Mac hardware traditionally holds resale value. The T2 chip threatens to turn that hardware into a brick once resold. So beyond that jailbreaking ultimately makes the user's data more secure once Apple repairs and releases a fix (likely only going forward with new hardware) the jailbreak will cure the problem with aftermarket bricks for hardware with this T2 chip.
It's not an intentional anti-resale feature, but it does make repair a lot harder, because it locks (or at least, can lock) specific hardware components to the motherboard. This means if something on the laptop breaks, you can't repair it without the T2 chip knowing about it and potentially refusing to work. Apple has at least told their authorized repair partners that failing to register the repair with Apple may brick the device should Apple choose to further lock down unauthorized repairs in future firmware updates.
The T2 also has a particularly wonky approach to disk encryption. It uses a key management approach where neither you nor Apple control the actual key material. This means that a dead T2 takes your data with it and there is no recovery. In pre-T2 MacBooks, Apple had a lifeboat connector which could be used for data recovery from the soldered-on SSD. They got rid of this with the T2, because there's no point - only that specific T2 in that specific motherboard is ever able to decrypt the data.
Data recovery - in an era where you have to go out of your way to keep your data out of the cloud, backups are easier than ever and can be done wirelessly - this is going to be your major objection?
Please. As for matching parts to the motherboard, they have a point when it comes to I/O devices. It’s probably way more cloak and dagger than most people will ever have to worry about but it’s not unheard of. Again, if you don’t want to think about such things and want a device that trades ease of repair for improved base security why isn’t that something that shouldn’t be a choice?
I’m generally pretty pro right to repair, but as with anything there are pro’s and con’s to all choices and I’m not fond of several of the right to repair arguments for government regulation being made. Apple is far from the only maker of computers out there. It is the only maker of macOS, but that still doesn’t justify people trying to dictate their business model - especially when many aspects of their business models are major reasons why I prefer their platforms.
The cloud is not going to replace local storage until low-latency, high-bandwidth internet connections become widespread and you can do iSCSI or similar with your cloud service. This is not going to happen anytime soon.
Until then, clouds operate on a best-effort basis, some of which rely on hacks or break common use-cases (I can't put a Git repo in iCloud for example, and it doesn't perform well with lots of small files, and accessing the iCloud folder from the terminal apparently has problems). Why is iCloud still not a supported target for Time Machine, Apple's official backup solution for macOS?
But isn't the repair being harder a net-benefit for the consumer? It's not like the repair is arbitrarily harder. It's harder because the repairs in question deal with the TouchID sensor and the SSD, like you said. I wouldn't want someone being able to access my data just by replacing a component on the computer that then bypassed all the security systems present on the computer. It's the same situation as when replaced displays on iPhones were causing issues because repair shops weren't moving over the TouchID sensor. The cost of that security is that I need to have my data backed up but that's a best practice anyways for anyone that values their data.
"You should have had a backup" is not an acceptable excuse for not having a data recovery mechanism. Furthermore, full disk encryption is not bypassable in the way you suggest. Your login password is (supposed to be) the key material for the encryption, which is stored off-device, preferably in your head. In other disk encryption systems that are not locked to a particular encryption chip, if you take the disk out of the machine and plug it into another machine, it won't be readable unless you have that password.
Furthermore, most people do not make this calculation in their head of "Okay, anything I put behind the T2 is Apple's property now so I'd better have unencrypted backups". They just buy the computer that works and says that it keeps thieves and snoops out of their data. Everything we're talking about with backups comes as a post-purchase surprise, usually AFTER the data is already lost.
>Your login password is (supposed to be) the key material for the encryption, which is stored off-device, preferably in your head.
This is referencing the Touch Bar repair which means that the user has encrypted their drive with Touch ID. The only reason any repair would be harder is because the Touch ID sensor is paired to the secure enclave. The same goes for the SSD. Without the key, as you stated, you shouldn't be able to access the data so I don't see how that's any different than "having a data recovery mechanism". A data recovery mechanism shouldn't exist if you don't have the proper keys.
That's a very disingenuous assessment of the situation at hand. Epic knowingly violated their developer agreement. There was no retaliation. There was the consequences that were written into the developer agreement that Epic agreed to.
Apple revoked the developer accounts that Epic uses, so Epic could no longer notarize their (unrelated, MacOS desktop) software. No matter what you think about the lawsuit, you have to admit that Apple used their position of power to strong-arm the competition, and went against their promises to end-users regarding notarization.
They revoked the developer accounts because Epic intentionally violated the rules of those accounts. What you're doing by blaming Apple amounts to blaming the police for arresting a criminal that broke the law. Epic knew ahead of the time what the consequences were for violating the agreement and they knowingly did that. There was no strong-arming involved. The judge even stated in her initial briefing that Epic overstepped their bounds and didn't even need to do what they did to file their lawsuit. The only reason they did it was to try and stir up a PR storm but that backfired on them.
Apple promised to the users (not Epic) they would only use notarization to block harmful software. Epic's software is not harmful to the user, and the lawsuit didn't change anything about that.
> Epic knowingly violated their developer agreement. There was no retaliation
I think you don't understand how this works. The agreement itself is the subject of the lawsuit and thus MUST be violated in order to show harm. Epic did it on purpose in order to sue Apple and whether you agree with that or not, it is the only mechanism the law allows to make the agreement itself the subject of the suit. And Epic does have a right to sue Apple for whatever reason they choose.
This is quite incorrect. Epic can already demonstrate financial harm due to the 30% fee that Apple has been collecting. They did not also need to break the agreement in order to bring the lawsuit. The judge literally recommended they cure the breach and put Fortnite back on the App Store while the lawsuit was pending.
> macOS will deprecate older Macs 6-7 years after their release.
This is substantially inaccurate. Current versions of macOS run on nearly all Apple systems from 2012 (8 years old), with the exception of some 2012 Mac Pros. The limiting factor in most cases is GPUs -- macOS 10.14 and later require some GPU capabilities which weren't reliably available in 2012.
Catalina, released in October 2019, dropped support for MacBooks released before 2015, MacBook Air models from before mid-2012, MacBook Pro models from before mid-2012, Mac Minis from before late 2012, and Mac Pros from before late 2013[1]. Do the math and that is 5 to 7 years between initial release of the hardware and deprecation by macOS.
> dropped support for MacBooks released before 2015
Those machines were all sold in 2011 or earlier. Saying "before 2015" is misleading, because the MacBook name was used during two disjoint periods to refer to two completely different machines.
Between 2006 and mid-2011, the MacBook brand name was used for a line of low-cost Core 2 laptops, most of which had plastic cases. (Some sales to schools continued through 2012.) These are the laptops which were not supported by macOS 10.14 and later.
Between mid-2011 and 2015, there were no computers sold under the MacBook brand. Apple only sold laptops under the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro brands during this period.
In 2015, Apple reused the MacBook brand name for a line of 12" ultraportable laptops. These are supported under current releases of macOS.
My point is that, in this context, "models released before 2015" really means "models released before 2012", because there were no MacBook computers on the market between 2012 and 2015. Using the phrasing "released before 2015" implies that there were some MacBooks from 2014 which Apple dropped support for, which is not the case.
