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."
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.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
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."
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.
"' The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement.'"
Yeah, I can see how well that's working for them.
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.
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.
$499 gets you a mac mini that has basically the same specs as my 15 month old powerbook. 512MB, 1.25 GHz G4. No, Apple doesn't compete with whitebox selling-out-of-my-trunk "vendors" on pricewatch.
If being a mac user means hanging out at raves populated by drug burn-outs, then I'm going to classify this as a good thing.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
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.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
I don't understand what all of the excitement surrounding these rumors of Apple including DRM technology on the Macintels is about.
It's about access to networks that use Trusted Network Connect. It's about continued access to the Internet once major ISPs require Trusted Network Connect by 2015.
*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.
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"I always wanted to run a BBS as a kid, but could never afford a phone line."
:-)
Should have done like I did. I ran a C64 BBS out of my parents garage. They put strict rules on the modem, so I ended up grabbing a 50ft. cord and running it to the back of my next door neighbor's silverbox (or whatever it was we called it back then...the outside phone junction). She was old and slept most of the time and was not supposed to get calls after 5PM anyways (she'd leave the phone off the hook), so from 9PM until I got up to go to school, the BBS was running. And with strict rules as to when it was up and when it wasn't...back then all the BBS lists had hours of operations listed.
That didn't stop the idiots from calling her up during the day though -- just to see -- and she kept harassing my parents about knowing the aliens were trying to get her because she heard them sneak around at night -- never stealing anything -- and they called her during the day with their wierd chatter
Where there is a will, there is a way.
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.
1. Disconnect the line into the house from the box
2. Connect the line to the modem to the box, where the house line was
3. ???
4. Profit!
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.