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."
Hmm... confirmed via a "reliable source". I guess that automatically makes this fact!
While the article states that there is no DRM or TCPA in the dev boxes, there is still proof 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.
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?
So they went from "We're going to lock down OSX with Treacherous Computing" to "DRM? What DRM?"
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
"OS X is still too idiot proof for me. I run a real OS."
Really? That's interesting, define what your 'real OS' is and exactly how it differs from OS X?
Mmmkay. So, how well is Windows running on your Apple Powerbook?
Oh, wait, you've got a hardware vendor lock-in.
See why this is a non-story?
It took 10 minutes for my work laptop PC to boot and for me to log in today, before Windows calmed down and I could actually start firing up some work apps. Out of frustration (or because I'm used to my Mac at home) I looked at Task Manager and guess what process single-handedly read 140 megabytes of data, caused 35,000 page faults and read from the hard drive 45,000 times since booting merely 10 minutes sooner?
Fucking McAfee VirusScan.
I have no antivirus software or antispyware software running on my G5 at home. Boots in under a minute. Logs in in 5-10 seconds. Sleeps instantly, wakes instantly. Most of all, NEVER "gets in my way". This is the kind of look-and-feel thing that you wouldn't even know you were missing if all you used was Windows.
You can hate your corporate-policy-reinforced PC, or you can love your Mac... for a little bit more cash.
Actually, don't get a Mac, because it will cause you to hate your PC. Best to remain ignorantly blissful. Don't take the red pill.
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.
It really isn't that simple.
Do you know *for sure* that the circuit board pictured there is from a beta MacTel?
Lets assume it is;
Do you know *for sure* that the chip is on every beta MacTel?
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.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
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.
OS X, Linux, NetBSD and OpenBSD all run on my hardware. OS X runs quite happily in Mac-on-Linux and QEMU (more or less). So, where is the DRM lock-in you are talking about?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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 the consumer crowd either. DRM computers will still play their DVDs and mp3s. Sure they probably won't rip DVDs but how many care.
Actually I think quite a large percentage of the consumer market will care about a DRM in their computer. Most will want it when it comes to playing DRM media. Do you remember when DVD-Rom drives first became available to the public? I do. I had a dual boot machine at the time (I've since gotten rid of windows). Playing dvds was a royal pain in linux. You could either get audio sync and stability with mplayer or menus with ogle but not both (xine was the worst of both at the time). And forget about subtitles (though alternate audio tracks worked pretty easily). However on the windows side the dvd player would crash from time to time but sync was good and you had all the features. Eventually watching dvds in linux became a pleasure since you can play any region and you can skip over warnings; plus all the stability and feature became available. But my point is this took a took a while. I'm betting it will be just as hard - if not harder - to get DRM media playing on non-DRM enabled boxes.
So personally I think not having DRM not only will not gain you market share but it has a good chance losing you customers.
including everybody forgetting this conversation ever happened.
Or that computer without DRM ever existed..
Giving the whort attention span people have these days, we will probably forget this whole ordeal in a day or two...
I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
His Powerbook will run GNU/Linux. Depending on how old it is Wireless will or will not work. Hopefully if Apple use DRM they will use it to prevent OS X running on other computers and not to prevent Macs to run other operating systems.
I will probably* buy a Mac if the latter is true.
)* I own 4 Macs but my new laptop is a PC running Ubuntu.because if Macs wireless issues.
No. He mentioned his G5 boots in under a minute. My iBook G4 boots in 15 seconds.
In other words, your OS is so crappy and insecure that you have to go through services.msc disabling things so you don't get a virus.
Hey, that makes it better! Meanwhile, OS X has had zero trojans and viruses since its release five years ago.
And here, you've completely invented a conclusion you had no basis of reaching. What makes his laptop properly inconfigured? Are you saying Windows isn't properly configured until you go through disabling all the services it ships on by default? Does that mean Windows ships inconfigured? What kind of phrase is "properly inconfigured," anyway? Don't you mean "improperly configured?"
As opposed to the totally turned off G5 he already mentioned and you choose to ignore.
My iBook G4 1Ghz with 640MB of RAM boots faster than my 1.5Ghz Pentium 4 PC with 640MB of RAM and XP SP2 with no services I don't need. Next.
He already said the G5 boots cold in less than a min...ah, forget it. You're so deluded that you think a Windows machine should force its users to go through disabling services just so you don't have to run anti-virus (sorry, you'll still have to, along with your firewall, anti-spyware, registry cleaners, and so on). If by "properly set up desktop G5" you mean a computer that doesn't turn on services it doesn't need, doesn't open ports it doesn't need (which get exploited...hello, MSBlaster rebooting two-thirds of the world's computers), and actually institutes a security policy, then yes, you're right. The G5 has the properly configured operating system.
Have fun running in an admin account for the next two years.
I don't understand what all of the excitement surrounding these rumors of Apple including DRM technology on the Macintels is about.
It's got very little to do with boot protection, and everything to do with the restrictions that Apple would have to impose on OS X to make the kind of strong DRM that Microsoft uses and promotes realistic.
If Apple were to meaningfully use DRM for more than boot protection, which is what is implied by the presence of a DRM chip and a TPM module in the kernel (because DRM is a really bizarre method of implementing boot protection... they could do it much easier and more effectively in other ways), then they would need to close the kernel and driver kits, go to signed drivers, all the **** that Microsoft's pushing.
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.
Just because you don't see a TPM on a motherboard pic doesn't mean that the same functionality hasn't been integrated into the silicon of another chip.
On the Intel 945G mobo, this is exactly what has happened.
There, the TPM functionality is inside the chipset that accompanies the CPU. The chipset typically handles the interface to DRAM and controls the flow of data to output devices, among other things. By the time the MacTels roll out, the TPM will most likely not be a separate chip anymore (to sibling: that's how the developer configuration and the final configuration can be workalikes.)
Those of you who plan to be looking for a chip labelled "TPM" on the board as a way of determining the truth of Apple's claims by that time will be wasting time. The only way to know (for the moment) is to look for a TCG-conformant chipset model instead. In the future, you will have no need to check because all Intel chipsets are to be TCG conformant. So, unless Apple is claiming they will use an older chipset, the most stringent DRM capability ever released to the mass market under the bizarro term of "Trusted Computing" will be in there.
Note that on the Cell processor, the TPM is already in the CPU itself, with no external signals to tap into, though IBM claims it is not a full-bore implementation. In the future, as they try to cram more transistors into a smaller space, Intel may also integrate most of the chipset (and the TPM along with it) into the CPU. AMD has already integrated the memory interface into the CPU on some of its processors, and has also jumped on the TCG bandwagon (either that or be run over by it), so it is only a matter of time for them to add a TPM as well.
The only thing that the pictures can prove is which stage of TPM integration is being used by some developers :) None of it should be
interpreted to mean that Apple will not have a TPM somewhere. Their claim is not credible, in my humble opinion.
The mere rumor that there MIGHT be DRM onboard means I'm not buying one when they come out.
yeah, but you wouldn't buy one anyways. That's the problem with all these people that say "if apple just did this and that, I'd buy one." No, you wouldn't. Apple could sell OS X for $19.95 and you still wouldn't buy it.