4 ms·

It's possible that Apple could whitelist the CPU in the BIOS so that the system does not boot if you replace the CPU with one that isn't "approved."

• astrodust 13y ago
  About as likely as Microsoft being run by lizard people.
  • oakwhiz 13y ago
    How so?
    • superuser2 13y ago
      Apple's closed-ness is mostly about protecting the user experience. - OSX is only available on relatively expensive Apple hardware because Apple sets (high) minimum standards on quality and "official" OSX on shitty hardware would pollute the brand. - iOS apps are sandboxed and the App Store is curated to protect users from scammy/spammy/malicious apps. - OSX enforces code signing, again, to protect users from malware. It can be switched off by users who demonstrate clear intent and understanding of the consequences. - Parts that are non-user-serviceable are usually that way to achieve smaller form factor and higher capacities. The reason for non-user-serviceable batteries, for example, is that batteries are bags of dangerous chemicals inside of heavy and thick protective cases. Making the entire laptop the "case" for the battery lets them get larger batteries in less space and weight. That it cannot be safely removed by a nontechnical user is a side-effect. Your comment attributes a sort of "inverse FSF" religious sentiment to Apple, as if they make things closed and locked down just for the hell of it, because they believe in closedness the way Stallman believes in freedom. Reality indicates that most of their restrictions are about protecting users who don't know better.... you're not going to "accidentally" replace your CPU. There's no legitimate problem that would be solved by whitelisting processors. Could they do it? Yes, but only if they exhibited some sort of fanatic obsession with preventing users from achieving what they want even when it serves no other purpose. Which would be stupid. Hence, it's as likely as Microsoft being run by lizard people :).
      • barrkel 13y ago
        When I bought my MBA back in 2011 or so, I wanted 4G of memory. I didn't want a bigger SSD, but I had to get one - no choice. I didn't want a faster processor, but I had to get one - no choice. I ended up paying a lot more for stuff I didn't want or need, simply because the device wasn't upgradeable - not by the user nor the store I bought it from. How was my user experience? What was Apple's profit? Apple segment their product range just like any sensible company. There's a range of products that increase in power, and in profit margin. People who can afford to buy the highest end products end up paying over the odds, because they're usually the least sensitive to price. This doesn't mean that Apple is about user experience. Frankly, that's hogwash. They're about corporate profit, in the medium term. And if people end up buying lower end devices and upgrading it themselves, I can easily see them seeing this as a lost profit opportunity, and doing something like whitelisting. It's little different than Intel eventually getting around to locking down frequency multipliers, and selling unlocked chips at a premium.
        • Bud 13y ago
          You are the one who made the choice to get the tiniest, slimmest computer available. You made that choice. Don't come griping now that you had no choice: you did. You chose to get a computer so conveniently slender that, as an inevitable and obvious consequence, there was not room in the design for socketed RAM. Quit your griping and enjoy what you bought, or buy a slightly larger machine that has room for more upgradable components.
          • barrkel 13y ago
            Are you a laptop designer? How do you know it's not possible? FWIW, it wasn't the tiniest slimmest computer available, and I already had a lighter PC laptop that also had a DVD drive (Toshiba Portege). It was one of the lighter options that ran OS X, but only a handful do by design. If I could have gotten something slightly bigger, lighter and with more upgradeable components, I would have. But Apple didn't sell it. In any case, this is missing the point. You're reacting to what you perceive as my griping. But I'm not actually griping. My point is that Apple is motivated by profit, and divides the hardware they produce with market segmentation. If they get the segmentation wrong, or if there is a bunch more profit that can be extracted by segmenting it differently, they'll extract it, like any company should. Limited hardware expandability is a part of that segmentation, as it reduces the bleed of low-margin parts into high-margin segments.
• userbinator 13y ago
  IBM/Lenovo has been doing this with their wireless cards, I wouldn't doubt Apple on this either. But instead of it being a whitelist it could just be they decided to strip out support/detection for all other members of the CPU family.
  • oakwhiz 13y ago
    HP has also been doing this with wireless cards.
    • emocakes 13y ago
      This is because of the FCC, not evil vendors.
      • dingaling 13y ago
        As far as I know it's restricted to HP and Lenovo. Dell certainly don't use whitelisting, I've changed innumerable wifi and 3G cards in Dell Latitude and Vostro laptops over the years without problems. And few of them were Dell-branded versions. So how come only two vendors have problems with the FCC?
        • oakwhiz 13y ago
          It also occurs on specific laptop models that are not sold in the US (where the FCC is not the wireless authority)