Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Security Businesses Apple

Apple to Lock OSXi to Apple Hardware 766

Posted by CmdrTaco from the no-surprise-here dept.
spac writes "It seems that Apple has chosen to use the Trusted Platform Module chip to ensure that Mac OS X can only run on Apple Hardware. The report from vnunet states that the chips contain a unique identifier, which can be used to determine the manufacturer of a PC as well as facilities for data encryption. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple to Lock OSXi to Apple Hardware More

Apple to Lock OSXi to Apple Hardware

Comments Filter:

  • Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Informative)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:42AM (#12813595) Homepage Journal
    The first sentence in the linked article says "Apple COULD use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner." emphasis mine.

    While I do not doubt this will in fact be the case, I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors to ensure that submitters are not spreading misinformation. In fact, if you click on the Gartner new analysis linked [gartner.com] in the vnunet article, you will find no mention of the "security chip" being quoted by this article so we have nested lousy reporting. Yeah, yeah, I must be new here. Ha ha

    Seriously though, this is a reasonable move for Apple to ensure that the look, feel and reliability of the MacOS does not become corrupted for some users who may want to install OS X on "lower quality hardware". Apple prides itself on a quality user experience that approaches a luxury product. Everything from the appearance of the fonts to the way consumers interact with the interface needs to remain consistently "high quality" and I am sure Apple will make efforts to preserve this experience.

    As well as providing for an OS "lock" on hardware, the implementation of such chips will also allow for stronger security as well as enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios.

    • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:44AM (#12813632) Homepage Journal
      Seriously though, this is a reasonable move for Apple to ensure that the look, feel and reliability of the MacOS does not become corrupted for some users who may want to install OS X on "lower quality hardware".

      while this is true, the single biggest reason for this obvious move is this: apple is a hardware company.

      since the mac came out, and even before, apple has been using revenue from hardware sales to support os development. if millions of home users stampede to emachines discount boxes for their os x platform then, apple's real source of revenue will dissappear.

      and then there'll be no os x.

      • there's just no end to the "apple is a hardware company" posts in the last week.

        but i disagree with you. *nothing* is going to create a situation where "there'll be no os x." There are far too many people who are firmly entrenched into Mac OS X.. your comment is absurd. Even if Cupertino fell into the Pacific, the Apple community would keep OS X going.

        I believe Apple will grow substantially by opening Mac OS X to commodity hardware. how much revenue will apple honestly bring in on hardware in the

        • I wonder how many people will buy Apple hardware to run Windows (1%, 10%?).

          Ciao

          • Probably less than 5%. Like I said last week, Apple has a very narrow focus and their core market is creative professionals. You buy Apple hardware to run MacOS and because there's a certain cachet in owning a Mac. And to avoid viruses, spyware, and all the other crap that plagues Windows users.

            I could see someone doing mission critical stuff having a dual-boot box, but someone buying Ap-tel hardware to run Windows is just out of the question. If you want a cheap box, you buy a Dell, Gateway, whatever. I
            • Apple has a very narrow focus???

              Maybe in the 80s and 90s yes. Or perhaps you are referring to Apple the record label.

              I might buy the statement that Apple's core G5 market is creative professionals.

              I don't believe movie makers and professional designers are buying up all those iMacs and Mac minis and iBooks. Creative professionals may have been Apple's focus previously, but that market was sewn up years ago.

              I suspect Apple is more interested in the average home computer user, Mom and Pop, Gramp

          • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dreamt ( 14798 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @01:48PM (#12815121)
            I wonder how many people will buy Apple hardware to run Windows (1%, 10%?).

            I actually think it would be much higher, if you consider people wanting to dual-boot. I personally have been interested in getting an OS-X box, but can't really leave Windows behind. I see many people dual booting their machines. Look at how many Linux people keep their machines dual-booted for games, or [insert use here]. Now look at how many people don't use linux because its "too hard to use". Now, look at how many people would like to have a stable user-friendly Unix box, but need windows for something.

        • I say HA (Score:3, Insightful)

          by old-lady-whispering- ( 602967 )
          Keep drinking the coolaide Mac boy.

          I am amazed at all the mindless Mac zealots raving about how OS X will be available on commodity hardware and how this will be so great for Apple. Guess what, it won't. Steve Jobs said Apple will be the only hardware OS X will officially run on. Plus the move puts Apple in the same playing field philosophically as Linux and windows. It remains to be seen if Apple's philosophy will be adopted by anyone in the buy it cheap crowd. So lets be honest cheap is not a selling poi

          • Re:I say HA (Score:3, Interesting)

            by cowscows ( 103644 )
            Uh, mac zealots aren't the ones saying that. We all think that OSX is too wonderful for the unwashed masses, and that every piece of hardware the Apple sells us is an bargain priced altar to our Lord Steve Jobs. The mere thought of a filthy, unworthy whitebox PC running the divine OS of Kings makes us cringe in horror, fearful of apocalypse brought upon us all for desecrating all that is insanely great.

            It's those godless heathen business analysts and some of those smelly free software yuppies that are spou
        • Your crystal ball is funky. Shake it up and wait for the snow to settle this time.

          APPLE TRIED CLONING. APPLE MAKES THEIR MONEY FROM SELLING HARDWARE.

          Apple is not a hardware company but that's where they make their money. If licensing the OS was so profitable, why didn't it work the first time around?

          • they tried cloning when they had no compelling operating system to drive sales. this is not 1996, when Mac OS 8 was clunking around on niche clone hardware.

            this is 2005, the masses (read: the geeks) have finally accepted Mac OS X as a competent operating system, and many who use it find it superior to windows. comparing this situation to Apple's earlier flirtation with clones fails to recognize the dramatically changed environment.

      • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by servognome ( 738846 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @12:16PM (#12814061)
        apple is a hardware company

        Apple is a platform company. Apple brand is based on a user "experience". Both the hardware and software are designed as complimentary components to an integrated platform. Seperating the hardware and software will hurt the Apple brand as a whole.
      • if millions of home users stampede to emachines discount boxes

        Typical home users will do no such thing, they like to have a supported platform.

        For get all untrusted computing platform crap - all Apple has to do is say "OSX is only supported on boxes x, y and z" and then only the fringe will go to emachines (or homebrew) and try to run it on non apple hardware.

    • More likely that they'll do the following (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      * Use Open Firmware
      * Lock it to their custom Northbridge as they usually do

      Yeah, I like how speculation turns into fact here on Slashdot...

      "Apple could use the Trusted Platform..."
      • They already said they aren't using OpenFirmware, and they lock it to their current computers using a Copyright string in the OpenFirmware that is all kinds of illegal for another company to use.

        I expect to see something similar.. a copyright string in the PC BIOS. Were Dell, Gateway, whatever to write this string in their BIOS, Apple would have no end to the possible lawsuits it would open up.
      • More likely that they'll do the following * Use Open Firmware
        * Lock it to their custom Northbridge as they usually do

        Actually, no. I wrote this [utah.edu] last week during WWDC to keep my readers/friends informed as to what the switch will mean. Apple will not be using Open Firmware.

      • Probably EFI (Score:3, Informative)

        by Paradox ( 13555 )
        Best guess of what's going to be in these desktop boxes, given what we've been seeing on /., Ars, and what little info the macdevs have leaked.
        1. Pentium M family. Yonah maybe, but possibly something further down the M family tree (which may or may not be ready yet).
        2. Intel's EFI. In some ways, better than OpenFirmware. In some ways, worse. We know that the new macs are not going to use OpenFirmware. It's been confirmed.
        3. Intel's privacy stuff, as mentioned in TFA. This isn't necessarily bad stuff used for
    • ...for the amount of days it will take crackers to get this running on other non-Apple hardware. Personally, my bet is that they'll have this licked in less than a month.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:46AM (#12813665)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Can you show us some examples of hardware that *spec for spec* is grossly overpriced compared to name brand PC box sellers?

        • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Informative)

          by deacon ( 40533 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @02:12PM (#12815459) Journal
          Can you show us some examples of hardware that *spec for spec* is grossly overpriced compared to name brand PC box sellers?

          I'm glad you asked!

          apple store: [apple.com]

          Apple Memory Module 2.0GB PC3200 ECC DDR 2x1.0GB DIMMS Apple Memory Module 2.0GB PC3200 ECC DDR 2x1.0GB DIMMS

          Price $1,000.00

          from newegg: [newegg.com]

          CORSAIR XMS Extreme Memory Speed Series, (Twin Pack) 184 Pin 2GB(1GBx2) ECC Registered DDR PC-3200 -Retail

          Price: $332.00

          On the other hand, I did recently use the free itunes for windows to turn an ancient pc into a standalone jukebox, and I have to give apple credit, it works great, nice interface, logical behaviour. I just feed it new CD's occasionally (from the heaps that litter the space around the stereo amp) while it plays the party shuffle of music that is already loaded.

          I still have not figured out how to "reshuffle" the party shuffle deck, so to speak, but even though my bias is generally anti-apple, I am assuming that the option is there somewhere, and I must give them praise where praise is due.

      • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mmeister ( 862972 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @12:09PM (#12813981)
        Apple isn't grossly overcharging for most of its hardware. This is a myth. Yes, it is more expensive, and you can dig and find some dirt cheap-ass PC to compare it to argue how horrible the pricing is, but the reality is that Apple's prices are fairly competitive, when you factor in not just a barebones system, but the software and additional functionality .. especially in the mid-to-high end of the market.

        And if you don't like their prices -- don't buy a Mac. What? You want the full Mac experience but don't want to pay for it? So you want the full BMW M6 driving experience, but want to pay the cost of a Ford Focus? That's your problem, not Apple's (or BMW).

        • Short version for the impatient: I found Apple SFF (Small Form Factor) hardware to be 60% as expensive as equivalent Intel-based SFF hardware when shopping for a computer at the beginning of this year.

          At the beginning of the year, I was looking for a replacement web server. Rimbosity.com was running on a P-233 MMX that was loud, had no APM support, and using significant amounts of electricity. It was in a full tower box that I bought back in the day when I equated the size of my computer with the manliness of my geekdom.

          So I was looking for something small, quiet, and low-powered, but not a laptop since I saw it a waste to pay for the extra expenses of a battery, integrated LCD or keyboard. And while I'm upgrading, I might as well have a processor in the Gigahertz range.

          Looking through the catalogs of (usually Pentium-M based) machines, I found that I could have a sufficient barebones system starting at about $300. That's without factory system testing, hard disk, processor or RAM. Adding those in, you end up with prices starting around $900 and easily hitting four figures. I could get stuff for less, but it meant cutting features (e.g. going to 700MHz or slower processors).

          While I was looking, Apple announced the Mini. Micro-sized. 85W max power usage. The fan only runs when under heavy CPU load, and with a low-hit webserver, that would be "almost never." Cost? $500. The equivalent feature set in the PC world would have been on the high end of the $900-$1000 range (and that's assuming a Pentium M at 1.2 GHz is as fast as a G4 at 1.2 GHz, which is dubious).

          There were other benefits. I don't have to bother installing Linux; I got SSH + Apache + PHP + firewall right out of the box by just clicking a few checkboxes. I got iLife '05, which I immediately installed on my old iBook. It took me a whole 30 minutes to get it out of the box and set up, including all Apache configuration and putting the new web site on. And Apple has a default 1 year warranty whereas the pre-built Intel SFF's have only 90 day warranties and the barebones systems have no warranty.

          There were downsides. I had to buy a USB-Keyboard/Mouse adapter for my old input devices (about $25), and a USB-Parallel adapter for the printer (about $30). The USB-Parallel adapter doesn't always work with my old Laserjet IIIP. And my ability to administer OSX from the command line pales in comparison to my Linux command line wizardry, so I had to learn how to do VNC over SSH.

          But I don't see "learning new things" as a cost as much as a benefit, and the cost of the extra hardware is still much less than what I'd have to pay to have an Intel-based PC of any quality in that price range.

          Going low-power + Small Form Factor (SFF) had a significant impact on our electric bills. The room is quiet now -- you can't hear the Mini's hard drive spinning unless you open the closet door, step on your tip-toes, and listen really carefully, whereas the old web server kept a nice fan din throughout the living room. And with the space we saved, the wife was able to put her sewing equipment (machines, thread and all) in the vacated closet space.

          I could have had that with an Intel-based SFF PC, but I would have had to pay $350 more up front for the same features and spend more time getting the system up and running.

          So not only is it not true that Apple is more expensive, Apple hardware can be much cheaper if you're comparing equivalent systems.

      • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @12:10PM (#12813986) Homepage Journal
        I really don't consider the Apple pricing to be unreasonable considering the fit and finish of the components. The pricing of Powermacs is in line with Opteron and Xeon workstations, but is generally quieter.

        The Powermac's case uses 1/8" thick aluminum sheet for the side plates, 3/32" thick between them. Heck, even the Mac mini uses a pound of aluminum. The components inside these things look top-notch to me, without the corner cutting known to the budget PC industry.
        • You are a Mac Zealot are you not? How dare you to defend Apple to produce something that is actually worth it's money?

          Okay, all kidding aside: I agree. I look at my Powerbook, Powermac and Cinemadisplay and I do not feel like I got ripped off.

          Three weeks ago I was arm deep in the guts of my cheapo Linux File Server and I once again realized just how ugly the majority of PCs are. The replacing of a harddisk alone takes forever, on the Powermac? 2 Seconds, slide in disk, plug in cables, lower lock. Done.

          Me

      • Re:Not will use, but *might* use (Score:5, Informative)

        by diamondsw ( 685967 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @12:30PM (#12814265)
        More like they are a business and they would like to remain in business.

        As for their hardware being "grossly overpriced", you haven't actually looked at their lineup in the last several years, have you? We've been over it a million times here, and for a comparable computer (yes, this means no leaving out wireless, firewire, and all of those things Mac users use and take for granted), their consumer line is either in-line with the PC or better (Mac Mini, especially). Their pro line is not as competitive (Powerbooks, especially) which is why this whole Intel shift started in the first place.

        If you want a bare bones box without Firewire, wireless, Gigabit ethernet, etc, fine - go build one and enjoy it. But don't expect Apple to build you one and don't cloud the argument by lowballing PC hardware prices.
    • enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios
      Really?
      Both MovieLink [movielink.com] and CinemaNow [www.cinemanow] are both distributing movies on the web with Hollywood's consent.
    • I think you're right on the money with regards to content protection.

      As much as apple claims that they don't see a market for portable video, I believe that is exactly what they are driving themselves towards. It's obvious that iPod is their premiere device, and to keep that product fresh and desirable as a lifestyle accessory, they're going to have to eventually incorporate video.

      Incorporating video will then beget the potential for an online iTunes Video Store, and thus more revenue and market share fo

    • I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors

      Dream on, Kemosabe.

      Slashdot's editors have never applied journalistic integrity standards to themselves, and never will. Given the amount of traffic /. receives despite the lack of any kind of journalistic integrity, the marketplace has told them they don't need it.

      They make money by the boatload doing what they're doing. There's no evidence that integrity would improve their situation. QED.

  • vague.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by jabella ( 91754 ) * on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:42AM (#12813601) Journal
    Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.

    *snip*

    A spokeswoman for the TPG confirmed to vnunet.com that there is nothing preventing Apple from implementing the module

    it doesn't sound like apple's 'chosen' anything at all yet...?

  • But... but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) *
    ... how is apple going to profit from piracy [slashdot.org]?

    Tell me you didn't read this, and then the posted article. You did post both, Taco, cause you are the editor of both....
    • You know, review of all the available material and a careful consideration of it before publishing.

    • Maybe you didn't read the previous article. It clearly argues that Apple will benefit from allowing piracy now, with the development version, and then locking down the OS with later versions. In other words, when they release their own hardware, which is what this article discusses.

      Tell me you didn't read either article, but felt qualified to snipe. You did write a post referring to both, FortKnox...

      Just because a post refers to another Slashdot article, and criticizes an editor, doesn't mean it's in

  • Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:43AM (#12813607) Homepage Journal
    This really isn't all that surprising. Apple wants to have a stranglehold on their OS. If they don't maintain that stranglehold, then issues with non-Apple hardware will begin to crop up. When those issues crop up, they'll make headlines. Those headlines will then damage Apple's reputation. Remember, Apple is a complete solution provider, not just a software provider.

    That being said, I keep kicking around in my head the concept of Apple allowing other PC manufacturers to build OS X compatible machines. While Apple attempts to stand for quality, it might be feasible for them to license their software to others. That way there could be the "cheap PC" version of OS X, and Apple would still make money with little damage to their rep. I can't quite decide whether it's a *good* idea, though. Once they start licensing to other manufacturers, they lose a modicum of control over their quality control.

    Microsoft gets away with it because the majority of their users are either stupid or don't care. Apple, OTOH, is still in a vulnerable position. Their growth has been enormous, but one wrong move on their part could bring the whole stack of cards tumbling down.

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PSC ( 107496 )
      Apple wants to have a stranglehold on their OS. If they don't maintain that stranglehold, then issues with non-Apple hardware will begin to crop up.

      What scares me about the idea of Apple incorporating TPM (which, right now, is just speculation, mind you) is that ultimately, TPM is about control. It is about who is in charge of the computer system you bought. It brings up the question who really owns "your" computer, and in this sense, OSX would set a precedence - one year ahead of Longhorn, who's incide

  • And someone DIDNT Know this was coming ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MajorDick ( 735308 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:44AM (#12813628)
    Apple, might be changing their system design , but they are CERTAINLY not changing their business model.

    Were there any people out there with a clue who DIDNT think this would happen ?

    Expect software workarounds (Darwin is OS afterall) or "Mod Chips" about 1 week after release.
    • NOTHING (including Apple itself) says Apple WILL be using this.

      The article says apple COULD or MIGHT use this to lock Mac OS X to its own hardware; nothing more. They have no inside or special information - they're simply speculating on how Apple MIGHT lock Mac OS X to its own hardware IF it so desired. Apple also MIGHT not do anything of the sort, and simply limit Mac OS X to Apple hardware via the EULA, non-support on non-Apple hardware, lack of drivers, etc. (And this is news how, exactly?)

  • It'll be the first UNCRACKABLE hardware tie-in (Score:3, Insightful)

    by b00m3rang ( 682108 ) * on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:44AM (#12813630)
    Good luck!

    Honestly though, if the net outcome is that Macs get faster processors, and more often, that could be a good thing.
  • If this happens (note: the article says "apple COULD use...") it'll be unfortunate... Apple could be losing out on a significant market of people who are sick of windows and are curious in trying something new. ...of course there's always linux for that situation, but the idea of "linux" might scare some people. (Of course, there's always the very real possibility that some mod will be available to disable this feature...) :)
    • it'll be unfortunate... Apple could be losing out on a significant market of people who are sick of windows and are curious in trying something new.

      They already have something [apple.com] for those people..

      • I think Apple could do more in its marketing efforts... for example, providing some of thsoe "disposable CDs" with a knoppix-style Apple OS. Letting people try out their product, on their existing hardware, with no commitment, would help get them more exposure. They do have a great product - they just need to get it out there more. It's not mainstream yet.

  • Shock! Horror! Sensationalist /. headline (Score:3, Informative)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:45AM (#12813639) Journal

    According to TFA...
    An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, saying that the company it is not yet ready to reveal product specifications

    In other words, the whole thing is based around two facts we already knew: Apple wants to restrict OSX to Apple machines, and there is a chip on the motherboards that can be used for this.

    Uh, people, there's a chip in a G5 that can do the same. The server version of OSX is reputed to use it, but I've installed the same OSX DVD on more than one Apple box before...

    So, the entire article can be summed up as 'Apple might use DRM to secure their OS'. Whoopy-doo.

    Simon

  • Misleading summary (Score:3, Informative)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:45AM (#12813640) Homepage
    The article states that Apple COULD do this, not that they will definitely do this. This is a RUMOR. Is it too much to ask that the editors confirm that the summary is consistent with the article next time? We'll have to start checking even the summary for goatse links now.
  • Apple has done it to themselves though. They have for so long kept their Operating System away from people who want it that soon people will do everything they can to get it. If they would have even released a version that has less then the Mac OS X that runs on their own hardware it could have on some level fed the masses enough to calm them down, albeit, for only a time, but they would still have profited.
  • Apple OSX unlocked, installs on evrything including the kitchen sink.

    Or, witht he way things are today, it'll be unlocked and all over the place a week before the "golden masters" are pressed. Only time will tell, but ther is NO way that software can be successfully locked down 100%. Anyone betting on that as a business strategy is playing russian roulette with a loaded gun.

  • The chip prevents MacOS on generic Wintel, but what about the vice versa scenario, in which people install cheapo WinXP on an elegant PowerMac Dothan =)
  • From TFA:

    Gartner also advised enterprises to continue with purchasing plans for Apple hardware, but warned that managers should "consider delaying software purchases until vendors offer a clear roadmap for upgrades to Intel-compatible versions".

    Am I missing something here? If enterprises continue to purchase Apple hardware then they'll eventually purchase an Intel-Inside Mac. If they delayed software purchases then they'll have compatibility problems. Granted, Apple's entire line isn't moving to

    • That's where Rosetta and Universal Binary comes in. While UB enables new versions of software to run on both platforms in one single executable image, Rosetta allows PPC-emulation on Intel by using JIT. Thus - software compatibility is no issue.

      The question is more : how much slower will Rosetta make existing apps run on Intel given a G5 and an x86 of similar SpecInt/SpecFP ?
  • Apple can do all it can to lock down the software, but someone will figure out how to break the security. It may be challenging, but I'd be willing to bet that someone will either rewrite the software so that it runs using the necessary parts of Darwin, or they'll find a way to build a duplicate piece of hardware which fakes the id codes.

  • That was part of my theory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:48AM (#12813699) Homepage
    As another person posted, the article says "could". That said, here is how I think they will/might do it. A three pronged approach.
    1. Trusted Computing - A chip that normal motherboards don't have that you can check against to make sure only Apple motherboards will run it. This will keep out the casual users.
    2. OpenFirmware/EFI - I'm hoping for OpenFirmware, but ANYTHING other than the standard old BIOS. This would keep out casual users too. They'd have to write their own BIOS for their motherboard (or find one somewhere) because it would be different. Apple brought us USB (Intel made it, Apple made it a success), Apple got rid of the floppy, maybe Apple can get rid of the BIOS.
    3. Signed Kernel - I wouldn't be suprised to see Apple use some kind of integrety check on the kernel during boot. The idea is you can still run any OS you want, but OS X (as part of startup) would check the kernel (again, maybe using the trusted computing stuff) to make sure it hasn't been modified. That way if people try to modify it to get around ideas 1 or 2, OS X wouldn't boot.

    All three seem reasonable to me. The combination would definatly stop the casual users (until someone figured how to simulate it all in a VMWare type environment, which I would think would take awhile).

  • ..if after all is set and done, Apple would have NO protection against running OSX86 on a white box?
    Steve must understand that early adopter geek "pirates" are the best way to start a viral spread.
    Even whith limited x86 hardware compatability (which will be much worse than even Linux), the fact that said geek pirate can install it and show to his friends could mean eventual end of MS as we know it.
  • TPM isn't really necessary to lock OSX, when Apple are likely to continue making their own custom motherboards. I expect Apple's hardware to be sufficiently different to cause near insurmopuntable compatibility problems anyway. Tiger can't even run on my Beige G3, let alone a machine built by qa 3rd party!

    It's one thing to port OSX to a specific intel box, it's a completely different task to port it to *every* intel box.
  • ...between the public release of OSXi and the time some teenager in West Buttfuck, NJ reverse engineers this system and every Dell/HP/Micron/PeeCee clone in the universe can be aquafied...

  • Why use TPM instead of wildly proprietary? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:51AM (#12813740) Journal

    If Apple really wants to lock its software to its hardware, why doesn't it just make the core architecture so proprietary and so unusual that the software running on it simply cannot boot on standard machines? Let me put my foot in my mouth: wouldn't, say, neglecting to enable A20 make installation on many Intels a right royal pain?

    I mean, by similar analogy, has anyone succeeded booting the IRIX 6.5 installer on a Sony PlayStation?

    • Re:Money. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guidryp ( 702488 )
      Easier/cheaper to use the standard architecture rather than re-invent the wheel.

      They may also see the dual booting to windows as an advantage that brings in former windows users (like me).

  • I'm convinced that /. readers generally read on a third-grade level. Let's look at what that actually said...

    Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.

    They could. Yeah. I could have told you that.

    And here's the analysis from Gartner:

    The x86 Mac OS will run only on Apple hardware, possibly with enforcement through Trusted Platform Module technology.

    So basically A

  • In the past, Apple relied on their intallation software to verify they were running on an Apple machine. I was able to load OS 9.2.2 on my Mac clone by using a patched installer. It ran fine, despite the lack of official support and the technical violation of the EULA.

  • It will be no surprise if Apple does this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ichbinderharlekin ( 892053 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:52AM (#12813760)
    Apple is in a bit of a unique position right now. Apple is both a hardware and a software company. Their revenues from each are highly dependent on the other. Without Mac OS X and Apple's line of professional tools (Final Cut, Logic, et cetera) their hardware is practically useless. Without their hardware, there is a much larger task in optimizing the software, not to mention the lower revenues (which for a company the size of Apple is a big deal). Locking Mac OS X down to Apple hardware is something Apple will have to do, at least in the near term. As their market share changes this may become unneccesary, but even then I expect the greatest revenues to result from the combination of hardware and software.

    In my opinion, I expect that there will be some contingent of shady users attempting to hack OS X to run on commodity hardware. I actually look forward to this, but I think that Apple will care little about this because of the small number of users who will bother with this. If installing OS X on commodity hardware is possible, but non-trivial, Apple stands to lose very little (and perhaps even gain a tiny bit more market share from the /. crowd).

  • What about the reverse? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcgroarty ( 633843 ) <brian DOT mcgroarty AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:52AM (#12813762) Homepage
    It will be interesting to see if this works the other way around as well. Will Apple's hardware check for a signed loader and lock the hardware to only running their OS as well?

    People have speculated about MS doing something similar in order to better control the platform, enable more meaningful DRM, and reduce Linux platform choices. In the MS context, the idea of restricted hardware has generally been written off as anticompetitive and evil.

    • Answer: no (Score:5, Informative)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:58AM (#12813838)
      Will Apple's hardware check for a signed loader and lock the hardware to only running their OS as well?

      After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

    • Apple VP Phil Schiller has said that they will not do anything to prevent someone from running Windows on their Intel machines.

  • Conspiracy! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by airrage ( 514164 )
    So when Apple creates that "big brother" ad again, maybe the hammer should be thrown at a screen of Steve Jobs talking.

    You cannot, I repeat CANNOT, have your cake and eat it too.

    • Re:Conspiracy! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      That figure of speech has never made sense to me. Why would I want to have a cake and not be able to eat it? Do I just want to let it sit and rot?

      Anyhow, the "Big Brother" ad is 21 years old now. I can't imagine holding any person or company to a standard for that long, because it denies them a chance to change their opinion, for better or worse.

  • Already spoke about this year after year (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:54AM (#12813780)

    There was a study a few years ago that asserted that OVER 65% of Microsoft Windows installations were pirated copies. This means that more than half of their market share is due to piracy.

    If someone pirates Windows (or OSX) and puts it on their machine, they'll become comfortable with it. They'll use it. They'll tweak it. They'll download tools and applications to make it useful. They may even go upgrade the machine (RAM, vide card, whatever). They may even go PURCHASE applications for it.

    The key here is, they're NOT using your competitor's OS on the same machine (in most cases). That gives you an advantage, even if you did lose the $129.00 sale on a Tiger purchase.

    But back on track, I documented exactly this [slashdot.org] last week. Wow, some blogger reads Slashdot, takes our insight, writes up a blog as if he thought of it, and now he's famous?

    Nice. This trend about using blogs to report the news, when blogs are nothing but plagarizing, content-recycling engines, is pretty hilarious.

    • This trend about using blogs to report the news, when blogs are nothing but plagarizing, content-recycling engines, is pretty hilarious.

      I understand your point but normal journalists has been doing this since forever. In the old days they read each others papers and rewrote the stories.

      A few years ago I read a Danish major news paper along with NYT / Herald Tribune. You could find unaccredited articles in the Danish paper that were almost a verbatim translation of something I had read a few days ea

  • It's not that easy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stalyn ( 662 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:57AM (#12813822) Homepage Journal
    to crack hardware while software cracking is just a matter of time. Imagine you could get OS X to boot you still need to write a driver for your video card. Anyone who has used Linux knows how poor the open source drivers are for the latest brand of video cards. Also would these drivers be illegal? Who is going to write them? It's not like cracking a registration code where some college student or amature can use a hex editor. This is some serious stuff.

    I'm sure people will be successful in getting OS X to boot on a non-native Apple intel. However what about sound cards, video cards, ethernet, wireless, mouse, etc. And would these attempts at non-native Apple driver production be illegal?

  • Is that legal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Richard_J_N ( 631241 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @11:59AM (#12813842)
    I thought that this sort of tying of one product to another wasn't actually legal? Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

  • Always.. no, never forget to check your references (Score:3, Insightful)

    by halber_mensch ( 851834 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @12:21PM (#12814126)
    According to TFA, the source for this information is 'Gartner', which has claimed [gartner.com]:
    The x86 Mac OS will run only on Apple hardware, possibly with enforcement through Trusted Platform Module technology.
    Apple clearly does not plan to try to compete against Windows, which - though it will run on Intel-based Macintoshes - will not be supported by Apple. Nonetheless, many design-conscious Windows users may be willing to pay premium prices for Apple hardware.

    Though interesting as this info is, I can't find a reference anywhere in this analysis that validates Gartner's claims. I think this should be taken with a large grain of Sodium Nitrate.

  • No Mac clones (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Tuesday June 14, 2005 @03:56PM (#12816751) Homepage Journal
    Macs have never had a 'clone market'.

    There have been "licensees".

    There is a huge difference.

    When IBM lost the clone battles Phoenix & everyone else were free to offer reverse-engineered work-alike PCs. Not just "mostly alike", just alike. Buy the same MS or whomever OS, install the same Lotus 123 or whathaveyou, it's all a commodity.

    IBM later tried to recapture the market by redefining it with MicroChannel, their proprietary & well defended next-gen bus architecture. But the ISA market was too big and had enough momentum that IBM's efforts were doomed and look, 25 years later they're out of the PC market they helped create not having made a profit at it in years.

    On the other hand Apple, after a few early skirmishes, never lost control of their products. Their architecture didn't lend itself to easy reengineering and there was rarely an eager alternative OS vender around to make non-MacOS boxes viable. Be, Yellow Dog, etc. never were more then novelties.

    What Apple did do was, under contracted terms, sell their proprietary system ROMs & MacOS 7 to third parties for a licensing fee and per-unit compensation. The idea was that these nimbler & more aggressive partners would expand the Mac into markets Apple wasn't interested in or where it was unable to compete effectively (usually cost or distribution-wise).

    However instead companies like Power Computing turned around and cannibalized Apple's domestic bread-&-butter Mac market by offering similar systems at price points slightly below Apples.

    A few did expand the Mac into new markets - high-end multi-processor, etc. but by-and-large it was a financial disaster for Apple. They were already suffering from extremely poor supply chain management, a shrinking market, and high R&D costs; to then start supplying direct competitors with products that undercut their own was disastrous.

    So when the opportunity arose with a new MacOS to change terms Apple did - they bought back their licenses and shut down the program. Most folks agree if they hadn't the company wouldn't have lasted another year.

    What has changed since then? Not much.

    Apple now does charge for their OS upgrades, but makes no effort to enforce this. They've leveraged their R&D by adopting more standard components, adopting & using some open source code & development, and now moving to Intel-associated motherboards & CPUs. But to date they make their profit on selling the hardware & the rest is mostly part of the package.

    So, Mac-clones?

    Probably not. Apple is unlike Wintel - they sell the hardware and the OS: There's no advantage to their opening either end to competition. Heck for protection they could build their OS so it does something as trivial as look for an Apple-encoded string in a system firmware and sue the bagoobers outta anyone who tries to fake that.

    Beyond that Apple has a long history of innovating in fundamental ways. While the development boxes they're shipping out now may be based on plain-jane Intel tech there's no promises that substantial parts of the Mactels won't be something fresh 'n funky - clever memory architecture, bus design, whatever - intractable hardware/OS interactions that homers & cloners can't easily reverse-engineer.

    Time will tell, but Apple, it's officers & engineers, aren't stoopid; they're likely not looking to start giving away their crown jewels and undercutting their fiduciary responsibility no matter how many geek fan-boys want MacOS X on their hopped up Athlon-with-fins box. Me, I'll be looking forward to buying a Mactel someday, and not giving a damn what's inside of it as long as it-just-works.

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close