Apple to Lock OSXi to Apple Hardware

spac writes "It seems that Apple has chosen to use the Trusted Platform Module chip to ensure that Mac OS X can only run on Apple Hardware. The report from vnunet states that the chips contain a unique identifier, which can be used to determine the manufacturer of a PC as well as facilities for data encryption. "

Comments

Not will use, but *might* use

[BWJones]

The first sentence in the linked article says "Apple COULD use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner." emphasis mine.

While I do not doubt this will in fact be the case, I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors to ensure that submitters are not spreading misinformation. In fact, if you click on the Gartner new analysis linked in the vnunet article, you will find no mention of the "security chip" being quoted by this article so we have nested lousy reporting. Yeah, yeah, I must be new here. Ha ha

Seriously though, this is a reasonable move for Apple to ensure that the look, feel and reliability of the MacOS does not become corrupted for some users who may want to install OS X on "lower quality hardware". Apple prides itself on a quality user experience that approaches a luxury product. Everything from the appearance of the fonts to the way consumers interact with the interface needs to remain consistently "high quality" and I am sure Apple will make efforts to preserve this experience.

As well as providing for an OS "lock" on hardware, the implementation of such chips will also allow for stronger security as well as enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[michael.creasy]

enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios
Really?
Both MovieLink and CinemaNow are both distributing movies on the web with Hollywood's consent.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[diamondsw]

More like they are a business and they would like to remain in business.

As for their hardware being "grossly overpriced", you haven't actually looked at their lineup in the last several years, have you? We've been over it a million times here, and for a comparable computer (yes, this means no leaving out wireless, firewire, and all of those things Mac users use and take for granted), their consumer line is either in-line with the PC or better (Mac Mini, especially). Their pro line is not as competitive (Powerbooks, especially) which is why this whole Intel shift started in the first place.

If you want a bare bones box without Firewire, wireless, Gigabit ethernet, etc, fine - go build one and enjoy it. But don't expect Apple to build you one and don't cloud the argument by lowballing PC hardware prices.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[deacon]

Can you show us some examples of hardware that *spec for spec* is grossly overpriced compared to name brand PC box sellers?

I'm glad you asked!

apple store:

Apple Memory Module 2.0GB PC3200 ECC DDR 2x1.0GB DIMMS Apple Memory Module 2.0GB PC3200 ECC DDR 2x1.0GB DIMMS

Price $1,000.00

from newegg:

CORSAIR XMS Extreme Memory Speed Series, (Twin Pack) 184 Pin 2GB(1GBx2) ECC Registered DDR PC-3200 -Retail

Price: $332.00

On the other hand, I did recently use the free itunes for windows to turn an ancient pc into a standalone jukebox, and I have to give apple credit, it works great, nice interface, logical behaviour. I just feed it new CD's occasionally (from the heaps that litter the space around the stereo amp) while it plays the party shuffle of music that is already loaded.

I still have not figured out how to "reshuffle" the party shuffle deck, so to speak, but even though my bias is generally anti-apple, I am assuming that the option is there somewhere, and I must give them praise where praise is due.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so when will MacOSX be "finished"? Or is 10.4 the final release ever?

10.4 is FINISHED just like 10.3 is finished and 10.2, etc.

Was 10.4 a FREE upgrade from 10.3? No it was not. Don't expect 10.5 to be FREE either.

What is it about Apple that makes people so stupid that you post that and someone else mods you up for it? Hello, econ 101 knocking at the door...

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[BVis]

Don't you think there is a reason Apple sends out a $179 OSX update every single year?

You must mean AU$ or CDN$. I see a price of $129 on store.apple.com right now.

Look how infrequently Microsoft releases paid OS updates.

That's part of the problem. I bet most windows users would pay for an OS that's updated more often than every 4 years or so (excluding security patches). (Anyone seen Longhorn?)

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[bastion_xx]

You mean $129 every 18 months or so. Well worth every penny, at least every other upgrade.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Kintalis]

I still have not figured out how to "reshuffle" the party shuffle deck, so to speak, but even though my bias is generally anti-apple, I am assuming that the option is there somewhere, and I must give them praise where praise is due.
The circular button in the top-right corner becomes a Refresh button in the Party Shuffle view. Wasn't immediately obvious to me either, but fairly easy once you know where to look. --K

vague..

[jabella]

Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.

*snip*

A spokeswoman for the TPG confirmed to vnunet.com that there is nothing preventing Apple from implementing the module

it doesn't sound like apple's 'chosen' anything at all yet...?

Shock! Horror! Sensationalist /. headline

[Space cowboy]

According to TFA...

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, saying that the company it is not yet ready to reveal product specifications

In other words, the whole thing is based around two facts we already knew: Apple wants to restrict OSX to Apple machines, and there is a chip on the motherboards that can be used for this.

Uh, people, there's a chip in a G5 that can do the same. The server version of OSX is reputed to use it, but I've installed the same OSX DVD on more than one Apple box before...

So, the entire article can be summed up as 'Apple might use DRM to secure their OS'. Whoopy-doo.

Simon

Misleading summary

[Have Blue]

The article states that Apple COULD do this, not that they will definitely do this. This is a RUMOR. Is it too much to ask that the editors confirm that the summary is consistent with the article next time? We'll have to start checking even the summary for goatse links now.

More likely that they'll do the following

[Anonymous Coward]

* Use Open Firmware
* Lock it to their custom Northbridge as they usually do

Yeah, I like how speculation turns into fact here on Slashdot...

"Apple could use the Trusted Platform..."

hey, let's make stuff up!

[illtron]

I'm convinced that /. readers generally read on a third-grade level. Let's look at what that actually said...

Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.

They could. Yeah. I could have told you that.

And here's the analysis from Gartner:

The x86 Mac OS will run only on Apple hardware, possibly with enforcement through Trusted Platform Module technology.

So basically Apple has not chosen anything. Learn to read before you submit your crap to Slashdot, people. Is that so much to ask?

Answer: no

[daveschroeder]

Will Apple's hardware check for a signed loader and lock the hardware to only running their OS as well?

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Re:Answer: no

[Colol]

Maybe you've heard of this operating system called Darwin. It's what Apple builds Mac OS X on top of. Included in the Darwin project's CVS repository are a variety of hardware drivers, including those for ... Mac touchpads! This is why there are a variety of enhanced touchpad drivers available for PowerBooks and iBooks.

It's not a simple port, but your development cycle's a lot shorter when you already have a fully working driver in front of you.

And with the exception of the most recent Powerbooks, the touch pad isn't "proprietary hardware." It's just another Synaptics touch pad. The same can be said for most of their machines' bits, actually -- really, Apple designs the motherboard, loads it up with mostly off-the-shelf parts (Motorola modems, TI firewire chipsets, Intel NICs), and that's that. Most of your "proprietary hardware" is stuff like the tilt sensor and the keyboard backlight controller, neither of which are particularly vital to have running under any OS. Why reinvent the wheel when a quality part already exists?

And I'm with the other poster: a touchpad for gaming?! Surely you jest.

Re:What about the reverse?

[davechen]

Apple VP Phil Schiller has said that they will not do anything to prevent someone from running Windows on their Intel machines.

Probably EFI

[Paradox]

Best guess of what's going to be in these desktop boxes, given what we've been seeing on /., Ars, and what little info the macdevs have leaked.

1. Pentium M family. Yonah maybe, but possibly something further down the M family tree (which may or may not be ready yet).
   
2. Intel's EFI. In some ways, better than OpenFirmware. In some ways, worse. We know that the new macs are not going to use OpenFirmware. It's been confirmed.
   
3. Intel's privacy stuff, as mentioned in TFA. This isn't necessarily bad stuff used for media DRM. It's just a platform lock, which is annoying but hardly the end of the world.
   
4. It may be the end of integrated sound for Apple, but I'm not sure that this will be the case.
   

Hope this helps.

Re:Yeah, but...

[jusdisgi]

will it run Linux?

I'd bet on it. At the announcement, they said they would ensure that OSX only ran on Apple hardware, but that they would not do anything to stop people from running Windows on Apple hardware. I think the quote even said "I'm sure a few people will do that" but I don't have it handy.

Now, they didn't mention Linux/BSD/etc., but I'd guess that if they expect a stock copy of XP to run, somebody will have Linux going on it the first night.

Re:Is that legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are entirely correct. See IBM v. United States or more recently SCC v Lexmark

Basically, using technical or licensing means to shut a competitor out of one market if they want to use your product in a different market is illegal, whether you phrase it as a licensing restriction (IBM) or even as a DCMA copyright case (Lexmark).

So, yeah. Should they go this route, Apple would have a substantial uphill legal battle.

Your mileagle may vary

[killproc]

I don't know what kind of computers YOU build, but with my Antec case, I have none of the "EVIL" PC issues that you descibed.

To change out memory, I merely have to open the side of the case, turn the case on its side (big hardship there), and insert the RAM.

Harddrives, CD/DVD Drives are a bit more complicated. I have to open the case (again using the handy side panel), turn the case on its side (horrors!), and, if I'm feeling froggy, use 4 screws to connect the slide rails to the side of the drive that allow me to insert or remove the drive from the case from the case front. Connect the cables. Done. Total of about 4 minutes.

I'm glad you like your Mac, but you really can't compare aan expensive PowerMac to an El Cheapo case that was poorly designed.

What I like about my PC is that I can add and or remove components without being held captive to a single hardware provider.

I am watching this issue very closely HOPING that Apple decides to offer the OS without strongarming the consumer to buy "Official Apple Hardware". I would love to run OSX at home, but again, I also want to have more control over my computer than Mr. Jobs has felt in the past was prudent.

I may be labeled a troll for this, but IMHO, selling OSX "AS AN OS" without hardware restrictions will be the only way we will have any competition on the desktop front. Linux just ain't there yet for the vast majority of computer users.

Re:Outdated

[budgenator]

I'd argue that considering how much I've spent on my wife Dell computer, Dell all-in-one scanner-fax-printer and Dell inject ink that they're just like HP, an ink company!

Re:Outdated

[Fred Ferrigno]

But it is going to happen. Jobs himself has said so.

He did? Link?

Funny, Apple VP Phil Schiller said the exact opposite.

Apple was cheaper for me. (YMMV)

[Rimbo]

Short version for the impatient: I found Apple SFF (Small Form Factor) hardware to be 60% as expensive as equivalent Intel-based SFF hardware when shopping for a computer at the beginning of this year.

At the beginning of the year, I was looking for a replacement web server. Rimbosity.com was running on a P-233 MMX that was loud, had no APM support, and using significant amounts of electricity. It was in a full tower box that I bought back in the day when I equated the size of my computer with the manliness of my geekdom.

So I was looking for something small, quiet, and low-powered, but not a laptop since I saw it a waste to pay for the extra expenses of a battery, integrated LCD or keyboard. And while I'm upgrading, I might as well have a processor in the Gigahertz range.

Looking through the catalogs of (usually Pentium-M based) machines, I found that I could have a sufficient barebones system starting at about $300. That's without factory system testing, hard disk, processor or RAM. Adding those in, you end up with prices starting around $900 and easily hitting four figures. I could get stuff for less, but it meant cutting features (e.g. going to 700MHz or slower processors).

While I was looking, Apple announced the Mini. Micro-sized. 85W max power usage. The fan only runs when under heavy CPU load, and with a low-hit webserver, that would be "almost never." Cost? $500. The equivalent feature set in the PC world would have been on the high end of the $900-$1000 range (and that's assuming a Pentium M at 1.2 GHz is as fast as a G4 at 1.2 GHz, which is dubious).

There were other benefits. I don't have to bother installing Linux; I got SSH + Apache + PHP + firewall right out of the box by just clicking a few checkboxes. I got iLife '05, which I immediately installed on my old iBook. It took me a whole 30 minutes to get it out of the box and set up, including all Apache configuration and putting the new web site on. And Apple has a default 1 year warranty whereas the pre-built Intel SFF's have only 90 day warranties and the barebones systems have no warranty.

There were downsides. I had to buy a USB-Keyboard/Mouse adapter for my old input devices (about $25), and a USB-Parallel adapter for the printer (about $30). The USB-Parallel adapter doesn't always work with my old Laserjet IIIP. And my ability to administer OSX from the command line pales in comparison to my Linux command line wizardry, so I had to learn how to do VNC over SSH.

But I don't see "learning new things" as a cost as much as a benefit, and the cost of the extra hardware is still much less than what I'd have to pay to have an Intel-based PC of any quality in that price range.

Going low-power + Small Form Factor (SFF) had a significant impact on our electric bills. The room is quiet now -- you can't hear the Mini's hard drive spinning unless you open the closet door, step on your tip-toes, and listen really carefully, whereas the old web server kept a nice fan din throughout the living room. And with the space we saved, the wife was able to put her sewing equipment (machines, thread and all) in the vacated closet space.

I could have had that with an Intel-based SFF PC, but I would have had to pay $350 more up front for the same features and spend more time getting the system up and running.

So not only is it not true that Apple is more expensive, Apple hardware can be much cheaper if you're comparing equivalent systems.