Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM?

Steve Ryan asks: "The direction Microsoft are taking with Windows (for example, the DRM issues in Vista) have led me to believe Windows will soon be an OS which controls the user, rather than the other way round. I like XP, and I find it stable, but I do not want to upgrade to an OS (Vista) which is restrictive. This leaves me with either Linux or Mac OS X. I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it. OS X seems nice. I spend most of my time writing documents and surfing the web, so it should handle everything I want, and I would be happy to buy a lovely MacBook Pro. This leaves me with my question: Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead and implement a DRM loving policy?"

Comments

Step Up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead and implement a DRM loving policy?""

Like iTunes, or their technology keeping non-Apple hardware from running their OS?

Re:Step Up

[ericdano]

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer? Do Mac owners want to deal with cheap hardware, driver problems, things not working? And what is the cost benefit? Like $100?

No thanks. I'm perfectly happy with my iMac. No problems. However, my Windows XP PC......that is a whole other story.

And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM. You can burn unlimited copies of the music (you are limited to a certain number per playlist, but you can make a new Playlist and do more). You can always burn a CD, and re-import it.

Seriously, these arguments are old and tired.

Re:Step Up

[Ash-Fox]

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer?

To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices. For example, the only machine I would get for 'real' gaming, is the top one from Apple, because they don't have something in between that would allow me to use a decent graphics card.

Do Mac owners want to deal with cheap hardware, driver problems, things not working?

To be fair.. Often Apple hardware has issues often. Just do a Google on airport express cards, too much thermal paste causing the hardware to get too hot to touch, high pitch whining (many people can't hear that, but I can) etc.

And what is the cost benefit? Like $100?

Perhaps the benefit is that you know the hardware won't fail on you, and you know that you don't have to deal with Applecare's horrible service.

And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM.

The fairest DRM is SonicStage. Letting you create unlimited copies with the latest version, de-DRM them etc.

You can burn unlimited copies of the music (you are limited to a certain number per playlist, but you can make a new Playlist and do more).

You're not limited on SonicStage.

You can always burn a CD, and re-import it.

You lose sound quality that way.

Re:Step Up

[stewbacca]

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer? To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices. For example, the only machine I would get for 'real' gaming, is the top one from Apple, because they don't have something in between that would allow me to use a decent graphics card.

My 20" iMac is the best PC gaming machine in my house (out of two "real" pcs and 2 macs running Win XP). My PC's have better video cards, and faster cpu cycles, but are outperformed by the Core 2 Duo iMac. The Core 2 Duo in my iMac more than makes up for the inferior X1600 256 mb video card in the iMac. For example, I get over 100 fps in Live for Speed with maximum everything settings at 1620xwhatever resolution. Neither of my PCs can break 50 fps, with "superior" video cards. The X1600 isn't a spectacular video card, but it maxes out the last round of video game technology (Half Life 2 runs exceptionally well with everything maxed out and looks beautiful). So until games bring more to the table, the X1600 is just fine.

Like you said, maybe there aren't enough choices for "YOU" but for me (and millions of others)the iMac to Mac Pro jump isn't a big issue. Stating the iMac isn't a viable video game machine because you can't upgrade the video card isn't a valid argument at this point, but may be an issue in the future. Unless you can point me to a game that is more demanding than Half-Life 2 with maxed out settings (I'm sure there are some, but I'm not exactly a hard core gamer), I would say the iMac is a GREAT gaming platform for 99% of the games available.

Re:Step Up

[Ash-Fox]

My PC's have better video cards, and faster cpu cycles

That isn't everything.

but are outperformed by the Core 2 Duo iMac.

So, how do they compare against Intel Core 2 Duo PCs with better graphic cards?

Because I some how doubt they are going to give worse performance.

Neither of my PCs can break 50 fps, with "superior" video cards.

Graphic cards aren't everything, you need fast RAM, a motherboard that can support RAM at such speeds etc.

Stating the iMac isn't a viable video game machine because you can't upgrade the video card isn't a valid argument at this point, but may be an issue in the future.

I still have x86 computers from seven years ago, I upgrade them a bit still, because they're capable of doing more. None of my Macs have even survived this long (mostly due to hardware issues, but also because they're becoming utterly useless in what they can do).

Unless you can point me to a game that is more demanding than Half-Life 2 with maxed out settings (I'm sure there are some, but I'm not exactly a hard core gamer)

Second life -- Just try all the settings maxed out.

I would say the iMac is a GREAT gaming platform for 99% of the games available.

Perhaps. But then again, I don't really see how it's superior to most modern PCs (with similar specs) for sale out there.

Re:Step Up

[PopeRatzo]

Can you play Eve-Online on that iMac?

Then it's not a great gaming platform, sorry.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM.

Pardon my bluntness, but that's really no different than asking what's wrong with lethal injection because it's, by far, the least painful method of execution. But regardless of the method you're still dead, just as regardless of the DRM, you're still restricted.

You can always burn a CD, and re-import it.

Wrong! You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't. And that mere possibility is more than enough to make it entirely unacceptable.

Like you, I'm happy with my iMac. However, that does not mean I think Apple can do no wrong, and neither should it mean such for you.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices.

That's a good point. I'm about to replace my 3-year-old iBook with a Thinkpad X60 tablet. I would have gotten a Mac, but Apple doesn't make a tablet so I couldn't. I may very well try to run OS X on it anyway, though (and, given that I do own two Macs already, I have absolutely no moral qualms about doing so). It's not my fault Apple wouldn't build what I need.

To be fair.. Often Apple hardware has issues often. Just do a Google on airport express cards, too much thermal paste causing the hardware to get too hot to touch, high pitch whining (many people can't hear that, but I can) etc.

To be fair, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." If you want an anecdote, here's one: I've owned two Macs, and many non-Macs over the years. Listed in order of reliability, best to worst, they are as follows: home-built w/early FIC Athlon motherboard, iMac Core Duo, Thinkpad 560X, home-built w/Gigabyte 7VRXP motherboard, Compaq P4 laptop, iBook G4, refurbished Packard Bell 486, HP K6-2 laptop, Emachines K6-2 laptop.

Everything up to the Compaq I'd consider to have "good" reliability, the iBook (which nevertheless I'm using to type this on) I'd consider "fair," and the rest I'd consider "poor." Of course, once you account for the fact that the iBook has had, by far, the roughest life (I've carried it back and forth to college with me for the past 3 years, while the rest of the laptops tended to sit at home), I think its reliability has actually been pretty good. So, in general, I'd consider Apple machines to be some of the highest-quality out there, right up with IBM and building it myself.

Perhaps the benefit is that you know the hardware won't fail on you, and you know that you don't have to deal with Applecare's horrible service.

Applecare is at worst inconsistent, not uniformly "horrible." If it were, there wouldn't be people like me around, who had good experiences with it.

The fairest DRM is SonicStage. Letting you create unlimited copies with the latest version, de-DRM them etc.

Really? The Wikipedia article doesn't mention any of that. If what you say is true, why does it bother with DRM at all? (And speaking of "no DRM at all," only that is really the "fairest DRM!")

Re:Step Up

[stewbacca]

You obviously aren't asking a question, since you already have the answer you want to hear. Point me to a demo, and I'll let you know how Eve-Online plays on a 2.33 Core 2 Duo iMac with 2 gigs of Ram and a 256mb X1600 video card. I'm going to guess it plays it just as well as any PC with the same specs, because, it is the same computer. If my iMac can't play this game, then what PC can? Is it just video card power that is needed, because I'm hard pressed to find consumer lines of PCs that have a faster processor than my iMac.

Re:Step Up

[squiggleslash]

Having had both PowerBooks and Thinkpads, I much prefer the hardware of the latter. So much so I ended up switching back to GNU/Linux because despite the superiority of Mac OS X, a T60 + GNU/Linux was a better choice for me than a Macbook + Mac OS X. But a Thinkpad + Mac OS X would have been even better.

You know, I know there are some people there who seriously believe that there is no computer out there that hasn't been bettered by Apple, but honestly, I can't understand the attitude beyond inane fanboyism of the Amiga variety. Apple's hardware has always been interesting, but to argue it's always been superior to absolutely everything requires a deliberate blindness to reality that's hard to fathom.

Re:Step Up

[Ash-Fox]

So, in general, I'd consider Apple machines to be some of the highest-quality out there, right up with IBM and building it myself.

My own personal machines haven't really been problematic, except for every Mac I've owned. From 'logicboard failures' (In all the years I've been using computers, I've never had a motherboard just 'fail' except when it came to mac) to the wireless card just dying a few days after I got it (and then Applecare trying to dodge dealing with it).

These experiences I have I know aren't unique to me, as I've talked about this with others who have had the same issues.

Applecare is at worst inconsistent, not uniformly "horrible." If it were, there wouldn't be people like me around, who had good experiences with it.

First time I've heard this. Usually, those I've talked to who haven't had problems, just didn't deal with Apple-care in the first place.

The Wikipedia article doesn't mention any of that.

From the wikipedia article you linked:
SonicStage 3.4 includes an option to de-DRM your whole library (obviously the larger your library is, the longer this will take) allowing as many copies of files as you like, on as many players as you want, on as many PCs as you want. You can even share non-DRM files with friends or colleagues.

Re:Step Up

[stewbacca]

So, how do they compare against Intel Core 2 Duo PCs with better graphic cards? Because I some how doubt they are going to give worse performance.

The point is that a 2.33 Core 2 Duo Mac with an 256 X1600 graphics card is plenty to max out graphic settings. Who cares if you can buy a $700 video card and get 250 fps, instead of 100 fps you get with an "inferior" video card?

Graphic cards aren't everything, you need fast RAM, a motherboard that can support RAM at such speeds etc.

So are you saying the iMac uses slow ram and has a motherboard that can't support it? (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300))

I still have x86 computers from seven years ago, I upgrade them a bit still, because they're capable of doing more. None of my Macs have even survived this long (mostly due to hardware issues, but also because they're becoming utterly useless in what they can do).

I've experienced the exact opposite. So much so, I'm just gonna call bull and say you don't really have a mac, otherwise you wouldn't make such wild claims. My G4 tower is 6 years old and it runs just fine. I upgraded the cpu from 350 to 800 about 2 or 3 years ago, but that's all I've ever done. The main reason I have mostly macs is because they last more than the two or three years (max) that the pc's I've owned do. Hell, this work pc I'm on now is only a couple of years old (P4 1.7GHz) and it is practically a dinosaur. It barely runs Win 2000 and probably can't even run XP (I'll have to ask the computer nerds why the rest of the PCs at school use XP, but our older ones in the office only have 2000). At least my 6 year old G4 can run the current version of Mac OS X. Old pc's, if they can muster the horsepower to run XP, still have compatibility issues with XP builds that you don't see with any of the G4 or newer Macs. This problem will only become more obvious with Vista.

But let's not let our own experiences cloud our judgement and let's look to the data instead. I'm not sure what's wrong with your Apple hardware, considering they are consistently #1 in both customer satisfaction and repair rates. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.as p. Arguing against the quality of Apple hardware is done out of spite and not by looking at the data that exists.

Second life -- Just try all the settings maxed out.

I'll give it a spin and let you know.

I would say the iMac is a GREAT gaming platform for 99% of the games available. Perhaps. But then again, I don't really see how it's superior to most modern PCs (with similar specs) for sale out there.

I didn't say it was superior to modern pcs, but when you look at it, it IS a modern PC. How can something be superior to itself? I'm disputing your challenge that the iMac is not a viable gaming machine, regardless of the less-than-ideal X1600 video card.

Re:Step Up

[sottitron]

I can see both sides of the argument, but I think everyone forgets that before iTunes, the big labels weren't willing to open their catalogs. Sure emusic was around, but it was all small time labels and it largely still is. The point is, I don't think Apple has as much control as everyone thinks they do. Plus, they don't care about the content as much as we do. They are out to sell iPods, Macs, and soon iTVs. The content they sell just reinforces their position as the market leader.

I will leave you with this nugget, though: I recently helped someone who had their Mac crash. She had moved from computer to computer paying little attention to her iTunes account. But this time, there was a problem. She had authorized all her available computers to play her music collection. She had her files backed up, but she had lost her system drive in her Mac and it was gone at this point. I thought she was screwed. It turns out, there is a little known feature of your iTunes account whereby you can reset your authorized computers on your account with Apple. The only catch is that you can only do this once a year.

If you find you have reached 5 authorizations due to system upgrades, you can reset your authorization count by clicking Deauthorize All in the Account Information screen. Note: You may only use this feature once per year. The Deauthorize All button will not appear if you have fewer than 5 authorized computers or if you have used this option within the last 12 months.

Check it out here.

Re:Step Up

[skia]

You can always burn a CD, and re-import it.

Wrong! You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't. And that mere possibility is more than enough to make it entirely unacceptable.

Exactly! I'm as big an Apple zealot as they come, and I honestly do believe the company can do no wrong. But just because we haven't seen any "beleaguered" headlines in a while doesn't mean their troubles are behind them. What if the next time Apple needs a Microsoft bailout, MS decides to just buy Apple lock, stock, and barrel? You'd have MS in charge of your DRM again — the exact situation we are trying to avoid.

There is no way to future-proof DRM, and thus adopting any technology that incorporates it will always be a gamble.

Of course, you'll pry my iPod out of my cold, dead hands... but for me that's because its general greatness outweighs the DRM risks, not because its DRM is somehow more friendly or ultimately less restrictive.

Re:Step Up

[Ash-Fox]

So are you saying the iMac uses slow ram and has a motherboard that can't support it? (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300))

No, but I had a theory that the PCs you were comparing to had slower bus speeds.

I've experienced the exact opposite. So much so, I'm just gonna call bull and say you don't really have a mac, otherwise you wouldn't make such wild claims. My G4 tower is 6 years old and it runs just fine.

My old imacs, powerbook have suffered again and again logicboard failures. Powerbook's wireless card kept dying. Dealing with Apple-care was atrocious each time.

Later I got a Mac mini. It was emitting a high pitch noise whenever it was turned on. Within the first week, the internal wireless card just stopped connecting to my network. I didn't want to-do the Apple-care dance so I just ignored it. Then two weeks later, the entire Mac stopped working, I returned it and couldn't get a full refund. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to actually pursue the matter at the time.

What's been a major deal breaker for me with the new Macs, is that a lot of the latest hardware from Apple make high pitch noises (most people can't hear them).

The main reason I have mostly macs is because they last more than the two or three years (max) that the pc's I've owned do.

Oldest x86 system that's used daily here (in this house), is a Pentium 3 system from 1999 (only thing I've upgraded was the RAM and harddrives so far in it), which is being actively used as a desktop - Running Windows XP Pro SP2, has a few old games on it too. It runs pretty well (responsive), although takes two and half minutes to boot and get into desktop.

That said, there are also sold 'models' of computers that don't work really well unless you upgrade them in some way (usually it's a obscenely small amount of RAM).

Hell, this work pc I'm on now is only a couple of years old (P4 1.7GHz) and it is practically a dinosaur. It barely runs Win 2000 and probably can't even run XP

I have a five year old p4 1.8ghz (was advertised as 2ghz -- Intel's fault), not noticeably slow for everyday tasks (although Second life run 14fps average at mostly low settings -- not really good).

At least my 6 year old G4 can run the current version of Mac OS X.

Yeah, I could probably shove Vista on the P4 system, it's well within the minimum specifications, I'd just need to upgrade the graphic card to get proper DX10 support. But to be honest, there is nothing in Vista I'm particularly interested in yet.

But let's not let our own experiences cloud our judgement and let's look to the data instead. I'm not sure what's wrong with your Apple hardware, considering they are consistently #1 in both customer satisfaction and repair rates.

I'm more interested in comparisons against Asus, Acer, Hp, Optimus.. Since eMachines, Gateway are unheard of (and Sony isn't known for selling laptops here -- here being Poland).

From the article by the way, As we've said in the past, Mac owners are unusually passionate about their machines, and this may have had an effect on the company's unusually high Service and Reliability scores.

Arguing against the quality of Apple hardware is done out of spite and not by looking at the data that exists.

Despite the fact that it doesn't really explain why so many people I've met on-line who have used Apple-care have had problems with them (helpers in Mac help channels on IRC have even admitted this). Additionally I must of used Apple-care over twenty times in my life and each and every-time, it was long and difficult to deal with.

I suppose you could call that out of spite, as I've never seen any real statistics so I will take the statistics you gave as reliable.

How can something be superior to itself?

What I mea

Re:Step Up

[Joe The Dragon]

I don't liked being locked into a monitor with a I-mac and the mini has POS gma 950 video

Re:Step Up

[ericdano]

Waaaa. Oh, did you know you can drive another monitor on an iMac? Probably not. Or that the iMac's LCD is a great display, especially the 24" one. Probably not.

Ok, so the Mini has a 950 video. But what is the target market? Not the gaming market. It's targeted at people who just want to run computer stuff (IE: web, word, iTunes, videos).

Re:Step Up

[Divebus]

"You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't"

BZZZZZZZT

If it was up to Apple, there wouldn't be any DRM. It's the RIAA who decides whether DRM exists and how loose it gets.

On the other hand, Microsoft, which is creating voluntary DRM laden software and files anyway, would [additionally] leverage DRM to hold your files hostage until you paid them a royalty. You think they're pandering to the RIAA now with the bendover they did with Zune? If their version of a music store ever gained significant traction, you can bet they'll sell us down the river in exchange for cash. Our cash.

Re:Step Up

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are an idiot.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

I can see both sides of the argument, but I think everyone forgets that before iTunes, the big labels weren't willing to open their catalogs.

To be honest, I'd rather see no distribution at all than to see distribution with DRM.

I do agree with you though, that Apple's use of DRM has one good aspect: it provides competition to Microsft's DRM, and keeps DRM as a whole fragmented and weak. Having DRM exist at all is bad, but having Microsft DRM exist without Apple to combat it would be even worse. It's an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing.

I will leave you with this nugget, though...

I'm well aware of that, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Apple can change or remove that ability at whim, just like all the other conditions.

Look, it's this simple: between the fact that it requires permission from an external party to use your own property, has no provisions for Fair Use, and does not deactivate itself when copyright expires, DRM is inherently, absolutely, indelibly wrong. Nothing about the magnitude or "friendliness" or relative leniency of the particular implementation can change that!

Re:Step Up

[ericdano]

"Pardon my bluntness, but that's really no different than asking what's wrong with lethal injection because it's, by far, the least painful method of execution. But regardless of the method you're still dead, just as regardless of the DRM, you're still restricted."

Ok. This is a bad comparison. So you'd rather not kill people who, with a jury of their peers, and after appeals, everyone says should be killed. People who rape and kill little kids. Yeah....

"Wrong! You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't. And that mere possibility is more than enough to make it entirely unacceptable."

RIGHT! Where is your evidence to suggest that Apple is NOT going to let you do this? Hmm? Oh? Got none? Didn't think so.

"Like you, I'm happy with my iMac. However, that does not mean I think Apple can do no wrong, and neither should it mean such for you."

Apple's track record is quite good. Compare it to Microsoft. It's very good. I don't see Apple screwing around with it's EULA because it would cause a huge uproar in the user base.

Re:Step Up

[Lars T.]

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer?

To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices. For example, the only machine I would get for 'real' gaming, is the top one from Apple, because they don't have something in between that would allow me to use a decent graphics card. So you would be perectly happy with an Mac Mini is only you could put in a graphics card that costs more, is bigger and uses more power than the Mac Mini.

Re:Step Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Sonic Stage only has like 10 songs on it, of course they allow you to un-DRM them.

Re:Step Up

[baryon351]

Can you play Eve-Online on that iMac?

Yes

Then it's not a great gaming platform, sorry.

Oh. so it's not good if it does play games? Odd thinking.

Re:Step Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, Plus you don't see Apple screwing up their DRM with a new player which makes all your old music well, obsolete and useless.
It's funny that the author of this piece is just now waking up to the fact that MS does what's good for MS and not for their customers.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

Yes, I realize Microsoft is much worse than Apple in this regard. However, that doesn't mean Apple isn't bad! As an analogy, does Fidel Castro deserve praise because he wasn't as bad as Stalin?

Besides, just because Apple might not want to push DRM doesn't mean it might not be forced to more in the future. What if, as another poster mentioned, Apple got bought out by Microsoft or something? Couldn't disallowing CD-buring-and-reimporting become a very real possibility in that case? The answer is yes. Because of that, DRM is not, and never will be, a safe option. And that's regardless of Apple's attitude towards it!

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

Ok. This is a bad comparison. So you'd rather not kill people who, with a jury of their peers, and after appeals, everyone says should be killed. People who rape and kill little kids. Yeah....

Jeez, sorry! I wasn't trying to make a social statement about the death penalty or anything; that wasn't the point. Think of it from the person-to-be-killed's perspective, or better yet, replace it with dying in your sleep. "Whether you die in your sleep, drown, get shot, or catch a horrible, painful disease, you're still dead" is the kind of argument I was trying to make.

The point was that all DRM of the same kind, so regardless of extent the end result is equally bad: you don't fully control the property you bought and paid for.

Where is your evidence to suggest that Apple is NOT going to let you do this?

I don't need evidence! The mere fact that it's possible is enough to condemn it! Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?

Look, I agree that Apple as it is currently managed isn't likely to do this. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Apple will never change into something much less friendly. Some people distrust Google (despite the "do no evil" motto) simply because it can have so much access into people's private data. Some people even distrust Richard Stallman and the FSF, and refuse to use the "or any later version" clause with the GPL because RMS might somehow morph into a Gates-esque lunatic and re-write the license to take away freedom instead of preserving it. I distrust Apple because I see no legitimate reason for it to hold the keys to my own property. Is that so hard to understand?

Apple's track record is quite good. Compare it to Microsoft. It's very good.

As I just said in response to another post, that's like saying "compared to Stalin, Fidel Castro is quite good" (disregarding for a moment, Mr. Pedantic, the political merits (or otherwise) of communism). You can't just measure on a relative scale; you have to measure on an absolute one too. I agree that Apple is better than Microsoft regarding DRM, but they're both unacceptably bad compared to, say, the EFF or FSF.

I don't see Apple screwing around with it's EULA because it would cause a huge uproar in the user base.

Apple already screwed with the EULA once, when it reduced the number of CDs that could be burned from the same playlist. Yes, I'm aware that it raised the authorized computer limit at the same time, but that's not the point. The point is that Apple can make any change at any time, arbitrarily, and with or without your consent. And that change retroactively applies to the media you've already bought, so you have no oppertunity to opt out. Sure, maybe you liked the last change, but there's no guarantee you'll like the next.

Re:Step Up

[Divebus]

" The point is that Apple can make any change at any time, arbitrarily, and with or without your consent."

You're already reacting to something that hasn't occured and ranting accordingly... and not making complete sense. I see what you're driving at, though, so let me guess what the voices in your head are saying - you think DRM is a bad thing as most consumers do and believe that any Corporation may alter the terms of any agreement at any time, also a bad thing. Agreed. Where your ranting falls apart is the suspicion of Evil on the part of anyone touching DRM and the expectation that the worst is absolutely going to happen.

The Voices are jumpy about Apple's apparent capitulation to the RIAA to apply DRM at all. That doesn't make them all bad in my book. Certainly, Apple could have refused to create and use FairPlay at which point there would be no iTunes [Music] Store. The RIAA would say "no way, Ray" and that's a real short conversation. Apple didn't just make FairPlay for fun, it was a compromise.

DRM IS OPTIONAL in Apple land, not required. The restrictions Apple had to include for DRMed music on iTunes ONLY applies to the material bought online. It does not extend to ripped CDs, much to the displeasure of the RIAA. If you don't like DRM, rip a CD to your iTunes/iPod and shut up. There is no DRM. Rip it to MP3, AAC, WAV or AIFF if you want (just not OGG).

The big flaw I see with iTunes was restricting the number of networked connections to iTunes without regard to whether all your music is DRMed or ripped from CD. Both music types are restricted and there must be a better way. Until that's sorted out, that's a problem but I still blame the RIAA for that restriction, not Apple. Actually, I'll take that back - I'll blame the people who created software to circumvent the safety features against stolen music and the RIAA reacted by demanding a fix which affected all of us [ -thieves].

Anything short of "Pay Per Play" with variable demand pricing displeases the RIAA, so Apple has done admirably well holding off the real Evil in this equation. Apple initially included the ability to share music between computers, even over the Internet, but the RIAA has subsequently negotiated a limit on that - probably because of shared music rippers. They've also negotiated the ability to burn CDs from DRMed music with some but not all the restrictions the RIAA wanted. The RIAA has repeatedly come back at Apple to further tighten the restrictions and, for the most part, Apple has refused. You win some, you lose some but through Apple's efforts, whatever is on your iPod or iTunes is NOT DRMed if you ripped it from CD and why all music is $0.99 across the board. If the RIAA had their way... PAY PER PLAY THROUGH THE NOSE, BABY!!

However, I also sense that DRM which is not open sourced bothers you. It bothers me as well. Any technology we invest in that can be retroactively altered or obsoleted by a single entity is dangerous. There goes all your music. In the absense of a currently workable alternative which also allows the kind of access we have, I'll put my money on Apple trying their best to protect my interests. That's what I'd expect from a Liberal Hippie outfit like Apple {that was a compliment) and that's been their track record so far.

That said, I still burn a CD of whatever I buy.

Re:Step Up

[Incongruity]

You seem to be dismissing Apple's high survey scores based on speculation that Apple's unusually passionate user-base is unfairly biasing the score in apple's favor. But the simple question comes out in all this -- why are Apple users so passionate about the product? Either you have to dismiss them as all being sheep who love surveys (an odd combination) or you need to conclude that there's something about the whole Apple product ownership experience that really does bring about that passion.

For me, I've found Apple's customer service to be no worse than any other major company, and in many cases better -- and I've had to deal with Apple service (or their authorized service centers) at least 20-30 times over the last 15 years (of course, I've tipped my hand here that I've worked supporting a bunch of macs in an business environment, but I've also helped friends and family and dealt with my own machines over the years as well.) Pretty consistently, I've found Apple employees willing to go the extra mile for me both as a business customer and as a private customer. Sure, I've had one or two less than perfect experiences, but on the whole, Apple's product quality and customer service has been great. Compare that to my experiences with Dell, Microsoft, Ford, Toyota, Subaru, Frigidaire, Sony, FedEx, UPS, Target, Marshall Fields, Amazon.com and a whole bunch more companies of size similar to or larger than Apple's, and I can honestly say that while not perfect, Apple has done better than any other large company as far as my customer service experiences go over the last 15 years, period.

So, just as you've had awful experiences with them, I've had good ones. The point is that the people who've had bad experiences can (and often do) make a lot of noise in online forums (as well they should if they think they've been wronged) but those of us who've had decent experiences rarely seek out public forums to discuss the satisfactory (or better) service. Alternatively, customer satisfaction surveys aim to get a random sampling/even cross-section of the user/consumer base and when those surveys show one company to be highly rated, consistently, that should carry more weight than anecdotal evidence from the web where a limited few are able to bias the whole discussion if they're noisy enough.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

Having had both PowerBooks and Thinkpads, I much prefer the hardware of the latter. So much so I ended up switching back to GNU/Linux because despite the superiority of Mac OS X, a T60 + GNU/Linux was a better choice for me than a Macbook + Mac OS X. But a Thinkpad + Mac OS X would have been even better.

What, in particular, do you like better about Thinkpads? I'm wondering because I'm in the process of replacing my iBook G4 with a Thinkpad X60t (it's in the mail), and it would be nice to know what to expect. I just hope I'm not too annoyed by the multiple mouse buttons -- I had a Thinkpad 560X in the past, but I got used to the one-button trackpad. : )

Also, have you ever tried running the Intel version of OSX on the Thinkpad? I'm thinking of trying it with my new one...

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

My own personal machines haven't really been problematic, except for every Mac I've owned.

What brands are you comparing it to? If you've only ever used stuff like IBM, or built it yourself, I'd expect Apple to look relatively bad because your standards are so high. If you've had experience with Emachines or something, on the other hand... <shudder>

First time I've heard this. Usually, those I've talked to who haven't had problems, just didn't deal with Apple-care in the first place.

Each time my iBook needed to be repaired, Apple sent a postage-paid box for me to pack it in, had it overnighted to their repair center, and had it back to me within a week. I'd say that's pretty good service. The closest thing I ever had to a "problem" with it was when my power board was replaced and the battery was dead afterwards. I called them up and said "you know, the battery was pretty new, and was working just fine before the power board screwed up..." and Apple replaced the battery without any argument. Yes, it would have been nice if they'd just gone ahead and done it at the same time as the power board, but it wasn't a big deal.

From the wikipedia article you linked:

Oops. You said "latest version," so I skipped down to the "Version 4" part and missed the bit you quoted about 3.4.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

Where your ranting falls apart is the suspicion of Evil on the part of anyone touching DRM and the expectation that the worst is absolutely going to happen.

I'd rather be too paranoid, than not paranoid enough. As the saying goes, "expect the worst, and you'll never be disappointed." Besides, it takes extremists like me to make moderates like you look moderate. ; )

DRM IS OPTIONAL in Apple land, not required.

Yes, I know. Look, I'm not saying Apple is entirely bad, and the iTunes Store's DRM isn't going to stop me from using Macs (although I am rather upset about the presence of a TPM in my iMac, and I was forced to get a Thinkpad instead of a Macbook because Apple won't make a tablet...) or even iTunes itself, but I'm not going to buy anything from the store and will encourage others to refrain from doing so also.

Anything short of "Pay Per Play" with variable demand pricing displeases the RIAA, so Apple has done admirably well holding off the real Evil in this equation.

True, from a strategic perspective Apple is helping us, to an extent. However, it seems to me that there's "enough" people supporting Apple, that we don't really have to worry about Microsoft or the RIAA taking over any time in the immediate future. Therefore, the most important thing for me to do is remind everyone that the situation with Apple is still not optimal. If Apple started to lose out to Microsoft, with its brown-nosed pandering to the RIAA, I might indeed start encouraging people to use iTMS in order to combat that. But luckily, that day hasn't come yet.

However, I also sense that DRM which is not open sourced bothers you.

Well yes, in a metaphorical sense. However, there can be no such thing as literal "open source DRM," because it must be closed by its very nature.

That said, I still burn a CD of whatever I buy.

I just buy the CD to begin with. Remember, CDs are still higher quality than iTMS's AAC, and pressed CDs are more durable than burned ones.

Re:Step Up

[Divebus]

Wow. You're the first person who has ever called me a moderate. But, you're correct - it's all relative. Anyway, if I buy something from iTMS, it's for the sake of expediency. Otherwise it's a ripped CD for me.

If Apple started to lose out to Microsoft, with its brown-nosed pandering to the RIAA, I might indeed start encouraging people to use iTMS in order to combat that.

To that, I'd say "make up your mind now". Would you really wait for Microsoft to start gaining traction before something is done about it or will you make sure they can never gain traction? I'd say you're hurting the cause with the discouragement. There are advantages with iTunes, like the ability to re-download all your purchased music if a fire wipes out your house. You can't do that with CDs. When asked about this myself, I'll lay out the ups and downs without using the word "evil" and let the user decide. They usually get hooked on downloading music. To the typical user, they don't know from DRM. They can throw music around on their desktops, laptops and iPods all day long and they're happy about it. It's only a problem when someone wants to "share" or if some weirdo (statistically) would rather be using an iRiver Clix.

there can be no such thing as literal "open source DRM," because it must be closed by its very nature.

Open Source DRM is certainly possible. With proper encryption, the key is tagged to the user, not to the media and it's not in the source code. Everyone can look at the source code and create their own authentication system but the key to unlock purchased media is a secret which belongs to the user.

FairPlay is not open sourced or licensable because it sells iPods. That's what I hope gets changed at some point. Perhaps choose a partner like Toshiba and get some big brown iPod-like devices out there with large screens that squirt pictures. That'll nail the coffin shut, eh?

pressed CDs are more durable than burned ones

That's what I thought, except I've got a bunch of pressed CDs that are unplayable at the outer edges now (both copies of the Louis Prima Collection, Steely Dan Gold, King Teddy II (don't ask), Alice In Chains Unplugged.. etc) but all my CD-Rs dating back from 1997 are perfectly playable. No paper labels and Taiyo Yuden disks.

Re:Step Up

[toddestan]

BZZZZZZZT

If it was up to Apple, there wouldn't be any DRM. It's the RIAA who decides whether DRM exists and how loose it gets.

Apple fanboys keep saying this, and I don't understand why. How come I can't load up songs from iTMS on a non-Apple player? How come the iPod doesn't work with most over music stores out there? The answer is DRM, and it doesn't have anything to do with the RIAA. Apple wields DRM as a tool to try to lock people in just like Microsoft does.

Re:Step Up

[Divebus]

How come I can't load up songs from iTMS on a non-Apple player?

Because it would have meant adopting a competely proprietary solution for the store from Microsoft - both the audio file format AND the DRM are proprietary. That's too dangerous for words. Just ask all the other music stores that used WMA "Plays For Sure". Heh... They're screwed!

If you really want to buy from the iTunes Store, you can burn a CD and re-encode it to whatever the hell you want. Make it a lossless codec and you haven't lost anything. Otherwise, buy a CD and rip that.

How come the iPod doesn't work with most over music stores out there?

Who cares? It's mostly the same damned library anyway. Otherwise, buy a CD and rip that.

The answer is DRM, and it doesn't have anything to do with the RIAA.

DRM has EVERYTHING to do with the RIAA, no matter who issues it.

Apple wields DRM as a tool to try to lock people in just like Microsoft does.

Only on the iTunes Store. The iPod was first and foremost an MP3 player and still is. iTunes is first and foremost a CD ripper, music library organizer, iPod manager and audio CD burner. The iTunes Store came much later and is a different animal working with the permission of the RIAA. That's the only place you'll find DRM and it's because of the RIAA. Apple won't license FairPlay as a tool for lock-in but they can do that since they own the whole ecosystem. We don't have to like it and they don't have to care. AAC is a published standard and they aren't beholden to anyone else's DRM or usage model. It's up to you to buy in or go away.

Re:Step Up

[jesboat]

Recent (i.e. not old 68k crap) Macs I've dealt with:

• iBook — carefully cared for, survived so-far for 7 years, including getting part of the CD tray getting snapped off and getting stepped on three times. Save the battery, it is still fully functional.
     
• Titanium PowerBook — in nearly constant (i.e. for a few hours almost every day) heavy use, plus getting carried to/from/around a high school daily. Had its MLB replaced twice in its lifetime, got a new case once. (Three AppleCare trips, each painless.) In my care for about 1.5 years; bought and sold it used.
     
• Aluminium PowerBook — at least as heavy usage (numerous dents). Had the MLB replaced once (repair took two weeks due to a parts shortage, but was otherwise good). Also in my care for about 1.5 years; bought it refurb, sold it used.
     
• Aluminium PowerBook — again heavy usage (still got dented, somehow...). No problems. 1.25 years. used->used.
     
• Mac Mini — shipped with wrong install CDs; new ones sent by AppleCare. No other problems, 11 months and countng. Bought refurb.
     
• MacBook — bought new 6 months ago, no problems.
     
• MacBook — bought refurb about a month ago. DOA, replaced with...
     
• MacBook — bought refurb about 2 weeks ago. No problems.
     
• iMac — 7 years and counting without problems
     
• iMac — bought from a non-Apple-certified reseller (school IT dept). MLB eventually needed to be replaced.
  

I can think of 5 other Macs I've been somewhat responsible for maintaining, which haven't had significant problems.

The experiences divide cleanly into three categories:

1. DOA: can happen to anything. Fixed easily.
    
2. Computers which take a heavy beating both in usage and literally. Occasionally broken, fixed by AppleCare reasonably painlessly.
    
3. Computers treated normally which last for a really long time.
   

We Apple zealots may downplay the anecdotes of horrible things happening with {Macs, AppleCare, Apple}. But they are simply anecdotes, and the publicity of a problem has no correlation whatsoever with how much of a problem it actually is (as any Slashdotter should be able to attest) (i.e. anecdotes != data). As someone else pointed out, if we are sufficiently satisfied with Macs to defend Apple, we're, uh, satisfied? That's kinda hard to argue.

  and lastly, for contrast, I've had plenty of experiences with PCs failing just as mysteriously/frequently/whateverly as my Macs have, if not more.

Re:Step Up

[Mr2001]

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer? Do Mac owners want to deal with cheap hardware, driver problems, things not working? And what is the cost benefit? Like $100? Er.. when's the last time you compared MacBook prices to competing laptops? Last time I checked, the low end MacBook Pro cost over $800 more than a similar notebook from HP - nearly twice as much.

(HP dv6000t vs Apple MacBook Pro 15.4". Same CPU, RAM, drives, screen size, remote/mic/camera, etc.; weight within 1/2 lb, dimensions within 1/2 inch; the HP has a lower screen resolution, but an extra USB port and better DVD burner.)

And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM. You can burn unlimited copies of the music (you are limited to a certain number per playlist, but you can make a new Playlist and do more). You can always burn a CD, and re-import it. That's true for music, but have you had a look at the DRM for videos from the iTunes store? Good luck getting those to play with anything other than QT Player and iPod, or giving them away as gifts without handing over your account password.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

To that, I'd say "make up your mind now". Would you really wait for Microsoft to start gaining traction before something is done about it or will you make sure they can never gain traction?

I think you misunderstand -- I don't want to see Apple get a strong monopoly an more than I do Microsoft. The best possible situation, aside from them both going out of the DRM business (which is pretty damn unlikely, unfortunately), is to play them off each other for as long as possible.

There are advantages with iTunes, like the ability to re-download all your purchased music if a fire wipes out your house. You can't do that with CDs.

You can't do it with the iTunes store, either! When you buy a song from iTunes, you get one chance to download it. If you lose the file and want a new copy, you get to pay for it all over again. Don't tell me you weren't aware of this! (You were, right?)

Open Source DRM is certainly possible. With proper encryption, the key is tagged to the user, not to the media and it's not in the source code. Everyone can look at the source code and create their own authentication system but the key to unlock purchased media is a secret which belongs to the user.

Re-read that, and you'll see it doesn't make any sense. The point of DRM is to hide the user's key from himself, so that he can only unlock the song under certain conditions chosen by a third party. If "the key to unlock purchased media is a secret which belongs to the user," it fails as DRM because the user can just unlock it any time he wants.

Remember, the purpose of encryption is to pass a message from Alice to Bob without Charlie having access to it. But with DRM, Bob and Charlie are the same person, which already makes it theoretically impossible. Nevertheless, it can "sort of" work by trying to hide as much as possible from Bob as well, but if you give Bob all the information (e.g. the source code) that whole idea falls apart.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

Are you sure you replied to the right post? You're arguing on the same side as me!

Re:Step Up

[Ash-Fox]

What brands are you comparing it to? If you've only ever used stuff like IBM, or built it yourself,

Most of my computers were custom built by a local computer shop (can get what I want with a good warranty). However, if I have to use a brand (usually for laptops), I'll get a corporate laptop from HP, Acer, Asus -- Just because they're sturdy.

I'd expect Apple to look relatively bad because your standards are so high.

I don't understand how I can get hardware assembled within the day to my specifications, lasting.. say... several years, but here I get a Mac, that had it's specifications and hardware well planned out long ago. Then it just has 'failures' continuously.

Not to mention, horrible assembly like too much thermal paste, high pitch noises (be it from the PSU, graphics card, monitor, motherboard or even a combination) -- I have sensitive hearing, hardware getting too hot to touch. These are things I would expect maybe from a system that was just put together on the spot without really thinking.

If you've had experience with Emachines or something, on the other hand...

We don't even have eMachines, Gateway here (here being Poland)... We have Dell, Sony stuff, but while it's possible to get their stuff, it's rare that one would ever see it -- even in shops.

Main big brands here: Optimus, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Asus, Acer (Most people haven't even heard of a Mac).

Each time my iBook needed to be repaired, Apple sent a postage-paid box for me to pack it in, had it overnighted to their repair center, and had it back to me within a week.

Each time I had my PowerBook sent to be repaired, few times it got 'lost' when it was sent to them... Found later... Then they would just send it back unrepaired. No message or anything.
It would be difficult to get anything repaired as they continuously didn't want to acknowledge there was a issue at all -- this happened too often. As for repair times... I think every time I sent something, it took at least two weeks to get it back.
On another note, the local shop lets me get things repaired usually within the same day =)

Apple replaced the battery without any argument.

To be honest, I'm surprised you and the others who have posted here did have decent support from Apple. I've had 100% of time bad service. Not only that, but there are others I know of that have had very similar experiences to me.

I have been really patient with Apple, accepting a lot of things as "it can happen anywhere" sort of issues. But this has been 100% of my usage of Apple products and Apple services.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

here being Poland

Oh, maybe that's it! It's entirely possible that the reason we've had such different experiences is that Apple's service in the US (where I am) is much better than its service in Europe.

Re:Step Up

[Divebus]

I don't want to see Apple get a strong monopoly an more than I do Microsoft.

Nor do I, but they have it for now. So far, Apple has used their de-facto monopoly to keep our prices down and preserve as much freedom as they can against the wishes of the RIAA. They've also signed thousands of Indie labels to potentially end run the RIAA once and for all. The RIAA knows not to push Apple because Steve Jobs will simply find a different model for music distribution and it won't include them. They'll be very broke, very fast. Of course, that will bring the other Apple Music lawyers around again, but that's another thread.

Nullifying the RIAA won't solve the "stealing music" business so DRM in some shape is going to be with us for a while - at least until the honor system for payments to artists takes hold. That said, I agree that any entity with a strong monopoly for a high demand item is a bad thing (see: RIAA, OPEC etc.).

In this digital age, how does something intangible, like music and movie files, get tagged to the rightful "owner"? If it were up to the RIAA, there would be no physical media to "own" nor any files to freely toss around the Internet. That pretty much limits the options. What about a physical key like a DirecTV style card which fits into your playback items? Fingerprint readers? Retnal scans? Given the options, FairPlay DRM doesn't seem so bad at this point but there has to be a better solution that won't dissolve "fair use" like we're seeing now.

You can't do it with the iTunes store, either! When you buy a song from iTunes, you get one chance to download it. If you lose the file and want a new copy, you get to pay for it all over again.

It's actually an Apple policy within the last year to let you do that ONCE:
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/a pple_gave_me_b.html
http://thecontent.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/itunes- lets-people-re-download-all-your-music-once/

After that, get a clue and BACK UP!

The point of DRM is to hide the user's key from himself

Ahh... minor detail... yes, they don't want the user to strip the DRM from the music file itself. But there are Open Source DRM projects going on right now. A quick Google search will reveal several such projects.

I agree that DRM is evil and all and that DRM should not be in the hands of one controlling entity. However, we're actually battling the RIAA and they've got control of the music we want. I'm just thankful it's not the RIAA's brand of DRM. The RIAA is the problem and so are the people who want to steal music. DRM is the key to some level of trust and the source of the uneasy truce between the RIAA and the consumer. Any breach of that "trust" between RIAA and FairPlay will weaken Apple's position next time negotiations come around so it's in Apple's best interest to break jhymn and other DRM crackers. Otherwise, the RIAA will be able to leverage Apple just like it bent Microsoft over. Everyone is theorizing that Microsoft is taking an innovative approach to the RIAA and paying them a royalty for every player sold. Since when does Microsoft pay royalties to anyone? I think the RIAA demanded that as the cost of entry because they dont' trust Microsoft or their technology. The RIAA has been yelling about royalties on players for years. They missed the boat on Apple but they got Microsoft.

Re:Step Up

[mrchaotica]

In this digital age, how does something intangible, like music and movie files, get tagged to the rightful "owner"?

The fact that you put quotation marks around "owner" suggests that you know the answer already: that the whole concept of ownership of intangible stuff doesn't make sense. That's the reality of the situation, and sooner or later it's going to have to come out.

It's actually an Apple policy within the last year to let you [re-download your media] ONCE

Having to beg Apple for it doesn't count in my book, especially since it appears not to be an "official" policy (i.e. one explicitly mentioned in the iTunes store user agreement).

Ahh... minor detail... yes, they don't want the user to strip the DRM from the music file itself. But there are Open Source DRM projects going on right now. A quick Google search will reveal several such projects.

Well, I guess I just don't understand how it works, then.

The RIAA is the problem and so are the people who want to steal music.

"Stealing music" is a problem solved by mall security guards. Copyright infringment, on the other hand, is certainly not a black-and-white moral issue like stealing is. Assuming that they're the same thing blatantly ignores several aspects of the issue, such as the fact that when copyright is infringed nothing is lost except an "oppertunity" or "possibility," or the chance that maybe sharing the work would be a greater net benefit to society than giving the author a monopoly would have been.

Remember, stealing is prohibited on the basis that ownership of tangible property is a Natural Right, while copyright infringment is only prohibited because we theorize that it's contrary to the purpose of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts." If it turns out that other means can satisfy that purpose better than copyright -- which could very well be true, considering the success of the Free Software movement, Creative Commons, YouTube, etc. -- then what possible justification would we have for criminalizing sharing?

Everyone is theorizing that Microsoft is taking an innovative approach to the RIAA and paying them a royalty for every player sold. Since when does Microsoft pay royalties to anyone? I think the RIAA demanded that as the cost of entry because they dont' trust Microsoft or their technology. The RIAA has been yelling about royalties on players for years. They missed the boat on Apple but they got Microsoft.

My theory is that Microsoft is willing to pay royalties on the Zune specifically to screw over Apple, by setting a precedent that the RIAA will try to apply to the iPod.

Re:Step Up

[toddestan]

The iTunes Store came much later and is a different animal working with the permission of the RIAA. That's the only place you'll find DRM and it's because of the RIAA. Apple won't license FairPlay as a tool for lock-in but they can do that since they own the whole ecosystem.

Which is precisely my point. People try to pretend that Apple is pro-consumer and only reluctantly implemented DRM at the demands of the RIAA. But fact is, Apple uses the Fairplay DRM to suit their needs too.

Re:Step Up

[Divebus]

Apple uses the Fairplay DRM to suit their needs too.

So? iPods were selling like hotcakes before and after DRM. Who cares? Don't use iTunes and come up with a better system. The world is waiting. I say use RFID implants where your music only plays within 30 feet of your body.

Everyone forgets about Apple holding off higher prices. The RIAA wanted $2.95 for hot tracks and Apple told them to bugger off (Microsoft would have split the profits with the RIAA by now). Apple also had to make concessions to the RIAA or there would be no iTunes store. A business deal isn't good until both parties are equally unhappy. Same goes for you.

On top of that, in the last 5 years of the iPod, Apple has released one slick improvement over another in the face of almost NO competition. If it were Microsoft's baby (for instance), they would have achieved market dominance and then stopped ANY improvements (see IE, XP and everything else they make). If the Zune had come out 5 years ago and hit like the iPod, we'd still be using the same damned hardware.

Re:Step Up

[stewbacca]

Sorry, still haven't had a chance to try Eve-online, but I'll get back to you. I recently installed all the latest crop of racing sims, and I'm freakin' amazed at my fps rates. I'm consistently at 100 fps or higher, which is plenty good for me. Doom III runs much better on my iMac than it does my 2.5 P4 with a much better video card (invidia GeForce something or other). It isn't even playable on my PC at certain points of the game. So my contention still stands...the intel iMacs are very good gaming machines. I doubt I could build my own pc for any cheaper to get the same results, since I already tried this once 15 months ago. I haven't looked, but I bet I can find a website in less than 5 minutes that shows how to swap out the built in graphics card on the iMac, so in three years or so, I don't see that being a problem. I upgraded the video card in my friend's second generation iMac way back in the day, and that was supposedly not possible, so I'm sure I'll be able to do it again.

Re:Step Up

[jesboat]

Who said I needed to reply to only posts I disagree with? ;-)

No, they won't follow the MS lead

[larry bagina]

Apple already controls the input components and drivers, so they're two steps ahead of MS here.

If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one already

[Anonymous Coward]

"like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it."

Download a risk free Ubuntu Live CD and find out. I don't see what risks there are.

"OS X seems nice. I spend most of my time writing documents and surfing the web, so it should handle everything I want, and I would be happy to buy a lovely MacBook Pro."

Why spend $2000 on a laptop to surf the web and write documents? Most Linux distros come with Open Office and Firefox preinstalled, perfect for what you need.

It sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to buy a Mac. It's true that Linux has some issues with laptops but there is no risk to try it out.

Interesting fact

[ILuvRamen]

Did you know that no DRM technology in existence can stop me from re-recording something to a DRM-less file by looping the Stereo Mixer back through the input internally on my sound card and re-recording it in realtime with full quality and so can like 95% of the computers out there with like 3 clicks of the mouse. But here's the kicker: a lot of newer Intel boards have disabled that ability because people are using it to un-DRM files and record stuff from streaming online radio stations. And guess what new processor Apple can run on? Yup, and I don't think they'll resist disabling that technique on their boards too. So, will Apple follow Microsoft's lead and implement a DRM loving policy? The correct answer is who cares because ILuvRamen has an AMD Windows system, lol.

Re:Interesting fact

[ILuvRamen]

lmao! oh I forgot, some people get easily confused by long sentences no matter how grammatically correct they are. Oops, was that one too long for you? OH NO! And as for the asshat above this post, IT'S ALL INTERNAL. It's the same type of circuit from the sound processing unit to the speakers as it is from the output to the input. It's a full quality internal circuit! I'm not talking about putting a crossover cable outside the computer, I SAID INTERNAL. My dad's a DJ and I've re-recorded some songs this way to cut off blank endings or whatever and they sound perfect even in a side by side quality comparison test at super loud volumes and trust me, I'M PICKY! I've worked with music through that and other things for longer than you've been bitching at people online needlessly. Why the hell do people like you losers even post pretending they know what they are talking about? You're not fooling anyone!

Re:Interesting fact

[hunterkll]

Decompressing and recomperssing, even with the same lossy algo, decreases quality. Rendering you pointless and your point invalid.

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

That was me posting, and I've worked with pro audio for over 10 years, so can your shit. There is a loss of quality from going out of a DAC and into an ADC, period. I don't give a crap that your dad's a DJ, because you obviously haven't done anything serious with music. Go pull out an oscilloscope and do a frequency analysis on that "lossless" copy, will you? Then come back and tell me that it's the same signal. You'll be surprised to find that it IS NOT.

Even though the signal is all internal, you don't seem to understand that you are going through multiple signal processors, and as such there is always a change in the final sound. What you've said is entirely irrelevant simply due to that. Now, once you have some experience and have grown past your current age of eleventeen, maybe you can come back after you've learned how this stuff actually works.

You're not fooling anyone.

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

Rereading your crap about all internal and not using an audio loop, you still fail to grasp the concept of recompression. Do me a favor. Go open up a jpeg image, and save it. Then open it up again after closing it, and save it again. Do this about 20 times. You'll see some very clear artifacting. This SAME EXACT process applies to re-encoding mp3s/whatever. Unless you're ripping the ORIGINAL STREAM by simply decrypting the encrypted stream, you are re-encoding and lose quality. Unless of course you want to convert your lossy DRMed files into raw PCM audio, in which case you'll have whatever sound your computer reproduced from the mp3 algorithm. See, the whole idea behind mp3 and any lossy format is to remove less important data in such a way that it can be reproduced fairly accurately without having that original data. This is why it is called LOSSY. And for the record, I'm pickier than you. I have a full studio and the speakers I use are worth about $1800, and I have a fairly high quality audio interface as well. You may not hear the difference on whatever speakers you use, however, I would hear the difference on my setup. Hell, I can hear when a note is off by about 5 cents. Perfect pitch, ever heard of it? Now, shut up, because honestly you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Re:Interesting fact

[stewbacca]

Go pull out an oscilloscope and do a frequency analysis on that "lossless" copy, will you? Then come back and tell me that it's the same signal. You'll be surprised to find that it IS NOT.

Good thing my ears aren't an oscilloscope, otherwise I might actually be able to hear a difference!

Re:Interesting fact

[stewbacca]

If you reencode (is that a word?) an mp3 or a jpeg with the same setting, it doesn't do anything on successive tries, does it? If you crank up the compression rate it does, but what if you keep the settings the same, say 128 or "high"? I thought jpegs just sample the values of each pixel to each other and throws out what it doesn't need. If the settings for "high" have already thrown out the unneeded pixels, it won't continue to throw away pixels on successive identical setting compressions, will it? I don't know, but I just figured mp3 settings did the same thing, basically. If you keep resampling an audio file at 128, it is going to do, well, nothing after the first time. This would explain why the file sizes don't decrease on successive resamples, unless you actually decrease the sampling rate.

Re:Interesting fact

[mikolas]

Maybe you should familiarize with Protected Media Path in Windows Vista, Output Trust Authorities in particular.

Re:Interesting fact

[ericlondaits]

No. A program could be smart enough to notice you're trying to save an unchanged JPEG in the same quality it already was in, and do nothing... but that's not what we're talking about here. If the JPEG gets turned into a bitmap, and then the bitmap turned into a JPEG again then the compressing algorithm has no way to differentiate the image from the "digital artifacts" (noise, distortion) than the first compression added... so it might spend some bits in trying to encode said artifacts, with further loss to the original image.

It's the same with audio.

Re:Interesting fact

[stewbacca]

That's what I thought. But if I am to save a jpg, then open it and save it again 20 times, it won't do anything. So I don't understand the point made above. Why are we delving in silly hypotheticals like changing it back and forth from jpg to bitmap to jpg? Who does that?

The same goes for 128 Mp3s. I thought someone was claiming every time you make a copy of a 128 sampled mp3 file it resamples it and loses quality. IF that was the claim, then they were clearly wrong and proved it so with their own logic, no? If I buy an iTunes song, then burn a cd copy, then distribute that copy to 50 other devices, the bottom line is that the copies are the same as the purchased drm file, so what's the problem? I supposed I could keep degrading the quality of the file by trying to compress it 50 times, or I could just redistribute the copy of the file in its original format. Am I missing something here?

Re:Interesting fact

[ericlondaits]

When I talk about a "bitmap" I'm not talking about a BMP file. A "Bitmap" is a pixel-matrix representation of an image.

If you load up a JPEG in Photoshop, it's stored internally as a bitmap... if you change a couple of pixels and save, you take a quality loss because of the original digital artifacts.

When you burn an MP3 as a CD, you're doing the equivalent of a JPEG->Bitmap conversion... since the song is stored as an uncompressed PCM waveform in the CD. When you recompress it you take a quality loss, since the original MP3 encoding is not stored in the CD, so the compressor can't tell what's data and what's digital artifacts.

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

Yea, very few people can really hear the difference. I happen to be one of those people, which is good in some ways but sucks in others. I can tolerate MP3 audio, but I'd much rather listen to an uncompressed CD.

I'm also not one of those people who claims to be an audiophile then goes ahead and decimates the recording by running it through a tube amp. That simply cracks me up - tubes, by their very nature, color the sound.

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

I wish that were the case, however, no, there was nothing incorrect about what I stated. What happens when you play an mp3 is that it is rendered into PCM wave files based on data that it doesn't have but can reproduce to a certain degree of accuracy. When you recompress an mp3, say burning it to a CD and then ripping it again, you have burned raw PCM data that was generated by the mp3 codec from the mp3. This in itself is already lossy, since the file is of the same quality as the mp3. When you go back in and recompress that PCM data, you're compressing already lossy data by removing even more data.

It really is about equivalent to opening a jpeg - which rasterizes it into a raw bitmap - then saving that raw bitmap with compression, then opening it again, and saving it. Programs these days are smart enough with jpegs not to even save it if no changes have been made, however if the jpeg is saved, it's by definition recompressed. Likewise with mp3, aac, whatever, unless you're doing a bit by bit copy of the original file - which is just a copy, not recompression, then you're not getting the same quality of audio. However, if you do what the original poster said and I replied to, then yes, there is a quality loss, because you're outputting to an audio stream, and capturing and recompressing that audio stream.

As for removing the DRM from an audio file, the only way to do that without losing sound quality is to decrypt the file. Playing it and recompressing it is by nature going to lose quality, as well using an internal hook and recompressing it.

Re:Interesting fact

[mdozturk]

MP3 compression is intesting as it does not work like other digital compression algorithms (i.e image compression, jpeg). The human ear is very sensitive compared to the eye and can detect jpeg style compression very easily. What MP3 does is remove information you cannot hear. Say at a given instance there are two tones playing. Also say one tone is more dominant than the other: most humans can't hear the second tone. Throwing information about the second tone out from the file makes no difference to most humans.

So I will go ahead and say compressing the an MP3 over and over will not create additional data loss, as long as no outside noise is added to the PCM output.

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

But see, from exactly what you said, it removes overtones that you most likely can't hear. It doesn't remove them all though. What will happen as you recompress it is that more of the overtones/harmonics will be wiped out each time you do it. Give it a try, you'll see what I mean after 5 or 6 runs if you have really good hearing. :)

Re:Interesting fact

[ILuvRamen]

lol I've been to over 300 DJ jobs and heard hundreds of thousands of songs played in multiple environments with multiple technologies so I know what good sound sounds like too. The loss of quality from going down a path on the circuitboard of the soundcard between the output and input processors is the same as the loss in quality when going through a circuit on the soundcard to the speaker output, and that's not even considering the cord that goes to the speaker. And since top quality music sounds fine coming out my speakers, then logically you aren't going to hear the loss in quality when you re-record it internally because it's usually less than half of a quality loss that you'd get from just playing the music out your speakers in the first place. And like the nice person who replied said, "Good thing my ears aren't an oscilloscope, otherwise I might actually be able to hear a difference!" And I didn't even mention doing it in full digital with the digital outputs and inputs, which loses even less quality!

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

Your hearing isn't as good as mine then. My point is that the loss of data gets compounded when you recompress it, and has nothing at all to do with the signal path. My point has everything to do with the simple fact of how MP3 compression works.

I don't care if you're even just running LAME on an MP3 file to recompress it without any signal path at all! There IS A LOSS OF QUALITY. That is how MP3 encoding works. It removes overtones that the human ear GENERALLY won't hear, and then does its best to recreate them at playtime. Each time you recompress it, more overtones are removed. That is a fact, that is how the compression works.

You're absolutely correct about the loss of quality in the sound hardware itself - there is hardly any at all. The loss of quality that I'm talking about is the loss of quality in the actual MP3 encoding algorithm, and there is no way at all to avoid that no matter how good your audio hardware is, as the audio hardware is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about computer programs, not audio hardware.

My apologies for trolling you as an AC earlier.

Re:Interesting fact

[Divebus]

I can hear the difference but I don't care, and I do use a higher bit rate to recompress.

The chief problem with doing the audio I/O loop is that you can hear everything going on inside the computer. Put a good amplifier on a computer analog output and crank it up (just don't blow your brains out with an alert sound). Some machines sound like an R2 unit convention in there, especially if you start launching stuff.

Now, if you had an optical digital I/O (all currently shipping Macs including laptops have optical digital I/O), you wouldn't even be scaling the signal or doing D/A-A/D conversion. Haven't tried it myself but that would do the trick.

Re:Interesting fact

[Thalagyrt]

Haha, I like the comparison to an R2 unit convention. Yea, the digital I/O would solve one problem but it wouldn't solve the problem of recompressing it.

Speaking of R2 units, it's always good fun when I'm recording and my cell phone starts doing its thing because I forgot to turn the transmitter off.

Bzzt bzzt. bzt. bzzzztt. "CRAP!"

Does it really matter that much in reality?

[SeeManRun]

I read all this talk about DRM and Windows Vista. Will DRM still have an effect if you don't use DRM media, and if do you DRM media, shouldn't any OS incur the same wrath when using said files? If your movies are still DVD, and your music still MP3, DRM is irrelevant, so how many users will really be hindered by Vista's extremely restrictive operation? I have been using Windows Vista for a couple weeks, and really like it. My only issue being that Media Center won't play my xvid movies, but there is no DRM in these movies.

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[the_B0fh]

The problem is that Media Player will automagically add DRM to anything you rip, from what I've read.

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't use Media Player.

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[Nightspirit]

Contrary to what someone mentioned, no, WMP does not automatically add DRM if you select the mp3 option. Also try the ffdshow codec, it may allow you to play divx content within media center (as within vista I am currently viewing a divx video within windows media player).

Contrary to all the FUD, the only DRM you have to worry about is on "next-gen" media, and it looks like until they put the analog protection flag up it can apparently be broken (if this article is correct).

You can still rip all your mp3s or FLAC (with a supported player) off CDs and copy DVDs (with DVD shrink or similar programs). So I really don't see what all the fuss is about [yes, I would prefer no DRM, but at this point it is not very likely. For instance, you are unlikely to see a commercial HD-DVD/blu-ray player (that supports the copy protection flag) for linux, unless linux can provide some means of a protected path for content].

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[Macthorpe]

This comes around a lot. IIRC it's an option and it's disabled by default.

As someone else said, use something else. I use iTunes to rip CDs and organise my music, but I don't use it to play it because it's a cloggy laggy mess.

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[mrchaotica]

Contrary to what someone mentioned, no, WMP does not automatically add DRM if you select the mp3 option.

You seem not to understand what the word "automatically" means. If you have to take some action -- such as selecting the MP3 option -- to prevent it, it's still automatic!

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[tf23]

Do a comment search here on Slashdot. I thought it was proven that the auto-drm is a checkbox setting that's off by default in Microsoft Media software.

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[Khazunga]

The problem is that MS's specs for Vista hardware mandate a secure path for protected content. By secure, they mean physically secure, making it impossible for, say, graphic adapters to decouple video-out from the main chipset. Since decoupling is what allows low grade graphic adapters to be built cheaply (they share the PCB, but the premium components are just not there), Vista will in fact cause a price increase in multimedia hardware...

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's actually right.. I remember seeing like WMP9 at least having rights restrictions on by default. But I warned my sister to turn off the rights restrictions on her new Dell (w/ WMP11 I think?).. she couldn't find the menu so I looked.. the rights restriction options were already off. (Although, it was still defaulting to WMA files 8-( )

news to me...

[gralem]

What--Apple hates DRM now? Look at everything on iTunes. Look at Job's role as largest shareholder in Disney--why would he not want to use DRM to protect his property? If you want to see the DRM of Apple, just buy a movie from Apple (like "Cars"). Then try to burn it to DVD. Or try to play it on a PSP or Creative Zen:Vision or your favorite Archos PMP. Yeah, it would suck if Apple started adopting DRM.

Re:news to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh... actually... I just _did_ rip the 'Cars' movie using Handbrake. Literally it is one click. Works great. No problems. The only discs I have trouble ripping these days are Sony/Columbia DVDs... and usually those are beatable with a tiny bit of either effort or compromise.

Re:news to me...

[gralem]

uhh... did you buy it from Apple's Movie Store?

Re:news to me...

[toddestan]

uhh... actually... I just _did_ rip the 'Cars' movie using Handbrake. Literally it is one click. Works great. No problems. The only discs I have trouble ripping these days are Sony/Columbia DVDs... and usually those are beatable with a tiny bit of either effort or compromise.

Yeah, and I could install DVD Decrypter and Gordian Knot on Windows Vista and do the same thing. Seriously, what's your point?

Apple already loves DRM

[Clockwurk]

Every intel mac ships with a "trusted" computing module and apple uses DRM on every tune or movie they sell. You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD, you can't transfer music from an ipod to a computer (easily), you can't transfer DRMd songs to any player but an ipod.

Anyone that thinks Apple is better than Microsoft needs to take a history lesson. Apple acts exactly like microsoft, but is too small to be effective. Hell, the only reason we use PCs today and not macs is Steve Jobs wanted the whole computer pie and wouldn't settle for just controlling the operating system.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[Baricom]

There are alternative explanations. The content industry wouldn't release anything to Apple without DRM protection, and the only way TPM has been used so far is to make sure OS X only runs on Apple hardware. I'm not giving them an out, but these behaviors seem benign, relatively speaking. Consider the alternative:

• Make sure you don't misplace your product key, in case you need to reinstall later.
• Cross your fingers when Microsoft phones home during activation to discover whether you're worthy of using Windows.
• Cross your fingers again as Microsoft checks whether you're a criminal every time you download patches.
• Cross your fingers yet again as you wonder whether end-of-life means your purchase will no longer activate.
• Remember to opt out of Windows Media Player's helpful tendency to DRM-infect files from CDs you rip yourself.
• Consider whether PlaysForSure or Zune DRM is more likely to be future-proof.

I don't deny that Apple might behave this way given the majority market share, but I think they're a long way from reaching that. If the tables are turned in ten years, I'll just do what I did to the Republicans: switch to the better candidate, even if that means Microsoft.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[alchemy101]

Exactly! The question itsslf is 'loaded' anyway, it assumes that OSX doesn't already have more DRM implementation than Microsoft...

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[RFaulder]

"you can't transfer music from an ipod to a computer (easily)," http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/335956166_ba96b 377be_o.png You can transfer all iTunes-purchased songs from your iPod to any computer that is authorized to do so from your iTunes account settings, up to a total of 5 computers (which, being that I only have one, is quite plenty). You can also put that onto an unlimited amount of iPods and burn it to CD's, even. I don't know movies since I'm in Canada and we don't have a movie store as of yet, but I find the music DRM to be quite alright. I remember using WMP on my windows computer a few years ago, when I transfered my library to iTunes I discovered that WMP had plastered DRM on all the songs I had ripped from CD. iTunes does NOT apply DRM to ripped mp3's.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[ericdano]

Idiot. iTunes 7 allows you to do that EASILY. Get a clue.

"And if you've got iTunes Store purchases you'd like to move from one computer to another, iTunes syncs in reverse, too -- from your iPod back to any authorized computer."

You can authorize 5 computers. Do some research. Stop the FUD.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[Tragek]

Oh wait; Apple barely uses the damn TPM chip.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[dangitman]

That's not an assumption, it's a fact.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[stewbacca]

you can't transfer music from an ipod to a computer (easily)

Senuti is pretty easy.

The OS X cds are not drm'd at all, and you can use any friend's disk to install onto your own mac if you want (exception, intel macs need intel os x disk, I think). The reason is that Apple doesn't make money from the sales of OS X, they make money from selling the hardware that runs the OS. There is simply no reason to copy protect something they give away freely. If you need a Mac to run OS X, and you get a copy of OS X with your Mac, then there really is no need to pirate the OS (upgrades being the exception, I suppose).

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[synx]

You are not correct - newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons. This really made some people unhappy because the TPM can do some interesting crypto things, like generating true random numbers. Someone did an analysis and wrote some software, it is here:

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

The important take aways are:
- TPM on Macs are NOT used to tie OSX to Apple hardware
- TPM module is not even used by OSX in any capacity
- TPM is user-controllable/hackable to perform what you want
- TPM is not available on all intel macs.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[mrchaotica]

Ah, but what about the music you didn't by from the iTunes store, but ripped from CDs (or whatever)? How do you get that back off the iPod (in a supported way)?

(Note: I have 2 Macs and an iPod, and I'm getting rather tired of Apple, in effect, punishing me for being a loyal customer by deliberately restricting its software in order to make it difficult for me to keep them in sync. With all Apple's vaunted "usability," my iPod should copy everything back and forth and I should be able to use iSync between the two computers without paying a ransom for .Mac!)

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[mrchaotica]

You are not correct - newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons

If you read the page you linked it's only assumed that that's the case, because the system no longer reports the presence of the TPM. If you read further, though, you see this:

Possible Caveat

A reader reported the case of a disappearing TPM after a firmware update (details here). I have yet to look into it. Other than looking at the I/O Registry (on somebody else's computers), I haven't examined these newer systems enough to be able to conclude if their alleged TPMs might have similarly "disappeared". If and when I do look and find something, I will update this page.

In other words, it's entirely possible that the TPM still exists, but is only hidden -- a situation that's considerably more sinister.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[ronanbear]

Tiger is still available as a retail box ($129). It's also available as a family edition which allows you to install it on up to 5 different computers ($199). They don't do anything at all to stop you buying the single license and installing it on more than one computer. They update their software often so even 2 year old computers have an old edition of the OS. Their case for adding a Genuine Advantage is just as strong because there are more OS sales per mac than with Windows. Apple can get away with it because they can make money in other areas and it doesn't wash well with customers. Microsoft have a monopoly and can do whatever they want.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Every intel mac ships with a "trusted" computing module

Nope. The first models did, but the most recently introduced one, the Mac Pro doesn't.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

This statement is inaccurate.

Please read the following article:

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/02/apple-drops-trusted -computing/

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[aichpvee]

How come you can't hate apple and microsoft at the same time? There's no "relatively" here. They're both bad, don't use either. It's an easy choice if you ask me.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but what about the music you didn't by from the iTunes store, but ripped from CDs (or whatever)? How do you get that back off the iPod (in a supported way)?

You mount it as a disk and copy them off.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[elrous0]

Do you know what it's like to picture BOTH Steve and Bill falling in the mud and getting kicked...in the head...with an iron boot?

Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question...skip it.

-Eric

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[mrchaotica]

Right, and then fix all the mangled file names. Sorry, try again!

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[gatzke]

And what happens after you authorize five computers? Say ten years from now, what are you going to do with your $5000 DRM crippled iTunes collection?

Plus you are stuck with a single vendor who can change the terms of the agreement as they want. Maybe they don't want mp3 output anymore (I think they limit to 196k too). Maybe they only want you tied to a single machine. Whatever.

At least with my CD collection, there are a wide number of players available. And I have the original non-compressed format, so I can encode it to whatever format I want.

Buying DRM crippled music is just throwing money away.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[DA-MAN]

If you have iTunes set to manage the library, it will use the id3 tags to generate the filenames.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[jesboat]

You'll authorize a computer. Or you'll use an old computer which you still have (you are keeping them for all the other data which is going to become unreadable, right?) . Or you'll use the yearly reset-my-authorization-count feature. Or you'll use an iPod. Or you'll crack the encryption, which will probably be pretty easy in ten years.

They can't change the terms for music you already have without your consent (or inattentiveness) at present. iTunes will probably play mp3s for quite a long time, and whether or not iTunes can encode to mp3 doesn't relate to your use of iTunes DRM'd music. Furthermore, iTunes still will encode to mp3, though not by default. The default is AAC audio in a non-DRM'd format.

Lastly, nothing about Apple or a Mac forces you to use iTunes any more than Windows forces you to use WMP. Apple's use of DRM in iTunes has no relation to possible use of DRM in their operating systems.

Speaking of their operating systems, it's highly unlikely that Apple will implement anything remotely close to Microsoft-restrictive for OSX running on Apple hardware (i.e. it'll probably remain free of even product keys.) OSX does not run on non-Apple hardware. That is an obvious decision. That's not something that Apple's going to be able to suddenly change for the worse later ("Hey, guess what, now OSX is only going to run on Apple hardware that... uh.. was manufactured in Tailand! Yeah, that's it!")

Lastly, Apple includes a TPM in the Intel Macs, true. But, in the words of Amit Singh, "Unfortunately, there are several aspects of trusted computing that are often misunderstood--in particular, its relationship to the controversial idea of Digital Rights Management (DRM)." How is it often misunderstood? Apple doesn't use the TPM, for one thing. "Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM. If you have a TPM-equipped Macintosh computer, you can use the TPM for its intended purpose, with no side effect on the normal working of Mac OS X." (emphasis his) In order to get the TPM to do anything at all, he needed to write a driver for the thing, which is what the article I was quoting from is about.

One last thing: some of the newest Intel Macs don't have TPMs anymore.

So, the submitter's question: "Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead in [being DRM-friendly]?"

They'll probably continue to use DRM in iTunes, but that's iTunes, and not Macs or Mac OS X, and it's certainly on the good side of things. OSX doesn't seem to be using DRM right now, and it's unlikely that it will use severe DRM in the immediate future (and certainly not Trusted stuff). With the caveat that bobody can predict the future, I think the answer is: no.

Re:Apple already loves DRM

[BalkanBoy]

> Steve Jobs wanted the whole computer pie and wouldn't settle for just controlling the operating system.

Right. And look where controlling "just the OS" has gotten Microsoft - to a point where they can't make moves like Apple where they virtually scrap/rewrite their kernel because it would break too many apps, and moreover it would take thousands of man hours to redo the 3rd party driver for every piece of hardware that Windows currently supports. Supporting a limited hardware+OS platform seems to be paying off for Apple. I can't say whether Jobs foresaw this 25-30 years ago, but as it is now, it's a better predicament (IMO) than Microsoft's (at least from a purely PR perspective, if nothing else :). If MS could do what Apple did between OS 9 and OS X, they would or could make both Linux+OSX irrelevant, but we all know that isn't going to happen in our lifetime...

Doubtful

[Baricom]

IMHO, Apple would be a fool to consider tighter DRM. A significant portion of the (increasing) user base is switching to avoid Windows. Every step Apple makes toward emulating Windows flaws is one less way they can claim to "think different."

Re:Doubtful

[sesshomaru]

Well, Apple has been resisting pressure from studios to do a lot of things, because their main goal is to avoid alienating the user. Apple, however, is not anti-DRM. They just want the chains to rest lightly on the consumer.

The thing that most annoys me is that I have an older Apple Powerbook, with an older edition of OS X. I can watch all the iTunes Video I want on my Windows PCs but if I want to watch it on my Apple, I have to buy a more up to date version of OS X (I upgraded OS X once already... I refuse to upgrade a second time.).

I know this isn't a technological issue, because I can watch all the MPEGs or DVDs I want. Therefore, it's a DRM issue, and it annoys me that I must update my OS to read DRM.

That said, Apple knows that they can afford to lose me as a customer, with my old G4 and old version of OS X. However, they've been mostly liberal with their DRM. I'm impressed that they were smart enough to let people burn ordinary audio CDs from their iTunes, even knowing that people could just turn around and make those CDs into DRM free MP3s or OGGs. Otherwise, how could they compete with Peer-to-Peer? It's not altruism that drives Apple's competance with DRM, it's business savvy.

So, in conclusion I'll say that Apple is much more savvy than the current incarnation of Microsoft. Ironic really, as it was in producing an OS for open, generic computers that made Microsoft great and now they are looking to have input into the specs of every component and everything that attaches to a computer that uses Windows. It's absurd, and it may well be the thing that knocks MS down a peg or two, if a company out there is smart enough to exploit this weakness.

Will it be Apple? It's not impossible, but I'll be surprised if it is. They know what they are doing, but it doesn't involve replacing Microsoft in the PC space.

Re:Doubtful

[Hes Nikke]

Here you go

or are you running jaguar? if... it's time to upgrade... jaguar -> tiger is like windows 95 -> XP.

Re:Doubtful

[squiggleslash]

He said he refused to upgrade a second time. I don't blame him. You know, Tiger's barely a couple of years old, and you can't get Java 1.5 for Panther, because Apple tries to avoid doing basic updates for earlier versions of Mac OS X unless it's something they can make money from, like iTunes. Operating systems sold less than two years ago.

Going from Jaguar to Tiger is more like going from Windows 2000 to Windows XP BTW. Jaguar has the same architecture and in many ways is a cleaner OS than its successors (the GUI in particular, while slower, is more elegant and less grating.) What it lacks are recent bells and whistles. And support.

The answer: Probably.

[MrCode]

But it will be slightly less evil DRM than Microsoft's (if there can be such a thing.)

For those who haven't heard about the Vista DRM "features", please read this:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt

Re:The answer: Probably.

[eldepeche]

Why the fuck would anyone write a long text file like this? Are we on usenet?

User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack 2

[Animats]

Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 was the last Microsoft operating system where the user was in control. With SP3, Windows Update could make your machine a slave to the mothership in Redmond. In XP, most machines were slaved to Redmond. Remember the day Microsoft rebooted everybody by remote control via Windows Update? Vista just continues the trend - you will obey the commands from the mothership, or your machine stops working.

Obey or Die - brought to you by Microsoft.

Interesting fact-I'm tone deaf.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did you know that no DRM technology in existence can stop me from re-recording something to a DRM-less file by looping the Stereo Mixer back through the input internally on my sound card and re-recording it in realtime with full quality and so can like 95% of the computers out there with like 3 clicks of the mouse."

Pfft! Only the tone deaf would think of THAT as quality. But then you all happily listen to MP3's.

Re:Interesting fact-I'm tone deaf.

[ericdano]

Of course, most of the POP stuff out there, like 90%+ of the stuff on iTunes, is so compressed when mastered that an MP3 of it really doesn't sound much different than the actual CD. All that Rap, and Maroon 5, Fray, etc.

There's DRM and then there's DRM

[Wesley Felter]

I think this thread boils down to a single issue: Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage" program is threatening to remotely self-destruct people's computers. Apple isn't.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, Apple was going to require product activiation for Leopard. It's just a rumor though.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, Apple's going to be including a free sexbot with every copy of Leopard. That's also just a rumor, and backed up with identical amounts of evidence.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[binford2k]

A free sexbot? Holy fuck, where's the "Buy Now" button?

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[MadUndergrad]

Unfortunately, non-spike-lined sexbot vaginas were patented by another company. Better hope Apple is willing to risk the lawsuit.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[dangitman]

Why is that unfortunate? I grow weary of boring human vaginas and their pitiful lack of spikes.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[binford2k]

Well, spike-lined or not, at least they will be lickable.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[daviddennis]

I have never, even once, heard this one on the million Apple rumor sites I visit.

Please cite some kind of source before tossing this kind of explosive into the discussion.

Thank you.

D

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[Wesley Felter]

I think I have heard this rumor for every new version of OS X. "10.2 was too easy to copy; Apple's going to have activation in 10.3." And yet it never comes true. Even the rumor sites don't believe it. This idea is probably made up by people who think they can run Apple's business better than Apple can.

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[daviddennis]

It's really very simple.

Apple has fans.

Most Apple fans are more than happy to give them $129 every year or so to upgrade. They understand software costs money to make and in return they get good support, a nice package and so on.

Steve Jobs is not a stupid man. He knows many of these fans wouldn't upgrade or wouldn't buy the software if it had irritating protections built onto it. Furthermore, they would become less fannish then, and he surely doesn't want that.

What this means is that MacOS X is only pirated by those who can't afford $129. He's not going to sell to those people anyway, so he really doesn't care that much. If he lets them upgrade, at least they'll keep buying his hardware, which is what he REALLY cares about.

Since Steve's biggest strength is customers who love the company, I really don't think he's going to do product activation. It's really not in his interest.

D

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM

[walt-sjc]

Most Apple fans are more than happy to give them $129 every year or so to upgrade.

They do seem to be on a two year cycle. Tiger was March 05, Leopard will be sometime this spring. With the $199 5-system family pack, the 4 macs in the house cost $25 / year each to keep updated. That's pretty damn reasonable. How many people that are on /. only have one computer? Heck, most of the non-computer field people I know have more than one.

Umm....

[rolfwind]

This leaves me with either Linux or Mac OS X. I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it.

And OS X will? (Legally?)

Anyway, Linux or BSD is guaranteed freedom while OS X you have to trust a company. It's that simple. We can analyze Apple all we want but in the end it is a company that can decide to turn one way or the other at any moment. Not so with your average Linux distro.

Or play both sides and get a Mac and dual-boot. Keep your files in open or standard formats so you can easily move to other OSes.

Apple doesn't already "do" DRM?

[wframe9109]

Color me surprised. For some reason I thought Microsoft (and any other OS developer who wants in on most HD media format functionality) had to use DRM.

I also had this faint notion that Apple already surpasses most companies in terms of how deep they are in DRM, but hey! They're Apple. Apple is hip, and DRM is not, so I guess they don't "do" DRM.

I'm guesting whomever posted this is either a troll or a shill. Or uninformed.

Linux... Wow.

[JimXugle]

You'd be surprised at how easy Linux runs on laptops. I'm typing this on a Compaq nx6325 and it runs Linux just fine. Just search around for some of the ACPI hacks though... you can burn up your processor if you're not careful.

Any issues you have can be solved on linuxquestions.org. I guaruntee that you will have all of your hardware working within a month. Most of it (if not, all of it) within a week.

Re:Linux... Wow.

[binford2k]

[...] I guaruntee that you will have all of your hardware working within a month. Most of it (if not, all of it) within a week. If you really mean this, then you are one dumb fuck.

Re:Linux... Wow.

[JimXugle]

everything except for the Integrated wireless worked perfectly for me on this laptop. I could get the wireless working if I wanted to... but I'm happy with wired right now.

Now that I re-read my comment, yes... it seems dumbfuckish.

Re:Linux... Wow.

[binford2k]

On my laptop, the stuff that works works better than on windows, but the stuff that doesn't just doesn't work at all. Luckily, that's down to just the integrated SD reader and the modem (and I think there might be a driver for the modem now, but I just don't care) Nearly all of it worked out of the box too, where windows missed all but the generic kb/mouse/vga drivers.

However, I've babysat far too many Linux installs at the LUG to guarantee *anything*!

Re:Linux... Wow.

[squiggleslash]

I think the guarantee tht you will have all your hardware working within a month needs to be reworded as "you will have all the hardware you deem necessary working within a month, although in some cases you may need workarounds" would be more reasonable, but generally, yeah, as long as you take some care in your purchasing decisions, the statement is more or less true.

It took me around a week to get the major parts of my Thinkpad working, and another couple of weeks to get the ATI fglrx stuff going. I'm sure there are parts of my Thinkpad unconfigured, but that's because I don't use them.

Maybe.

[Unknown Poltroon]

The day i notice it I'm selling my apple stock for redhat, and installing linux on my macbook. Fuck em.

Re:Maybe.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've been running RedHat for a while eh?

I've used all of them

[mind21_98]

Here's my take on them:

Vista: it's okay (as of RC2). I'm not feeling the DRM though, and will probably remove it from my system in the near future.

OSX: This is what I'm using now. With Parallels/Boot Camp/VMWare, you should be able to use anything that doesn't have an OSX port.

Linux: I really wouldn't use it for a desktop machine. At least not yet. Of course, if you're going to use it for development and not for typical office stuff, it'd probably work perfectly for you.

Anyways, out of those three, I prefer OSX myself. Hope this helps! :)

Not M$

[Zebra_X]

Apple has led, is leading and will continue to lead the DRM future. Intel is close behind because they created HDCP, the hardware level copying mechanism in use by HDCP compliant HDMI ports in current generation high-end monitors and televisions.

Intel Macs now come with the beloved Trusted Computing module installed, and while most say that it is not used now, Apple is the only one deploying it widely to their user base. It will get used in the future.

Apple is now, and will continue the move to a media platform. Such a move is going to require very tight control over the content that is deployed to the platform. The only way that Apple can assure content providers that their content is "safe" is by deploying draconian measures to be sure that we cannot really "own" the content that we "borrow" from the rights holders, be it movies, songs, TV shows or newspapers.

Microsoft has less of interest in owning your content, sure they have to assure content providers that their content will not be used in improper ways - however their OS isn't targeted specifically to content creation and consumption. In reality, Microsoft can't really compete with Apple on completeness of media offering because they would be sued for anti-trust violations (and have).

While Microsoft has incorporated HDCP support for high-def content, the drives to play this content for pc's still range in the 000's. You can be sure when Apple starts to ship macs with blue-ray drives that HDCP will become a requirement. You also won't notice that it's there because with exception for the macpro and mac mini there is little need for external displays.

Interestingly, blue ray-discs may be encoded to play high def content via HDMI only at the studios discretion. Given that this capability exists today, Microsoft is not responsible for the movement to protect high def content.

To be clear, MS is not leading this charge. It has been built into the blue-ray standard, the hardware connections, and boards of a wide range of devices. This is a ground up attack at our ability to move content around. The MPAA and RIAA figure if you make the hardware aware of the content, then you can police the content better. They might be right... only time will tell.

If M$ does not deploy support for these standards then we will not have the ability to watch any of the content. The same will happen on OS X except that it will be less apparent due to the lack of HDCP compatibility issues across the most popular macs (MacBook, MacBook Pro). Apple will provide a better "user experience" because they control both the hardware and software that they sell to customers. Of course, Microsoft will look like the bad guy because they have little control over the hardware that ends up in consumers homes.

Re:Not M$

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, while the first Intel Macs had TPM chips, the latest revisions do not.

Re:Not M$

[dangitman]

Microsoft has less of interest in owning your content, sure they have to assure content providers that their content will not be used in improper ways - however their OS isn't targeted specifically to content creation and consumption.

That's pretty delusional. Firstly, Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS. And their OS is geared towards consumption of products and content. Like Microsoft applications, and third-party applications and games.

Microsoft doesn't just want to own your media - they want to oen your whole system and have the ability to shut your OS down remotely. Hell, Microsoft even tries to put DRM on your pre-existing content - for example, if you rip a CD with Windows Media Player. And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.

Just because Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with their plans, doesn't mean they aren't trying.

Re:Not M$

[happycorp]

> To be clear, MS is not leading this charge

Actually, this is incorrect. Go back 3-4 years and read about Microsoft's "Palladium" effort, now called Trusted Computing. Here's a FAQ:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

"The Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is an alliance of Microsoft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD".

Microsoft has been leading the charge on the software side. It's a remarkable effort, and Apple as of yet has nothing like it. In Palladium, the hardware validates the OS before booting it, the OS can then validate programs such as media players (refusing to run third-party players), and the players validate the content. If fully turned on it will be very difficult to crack. It will also make programming essentially illegal, as some essays have pointed out.

It's like the nuclear bomb of computing. If they use it, they could control *everything*, but the backlash would also be huge. They potentially have big supporters - Hollywood, the Christian right (who could use it to eliminate porn), dictators, CEOs, etc. Read the bits about documents that can only be read by their target audience, and that refuse to open after a designated period.

I suspect that much of Microsoft's strategic thought over the past 5 years has been devoted to puzzling over how (far) to deploy this. If they don't go all the way (bios validates the OS, etc.), it will be easy to crack. If they do, will they be able to keep people from fleeing their now total control of the computing environment?

As for Apple, I don't know. If TC is a success Apple will be forced by Hollywood to adopt it (at best), or simply excluded from playing major media (a scenario that Microsoft has considered no doubt, though they're probably thinking more of killing Linux with this...). With Intel supplying the hardware, Apple is at least in a position to respond by implementing this if they need to.

But several facts make be believe that Apple does not actually want this:
1) They didn't implement the software side yet. They could have. Microsoft has.
2) The iTunes DRM, which is rather unrestrictive insofar as DRM goes. Plus, iTunes itself lets you RIP DRM-free Mp3s (or Mp4/aac or flac) from CDs, and you can put these mp3s on any non-Apple player you like (contrary to earlier assertions in this discussion).

Plus, why would they (Apple) want this? Microsoft has a lot to gain by preventing competing O/Ss from playing media. Apple (at this point) will only gain by getting more marketshare.

Re:Not M$

[Zebra_X]

Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS

Windows media player is harmless. The verdict is still out on Media Center edition as the product used to have a direction, PC/TV Convergence however that is no longer the case. We will see how it turns out when it is rolled into Vista.

And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.

How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been actively trying to shut out competing companies from reading their "FairPlay" content. The iPod is also the only "official" player out there that works with iTunes music store music. The same is not true of Microsoft, their format and licensing terms, oh wait you CAN actually license their format, are far more favorable than Apple.

Apples intent is to own in it all, where as Microsoft is developing a platform that is far more interoperable.

Honestly, DRM sucks and is a bad deal for us all the way around. However, of the two implementations Microsofts is much more interoperable than Apple, there are also more "flexible" models, such as subscription based. Apple offers one model, you buy it and can listen to it on 5 machines and burn it 7 times, and that's it. Private, proprietary formats suck and the only people that lose are the consumers when a company like apple tries to control our choice.

Understand though that the organizations driving the move to DRM are not software companies - they are the record labels and the "cotent owners". The software companies are working to get paid along with the content owners. It's up the the consumers to avoid the whole DRM business and simply not buy DRM'd music.

Re:Not M$

[Zebra_X]

This is all well and good. However, when you put together a Windows system you have the choice of selecting a system that has/does not have a TCPM in it. In fact, you can hand pick your hardware down to mother board and ram modules. You cannot do the same with Apple.

What is important is that Apple doesn't really give details about a) why it is included b) what it is going to be used for.
I think this is the most important fact: Apple's hardware is completely custom. The TCPM chip isn't just included "by accident" or because there is some BTX specification that requires it's inclusion ( as one might find in the PC industry ). The TCPM is included for one reason only, Apple made a decision to include it.

My point is basically that you have a choice here to deal with or not to deal with TCPM at the moment in the Windows world. The same is not true of Apple's land of Milk and iPods.

If TC is a success Apple will be forced by Hollywood to adopt it (at best), or simply excluded from playing major media (a scenario that Microsoft has considered no doubt, though they're probably thinking more of killing Linux with this...). With Intel supplying the hardware, Apple is at least in a position to respond by implementing this if they need to.

I think the situation is reversed... with Apple retaining the only widely deployed base of TCPM machines Apple is in a position to offer major movie studios the TCPM capability - that is they will be able to "secure" their content on Apple's hardware and provide a disstribution channel via iTunes. An offer that Microsoft cannot make because they do not control their deployment hardware. I see active deployment of TCPM on Apple's side as a preperation for a "first strike" in the video on demand movement. I think there is a reason that Apple has yet to get major movie studios on board with selling movies through iTunes and I think that has a lot to do with security concerns around their content, and possibly around pricing.

There is really no way to know with any of this. However, I do know that I don't want to buy hardware with TCPM, as I can see no tangible benefit in it.

Re:Not M$

[Zebra_X]

Do you have a source for this? I looked around and I couldn't find anything definitive. I did find this site:
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/02/apple-drops-trusted -computing/ but it cites this site: http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ as the source of this information.

However, after reading the the second site, it does not say that the TCPM is not included (it states the chip included) it simply says that Apple is not currently using the TCPMs capabilities.

I think though that Apple is including and will continue to include that chip, and I am willing to bet that it will be used at a later date. We'll be told something to the effect of "iMovie download store is open! You'll need the latest Intel based hardware to access this content" under the auspices of "compatibility" when in fact, it will be becuase their encryption scheme will require the TCPM.

Re:Not M$

[happycorp]

> This is all well and good. However, when you put together a Windows system you have the choice of selecting a system that has/does not have a TCPM in it. In fact, you can > hand pick your hardware down to mother board and ram modules. You cannot do the same with Apple.

You're missing the point of the original question. With Vista, you *will* have TC support, or you're not going to be able to play "premium" media, period, no choice.
Sure, you're free to pick a system without TC support, but that's like saying you'll be free to pick a system without a hard drive or processor.
Unless you don't care for music or movies or news or games or whatever, you've got no choice with Vista.
See this article for example (also posted on Slashdot recently):
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt

The remainder of this statement (conserning motherboard/memory) is somewhat off topic, but I'll respond.
My view is that it's a difference of _variety_ (with Windows winning
of course) but not a difference of _kind_. You can install 3rd party memory in Macs, and there are 3rd party processor upgrades.
On the Windows side, you have the choice of exactly that set of hardware that is supported by Windows. Which is tautological of course.
A broader range of choices, but Microsoft is still calling the shots. They could refuse to support some hardware and engineer
the OS to accomplish this (as they have, occasionally, with software). It sounds like there will be extensive support for doing this
sort of thing in Vista.

In fact, on a theoretical rather than practical level, there is actually *more* freedom in the Apple ecosystem, due to the fact that the
basic operating system is open sourced.

Re:Not M$

[Zebra_X]

You're missing the point of the original question. With Vista, you *will* have TC support, or you're not going to be able to play "premium" media, period, no choice.
Sure, you're free to pick a system without TC support, but that's like saying you'll be free to pick a system without a hard drive or processor.
Unless you don't care for music or movies or news or games or whatever, you've got no choice with Vista.
See this article for example (also posted on Slashdot recently):
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt

Where is the mention of TCPM or Trusted Computing? I did a search and nothing came up.

Honestly that article is an excercise in what could be. There is no proof that any of these horrible outcomes will come to pass. In reading it there are certainly some aspects that are concerning such as driver revocation. However disrupting the user experience is NOT in M$'s best interests. I have a hard time seeing many of these things come to pass.

A broader range of choices, but Microsoft is still calling the shots. They could refuse to support some hardware and engineer the OS to accomplish this (as they have, occasionally, with software). It sounds like there will be extensive support for doing this sort of thing in Vista.

The hardware vendors develop the drivers, not Microsoft. Why would MS ever pull the plug on anything but defective, malicous, or insecure drivers? They are not a hardware company and cannot be.

Apple can do the same thing - they can realease an "update" that disables a particular piece of hardware, but why would they?

In fact, on a theoretical rather than practical level, there is actually *more* freedom in the Apple ecosystem, due to the fact that the
basic operating system is open sourced.

The basic OS is, but the GUI, which is effectively Mac OS is not and never will be anything close to open source. Also, Apple has shown that they are willing to close Darwin (they have done this in the past) if necessary. Darwin on it's own is just another BSD, and there are better BSD's out there.

I'm not sure why everyone likes Apple so much they are a mini-monopoly, they have some of the worst manufacturing practices in the industry and they don't give a cent back to the non-shareholding world. What a great organization!

Re:Not M$

[Keeper]

Honestly, DRM sucks and is a bad deal for us all the way around.

As a side note, I firmly believe that DRM (for music and video) is only useful in subscription or rental models. It is a complete ripoff in every other situation...

Re:Not M$

[daviddennis]

You are ignoring, or perhaps you have simply forgotten, the fact that the new Zune uses its own DRM and will not operate under the old "open" DRM standard. Songs bought on the old PlaysForSure standard will not work on the Zune, and I have to assume (although I don't think it's stated anywhere) that songs bought in Zune Marketplace wil not work under PlaysForSure.

I think it's fair to say that Apple DRM is clean and the conditions are the same universally. Apple recognized that was what customers needed in order to accept DRM, and the Microsoft model of giving content providers total control over usage rights was not going to work.

Microsoft's DRM, on the other hand, lets content providers specify usage rights, meaning you have to read the fine print on every song you purchase to make sure you can use it as you wish.

Certainly the differences between Apple and Microsoft's DRM indicate that there is wiggle room in the negotiations with content providers for rights, and that Steve Jobs has worked very hard to minimize the downside of DRM for consumers.

Now, Steve may be forced to implement these restrictions on Blu-Ray playback because they are mandated by the Blu-Ray standard itself. I don't think it makes sense to blame him or Apple for conditions that are being imposed from outside.

But I'm not sure if I would be as alarmed by this as others have been.

The original article about the restrictions in Vista made it clear that they would not apply unless protected content was in the computer. So if you want to see your screen as it should be seen, simply refrain from using your computer with a Blu-Ray DVD in it. I think the major consequence of this will be that people will not use their computers as DVD players, or at least they will not use their computer for any other function while it is playing a protected DVD.

Since most people don't try to do other things while watching movies on their computer, I'm not sure if this restriction is that onerous for most people.

It's also worth noting that this might not have been the wisest course of action on the part of the content companies. It seems to me that the most likely result of this content protection is to ensure that most people will not purchase Blu-Ray DVDs. I know that I would not. If the standard fails to sell videos, the protection scheme may be the culprit and future standards will have to change to no DRM or at least adopt a less burdensome system.

D

Re:Not M$

[dangitman]

Windows media player is harmless.

Depends on what you mean by harmless. Many would consider attempting to DRM your own media is pretty malicious. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Even if Windows Media Player is harmless, it's only because Microsoft have failed in their attempts to have WMP rule the world. It would be a lot more harmful if MS had their way.

How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been actively trying to shut out competing companies from reading their "FairPlay" content.

I'm talking about for users. I don't really care about a bunch of RIAA companies. It is more restrictive on how many machines you can use it on, product activation, and burning to CD, etc. PlaysforSure can hardly be considered more interoperable, as it only works on the Windows platform. Fairplay at least supports both Mac and Windows.

Apples intent is to own in it all, where as Microsoft is developing a platform that is far more interoperable.

Don't drink the Kool-aid man. Microsoft definitely wants to own it all. They only use "interoperability" as a means of having leverage over others. Microsoft would make washing machines if they thought they could dominate the market. At least Apple is a little more careful and focused about what markets it goes into, choosing things more along the lines of their core competencies, than just jumping on anything which might have a profit potential.

Apple offers one model, you buy it and can listen to it on 5 machines and burn it 7 times, and that's it.

And can easily burn to CD, can easily deauthorize computers and authorize new ones. And works on more than one platform.

Private, proprietary formats suck and the only people that lose are the consumers when a company like apple tries to control our choice.

Agreed, but the idea we were discussing is that Apple is worse on DRM, and has worsze intentions than Microsoft. I'm not sure why you are more worried about Apple, when Microsoft has been trying much harder to DRM everything we use, and not just music and video. Windows itself is a DRM timebomb. I haven't even mentioned Xbox or HD-DVD yet. You really believe that Microsoft doesn't want to own everything?

A few mistakes in your post

[2nd Post!]

1) Apple DRM has nothing to do with moving music off an iPod. The music is stored in a hidden folder and can be copied off trivially.
2) Apple DRMed songs can trivially (in iTunes) be burned to a CD, opening up to a world of CD players and DVD players. If you choose to re-encode again you can transfer to additional devices other than iPods.
3) Apple has never acted like Microsoft. Microsoft has raised Windows license fees or withheld licenses from companies promoting or developing competing technologies (OS/2 and Netscape). The closest is when Apple withdrew licenses from clonemakers exactly because they did not want to only sell operating systems. Microsoft has also developed competitive technologies rather than endorsing existing solutions so they could extract more control (WMA instead of AAC, WMV instead of MPEG4, Direct3D instead of OpenGL, MTP instead of UMS, etc)

Maybe your point (Apple is a corporation, not an entity) would be better made as, "Don't trust Apple to be good by you unless it also helps them as well".

Wake up

[spiritraveller]

Don't expect Apple or any other proprietary systems vendors to protect your freedom. They're not interested in your freedom.

They are very interested in making and maintaining sweetheart deals with studios and record companies, so that they can be the middleman who sells the movies and music that those other companies put out.

Only open systems can be expected to protect your freedom. Proprietary systems are by definition intended to take away your freedom to do as you wish with them. They are designed to remove your ability to modify them as you see fit. Your freedom is only guaranteed when source is available. Anything else is just a hope and a prayer.

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack

[Anonymous Coward]

From your post, I can surmise the following:

- You smell like stale urine
- You really, really enjoy cheetohs
- You are a geek with no perspective on what is important

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack

[Kisil]

Remember the day Microsoft rebooted everybody by remote control via Windows Update?

You mean every time there's a major update? "Your computer will be restarted in 5:00" infuriates me.

The short answer

[westlake]

This leaves me with my question: Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead and implement a DRM loving policy?"

The short answer is "Yes."

If you want to sell the Mac in the consumer market. If you want to compete with that Vista media PC from HP or Dell and it's 50 GB HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drive. If you want to sell that big HD wide-screen monitor.

If you want to sell HD content through iTunes.

The mwre title of the next and last Harry Potter novel became headline news worldwide. Think of what the video rights to that series alone is worth. Think of what it is worth to Apple.

Re:The short answer

[stewbacca]

Apple won't want to compete with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray because they are looking beyond 1990s technology. Why are people still fixated with shiny metal disks? Streaming on-demand HD content is the future, and Apple will deliver it first. So all the suckers who spend their money on competing HD DVD standards to be "cutting edge" will look awfully silly in five years time (if not sooner).

Re:The short answer

[westlake]

Why are people still fixated with shiny metal disks?

Those shiny plastic disks are cheap, portable, durable, media.

50 GB today. In five years, ten years, perhaps 500 GB, 1000 GB, or more.

I'll take the odds that the FedEx van will still be able to deliver more and cheaper HD content to your door than fiber.

Re:The short answer

[toddestan]

Well, the media cartels won't sell you the content on those shiny plastic disks and let you view it without the DRM in place. Maybe you're right, and Apple will start some kind of streaming on demand HD quality service. However, I can guarantee that the media cartels will require that the Mac be DRM'd up the wazoo before that is allowed to happen. Either way, we lose.

Laptop

[JoshJ]

Linux works fine on the laptop. Use an Ubuntu livedisc (dapper or edgy- dapper has Long Term Support, whereas Edgy is more up to date) to test it out to make sure it works before installing, and when installing do a dualboot- it's not hard to do (literally all you have to do is check the radio button to partition the hard disc and select the percentage of the HD to give the preexisting OS) and that way if things don't work out in ubuntu your windows install is safe and sound, leaving you free to try out another distro.

I specify Ubuntu because it has a livedisc installer, and I know the partitioning on the installer is extremely easy to do- doesn't hurt that Ubuntu is also a fairly newbie-friendly distro.

That said, if you want to prepare yourself for a switch in general, the best thing to do is replace as many of your current apps with crossplatform and/or opensource apps, and open or standard file formats for all your documents- OpenOffice.org, gAIM, Firefox for more common stuff; xchat ( http://silenceisdefeat.org/~b0at/xchat/win32/ - several builds don't have the $20 fee), and so forth for less common apps. Mostly, applications are interchangeable, files may not be. You need to identify any sticking points first, before the switch- this applies to any platform.

Don't blame linux or os x for being "broken" when "broken" really just means "different". This is generally more a problem with old geezers/technophobes, but also a problem with people who are used to Windows's way of doing things.

It's been said by some that the people who have the hardest time switching are the "power users", because they have a lot of knowledge of "how to do *somewhat advanced thing*" that isn't the same across OSes. An example would be something like changing the screen resolution, or maybe a bit more advanced, setting up a printer; or adding/removing users.

Re:Laptop

[JoshJ]

Gah, I missed a in there. My apologies.

Re:Laptop

[Anonymous Coward]

Might I suggest using italics for emphasis? Even if you forget the closing tag, the text remains readable.

Re:Laptop

[stewbacca]

Don't blame linux or os x for being "broken" when "broken" really just means "different". This is generally more a problem with old geezers/technophobes, but also a problem with people who are used to Windows's way of doing things. It's been said by some that the people who have the hardest time switching are the "power users", because they have a lot of knowledge of "how to do *somewhat advanced thing*" that isn't the same across OSes. An example would be something like changing the screen resolution, or maybe a bit more advanced, setting up a printer; or adding/removing users.

I had a Windows nerd friend help me last weekend install Win XP on my intel Mac, and I spent the first 30 minutes educating him that Macs can indeed to all that and more, just not the way he is used to. In nearly every case, the Mac way is simpler, and more elegant, once you drop the preconceived windows-way of doing things and figure out how to do it on a Mac. I hate it when people try to apply Windows logic to a Mac (no, there still isn't a registry, get over it). This is the #1 reason behind all the Linux/Macs suck comments: blatant ignorance.

Apple already tolerates DRM

[SuperKendall]

Every intel mac ships with a "trusted" computing module

Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers, as Microsoft had been talking about.

and apple uses DRM on every tune or movie they sell.

That you can easily remove - even the video you can simply re-record with any number of video screen capture software. This is mandated by content providers, not Apple - remember Apple is the one that brought DRM to this loose state. Microsoft is the one giving you protected video paths with Vista.

You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD

You can if you simply copy it.

you can't transfer music from an ipod to a computer (easily)

Since iTunes recognizes ID3 tags it is childs play to copy a whole directory of music from any iPod you can mount into iTunes, and have the music all show up.

you can't transfer DRMd songs to any player but an ipod.

But you can also choose to move the songs to other formats that lack DRM and move them that way. There is an out.

People like you have been blasting Apple for DRM use for years when in fact Apple is the company that is slowly backing studios out of DRM use. the MP3 sales trial recently on Yahoo would never have been done if Apple had not locked up the popular use of DRM with Apple instead of an indsutry controlled company such as Microsoft.

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM

[RAMMS EIN]

``Every intel mac ships with a "trusted" computing module

Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers'' ...yet.

The problem is that once you subscribe to DRM, TPM, etc. you cede control. After that, you can't say no anymore.

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM

[RAMMS EIN]

``an indsutry controlled company such as Microsoft.''

Ey? Microsoft is an industry-controlled company? If there is _one_ company that doesn't have to care what anyone else says, or even dictate where the industry goes, it has to be Microsoft.

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM

[Keeper]

Basically, you're saying it's ok because Apple is completely inept? Or are you arguing that their attempts at "control" are intentionally flawed?

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM

[rtechie]

Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers, as Microsoft had been talking about.

Apple has used the "boot rom" and other techniques to prevent users from running MacOS on third-party hardware since it's inception. This is inherently more restrictive than the MS/Linux approach of alowing users to install their operating systems on commodity hardware.

That you can easily remove - even the video you can simply re-record with any number of video screen capture software. This is mandated by content providers, not Apple - remember Apple is the one that brought DRM to this loose state. Microsoft is the one giving you protected video paths with Vista.

I don't consider "manually re-recording all downloads" to be the same as "easily remove". Windows Media has hacks and tools to easily remove the DRM like FairUse4WM, and what THOSE tools do is actually strip off the DRM leaving you with an unprotected WMA file. And you're right, DRM is mandated by the content providers, just like with MS. The protected video paths are also mandated by content providers. If MacOS wants to play BlueRay or HD-DVD video Apple MUST implement something very similar.

You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD

You can if you simply copy it.

I do not know what this means. You simply cannot convert a downloaded protected video to DVD-Video in iTunes and then burn it to a DVD. I do not know if there are third-party tools that allow you to do this.

Since iTunes recognizes ID3 tags it is childs play to copy a whole directory of music from any iPod you can mount into iTunes, and have the music all show up.

While iTunes recognizes ID3 tags, it actually strips them off MP3 files you import to iTunes and dumps the metadata into it's own proprietary database at the same time mangling the file names. All of this is done deliberately to make it hard to pull music off an iPod AND to make it completely incompatible with other MP3 players. The net effect is to make it a major hassle to copy a track to a friend's system because you have to A) Somehow figure out what random gibberish (SJDH23S.AAC for example) your track has been named and then manually re-naming and then re-tagging each file. This simply IS NOT a problem with every other MP3 player. Somehow EVERY OTHER MP3 vendor can manage to database music libraries without completely mangling the filenames and metadata. This is fucking terrible and anyone to defends it is just a desperate Apple fanboy.

People like you have been blasting Apple for DRM use for years when in fact Apple is the company that is slowly backing studios out of DRM use. the MP3 sales trial recently on Yahoo would never have been done if Apple had not locked up the popular use of DRM with Apple instead of an indsutry controlled company such as Microsoft.

The music industry hates Apple passionately because they percieve Apple as having "screwed them" on iTunes. Read some of my other posts on this issue. More importantly, the big labels are deathly afraid of one player (Apple) dominating the online music industry the way MTV dominates music videos. They (rightly) percieve this will put them at a financal disadvantage down the road, that's why the labels generally prefer the more "distributed" approach of Windows Media. The problem is that the diversity of products in Windows Media has created a somewhat less satisfying user experience, so the labels are trying various tricks and promotions to cajole users into the Windows Media camp, like the Yahoo! downloads.

If you have any solid evidence that Yahoo! developed this service due to pressure from Apple, I'd like to see it. Please explain why Apple isn't offering unprotected MP3s on their store if they are truly the ones pushing this.

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM

[SuperKendall]

Ey? Microsoft is an industry-controlled company? If there is _one_ company that doesn't have to care what anyone else says, or even dictate where the industry goes, it has to be Microsoft.

I thought so too, before the Zune. Three days/Three plays? Wrapping DRM even around already unprotected files? The iPod does not do that with MP3's or unprotected AAC's a I load, I can copy them to any computer.

$1 per player going to Universal?

At what point has Microsoft shown any backbone to media interests in the past few years?

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[ceeam]

Actually, starting with v6 Ubuntu live CDs and install CDs are the same one disk. Ubuntu installs from link icon on live CD's desktop. Very cool idea, actually.

Consider the precedent...

[Chief Typist]

The only restrictions on installing Mac OS X are a label on the box that says "Don't steal software." Windows XP and Vista require activation.

Considering that Apple is a hardware company, lost revenue from someone not paying for a license is not a huge issue. The same cannot be said for Microsoft -- they have negative hardware revenue (e.g. subsidies on Xbox and Zune devices) -- lost software revenue hurts their bottom line.

So what makes you think Apple would want a "DRM loving policy"?

-ch

apple already -has- DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

they don't need to follow, they've been shipping it longer than microsoft has. OS X uses DRM to avoid running on non-apple hardware.

Apple owns Disney+Pixar these days. no content will ever come out of there without DRM.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[2nd Post!]

Where did you get $2k when a MacBook costs $1.099?

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Anonymous Coward]

The original poster specifically said Macbook PRO, direct me to a place where I can purchase a Macbook PRO for $1099 and I will gladly buy one. No, I'll buy ten.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your absolutely and totally f-ng wrong about Apple activation.

On every peice of apple hardware sold they have firmware. Software during installation time looks for that firmware and unless it's present it won't install.

Microsoft lets you choose the hardware you install it on, but Apple doesn't. Apple's 'activation sceme' is much more restrictive then Microsoft's ever was.

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack

[Animats]

Once, Microsoft rebooted everybody who had auto reboot turned off but Windows Update turned on. That's when it became clear who was in control.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

GGP said MacBook Pro. Store.apple.com says MacBook Pro from $1999. I have no idea where GP got 2,000 from though. . .

Spend money, but only for OS X?

[Mad Merlin]

You comment that you don't mind spending $2000 for a new Mac so you can switch to OS X, but you don't consider the same scenario for Linux. So, why not consider plunking down $2000 on a ThinkPad and running Linux on it?

Re:Spend money, but only for OS X?

[Ash-Fox]

System76 is also another vendor one can use for Linux systems.

Re:Spend money, but only for OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're pretty expensive.

Re:Spend money, but only for OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, why not consider plunking down $2000 on a ThinkPad and running Linux on it?

Maybe because he doesn't want to deal with the hassle of getting all the bells and whistles on the notebook working properly (i.e. finding drivers that "just work")?

Re:Spend money, but only for OS X?

[aristotle-dude]

You comment that you don't mind spending $2000 for a new Mac so you can switch to OS X, but you don't consider the same scenario for Linux. So, why not consider plunking down $2000 on a ThinkPad and running Linux on it?

Because, to paraphrase Clinton, "it's the OS and software stupid.". Seriously, I hear people on slashdot day in and day out talk about hardware choice but are you really interacting with the hardware or is it the software that shapes your experience. I personally do not give a second thought usually to the fact that my MBP has an intel chip in instead of a G4 or G5. Why does the hardware matter so much to you people?

Linux is a fine server OS but it lacks commercial and commercial quality software for the desktop. Even a lot of freeware on OS X blows similar linux software out of the water in terms of usability.

If most of your time is spent writing and surfing

[artifex2004]

then why are you even worried about DRM?

These activities are available to you without problems on Windows, Linux, and OS X.
It looks like you are doing a poor job of rationalizing your desire for a Mac.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[stewbacca]

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would spend $1,000 for a Radeon X1600 graphics card and a keyboard that lights up (yes, blatant oversimplification between the two, but ...)

riiiight...

[WiseWeasel]

Ever hear of kernel extensions and raw device access? OSX does nothing to prevent you from accessing your hardware. You can use Apple's fancy APIs if you want, but you can dig deeper if you prefer, just as you can in Linux or BSD. Windows Vista is the only one that has a protected kernel space, encrypted memory, and randomized memory locations, keeping the user locked away from their hardware.

Apple not as bad as Win, Linux not perfect either

[LKM]

1. Apple doens't use the TPM hardware. Unlike Mac OS X, Linux actually does include drivers for this hardware, as far as I know (Quote Linus: "A lot of commercial companies want to do some really bad things with DRM. So people dislike DRM and want to make it harder to do. But the silly thing is that DRM really is just technology, and like most everything else, the badness comes not from the technology, but from what you use it for. There are actually valid uses of the exact-same technology, even if it ends up being called something different ("privacy rights," "security," what-not)."
2. Apple uses DRM in the iTunes store, but that DRM is relatively lenient, compared to what Microsoft allows for.

This simply doesn't compare to what Microsoft is doing.

So what are you going to do? Write your own OS?

Lossier and Lossier

[pedestrian crossing]

I'm impressed that they were smart enough to let people burn ordinary audio CDs from their iTunes, even knowing that people could just turn around and make those CDs into DRM free MP3s or OGGs.

I keep hearing this, but it isn't really a freebie.

They allow this because it isn't a "perfect digital copy", it is more akin to taping an album onto a cassette.

Apple starts with the full-quality original digital file (.wav).

Then they encode it (which lowers the quality from the original), and they sell it to you for $.99.

Then you burn to a CD, which creates a perfect copy (.wav) of the lower quality file that they sold you.

Then you encode to mp3, which creates a lower quality copy of the lower quality file that Apple sold you.

They don't mind because there is a generational loss involved, unless you encode the CD to FLAC. But even then you only have a perfect copy of an imperfect copy of the original that takes up 5-10 times as much storage space as the lower-quality file that they sold you. It's not the freebie that so many people tout, there is generational loss and/or storage bloat as an associated cost of transferring music you "purchased" to your "unauthorized" systems.

Activation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Also, what did you not get from the GP's statement that Apple was a hardware company? Guess what, they sell the hardware their software is to run on.

Oh and 'sceme' is spelled 'scheme.'

Writing to CD is not akin to taping to a cassette!

[LKM]

They allow [to let people burn ordinary audio CDs from their iTunes] because it isn't a "perfect digital copy", it is more akin to taping an album onto a cassette.

That's wrong. Writing an AAC file to a CD is pretty much a prefect digital copy. It doesn't sound worse. However, if you then re-encode the CD to a non-lossless file, you've lost some information. You're free to encode to a lossless format, of course, but even if you don't, most people won't be able to tell the difference between the original file and the re-encoded non-DRM'd file. This is not at all similar to a cassette copy.

Really, there's no comparison to a cassette tape. These re-encoded songs sound way better than a cassette, even an original cassette. I mean, I know people who listen to music using youtube, for god's sake. If you're not an audiophile (and if you are, you're a) not Apple's target market and b) probably overestimating your ability to find flaws in recorded music), writing and re-encoding has only one problem: it's a hassle to do it.

It's not that simple

[LKM]

Anyway, Linux or BSD is guaranteed freedom

Linux supports TPM natively. Mac OS X doesn't (and more recent Macs don't even include the hardware anymore).

Re:It's not that simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, because there are many legitimate uses for stringent access controls. Just because TPM is supported doesn't mean it's automatically used for evil, that's up to the application. However with Vista, and perhaps in the future OSX, the module will be used to enforce DRM content.

Actually, *you* are uninformed.

[LKM]

I don't think you understand just how much DRM there is in Vista. Read this and weep.

Apple simply can't compare with this.

Be less stupid, check your facts

[LKM]

APPLE WAS SUING TO REMOVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS of a online person for publishing secrets about their products

Uhm, no. Somebody working for Apple was leaking Apple's trade secrets, and Apple wanted to find out who it was. This had nothing to do with bloggers (Mac rumor sites usually aren't even blogs), freedom of the press or first amendment rights. Don't be stupid.

Eh?

[biglig2]

Surely... OSX won't work on your laptop either?

Are you just being awkward?

[harryman100]

You say you like linux, but it you're unsure as to whether it will work on your laptop. But you say you'd be willing to buy a Macbook. Why wouldn't you be willing to buy a linux compatible laptop? There are plenty around (you have to be looking for them - but they're not that hard to come by)

I currently have one of the last 12" powerbooks, fantastic machine, OSX is great, but I wish I could run linux instead (lack of 3D support, and sleep ability currently stopping me). The next machine I buy will be linux ready from the very start.

My advice: try to buy a machine which won't restrict your OS choice entirely from the start, it'll be worth it if you start itching to switch later on.

Re:Are you just being awkward?

[Ash-Fox]

I'd like to bring a list of Linux desktop hardware vendors, but so far I only have two off the top of my head.

• IBM
• System76

I'd appreciate it, if someone could add more to this list.

Re:Are you just being awkward?

[falconwolf]

I'd like to bring a list of Linux desktop hardware vendors, but so far I only have two off the top of my head.

There's Microway.

Falcon

Re:Are you just being awkward?

[Trumpet of Doom]

Putting aside that we're talking about laptops, not desktops, here... I think if you look in Dell's Medium and Large Business section you can find some Precision workstations with at least a choice to have Linux installed and ready. No laptops, though.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 6.06, not "version 6".
versioning is XX.YY where XX is the year, and YY is the month.

Therefore, 6.06 (Codename Dapper Drake) was released in June of 2006.
It's not the sixth version (fouth, actually).

Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

Geez, your post reads like you were just making it up as you went along, yet it got modded 5. Fascintaing.

1. While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)
2. Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default
3. If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?
4. Nothing that Apple has ever done can't compare to what MS is doing. I mean, even remotely. It's not only not the same league, it's not even the same sports they're playing. Sorry, but MS very much is leading this charge.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Zebra_X]

While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)

Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.

Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default

And you can install them and uninstall them if you like. If and when apple throws the switch (and it may not be system wide) on the TCPM you won't have a choice but to use it (I guess you could switch to linux).

If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

Nothing that Apple has ever done can't compare to what MS is doing. I mean, even remotely. It's not only not the same league, it's not even the same sports they're playing. Sorry, but MS very much is leading this charge.

Apple will enforce the same restrictions when macs start shipping with blue-ray/hd-dvd drives. You know, apple doesn't NEED to have an elaborate infrastructure to handle certification and testing of drivers. Primarily becuase Apple has a VERY limited hardware platform.

The link is really rather pointless - the article cites a number of issues and it seems the author takes issue with the fact that Microsoft is trying to assure higher standards for the hardware and software that goes into an end users pc. I can't really get into debuking that post as it's not really related to this discussion.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore

How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.

If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than Microsoft's DRM. So I can use music bought from a PlaysForSure/Zune store on my iPod? Oh, I can't. How is PlaysForSure less draconian than iTunes' DRM?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Zebra_X]

How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.

It still exists as a hardware device - it's just hidden from everyone, why? Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY? There is no reason, unless there are plans to use it. As far as I know, no one else is including it.

That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than Microsoft's DRM. So I can use music bought from a PlaysForSure/Zune store on my iPod? Oh, I can't. How is PlaysForSure less draconian than iTunes' DRM?

WMA files won't play on your iPod becuase the iPod is closed, and Apple will not implement it. That is not to say however that Apple cannot implement it. Microsoft would allow them to license the WMA format and implement WMA playback on the iPod as is evidenced by the large number of players that support WMA. However, th reverse is not true. Apple will not license FairPlay to anyone, and efforts to reverse engineer it have met with some legal resistance. So now for a blind taste test!

Format 1: Plays on one device with one player, unlicensable format.
Format 2: Plays on multiple devices and using multiple media players, licensable format.

Which would you prefer?

Which is going to provide the customer with more choices?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[MrHanky]

Your post reeks of fanboy. Apple's DRM is draconian because you need Apple's package to make use of the data you've bought: The AAC file you just bought from iTunes Music Store will only work on your iPod and in iTunes -- one of the few apps with more invasive installation than RealPlayer on Windows. When you decide the iPod is an overpriced fashion product, you can't switch to a more reasonable brand because Apple won't sell licenses for their DRM scheme to their competitors.

Yes, Apple use their pseudo-monopoly in one area (ITMS) to uphold their dominant position in another market. Now, what other Evil Company has been convicted of that practice a few years ago?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

Apple's DRM is draconian because you need Apple's package to make use of the data you've bought: The AAC file you just bought from iTunes Music Store will only work on your iPod and in iTunes -- one of the few apps with more invasive installation than RealPlayer on Windowsl. When you decide the iPod is an overpriced fashion product, you can't switch to a more reasonable brand because Apple won't sell licenses for their DRM scheme to their competitors.

How is that different from the Zune or (ignoring the licensing) PlaysForSure? Using iTunes, you at least have the option of burning all your songs to CDs and moving on. If you bought into that supposedly open PlaysForSure thing and now want to buy a Zune, well, tough shit.

Oh, and by the way: "(...) overpriced fashion (...) more reasonable brand (...)" and all the double-standards: I think it's telling that you invoke "fanboyism."

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY?

Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.

WMA files won't play on your iPod

And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies. Unprotected windows media files can easily be converted for the iPod. Why is it Apple's fault that the draconian MS DRM doesn't allow files to be converted for the iPod? I mean, your argument makes no sense at all. iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?

Dude, Microsoft's DRM is just as closed as Apple's DRM. That's besides the point. I thought we were arguing which DRM is more draconian. So, basically, you have no facts supporting your point?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. I'd play those WMAs in my car CD player. Or I'd play those WMAs on my Apex DVD player. Or I'd play those WMAs on my Toshiba DVD player. Or I'd play those WMAs on my Rio flash player. Or I'd play those WMAs on my Samsung flash player. Or I'd play those WMAs on my Memorex portable CD player. Or I can play those WMAs on my Squeezebox wireless entertainment center.

Why burn a dozen or so iTMS songs to a CD to move on when I can burn hundreds of WMAs to a CD and play them in a plethora of devices?

The big fucking difference is that MS licenses out WMA and PlaysForSure while Apple doesn't. So while you can laugh about PlaysForSure and Zune, which is indeed a valid point, I can laugh about FairPlay and literally ANY other device you can think about. So while you think you're clever you really only illustrated the point.

Want to play those iTMS songs with <insert audio player here>, well, tough shit.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Zebra_X]

Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.

As I pointed out in other threads, Apple's hardware is completely custom. They design their own pcbs. The TCPM isn't something that you just throw in there - it's a design decision that Apple made, and there is a reason for it. We just don't know what it is, yet.

And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies.

Guess what! You can go buy another device that plays quick time movies, AND your drm'd WMA files. But you sure as hell aren't going to find an iPod that will play your FairPlay music and some WMA videos.

iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?

Wow, you just don't get it do you? Let me see if I can frame this in a way you can understand:

If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.

Now, if you buy a song from some provider (oh yeah, you also have a choice who you buy your music from), in WMA format, you have a wide range of devices AND software to play it on. The difference here is that you have choice as to where you get your music, and what you play it on.

iPod DRM is draconian because you need an iPod to play it. That is, there is only ONE software package and ONE hardware device platform that supports the format. You cannot use anything else. The same is not true of WMA and the devices that support that format. Thus Microsofts DRM provides WMA format users more choice. Having a choce is typically not associated with Draconian practices.

Dude, Microsoft's DRM is just as closed as Apple's DRM.

It absolutely is not. The key difference between the two is that you can call up microsoft and say "I want people to play music with WMA DRM on my device." You'll pay a fee of some kind, but you can create the device, or software that you would like to be interoperable with the WMA format. This cannot be done with Apples format, Apple simply will not license FairPlay for use.

As a consumer this limits your choice and reduces Apples motivation to innovate with the FairPlay format because there is no competition.

Furthermore, if Microsoft did the same thing with the WMA format to the extent that Apple has, they would be in court in short order.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

So, what you're telling me is "blah blah blah, I can't hear you, my rules only apply to Apple, not to Microsoft!"

If an iPod user can't easily transfer his music to a Zune, Apple's DRM sucks.

If a PlaysForSure user can't transfer his music to a Zune at all, well, he's the idiot for wanting a Zune.

I can see how that works.

ANY other device you can think about

Any device except the iPod. Which just happens to be the most popular MP3 player which owns 70% of the market, has a gazillion different add-ons and is supported by a femtillion percent of all new automobiles.

Want to play those iTMS songs with , well, tough shit.

Want to play all those WMA songs with [iPod|Zune], well, tough shit. So your supposedly open PlaysForSure affords you the option of playing your songs on all the MP3 players which nobody wants. Great, if that works for you. Just don't tell me this is in any way better than Apple's DRM.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[MrHanky]

Double standards? I didn't advocate a particular product, which is what you're doing. And burning to CDs isn't 'moving on', it's moving backwards. You'd understand this if you'd ever bought something from ITMS and suddenly had the need for moving on from iTunes. The product lock-in is unacceptable.

And I've never said I'd ever understand how someone would buy something as ridiculous as the Zune, that something you dreamt up with your stupid fanboy logic.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[mactari]

Good points all around. Apple's very familiar with DRM, and I'd wager most DRM'd content on most Windows and Macintosh OS running hardware was provided by Apple. Microsoft's approaches, though less practically successful on the popular media front, are certainly more successful on the OS front, as another post slightly earlier has pointed out (quoted after this post).

Here's the rub, taking us back to the OP (and away from the Zune vs. iPod discussion this thread has taken):

None of the reasons given suggest Macintosh or Windows OSes would be less "DRM loving" (OP) than Linux. In fact, all we've determined is that both Macintosh and Windows already support "DRM loving policies" (quote from OP).

I don't use Linux daily. I'm not a Linux fanboy. At the same time, if your top priority is a DRM-free "policy" for your OS, learning Linux and forcing it onto your laptop [1], is going to be the best option.

[1] This in response to the troll-esque phrase in the OP trying to ensure that this would be a MS vs. Apple flamewar, "I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it." [emph mine].

===

Microsoft doesn't just want to own your media - they want to oen [own?] your whole system and have the ability to shut your OS down remotely. Hell, Microsoft even tries to put DRM on your pre-existing content - for example, if you rip a CD with Windows Media Player. And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.

Just because Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with their plans, doesn't mean they aren't trying.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

I didn't advocate a particular product, which is what you're doing

Uhm, your post doesn't exist in a vacuum. You replied to my post, which claimed that the iTunes DRM is the most lenient you can get. Obviously, I'm not saying that iTunes is perfect. I'm saying that it's better than every other DRM solution. To that, you replied "Apple's DRM is draconian." Now either your reply was utterly pointless (as it now seems to be), or you implied that Apple's solution is worse than Microsoft's - which you now claim you hadn't done.

Well, in that case, thanks for pointing out that iTunes' DRM is draconian. I disagree, but I respect your opinion. Since your post did not actually have anything to do with my original claim, continuing this discussion seems pointless. Please find somebody else to call "fanboy" and annoy with your absurd logic. Have a nice day.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.

Okay, so your point is that Microsoft's DRM is less draconian because more manufacturers create devices that incorporate that particular DRM?

That's just weird logic. If my music is locked, I don't really care if there's a dozen or 50 players which can play it, at the end of the day it's still locked.

iPod DRM is draconian because you need an iPod to play it

Yeah, and the sky is red because I redefine red to be the new blue.

What you're describing doesn't make the DRM any more draconian. It just limits the manufacturers who produce players for your music. It's the same amount of locked-in whether your player is from Samsung or from, dunno, Archos or something.

The key difference between the two is that you can call up microsoft and say "I want people to play music with WMA DRM on my device."

AH! You mean Microsoft's DRM is less draconian if you're a device manufacturer! Okay, I give you that, but guess what, I'm not a device manufacturer, and even if I were, I wouldn't like Microsoft screwing me with the Zune, which seems pretty draconian to me.

As a consumer this limits your choice and reduces Apples motivation to innovate with the FairPlay format because there is no competition.

Of course there is competition. Apple competes with other manufacturers even if the music isn't compatible. The one with the limited choice is the sucker who went with PlaysForSure: His choice is limited to crappy players.

Furthermore, if Microsoft did the same thing with the WMA format to the extent that Apple has, they would be in court in short order.

Uhm... they're kinda... doing the same thing. Zune? Ever heard of it?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Zebra_X]

I said this earlier, and I think we both agree - DRM sucks, in any form. It's all steaming pile of dog doo, PlayMaybe or FairPlay it doesn't make a different. I actually don't buy iTunes music anymore becuase "i can't do what i want with it".

With that said I think that Apple ends up giving consumers less choices, which is what I would consider "more draconian". I also think Apple's handling of the licensing situation for FairPlay is definatly draconian and anti-competitive.

But again, DRM is crap and when measured by your standandards I think we both agree they are equally bad.

The best thing we can do as consumers is not purchase this garbage!

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

At the same time, if your top priority is a DRM-free "policy" for your OS, learning Linux and forcing it onto your laptop [1], is going to be the best option

Well, that would make your computer free of DRM'd content, but not free of DRM or TPM. And you'd only be free of DRM'd content becuse iTunes doesn't work on Linux and you thus couldn't possibly buy anything from the iTunes Store. The same effect can be achieved by using Windows XP or Mac OS X and simply not buying anything from the store.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Keeper]

The only one with a double standard here is you with your Apple's DRM is good while Microsoft's is bad perspective. They're both DRM formats; they're the same fucking thing.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Keeper]

You are so full of shit.

It is most certainly NOT the most lenient you can get. The most lenient you could get would allow infinite copies to be burned onto cd and it would allow you to copy the file onto an infinite number of computers and play it.

Apple's DRM is just as restrictive as Microsoft's. Microsoft's DRM format has more "options" available to content providers; that's it.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[MrHanky]

Well, fuck you too. Singing the praise of Apple's DRM is about as close you can get to fanboyism without sucking Steve Jobs's cock.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

Apple's DRM is good

I never said that.

They're both DRM formats; they're the same fucking thing

Yeah, and I'll trade my Golf against your Ferrari. They're both cars, they're the same fucking thing.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[LKM]

Singing the praise of Apple's DRM

Which I did... where exactly?

Well, fuck you too

Thank you for clearing that up

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Singing the praise of Apple's DRM

The fact you have to repeatedly mischaracterize what he actually said simply exposes the weakness of your position.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Rosyna]

Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.

Did you actually read that post? The guy never got back to amit. You also have to ignore all the evidence from someone that's been proven to know a hell of a lot about Mac OS X and instead believe someone that may have typed something incorrectly and has only ever posted to that one thread.

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

How bizarre. I can use ripped music from CDs on my iPod just fine.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[0xdeadbeef]

> > Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

> How bizarre. I can use ripped music from CDs on my iPod just fine.

This, ladies and gentlemen, demonstrates all you need to know about the Apple fanboy.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[bar-agent]

It is most certainly NOT the most lenient you can get. The most lenient you could get would allow infinite copies to be burned onto cd and it would allow you to copy the file onto an infinite number of computers and play it.

I think by "most lenient you can get," he meant the most lenient that you can, you know, actually go and find and purchase. What you've described is the most lenient possible DRM. No-one offers that; any company that would offer the most lenient possible DRM would instead just offer un-protected music. Many companies do that, of course, but since their offerings have no DRM at all, they are outside the scope of this discussion (which, to refresh your memory, is "iTunes is the least restrictive DRM you can get").

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[dangitman]

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

Wow, such ignorance. You can use music from many other sources on your iPod. You don't have to buy music from iTunes to use an iPod. But may I ask - if this is such a big concern for you, why did you buy an iPod?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[falconwolf]

If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

You can't burn cds? Or rip to mps?

Falcon

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Keeper]

I never said that

Do you suffer from short term memory loss? You keep saying its better!

Tell me, what makes Apple's DRM so much better? You can only burn the files a limited number of times. You can only play them on iPods and using iTunes. And you are limited in the number of computers you can play them on. Sounds like every other retarded DRM-for-purchase scheme out there to me.

Niggling over the numbers is like bragging about how you only beat your wife once a week.

DRM content you "purchase" is a ripoff. The only DRM scheme that is viable to end users is a subscription/rental model, and Apple doesn't support it.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Trumpet of Doom]

You can only burn the files a limited number of times.

I'm gonna have to call you on that, sir. My understanding is that you can only burn a specific set of files in a specific order a limited number of times, but if you rearrange the files, the counter resets itself.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why is a subscription/rental model any better than Apple's version?

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I've been saying elsewhere, they don't get a pass because their software is bad at the feat it is trying to accomplish.

Subscription and rental models are better because they're honest about what they're trying to accomplish and actually attempt to give you something of value for your money. They don't pretend that the songs you download will work forever, and they're upfront about the fact that the files are worthless if you switch services.

DRM for purchased content is still trying to control something you own. DRM for rental content is controlling something you don't own. The controls in the latter case are reasonable. The controls in the former case are not.

Re:Macs have no TPM!

[Trumpet of Doom]

...they don't get a pass because their software is bad at the feat it is trying to accomplish.

Which, last I checked, was creating a simple, user-friendly, convenient, [insert your own adjective here] method of managing your music library (or something along those lines). If it's been changed, please let me know, since I wouldn't know anything about that.
 
...they [the music rental services] actually attempt to give you something of value for your money. They don't pretend that the songs you download will work forever

Wait wait wait, you lost me... How is a file that doesn't work the way I want it to when I want it to valuable to me? Think of it this way: If I currently subscribe to Sports Illustrated, and then later decide I want to subscribe to The Sporting News instead, I expect to still be able to read all my issues of Sports Illustrated. Why should it be any different just because it's digital?

(And before anyone starts telling me that with CDs, all I own is the media... well, with magazines, all I really own is the media, too. The medium just happens to be sheets of paper stapled together instead of little discs of metal/plastic/whatever. And it's just as impossible to remove the content from the magazine as from the CD. Yes, you can copy it, but that's not the same as removing it.)

DRM for purchased content is still trying to control something you own. DRM for rental content is controlling something you don't own. The controls in the latter case are reasonable. The controls in the former case are not.

Which brings up another question: Why don't I own the rented content? After all, it's on my hard drive, right? To me, at least, that means I own it, and I should if I don't.

Correct me if I got my facts wrong.

They are, if it makes them money

[LKM]

They're not interested in your freedom

Actually, they are if it helps them sell their stuff. And it does: While Microsoft ads more DRM in each version of Windows, Apple can point to that and tell its users: What would you rather have, that mess or our relatively lenient DRM?

That's very much a competitive advantage.

Re:They are, if it makes them money

[spiritraveller]

Actually, they are if it helps them sell their stuff.

It would help them sell their stuff if there were any real difference between them. But there isn't.

The end result from purchasing an iTunes song or a "PlaysForSure" (Microsoft DRM) song is exactly the same: unless you keep the same computer in working condition forever, you eventually lose all of the music you purchased and have to rebuy it for the next computer. There's nothing lenient or acceptable about that.

Re:They are, if it makes them money

[LKM]

unless you keep the same computer in working condition forever, you eventually lose all of the music you purchased and have to rebuy it for the next computer

Except that's not true if you've used iTunes. Simply burn your music to CDs. And that's the difference you claimed wasn't there.

Re:They are, if it makes them money

[spiritraveller]

Except that's not true if you've used iTunes. Simply burn your music to CDs. And that's the difference you claimed wasn't there.

Yeah sure. You could also rerecord through the analog hole, but that's not the point.

The answer of burning it to CD is not an answer at all. In order to keep the same quality, you've got to burn the files to a CDR (adding an additional 5-10 cents to your cost), and then rerip them to a lossless format.

After you've done that, you've wasted a bunch of CDRs, done a lot of work, and your music library takes up 5 to 10 times as much space as it did originally... that leaves you with the equivalent of an 80% reduction in space on your iPod.

Re:They are, if it makes them money

[LKM]

In order to keep the same quality

Those who want to keep the same quality are audiophiles who never bought anything from the iTunes store anyway. And, uhm... CD-RW?

Re:They are, if it makes them money

[bar-agent]

unless you keep the same computer in working condition forever, you eventually lose all of the music you purchased and have to rebuy it for the next computer.

That's not true of Apple's DRM. You can transfer the music to another computer, and it will still play. You can do this with up to three computers. If you move to a fourth computer, you can deauthorize one or more of the others and reset the count. I've done this myself.

Bullshit yourself

[LKM]

Apple's 'activation sceme' is much more restrictive then Microsoft's ever was.

Oh. So how come every time I changed something on my Dell, I got to call Microsoft and explain myself to them, while I had never any kind of problem like this with my Mac?

Maybe because...

[LKM]

These activities are available to you without problems on Windows

That won't be true anymore with Vista

One would think they would be so inclined

[smchris]

They effectively controlled their hardware for 20 years so it isn't like they don't support the mindset. Just an observation from someone who couldn't justify getting a first Mac but who could afford a 10 mhz PC clone XT.

Re-encoding is akin to taping

[pedestrian crossing]

Writing an AAC file to a CD is pretty much a prefect digital copy.

Yes it is reasonably good digital copy of the less than perfect digital copy of the original that you would have gotten if you bought the original CD. It doesn't take an audiophile to tell the difference between an AAC and the original .wav file. So, to start with, Apple is selling you a less than perfect digital copy of the original song.

However, when you "rip to CD", that reasonably good digital copy of the AAC takes over 10 times as much storage space as the AAC that you bought from Apple.

So my point that there is a cost (increased storage space) associated with ripping to CD still stands. And if you re-encode to MP3 to avoid the storage space cost, there is a cost (degradation), and I would argue strongly that at that point you definitely don't have to be an audiophile to tell the difference between the original CD and the twice-encoded MP3 that comes out the other end of the process.

Re:Re-encoding is akin to taping

[LKM]

It doesn't take an audiophile to tell the difference between an AAC and the original .wav file

What does it take, then? Personally, I can't tell the difference between CD, 192 kbps MP3 and 128 kbsp AAC. I can tell the difference between CD and 128 kbps MP3, though. I haven't tried re-encoding, but it's absolutely clear that it won't be bad enough for most people to notice or, if they do notice, care.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[mrchaotica]

More importantly, if you're willing to buy new hardware in order to run OS X why wouldn't you be equally willing to buy new hardware in order to run Linux? It's possible to specifically pick a laptop that is fully compatible with Linux, you know!

Repeat after me

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't get enough Super Cooter Crisp

It's just the snack with crack!

Microsoft's non-AV DRM approach

[amichalo]

This is how I see the three platforms measuring up:

LINUX - Since it doesn't embrasce DRM, content providers are not interested in supplying their creative to it. This means only non-commercial or very small indy media would be available. Further, since Linux is more of a "hacker's OS" it isn't well suited for households where a non-tech may want to jump on the web or download photos from the family digital camera. No Thanks.

Windows Vista - "DRM isn't just for music any more." This should be the Vista theme. Actually it has started a while back. I love how MS office refuses to register becuase the key has been used too many times - no matter the computer hasn't changed, just been upgraded with more RAM and newer hard drive. But MS can't even decide on one DRM schema so they implemented "PlaysForSure" AND a non-compatible "Zune" DRM schema - THIS IS MORE FREIGHTENING! If the DRM provider stopps supporting the DRM content you are SOL. ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN - Either the Zune will fail or Plays FOr Sure will fail (is it too soon to think both have already failed?) and those who bought DRMed content and expensive players will have nothing to show for it. Which leads me to...

Apple OS X - Making a DRM choice is important. One thing I like about Apple is that there are no license keys to type in. There is no "registering with big brother" even for high end software. Plus Apple is REASONABLE - $129 for a single OS upgrade or $199 for a 5 license Family Pack! Apple doesn't rely on DRM to secure their software, only the media that Apple doesn't even supply. Apple fought for user rights when they negotiated DRM with the RIAA and in my opinion, the rights are pretty good. I can still burn mixed CDs to give to friends, I can play on my work, home, and laptop computers - be they Mac or Windows - and I can use on a variety of iPods. I don't pretend to have super human ears or need OGG support and since I find the convenience of iTunes out weighs the "quality" of buying the CD/DVD I have settled into enjoying the DRM Apple is selling.

This is my opinion. I have switched from Windows to Linux to the Mac and I don't see myself switching again until Windows, Linux, or another OS make radical advances.

Re:Microsoft's non-AV DRM approach

[computersareevil]

"Further, since Linux is more of a "hacker's OS" it isn't well suited for households where a non-tech may want to jump on the web or download photos from the family digital camera. No Thanks."

I don't know when you last used Linux, but that is a common and utterly incorrect misconception. With any modern distribution, you plug in a digital camera and IT JUST WORKS. With Windows, you have to find the driver disk, load the driver, then load the proprietary software. The Linux experience is far simpler. Also, "jumping on the web" is absolutely trivial in Linux, since the Internet connection hardware is automatically loaded and configured, and there is always a browser link right on the desktop. The two experiences are just not comparable.

Re:Microsoft's non-AV DRM approach

[amichalo]

It is fair to say that Linux has come a long ways in usability - but if you are honest and objective, you will certainly find it difficult to argue modern Linux is an easier user experience than modern OS X or Windows.

My examples of web browsing and photo viewing were not to say that it can NOT be done in Linux, they were to say that the experience is not as easy as with OS X. In MY experience with Red Hat and OS X, I found the ease of use to be breathtakingly different.

Re:Microsoft's non-AV DRM approach

[computersareevil]

It is fair to say that Linux has come a long ways in usability - but if you are honest and objective, you will certainly find it difficult to argue modern Linux is an easier user experience than modern OS X or Windows.

I've never used OS X for more than five minutes, but I have used Windows 2000, XP, and 98SE for years. I'm still forced to use 2k at work (and it works fine). I can say with authority that Linux is an easier user experience than Windows. My 70-yo Mother downgraded to XP this year from 98SE, and my phone rings constantly because things don't "just work" (printer and scanner retarded setup conflicts, for example). I really, REALLY tried to get her to buy a Mac, but she just wouldn't. After 9 months with XP, she regrets that decision. Fortunately, that's opened the door for me to get her to try Linux. I upgraded her old 98SE machine with Ubuntu, and she loves it. (I still think she would love a Mac laptop.)

So she started out biased and not objective, preferring Windows, and has come to regret that bias.

My examples of web browsing and photo viewing were not to say that it can NOT be done in Linux, they were to say that the experience is not as easy as with OS X. In MY experience with Red Hat and OS X, I found the ease of use to be breathtakingly different.

Well, Red Hat is old hat. ;) My experience with RH was not that great either, but there hasn't been a "RH" distro for some time. Fedora is also a pain in the ass, in my experience. Stuff didn't "just work" there either. In Ubuntu (and Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Debian Etch for that matter), everything "just works".

I don't have experience with OS X, and you didn't say "compared to OS X" in your original statement. I've no doubt that it's easier in OS X than RH, but I think it unlikely that it's easier than Ubuntu. We can probably just say it's trivially easy in both and both declare victory. :) But I still stand by my opinion that your original statement about Linux is an incorrect and common misconception, and now confirm that it's based on outdated information.

Re:Microsoft's non-AV DRM approach

[westlake]

Plus Apple is REASONABLE - $129 for a single OS upgrade or $199 for a 5 license Family Pack!

The problem is that in the home PC market the OEM Windows upgrade is simply bundled into your next OEM system purchase. The cycle isn't 18 months, it is four to five years.

...and another thing...

[spiritraveller]

"Lenient" is a really strange choice of words when you're talking about the use of your own computer.

I don't want lenience from Apple or Microsoft.

I want them to sell me software that works for ME, not for someone else.

So What you are saying...

[ratboy666]

So what you are saying is that you would be willing to buy a new laptop for OSX, but not for Linux.

OSX may not run on your current laptop -- I doubt you want to risk it. No -- lets be clear... OSX WILL NOT RUN.

On to your question: yes, Apple is DRM friendly. May I recommend that that you just stick with XP? Really, its your best bet. Since you are incredibly biased against Linux, I would rather you NOT try that.

Ratboy

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't always work thogh though.
the live cd worked great
i installed on my toshiba m35 and the system just froze after i rebooted
the older release worked fine though.

The State of DRM

[LKM]

As far as I know it boils down to this:

Windows XP
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).

Mac OS X
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).

Linux
Kernel-level support for TPM.

Vista
DRM is a fundamental part of Vista. You can't get around it.

Re:The State of DRM

[Wyzard]

Linux
Kernel-level support for TPM.

...which is a piece of hardware that does absolutely nothing by itself. You sound like you're trying to say, in a "'nuff said" sort of way, that there's DRM in the Linux kernel. There isn't.

(To nitpickers: yes, there's a subsystem in Linux called "DRM". It's the Direct Rendering Manager used for accelerated 3D graphics. It has nothing to do with Digital Rights Management.)

TPM hardware is not inherently evil. It has beneficial uses too, such as full-disk encryption that doesn't require you to type a decryption key at boot time. (Allow access to the system's standard kernel, which presumably is not backdoored, but deny access to any other kernel that an attacker might try to boot.) DRM systems are evil and DRM systems can utilize a TPM chip, but merely having a driver for a TPM chip is not a problem.

Re:The State of DRM

[LKM]

You sound like you're trying to say, in a "'nuff said" sort of way, that there's DRM in the Linux kernel. There isn't

TPM opens the doors for truly draconian DRM systems. This potential does not exist in Windows XP, and it does not exist in Mac OS X. Obviously, if there's ever an application which makes use of TPM in Linux in such a way, people are free to not use it - just as you can use iTunes without downloading DRM'd music. Nevertheless, since people often criticise iTunes for its support for DRM'd music, these same people should know that Linux contains the technology for DRM which puts anything iTunes can do to shame.

From a purist's standpoint, support for TPM alone is almost as bad as actual DRM using TPM, because without TPM, DRM is much less threatening. TPM can be used to take control of data away from you. Without TPM, this is much harder.

Yes, TPM has positive uses. That doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing, all said and done.

Re:The State of DRM

[Wyzard]

The potential for TPM-based DRM systems doesn't exist in Windows and OSX? What are you talking about?

My ThinkPad Z60m contains a TPM chip, and it came with Windows XP preinstalled. I'm not a Mac user, but I've heard that some of the new Macs have TPMs too. You think they'd include the hardware if it was impossible for the shipped OS to use it?

Linux "contains the technology for DRM which puts anything iTunes can do to shame" in the same sense that Linux contains the technology to release worms onto the Internet or launch nuclear missiles -- since, after all, it has hardware drivers for Ethernet cards (for releasing worms) and serial ports (which are a likely candidate for a missile launcher's interface to its control system). A hardware driver is not evil just because it's possible to write software that does bad things with it.

Your argument that TPM support is almost as bad as a DRM system because strong DRM depends on a TPM is a complete fallacy. Counterexample: bludgeoning someone to death requires a heavy object such as a baseball bat, but owning a baseball bat is not "almost as bad as" murdering someone.

Please, stop the FUD.

Re:The State of DRM

[LKM]

The potential for TPM-based DRM systems doesn't exist in Windows and OSX?

Mac OS X's firmware does not advertise the existence of TPM. You can't use it on Mac OS X, and more recent Macs don't seem to contain it at all.

Your argument that TPM support is almost as bad as a DRM system because strong DRM depends on a TPM is a complete fallacy. Counterexample: bludgeoning someone to death requires a heavy object such as a baseball bat, but owning a baseball bat is not "almost as bad as" murdering someone.

Wrong argument. If you're surrounded by a bunch of unarmed muggers, giving them a baseball bat is most certainly almost as bad as just giving them your wallet.

And how in the world is pointing out facts FUD? So people should not be allowed to know that the Linux kernel contains support for TPM?

Re:The State of DRM

[Wyzard]

Of course people should be allowed to know that Linux has a TPM driver. It's the part where you equate a TPM driver to a draconian DRM system that's FUD.

The way to prevent the spread of draconian DRM systems is to not buy content protected by them, and convince others to not buy it either. Neglecting to support TPM hardware is like sticking your head in the sand: it doesn't make the DRM systems go away. And merely supporting TPM hardware isn't likely to do much to encourage TPM-based DRM systems to appear -- not on Linux, whose users are known to be anti-DRM in general and whose licensing makes it difficult to legally implement such a thing anyway. I can imagine TPM support in Windows having an effect here, but I really don't think the RIAA and MPAA are choosing DRM schemes based on whether they work in Linux.

It's not evil to have support for a piece of hardware when lack of support for the hardware would do nothing to solve the problem of content being locked up in DRM systems.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[FishWithAHammer]

Who the hell would buy a MacBook? The bloody things don't even have keyboards. (THAT travesty is not a keyboard.)

Grow up!

[Khazunga]

I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it.

It's not like it eats your laptop whole. Get some good distro and try it out. Stop whining. Waste your time, not other people's.

Agreed

[LKM]

The best thing we can do as consumers is not purchase this garbage!

I agree.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[osviews.com]

"Why spend $2000 on a laptop to surf the web and write documents?" Why would he have to spend $2000 on a Mac laptop? They don't start that high.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Golias]

Actually, it's the best laptop keyboard I've ever owned. (A HELL of a lot better than the crappy keyboard on the Dell Latitude D620 I got from my company.) Not only is it nice to type on, it's much easier to keep it clean, since bagel crumbs and hair can't fall under the keys. I also like how the keys recess when I close the lid. It's the first laptop I've ever owned that didn't eventually end up with a silhouette of the keyboard etched on the screen surface.

I still call shenanigans on the original post, however. He's afraid Linux won't work with his current hardware, so he wants to run out and buy a MacBook for OS X??? B.S.

If you like Linux, and are willing to buy new hardware, just buy a Laptop that's known to work with Linux. For that matter, it's free to try out on the hardware you have. Maybe there are no problems to worry about. Either way, problem solved.

I ***love*** OS X, but if you are not interested in certain non-Linux software (such as Apple's Garageband, which kicks all kinds of ass), then Linux is a perfectly fine choice, IMHO.

I still wouldn't recommend Linux to my white-haired aunt, but for anybody who is enough of a geek to be reading DRM arguments on /. it's fine.

That said, if you are buying a laptop, the MacBook offers a lot of ! for the $.

The MacBook Pro is not as good of a value. It's a sensational laptop, but if you have that kind of money to throw around it might be simpler to just have desktop systems installed and waiting at every location you will ever go to.

Counter iTunes with Windows Media

[armanox]

When I need to extract songs from my iPod, I have WMP add the iPod to my library and tell it to "Copy file." No hassle there!

Follow MS? Follow?

[really?]

I think you are forgetting that, as usual, Apple LEADS. So, once again, MS is just joining a party already in progress. Also, as usual, IMHO, since they already know what everybody at the party has been drinking, they can bring the best koolaid. Sure, some will complain that it's just the Apple koolaid that has some food dye in it, but, everybody will rush to drink it anyway.

(Append :-) or :-( depending on your position vis-à-vis Apple vs. MS and the whole DRM issue.)

Where is Ubuntu's HCL?

[tepples]

If you like Linux, and are willing to buy new hardware, just buy a Laptop that's known to work with Linux.

Google (ubuntu hardware compatibility) didn't turn up much. Where is this list of laptops that are known to work with, say, Ubuntu? Even if I try Fedora instead, what if none of the laptops on Fedora's HCL are on display at any local brick-and-mortar retailer? I don't want to waste 1,000 USD on a mail-order laptop just to find that I can't stand its internal keyboard.

but if you have that kind of money to throw around [to buy a high-end laptop computer,] it might be simpler to just have desktop systems installed and waiting at every location you will ever go to.

Like buses or trains?

Re:Where is Ubuntu's HCL?

[Golias]

Google (ubuntu hardware compatibility) didn't turn up much. Where is this list of laptops that are known to work with, say, Ubuntu?

Unless you live in a cave in the mountains of Montana, there are probably several people in your sphere of influence who already use Linux on laptops. Just ask what they are using.

Besides, we are talking modern laptops here. As long as you are buying from a major manufacturer, how many actual hardware options are there? Everybody has their laptops built in the same two Singapore factories using one of two company's CPUs, one of three company's GPU's, and everything else built to industry standards. It's nothing like the endless variety of the desktop market.

I don't use Linux much myself these days, but I would be surprised if a laptop has come off the line in the last couple years from Dell, Toshiba, Sony, HP, or even Apple which could not run linux and have all the basic built-in hardware (including sound card, Wi-Fi, etc.) work just fine.

but if you have that kind of money to throw around [to buy a high-end laptop computer,] it might be simpler to just have desktop systems installed and waiting at every location you will ever go to.

Like buses or trains?

People who can afford $2000 laptops don't need to ride the bus. Unless you are talking about the private shuttle which takes them from the terminal to their helicopter pad. ^_~

Where can I get hands-on with a Linux laptop?

[tepples]

More importantly, if you're willing to buy new hardware in order to run OS X why wouldn't you be equally willing to buy new hardware in order to run Linux?

For one thing, a lot of Linux distributions lack a hardware compatibility list, and no local brick-and-mortar retailers (where I can try the laptop's internal keyboard) sell laptops that are advertised and warranted for use with any Linux distribution. For another, more recent peripherals come with Mac drivers than Linux drivers. If I plan on using the laptop at home as well, buying new hardware to run Linux would involve buying new peripherals to replace those that came with only Windows 2000/XP and Mac OS X drivers, such as my Microtek Scanmaker 4850 flatbed scanner, which is still listed as unsupported in SANE's hardware compatibility list.

Uncompressed CD? Good luck.

[tepples]

I can tolerate MP3 audio, but I'd much rather listen to an uncompressed CD.

Good luck. Most pop CDs released nowadays are over-compressed.

Re:Uncompressed CD? Good luck.

[Thalagyrt]

That's a completely different type of compression - dynamic range compression as opposed to data compression. One is to reduce and even out the volume differences, and is used quite a bit in recording - for example an acoustic guitar or an electric solo you'll want to run through a compressor. Yes, you do lose some sound quality by overcompressing, as in the case of most pop CDs, but definitely not the same kind of data loss that takes place in an MP3 compression.

Re:Uncompressed CD? Good luck.

[Thalagyrt]

I'm not trying to nullify your point with my other reply to this, because your point is completely valid... Go load up a Linkin Park or some other pop type band's CD in an audio editor, you'll cringe - it's nothing but clipping. I'm just saying that it doesn't really have much to do with the kind of compression I'm talking about.

JPEG requantization

[tepples]

if you change a couple of pixels and save, you take a quality loss because of the original digital artifacts.

Only in the 16x16 pixel macroblocks containing the pixels that you changed. But MP3 audio is different because it uses overlapping transform blocks and time-varying quantizers, which aren't as amenable to the happy circumstance where JPEG DCT to 12-bit-per-channel RGB to JPEG DCT matches up perfectly.

Let's ask Steve Jobs, shall we?

[argent]

"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content.

What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it." -- Steve Jobs

Could Apple follow Microsoft's lead to restrictive DRM? Yes.

Will they? I don't know.

Is it likely? Apple, following Microsoft? Let's ask Steve again.

Our friends up north spend over five billion dollars on research and development and all they seem to do is copy Google and Apple.

Re:In Soviet Russia, it's Slashdot Answers

[mandelbr0t]

Why "Ask Slashdot?"

The summary is already stupid. "I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it.", thus reducing x86 laptop solutions to either Vista or OSX, and inviting the loaded question. It sounds like our guy already knows what he wants the answer to be, and is just looking for some justifications to help him feel that he made the right choice.

Relax, OSX is nice. It'll probably have a bunch of DRM crap, too. Does it really matter to you? It's not like DRM is an issue for you since you discount Linux out-of-hand.

mandelbr0t

Flamebait?

[ernst_mulder]

When I read " I spend most of my time writing documents and surfing the web" I concluded that this article is actually flamebait, what RDM issues would you run into exactly doing that?

Linux for Grandma

[falconwolf]

I still wouldn't recommend Linux to my white-haired aunt, but for anybody who is enough of a geek to be reading DRM arguments on /. it's fine.

Though I haven't done it myself I've read on /. how others, when asked for help with a friend or relative's PC, went ahead and install a distro like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or other distros like them and the person never looked back. Myself, about two months ago I bought a new PC with Linpire Linux preinstalled, and it looks pretty much like Windows. On the desktop you've got My Computer and My Documents however in the Launch menu you have the different programs in "Run Programs" grouped according to tasks such as "Audio and MP3", "Business and Finance", "Games", "Internet", and "Multimedia and Design". It's relatively straight forward.

The MacBook Pro is not as good of a value. It's a sensational laptop, but if you have that kind of money to throw around it might be simpler to just have desktop systems installed and waiting at every location you will ever go to.

Yea right. Not. It'd be so much easier for photographers to carry a Macbook Pro when they go out to do a shoot. I don't have a dslr yet myself but I could easily fillup a bunch or memory cards quickly, with my film slr I've shot 4 rules of 36 exposure film within a few hours, and I'm sure with a dslr I'd shoot a lot more as I wouldn't have the expense of developing film. And most of my shooting is in the outdoors. I plan on getting a MBP that's 17" within a month and the one thing I'm not happy about is that the hdds with larger space are slower.

Falcon

Ooh, and no I'm not a Mac fanboi. I'm typing this on a PC running Windows and I'm using a KVM switch to switch between this PC and a PC running linux I recently got. Actually MS is responsble for my getting a Mac for my next laptop, I want to have nothing to do with XP's or Vista's Activation or with WGA. And I just want it to work.

Falcon

Re:Linux for Grandma

[Golias]

Yea right. Not. It'd be so much easier for photographers to carry a Macbook Pro when they go out to do a shoot.

What does a photographer gain for the $800 premium of the MacBook Pro over the trusty MacBook?

Unless you are doing all your photography at night... then I suppose the light-up keyboard would save you the trouble of holding one of those key-chain flashlights in your teeth while you are typing. If that's worth $800 to you, congratulations. Can I come hang out in one of your many mansions sometime?

Re:Linux for Grandma

[falconwolf]

What does a photographer gain for the $800 premium of the MacBook Pro over the trusty MacBook?

Screen real estate. To me that's important, I'm using a 17" monitor now but I'd rather have at least 21" preferable 23". Laptops don't come that big, well I did see a 21" laptop but it ran Windows, so I'll get the 17" MBP. As for other things I'm not sure about, like Firwire 800 or a larger hdd. Faster cpus can be ordered with the MBP as well. Well for the 15" but the 17" ones with the fastest cpu for laptops Apple offers.

Unless you are doing all your photography at night...

Yes, I have done and plan on doing more night photography. I'd like to get a telescope and a camers mount so I can capture the stars.

Falcon

Re:Linux for Grandma

[Directrix1]

Why not get the 21" laptop and just run Linux on it. Gphoto works with most any camera, since it supports PTP. Is there any particular functionality specific to the Mac that you need?

Linux on Laptops

[falconwolf]

More importantly, if you're willing to buy new hardware in order to run OS X why wouldn't you be equally willing to buy new hardware in order to run Linux? It's possible to specifically pick a laptop that is fully compatible with Linux, you know!

Where are the brick and mortor stores where I look at and try a laptop with Linux preinstalled? I prefer to try before I buy. And how would I be able run Photoshop CS?

Falcon

Re:Linux on laptops

[Directrix1]

I work for a fairly large photo lab as a software engineer, and I can almost guarantee that unless you are doing graphic design or something there really isn't a need for Photoshop in particular. Other than for familiarity. All operations that professional photographers apply to images (levels/cloning/crop/rotation/resampling/layers/co lor management/etc) are easily done with Gimp/ufraw. Or if you need 16bit/channel support outside of the raw image Cinepaint/Krita. Automation is particularly great if you learn just a little Bash and use ImageMagick. But depending upon your disability needs I don't really know if I could really suggest Linux. But there really is very little hardware that does not have Linux support. Hell if you want me too, I could personally walk you through the install and help you with hardware compatibility problems if there are any. What is the exact model of computer you're looking at? Macs are fine, but you will be spending more on Photoshop licenses and such in addition to the extra Mac cost. Don't get me wrong its a great platform, but as I see happen many times with a lot of our customers they buy tons of completely unneeded and usually unused niceties and incur unnecessary costs. Just my opinion. Out of curiosity what is your disability?

Re:Linux on laptops

[falconwolf]

Macs are fine, but you will be spending more on Photoshop licenses and such in addition to the extra Mac cost.

Yea, I know PS is expensive. Because of that I checked some into other software and have used some. I have used GIMP as well as Paintshop Pro and I've been thinking about trying out Corel Painter. Before I do I'll at least check out MacGIMP, POV-Ray, blender, and/or others. What I may end up doing though is buying an old version of Photoshop, there are some shops in the area that sale and we occasionally have computer shows that displayers sale them as well, and there's a steep discount for upgrades to PS CS.

And yes, I'd like to do some graphic design as well as web design. I was in college until running into some problems almost two years ago working on a web programming degree (it's only a two year degree not a four year degree). However I met a number of student photographers on campus, I took a couple of photography classes myself as well as hung out in the photography rooms, and a few of them expressed interest in setting up online portfolios to showcase their work and sale some photos as well, so I've been thinking of combining both interests and designing websites for photographers.

there really is very little hardware that does not have Linux support.

I've got an HP Pavillion which I got specifically because HP was supposed to be Linux friendly. When I got it I also got a second hdd as well as another graphics card. The second hdd was to install Linux on and the new graphics card was so I could setup a dual head, er two monitors. I only found out later that the PC wasn't Linux compatible, checking out hardware compatibility databases I didn't find any distro that supported it. Graphics, the modem, ethernet, sound, and such were all built onto the motherboard. I even emailed HP tech support about it and they said a PC had to be ordered for Linux, that otherwise they didn't check to see if PCs were Linux compatible.

I do have two PCs with Linux though. The first one is a dualboot machine with a DEC Alpha cpu running NT 4.0 and Redhat. However as the builder didn't offer a modem with the 56k standard my ISP used, I didn't get the PC with one. Then because the cpu's an Alpha I didn't get much software installed so I haven't used it much and not at all in more than 3 years. Recently however, about 2 months ago, I did get a new PC with Linspire Linux preinstalled. I haven't really used it much directly, about all I've done so far is to use one of the hdds for storage. I keep saying I'll actually start using it but I haven't done anything more than play games. I got it because the PC I'm using now has been giving me troubles constantly crashing and needing to be rebooted, now I'm thinking I won't actually get to using the new PC seriously until this one finally dies. At least when it does I'll have all my important files on the new PC, which takes up about 150 GB.

Out of curiosity what is your disability?

It's a neurologcal impairment, I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. And I do mean "survivor". That's what "we" are called, but also in my case while I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! But that's another story.

Falcon

Re:Linux on laptops

[Directrix1]

No matter what platform you chose, you might also want to check out Inkscape for vector based design stuff. Render to a high-res transparent PNG for nice layouts and such. You should also download the newest version of Ubuntu burn it to a CD and try your HP again. I bet it will work now. Usually nobody says their hardware supports Linux but it almost always does. I usually order the cheapest computers from Dell and they work out of the box with Linux. Of course I don't know if Dell is exceptional in this respect though. But I've bought about 12 desktops and 2 laptops from Dell and I got Linux running on them with few to no problems. Also try GIMP/Inkscape/Krita/ImageMagick/UFRaw/Gtkam/F-Spot .

restrictions

[falconwolf]

So, in conclusion I'll say that Apple is much more savvy than the current incarnation of Microsoft. Ironic really, as it was in producing an OS for open, generic computers that made Microsoft great and now they are looking to have input into the specs of every component and everything that attaches to a computer that uses Windows. It's absurd, and it may well be the thing that knocks MS down a peg or two, if a company out there is smart enough to exploit this weakness.

It's MS's restrictions that have made me decide my next laptop will be Macbook Pro. If I can at all afford it I will stay away from another MS OS, XP, Vista, and what follows it, as long as MS includes Activation and or WGA.

Falcon

Linux issues

[falconwolf]

Any issues you have can be solved on linuxquestions.org. I guaruntee that you will have all of your hardware working within a month. Most of it (if not, all of it) within a week.

A couple of months ago I bought a new PC with Linux preinstalled and because the hdd it came with was only 40GB I bought a second one to install. I spent two weeks using Linuxquestions as well as Google to find out how to get Linux to recognize the second hdd before I gave up and had a geeksquad geek get it working. And as of yet I haven't been able to find out which one and how to get a double layer dvd drive to work, the PC didn't have one.

Falcon

Re:Linux issues

[JimXugle]

Wow... geeksquad can deal with Linux o.O ?

Re:Linux issues

[falconwolf]

Wow... geeksquad can deal with Linux o.O ?

Actually the Geeksquad where I live doesn't work on Linux. I was lucky that where I went did have someone there who knew Linux a little and he said though they weren't supposed to work with Linux he would give it a try but only after I signed an order saying I'd still pay if he couldn't get it to work. When he finished I asked him for someone who could work with Linux and he gave me an address for another place. I went there but they only had one person who was an expert with Linux and because they warrented their work he said they could not work on Linux, that if he felt they woudn't have anyone else who could work on any problems. He just said I should find a neighborhood expert.

This really supprized me as the Geeksquad is supposed to be the experts. So what I may do is look for a LUG, Linux Users Group, somewhere around here to join.

Falcon

Your perception is a bit skewed

[dave562]

Everything that I know about DRM I have learned from reading Slashdot and the articles that are linked to this site. Having said that, you should probably take the following with a grain of salt. Your question is, "Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead to restrictive DRM?" The emphasis on lead is mine, and from what I have read, it seems to me like the media companies are the ones pushing DRM. Let me explain...

I'll use the word Hollywood as a catch all phrase for all of the major companies involved in producing content, either audio or video. The folks in Hollywood are all bent out of shape over their profit margins and they are seeing how easy it is for people to "share" content across the Internet in orders of magnitude significantly greater than before broadband connections became commonplace. It's one thing if you make some copies of a VHS movie and give them to your friends. It's another thing entirely for you to make your copy of a movie available to anyone with an Internet connection who can download it on a 24/7/365 basis. Be real with me, and yourself for a second... if you really have a problem with DRM it's because you want the content for free. You want to "borrow" content from your friends. You want to listen to music you'd never buy in the first place, and sure you can talk about how you pirating the music gets the band exposure, but come on... you're only kidding yourself on that one. Most of the music and movies out there cost money to be made and the people who make the content want some money for their labors. And keep in mind, its not just the "artists" that need to be paid. There are studio people, recording engineers, editors, mixers, camera operators, grips, etc, etc, etc.

In order to keep the business model alive and keep people gainfully employed Hollywood turned to DRM. From what I've read, and from my understanding of things, companies like Microsoft and Sony want their products to be the center of the "home entertainment" world. They want people to use their PCs, or their PlayStations as the singular media device that does everything media related. Hollywood doesn't want people churning out content for free so they want to protect it. Therefore an alliance has been formed. On one side you have Hollywood saying, "Okay (Microsoft/Sony/et al), we will help you realize your vision of the future and let your players play our content, BUT you need to make a good faith effort to make sure that people aren't going to rob us blind." (and whether or not you agree with the actual numbers, you'd be a fool to argue that the technology isn't there to rob Hollywood blind) On the other side of the alliance are the computer manufacturers who want people to see computers as more than computers. So they said to Hollywood, "Okay, we will protect your content. Please, let the people who buy our products see/hear the content."

Now going back to the original question of "Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead..." I don't think that's the right question. I think you need to be asking whether or not Apple sees their computers as being entertainment devices. Given the strength of the iPod market, the fact that most video editing outside of the Avid takes place on Macs, and a whole slew of other factors, I think that yes, Apple does see their computers as being strongly linked with entertainment. Because of that, I strongly believe that Apple will start integrating DRM features because they will have to if they want to offer the content to their users. The Apple users might not want DRM, but they will want their content. Just look at the way Apple markets their products. They market them to the self important, image obsessed, "Look how cool my stuff is and yours isn't" market. That market is driven and defined by Hollywood in the first place. Apple the company will play ball with those people.

Re:YOUR perception is a bit skewed

[dave562]

Thanks for the lesson. One of the main reasons I visit /. is to learn new things.

FairPlay

[falconwolf]

If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.

Wrong bigtime! iTunes lets you burn music to CDs which can be played in any CD player. The only restriction iTunes has is that it doesn't allow to burn more than I believe 4 CDs with the same music in the same order and though I'm not sure I heard when burning iTunes strips metadata.

Falcon

Re:FairPlay

[Trumpet of Doom]

...though I'm not sure[,] I heard when burning iTunes strips metadata.

I think that depends on how you define "strips". If the only reason you're burning is to re-rip, then you won't have a problem, since iTunes remembers what you burned with it and will recognize a CD it burned. However, if the CD was burned by someone else and it wasn't submitted to, say, Gracenote or freeDB (or whatever you happen to be using), then you have to menually input all the information yourself, or get someone else to do it for you. Hope that helps.

opensource apps

[falconwolf]

That said, if you want to prepare yourself for a switch in general, the best thing to do is replace as many of your current apps with crossplatform and/or opensource apps, and open or standard file formats for all your documents- OpenOffice.org, gAIM, Firefox for more common stuff; xchat ( http://silenceisdefeat.org/~b0at/xchat/win32/ [silenceisdefeat.org] - several builds don't have the $20 fee), and so forth for less common apps. Mostly, applications are interchangeable, files may not be. You need to identify any sticking points first, before the switch- this applies to any platform.

Unfortunately there's one app that doesn't run in Linux and there is not a FOSS app that does what it does, Photoshop. GIMP is good but they're still working on a 16 bit version. Nor can it do some of what PS can do. You can run PS in Crossover Linux but not CS, only PS 7 runs well.

Falcon

Re:opensource apps

[JoshJ]

Yes, that's what I mean by "sticking points". In another industry, AutoCAD is a huge sticking point- so huge, in fact, it makes Linux migration impossible. GIMP + Krita may be a suitable replacement for Photoshop in an industry that does lightweight image editing (say the occasional company poster, or occasional image with the company logo inserted, and so forth) but most likely not suitable for a full-time graphic artist shop.

Linux laptop

[falconwolf]

You say you like linux, but it you're unsure as to whether it will work on your laptop. But you say you'd be willing to buy a Macbook. Why wouldn't you be willing to buy a linux compatible laptop? There are plenty around (you have to be looking for them - but they're not that hard to come by)

How many places have laptops with Linux installed locally? Sure plenty of them can be ordered but there are some like me who want to see and try before I buy.

I currently have one of the last 12" powerbooks, fantastic machine, OSX is great, but I wish I could run linux instead (lack of 3D support, and sleep ability currently stopping me). The next machine I buy will be linux ready from the very start.

I don't have a working laptop, the LCD on my last one broke some years ago, and what I had then, been using the past few years, and what I'm using now runs Windows however because of MS's actions I plan on making my next computer, laptop, a Macbook Pro (MBP). Because the PC I'm using now is dying I went ahead and got a new tower PC running Linux a couple of months ago but I still plan on getting a MBP.

My advice: try to buy a machine which won't restrict your OS choice entirely from the start, it'll be worth it if you start itching to switch later on.

This is the reason why a MBP is the machine to get, you can run OSX, Windows, and Linux. With any machine not from Apple you can't run OSX, not without being a hacker or knowing someone who can install OSX for you.

Falcon

Boycott the MAFIAA?

[tepples]

How come you can't hate apple and microsoft at the same time?

Because Apple and Microsoft operate the infrastructures that power the only download stores that 1. sell or rent copies of works published by MAFIAA members (Sony, Vivendi, EMI, WMG, Warner, NBC Universal, Disney, Fox, and Paramount) and 2. are unquestionably legit in the developed world. If you boycott the iTunes Store, the Zune store, and all PlaysForSure stores, then you have to boycott all nine charter members of the MAFIAA. Many of us have family members whose entertainment preferences make boycotting the MAFIAA next to impossible.

Ye cannae stop the analog hole

[tepples]

Apple DRMed songs can trivially (in iTunes) be burned to a CD, opening up to a world of CD players and DVD players. If you choose to re-encode again you can transfer to additional devices other than iPods.

So can PlaysForSure music and Zune music, with a cheap cable. But DVD players? Are you talking about most DVD players' undocumented feature to play CD-Rs containing MP3 audio files?

Maybe your point (Apple is a corporation, not an entity)

Corporations are entities.

Vista is not as innovative as you think...

[tlambert]

Vista is not as innovative as you think...

"Windows Vista is the only one that has a protected kernel space, encrypted memory, and randomized memory locations, keeping the user locked away from their hardware."

I. All modern OSs that run on hardware capable of it have a protected kernel space. Mac OS X has been protected mode from Day one, and BSD and Linux (with the exception of intentional ports to poor hardware, like Palm pilots) have had it since day one (1991 for Linux, 1978 for BSD).

II. Encrypted memory is not that useful, without an embedded MMU to do the encryption. The XBox 360 has this, but common Intel hardware does not. Mac OS X has supported encrypted swap and disk images for several years now, and it's common enough in CS circles to experiment with this stuff, so BSD and Linux have spported it as well. As far as code or data are concerned, without the MMU built into the chip, there's no hope of preventing other software running on the system from simply reading the information themselves, either out of plaintext pages, or out of the CPU cache itself.

Either way, encrypted memory does approximately diddly for increasing actual machine security.

III. The randomization of memory locations in Windows is intended to prevent use of a known address for functional OS routines by exploit code that is already running on the system. In other words, its intent is to simply take away access to library routines. The obvious counter to this is to not use he OS routines, and simply carry around your own. The base assumptions here are that:

(1) The attacker has successfully caused code to rune

(2) The code is running in ring 0, having already defeated everything intended to prevent it getting there

(3) The code will call system subroutines to perform work, rather than carring around its own code for e.g. strcpy()

Carry around your own code to do this work, and the target machine is just as screwed; so I'd say that all they've done is increase the size of malware, not eliminate it.

Face it: the only way to make a machine completely secure while leaving it operational is to go locked down from boot onward, and down that road lies "trusted computing", with its own ability to be abused to take rights away from the owner of the machine.

-- Terry

Re:Vista is not as innovative as you think...

[WiseWeasel]

I shouldn't have said protected kernel space, as that wording typically refers to memory separation as you refer to. I meant to say that they have locked down their kernel modules, and won't load unauthorized modules into kernel space without their consent. This is unacceptable for a general use personal computer.

Re:Vista is not as innovative as you think...

[Alsee]

the only way to make a machine completely secure while leaving it operational is to go locked down from boot onward, and down that road lies "trusted computing", with its own ability to be abused to take rights away from the owner of the machine.

You can get all of the genuine security benefits and eliminate every possible abuse of Trusted Computing. All you need to do is get identical hardware and a printed copy of the PrivEK and RSK keys.

Identical hardware obviously implies identicial capabilites to secure your system *for* the owner. The mere fact that you *know* your master key does not diminish your computer's ability to secure your machine and your data for you. Heck, you could burn your master key without ever looking at it, and you would be exactly back at the current Trusted Computing situation.

On the other hand, the fact that you have your master key means that your computer cannot be turned as a weapon against you. You cannot be locked out of your own files if you have teh master key, you cannot be trapped in any sort of lock in if you have your master key. You can modify your security settings when and how you wish with your master key.

The sole porpose of Trusted Computing to forbid people to know their own master key is to secure the computer *against* it's owner. The sole possible reason is for fundamentally DRM based anti-owner purposes.

-

rather goofy reasoning

[aminorex]

i have to wonder that the o.p. doesn't want to run linux because it *might* not run on tes laptop and isn't willing to risk it -- what risk? it's free. boot a livecd and find out -- but they are willing to toss their laptop entirely and buy a macbook. well watchout, cos i can guarantee that two of the mouse buttons on your osx macbook will not work. i also think kde is easier to use than osx, if you're coming from xp.

Release early and often

[tepples]

They update their software often so even 2 year old computers have an old edition of the OS.

I thought release early, release often was considered a good thing. Even if not, compare to Microsoft's behavior during the Windows 9x era: Windows 95 (August 1995), Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, and Windows XP (December 2001), released within 76 months.

Hash the microphone input for true randomness

[tepples]

newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons. This really made some people unhappy because the TPM can do some interesting crypto things, like generating true random numbers

Want true random numbers on any computing platform? Read blocks of 128 samples from the microphone input, and apply MD5 to each. This will pick up on the thermal noise in the ADC plus the acoustic noise in the room.

Apple doesn't make a tablet so I couldn't.

[falconwolf]

Yea, I'm kind of supprized Apple doesn't make tablets. I'd get one myself, long as it was big like the 17" MBP which I plan to get.

Falcon

Re:Apple doesn't make a tablet so I couldn't.

[mrchaotica]

Ah, see, I'd want a 12", 4lb (or less!) one, like the X60 I got (which was specifically due to the fact that it's the lightest convertible tablet with a reasonably-sized screen, except for the old X41).

I guess Apple would have to make two tablets, one for each of us, which might explain why it doesn't make any.

problems with Macs and Windows

[falconwolf]

My own personal machines haven't really been problematic, except for every Mac I've owned. From 'logicboard failures' (In all the years I've been using computers, I've never had a motherboard just 'fail' except when it came to mac) to the wireless card just dying a few days after I got it (and then Applecare trying to dodge dealing with it).

I've had the opposite experience to your's. I've bought two Macs used and four new PCs running Windows. My first Mac was an SE30 I bought in used in 1992. It lasted until 2000 when the floppy died. Several months later I bought another used Mac, this one's a Power Mac 7300/200. It died in January 2006, early this year, when it didn't bootup. These were the only problems I ever had with either Mac.

However it's a different story with the four new PCs I bought. The first one was a laptop I bought from Gateway in 1997. About 6 months after I got it the hdd died and had to be replaced. Then 2 weeks before I had it a year it refused to bootup and Gateway arranged to have it picked up and sent into the service center. To make the story short the motherboard had to be replaced. The third PC was another Gateway laptop I got in early 2000. It's LCD cracked three months after I got it. The fourth one, which I'm typing this on, is an HP Pavillion I got in later in 2000. Like the first laptop, it's hdd and motherboard had to be replaced in the first year. Altogether I've replaced or installed three hdds, the motherboard, and a graphics card on the HP. This leaves out one PC, my second. I got it at the same tyme as the first laptop, in 1997. It has a DEC Alpha cpu and is from Microway running NT 4. It is the only compatible PC I haven't had hardware trouble with, however because the cpu is an Alpha I wasn't able to get much software installed on it so I haven't used it much, and not at all in the past few years. Now I'm hoping to find a Linux distro I can install on it.

In all, I've bought 2 used Macs which lasted me several years before dying and 4 new PCs three of which had hardware problems within a year. From my personal experience I'd definitely say Macs are more reliable than other PCs.

Falcon

Intentional

[SuperKendall]

Or are you arguing that their attempts at "control" are intentionally flawed?

Of course they are - they are minimal by design and so being just enough to keep honest people honest, something Steve Jobs has said all along. Stopping music piracy is a social and education issue, not a technical one.

Re:Intentional

[Keeper]

That's a load of crap and you know it. Either they're using DRM to control distribution or they're not. They don't get a pass because they're bad at it.

Misconceptions

[SuperKendall]

Windows Media has hacks and tools to easily remove the DRM like FairUse4WM, and what THOSE tools do is actually strip off the DRM leaving you with an unprotected WMA file.

And ITMS users had Harmony long before that thanks.

I do not know what this means. You simply cannot convert a downloaded protected video to DVD-Video in iTunes

Any screen recording software will record it - one such example s SnapzPro. I'm sure we'll have an equivilent program to strip the DRM off it soon anyway.

While iTunes recognizes ID3 tags, it actually strips them off MP3 files you import to iTunes and dumps the metadata into it's own proprietary database at the same time mangling the file names.

It does not strip the file, it reads it - and altering the name is a choice you can configure. Learn to use software before you critize the abilities it offers.

The music industry hates Apple passionately because they percieve Apple as having "screwed them" on iTunes. Read some of my other posts on this issue. More importantly, the big labels are deathly afraid of one player (Apple) dominating the online music industry the way MTV dominates music videos. ... If you have any solid evidence that Yahoo! developed this service due to pressure from Apple, I'd like to see it. Please explain why Apple isn't offering unprotected MP3s on their store if they are truly the ones pushing this.

Of course Apple is not directly pressing for this - it is the pressure from them, that you admit to in your own writing, that drives the only response possible to break free of Apple - unprotected files being sold. That is how DRM works, one company grabs a stranglehold over the market and everyone else is beholden to them. By Apple grabbing this hold and then leveraging it against the labels they have forced the lables into only one possible course of action going forward to seek the other freedoms they desire - and that is unrestricted files being sold. The other option of course is death, which may occur instead - with eMusic and companies like it rising up as the new labels of choice. If that happens then Apple can and will drop DRM, they will be forced to in order to compete.

Re:Misconceptions

[rtechie]

And ITMS users had Harmony long before that thanks.

Harmony does not strip the Fairplay DRM off songs purchased off the iTunes store. The current tool seems to be QTFairUse6 which stips off Fairplay leaving a raw AAC file, playable in only a very few MP3 players. Of course, you can transcode to MP3, but that's a pain in the ass. Still, I wasn't aware that this was working at all.

Any screen recording software will record it - one such example s SnapzPro. I'm sure we'll have an equivilent program to strip the DRM off it soon anyway.

If you don't think manually re-recording your videos (in realtime) isn't a major hassle, you have a lot more free time than I do. Apparently QTFairUse doesn't work on the video.

It does not strip the file, it reads it - and altering the name is a choice you can configure. Learn to use software before you critize the abilities it offers

Then explain it to me. How do I import a MP3 file into iTunes AND put it onto an iPod without the name being changed on either the desktop OR the iPod? iTunes 6 for Windows changes the filenames when the tracks are loaded onto the iPod into gibberish. How do I copy ONE track from my iPod to my friend's Windows system using ONLY iTunes?

Of course Apple is not directly pressing for this - it is the pressure from them, that you admit to in your own writing, that drives the only response possible to break free of Apple - unprotected files being sold.

I think I understand your reasoning. Apple has their own proprietary DRM and refuses to implement Windows Media. Apple has a huge marketshare for MP3 players (80%). Therefore, Windows Media stores are forced to adopt uprotected MP3 files in order to sell to iPod owners. This will force the labels to either submit to Apple's monopoly or sell unprotected MP3s.

I disagree. Yahoo's offering MP3's is a desperation move driven by poor sales at that store, I don't think it reflects a general trend. Secondly, the situation is easily resolved by creating custom library software for your store that works with iPods (see: Real). The client software could convert protected WMAs to MP3 on the fly, the labels would me much more likely to accept this more limited solution.

Though it is even more likely that some stores will simply end up reverse-engeneering and ripping off FairPlay, relying on the labels to give them some legal cover.

Re:Misconceptions

[SuperKendall]

I disagree. Yahoo's offering MP3's is a desperation move driven by poor sales at that store,

That would make sense if Yahoo had any say at all in being able to sell DRM free media. It is desperation all right, but on behalf of Yahoo and the record companies.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[FishWithAHammer]

Meh. The keyboard comment came from personal experience. I'm writing this on an Inspiron E1505, which is a fine keyboard. I keep it clean of food mostly by not eating at my computer.

MacBook keyboards hurt like hell to type on. I had to use my roommate's to type up a paper for class last semester. My hands hurt afterwards. There's not enough give and they just don't feel right.

My Inspiron cost (after some phone haggling) $850 or so. An equivalent PowerB--er, sorry, MacBook Pro--would be about $2000. I see a slight problem there. I'd buy an Intel MBP, though (and promptly put Windows and Linux on it) if it had two mouse buttons and the old PowerBook trackball.

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack

[Workaphobia]

Yeah, it really takes a special kind of brilliance (where the meaning of "special" is not a benevolent one) to come up with the idea of shoving auto-reboot down people's throats as a method to encourage them to apply patches. A utility that would make it easy and convenient for me to update my system, and that would remind me to do so at the proper time, would be great. But Microsoft's idea of "convenient" is... Well, think Clippy. Instead of allowing me to check for updates just before the system shuts down, they want to do so when it starts up. So rather than allow me to click a button to let the update take care of itself as I walk away from my computer with my business done for the day, I would have to add an additional reboot cycle to the time I have to wait to use my computer. The result is that I often go days without applying security patches (Yes, my own damn fault, I know, but that does not excuse the tool.)

It really sucks to be consistently interrupted from a full screen fast-action game by a dialog threatening to bring down my system if I do not actively opt out. And the same people go out of their way to bring us popup spam integrated into the OS API. I do not want to see "Help make office better!" spring up over my powerpoint presentation at random intervals, nor do I appreciate the fact that I have to click the tiny X to get rid of this window, and if they miss I incur the wrath of more dialogs.

And to think that they almost made the Vista sound effect mandatory is even more disgusting.

The fact that Microsoft promotes such "features" is evidence of one of the following: A) That these people lack even the slightest respect for the user experience (sometimes I wonder if this is actually intentional, and if they're mocking me for kicks); or B) That they are so caught up in an intra-company bureaucracy that they are incapable in general of making intelligent design decisions.

I wonder if KDE 4's port to Windows will include kwin.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Golias]

My Inspiron cost (after some phone haggling) $850 or so. An equivalent PowerB--er, sorry, MacBook Pro--would be about $2000.

"Equivalent" MacBook Pro!? What are you smoking?

The E1505 looks a lot like a MacBook, with a few missing features.

Also, Dell lists it at $1219. You must have bought a used or refurb model off eBay or something. Froogle reported one available on eBay for $899

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Golias]

Holy crap, I just noticed that your E1505 is not even a Core 2 Duo, like what is standard on all current MacBooks, Pro and otherwise.

So, while you are fantasizing that your Inspiron offers the value of a MacBook Pro for less money, it is, in fact, inferior to the bottom-of-the-line regular MacBook.

But hey, you saved $200 by buying a slower laptop with a lower-quality LCD, and it has a keyboard which you (strangely) like better. Good for you.

The closest thing Dell offers to the home market to the MacBook Pro is the "XPS M1710", which they sell for $2,299. Your Inspiron, with it's slower CPU and lack of dedicated GPU memory, is not in the same category as the Pro or the XPS.

Personally, I use the MacBook keyboard for hours on end, and my hands don't hurt at all. I actually type a little faster on my MacBook than I do on the Dell I sometimes use at work. Like I said, it's the nicest keyboard I ever owned. Is there something odd about your typing habits which may have been causing your hands to hurt?

No bad, but good

[SuperKendall]

They get a pass because they've designed it weak enough that it doesn't matter for most people. I still don't like it myself but the alternative was Microsoft to "own" DRM and fulfill the every wish of the RIAA in regards to music pricing and distribution online. Since I actually like paying for music, I prefer the world we are now in where options for DRM free music s opening up simply because Apple will not play ball with the only DRM consumers are accepting.

What's a load of rubbish is your insistence this is not happening, when it's already happened and is growing! Not being able to spot trends already in progress much less when they are nascent is a very bad state for any kind of technology worker to be in.

Re:No bad, but good

[Keeper]

Apple's DRM functions as intended and normal users are not bypassing it. You can't copy the files at will. You can't play it in an arbitrary device. IT FUNCTIONS AS INTENDED. People like you and me are not most people; "most people" are stuck with it.

What does Microsoft's DRM do that Apple's doesn't? Which of those "features" are mandatory and what are "options" providers can turn on or off? Or if their only crime that they created a system that isn't "flawed"?

Options for DRM free music are not opening up. It will only get worse over time, and once viable competition for Apple hits the market the shit will really hit the fan.

Consumers don't accept Apple's DRM. They accept the iPod. They put up with Apple's DRM, which is the only legal (digitally purchased) music they can use in their iPod.

Apple is only getting a pass because you're invested in their system. Once more people start getting bit by the lockin generated by Apple's DRM you'll start to see fewer and fewer supporters of it.

Re:No bad, but good

[Trumpet of Doom]

To the informed consumer, "viable competition" has even less restrictive DRM than FairPlay. Not, of course, that the RIAA will let that happen without a MASSIVE shift in mindset at the top... but if it happens, then there's hope for DRM-free, permanent, legally downlodable content.

laptop weight

[falconwolf]

h, see, I'd want a 12", 4lb (or less!) one, like the X60 I got (which was specifically due to the fact that it's the lightest convertible tablet with a reasonably-sized screen, except for the old X41).

I wouldn't mind carrying a 10 lb laptop, as long as the lcd is big, it's relatively fast, and has a big hdd amoung other things. If I can't backpack with a 10 lb laptop after backpacking and bike riding with 50+ lbs then I might as well hang it up.

I guess Apple would have to make two tablets, one for each of us, which might explain why it doesn't make any.

I don't see that as a problem afterall Apple makes what 4 different sized laptops, 12", 13", 15" and 17". They could do the same with tablets. I've been thinking about getting a Watcom tablet when I get the MBP but I'd really love to get a laptop with one builtin. On the other hand though, built in the size would be whatever size the laptops come in whereas Watcom makes bigger tablets.

Falcon

Re:laptop weight

[mrchaotica]

I wouldn't mind carrying a 10 lb laptop...

Being able to do it and wanting to do it are two very different things. Besides, I may very well want to walk around holding the thing in one hand, like a clipboard. That's something that actually would be hard to do for any reasonable length of time if it weighed 10 lbs.

I don't see that as a problem afterall Apple makes what 4 different sized laptops, 12", 13", 15" and 17".

Actually, just 3 -- I'm pretty sure they stopped selling the 12" PowerBook.

Re:laptop weight

[falconwolf]

Being able to do it and wanting to do it are two very different things.

Some who would like to carry the weight may not but it's no problem for me. Like I said before I used to carry 50+ lbs in my backpack. While it's been a while since I have I still carry 25+ lbs in it when I ride my bike and go shopping.

I don't see that as a problem afterall Apple makes what 4 different sized laptops, 12", 13", 15" and 17".

Actually, just 3 -- I'm pretty sure they stopped selling the 12" PowerBook.

You're right. Apple's online store lists three Macbooks, all 13", the only thing different being the cpu speed, and hdd size and rpm. With the MBP's two sizes, 15" and 17", there's only three sizes of laptop LCDs Apple has. That must be a recent change, they did offer a White laptop as well as a Black one that were different sizes.

Falcon

Re:laptop weight

[mrchaotica]

That must be a recent change, they did offer a White laptop as well as a Black one that were different sizes.

Nope, the last time Apple had two different sized white laptops was when it still had the 12" and 14" (PPC) iBook G4s, and that was before the black MacBook came out.

Linux on laptops

[falconwolf]

Why not get the 21" laptop and just run Linux on it. Gphoto works with most any camera, since it supports PTP. Is there any particular functionality specific to the Mac that you need?

First I don't know if Linux will run on it, and I'm not going to buy something that expensive when I won't know if I can use it until I buy it. As for functionality, well amend that to apps then, I am seriously thinking of getting Photoshop CS. Sure I could run PS in Crossover Linux but the last version of PS that has been tested and works in Crossover is PS 7 which is old. And there are no graphics or photo editors, commercial or FOSS, with the capabilities of PS that runs in Linux. And no, GIMP isn't a replacement for PS for photographers. And I am a photographer, amateur right now but I'm hoping to become a professional photographer. As it is now that's about the only thing I could do work wise that I enjoy, I'm a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, survivor and am on disability.

Falcon

YOUR perception is a bit skewed

[argent]

"if you really have a problem with DRM it's because you want the content for free"

DRM is not about keeping people who oppose DRM from getting the content for free. The people who oppose DRM are, in general, more than capable of bypassing any DRM scheme that's even vaguely likely to get accepted by the paying public. And the people who promote DRM should be quite aware of this. If they don't want to believe the likes of Cory Doctorow, even Steve Jobs has told them that DRM doesn't work, and that the people who want the content for free will always be able to get it. Here's Steve: "When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

"It's another thing entirely for you to make your copy of a movie available to anyone with an Internet connection who can download it on a 24/7/365 basis."

Yep, that's just one of the many reasons DRM doesn't work: "What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."

"Everything that I know about DRM I have learned from reading Slashdot and the articles that are linked to this site."

You've been doing some VERY selective reading, friend, if you've missed this.

DRM is about giving strangers intimate control over my computer. We're talking about people I don't know and who I have every reason not to trust access to anything on my computer with no way for me to tell what they're doing. Yes, really, that's what strong DRM means... it means that *I* am not 'root' when it comes to my own financial records or anything else I have on my computer, the MPAA is, because to make it work the DRM protected components have to be (a) outside my ability to examine and expose, and (b) able to examine everything else on my computer to make sure I'm not backdooring them. Anything weaker is no better than "honor system". This is a right you wouldn't give to the Federal Government if they can't get warrant, and you're giving it to some random yobbo who works at Universal? And for what? For making it a little less convenient for moderately dishonest people to get free movies.

DRM is about making it a little less convenient for moderately dishonest people to get free copies of digital content. Anyone who really cares will still be able to get it from a P2P service, from usenet, from a drop box on some FTP server, from this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet as Steve Jobs calls it.

The US had a revolution over less. And you want to give in because you think (incorrectly) that it'll keep persons unknown from being able to rob Hollywood blind? You're giving up your freedom for a mess of pottage, and you're not even the one who gets the soup? And you say our perception is a bit skewed?

Wow. Just, wow.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[FishWithAHammer]

Where did I say it was a stock E1505?

And if you call them, their prices go way down, very quickly.

Most people are not stuck

[SuperKendall]

People like you and me are not most people; "most people" are stuck with it.

People like you and me are free to transcode without loss - "most people" can simply burn and rip a CD, yes with a loss in quality but "most people" would not notice or care about the slight degradation.

What does Microsoft's DRM do that Apple's doesn't?

it doesn't always work the same. That was more true in the past, which is how Apple achieved dominance. A further key aspect is remote revocation - once an Apple computer is authorized it can play songs forever without a network connection. This is not true of much music stored using Microsoft DRM. This remote killswitch is one of the very most objectionable aspects of DRM.

Options for DRM free music are not opening up.

eMusic grows monthly, Barenkaed Ladies sell all concerts and albums online in either MPE or FLAC, major labels are starting to sell music in plain MP3. Close your eyes as long as you like, the world is changing.

Consumers don't accept Apple's DRM. They accept the iPod. They put up with Apple's DRM, which is the only legal (digitally purchased) music they can use in their iPod.

See above for other alternatives.

Apple is only getting a pass because you're invested in their system.

Not really, I've only bought a few songs from ITMS and prefer to rip CD's for quality.

graphics software and Linux

[falconwolf]

you might also want to check out Inkscape for vector based design stuff. Render to a high-res transparent

Yea I've got Inkscape bookmarked and may give it a try once I have my computer setup. I've also got Render and several other graphics programs I plan to investigate to see if they will go what I'd like so I won't need Photoshop. One I'd love to tryout is Maya though it does 3D rendering and is not a photo editor.

You should also download the newest version of Ubuntu burn it to a CD

The new PC with Linspire came with a LiveCD so I may try that on the HP. I've also been thinking of setting up the new PC as a dualboot machine, install Ubuntu and keep Linspire.

Falcon

Re:graphics software and Linux

[Directrix1]

Yeah, I've used Maya its a pretty nice 3D modeling system, and its relatively simple to learn as compared to Blender. But if you can learn Blender its possibilities are endless because of its programmatic scripting capabilities and RenderMan interface (check out Yafray with it). And supposedly its a lot more efficient environment. Good luck with the Linspire/Ubuntu. Just remember one thing with Linux: its not about finding programs that are equivalent to Windows programs. Its about finding an efficient way to get a job done. Don't be afraid of the command line and you will be rewarded.

Re:graphics software and Linux

[falconwolf]

Don't be afraid of the command line and you will be rewarded.

Though it's been a long tyme since I have I have worked with CLIs. Abut ten years ago I took a class in Linux, er unix, however the PCs we used had coherent as the OS. Before that, I first started progamming on the Trash, er TRS80, when RadShack released it in the 1970's. I learned basic programming on it, the Apple 2, and a dumb terminal connected to an IBM 360 series 60 mainframe. I admit I need to learn or relearn a lot to proficiently use the command line, however I'm wondering how well I'll be able to use it as my memory is impaired, damaged.

I've used Maya its a pretty nice 3D modeling system, and its relatively simple to learn as compared to Blender.

I'd like to get a good book on learning either Blender or Maya.

Just remember one thing with Linux: its not about finding programs that are equivalent to Windows programs.

As it is now I don't really use much in the way of Windows apps, programs in general really, other than browsers and a text editor. However when I get around to it I want to install a webserver, perl, a database, and maybe Ruby on Rails or other web tech as I want to learn web development.

Falcon

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[Golias]

Where did I say it was a stock E1505?

Okay, so what is it?

Wait. Don't bother telling me. I wouldn't want you to type any more than necessary with those ultra-delicate hands of yours.

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread

[FishWithAHammer]

Heh. I was about to head out, hence the terse reply. It doesn't quite match up with the $1999 MBP of today, granted, but it's on par with the MBP of the time I purchased it--I did a side-by-side with a friend's MBP's spec list, and the variance wasn't huge.

-Core Duo 1.83GHz (Core 2 hadn't come out yet and the MBP had, IIRC, the same processor)
-2GB RAM
-60GB hard drive. Divided in thirds between Linux, Windows, and a shared partition. I could have gone with a bigger hard drive, but I carry an external anyway, so I felt like saving a few bucks.
-15.4-in. display without the shitty gloss screen--matte all the way
-ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 (best offered when I bought the machine)
-DVD burner, don't recall the speed offhand

Similar CPU speed, more RAM, two more USB ports. Two are in an odd place, though, on the right side of the chassis, where I'd expect them to be on the left, same side as the CD/DVD drive. Makes them a bit inconvenient, but usable in a pinch. It also has a Ricoh SD/MMC slot. One thing that was odd about this when I bought it was that there is no separate line-in and microphone jack; the on-board software detects a plug's insertion and asks the user if it's a microphone or line-in. That software doesn't work under Linux, but it serves as a perfectly normal microphone adapter.

That E1505 cost me $850 after a rebate and haggling with their phone staff. I did also get it during a promotion where the RAM upgrade was free. An MBP costs $1999. Even today, in a side-by-side comparison with a new MBP, I'd be hard-pressed to see what in the machine would be worth $1100 more.

I'll admit that the lighted keyboard is cool, and I'm tempted to hardware-hack my own into this one when I get a new keyboard (the keys are smoothing and wearing down due to use), though I likely won't. But OS X, a lighted keyboard, and a miserable-resolution camera certainly aren't worth that much money.

The opposite, actually...

[dburr]

Many people were afraid of the Intel switch because of the potential of adding far-reaching DRM. And indeed, the first Intel Macs had TPM (Trusted Computing) chips built into the motherboards. However, while there is a TPM driver in OS X, it is not actually being used by anything (not even iTunes DRM). And, in fact, starting with the MacPro, it appears that Apple is no longer including the TPM chip in their systems.

For the curious, you can actually use the TPM chip from user space. A great article about TPM and how Apple uses it (and how you can use it yourself) can be found at:

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/