Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Businesses Privacy Apple

No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs 459

Posted by Zonk 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This discussion has been archived.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.

No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs More

No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs

Comments Filter:

  • Market opening indeed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by panxerox ( 575545 ) * on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:07AM (#13239200)
    Even though the article says these are "test boxes" apple should see that wIthout DRM they would have the perfect weapon to gain market share. The difference between heavily restricted wintel boxes and non DRM Apples will be apparent even down to the level of J6P. Would this leave Apple as the only "General computer" left? 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 (or at least options to Microsoft). Americans generally only get upset at the loss of Freedom when those it is the kind of abrupt in your face taking that DRM represents.

    • Re:Market opening indeed (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zweideutig ( 900045 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:23AM (#13239306)
      No, even if all PCs become DRM-laden, Apple (which I wouldn't be surprised if they go to DRM in their Macs in the next seven years) will not be the only "general computer" manufacturer around. There is Pegasos PPC from Genesi [pegasosppc.com] 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. So if Apple never includes DRM (which I doubt, with their interest in pleasing the RIAA with iTunes, and I think they want to please the MPAA too) they will still not be the only company around making DRM-free machines.

    • Either way Steve needs to deploy the RDF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#13239612)
      If Apple wants to gain market share based on differentiating itself from the competition's draconian DRM measures, it'd be a good idea to put some english on this "spin" right quick. Letting the world speculate based on anonymous sources and not-for-production developer seed systems is not such a good idea -- assuming they think this is a good talking point for them, and given the iTunes store's emphasis on liveable DRM, they seem to.

      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.)

    • don't be so melodramatic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @10:11AM (#13239729)
      Americans generally only get upset at the loss of Freedom when those it is the kind of abrupt in your face taking that DRM represents.

      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.

      • they don't support running other operating systems on their hardware

        Wrong. Apple and OSF Research Institute started MkLinux to run atop PowerPC hardware. In addition, Apple ran AIX on some of their older servers.

        and they have a long history of using proprietary and undocumented hardware components in their Macintosh platform.

        In the early to mid-nineties yes they did. In the late nineties Apple switched this and moved to a completely open platform. They use OpenFirmware (which ( if you didn't pick up

        • Wrong. Apple and OSF Research Institute started MkLinux to run atop PowerPC hardware. In addition, Apple ran AIX on some of their older servers.

          Macintosh hardware remains partially undocumented (in some cases, because Apple chose to use proprietary and undocumented PC components), and open source operating systems can't make full use of the hardware. That's true even for MkLinux.

          That makes Macintosh a worse platform for open source operating systems than PC hardware. The fact that the only way you can buy

          • Re:start researching your facts (Score:5, Informative)

            by PygmySurfer ( 442860 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @02:08PM (#13243090)
            The fact that the only way you can buy a Macintosh is bundled with software also means it's not a good platform for open source operating systems.

            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.
    • Even though the article says these are "test boxes" apple should see that wIthout DRM they would have the perfect weapon to gain market share.

      I'm always surprised when I read comments like this. Especially highly modded. What percentage of the market share do you think would really change there buying decision to preference a non-DRM computer. Do you think it is even 1% when you consider how high a percentage is just bought by schools and businesses in bulk. Plus I don't know how much it matters to t
      • It'll be more than that.

        Consider the specs required to play HD-DVD on a PC:

        1. An HDCP/HDMI compatible graphics card.
        2. An HDCP/HDMI compatible monitor/display.
        3. A DRM capable sound card
        4. DRM capable digital speakers
        5. A DRM capable motherboard
        6. (possibly) a DRM capable processor
        7. Longhorn
        8. An HD-DVD drive

        So to play HD-DVD on a PC you will basically need to buy a complete new PC, using components that aren't even available yet.

        If OSX avoids/never implements DRM this shortens to:

        1. An HD-DVD drive

        (I'm as
        • Where did you get the above list? I tried searching google and wikipedia and could not find any similar information. Phrases like "DRM capable sound card" and "DRM capable digital speakers" produce 0 hits on google. I am a bit skeptical that all of those will be required to play your average hollywood movie on a PC, especially with an upcoming format war.
        • If OSX avoids/never implements DRM this shortens to:

          1. An HD-DVD drive

          And if all those DRM features are needed on a PC to play the disk, you can bet the Mac will never be licensed to legally play back the disks, unless they include a form of DRM that's equally as strong. So you while you can have fun making HD-DVD disks of your home movies in iMovie, you aren't going to be playing back the lastest and greatest from the MPAA.

  • This flies in the face of reality (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:07AM (#13239204)
    Posting anonymously, here...

    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."

    • I will not be buying anymore Apples then. I'm sorry. I don't care who does it, or what reason they have for doing it, crippling your hardware in that way in the name of a business model isn't acceptable.

      And for all those snide comments about giving hackers something to break... Well, those same hackers will end up going to jail. We've seen what happens to mod-chip makers. This kind of hardware practically requires a mod-chip to bypass, unless you're Microsoft and make such horribly buggy software that

    • "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."

      No, no, no. People keep on saying this, but it is not true. Name one EC case in which post-sale restrictions on use have been upheld by the EC courts. Name one EC case in which the provisions of a EULA forbidding installation on a particular type of machine, o

    • You realize, of course, that the serial number on the Intel chip clearly identifies you to Apple.


      Dude, you're toast.

    • The parent has it exactly right. There are a number photos doing the rounds of what is clearly an Infineon TPM 1.2 module on the development kit motherboard, right where you would expect next to the ICH7 south bridge. The layout looks identical to some of Intels own i915G motherboards, except those I have seen have a Infineon TPM 1.1 spec module onboard. Just about all Intel's southbridge designs released in the last 6 years have had an interface for an external hardware random number generator and crypto
    • Well, the *only* reason the chip is there is so they can track the development machines, which is right there in the opening article. Basically, they want to have the ability to know that whoever's breaking the NDA, which in my opinion is perfectly fair. If you sign an aggrement that says you would not leak the operating system, then fates be damned if you do.

      So to tell you the truth, I don't even care what the development Macs have or don't have. They could have a full-scale implementation of Palladium

  • Conflicting reports (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Linus Torvaalds ( 876626 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:08AM (#13239210)

    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.

  • Do we believe there is, isn't, or will be. Sounds like the same response to Intel 1+ month ago with the DRM claims in thier chipsets, etc.

    We shall find out within a year...

  • NDA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fr05t ( 69968 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:09AM (#13239218)
    "' The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement.'"

    Yeah, I can see how well that's working for them.

    • Re:NDA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rosyna ( 80334 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:14AM (#13239247) Homepage
      It is actually working for them since almost every single rumor out there is wrong. About what the kits come with, what they don't come with, et cetera. This goes to show that most of the people that do have the devkits are keeping their mouth shuts.

      The rumors out there are likely "Well, I heard from this one guy... that attended WWDC on a Student Scholarship that the dev kits..."

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Another thing to consider is that these developer machines are technically beta and may not represent what the first Intel Mac will actually ship with.
    Apple may not care what people do with the Developer Macs because of the tight NDAs, but I'm sure they have a plan in place for the millions of iTels to come. Apple has repeatedly stated they are a hardware company and to loose their OS to cheap PCs would spell death to their business model.

  • I'm still confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Psykechan ( 255694 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:18AM (#13239278)
    While the article states that there is no DRM or TCPA in the dev boxes, there is still proof [imageshack.us] to the contrary.

    The article also states that these in no way represent the shipped product, which makes sense, but if they say that there is no DRM and then say that the shipped product will be different, does that mean that production Macintels will have DRM?

    I had been concerned recently and was considering not recommending Macs to people asking me what computer to buy. Please Apple, give us a definite answer on this.

  • Anonymous truth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:27AM (#13239338) Journal
    An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components.

    Wow - so regardless that the dev kits contain the code and the mobo's contain the chip, an anonymous developer said they don't have them?

    Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?

    • Re:Anonymous truth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:35AM (#13239382)
      "Wow - so regardless that the dev kits contain the code and the mobo's contain the chip, an anonymous developer said they don't have them?

      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?

  • Quite possible this was a toe dip . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:34AM (#13239381)
    . . . Apple has been told quite clearly by the market that having the distinction of being the first mover in the locked down PC market won't be good for the share price.

    So they went from "We're going to lock down OSX with Treacherous Computing" to "DRM? What DRM?"

  • better idea and no DRM required (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... minus herbivore> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:41AM (#13239431)
    Just because a computer is based around a particular processor, does not necessarily mean it is going to be software- and hardware-compatible with other machines based around the same processor. For instance, the BBC model B, the Commodore PET and the Atari 400/800 were all based around the 6502 processor. The Sinclair Spectrum and the Amstrad PCW8256 were based around the Z80A processor. Both the Acorn Atom and the Dragon 32 used the 6847 video chip. And both the Oric-1 and the Amstrad CPC464 used the Yamaha AY-3-8910 sound/PIO chip. Anyone who was reading computer magazines in the 1980s will tell you that even when it was possible, it was a devil of a job to translate type-in listings meant for one machine so they could be run on another. It wasn't made any easier by the almost total lack of abstraction in many systems -- you would often have to use PEEK and POKE statements {and IN and OUT on Z80 machines with their separate memory and I/O buses} to manipulate memory and peripherals directly.

    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.
    • Things change.
      The last thing any OS wants to do is tie themselves too tightly to a hardware layout.
      The way things work now is you use device drivers to handle the hardware. That way you can use ATI or Nividia GPUs. The whole different memory map thing just isn't part of modern computers anymore. Think about it. OS/X runs on both PowerPC and Intel! WindowsNT/2000 ran on Alpha, MIPS, Intel, and PPC.

  • devkits (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrm677 ( 456727 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:52AM (#13239507)
    You can't draw conclusions from what is in the dev kits.

    Development kits are first cuts at hardware and often lack or contain hardware not in the final version.

  • Can Apple possibly NOT include TPM? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aspenbordr ( 803828 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @09:58AM (#13239561)
    First of all, I will say that I am as against Trusted Computing as the next guy on Slashdot. I think it is a terrible thing.

    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)

      by Paradox ( 13555 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @10:40AM (#13240152) Homepage Journal
      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.
      This implies that the media companies are unhappy with the current situation in music. I'm not sure this is the case. Legal music sales are skyrocketing, iTunes Music Store is making more and more money, and people seem to be okay with this. While some companies on the fringe are trying other subscription-based deals, by-and-large these companies have no significant penetration. It's not happening overnight, but online legal music sales are becoming more and more common.

      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.

      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.
      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.

  • Another example of poor reporting! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#13239621) Journal
    This is another example of poor reporting on both sides. The first report was Apple will have DRM, based on what? Anonymous sources and speculation. Not hard facts, or confirmation from Apple or another source that would know. Now we have an anonymous source contradicting the original report.

    The media needs to focus on reporting the facts! Don't turn headlines into flamebait or exagerations used to draw in readers and sell more ads.
  • I know the chip is physically there, but I don't think it's being used for anything important. My proof? Well, for starters, someone (Blex86r from the OSX86 project) http://www.flickr.com/photos/56598311@N00 [slashdot.org]">got OS X for x86 running in VMWare. If there was DRM, I think he might have had a bit of a harder time getting it to work.

  • Dueling Rumors (Score:3, Funny)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday August 04, 2005 @12:30PM (#13241866) Homepage Journal
    There is evidence that Apple may use DRM in their production Intel-based Macs. There is evedence that Apple will not use DRM in their production Intel-based Macs.

    So far, the sum of these stories is: "There's a 50% chance that Apple will use DRM!" vs. "There's a 50% chance that Apple won't use DRM!"

    This would be a perfect topic for a pundit tracker [slashdot.org].

  • DRM is a Moot Point Right Now (Score:3, Informative)

    by brockbr ( 640130 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:11PM (#13242440)
    Question: Why would Apple release an OS level DRM chip/scheme/driver at this point in the game?

    Apple has made it clear that it will take "MacTel" hardware to run OSX. Most /.'ers would love to have that changed to "Any x86" hardware.

    Apple is not stupid - Whatever they are cooking up for protecting their hardware wouldn't be put in the hands of the very people that could try to defeat it.

    And in case you think I may have missed the point about why there may be support for DRM (as it applies to Music/Movies etc) I haven't. I happen to think this is coming one way or another - Apple may simply use it to lock down OSX to MacTel hardware.

  • TPM is not DRM (Score:4, Informative)

    by SiliconEntity ( 448450 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:45PM (#13242842)
    The TPM chip is not necessarily used for DRM. In fact in today's environment, it can't be used for that purpose. To use it for DRM it is necessary for the chip to be sold with an embedded key and for the manufacturer to supply a certificate (similar to a web site certificate) which means that the key is a valid TPM key. No manufacturers are presently doing this, because the whole issue is too controversial.

    I have a computer with a TPM that I bought for research, and I tried to get one with a key and a certificate, but it was impossible. Even though it was for legitimate security research, everyone has been scared by all the anti-TCPA and anti-Palladium activism on the net.

    You can still do some useful things with the TPM; it has crypto features and can do some Tripwire-like functionality. But this is not DRM.

    It's entirely possible that Apple is using the TPM for various purposes. Theoretically the software could look for a particular brand of TPM and use that to somewhat limit which boxes it would run on. Or it could be using it for the crypto functions.

    But that is a far cry from using it for DRM or the other advanced features in the TCPA spec. My reading of the various claims and counter-claims is that Apple is in fact shipping with a TPM but it is not using it for DRM and has no plans to do so. That is generally consistent with what all sides are saying, modulo a bit of confusion and sloppy terminology. It appears to be as close to the truth as we are going to get in a situation like this.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.

Close