[hyperknot]

Isn't it possible that Apple developed this filesystem primarily to be used with their SSD based devices which are using their custom controllers, which simply takes care of this low level protection? SSD controllers are said to be very complicated piece of proprietary technologies, and I believe they are using sophisticated algorithms for integrity protection.

[vetinari]

Apple users use external (USB, Thunderbolt) drives too, where they would not get this special hypothetical protection.

[justinjlynn]

Clearly telegraphing Apple's intent to release new "Apple approved (and licensed)" storage "accessories" for their systems.

[cmurf]

That'd just be going back to their historical roots. You used to only be able to buy Apple RAM and Apple drives. All parts were Apple parts, there wasn't anything else.

And look, we're already back to, you can only get RAM from Apple, because so many of their products come with it soldered on the logic board with no upgrade path.

[tedd4u]

Maybe, but isn't the recent trend at Apple to discontinue desktop-only accessories (like monitors)?

https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/21/apple-reportedly-stops-develo...

https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/23/12020510/apple-thunderbol...

[Analemma_]

At the recent Mac Pro announcement, they also said there would be a new Apple-branded monitor, so they're not out of that game completely.

[zeveb]

It's courage!

[toyg]

Lock-in all the things!

[justinjlynn]

Indeed, sure would be a shame for anything to happen to your data because you chose not to use drives equipped with iStoreSafe(tm) technology by Apple(tm).

[kevin_thibedeau]

Brings back the days when Mac users were paying a 3x markup for standard SCSI drives.

[michaelmrose]

This is bad logic. The benefits derived from additional data integrity assurances would be additive.

A special controller isn't a valid substitute for other measures apple hasn't historically been any good at designing filesystems and they aren't any good now.

[asveikau]

Don't buy the hype or fall into the magical thinking. Disks fail. Apple tried to handwave it away.

[coldtea]

And yet, neither Windows, nor Linux, nor macOS does anything special about it for consumer/90% of professional use, and the sky hasn't fallen.

[michaelmrose]

Earlier cars were terrible death traps and we were told crashes at highway speeds were unsurvivable.

People died in mangled messes but the sky didn't fall then either.

The status quo is rarely a sufficient argument because the human race is pretty much terrible at everything improving things only slowly, incrementally accruing useful strategies and procedures.

We built bridges well via centuries of practice, software is less mature.

[coldtea]

>The status quo is rarely a sufficient argument

And I didn't say it is. My answer was to the parent who singled-out Apple as somehow special in neglecting this.

[michaelmrose]

They are writing a new filesystem today and neglecting this they are special and not in a good way.

[asveikau]

Nitpick: I can think of one thing NTFS does proactively about this problem. Just not anything good. Googled and found: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/doxley/2008/10/29/self-h...

In my time at Microsoft I did see a number of workarounds for bad disks in Windows source, in ntfs.sys and elsewhere.

However I agree with your overall assessment, it's not as if anyone is running zfs or similar as a default.

[toyg]

To be honest, I have a long list of friends, especially in creative professions where people struggle with setting up reliable backups. There is a reason Dropbox and other cloud drives were so successful. Any improvement on the data integrity front is very welcome.