Slashdot Log In
No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Aug 04, 2005 09:06 AM
from the different-sides-of-the-story dept.
from the different-sides-of-the-story dept.
JWeinraub writes "OfB is reporting that, contrary to widely-published and discussed rumors, Apple is not including the controversial Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in its Intel-based Macs. An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components." From the article: "As to why those with access to the kits have been quiet concerning the claims, our source said, 'you can rest assured that Apple is keeping very close tabs on those of us who have them.' The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Market opening indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
No TPM? No IP for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is Pegasos PPC from Genesi who is catering to the Linux PPC workstation crowd. And you can still buy Sun workstation computers too. And there are many other manufacturers making computers like this. These manufacturers probably won't ever add DRM to restrict the people that buy these machines.
And they won't be able to connect to the Internet if the vast majority of ISPs require Trusted Network Connect in order to get an IP address, which some people expect to happen between 2011 and 2015, possibly by force of law [slashdot.org].
Parent
Re:Bring back the BBS (Score:5, Funny)
Should have done like I did. I ran a C64 BBS out of my parents garage. They put strict rules on the modem, so I ended up grabbing a 50ft. cord and running it to the back of my next door neighbor's silverbox (or whatever it was we called it back then...the outside phone junction). She was old and slept most of the time and was not supposed to get calls after 5PM anyways (she'd leave the phone off the hook), so from 9PM until I got up to go to school, the BBS was running. And with strict rules as to when it was up and when it wasn't...back then all the BBS lists had hours of operations listed.
That didn't stop the idiots from calling her up during the day though -- just to see -- and she kept harassing my parents about knowing the aliens were trying to get her because she heard them sneak around at night -- never stealing anything -- and they called her during the day with their wierd chatter
Where there is a will, there is a way.
Parent
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Who are you?
What is this?
Parent
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Either way Steve needs to deploy the RDF (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need here is some of Steve Jobs's patented straight talk routine. Stand up and tell us that the DRM will work solely to limit the OS to Apple-branded systems, or whatever... but tell us something, rather than having rumors turn themselves over on slashdot.
(Not that there's any way to get 'hold of /. rumors for good. But you want to shape them a little.)
Parent
don't be so melodramatic (Score:5, Insightful)
The trusted computing hardware doesn't prevent you from running untrusted code, it just prevents untrusted code from accessing protected data. What the lack of inclusion of trusted computing hardware would mean is simply that, if trusted computing catches on on Windows, a lot of Windows-based music and video can't be accessed on the Macintosh at all.
Would this leave Apple as the only "General computer" left?
Apple has never produced "general computers"; they don't support running other operating systems on their hardware, and they have a long history of using proprietary and undocumented hardware components in their Macintosh platform. The reason things have gotten better recently is not a change of heart at Apple, but the fact that they are increasingly using standard PC components in their systems.
A more accross the board move to Apple could even be a boon to linux as more people accept the fact that there are options to wintel
Apple hardware will be a decent choice for Linux as soon as (1) Apple gives you the option of buying the hardware without the software and (2) Linux developers aren't forced to create drivers by reverse engineering anymore.
On balance, I still think it's good for Apple to leave this out; if they really need it later, they should be able to provide it as a USB dongle. However, leaving it out doesn't make Macintosh an "open platform"; it never has been, and the way it looks, it won't be any time soon.
Parent
Re:start researching your facts (Score:5, Informative)
I think this company [terrasoftsolutions.com] would tell you otherwise. (OK, it does ship with software, but its the precious Linux you want to run on it anyway).
Their processor, motherboard, and BIOS are clearly not standard PC components.
As stated above, current Macintosh computers don't use a BIOS, they use OpenFirmware, which, as the name implies, is open. As for the processor and motherboard, what about them is undocumented, that isn't with PC hardware? I'd guess Motorola and IBM are actually MORE open than Intel is about their processors, and most motherboard manufacturers don't tell you that much info beyond what chipset their using, so in this case, they're about as open as Apple is with their motherboards.
Parent
This flies in the face of reality (Score:5, Informative)
While it is very much correct that the Developer Transition Platform does not represent shipping or production hardware, the motherboard does indeed have an Infineon Trusted Platform Module [infineon.com] controller right on the motherboard [imageshack.us]. Mac OS X for Intel Platforms contains a TCPA/TPM kernel extension, by the name of AppleTPMACPI.kext.
It's very much correct that this doesn't necessarily represent the shipping hardware. Apple today doesn't have serialization, product activation, or any other limiting copy protection technology in place on Mac OS X. It is purely tied to Apple hardware by the Mac OS X EULA [apple.com], which, by tying Mac OS X to Apple-branded hardware only, effectively quashes any commercial entity from developing and promoting any other platform that might support Mac OS X. Granted, the landscape changes with Mac OS X running on the x86 architecture, but until a production Mac OS X machine ships, there is absolutely nothing to indicate the final scenario one way or the other.
The rest of the article, however, makes no sense in that, while he correctly asserts that the Developer Transition Platform doesn't represent the final shipping product, it does indeed contain an Infineon TPM module.
Keep in mind that the motherboard in the Developer Transition Platform is a very generic one, and could just as easily be a preexisting Intel motherboard that already includes TPM. Remember: everything in the Developer Transition Platform at present is generic Intel components. They don't support FireWire 800, Bluetooth, 802.11, and have a generic standard Intel BIOS. Does that imply shipping machines will be that way? No? Then neither does the inclusion of a TPM chip on this particular motherboard. There is precedent for Apple taking special care to disallow the spread of prerelease/developer software and hardware, while having no such equivalent restrictions in the final product.
In short, to quote Dean Reece [apple.com] of Apple:
"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product."
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, so you may not have heared about that obscure OS called Linux
Parent
Re:This flies in the face of reality (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe there are versions of Windows NT 4 that work with older Macs, I don't know about newer ones as there was a change in firmware architecture shortly after Microsoft stopped supporting the PowerPC version of NT 4.
There's a difference between third parties not necessarily supporting hardware, and that hardware locking them out.
Parent
Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)
So we have some people saying that there are DRM chips in the x86 macs, and some people saying that there aren't DRM chips in the x86 macs... did it ever occur to anybody that Apple might be shipping different configurations to different people? It makes sense that they'd try a few different things out before release.
Re:Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
NDA (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I can see how well that's working for them.
Re:NDA (Score:5, Interesting)
The rumors out there are likely "Well, I heard from this one guy... that attended WWDC on a Student Scholarship that the dev kits..."
Parent
better idea and no DRM required (Score:5, Interesting)
All Apple would need to do to prevent their OS from being run on generic hardware, would be to use a totally different addressing schema than that used by generic DOS/Windows/Linux PCs. Of course, it will still be possible to compile Linux and BSD for Apple hardware {the absolute minimum you need to port any OS written in a compiled language to a new architecture is an interpreter, written in assembler, and just capable enough to understand the compiler compiling itself}. But OS XI would not run on generic hardware because the memory map would be all wrong and the I/O devices would be in the wrong places. And as long as Apple did not release the source code, nobody would be able to recompile OS XI for generic hardware.
Can Apple possibly NOT include TPM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I don't think Apple is going to have a choice in this matter. When the big media companies have seen TC and its "benefits" on the Wintel Vista boxes, they will demand it on Apple boxes. Since Apple doesn't currently have the *COMPUTER* marketshare to stand up to the MPAA/RIAA, on the COMPUTER (where video content will come), they will be unable to get any of the content that media companies will be comfortable releasing to a Trusted Vista box. Since Apple only has 5% market share, it won't hurt much to leave them out.
So why does Apple NEED that content? Simple. In recent years, Steve Jobs is taking steps to reinvent Apple as a media company. Not a media PRODUCTION company, but a company that makes media-centric equipment. The iPod now contributes far more than its fair share of profits to Apple's bottom line. Jobs has visions of Apple computers being the "hub" of a home media system. How can any of this POSSIBLY happen when the companies that control the content will not release it to non-DRMed Apples?
Jobs is a good negotiator -- that is clear from his dealings with music companies with iTunes. But there is NOTHING that the MPAA/RIAA is more afraid of than rampant piracy. They see it as bad now, but potentially MUCH worse when all those computers are connected to home TVs and stereos. The sad reality (for me, especially, as I would certainly get a non-TPMed Apple if it was the only "free" (as in speech) choice) is that it WILL happen sooner or later, because it would be a major stumbling block to Apple's foreseeable future as a media-delivery company.
Re:Can Apple possibly NOT include TPM? (Score:5, Informative)
The music industry has found a combination that seems to work in iTunes. While it's obviously possible to break the DRM, we have no evidence that it's happening on a wide scale. Most people just burn-rerip for player compatibility, and few people notice the difference in most cases.
Just try and remember that unlike geeks and hackers, marketing and management people are very quick to jump on a solution that works and stick with it. Even small variations that cause minute dips or rises in sales can mean huge changes in quarterly reports. The Risk of locking out iTunes is enourmous. Both Apple and the recording industry stand in a position of mostly equal power in this situation.They have a solution that is working very well right now. If they were to change it, they would almost certainly take a huge hit. Make no mistake, things are not going well for the record industry right now. It's doubtful that they can afford another major paradigm shift, especially when this Napster/Yahoo New Deal has shown that consumers are smart enough to see through the ploy and reject them.
Parent
Re:Who to believe? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)
The chip is in *some* of the dev kits. That's all we know for sure. The rest is rumour.
Is it on all dev kits?
Is it enabled?
Is it enforced if enabled?
Will it make it onto the released kit?
Simple answer: Dunno.
Parent
They took care of that (Score:5, Interesting)
$499 gets you a mac mini that has basically the same specs as my 15 month old powerbook. 512MB, 1.25 GHz G4. No, Apple doesn't compete with whitebox selling-out-of-my-trunk "vendors" on pricewatch.
Parent
Re:Anonymous truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?"
I am quite sure that everybody who claimed to have seen some chip on an Apple devkit machine has done so anonymously, and so has anybody who claimed to have taken a photo of an Apple devkit motherboard. Because if they put their name to it, Apple will jump on them so hard that they never recover.
So for all we know, the guys who claim to have seen any DRM chip could be complete idiots who have never been anywhere near an Intel Mac. In any case, they are in breach of an NDA, therefore not trustworthy. If they breach their contract with Apple, what makes you think they would tell _you_ the truth?
Parent