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."

15 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. This flies in the face of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

    1. Re:This flies in the face of reality by avidday · · Score: 2, Informative
      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 module and that is where the TPM module hangs off, driven by the south bridge PCI clock.

      To suggest the boards dont have TPM modules is pretty clearly a falsehood. Whether Apple are actively using the hardware for anything is a completely different question.

  2. Re:Who to believe? by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:Market opening indeed by Zweideutig · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  4. Re:better idea and no DRM required by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  5. Re:Can Apple possibly NOT include TPM? by Paradox · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
  6. Re:I'll give you price by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Informative
    He's comparing the fact that the G5 boots faster and sleeps/wakes faster.

    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.
  7. Re:Wierd contradiction by jaypaulw · · Score: 2, Informative

    *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.

  8. Re:Market opening indeed by neverkevin · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  9. start researching your facts by Cadre · · Score: 2, Informative
    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 from the name) is open) instead of a proprietary bios, standard internal components PCI/USB/Firewire and standard RAM/HDs etc.

    they are increasingly using standard PC components in their systems
    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.
    1. Re:start researching your facts by cahiha · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 a Macintosh is bundled with software also means it's not a good platform for open source operating systems.

      "have been using completely standard PC components for quite awhile now", then yes, you'd be right on that part. :-)

      Their processor, motherboard, and BIOS are clearly not standard PC components.

    2. Re:start researching your facts by PygmySurfer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 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.

  10. DRM is a Moot Point Right Now by brockbr · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. TPM is not DRM by SiliconEntity · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Market opening indeed by toddestan · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.