[benign]

Maybe old'ish news but still a good read...

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

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by benign

Maybe old'ish news but still a good read...

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

Probably not going to happen.

This is just speculation based on prerelease versions of the operating system. It says that the GUI requires Rosetta because parts of it haven't been ported to Intel yet. By the time the new machines are out that will be fixed.

Maybe Rosetta relies on instructions that are present on the new chip, but that's a far cry from saying that Apple is going to implement the TCPA. Apple isn't even PART of the consortium, so I don't think it's going to be fully implemented anyway.

And people should stop trying to compare the development machines with what's going to be shipping, because it's too soon to tell.

[turtle777]

Actually, it seems like it IS happening.

http://www.macnews.de/news/69690 (only in German)

Google Translation:
"Os X for Intel Macs presupposes TCPA?
A version of Mac OS X, circulating in various copying stock exchanges, presupposes - differently than their predecessor - that it concerns with the used computer also a Mac: Apparently with the start of the system a Kernelextension is loaded, which examines the presence of a "Trusted Platform Modules" (TPM). This chip functioned thus as hardware Dongle and touches down on the version 1.1 of TCPA. Thereby seems clear how Apple wants to prevent the installation of OS X on PCS - by means of data secured via TCPA, which from the system (Kernel Extension and apparently also the power PC emulator Rosetta) at run-time and when starting are loaded."

-t

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Actually, it seems like it IS happening.

http://www.macnews.de/news/69690 (only in German)

Google Translation:
"Os X for Intel Macs presupposes TCPA?
A version of Mac OS X, circulating in various copying stock exchanges, presupposes - differently than their predecessor - that it concerns with the used computer also a Mac: Apparently with the start of the system a Kernelextension is loaded, which examines the presence of a "Trusted Platform Modules" (TPM). This chip functioned thus as hardware Dongle and touches down on the version 1.1 of TCPA. Thereby seems clear how Apple wants to prevent the installation of OS X on PCS - by means of data secured via TCPA, which from the system (Kernel Extension and apparently also the power PC emulator Rosetta) at run-time and when starting are loaded."

-t

Perhaps they are using that to prevent OS X from running on non-apple hardware, but that is a far cry from "Apple implementing Palladium" that the "sky is falling" people are saying.

[turtle777]

^^^ Who knowns.

-t

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Perhaps they are using that to prevent OS X from running on non-apple hardware, but that is a far cry from "Apple implementing Palladium" that the "sky is falling" people are saying.

Pardon me, but they are preventing OS X from running on non-apple hardware by USING PALLADIUM. The sky is not falling though and no one said so. They are using Palladium. Now. And what is more, they are the first ones. They beat Microsoft to it. There is such irony in that.

Now what they have are develper machines equipped with the Palladium setup. A custom encoding chip and a firmware that complies with it and a kernel extention that works with it. That is, more or less Palladium or TCPA.

This is no indication of sky falling, this is simply a major irony. Apple should have become the last company to make a Palladium system. Whether the final systems will contain TCPA remains to be seen, but the odds are that they will. If only to prevent OS X from being used on your average Intel machine. And from there - well the options are endless

cheers

W-Y

[Kerrigan]

Whatever the case, I imagine that Mac OS X will be hacked to run on generic x86 by the end of this year, or next year at the very latest.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Pardon me, but they are preventing OS X from running on non-apple hardware by USING PALLADIUM. The sky is not falling though and no one said so. They are using Palladium. Now. And what is more, they are the first ones. They beat Microsoft to it. There is such irony in that.

Now what they have are develper machines equipped with the Palladium setup. A custom encoding chip and a firmware that complies with it and a kernel extention that works with it. That is, more or less Palladium or TCPA.

This is no indication of sky falling, this is simply a major irony. Apple should have become the last company to make a Palladium system. Whether the final systems will contain TCPA remains to be seen, but the odds are that they will. If only to prevent OS X from being used on your average Intel machine. And from there - well the options are endless

cheers

W-Y

They're not "using Palladium."

"Palladium" is the whole thing. Not just using the TPM (Trusted Platform Module) to keep software from running where it's not authorized.

Read this. THAT'S Palladium. The whole thing. It's even Microsoft's implementation of it.

Simply using one feature of a chip is not "using Palladium."

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Person Man

They're not "using Palladium."

"Palladium" is the whole thing. Not just using the TPM (Trusted Platform Module) to keep software from running where it's not authorized.

Read this. THAT'S Palladium. The whole thing. It's even Microsoft's implementation of it.

Simply using one feature of a chip is not "using Palladium."

Yes they are. I read that article a long long time ago. This is Palladium. It isn't complicated. A custom decoding chip, internet connection and compatible firmware in the machine. This isn't rocket science, simply a next level DRM.

Even your linked article supports what I'm saying. This is Palladium.

cheers

W-Y

[Salty]

Are we all that surprised about this? Apple is a content creator... content being the OS. They want to lock that down onto their machines. I imagine we won't have any problem getting OS X to run on any Mac just like it does now. This probably will never be a big problem for us. And who knows Apple MAY use this with an iTunes movie store... but even if they do... is it that big of a problem? I think not. Remember Apple designed FairPlay themselves, and they know what they do and don't want people doing. And they're not going to suddenly become huge jerks to those of us who want to manage our own stuff, simply because they're using a chip made by Intel... sheesh!

[nonhuman]

News flash: Apple has been using DRM for a very long time. The only thing that's changed here is that they're now using the DRM that's integrated into Intel's chips instead of doing their own thing.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

News flash: Apple has been using DRM for a very long time. The only thing that's changed here is that they're now using the DRM that's integrated into Intel's chips instead of doing their own thing.

Apple has been using DRM in form of the iTMS m4p files, yes. This is hardware DRM. It is different and worthy of a news-flash. Implementation is everything, but this one has potential to become nasty.

Apple embracing Palladium is a news-flash nonhuman.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Salty

Are we all that surprised about this? Apple is a content creator... content being the OS. They want to lock that down onto their machines. I imagine we won't have any problem getting OS X to run on any Mac just like it does now. This probably will never be a big problem for us. And who knows Apple MAY use this with an iTunes movie store... but even if they do... is it that big of a problem? I think not. Remember Apple designed FairPlay themselves, and they know what they do and don't want people doing. And they're not going to suddenly become huge jerks to those of us who want to manage our own stuff, simply because they're using a chip made by Intel... sheesh!

Yes yes. We are supposed to be surprised. Apple wasn't one of the companies pushing the Trusted Computer platform and then it finds itself in the middle of it all of a sudden.

Of course OS X will work just fine on any Mac. Immensely stupid to suggest otherwise, no? Think about it for a moment. Why.

This kind of DRM will be pushed, but not by Apple. MS has some interest in it and Intel but the sofware and movie industry are going to be the ones pusing it the hardest. This will not affect any user in the coming year or two but soon enough Windows users will feel it and then Mac users. The Macs will be ready it seems. It is premature to be talking about certain consequences. As I've said before this is all in the implementation.

Finally, this has nothing to do with Apple being jerks. Or becoming jerks. They are jerks. They are a company. Simple as that. Whatever makes them more money in the long run is what Apple will choose. FairPlay was pushed by Apple to be rather fair as it happens. Not because they were such nice guys fighting for the little man. Because they needed a big break from the music industry to sell more iPods. The iTMS is not making Apple any money remember? It is a loss leader for the iPod and the songs are licenced rather fairly because they can play only on the iPod.

cheers

W-Y

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The iTMS is not making Apple any money remember?

Actually, if you look at the recently released financials, you'll see that the iTMS actually turned in a small PROFIT for Apple. Sure, it was tiny compared to the profit Apple made with other things, but hey, profit is profit.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Apple has been using DRM in form of the iTMS m4p files, yes. This is hardware DRM. It is different and worthy of a news-flash. Implementation is everything, but this one has potential to become nasty.

Apple embracing Palladium is a news-flash nonhuman.

cheers

W-Y

Apple has been using DRM for much longer than that. And they've been using it for exactly the same purpose they're currently using it for in the OS X x86 build.

[Salty]

If you want to think about it, PPC is really just a great DRM scheme. Keeps you from running OS X on anything other than a Mac. Now with PPC going out of the picture they need something to take it's place. Sure this will allow Adobe to tell you that hey you've installed this on 3 different computers and we can see them all running... but really... couldn't they do that now by say checking your computer's MAC/Ethernet Address? Or any other number of ways?
Yes I imagine these chips will cause occational problems but.. I think you're all over reacting just a bit.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Apple has been using DRM for much longer than that. And they've been using it for exactly the same purpose they're currently using it for in the OS X x86 build.

You know, replies like this one that I have quoted are very obnoxious. They say nothing, they explain nothing, they add nothing to the discussion and waste everyone's time.

Perhaps if you'd explain how Apple has been using DRM for "much longer" than they have used it in m4p files from the iTMS the class is listening.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Salty

If you want to think about it, PPC is really just a great DRM scheme. Keeps you from running OS X on anything other than a Mac. Now with PPC going out of the picture they need something to take it's place. Sure this will allow Adobe to tell you that hey you've installed this on 3 different computers and we can see them all running... but really... couldn't they do that now by say checking your computer's MAC/Ethernet Address? Or any other number of ways?
Yes I imagine these chips will cause occational problems but.. I think you're all over reacting just a bit.

No. You have absoloutly no idea what you are talking about. It is rare to encounter a person who has so much to say on a topic that he is absoloutly ignorant of.

Palladium has nothing to do with Adobe knowing how many copies I am running on machine X. It is a hardware level permission system. One that you can't log in as root to override.

The PPC is not a great DRM scheme for it is a processor. The thing that kept OS X from running on other Macs was simply bad emulators. You could run OS X on Intel architecture. Slowly, but you could. If the OpenSource community would have managed to make something like Rosetta perhaps it would even be usable. DRM prevents 100% usage of protected software on unauthorized hardware. The PPC did not manage that.

Also no one can just drop in and spy on your particular MAC adress. They may get you to install sofware that "phones home" but they can't just decide they need your MAC adress and look it up. Besides MAC adresses are worthless to ID a machine. Hardware coded IDs in processors are better and the Palladium chips are the best.

Why are you even participating in this discussion? You haven't got a clue what it is about!

Perhaps you just misunderstood this from the start and are about to embark on a learning trip, reading everything you can about Trusted Computing and Palladium before posting again. I sure hope that is the case. Don't disappoint me.

cheers

W-Y

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Perhaps they are using that to prevent OS X from running on non-apple hardware, but that is a far cry from "Apple implementing Palladium" that the "sky is falling" people are saying.

skies usually don't fall all at once....they tend to drip away under the pretense of aiding us.