t prioritize a non-breaking bug fix for the command line update tool.
- abhayhegde 3y agoIn general, what causes Apple Silicon Macs to have a larger update size than the Intel Macs?
- aslilac 3y agoARM binaries in general tend to be a bit larger fwiw.
- KingLancelot 3y ago[dead]
- saagarjha 3y agoPerhaps it’s the personalized part of the update?
- MBCook 3y agoI’ve never heard the software updates are personalized. Can you give a source? I’m not sure what it would be for. “According to the logged in iCloud account this user likes reggae, thriller movies, and paint programs. So… don’t patch flaw X7b-9?”
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoI can't see it either, but the bit about it not being cachable would seem to lend credence to the idea. Maybe they did something weird like signing/encrypting it with a per-device key? Not that I can see why they'd do that...
- saagarjha 3y agoI believe this is to prevent replay attacks?
- oefrha 3y agoiOS apps, and by extension, app updates are encrypted with a per-account key. No idea why it would be done for system updates though. iOS system update .ipsw’s certainly aren’t.
- saagarjha 3y agoApps are encrypted as a DRM scheme. iOS updates aren’t encrypted but are authorized based on your hardware ID.
- bdavbdav 3y agoThey’re signed with a key from the CPU per device.
- swosh 3y agoCould be rosetta-related since that part is unique to the m1 macs
- lapcat 3y agoIt's not. Rosetta is quite small and is installed separately. You can install Rosetta yourself from the command-line with softwareupdate --install-rosetta https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/Rosetta.html https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/Rosetta.html
- zapzupnz 3y agoThat's merely the mechanism to enable running Intel software. Many of the system frameworks and a few of the built-in application extensions are universal binaries, so there's quite a portion of Intel code installed on the system. Same thing happened with the PPC transition; 10.4.5 to 10.5.8 had a lot of PowerPC code even without Rosetta installed.
- djxfade 3y agoWhich makes sense, since users have come to expect software to be portable. Let's say you have an Intel machine, and an Apple Silicon machine. You could then install software to a portable USB drive, and run it on both devices.
- lapcat 3y agoThe Signed System Volume is exactly the same everywhere, on Intel and Apple Silicon Macs. It doesn't selectively install architecture-specific binaries. The "personalization" is basically firmware updates specific to your Mac. These are a lot bigger and more complicated on Apple silicon than on Intel. You can see this with the --downloadassets argument to the createinstallmedia tool: https://scriptingosx.com/2018/10/include-assets-in-external-macos-installer-drives/ https://scriptingosx.com/2018/10/include-assets-in-external-... The same thing happens with iOS updates.
- 3y ago
- paulmd 3y agothe size of the 2nd update is a bit smaller than the first (if you include both uarchs). Maybe a XOR decryption key for the first set? Bootloader, then (Intel+Apple files) XOR version-key or my-key? I am thinking of the secure mode boot attestation, and extensions that want you to disable that and allow custom kexts, etc. It makes sense that maybe the x86 stuff might be there just in case of rosetta needing to do something. No idea but seems plausible that they want to have the fork there. there definitely is some kind of per-instance registration of which laptop has which version, iphones similarly have a very visible "requesting update" state. Apple has secure boot on all their shit for a long time, they have hardware attestation and the OS will report when it's been updated, and they can monitor attempts for rollback attacks unless the laptop has been Startup Config > Security policy changed to allow insecure mode and older/non-signed/non-apple OSs or custom extensions etc. Apple legitimately did build a very secure default system, you can unlock it but you do have to go out of your way to go into bios etc, by default they will very aggressively assume that apple signing = on and version go forward. Which if any of those files are bit-identical when received by different laptop identifier instances (via wireshark or w/e)? Like "it has to be downloaded from apple" is that because it's custom to your hardware instance? Is there a common file image and then a mask, or is the second thing a giant blob of binaries that's the same for everyone, or what? Or just can't tell because it's encrypted or something?
- Thorrez 3y ago>Maybe a XOR decryption key for the first set? Gigabytes of keys? I hope Apple isn't wasting tons of bandwidth to achieve information-theoretical security that's no more secure than than 256-bit AES in practice.
- dcow 3y agoIt doesn't even make sense anyway. If the cacheable content was encrypted with a per-device key it wouldn’t be cacheable, obviously.
- tiffanyh 3y agoAPFS (Apple filesystem) calculates free/used space in a non-intuitive way which causes users to be confused about file size. Link from the same publication on this exact topic. https://eclecticlight.co/2020/04/09/where-did-all-that-free-space-go-on-my-apfs-disk/ https://eclecticlight.co/2020/04/09/where-did-all-that-free-...
- ggm 3y agoThis is a little like a system which says "we will use all free space behind your filesystems linear maximal extent as swap" and then discovering it gobbled all your freespace and DF reports you have no space. As long as the space comes back when you need it, you don't have to care. But, time machine, and swap both have a habit of grabbing stuff at high privilege you can't always directly impact without using abstruse methods. So, in practice while you can say "it doesn't matter" it can matter, depending: it can cause dismay, and it can interfere with your otherwise normal use of the machine. "free" space being contextualised isn't entirely nice. better to be clear how its consumed, than say its free.
- kkarakk 3y agoisn't this by design coz apple's business practice includes storage upsell? if you are an avg mac consumer running out of space constantly and hitting that issue- you ask support/genius and they tell you to buy a bigger capacity more expensive mac or icloud storage as one of their "solutions".
- coldtea 3y agoObviously no, because that's a very dubious way of getting sales. (a) An issue that the vast majority of the users wont ever see. (b) Those that would see it, would only see it after they already bought a Mac (with no storage upgrade option available to them to buy from Apple for their current Mac). (c) So Apple's is hoping that a handful of those would do what? Buy a new Mac immediately? Totally unlikely. Get their next Macs 2-5 years down the line with more disk space? (d) And all that combined with Apple already doing several things for the macOS to need less disk space, like the "sent online, storage restored, downloadable on demand" files feature introduced in the last OS, or a couple of rounds of prunning of the OS install size. In general this is the kind of conspiracy theory that totally misunderstands business tactics, their feasibility, and their margin for profit.
- ggm 3y agoThe thing is, Apple has been here before with at least 2 architecture transitions under it's belt. Motorola 68000 -> PowerPC -> Intel -> Arm -So they have lived this "how do we bundle upgrades, cross architecture" for some time.
- Demiurge 3y agoI wonder, how many engineers with hands on experience on the PowerPC to intel transition are still around? I suspect Apple is benefitting from software layers and testing infrastructure, rather than institutional knowledge in this ARM transition. It’s just a guess though, I’d love to be corrected by someone with direct knowledge.
- ggm 3y agoBandwidth/Quota constrained people are by now a small minority of Mac users. Vocal but they don't define the market. I have yet to flood my disk, 6 macs down the line from Intel onward (I missed PowerPC) but its work. I help some people who own them for domestic use and I can understand their hesitancy to just let data happen.
- TazeTSchnitzel 3y agoThey're probably benefitting more from the cross-platform architecture they inherited from NeXT than from anything from the pre-NeXT days. Though the fact the company had been through one architecture transition already probably influenced the decision to maintain the portability just in case (Mac OS X ran on x86 from the start).
- offices 3y agoI agree. Mac OS and Windows alike seem to have shifted towards being developed by people who don't grok the whole OS and the context for how it got to where it is today. Former engineers being promoted or retiring (often as young millionaires), the growing size of the timeline/code size & cross-pollination of ideas from other OSes.
- 3y ago
- sneak 3y ago> its ‘software update brain’ calls for the second download, whose size is written only in the log This is also when it personalizes its boot signature (ticket) for your specific CPU via the TSS server. This is done by transmitting your ECID (a hardware serial number for your CPU) to Apple. This is done over unencrypted plaintext port 80, allowing anyone who is passively monitoring all internet backbone traffic to associate that (and every other!) serial number with the client IP (and thus city level location). It also permits Apple to associate every ECID with a client IP and city level geolocation (and timestamp). I have reported this behavior to Apple on multiple occasions and yet the plaintext transmission continues. Apple does not permit apps in the App Store that behave like this, but Apple's own insecure boot loader updater is exempt from this security policy apparently. https://sneak.berlin/20220409/apple-is-still-tracking-you-without-consent/ https://sneak.berlin/20220409/apple-is-still-tracking-you-wi...
- trollied 3y agoApple silicon offloads processing to its various sub-engines (neural ones etc). Intel Macs don't have these. I imagine the extra space will be ML models + other associated stuff.
- smoldesu 3y agoI don't think this is it. Those systems may require larger drivers for Apple Silicon, but Intel Macs should be perfectly capable of running CoreML models too. I'm unaware of any Apple Silicon-exclusive AI features on Mac (last I used it).
- trollied 3y agoJust 1 example from a google: https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/07/macos-ventura-apple-silicon-features/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/07/macos-ventura-apple-silicon-f... There are plenty more.
- bdavbdav 3y agoI’m not sure any (large) ML models as such are bundled.
- edandersen 3y agoWell over 1GB for the Ventura 13.5.1 update and it takes 20 minutes to install on my M1 Pro MBP. "macOS Ventura 13.5.1 fixes an issue in System Settings that prevents location permissions from appearing." I never thought I'd appreciate Windows Update but on there this would be less than 100MB and take 5 minutes to install...
- gbil 3y agoExactly that and then they announced their rapid security response updates with some hope for change but... nope, still needing a reboot for browser updates!
- greggsy 3y agoThe reboot is required because Safari is managed through a signed security volume (SSV). Unfortunately the inconvenience of that security feature means that most users will avoid patching, which defeats the purpose. The requirement to reboot is supposedly fixed in Sonoma, with discrete ‘cryptexes’. https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=3xpv8r2m https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=3xpv8r2m
- daneel_w 3y agoSometimes you need a reboot for updating Safari, sometimes not. It depends on what components of it that are updated. Some of the stuff Safari uses are protected system resources that lie outside the application bundle itself, and I personally think the security scheme behind this is great.
- tpmx 3y agoThose 20 minutes combined with the (out-of-the-box) inability to schedule an update at a certain time is one of the more annoying aspects of macOS.
- ahoka 3y agoLet's just grab a coffee before my daily call and I get back to the dreaded update progress bar.
- mro_name 3y agothis, the mere size and constant growth annoys me a lot about those megacorp products. Thanks for the writeup.
- raverbashing 3y agoLarger binary sizes for ARM? Is Thumb still a thing? Still, a binary diff update would be helpful, especially since Apple seems to have more control over the system files. Maybe reproducible builds would help so you wouldn't end up with meaningless diffs
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoThumb were 16bit instructions for their ARM7 TDMI 32bit microcontrollers. Very different beasts to the Aarch64.
- sgerenser 3y agoThumb is still a thing, but not on Aarch64. For the most part it’s only relevant on the tiny M-class (low power embedded) Arm parts.
- h0l0cube 3y agoWhat’s more scandalous are the 10+ gig Xcode updates. What justifies this absurd payload size for every minor version upgrade?
- nonethewiser 3y agoThat is crazy. Im also bitter that you basically need xcode for git on macOS
- dubcanada 3y agoYou need the developer tools (like 2.5gb), or homebrew.
- murphyslaw 3y agoA lot of homebrew installs (those from code) require Apple's compile time stuff which only xcode has.
- sigzero 3y agoYou can only install the command line tools now. You don't need a full blown Xcode install.
- daneel_w 3y agoNo, you can build pretty much everything from homebrew using just the command line developer tools. It's been like that for 7-8 years, if not more. Off the top of my head I've only once ever run into a homebrew recipe requiring "xcodebuild" to proceed.
- daneel_w 3y agoIf it's just git and the compiler environment ("SDK") you need then the command line developer tools suffice. The download is something like 700 MiB.
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago