[HN Gopher] Hardware Microphone Disconnect in Mac and iPad
___________________________________________________________________
Hardware Microphone Disconnect in Mac and iPad
Author : gtufano
Score : 659 points
Date : 2020-04-03 10:30 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.apple.com)
| randyrand wrote:
| Begs the question - how do they detect the lid is closed? In
| software? :P
| elliottkember wrote:
| Magnets!
| 6d6b73 wrote:
| How about disconnecting it when you're near the laptop and the
| lid is open because you're .. I don't know... working on it?
| bschwindHN wrote:
| Perhaps this is the hardware people are speculating about with
| magnetic switches?
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/33952/apple-put-a-hinge-sensor-i...
|
| Though it seems their "hardware only" solution was on earlier
| models than that, so maybe not.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| This may be Apple's first real response to the checkm8
| vulnerability. It had already been fixed on the current iOS
| devices as of its disclosure, but the T2 chip is still shipping
| (and is currently on computers that will last for a decade versus
| phones that last two years) with no fix AFAIK.
|
| Apple could fix T2s going forward, but it would require a BootROM
| change not just a software update.
| swebs wrote:
| But how am I supposed to use my computer when the lid is closed?
| jaywalk wrote:
| With an external microphone, if you need it.
| jasoneckert wrote:
| So, the next target for malware creators would be to attack the
| software that communicates a "lid closed" event to the T2 chip.
| chithanh wrote:
| There exist easier targets, such as the loudspeakers which can
| be turned into microphones.
|
| https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot17/woot17...
| [deleted]
| alias_neo wrote:
| I have a suspicion (based on absolutely no evidence, other than
| that I'm an Engineer, and expect Apple has some brain cells);
| that the way this feature works is with a magnet and reed
| switch to physically disconnect the lines with no
| "communication" via software/firmware or other electronic
| means;
|
| Based on their "hardware only" wording for the newer devices,
| I'm inclined to believe this is the case.
| hwc wrote:
| I'd rather have a manual switch for both the microphone and the
| camera.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| I would too, on every device, but I don't know how the industry
| is going to get past two barriers to achieving this:
|
| 1. It costs a little bit of money, and hardware designers love
| to minimize costs and eliminate parts.
|
| 2. It's not idiot-proof enough for a lot of people. You're
| going to have people who can't find the switch. And who
| complain and generate support costs. And annoy their coworkers
| by being muted during video conferences.
|
| Maybe you could fix the second one by having a flashing light
| on the switch that says, "Please switch this switch! The
| microphone is needed!" This could also increase awareness of
| when things are trying to use the microphone. although it would
| go against the first point because it's yet another part.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I 'd rather have a manual switch for both the microphone and
| the camera._
|
| Then buy a laptop with those features. If any exist.
| placard wrote:
| This is not enough, the sane solution needs physical switches
| like the Lenovo T400 had for WiFi.
|
| Where are the real laptops? I'm tired of the glossy short
| screens, lack of ethernet connections and crappy keyboards (this
| applies both to Lenovo and Apple).
| folmar wrote:
| Thou shall follow the FrankenPad route.
| kyuudou wrote:
| Works for the ISS and OpenBSD users
| pr0duktiv wrote:
| I had the T400 and the physical WIFI switch was more of a bug
| for me instead of a feature
| dannyw wrote:
| Purism.
| mkchoi212 wrote:
| Hmmm I wonder if anyone has done a teardown of the MacBook to
| show how these microphone disconnect mechanisms work.
| Edd314159 wrote:
| > iPad models beginning in 2020 also feature the hardware
| microphone disconnect. When an MFI compliant case (including
| those sold by Apple) is attached to the iPad and closed, the
| microphone is disconnected in hardware
|
| does this mean Hey Siri won't work on an iPad with a closed
| cover?
| randyrand wrote:
| Doesn't MFI use software to do verification? If the presence of
| a MFI software command is what disables and enables the
| microphone, that sure sounds like software control.
|
| Sure, maybe its software on a peripheral that controls it. But
| it's software never the less.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| https://forums.imore.com/ask-question/394180-hey-siri-featur...
| [deleted]
| Ceno wrote:
| That is precisely the behaviour I see on my iPad Pro from 2018
| jokit wrote:
| Is there any chance this is true? If so, is there a way to trick
| the hardware into switching microphone off, even while being
| used?
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| It's a physical magnetic switch. The article does explain this.
| randyrand wrote:
| But magnet does not appear in the article?
| jokit wrote:
| I suppose what I meant to ask is, does anyone have any
| evidence of this being actually true? If so, how would one
| specifically mimic a closed lid? In lieu of us doing our own
| experiments, has anyone discovered the appropriate
| size/strength magnet, and precisely where it could be placed,
| or whatever other tactic, to activate this hardware switch?
| qwertox wrote:
| Why not a manual switch? I rarely use the microphone on those
| devices.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Mechanical switches are prone to fault.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Compared to what? In my average day, I experience 5-10
| software failures/crashes/errors on various web apps, mobile
| apps, in windows, etc.
|
| The last time I've seen a hardware switch fail was 2 years
| ago.
|
| Further to that, hardware failures are predictable. Lifetime
| of switches is well know, and they are easily replaced. Good
| luck fixing a software glitch by yourself as a user.
|
| Consider that a laptop already comes with a hundred switches
| in the keyboard, and they can easily last a decade if you
| dont spill coffee on it.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Software failures are fixed by reboots/patches. Hardware
| failures are fixed by service. And that service costs much
| more for vendor. Very few users are ready to replace
| hardware switch in their laptops.
|
| Keyboard is a different kind of switch and they are major
| source of pain for many users. My macbook is broken because
| of keyboard, for example. One reason why new hardware
| devices like phones and tablets are coming without keyboard
| is this reason. Apple is not "brave enough" to replace
| macbook keyboard with touch panel, but they would do that
| if users would accept it.
| thih9 wrote:
| This would result in a different UX.
|
| Users would have to remember about turning it on/off, many
| would forget, leading to frustration.
|
| Also Apple would have to place that manual switch somewhere,
| this would change the device's interface.
| nullc wrote:
| So long as the software could read the setting of the switch
| it probably wouldn't be too frustrating.
|
| Lenovos used to have a physical wireless disable switch, and
| I recall it only causing a moderate amount of frustration and
| I doubt much effort was put into making it problem free.
| knute wrote:
| I once had a laptop with a manual switch for the wifi. Its
| sole purpose, as far as I could tell, was to get accidentally
| bumped and cause me to waste time figuring out why wifi
| wasn't working.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| I feel you, but there would be a really easy solution to
| that, just make it clear with the network connectivity icon
| that the hardware switch is off. Don't know why it hasn't
| been done.
| simonh wrote:
| It would require Microsoft to standardise the interface
| and specifications for manual wifi switches, and certify
| and police compliance, to make sure the hardware and
| software worked properly together. For Apple this sort of
| coordination across teams is routine and simply the way
| everything works, but for Microsoft and its hardware OEMs
| it's a serious time consuming and expensive pain.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Thanks, I hadn't thought of that.
| Qasaur wrote:
| I always wondered why the microphone on my MacBook Pro would stop
| working whenever I closed the lid when using my external monitor.
| Glad to hear the "bug" exists for good reasons.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| What are users meant to do if they _want_ to use their Mac 's
| microphone while the laptop lid is closed?
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| - Use headphones that have a mic
|
| - Use a webcam with an inbuilt mic (fairly common)
|
| - Use an dedicated mic
|
| Plenty of options here.
| HeavenBanned wrote:
| I had to resort to a VM (Parallels) because the external
| mic I bought does not get recognized by PyCharm - I think
| it's a permissions issue of some sort. Either way, it's
| very annoying.
| myth_buster wrote:
| I think having different sources for sound and mic causes
| echo.
| matharmin wrote:
| Get an external mic. It's a niche enough use case that they
| don't need to cater for it.
| xoa wrote:
| Deal with it, frankly. A cheap USB mic attached to the
| external screen, or for that matter some screens (including
| fairly high end ones like that LG 5k display Apple was
| featuring for a while) have built-in mics themselves these
| days.
|
| But this is one case where there really is a pretty
| fundamental trade off if the goal is a really simple core
| "when the lid is shut I'm guaranteed audio privacy from that
| vector". Anything that allows getting around that in turn is
| a potential bypass. Anything in software, even if it requires
| a special boot to access, leaves some room for bugs. And for
| both software or even a physical hardware switch there would
| be room for someone to accidentally or maliciously leave it
| on, and it would be very hard to notice. Given how cheap
| microphones are and that if someone is using the system with
| the lid closed they're _already_ committing to a certain
| amount of much more expensive external hardware, I think it
| 's quite reasonable to stick a straightforward visual
| heuristic that "if the system is closed and thus the camera
| cannot see the microphone cannot work either". Easy to verify
| at a glance for anyone, not just the owner, easy to remember.
| Like security, good privacy design requires not just a solid
| technical foundation, but considerations for human UX.
| reubenmorais wrote:
| The microphone is located in the bottom area of the speaker
| grill. It'd work terribly with the lid closed anyway.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| The vast majority of users expect the microphone and camera
| to be "off" when they close their laptops while it is sitting
| on their bedside table. Other users can go buy a product that
| doesn't take that function very seriously.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The vast majority of users expect the microphone and camera
| to be "off" when they are not using them regardless of the
| position of the lid.
| cfstras wrote:
| The microphone would probably sound pretty bad when
| obstructed... I've heard that complaint from a few ThinkPad-
| owners since everybody is doing homeoffice.
| blattimwind wrote:
| Thinkpad microphones are bad regardless of being
| obstructed. Almost all (I'm sure there's an exception
| somewhere) microphones built into laptops are pretty bad,
| and at least half of that is due to "inside the laptop" is
| not a good location for a microphone.
| chithanh wrote:
| They can use the loudspeakers as microphone. Usenix 2017:
| Turn Speakers to Microphones for Fun and Profit
|
| https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot17/woot17.
| ..
| kyuudou wrote:
| Yet another great reason to always play speed metal really
| loud :-)
| reaperducer wrote:
| _What are users meant to do if they want to use their Mac 's
| microphone while the laptop lid is closed?_
|
| USB microphones are like $3. You'd use one anyway if the lid
| was closed because the microphone would be pressed against
| the display.
| schuke wrote:
| I'm digressing but I've always been curious why people want
| to use the closed-lid mode. All it does seems to be saving a
| some desktop space. I place my laptop beneath an external
| monitor, this way I get a very good second display, a nice
| keyboard, and a very nice extra touchpad for scrolling and
| all kinds of multitouch gestures. Probably has benefits
| cooling the machine as well.
| knute wrote:
| In my office I run lid closed because I have 3 nice large
| monitors and I don't really have room for a fourth. It's
| nicer to have three displays that match in size and
| resolution than 2+1 that doesn't.
| bni wrote:
| I open it a little bit, just enough for the mic to work, in
| these cases. Then close the lid completely when im done with
| the call
| nullc wrote:
| I remember years ago visiting a customer shortly after many
| of their engineering staff had just upgraded to whatever
| macbook was popular at a time.
|
| Within the week that they had them, two people in the
| department had broken their screens/hinges from accidents
| walking in and out of meetings with the lids open because
| there was no way provided in the software to disable suspend
| on lid closed which was killing people's SSH sessions. Within
| the month someone in my office also managed to do the same,
| and most of us weren't even using macs.
|
| (I understand that this was eventually workaroundable with
| some power users tools; and I imagine mosh makes the suspends
| a little less of an issue now).
|
| I'm sad that the popular linux desktops later decided to
| emulate the bad software culture that brought anti-features
| like that mandatory suspend.
|
| So I expect that mic off on hinge close will have similar
| results. Though, ... at least this seems a lot more
| legitimate to me than a refusal to not suspend.
| mvanbaak wrote:
| A macbook works perfectly in clamshell mode. Just provide
| power and have a display connected. (not sure if you have
| to have a display connected, but it's how I'm typing this
| comment right now)
|
| Also, using tmux (or screen) on the other end of the ssh
| connection helps. And not only for when you close the lid,
| but also if the connection gets interrupted (power failure,
| internet failure, routing failure, whatever)
| toast0 wrote:
| > A macbook works perfectly in clamshell mode. Just
| provide power and have a display connected.
|
| I can't imagine how much more equipment would be damaged
| if the people described were carrying around a power
| source and a monitor with them so they could close their
| laptop and bring it to a meeting without dropping their
| sessions.
| folmar wrote:
| There are fake display adapters specifically to combat
| stupid problems with running mac displayless. Maybe we
| need a fake power source as well...
| [deleted]
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| It's a trade-off. The behavior is pretty easy to grasp for
| the average user (closed laptop: stop doing everything,
| enter low-power mode), and there's ways around it for users
| that want something different (caffeinate command, ssh to
| tmux/screen sessions, etc).
| z5h wrote:
| "The camera is not disconnected in hardware, because its field of
| view is completely obstructed with the lid closed".
|
| How long until someone realizes audio data can be extracted by
| from the noise generated by a camera in the dark?
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Source? Not because I disbelieve that it's possible in
| practice, but how much data can you really get out of that? A
| MacBook Pro camera operates at 60 Hz; unless you can
| interpolate samples some way I'm not thinking of (and that
| would necessarily degrade your resolution), the highest
| frequency you can capture is 30 Hz. Technically, this could be
| extracting audio, but it's not audio that meaningfully overlaps
| with the human experience.
| z5h wrote:
| No source, but there's just been such a long history of side
| channel attacks, and similar research
| (https://nofilmschool.com/2014/08/mit-extract-sound-audio-
| sil...) that it makes one wonder if a non-hardware disconnect
| fix is sufficient.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| > high-speed camera that captured 2,000 to 6,000 frames per
| second
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| Would also be nice to have little hardware LEDs that
| automatically turn on when the microphone or camera are
| connected. That way you are sure to know if they are recording.
| geekifier wrote:
| Despite Apple's anti-competitive ways, I am often impressed with
| their attention to details such as these. Glad there is still
| sanity out there in the world of "always listening" devices.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| > attention to details such as these
|
| Don't a nontrivial amount of people use their macbooks closed
| in a vertical docking stand? This will require them to use an
| external microphone.
|
| That said, my experience with similar laptops (XPS 15) has been
| that closing it just exacerbates the shitty thermal limitations
| so it's not really practical. Not sure whether this mode of
| usage is viable on newer macbooks.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Don 't a nontrivial amount of people use their macbooks
| closed in a vertical docking stand? This will require them to
| use an external microphone._
|
| Wouldn't they have to use an external microphone anyway,
| since in clamshell mode, the microphone is facing directly
| into the closed display? AFAIK, MacBooks of any flavor don't
| have external microphones.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| I wish people would qualify their "Apple Hate" every time they
| mention it. It would make it easier to know who's opinions to
| discount.
|
| An alarming number of people still believe Apple slowed down
| all their old phones for the sole purpose of selling them new
| ones for example.
| bakedbeanz wrote:
| They did absolutely slow down their older phones, but it
| comes down to whether you believe that their explanation of
| why was the whole truth.
| https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/02/apple-agrees-to-
| settlement...
|
| I'm not an Apple hater or a fanboy. I've owned a number of
| Apple devices in the past. However, they have their issues
| just like any other tech company, but their devoted following
| does seem to be more cultish than that of, say, Microsoft or
| Google.
| judge2020 wrote:
| You could ask any non-Apple industry personnel about what
| happens to batteries after years of constant usage and all
| of them will agree that eventually you eventually won't be
| able to pull the power you need to keep the phone running
| fast. Getting a new battery always fixed this, Apple just
| was performing this power management without telling the
| user before ios 12.1.
| thebean11 wrote:
| But if I'm an average user and my phone is slow, my first
| thought isn't "hey I should get the battery replaced".
| It's perfectly reasonable to assume the phone would still
| be slow, so why not just buy a newer model?
|
| It's a lie of omission, which you could reasonably
| interpret as a trick to get people to upgrade.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| If Apple had done nothing, then that same user's phone
| would randomly start switching off at non-0 battery
| levels (the un-throttled behavior) when brownouts
| occurred. Wouldn't the same user still come to the same
| conclusion, that their phone has some problem and needs
| to be replaced?
|
| In general, the mobile phone industry has done a pretty
| good job encouraging their userbase to forget that their
| batteries are replaceable, so I don't think that most
| users would consider that as a remediation step off the
| top of their head.
|
| I think it's plain that the best solution would be
| informing the user of the problem and letting them choose
| between behaviors (or, you know, replace the battery),
| but between slow usage and random shutdowns, I would
| personally choose the former.
|
| I wonder if there have been any studies on how many
| users, once the toggle had been added, switched it from
| the (default) throttling behavior to the shutdown
| behavior? I'd be curious to see if I'm in the minority
| there.
| thebean11 wrote:
| > If Apple had done nothing, then that same user's phone
| would randomly start switching off at non-0 battery
| levels (the un-throttled behavior) when brownouts
| occurred. Wouldn't the same user still come to the same
| conclusion, that their phone has some problem and needs
| to be replaced?
|
| No I actually think then the average person would assume
| it's a battery issue, or at least be able to google it.
| I'm not saying that this is actually better behavior (I
| would also choose slow mode over random shutoff mode),
| but it doesn't obfuscate the fact that the phone has a
| faulty battery.
|
| The reason I suspect that Apple did this maliciously is
| that "service battery" notifications are pretty standard
| behavior (including on their own laptops). It just seems
| like an intentional omission.
| Lownin wrote:
| If you're an average user and your phone is spontaneously
| rebooting, you probably think to replace it even more.
| derivagral wrote:
| A big point of this is how user-hostile replacing a
| battery on a phone has become for flagship mobile
| devices, which makes this situation a bit worse IMO.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| I know the intricacies of what they did. To summarise: some
| phones with older batteries would suffer brownouts because
| the internal resistance of the battery was too high. They
| updated the OS to detect the brownout and throttle the CPU
| to prevent it happening again.
|
| So they didn't slow down all old phones, only ones that had
| the problem. They actually attempted to fix older models.
| To me this is the opposite of planned obsolescence and
| appeals to my environmental view that all manufacturers
| should be supporting their hardware as least as long as
| Apple currently does.
|
| Now they didn't communicate, and were fined. I think that
| is fair enough, but I feel the size of the fine was quite
| excessive given they were trying to extend the life of
| their customers hardware.
|
| Note that the other phone manufacturers that have exactly
| the same problems did nothing and are actually better off
| because of it.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Yeah, I had an old, slowed iPhone 5S and I had a third
| party shop replace the battery and when it can me back,
| it was significantly faster.
| schadara wrote:
| Supposedly, Apple didn't "implement" battery throttling
| on the iPhone 5S - Apple's discount battery replacement
| program only applied to the iPhone 6 and up. This
| suggests that Apple switched to a flawed battery
| technology in hardware starting in the iPhone 6 that
| wasn't realized until years later. And, instead of
| issuing a recall or repair program, they pushed a silent
| cover up in the software. Whatever the motive, they
| should have been more open about it.
|
| I had an iPhone 5S that ran ok until I upgraded to iOS
| 13, IIRC. After that, the frames started skipping and it
| became frustrating to use.
| mthoms wrote:
| Your "summary" curiously omits one of the most important
| details -- That the battery could be replaced and the
| phone would perform _like new_. If not, the ever
| deteriorating battery would result in a never ending arms
| race of throttling. Inevitably, that phone _and_ battery
| would be in the landfill instead of just the latter.
|
| Whether or not the whole thing was intentionally
| nefarious I'm not convinced. But the episode _looks_ way
| worse than your comment suggests.
| jki275 wrote:
| Are you suggesting it wasn't known that battery
| replacements were available for iPhones? I know I
| personally replaced several batteries over the years in
| iPhones, I don't think that was a big secret. There were
| shops you could drop your phone off at and have anew
| battery put in for fifty bucks in an hour overseas at
| least.
| schadara wrote:
| Apple didn't inform users that battery replacements would
| make their sluggish phones fast again.
| acdha wrote:
| More accurately, Apple didn't have a UI notification.
| This was not a secret and support people recommended it
| if you actually contacted them.
| mthoms wrote:
| >This was not a secret and support people recommended it
| if you actually contacted them.
|
| False. The retail and support staff were not informed of
| the throttling. See my other comment.
| acdha wrote:
| True, as personally witnessed.
| addison-lee wrote:
| It's almost as if you get ideas to improve products as
| time goes on. No, that can't be it.
| schadara wrote:
| Not sure how neglecting to inform users of throttling is
| some kind of improvement.
|
| They have an article about hardware microphone
| disconnects, prolonging battery life, etc. yet they
| neglected to write an article about hardware throttling.
|
| It's almost as if they had a hardware problem and instead
| of issuing a recall, they quietly pushed a software fix.
| No, that can't be it.
| mthoms wrote:
| So they wrote code to deal with degrading battery health
| while at the same time didn't know about degrading
| battery health?
| mthoms wrote:
| >Are you suggesting it wasn't known that battery
| replacements were available for iPhones?
|
| I'm _asserting as fact_ that Apple retail and support
| employees were kept in the dark about throttling. So,
| even if you had Applecare, your "genius" would tell you
| that your phone wasn't slowing down (you were imagining
| it) or that the slow down was an inevitable result of
| ever more complex OS upgrades. The end result is that you
| were told nothing could be done.
|
| So no one was told the simple truth. That poor
| performance was related to poor battery health and could
| be rectified by a simple battery replacement.
| jki275 wrote:
| Are you sure about that? I thought it was pretty much
| common knowledge that your battery going bad would
| degrade performance and it was time to get a new battery.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| What I believe mthoms is saying that the "battery
| management" software was the secret thing, because it
| was. We all have a basic idea that when your battery is
| going bad you should replace it, I imagine, but the
| software fix Apple silently pushed out arguably prolonged
| battery life at the expense of making the phone run
| slower. But if the Apple Geniuses weren't told this was
| happening, they wouldn't be able to say, "Oh, yeah, your
| phone's turned on battery management because your battery
| isn't doing well."
| jki275 wrote:
| I get what he's asserting, I just think he's wrong.
| mthoms wrote:
| The phrasing you've chosen ("degraded performance") is
| purposefully vague in order to move the goal posts.
| Please don't do that.
|
| We're specifically talking about _lower CPU clocking_.
| Now, are you claiming to have known that Apple was
| throttling Phones with aging batteries before the rest of
| the world? Because well, that 's a pretty amazing feat.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| My understanding of the change they made was that it was
| expressly to deal with a condition with failing batteries
| where, as they were nearing the end of their life, they
| would just shut off abruptly when they still claimed to
| have 40% or more charge left -- the problem was that they
| could no longer deliver peak power, and if the phone
| tried to draw what was now too much power for something,
| it'd fail. The solution to that was to limit how much
| power the phone could draw.
|
| I don't think it was intentionally nefarious -- this is a
| real problem with this kind of battery and I've
| experienced it, and it's not unique to Apple devices. In
| theory, their solution is actually pretty good! The
| problem was the way they communicated this to end users,
| namely, that they didn't. They just did it. And didn't
| even have iOS tell you it had enabled this "battery
| management" mode when it was turned on.
|
| This wasn't an engineering fiasco, it was a PR fiasco.
| Apple has always been guilty of what we could
| diplomatically call "under-communicating," but this is
| the sort of change someone -- many someones, arguably --
| internally should have flagged and said, "No, look, this
| isn't something we should just do silently, in part
| because it's going to create a suboptimal user experience
| and in part because if we don't communicate what we're
| doing and _why_ we 're doing it, it's going to come
| across as us just slowing old phones down to make you buy
| new ones."
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| A short-lived consumable that can't be field-replaced is
| always an engineering fiasco. I used to keep a spare
| battery in my backpack; an external USB battery is not a
| reliable substitute when (not if) the internal battery
| gets bad enough.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| I didn't leave it out on purpose. In my eyes it was a
| "limp home" mode so you would expect it to return to full
| performance. If it didn't then that definitely would be a
| scandal.
|
| Yes, they definitely should have communicated better.
| 100%. It was non obvious to any users that the phone had
| been throttled and that it needed a new battery. I think
| the fine they got will remind them to be more explicit in
| the future.
|
| The feature still exists today, just explained better.
| schadara wrote:
| It's curious that this problem was introduced in the
| iPhone 6, but not in their earlier phones, wouldn't you
| say?
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| I'd assume the _solution_ was introduced with the iPhone
| 6. The _problem_ was there much earlier, due to the way
| Li-Po batteries work.
|
| As such, it could even be counted as one of the touches
| Apple is known for that other OEMs don't bother with. It
| just needed better communication.
| schadara wrote:
| Yes, this was a _feature_. This feature was so great that
| they kept it a _secret_ and were subject to lawsuits and
| forced to _pay_ millions in fines.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| They were fined for not telling people about the feature.
| The feature still exists.
| mthoms wrote:
| Can confirm. My 5s suffered the random shutdown issue and
| wasn't part of the throttling fix.
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| Man - almost every other phone brand ends in the the
| trash MUCH MUCH sooner than Apple, so this is funny to
| read.
|
| Seriously - can you tell me how long you received updates
| on your android phone?
|
| Apple is the absolute leader in getting longer life out
| of their phones, they have much higher resale as a result
| as well.
|
| Apple not only allows older devices to installer newer
| software (with bug fixes / security fixes / and
| supportable features) but they have been backporting
| stuff to a one step earlier iOS as well in terms of basic
| fixes. It's actually crazy especially in comparison to
| their competitors (that get no flak on HN) who literally
| ship with an old version of android AND DO NOT UPDATE IT!
| mthoms wrote:
| The statement wasn't about how Apple's phones compare
| with other phones. It was (pretty clearly I thought)
| about how long Apple phones with new batteries last
| against those without new batteries (and throttling
| applied).
|
| >Seriously - can you tell me how long you received
| updates on your android phone?
|
| I've used Apple computers exclusively since about 2005
| and phones since around 2009. So no, I've never owned an
| Android phone. In fact, my small apartment has no less
| than 8 Apple devices in use between my partner and I.
|
| Why do you assume I'm not an Apple user? Because I said
| something mildly critical of them?
| monadic2 wrote:
| Apple will always make the right choice--until it messes with
| their business model. There are uncountable examples of ways
| in which they have intentionally crippled their own hardware
| and software to prevent users from using their own purchase.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Apple is easy to hate if you want stuff that you can trust to
| work over time. Anything that locks you in as much as they do
| is not a friend of mine (anymore).
|
| They aren't the worst player, or even close really however.
| It's just there's a lot of power and influence in that
| company, so you hear a lot about it.
| geekifier wrote:
| > I wish people would qualify their "Apple Hate" every time
| they mention it.
|
| Apple hate? I'm a Mac convert, and I admire most of their
| hardware and design. But it's no secret they purposely refuse
| to interoperate with other vendors, and purposely develop
| proprietary technologies to keep you within their ecosystem.
| The recent acquisition, and subsequent planned shutdown of
| Dark Sky is just one recent example.
|
| Part of it is just the business model, I guess. For example,
| Google's apps are widely available across a variety of
| devices, since it gives Google the juicy data that they're
| after. For Apple, which is not an ad company, the incentive
| might not be there for opening their apps up to a wider
| audience.
|
| Since I cannot justify a $1k+ phone for myself and my family
| members (I am content with my $500 S10e), and I have a mix of
| Mac, Linux, and Windows devices, the Apple applications
| (however well designed) are sadly out.
| shaklee3 wrote:
| I don't hate them, but I find their hardware is typically not
| as good as the competition, and for a higher price. I also
| think most people that buy Apple devices don't know this, or
| just refuse to believe it.
|
| For example, I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I
| tried a Moto g and it's horrible! My old iPhone was better",
| or "this $300 Dell laptop is way worse than my MacBook". Of
| course a $1000 phone is better than a $200 phone, and
| likewise for the laptops.
|
| But when you start looking at high-end laptops like the
| surface series, or phones like oppo/Huawei, it's usually in
| favor of the non-apple.
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| Well, with Oppo and Huawei in particular, its pretty easy
| to beat the competition with state sponsored industrial
| espionage subsidizing their R&D costs.
| shaklee3 wrote:
| Samsung, too.
| _ph_ wrote:
| There is a lot of great hardware out there, no doubt. But
| the question isn't that simple. Another big component is
| the software. For the desktop, I find MacOS difficult to
| beat. I like and use Linux a lot, but there are commercial
| applications, I can't run on Linux. And I want to avoid
| Windows if possible.
|
| And once you stepped in the Apple universe, you will find a
| large number of devices working together. The Mac, the
| phone, the tablet.
|
| So there are many reasons to choose an Apple product,
| beyond its specs per dollar. Also, while I think that Apple
| prices are high, and upgrade prices even outrageously high,
| if I spec a high quality competitor coparatively, I often
| am not that far away from the Apple prices.
| shaklee3 wrote:
| I don't agree with that. With the advent of WSL on
| Windows you can happily run Linux whenever you want and
| have all the normal ubuntu pieces available to you
| without starting a VM. You also get the windows
| application catalog, which is essentially every piece of
| major software ever written. With WSL now in the picture,
| I don't see how a BSD-based OS could beat it given that
| many applications that an apt install can give you aren't
| available as easily or at all there.
| voqv wrote:
| Well the BSD-based OS OP's talking about doesn't run
| loads of questionable telemetry (just judging by CPU
| usage) and does not turn on at night to install an update
| that will reset whatever telemetry settings the user
| hacked to disable.
| _ph_ wrote:
| As I wrote, I don't like Windows much and are happier not
| having to use it. I still don't like the overly flat UI
| style and well, it is still Windows with all its oddities
| over the ages. I also get the impression, that Windows
| handles HiDPI way worse than MacOS, which is an important
| criterium.
|
| WSL certainly has the potential to be a game changer and
| this has made Windows potentially interesting to me. What
| would really be a huge step, if Microsoft would built a
| Wayland server into the Windows UI. Having Linux GUI apps
| running on the native Windows UI with all acceleration,
| could make it a premier desktop for running Linux
| applications.
| jakear wrote:
| People don't buy specs, they buy experiences. If the
| Android has 12GB ram and some super fast processor, but
| runs in a GC'd runtime that stutters when collecting and
| unloads background apps with high frequency, it's not
| actually better than whatever's in the iPhone.
|
| Plenty of videos out there comparing opening a bunch of
| apps in a cycle on iPhone vs Android. Android wins the
| first open, iPhone destroys on the second. (iPhone is able
| to keep all apps in suspense, whereas android unloads them)
| kube-system wrote:
| Don't make the mistake of assuming 'experience' is
| synonymous with 'performance' either.
|
| Side-by-side comparisons aren't really of any real-world
| significance. Very few people do that when forming their
| opinions. For the average person, performance either
| detracts from the experience, or it doesn't.
|
| There are many other factors that are more important to
| experience than performance. Does the interface conflict
| with their expectations? Does the user find the features
| to be self-explanatory? Does the device enable the user
| to conform to social expectation?
|
| > People don't buy specs, they buy experiences.
|
| More specifically, people don't buy actual experiences,
| they buy expectations of experience. 99%+ of people who
| buy a phone haven't had more than a couple of moments of
| experience with it. They buy it because they expect it to
| be good based on their first impressions and/or
| preconceived notions.
| shaklee3 wrote:
| I think you will need to be more specific. I have never
| seen a difference in high-end phones with Apple versus
| Samsung or any of the other Android phones with the
| latest Snapdragon.
| jakear wrote:
| Is one plus 7 pro on latest snaP dragon?
| https://youtu.be/Ic8q1kPseVE
| shaklee3 wrote:
| One plus isn't the same as Oppo. One plus is the cheaper
| brand from the same manufacturer.
| jakear wrote:
| It is an "Android phones with the latest Snapdragon", is
| it not? And it was outperformed by iPhone 11. These
| goalpoasts are sliding...
| shaklee3 wrote:
| I suggest you: A) Take a look at the price difference
| between the phones you just said, and re-read my original
| point. B) Don't cherry-pick a phone. Try this one from
| your same reviewer:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ot6ufCy3jg
| jakear wrote:
| You said: I have never seen a difference (in high-end
| phones with Apple versus Samsung) OR (any of the other
| Android phones with the latest Snapdragon). I showed you
| a difference. I'm not going to keep going with this
| because at the end of the day, I really don't care. Good
| day :)
| shaklee3 wrote:
| Exactly. One plus 7 pro is NOT a high-end phone. It's the
| highest-end one plus makes, but it is not considered a
| flagship android phone.
|
| And you proved my point. You picked a $1200 phone to
| compare to a $700 android, and for some reason thought
| that was equivalent.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| > iPhone is able to keep all apps in suspense, whereas
| android unloads them
|
| Android also saves activity state for fast resume and
| keeps activities running until there is memory pressure.
| I've heard people complain about iOS devices in this
| regard because they do the same thing but don't have
| enough memory to do it effectively.
| webmobdev wrote:
| > I wish people would qualify their "Apple Hate" every time
| they mention it.
|
| Sure, let me do that: Apple is a corporation and it is stupid
| to believe that they care more about you than making profits.
|
| This applies to any corporation. I've particularly noticed
| that the US citizens are increasingly buying into this
| propaganda that corporations can better protect their rights
| than a democratically elected government. And that is just
| sad and dangerous. We should be campaigning for our privacy
| rights directly with the government, and not just hope that
| some corporation will act benevolent towards us.
|
| (And it is not a coincidence that this "news" came up in the
| social media feeds when the [news about exploits that granted
| unauthorised access to your camera through Safari is going
| around](https://www.ryanpickren.com/webcam-hacking-
| overview).)
|
| The issue here is that instead of adding a physical switch to
| disable the microphone and camera, Apple is again asking its
| users to blindly trust it. We just have to take their word
| for it that it will work. They can always blame a bug in the
| firmware if somebody finds a way to exploit it tomorrow ...
|
| (Note: I mentioned the Safari exploit only to point out that
| there is some negative news which obviously a corporation
| would like to bury with some positive publicity. It is
| commendable that Apple paid the discoverer a nice bounty and
| will be fixing it soon.)
|
| Edit: _And, ofcourse, the downvotes begin as the social media
| management team steps in._
| lrdd wrote:
| I don't think caring about the user and making profits are
| mutually exclusive. A company that is interested in
| delivering what the user wants and needs will often make
| profit. It's not a case of 'with the user' or 'against the
| user'.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I think the OP is trying to say that there is no evidence
| that apple cares about the user, only its own image in
| the eyes of users.
|
| There is always an antagonistic relationship between
| buyers and sellers. Buyers want more money for less
| features, Sellers want more features for less money.
|
| There is no such thing as "with the user", unless the
| users are shareholders in the company.
| simonh wrote:
| I wish we lived in a world where people only said things like
| that they believed.
| freedomben wrote:
| I think we do. The problem is that people often believe
| things based on perception and snap judgement, which are
| often wrong. And once somebody has some "knowledge" even if
| gained through unreliable means, displacing that
| "knowledge" is rather difficult.
|
| It's an artifact from evolving in a world where snap
| judgments were often the difference between life and death,
| and the person who assumed the rustle in bushes was just
| the wind, but it was actually a tiger, did not live to
| propagate. However, the paranoid person who thought it was
| a tiger every time the wind rustled the bushes, did survive
| to propagate.
|
| Our current political system is pretty good evidence of
| people believing strongly enough in ideology to destroy the
| lives of others. I think they really _do_ believe the
| stuff, and that 's why it's so dangerous.
| simonh wrote:
| I don't know. I suspect a lot of people spreading fake
| news, conspiracy theories and crap like this know
| perfectly well it's rubbish.
| freedomben wrote:
| Certainly some people do that, but I would imagine it's a
| _very_ small subset that are either trolls or
| consequentialists who feel the end justifies the means
| who originate it. Most who spread it are useful idiots (I
| use the word idiot very lightly. It 's easy for anyone
| who is human to get suckered by a fake news story here or
| there).
|
| I have quite a few family and friends that
| unintentionally spread fake news because they really
| thought the story was real. One in particular is
| _extremely_ hateful toward fake news but made a
| conclusion based on a headline that turned out wrong (we
| don 't all have time to read every story we see, as much
| as we'd want to).
| dorongrinstein wrote:
| I asked my Alexa if this is true, but she didn't know. Anyway,
| this article makes me feel safer. I'll keep my Mac shut.
| pulse7 wrote:
| I would rather have a physical (manual) switch to disconnect the
| power to the microphone and camera hardware on all my devices
| (laptop, phone, ...). This way there would be no need to trust
| the Security Chip and there would be no attack vectors and
| possible future zero-day attacks on the security chip...
| marcinzm wrote:
| Based on the linked page this functionality is separate from
| the security chip and a compromise of the security chip cannot
| disable it.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| A manual switch is still an attack vector, and I'd bet one of
| the lightswitches in your home has already been "compromised"
| where you have to wiggle it a bit to activate it.
| darkarmani wrote:
| > A manual switch is still an attack vector
|
| Like remote targeted attack would force the roomba to sneak
| up on someone and bump the switch on? Otherwise, i don't see
| how this is a remote attack.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _A manual switch is still an attack vector_
|
| So we should chuck all of our electronic devices into the bin
| in the name of security?
|
| Good security is sometimes better than perfect security.
| derefr wrote:
| Perhaps Apple aren't doing this so much for you-the-individual-
| consumer, as for government buyers who don't want devices that
| might, if root-kitted by some foreign government, become
| listening devices even when nominally "off." Hardware
| interlocks like this ensure that, at least, the device can only
| be recording audio while in use, while making it evident by
| their physical state (lid closed), even from across the room,
| that they can now no longer possibly be recording. That makes
| them more interesting to such buyers.
|
| (But if Apple cares about this market, wouldn't you expect
| their laptops to have a lot _more_ security features to appease
| these buyers? Not necessarily. This sort of thing is pretty
| much "enough"--governments are used to having signals
| intercepted by foreign intelligence, and so they have
| mitigations in place, like shutting off all electronic devices
| before having important conversations, or creating secure rooms
| known to not leak emissions, and then requiring that nobody
| bring anything electronic into them. For non-classified but
| "off-the-record" conversations, the ability to say that there's
| no _known_ hardware in the room actively recording the
| conversation is usually "good enough.")
| fsflover wrote:
| Then you should consider Purism Librem laptops and phone.
| deadmutex wrote:
| I think it makes a lot sense to have it on devices like the
| Nest Mini:
| https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/8/23/20828854/g...
|
| I am not sure if I'd want my phone to have another button just
| for that though.
| qubex wrote:
| I can understand your preference, but the prevailing aesthetic
| seems to be going in the direction of completely removing
| physical controls. To be perfectly frank, seeing earlier-than-
| current iPads and iPhones with physical home buttons strikes me
| as kind of quaint. I greatly prefer the entirely software-
| defined interface of the latest devices.
|
| I suppose I can trace that preference all the way back to being
| fascinated with the _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ LCARS
| (Library Computer Access & Retrieval System), which (to quote
| the _Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual_ written
| by Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach from teenage memory) was
| "expressly designed to suggest a highly simplified manner of
| managing vastly complicated processes" or some such.
|
| If you really want to be sure it isn't listening to you you can
| turn it off and/or leave it in another room.
| bb123 wrote:
| That's fair enough but you have to accept you're in the huge
| minority there. The average consumer does not want to have to
| flip a switch for every microphone on their devices when they
| want to use it. Not to mention the reliability implications of
| adding more moving parts and dust/water ingress points. There
| has to be a trade off between usability and security.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| So, the device comes with a slide switch, set to on. A user
| who cares can slide it off.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| It's Apple. If you want switches on your computers, use
| ThinkPad or Dell.
| pulse7 wrote:
| The latest ThinkPads have a physical/mechanical switch,
| but just for the camera... The mic can not be turned off
| with this switch...
| jann wrote:
| Just a warning (I don't know the specs of that ThinkPad)
| but just because it's a physical switch doesn't mean it
| actually physically disconnects the device.
| [deleted]
| jaywalk wrote:
| It's called ThinkShutter and it physically covers the
| camera lens.
| mvanbaak wrote:
| so it doesn't turn it off, it just puts some plastic in
| front of it. Plastic that is easier to break then
| something inside the case that will cut the power. While
| I am a big fan of the idea of the thinkshutter and
| friends, a real switch that cuts the loop to the cam/mic
| is a better option.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I think a physical shutter is superior, if only for peace
| of mind. If the lens is covered, nothing else matters.
| kyuudou wrote:
| I'm of the same opinion. I keep one on at all times,
| especially for those moments when someone's
| teleconferencing software turns on camera by default and
| I'm not in a work-safe outfit or environment.
| mamon wrote:
| Even the user that cares can sometimes forget to do it.
| With Apple solution you'll never forget to switch
| microphone off, but on the downside, you now have to trust
| Apple.
| jsiepkes wrote:
| It's not that simple. People will accidentally set the
| switch to off and won't understand why their mic doesn't
| work anymore. At this point there is a good chance they
| will call support.
|
| This also happend with the hardware wifi kill switches we
| used to have on notebooks.
| ken wrote:
| That's a little different. Wifi is an invisible feature,
| and it can become disabled through no action of yours.
| Cameras are physical, so you can make it really obvious
| when it's enabled and when it's not. You just look for
| the physical obstruction. Apple's first iSight camera,
| for example, had a cool leaf shutter that you opened or
| closed by twisting it.
|
| I know lots of people who have had trouble getting their
| wifi to work. I don't know anyone who put a piece of tape
| across their camera and then couldn't figure out why
| their camera didn't work.
| alexis_fr wrote:
| Since we're integrated between OS and hardware on Apple
| platforms, they could implement a "Turn on your
| microphone" dialog. I think this support excuse is too
| commonly used, when there is obvious value in the result.
| He's not a minority, even my grandparents shared the
| photo of Mark Zuckerberg saying "If this guy hides his
| camera, so should you"...
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| You already have dialogs on macOS like "app X wants to
| use the microphone, allow?"
| greggman3 wrote:
| It is that simple. The computer can prompt "MUTE" just
| like TVs do
| Milner08 wrote:
| God the number of times people complained about their
| laptops being broken only to find out they'd turned WiFi
| off. Either through a separate kill switch or through a
| function key. It was a pain the arse.
| ekzy wrote:
| I recently installed linux on a MSI laptop that has a
| webcam function key switch. For some reason (could have
| been me), it was off and I just assumed that the camera
| wasn't working with linux, or that there was a hardware
| issue. I almost sent it back. I never owned a laptop with
| that kind of switch before, so I wasn't looking for this,
| and the keyboard icon [1] looked like some kind of screen
| contrast button to me...
|
| [1] https://imgur.com/a/2Oe2k4e
| freedomben wrote:
| Oh man, this happened to me many years ago as well with
| wifi. The keyboard had a wifi toggle (which in linux
| translated into rfkill) as a mod to an Fn key. Took me
| hours to realize that was a thing. I was literally
| debugging the kernel trying to figure out why the driver
| was spitting out "rfkill enabled" when "it shouldn't"
| only to realize a simple hold of Fn + F9 (or whatever it
| was) fixed the problem right up :facepalm:
| iso1631 wrote:
| After months of zooms and many #PoorJennifer moments I'm sure
| that the number of us with camera covers will increase
| karatestomp wrote:
| My teacher wife and a bunch of the folks she knows (non-
| nerds) cover their webcams with stickers or whatever. They'd
| all love (separate!) kill-switches for their cameras and
| mics. Plus everyone working in tech I know. So that's...
| everyone I know who's aware their laptops have cameras and
| microphones.
| reaperducer wrote:
| I think you're overstating your position.
|
| If all of those people had to flip a hardware switch every
| time they wanted to use their phones, they'd complain about
| it.
| karatestomp wrote:
| Not phones, but for tablets and laptops I think a lot
| more than just privacy geeks would like a way to know
| _for sure_ they won't accidentally transmit video or
| audio, and would put up with a little annoyance for the
| peace of mind.
| folmar wrote:
| On a laptop it may often be once in a lifetime.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Depends on your laptop. My Mac laptops ring when someone
| calls my phone in another room.
| mthoms wrote:
| The problem is, as soon as security expert "Barbara from
| Facebook" posts something about the NSA still watching you
| because the switches don't really do anything you're back
| at square one. :)
| RankingMember wrote:
| Not for mics, but you can essentially add the equivalent of
| a webcam kill switch with something simple like this:
| https://www.amazon.com/C-Slide-Sliding-Computers-
| Chromebooks...
| kevindong wrote:
| My company's IT department has said in passing that
| they've had many cases of laptop screens being cracked by
| those sliding webcam obscurers.
| johnnycab wrote:
| Once such compromise is PilferShush Jammer for
| Android/Windows. There might be a similar iOS version, but I
| haven't found one yet.
|
| Android. Also on Play Store.
| https://github.com/kaputnikGo/PilferShushJammer
|
| Windows 10 app. https://appforwin10.com/pilfershush-jammer-
| app-for-windows-1...
| chapium wrote:
| I doubt this is the case.
| Dahoon wrote:
| Anecdotally even my old 69yo father who thinks Google Chrome
| is the same as Google.com has covered his webcam with tape
| and bought a laptop with a mic hardware switch so I really
| don't see this as a usability problem in 2020.
|
| What do you mean with "flip a switch for every microphone on
| their devices"? Why would you want to have more than one mic
| and one switch per device? And turning it on in hardware is
| way faster than in software so a hardware switch is both
| faster and more secure and breaking a hardware switch seems a
| lot less likely than custom OEM made software failing or stop
| getting updated. Dust and water is no problem as lots of
| phones already have hardware switches, including my Android
| phone. I really see no problem in hardware switches at all.
| javagram wrote:
| > What do you mean with "flip a switch for every microphone
| on their devices"? Why would you want to have more than one
| mic and one switch per device
|
| The ipad has 4 microphones. iPhones have at least two.
| They're located in different places to either catch
| different sounds or implement noise canceling
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Clearly anyone sensible would have a single switch for
| all of them.
|
| Would turning on a single microphone of the array have
| any meaning?
| folmar wrote:
| Since iPhone microphone quality is well below market
| average maybe it would improve?
| walterbell wrote:
| Feature request: iOS system-wide option to disable all optical
| cameras. FaceID can continue to use the IR camera.
| augustl wrote:
| Does other manufacturers does this?
|
| Maybe it's a standard thing that Dell, HP and others do as well?
| mikro2nd wrote:
| Purism do hardware switches for mic/camera and wifi on their
| Librem range. (Wish I could afford one of those machines!)
| est31 wrote:
| It's weird how the "hardware disconnect" term for the pre-2019
| devices was stretched to include a firmware, that is software-
| only, feature. Kinda like the "end to end encryption" of Zoom.
| Glad that Apple resolved this for newer devices. I'd still love
| to see wiring diagrams or explanations how it actually works.
| Which kind of circuit do they use? Is it the power line that's
| suppressed or the data line? Is it only an analog line that's
| suppressed and if you tune up internal amp you might be getting
| some residual?
|
| About the iPads, what does their "hardware" based microphone
| disconnect entail? It has to be some electro-magnetic based
| communication instead of currents so the circuit has to be more
| complicated. I doubt it's done without using any kind of software
| but would be glad to hear otherwise.
|
| Overall, I'm glad that they are responding to concerns and
| working to address them.
| jwr wrote:
| > I'd still love to see wiring diagrams or explanations how it
| actually works. Which kind of circuit do they use?
|
| I'd like to see that too, but I don't think we will. I suspect
| it's a magnetic switch and I'm also curious which lines it
| cuts.
|
| FWIW, you can still get some audio from an accelerometer if you
| can get it to report data with a high enough frequency.
|
| Not sure what you mean about iPhones, their information does
| not mention the iPhone (and I would not expect it to).
| est31 wrote:
| > Not sure what you mean about iPhones, their information
| does not mention the iPhone (and I would not expect it to).
|
| I meant iPads but got confused. Thanks for pointing it out.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| I bet Louis Rossmann and other 3rd party apple repair
| services could figure it out.
| rimlicker wrote:
| they're probably just shorting the pvpvp3p33vp
| BIKESHOPagency wrote:
| ... v3 hot
| derefr wrote:
| I'd think the raw pressure-level input from the force sensors
| on the trackpad would be even more accurate. It's essentially
| an array of transducers already.
| markrages wrote:
| An accelerometer on a physical object is a force sensor.
| F=mA
| electroguy wrote:
| " It has to be some electro-magnetic based communication
| instead of currents so the circuit has to be more complicated.
| I doubt it's done without using any kind of software but would
| be glad to hear otherwise."
|
| You can do the whole thing in analog fairly easily. The hardest
| part would be to get the magnetic sensor integrated into the
| same chip, but I guess that's been a solved problem for a
| while.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| There seems to be a new broad trend of stretching feature
| names. Shopping for headphones, "noise cancelling" began to be
| used recently to mean "pretty good seal" and now I see "7.1
| Surround Sound" on headphones with two drivers to mean "has
| some fancy audio processing."
| gumby wrote:
| It's not new, sadly. The phrase "snake oil" goes back to the
| 19th century but names a phenomenon going back millennia.
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| I miss the days when reference manuals included code listings
| and schematics.
|
| https://archive.org/details/applerefjan78/
| Traster wrote:
| My suspicion is there's a hardware method of detecting lid
| closed - probably detecting a physical magnet (which is used
| anyway so that lid closes nicely) and that drives a transistor
| which then does the gating.
|
| I don't see why you assert that is has to be electro-magnetic
| based, as long as the gating is down by a 'dumb' fixed
| transistor rather than a programmable chip, then it's a
| hardware disconnect.
| est31 wrote:
| Interesting, it's magnet based. I've learned something today!
| lukifer wrote:
| In the same spirit as putting tape over the webcam, I'd love
| it if someone found a solution for putting a tiny magnet in
| exactly the right spot to force-disable the microphone while
| the lid is open. :)
|
| I hope you're right, and I'd agree that would qualify as a
| "hardware disconnect". It's a little confusing given the
| mention of the T2 chip; they do differentiate some specific
| models which are "hardware alone", and at least _imply_ that
| the T2 chip does not flip the off-switch on those. I 'll have
| to go dig into iFixit's tear-downs to see if they found
| anything. For the 2020 iPad, they specifically mention "MFI
| compliant cases", so we can be fairly certain that one's done
| with magnets.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > I'd love it if someone found a solution for putting a
| tiny magnet in exactly the right spot to force-disable the
| microphone while the lid is open. :)
|
| It's the same sensor that's used to detect if the lid is
| open in general. Triggering it will prevent the display
| from turning on, and will make the computer go to sleep if
| it isn't running in "clamshell mode" (running on AC power
| with an external display attached).
| lukifer wrote:
| Disappointing, but makes sense, thanks for sharing.
| blattimwind wrote:
| For analog, electret microphones a mute switch is very simple.
| Simply put an R-C pair (R a few MO, C 10-20 uF) in parallel to
| the microphone capsule. To mute it, short the R out. This is
| pop-free because the R charges the capacitor to the DC
| operating point of the capsule. When the R is shorted out, the
| microphone's output is shunted by the capacitor, which
| attenuates the signal level by >40-60 dB.
|
| For digital microphones it can also be very simple. Consider a
| PDM microphone, if you disconnect the data line and have it
| stick to either high or low through a pull-up, the signal
| becomes DC. This wouldn't be pop-free by itself, but it should
| be rather easy to make it so through DSP.
|
| (FWIW, you can also easily mute pro-audio microphones by
| shorting (+) and (-) together. The attenuation is determined by
| the output impedance of the microphone, usually a few hundred
| Ohms, divided by the resistance of your switch. Typically
| you'll get like 60 dB from this, which is perfectly fine for
| muting in a normal setup, but if you crank the preamp all the
| way up you can still get a usable, albeit very noisy, signal
| out of it.)
| markrages wrote:
| Shorting the mic signal is not a straightforward solution.
| For one thing, you can just amplify your signal right back up
| to intelligibility, since 40-60dB attenuation doesn't go
| under the noise floor of a well-designed system.
|
| Just send the mic signal through an op-amp with an enable
| input.
| blattimwind wrote:
| Forward isolation is not necessarily much better than -60
| dB depending on the exact op amp.
| exo762 wrote:
| Talking about stretching terms - how about "zero knowledge"
| encryption marketed by cloud storage providers? Taking a cool
| sounding term from cryptography space and misapplying it to
| describe end to end encryption.
| s_fischer wrote:
| They rely on people with "zero knowledge" of encryption to
| select them as vendors
| marcan_42 wrote:
| Most embedded microphones these days are digital MEMS
| microphones, using PDM. For those, if you gate off the digital
| signal, it's gone for good. I wouldn't be surprised if this is
| what Apple is doing.
|
| This is how the Google Home Mini does it. When you flip the
| mute switch, an AND gate kills the digital signal from both
| microphones (a stereo microphone pair share a single data
| line). All the audio hardware gets is a string of 0 bits at
| that point.
| detaro wrote:
| Considering firmware as part of the hardware from a higher-
| level view is not necessarily that weird in itself. It really
| depends on the details. I.e. a simple microcontroller with a
| program in ROM is also "firmware", but not all that different
| from a pure electronic ciruit. For more complex systems it
| becomes a more difficult question.
|
| Also, why would detecting a closed iPad sleeve require
| "electro-magnet based communication"? Seems like detecting
| presence of a magnet would be enough.
| gumby wrote:
| As a former firmware developer (not for Apple, for power
| generation) it has firmware its not a hardware solution.
|
| We have automatic steam cutoffs that are entirely mechanical.
| I have built a state machine out of hardware logic that would
| have cost less than a dollar with a microprocessor but was
| preferred because it could be verified to work and not be
| remotely "upgradeable".
| nicebill8 wrote:
| > All Mac portables with the Apple T2 Security Chip feature a
| hardware disconnect that ensures the microphone is disabled
| whenever the lid is closed.
|
| vs.
|
| > On the 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air computers with the
| T2 chip, and on the 15-inch MacBook Pro portables from 2019 or
| later, this disconnect is implemented in hardware alone.
|
| Do these statements not contradict each other for the 15" 2018
| MacBook Pro, for example, which includes a T2 chip? This would
| also contradict earlier documentation provided on the T2 chip by
| Apple themselves [1].
|
| From [1]:
|
| > All Mac portables with the Apple T2 Security Chip feature a
| hardware disconnect that ensures that the microphone is disabled
| whenever the lid is closed. This disconnect is implemented in
| hardware alone, and therefore prevents any software, even with
| root or kernel privileges in macOS, and even the software on the
| T2 chip, from engaging the microphone when the lid is closed.
|
| [1]
| https://www.apple.com/euro/mac/shared/docs/Apple_T2_Security...
| (October 2018, page 13)
| alias_neo wrote:
| I don't think they contradict each other. The way I read it is,
| the former, have hardware disconnects controlled by some
| software/firmware, such as a relay/MOSFET or something of that
| kind; an electronic switch.
|
| The latter I read as being hardware _only_; "only" being the
| key addition to this sentence. I would expect this
| implementation to be something like a reed switch to
| magnetically disconnect the lines _physically_ rather than
| electronically.
| ken wrote:
| Isn't the whole point of software to control hardware, at
| some level? How is hardware-controlled-by-software different
| from plain old software-controlled? If a switch can be closed
| by software, I'm having trouble putting my finger on exactly
| what security benefit that might offer.
| derefr wrote:
| > How is hardware-controlled-by-software different from
| plain old software-controlled?
|
| Perhaps it's that the hardware interlock on the microphone
| can be _enabled_ by software, but can only be _disabled_ by
| a physical action (i.e. opening the lid.)
| jaywalk wrote:
| The security benefit here is that software has no access to
| this hardware switch.
| hamiltonkibbe wrote:
| I don't think the distinction is a FET vs a reed switch --
| the means of blocking electrons, rather, it's in what decides
| whether that switch is open or closed. I would consider a
| circuit like this driving the FET/relay/etc. to be a
| "hardware disconnect" (using HDL to describe the circuit, not
| suggesting it should be programmable logic):
| module mic_enable (lid_closed, lots, of, signals,
| mic_enable); input lid_closed, lots, of, signals;
| output mic_enable; assign mic_enable = !lid_closed &
| lots & of & other & signals; endmodule
| simias wrote:
| I think that there are two aspects to this problem of
| hardware disconnects: can we really sure that the
| disconnect actually cuts the microphone and then can we be
| sure that this disconnect is driven reliably to cut the mic
| when we want it to be cut.
|
| Having a separate FET/reed switch is about the former:
| having a discrete component makes it easier to audit and
| make sure that the microphone is indeed cut off.
| Technically messing with the audio codec config or pin
| muxing is probably equally as efficient when it comes to
| muting the audio input, but that's a lot more difficult to
| audit.
|
| But then all all that is pointless if the code driving the
| switch is broken or has a backdoor. Given that most people
| won't disassemble their phone or laptop to put a probe on
| the FET/reed/whatever driving signal I feel like this is
| just a marketing smoke screen.
|
| If I have to trust Apple's firmware to drive the "hardware"
| switch reliably, why not make things simple and trust
| Apple's OS to mute the audio codec reliably?
| hamiltonkibbe wrote:
| I think the whole point is that there is no code
| (firmware or otherwise) driving the switch. I guess it
| depends on your threat model, but if you don't trust
| apple's hardware or firmware to disconnect the
| microphone, you can't trust their hardware not to have
| another microphone somewhere else that isn't advertised
| and is on all the time.
|
| I'd take the term "hardware disconnect" in this sense to
| mean that there exists no program that you can run on any
| of the processors, or no bitstream you could load into
| any FPGA on the device that would be able to enable the
| microphone when it shouldn't be enabled, eliminating the
| threat of malicious code enabling the microphone
| 1f60c wrote:
| > _(The camera is not disconnected in hardware, because its field
| of view is completely obstructed with the lid closed.)_
|
| I love this aside xD
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| great! now give us back the hardware switch
| amelius wrote:
| We only get guaranteed privacy when the lid is closed?
| inscionent wrote:
| You are never guaranteed privacy.
| kyuudou wrote:
| Especially when slinging IP packets anywhere
| danieldk wrote:
| The problem is that otherwise "Hey Siri" wouldn't work on
| (newer) Macs. Still, you can use something like Micro Snitch to
| track webcam/mic use.
|
| Also, in macOS Catalina (I don't remember if this was the case
| in prior versions), applications are not permitted by default
| to use the mic or camera and have to request permission.
|
| These are perhaps not as good as a hardware disconnect, but I
| think Apple is trying to balance privacy and usability here. It
| is clear from what Apple is doing in hardware and software that
| they do care about privacy. Linux and AFAIK Windows do not
| provide that level of privacy, since applications have
| unfettered access to Cameras and Mics.
|
| (Of course, a part of the Linux community is trying to improve
| this through Pipewire, Flatpak, and portals.)
| stevekemp wrote:
| As you say applications have to request permissions to access
| the mic/camera, here's a good writeup of how that was broken
| recently:
|
| https://www.ryanpickren.com/webcam-hacking
| danieldk wrote:
| That was _not_ broken. What was broken was origin
| validation in Safari. There is a difference between a
| vulnerability in the OS permissions system (which this was
| not) to control mic /camera permissions and a vulnerability
| in an application that has already has OS camera
| permissions.
|
| If you do not give an application permission to access the
| camera, then vulnerabilities in those applications do not
| lead to camera access.
|
| (Unfortunately though, Safari is not controlled through
| this permission system, probably because it was provided
| through the OS. Permissions can be controlled for other
| browsers. IMO this should be fixed by Apple.)
| stevekemp wrote:
| I understand the extent of the security problem there,
| and as you say it was Safari-specific. But it goes to
| show that there might be consequences beyond the obvious
| when you do grant an application access to the
| camera/mic.
| fnord123 wrote:
| >The problem is that otherwise "Hey Siri" wouldn't work on
| (newer) Macs.
|
| I've never heard anyone use Siri on their Mac. I'm surprised
| they still bother supporting it.
| Marsymars wrote:
| I use it to control my lights and heating when I'm in the
| same room as my computer (which is also my TV room).
| danieldk wrote:
| Me neither, but I also wonder how many non-expert users
| actually know that it is available. There is the initial
| dialog about Siri when setting up a Mac. After that, it is
| not that prominent. Moreover, it's a bit embarrassing to
| use in an office environment anyway.
|
| That reminds me: I knew some people who had been using Macs
| for years who did not really know that Spotlight existed,
| let alone that you could use Command + space to start a
| Spotlight search. They would launch applications through
| the Finder and put regularly-used applications in the Dock.
| ianhowson wrote:
| I got new AirPods and loved it for about an hour. "Hey
| Siri, open Spotify." "Hey Siri, next track" and so on while
| I was walking around. I'm spending most of my day on conf
| calls, so the AirPods are in anyway.
|
| Then they started false triggering about every ten minutes.
| "Hey Siri, decrease sensitivity" does nothing. "Hey Siri,
| set a timer": "nope your $4k computer can't count time."
|
| Turned it off. Sorry.
| OliverM wrote:
| I use it all the time. It's a great additional channel for
| commands in some workflows.
| fnord123 wrote:
| Can you give some examples? The only way I can think it's
| helpful is for hands free use, but that's more a scenario
| for a phone or tablet rather than a laptop.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Adding reminders is the only thing I ever use it for.
| They carry across to the iPhone, of course, so if I need
| to remind myself to do something later in the day it's
| quite helpful.
|
| I'd use it to set timers, too (by far the most frequent
| thing I use Siri for on iPhone) but annoyingly that
| doesn't work from the Mac.
| abinaya_rl wrote:
| Any idea does other manufacturers does this? Dell or Lenovo?
|
| I'm impressed with Apple's attention to details like this! [?]
| brundolf wrote:
| Apple in 2020 is such a weird thing. Some of the things they
| produce - mostly in the software realm, I guess - have really
| careless and egregious bugs and design problems. But then they
| still come out and make amazing little features like this one
| that nobody thought to ask for, and don't get highly publicized,
| but really speak to that classic detail-oriented Apple mindset.
|
| It's like there's a huge cultural schism running through the
| middle of the company, or something.
| zionic wrote:
| Is it too much to ask for a small LED next to each camera
| indicating if the sensor is powered? Should be standard on
| every phone.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Or maybe an icon in the status bar indicating the camera
| being in use.
| hultner wrote:
| Having it in the status bar would defeat the purpose as ill
| behaving actors could possibly circumvent this, having it
| in the hardware as a led would make this if not impossible
| most likely infeasible. I've only heard one instance where
| someone were able to go around the led and if I recall
| correctly that was on the old PowerBook and required
| physical access to flash the firmware on the camera
| hardware module with custom malicious firmware.
| dnh44 wrote:
| You can get that functionality with Microsnitch. It works
| for the microphone too.
| ashton314 wrote:
| I use MicroSnitch on my mac and love it. I just need it
| for the iPhone. It doesn't exist, does it?
| dnh44 wrote:
| No but it sounds like a good idea. I suspect it would
| require a jailbreak though.
| sixothree wrote:
| I never understood how an expensive device like a camera was
| added to literally every laptop in existence without any
| option to remove (save for a few). I can only think
| manufacturers were pressured.
| naravara wrote:
| Supply chain/production complexity. It's more expensive for
| them to make the option customizable than it is to ship it
| for everyone. If there was an appreciable market for
| consumer-level camera-less machines the math to justify it
| might look different but there isn't. The vast VAST
| majority of the demand for hardware without cameras comes
| from the NatSec type people, and they're all doing bulk
| orders so they get more leverage to have niche production
| runs done for them. And even then they don't always get
| devices without the cameras. They end up having to do
| awkward things like physically disabling the hardware after
| the fact or locking out the functionality with custom
| firmware.
| artiscode wrote:
| Ditto. Or even an old-school LED that indicates data
| transmission like the HDD LED in old computer cases. Make it
| in hardware so that if any data is sent through the wire, it
| lights up.
| jachee wrote:
| People already complain about the price and battery life of
| current phones. I can't imagine either of those things
| making either situation better.
| dandelany wrote:
| You can get SMD 0603 LEDs that use ~1mA of power for a
| few pennies in bulk. Peanuts compared to the power usage
| and price of the rest of the phone.
| rimlicker wrote:
| yeah that LED cost is going to drive my 1400 phone price
| up through the roof
| kick wrote:
| _HDD LED in old computer cases_
|
| Old? I'll admit I haven't changed my case in a couple
| years, but mine currently has one, and I can't remember the
| last time I've used a desktop computer that didn't have
| one.
| notRobot wrote:
| old, adj: Having lived or existed for a relatively long
| time;
|
| https://www.thefreedictionary.com/old
|
| Old doesn't have to mean extinct :)
| robin_reala wrote:
| Unfortunately those were immediately susceptible to tempest
| attacks, at least at old hard drive speeds.
| angry_octet wrote:
| I think you are confusing this with data tx/rx lights for
| exfil[0]? I've never heard of a tempest attack (that is,
| revealing the data written via a side channel) on a hard
| drive light.
|
| [0] Guri et al, LED-it-GO
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06715.pdf
| robin_reala wrote:
| I think it's this paper I remember that describes it as
| an "optical tempest" and talks about storage mechanism
| leakage: http://applied-math.org/acm_optical_tempest.pdf
| angry_octet wrote:
| Yeah it's type II in the Loughry schema. Still
| unfortunate if you're operating a high security air
| gapped network, but not squirting out secrets without
| being compromised first.
|
| It seems almost quaint to worry about this when so much
| software has web spyware baked into it -- but maybe we
| need a virtual spyware led that lights up every time
| something talks to Facebook/Google/etc tracking. The
| light would be blinking non-stop for many people.
| pengaru wrote:
| > they still come out and make amazing little features like
| this one that nobody thought to ask for
|
| Privacy/security-conscious computer users have been asking for
| user-controlled hardware switches on such peripherals from the
| moment they were shipped integrated into the device.
| pc86 wrote:
| > Privacy/security-conscious computer users
|
| So, in the grand scheme of things, "nobody" is an accurate
| description. Most people don't care about a hardware
| disconnect for their microphone, even if they should.
| brundolf wrote:
| Right, and Apple isn't a niche hyper-secure laptop company,
| they just (sometimes) put good features in their mainstream
| products that their customers may not even know they want.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| It's a company with multiple people making multiple decisions
| each day. It shouldn't be surprising that there's variation in
| quality, just like at any other company.
| brundolf wrote:
| But what I see is a gargantuan drop-off. A much wider range
| of variation than you'd normally expect, and mostly
| partitioned to different segments of the business.
|
| Painting with broad strokes, Microsoft's products are fairly
| consistently "fine". Lately perhaps they've skewed towards
| "pretty good". But generally you know what you're going to
| get. Whereas Apple's products can be anywhere from
| _unparalleled_ to _embarrassing_.
| plussed_reader wrote:
| I've always attributed that user-tradition as a Jobs
| byproduct; he was a unifying force for the user experience
| and that role hasn't been filled since his passing. There
| are lots of hands involved with many projects, but it feels
| there's no point-person or champion on this for many years.
|
| From going back to dongle hell of the 90's via USB-C, to
| the conflicting marketization of the macOS products, the
| connectors proliferating on the iOS standards(now lightning
| and USB C!), the conflating of iOS apps into macOS space,
| dropping magsafe; it doesn't feel very user friendly when
| you start getting into the details.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I think this is a positive thing and like the idea of being
| protected even if the machine is compromised. However I would
| still prefer the convenience of a switch in addition to this.
| neycoda wrote:
| But I want to hardware disable it at any time...
| tudorizer wrote:
| Hold on. How is this hardware? Is there a physical button/hinge
| that is triggered? If so, the chip shouldn't matter.
|
| Or is this some piece of logic emebedded in the chip itself or
| the firmware of some other component, which makes this solution a
| software one.
| paxswill wrote:
| My understanding is that the chip is a proxy for when they
| started including it in the design. Similar to how some older
| macOS/OS X releases had requirements like, "faster than
| 867MHz", or "newer than 2012" instead of, "GPU must support
| Quartz Extreme" or "CPU must support XYZ instructions".
| sneak wrote:
| And yet they're still not encrypting iCloud Backups in a way that
| doesn't allow Apple (and by extension the federal police)
| unfettered access to spying on iMessage. iCloud Backup is on by
| default, so this means that iMessage for almost every iPhone user
| is insecure. Incongruent.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Does it really matter if they have a hardware disconnect, when
| the hardware disconnect is controlled by software? It's not truly
| a hardware disconnect unless there's a physical switch that the
| user can flip on or off.
| elliottkember wrote:
| > On the 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air computers with the
| T2 chip, and on the 15-inch MacBook Pro portables from 2019 or
| later, this disconnect is implemented in hardware alone.
| ctdonath wrote:
| What said its software controlled? I'm assuming it's a magnetic
| switch.
| x775 wrote:
| I did not realise this feature existed. Am pleasantly surprised.
| enriquto wrote:
| Why is apple so allergic to physical switches, directly
| switchable by the user?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I'm guessing easier to break, causes more troubleshooting
| issues, looks cleaner without it. The less moving components
| there are, the less warranty and tech support they probably
| have to field too.
|
| Swapping out devices is probably less costly than fixing parts
| of it.
| enriquto wrote:
| Depending on your point of view, only the second "reason" is
| true.
|
| Software switches like the one described in the article
| (despite its name) are definitely easier to break since they
| can be hacked by software. No need to have physical access to
| the computer. A discrete switch definitely looks cleaner than
| a piece of duct tape, and is much easier to turn on/off. If
| you want to "switch off" your mic, bad luck.
| mikece wrote:
| Why doesn't Apple have an option for buying a MacBook Pro with
| the camera and mic physically disconnected? They could sell this
| option at an appropriately priced premium -- along with a stylish
| Bluetooth-connected, 4K webcam with phased array mics for a very
| reasonably $499. I'm sure they would sell hundreds of thousands
| of them.
|
| If ANYBODY could monetize "security chic" it's Apple.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| How hard is it to stick a piece of tape over the camera and
| super-glue the microphone?
| reaperducer wrote:
| Camera, easy. Microphone: Hard, and might contribute to
| thermal issues.
| mikece wrote:
| The underlying sensors are still active. I typically just
| keep my Logitech G430 headphones -- with the physical mute
| switch active -- plugged into my computer at all times
| because the system uses that for sound capture... except
| Siri/Cortana/Ubuntu One hear nothing when those are plugged
| in.
| kevindong wrote:
| I think you're vastly overestimating the demand.
| fortran77 wrote:
| My Lenovo Laptop has a little physical shutter you can slide over
| the camera. It's very handy.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-03 23:00 UTC)