Slashdot Mirror
No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs
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."
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 controller right on the motherboard. 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, 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 of Apple:
"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product."
I believe the guy who posted a picture of the DRM chip on the mobo a short while ago. Seeing is believing, right?
Oh no... it's the future.
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 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.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
...and it will be on other x86/Windows boxes just the same.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Whatever else you think, it cannot be argued that simply not needing the AV software is a big plus. I have the same situation (both a PC and a Mac on my desk) and I gotta tell you, he's right. Sure you can go and turn off all the services and crap in XP but you must know what you are doing (those service descriptions in the control panel really suck) but how long does that take? It's all moot on the Mac.
BTW, Mac OS X does not really 'suspend' like a PC; its not Hibernate, its Sleep, which is quite different.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/08/04/1338205. shtml?tid=118&tid=158&tid=3) and others are referencing this article (http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=art icle&sid=380&mode=&order=0&thold=0) from Ofb.biz which states that our reports of the TPM module in the Developers Kits "were incorrect." As you can see by visiting our TPM Resource Center however, the evidence is quite conclusive.
We're providing this lighthearted and irreverent rebuttal to prove it.
Palladium Not in Apple Dev Kits
By Timothy R. Butler
Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
August 03, 2005, 22:38:05 EDT
EXCLUSIVE. Earlier reports circulating around the Internet concerning Apple's inclusion of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in Intel-based Macs were incorrect, OfB has learned. News of the inclusion of the chip, based on the technology formerly known as Palladium, had spread across the Internet as wildfire in recent days and many news outlets, including Open for Business, had published commentary on the dramatic revelation of the technology's inclusion.
The alleged digital rights management chip was said to be included in Apple Developer Transition Kits. These kits are early Intel-based Macintosh systems Apple has been providing for lease to Apple developers at a price of $995 since company CEO Steve Jobs announced the transition away from PowerPC in June.
* All very true so far.
The Trusted Computing Group's technology has been surrounded by controversy since word first broke out about it in 2002. The Trusted Computing Group is an industry consortium sponsored by Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard Sun Microsystems and IBM. Macintosh aficionados had been pleased in the past that their platform was isolated from the technology, making the claims released this week all the more disconcerting to many.
* Such claims are disconcerting because the evidence supports them. Visit our Knowledge Base for more support.
Commenting on earlier reports, a reliable source who requested anonymity told OfB, "While many rumors are being circulated on the web about Apple's future direction on Intel processors with DRM, the majority of them are just that - rumors." The source, a registered Apple developer, continued, "Reality is that these boxes are production PC's in an Apple case, not DRM or TCPA protected, and none of these boxes will remain in circulation after their purpose has been served - they must be returned to Apple.
* This is just poor journalism. They base their entire story on the word of one anonymous source. The "a registered Apple developer" intends to provide credibility, but gives none as it's simply a membership do the ADC. It's doesn't give him the credentials to be an expert on the TPM.
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.
* Hmm... it looks like their anonymous source is as law abiding as he is accurate.
The Open for Business source also cautioned against trying to predict too much about the future Intel-based Macs from the developer kits. "Because they are developer kits only, future functionality of boot protection that prevents OS X x86 from booting on compatible non-Apple hardware, graphical interface, and other underlying technologies are emulated and do not reflect a production environment." The source emphasized that "they [are not] indicative of the future production release of Mac OS X for Intel."
*Powerbooks*
I left out the powerbook because I'm not really looking at laptops.
*Mac Mini..*
I wouldn't include any g4 in midrange
*As for the iMac, it will last through the same period as 2-3 PC systems so really the monitor point is a bit moot.*
really though?
I have a g4 400mhz, it's my first mac ever. I was just given it two weeks ago from a friend to play around on and it's great (OS X is great I mean). But that machine is 6 years old. It is far past its prime. On the other hand my old P4 1.5ghz from 3 years ago is very much still a servicable machine. By your reasoning, at this point both machines should need replacing, not just the mac.
A used low end single processor powermac g5 on craigslist at this point can be had for around $1300, so that's about as close as I can find to midrange.
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.
Wrong. Apple and OSF Research Institute started MkLinux to run atop PowerPC hardware. In addition, Apple ran AIX on some of their older servers.
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 from the name) is open) instead of a proprietary bios, standard internal components PCI/USB/Firewire and standard RAM/HDs etc.
Well, if you mean "increasingly using standard PC components" by "have been using completely standard PC components for quite awhile now", then yes, you'd be right on that part.All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Question: Why would Apple release an OS level DRM chip/scheme/driver at this point in the game?
/.'ers would love to have that changed to "Any x86" hardware.
Apple has made it clear that it will take "MacTel" hardware to run OSX. Most
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.
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.
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.