> It’s quite clear – Welcome to the future of Apple’s hybrid ARM/x86 platform
Meaning, in a nutshell, that we have two different system "loading" policies (the ARM policy and the x86 policy) having fun together on the same disk? Three if you count macOS and EFI as two different systems really.
So naturally this would make disk imaging complex. Seriously, why wasn't this documented (or better documented)?
I'm quite impressed with the author's polite tone. His list of unanswered questions is mind boggling.
[edit: perhaps not "mind boggling" ... maybe just alarming is a better term]
Becomes less mind boggling when you take this hint that Apple genuinely doesn't care about their machines being used in scenarios that require this anymore.
The Chromebook Pixel 2 is absolutely gorgeous, but it still comes with a prohibitively small SSD. They need to develop their own super-robust and sexy Linux distro and drop the ChromeOS nonsense.
I just can't figure out why they aren't doing this.
There could be many reasons. Off the top of my head:
* Google is not a devices company (disregarding recent forays into the the high end smartphone market), but a services company. It's not in their DNA to this, and it doesn't fit their (current) business model. The don't have the required hardware competences, nor the required sales or distribution organisations.
* Even if Google had the required competences to do this, it's highly doubtful that it's a worthwhile pursuit. The "pro" market is not big, its probably not growing, and the competition is fierce. To the extend that Apple neglects this market, its probably because the ROI is too low. To make hardware that seriously challenges Apple (and other PC manufacturers) requires large investments.
* It doesn't support Google's other businesses. Google is already present on all the existing platforms. They are not going to sell more ads doing this.
That would be great, but I don't think they have the expertise in-house for that right now -- they'd have to ramp up and that's a slow process.
Hardly ever had such problems on machines I was able to manage myself.
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "forced updating"; the W10 upgrade or just regular updates?
Would I like the system design be more open and better documented? Sure. But if a security feature doesn't work when the clock is set 45 years in the past… is not concerning per se.
> Good news everyone: Mac imaging isn't dead... yet.
Also the article title doesn't mention breaking anything. So why does the title of the HN post say disk imaging has been broken?
All we know, there's a word "pro" in marketing materials (includes product names). Who they actually target with that is Apple's internal affairs, and everyone should judge for himself, whether it matches one's requirements.
Some people are fine with X limitation, but that doesn't mean they aren't "serious" users.
Some people find limitation X to be a deal breaker, but that doesn't invalidate "pro" status of everyone else.
> All we know, there's a word "pro" in marketing materials (includes product names). Who they actually target with that is Apple's internal affairs, and everyone should judge for himself, whether it matches one's requirements.
So nowadays Apple's "pro" is more like the "pro" in Playstation Pro.
If Apple plays fast and loose with this as a marketing term only, when will this "pro" market open to competition? I suppose it already has, judging from this article.
I am a pro and I never need this.
My employer (a 20,000+ employee healthcare system) issues me a MacBook Pro, but the client techs have to do heroics do manage it, compared to the Thinkpads that are normally issued. I'm happy to have the choice (I actually like the Thinkpad hardware better, but OSX is better suited to my workflow as a developer compared to Windows), but Apple certainly isn't making it easy. If they keep doing these sorts of shenanigans, it won't be long before I'm adapting my workflow to Windows 10 on a T460.
The correct title is:
"Apple’s new OS “activation” for Touch Bar MacBook Pros"
dang
or this @dang
?
"mac management" is not in Apple's target market anymore. Actual professional usage ended with this mac laptop series.
By the end of 2016, roughly one in four IBM employees will use a Macintosh computer. The tech giant, which employs 400,000 people, bought and provisioned 90,000 Macs since it started to support Apple laptops in June 2015. It expects to have at least 100,000 Macs deployed by 2017.
IBM now has the largest enterprise Mac deployment in the world, and it is Apple's biggest business customer for Macs, according to Mac maker. Apple declined to provide details on the other leading enterprise Mac customers, but SAP, Kelly Services and Intuit are among the company's most recognizable clients. In total, IBM says it manages 217,000 Apple devices for its employees today, including those 90,000 Macs, 81,000 iPhones and 48,000 iPads.
http://www.cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-macs-sa...
