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."
It might even be a traitor-tracing method. Send different stuff to different people, so that you can find out who was a bold NDA-breaking boy.
But what is the SIGnificance?
I doubt that you're going to get a definitive answer until the MacTels are released.
The chip is in *some* of the dev kits. That's all we know for sure. The rest is rumour.
Is it on all dev kits?
Is it enabled?
Is it enforced if enabled?
Will it make it onto the released kit?
Simple answer: Dunno.
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
"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?"
I am quite sure that everybody who claimed to have seen some chip on an Apple devkit machine has done so anonymously, and so has anybody who claimed to have taken a photo of an Apple devkit motherboard. Because if they put their name to it, Apple will jump on them so hard that they never recover.
So for all we know, the guys who claim to have seen any DRM chip could be complete idiots who have never been anywhere near an Intel Mac. In any case, they are in breach of an NDA, therefore not trustworthy. If they breach their contract with Apple, what makes you think they would tell _you_ the truth?
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!
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.
Forget what?
Who are you?
What is this?