: Macintel: THE OTHER SHOE DROPS! (DRM'd OS)


Macaholic
Aug 1st, 2005, 11:28 AM
I KNEW this was a BIG reason why Apple was going Intel: hardware-based DRM -- PALLDIUM ( http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=palladium,+intel&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 )!

I knew that, given the increasing use of the web and computers for distributing media, that Apple would HAVE TO one way or another provide content creators and owners with a secure platform. If they didn't, then Mac users would be left at the station as TV and computers continue to merge. When I first started reading about longhorn's "Palladium" DRM a couple of years ago, I was concerned about how this would impact the Mac userbase. Well, moving to Intel will allow mac users to be in the loop, and some reports I found today talk of OS X kernel extensions that relate to Intel's Palladium technology:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_trusted.html

http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5099

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/01/0421248&from=rss

Roland
Aug 1st, 2005, 11:38 AM
I think it's a great idea that Apple locks down the OS to the hardware. It will eliminate illegal copying and multiple installation problems with the OS.

I can't understand the people who get up in a huff over this.

It's a none issue.

NBiBooker
Aug 1st, 2005, 11:43 AM
Roland,

People aren't in a huff about the OS, I don't think, but rather other DRM content such as music, movies and applications.

That bieng said, I've found the Mac community to be far more honest with regards to music purchases and software purchases then the PC community. Not to sterotype but software piracy seems to be frowned on from both a legal and a moral standpoint.

I don't think Mac users will have too much to worry about with Palladium. PC users on the other hand, well that's a different story.

Macaholic
Aug 1st, 2005, 11:54 AM
I disagree, Booker, regarding the OS. Mac users enjoy working with an OS unencumbered by DRM. Hopefully, Apple's implmentation of this DRM will be invisible to the Macintel-buying public. I'll bet Apple's MAIN concern is running OS X on any PC, and less so running multiple installs of OS X on several Macintels -- although, they'll probably tighten that up, too.

The big impact of this will be on software and media piracy. And this is inevitable.

krs
Aug 1st, 2005, 01:43 PM
I think it's a great idea that Apple locks down the OS to the hardware. It will eliminate illegal copying and multiple installation problems with the OS.

I can't understand the people who get up in a huff over this.

It's a none issue.

I don't know anything about DRM or 'Trusted Computing' (which one of the posted links talks about) other that what is posted here, but I have a couple of questions/concerns.

1. If DRM locks the OS to a specific computer (not type as is already the case with the OS shipped with a new Mac), does that mean CPU upgrades from third parties will be a thing of the past?
I assume it would also mean that one could not resell the software if no longer required.

2. And on the 'Trusted Computing' issue...sounds as if one must have the original application a file is created in to be able to open it. So, to read a jpeg file for instance that was created in photoshop, I would have to buy photoshop to be able to open it. This I would think has huge implications for the enduser.
I have this problem now to some degree; all the pictures I modified in photoshop and saved as jpeg's always launch in photoshop if I just double-click on the file. I have to drag the file to the jpegview or preview application to get it to open in those applications. A real pain because photoshop takes a lot longer to launch than preview for instance.

ice_hackey
Aug 1st, 2005, 02:31 PM
KRS.

Select a JPG file.
Type CMD + i.
Under "Open with:" select preview.
Below this, click "Change All..."

That isn't a DRM issue.

used to be jwoodget
Aug 1st, 2005, 02:37 PM
I think we'll see Trusted Computing being used by Apple to prevent OS X being installed on non-Apple machines. That's their biggest threat given that OS X is not code-secure (an OS X install disk will install on any Mac of certain specs - although that does break the user agreement and is illegal). I think we'll also see this hardware DRM schema used in commercial media although that will take longer since PPC-based Macs will not be capable for taking "advantage" of this approach.

At the end of the day, all new computers are going to be more restricted with the possible exception of linux. But the restriction there will be in the applications.

Vexel
Aug 1st, 2005, 02:52 PM
All I can say.. in the words of Dr. G, "We Shall See."

There's a few ways Apple could deploy the DRM into the Mactels.. but until they're released.. no one will know. It's not worth getting in a huff over.

TrevX
Aug 1st, 2005, 03:15 PM
We shouldn't get our panties in a twist over this yet. For all we know Apple has done this just to prevent OS X that ships with the developer systems from booting on non-Apple hardware. Tiger x86 already does boot on a generic white-box PC as long as it has the same components as the Apple kit...an intel mobo, intel graphics, and pentium 4 3.6 with HT...all generic, off the shelf stuff. The DRM in this case keeps OS X on the Apple boxes and not some POS Dell or HP.

Nobody knows anything yet, and the stuff we're seeing now may not be what Apple ships with the actual consumer Macs. If they're using it to keep OS X on Apple hardware, then this is a good thing.

Trev

ice_hackey
Aug 1st, 2005, 03:20 PM
I agree with Vexel -- this is all conjecture.

However, I do have one thing to throw into the fray:
Since OSX has done well to open a lot of people to unix -- you may see a lot of defectors when/if they lock it down. This could be the best thing to ever happen to the unix/linux world!

krs
Aug 1st, 2005, 03:25 PM
KRS.

Select a JPG file.
Type CMD + i.
Under "Open with:" select preview.
Below this, click "Change All..."

That isn't a DRM issue.

If you read my post again you will find that I related this to the 'Trusted Computing' issue not to DRM. It was just an example of how annoying it was to have certain jpeg files open with specific applications even though I already had the application and didn't have to buy it.
Thank you for your tip to change the default application to open a file in 'Get Info'. Much appreciated; I had forgotten about that.

krs
Aug 1st, 2005, 03:29 PM
Is 'Trusted Computing' and DRM the same thing?
From the couple of posts above it seem like it, but from the links that were posted in the very first post in this thread they are quite different.
Does anyone have a one sentence definition?

krs
Aug 1st, 2005, 03:38 PM
I think we'll see Trusted Computing being used by Apple to prevent OS X being installed on non-Apple machines.

So back to one of my questions - conceptually, would upgrading an Apple computer with a third-party CPU - Sonnet, PowerLogix, GigaDesign, OWC whatever - make it a non-Apple machine and thus future versions of OS X won't work anymore?

Macaholic
Aug 1st, 2005, 03:41 PM
I'd be surprised if Apple tried to restrict an OS X installation to ONE SPECIFIC MACINTEL. As other have said, their concern will be people running OS X on garden variety PeeCees.

As for CPU upgrades, the entire personal computing Windows, Mac UNIX and Linux (not to mention any others like Sun) are somehow going to have to be in the loop to handle upgrades. And on that note, AMD will somehow have to be in the Palladium loop, too (maybe they already are??).

As for file access across programs, I don't see that being a problem. palladium appears to be at such a fundamental level of a computer's architecture that, once a file passes Palladium's muster you'll be able to open it within any program you have. but I'm just guessing here.

Overall, there's going to be a tug-of-war between Palladium and non-Palladium systems out there for many years. If the media and software makers play hardball, however, -- and YOU KNOW THEY WILL -- there could be a big spike in PC/Mac sales, the likes of which hasn't been seen since Y2k.

Macaholic
Aug 1st, 2005, 04:07 PM
KRS, Apple -- and Microsoft -- will be supporting non-DRM systems for many, many years. So, upgrades to current G4 systems out there should be cool. As much as they will TRY to force a migration, they can't just SLAM THE DOOR on millions upon millions of non-Palladium systems...

But what of the G5 platform? Now that Apple is dumping IBM's CPU, the G5 will leave a pretty limited legacy -- and userbase -- for upgrade makers to bother over compared to what was built with the 32 bit G3/4 platform. Could it be possible that we may NEVER see CPU upgrades for G5 systems?? Am I spewing FUD? Maybe. But think about it: current CPU upgrades are available for almost any Powermac system made in the last EIGHT YEARS and, thanks to Xpostfacto, you can run OS X on almost any system made during that time as well. By the time the book is closed on the G5, however, it'll have only had a span of about four years to populate the userbase. Just how many systems in total might that be when all is said and done? And, IF any CPU upgrades do come out, will they be worth it to many people if the system doesn't become Palladium compatible in the process? Given IBM's PPC CPUs being destined for relatively closed gaming consoles, might genuine Palladium DRM not be a priority to them? Could this be a another MAJOR REASON why Apple ditched IBM?

If IBM doesn't go Palladium, and you obviously cannot put any x86 CPU on a G5 motherboard, and given what will probably be a much lower number of systems in the field than what was accrued by the 32 bit PPC platform, there's a possibility that Sonnet, Powerlogix and the others just might not see a sufficient ROI doing CPU development for the G5 platform. Further, if Apple keeps the Palladium coding/boot ROM/whateverit'llbe secret, you probably couldn't even swap out the PPC-based motherboard of a G5 for an x86-based one to convert it to a Macintel! Could the G5 become the Edsel of our time?? I realize that this is A LOT of prognostication on my part -- so much so that I might get smacked-down for it -- and it's WAY early in the game to say anything for certain, but it's something worth thinking and talking about...