Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mac OS X Intel Kernel Uses DRM

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the folks-are-surprised-about-this-why-exactly? dept.

OS X 1399

An anonymous reader submits "Several people have discovered that the new Intel kernel Apple has included with the Developer Kit DVD uses TCPA/TPM DRM. More specifically, it includes "a TCPA/Palladium implementation that uses a Infineon 1.1 chip which will prevent certain parts of the OS from working unless authorized."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211492)

first post!

Damn Microsoft! (5, Funny)

Geekenstein (199041) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211493)

I hate those bastards! I knew they were going to try and sneak this crap past us! They were plo...oh wait, did you say Apple?

Wow! Spectacular use of technology Steve! You're my hero!

Re:Damn Microsoft! (5, Funny)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211502)

The DRM makes the OS runs snappier!

Re:Damn Microsoft! (2, Insightful)

Baricom (763970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211506)

My whole plan was to switch away from Microsoft to Apple due to the (relatively) benign copy protection in OS X and other products.

I may have to rethink that strategy now.

(And no, don't say Linux - I don't have enough time to learn it well enough to use it as a desktop machine on a daily basis.)

Re:Damn Microsoft! (4, Insightful)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211537)

nah don't worry about switching. all commercial vendors of os's will use drm. so strap yourself in, enjoy your new found freedom; the freedom to know you can't do anything about it.

there just won't be a public backlash this time. it'll creep in slowly.

how to make amphibians edible through the use of high temperature h2o.

the GNU philopsophy will save us all... if it weren't for the fact that they are a bunch of pinko terrorists.

not that i'm saying we should give up by any means except that i just don't see this going away like the BS "test the waters" cpu serial # scandal a few years ago.

so many companies have invested heavily in digital -end user handcuffs that it's very improbable that they will give up easily. and the media certainly won't be telling the public anything negative, that much you can count on.

i would like to donate to the eff, except i don't want to be put on a list of terrorists. the only way to even have a remote chance of beating this nonsense (criminal and unethical behavior) is to educate the public at a greater rate than the "mainstream media" can "educate" them.

Join the rebellion! (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211631)

Don't just test the waters, download the Windows 2000 source floating around P2P networks now!

Re:Damn Microsoft! (1, Insightful)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211632)

"digital -end user handcuffs"

You know... as much as it sucks, you have to admit that if people weren't pirating things, there'd be no need for DRM.

Honestly, how can you blame companies for trying to protect their profits when thousands of people are ripping them off every day?

Honestly, you should be mad at the pirates, without whom we wouldn't have this problem.

Re:Damn Microsoft! (5, Insightful)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211662)

the copyright infringers didn't put the DRM in the machines. trying to prevent people from copying on a computer is like preventing fish from getting wet.

you'll more than likely piss off the users/fish far more than you'll prevent copying.

but that's not even relevant to this issue.

how is paying for mac os x and installing it on an x86 computer you already own, copyright infringement? paying for the software obviously means that the vendor has complete control over what you do with it.

it's a sad world we live in... because we're all responsible for our ills, in one way or another.

Re:Damn Microsoft! (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211684)

You know, as much as it reeks, you have to admit that if people weren't copyrighting things, there'd be no need for piracy.

Honestly, how can you blame individuals for trying to protect their access to data when copyrighters are ripping them off every day?

Honestly, you should be mad at the copyrighters, without whom we wouldn't have this problem.

The copyrighters right to copyright is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. It was supposed to be something merely for enhancing individuals access to data by encouraging others to produce more of it.

Re:Damn Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211546)

My whole plan was to switch away from Microsoft to Apple due to the (relatively) benign copy protection in OS X and other products.

I may have to rethink that strategy now.

(And no, don't say Linux - I don't have enough time to learn it well enough to use it as a desktop machine on a daily basis.)


Hmmm... no Apple, no Microsoft, and no bearded hippies...

Have you heard of OS/2?

Re:Damn Microsoft! (3, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211560)

Erm, I don't think this is quite what you think. Apple already doesn't treat customers like scum the way Microsoft does (which I appreciate; I'm honest, but I don't like the assumption that I am not). I think this is just Apple's already-known plans to prevent the OS from not running on anything they haven't sold as a Mac. In other words, you have to buy a computer from Apple to run their OS. Which makes sense -- Apple is a hardware company primarily and makes its money mostly from the computer sales.

Re:Damn Microsoft! (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211569)

(And no, don't say Linux - I don't have enough time to learn it well enough to use it as a desktop machine on a daily basis.)

Isn't that the best way to learn? Using it on a daily basis.

I won't say Linux because, despite the vast improvements the last years, it takes some patience.

But if you'd rather take it as they (MS, Apple) hand it to you by all means. Just don't complain that there aren't alternatives... As the old saying - the cost of freedom isn't free.

Could be "(relatively) benign copy protection" (1)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211600)

My whole plan was to switch away from Microsoft to Apple due to the (relatively) benign copy protection in OS X and other products.

I may have to rethink that strategy now.


Not to be argumentative, but how do you know Apple won't be using "(relatively) benign copy protection"? I remember all the griping around Slashdot regarding iTunes/iPod DRM, but in retrospect it's clear most of Apple's paying customers, and even most Slashdotters, find those restrictions rather reasonable. I don't see why Jobs would jeodardize this huge transition by suddenly going overboard with DRM.

Not to be an Apple apologist... (0, Redundant)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211612)

I'm not trying to apologize on behalf of Apple or anything, and this move is making me think a bit harder about what I'm going to do when I need a new computer in the next year or two.

However, Baricom said:

My whole plan was to switch away from Microsoft to Apple due to the (relatively) benign copy protection in OS X and other products.
Well...if you think about it, they never really needed DRM for their OS before. Basically, using PPC was their DRM. Now, they kind of have to do it, don't they? Otherwise someone will hack OS X to work on any machine with an Intel processor and that will cannibalize Apple's hardware sales.

Like I said, I'm not being an apologist...just explaining their reasons.

Like I said, this move might cause me to reconsider my choices for my next computer. Part of it will depend on whether or not the DRM gets in the way of things any more than running on PPC gets in the way of things (which for me, it doesn't).

Re:Not to be an Apple apologist... (0, Flamebait)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211643)

Well...if you think about it, they never really needed DRM for their OS before. Basically, using PPC was their DRM. Now, they kind of have to do it, don't they? Otherwise someone will hack OS X to work on any machine with an Intel processor and that will cannibalize Apple's hardware sales.

Most people on this site feel that protecting your profits is unreasonable and immoral, if you haven't noticed...

Re:Not to be an Apple apologist... (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211658)

"Otherwise someone will hack OS X to work on any machine with an Intel processor"

that would rock. imagine how overpriced that hardware must be for apple to refuse the added sales this could bring

or for all you conspiracy theorists, maybe apple is bending to microsoft's desire for less competition in some shady sort of back-handed deal

Re:Damn Microsoft! (1, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211642)

And no, don't say Linux - I don't have enough time to learn it well enough to use it as a desktop machine on a daily basis.

Are you sure? Why don't you give (Ku)|(U)buntu a try? You might be pleasantly surprised...

Errm...OSX is no walk in the park either (2, Insightful)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211657)

if you're coming from M$ Windows. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's not a whole lot easier (if at all) to use than the default "desktop" install of Redhat or Suse Linux. The only advantage you'd have over Linux is the ability to walk into a store and buy shrinkwrapped software and even that's not entirely easy for Mac owners since a lot of stores don't carry Mac titles either.

Re:Damn Microsoft! (1)

pAnkRat (639452) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211678)

He, who has no time to invest in a better and more efficient way of working,
is like a man claiming he has no time to eat...

Re:Damn Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211552)

Hit the nail on the head. I wonder how all those Apple apologists will respond.

Or maybe I don't. They did, after all, manage to convince themselves that Intel processors are 'l33t' after years of saying how crappy they are. All at the drop of a hat (dropped by Steve Jobs). I'm sure this will be no different.

Re:Damn Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211567)

30% Insightful
40% Flamebait
30% Funny

...what the fuck?

Women's Rights? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211494)

What ever happened to those, "down with women's rights," people?

Re:Women's Rights? (-1, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211527)

more like "down with women". As in a blowjob.

Man, i could go for some head action. l8ter!

Jobs and Gates: Two Sides of the Same Coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211498)

It's all about control with these pricks. Don't ever think otherwise.

Re:Jobs and Gates: Two Sides of the Same Coin (0)

cranktheguy (731726) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211558)

and so it begins... this is the first step toward our culture being locked down.

Re:Jobs and Gates: Two Sides of the Same Coin (2, Insightful)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211636)

are you ignoring the last 2 centuries of copyright nonsense and patents? the ever increasing copyright limits? our culture has been locked down in ways people can't even grasp at the moment.

Who's more evil? (2, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211499)

So who became more evil Apple or Microsoft?

Re:Who's more evil? (1, Funny)

datafr0g (831498) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211509)

Apple!

Microsoft have always been evil! :)

Isn't this expected? (5, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211500)

I had thought that it was widely known that OS X won't run on anything not sold by Apple as a Mac.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211508)

You just wrote possibly the most insightful post this story will see. thank you so much.

Re:Isn't this expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211544)

You just wrote possibly the most insightful post this story will see. thank you so much.

And it's already modded troll. In order to see anything useful on this story it looks like you'll pretty much have to read it at -1.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

Xenoflargactian (883930) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211602)

Yeah. Why is that marked troll? It's a valid point, very relevant to the topic of discussion.

I can't see any real reason to do so. Will the mods give an explanation?

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

oxaooo (901433) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211511)

I was hoping that since apple was moving to intel architecture that that would open up the emulator market. I guess not.

Re:Isn't this expected? (2, Interesting)

Buran (150348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211540)

Schiller (a VP) has already stated that the OS will not be usable on generic computers, and why would it? Unlike other OS makers, Apple primarily sells hardware. It would be against their whole business plan to become a generic OS maker.

Hence my comment.

However, I am hopeful that now that standard motherboards are used, costs may be lower which means that Macs may cost less in the future than they do now. However, of course, I don't know whether that will happen.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211595)

but why is their business model of any concern to people who purchase os x (to run on a non-mac x86 computer)?

clearly, it's in their best interest to let people run os x on any computer, but officially state they won't get any support for it. that way people can try it out and use it and apple could still continue making closed systems that they profit from.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211610)

Why would it be in their best interest? If you could buy just the software and not the computer, that'd mean they'd lose quite a lot because they wouldn't be able to sell computers. It's actually in their best interest to make sure they still sell hardware.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211647)

hasn't hurt microsoft and the other billion software making companies any.

osx is THE integral part of the "experience", and the hardware only facilitates it. clearly what you're saying is that want to sell you the hardware too, even though your current hw is enough to run the os (as will be the case with x86 macos)

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211667)

That's because Microsoft doesn't sell systems. Redhat doesn't sell systems. The OpenBSD people don't sell systems. And so on. Apple does. For all other OSes you have to provide a computer separately, or optionally you might buy the OS along with a computer, but the OS maker didn't make that machine.

Re:Isn't this expected? (2, Interesting)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211638)

clearly, it's in their best interest to let people run os x on any computer, but officially state they won't get any support for it. that way people can try it out and use it and apple could still continue making closed systems that they profit from.


Because quite frankly, people are fucking idiots.

HP iPods are unsupported by Apple. They clearly state this. They are constantly revieving complaints that HP iPods aren't being supported.

Apple doesn't cover user stupidity in Apple care. This is also clearly stated, and yet they continue to recieve complaints about this as well.

Non-Apple RAM is not supported by Apple, if the memory turns out to be the cause of a problem, then you need to buy new memory if you want Apple techs to probe deeper into the problem, and no Apple will not install third party stuff. This is clearly stated, and yet again, is another complaint source.

Apple does not support transfering music from the iPod, this is again clearly stated. Care to guess what Apple recieves about this?

Apple does not do repiar or waranty work and service for any third party products, and yet you would be amazed at the number of people that come into the stores looking for Apple to fix their third party product.

Simply put people are stupid and don't understand the concept of something being an unsupported hack. As far as they are concerned, it has X company name on it, so no matter what they do with it, X company should support it.

This is even further compounded by the fact that Apple continualy emphisises it's "Whole Widget" philosophy where you go to one company for your hardware and software problems.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211681)

and what about the population that has a high school level of reading comprehension and above and clearly understands that apple doesn't support the product?

another way to go would be to include in every package a piece of paper with 100 point fonts "DON'T CALL APPLE FOR SUPPORT IF YOU USE THIS PRODUCT IN AN UNAUTHORIZED WAY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO USING IT ON A COMPUTER THAT ISN'T MADE BY APPLE" etc etc.

well anyway.

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211568)

is that a good thing for end users or a bad thing?

Re:Isn't this expected? (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211626)

I don't think it's either. You aren't being mistrusted the way Microsoft chooses to snoop on peoples' computers; it's just looking for specific hardware. Apple has always had a philosophy of allowing the user to do what they want without the OS getting in the way, whenever possible.

good thing for end users? Uh... (1)

ShimmyShimmy (692324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211673)

No, this is obviously bad for end users. Consider two cases:

Case A: There are no restrictions.
As an end user, you can always (A) buy a PC and run M$/FreeBSD/Linux, (B) buy an Apple and run Mac OSX. But, without restrictions, you can also (C) buy an Apple and run M$/FreeBSD/Linux on it, or (D) buy a PC and run Mac OSX on it.

Now, Case B: Apple sets hardware restrictions.
You now cannot (D) buy a PC and run Mac OSX. There is no added benefit for you as an end user.

With that out of the way, I suppose it is Apple's decision, as it is their OS (well, their GUI), although it is a faggoty decision.

Based on how the iPod works (or doesn't work, ie can't copy songs from an iPod to a computer), one could have seen this coming from a mile away, but how possible would it be to get around this? It didn't take long for xPod [softpedia.com] to come along. Any chance of a cracked Mac OS X anytime soon?

Re:Isn't this expected? (4, Insightful)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211598)

Mod parent up.

All the rest of you that are in a tizzy, slow down and think about it for just a second. How did you think they were going to prevent OS X from running on non-Apple Macs? Magic? Voodoo? Asking nicely?

Besides, it gives the 3r33t h4xx0rs something to fiddle with and crack. They'd be bored otherwise. :P

Re:Isn't this expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211661)

I've always wondered why Apple was allowed to do this. If it were Microsoft, the anti-trust vultures would be all over them.

Crack (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211501)

I predict, just like every other software protection mechanism, will be defeated with simple patches that disable the checks.

No need to crack (1)

Ray Alloc (835739) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211659)

Just format the damn drive, and install Linux on it.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211505)

Did I log onto bizzaro slashdot today? Isn't microsoft supposed to be the bad guy?

sigh (0)

spiderworm (830684) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211510)

Why do I feel like I'm being choked by a friend?...

Memories? (1)

a.different.perspect (817184) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211564)

Because the last time you made a "friend" who'd never spoken to you or given any encouragement to the notion that you had a personal relationship with them, her boyfriend strangled you?

Re:sigh (1)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211621)

"Why you little..."

Argg

Hands up all the surprised people (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211512)

I mean c'mon, light DRM has been associated with apple's products for a long time now. This will make it harder to run apple on non-apple hardware, and harder to pirate movies (so apple can say to hollywood: sign with us and we'll respect your rights.) There is little incentive on apple getting the DRM watertight.

In the unlikely event that they do manage it, I'll just avoid buying their hardware. I imagine the x86 version of pearpc will run at almost native speeds if there are any apple apps I want to run.

Re:Hands up all the surprised people (2, Informative)

rritterson (588983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211534)

You forget that pearpc requires you to buy a copy of OSX. Assuming Apple makes x86 OSX require a handshake with the DRM to work, pearpc will cease to work. That's ignoring the fact that an x86 emulator running on x86 would be more than a little redundant. (that's all pearpc is- a CPU/architecture emulator)

The PPC version, of course, will work, albeit slowly. Really, you're just back to where you started.

Re:Hands up all the surprised people (3, Interesting)

Feyr (449684) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211605)

iirc, intel's drm is based on a supopsedly "hacker proof" chip that has an rsa keypair in it.

everyone know how those uncrackable chips fared... well every time they tried to do something like this. it failed miserably.

i know what you'll say. "microsoft managed it with the xbox". which is bogus, microsoft's problem is the complete opposite as this one. microsoft is trying to prevent unsigned code from running on "their" hardware.

apple is trying to prevent their code from running on "unsigned" hardware. that implies the private key is in the paladium chip so it can "sign" a token sent by the OS. that's the worst case senario, and it will just take a few months to reverse engineer and distribute apple's private key along with pearpc (yes, you can read the key from that suposedly secure chip).

another possible implementation is that the chip just sends an "apple" id. maybe s string of text or something like that. that's even easier to circumvent.

don't be fooled by their marketing, pearpc will work just fine, albeit maybe illegally in the US (and canada soon). thanks to the DMCA

Re:Hands up all the surprised people (2, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211683)

> i know what you'll say. "microsoft managed it with the xbox". which is
> bogus, microsoft's problem is the complete opposite as this one.
> microsoft is trying to prevent unsigned code from running on "their"
> hardware.

This situation isn't a lot different except they will allow unsigned code (WinXP or Linux) to boot instead of OSX. But once loaded it is a variant of the same thing, don't allow any unsigned code into ring0. And it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch for them to go total X-Box and lock any unsigned OS out.

But I sure hope you are right about it being cracked soon because if it isn't we are hosed. The initial posts here confirm that the Apple fanboys are more than willing to drink the Kool-Aid if Apple is serving it up.

Which means Microsoft will be forced to push up the rollout of similar lockdowns for Shorthorn because if they don't Apple will have all the video over net business locked up and Hollywood won't let Bill play.

And of course while they are at it they can lock out bootleg Windows licenses forever, win-win for them. And if not outright outlaw Linux, at least make sure only generic whitebox motherboards from Taiwan run it. The Dell and HPs will all be locked to the copy of Windows married to their TCPA module during manufacturing. And when the non-crazed Apple Fanboy civil libertarians complain they can, with a totally straight face, claim they HAD to.

Thank you Steve Jobs. Fucktard.

Re:Hands up all the surprised people (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211609)

or they can stop being dicks and let the market decide what they want to do with purchased copies of os x and on what machines to run them on.

yeah it's not going to happen but whatever.

DRM is never in the favor of the end user. that's a lesson every person buying anything electronic needs to learn. the sooner the better.

Gentlemen, start your debuggers (5, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211513)

The first person to crack this DRM implementation will win a free story about it on Slashdot!

Re:Gentlemen, start your debuggers (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211529)

The way to "crack" this DRM is to rewrite the parts of the code that are "protected" by it. Or, ya know, just do some hardware hacking so you can grab a copy of the unencrypted code in memory.. not that it's easy or anything.

Re:Gentlemen, start your debuggers (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211604)

1) Like other people said, Apple said they're locking their OS to only run on Apple hardware. So this isn't really a surprise.

2) It also won't be a surprise when somebody hacks it and gets Apple's OS to work on other Intel hardware.

My issue with this is: Apple seems to always be focused on having a high-quality user experience. Part of the reason they can do that is that they can target specific sets of hardware (much like how console games increase user-friendliness by targetting a single main configuration).

If you run an Apple OS on different hardware, you have to do some work to get it to work. And you obviously don't expect everything to work 100% perfectly. That's all Apple has to do, they don't really need to DRM things. They just have to make it clear that you'll have a degraded user experience if you run it on other hardware, and they warned you, and that quality issues you may see aren't their fault. If you want to experiment, use the Mach kernel or Linux directly. If you want a nice user experience, use official Apple hardware.

I find it funny... (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211516)

The ad underneath the story is for AMD :)

Re:I find it funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211587)

I find it funnier that you never heard of AMD's DRM: Presidio. Coming next year!

Zealotry (5, Funny)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211519)

More specifically, it includes "a TCPA/Palladium implementation that uses a Infineon 1.1 chip which will prevent certain parts of the OS from working unless authorized."

Oh no, my two sources of zealotry are colliding. Eeek! It can't be evil if Apple does it, right... but DRM is always evil, right? /. I need you! Tell me what to think!

Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211593)

Apple is less evil than DRM is evil. Don't you remember the whole iTunes DRM thing? It was proven to be non-evil by Apple enthusiasts. Extrapolating from that, I think it's safe to say that you should have a pro-Apple opinion no matter what. Now, if it were discovered that Apple donated large sums of money to the Bush administration, you would find yourself in quite a pickle...

Apple is the bestest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211520)

Microsoft, start your copi...ah er... nevermind.

Mach Overide (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211522)

Alter OSX code at runtime. [rentzsch.com] It only works on PPC at present, however.

duh (1, Informative)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211523)

how did you think Apple was going to keep their OS on the computers they make?

just think of it as a way to identify apple made computers for the OS, no different than a different architecture.

Re:duh (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211608)

Exactly. Now that it's obvious they're just using the same cheap commodity hardware everyone else is, TCPA is the only way they can keep Macs as what they've always been: multi-thousand dollar dongles for Mac OS.

Re:duh (1)

Pete Brubaker (35550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211618)

Ditto. This is newsworthy?

You are right. Compare this to game consoles, should I be mad that my PlayStation game wont work in an Xbox?

And this is surprise because... (3, Interesting)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211524)

I don't get it - Apple's hardware has always been close system as you can get from PC type computer. So of course they can be 'accidentaly' early addopters of Palladium. Don't like it? Choose another vendor.

It won't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211533)

Someone will figure out a way to trick it or get around it or strip the need for authorization from the goodies. Someone will make a copy on an unprotected system and flip it to the internet for wide distribution.

This DRM stuff is just a foolish waste of time and money.

Suprised... (1, Insightful)

rcbarnes (875915) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211536)

Honestly, I really am. I expected Apple to hold off on anything that looks like TC until Microsoft could release it first. They have spent so many years establishing a 'good guy'/counterculture/'free thinker' image that it seems foolish to rush in and be the first to build something so patiently corporate. They definitely couldn't hold off on this 'technology' forever, since their business plan seems to revolve around becoming the world's premier digital content provider, but I just expected them to place cooperate image above preparation for that switch in the near future (with MS Vista coming out so 'soon,' just begging to take the flack for 'destroying any digital rights we have left'). Then again I'm not Jobs, and so far, he's done a damn good job with Apple's image, so I'm sure it's a calculated risk.

Re:Suprised... (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211619)

ok, it's good for apple the company.

how is this useful for current users and potential future users?

Re:Suprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211624)

So were you asleep at the wheel when the iPod/iTunes came out with massive DRM? Just wait until that reaches all the way into your hardware. Apple's not a nice company at all. Just ask the FreeBSD people.

Re:Suprised... (1)

timbloom (706565) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211649)

Personally, I don't see Apple adopting it that widely into the OS. I see them basically using it as a way to verify you really are on an Apple-branded box and leaving it at that.

I give it a week... (1)

mellonhead (137423) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211551)

After a certain kid in Norway gets his hands on it.

Re:I give it a week... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211554)

DiKKy Hearties?

DRM in Longhorn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211555)

This is probably the only feature I don't want Microsoft to copy from Apple in Longhorn :)

And at the same time it's probably the only feature Apple fanboys won't be porud of saying "OS X had this for years"! Yeah? Well, screw you!

Don't get your panties in a bunch. (5, Interesting)

Durandal64 (658649) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211557)

Apparently Apple's DRM kernel extension only gets involved when Rosetta is executing code. In other words, if you're running native code, there's no checking. But apparently some critical parts of the kernel are still being executed by Rosetta. And reimplementing the `AppleTPMACPI.kext' in a completely harmless manner (such that it always returns a "Yes go ahead" signal) is an option. As is replacing it at runtime via mach_override.

These boxes aren't even for sale yet. I'm sure that it'll be cracked before that even happens.

No big surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211562)

Apple's already done two Evil things:

1) sold DRM-encrusted music

2) sued a blogger (blogging is to "journal"ism, as open source is to software, don't you get it Steve?)

This is what happens when Apple gets successful: they get stupid. Last time it happened, it nearly killed the company.

I hope it doesn't kill it this time. I sure do like my powerbook. But most of the work I do on it runs fine under FreeBSD or Linux, so I'm not exactly "locked in" no matter how hard Steve tries.

C'mon Steve. Don't be evil.

DVD Jon - We need you! (0)

Logicdisorder (686635) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211571)

I am sure our man DVD Jon will be on the case dealing with this DRM madness.

Next thing you know Apple will be putting IE back into OSX!

Word to your mutha :P

Re:DVD Jon - We need you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211622)

Fucktard.
It's *because* of people like DVD Jon that we are being forced into hardware protection like this.

Re:DVD Jon - We need you! (1)

Logicdisorder (686635) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211653)

You gutless fuck! If you are going to call someone a fucktard have the balls to put you name by it!

Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211578)

Rosetta needs the TPM and not the kernel.. ATSServer needs Rosetta to start.. No Rosetta -> No ATSServer -> No gui

Mmm, bet that crow's delicious. (0, Flamebait)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211592)

Of course, the Apple aplogist brigade will say they've always said that DRM and Treacherous Computing were A-OK with them.

Apple's DRM strategy (1)

Thu25245 (801369) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211597)

1. Release beta version with DRM to prevent installation on non-Apple machines
2. Watch people crack it
3. Repeat 1-2 until 2 fails
4. Release final version
5. Profit, of course.

hold the phone (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211599)

maybe this isn't going to be os x built in drm, maybe it is just to keep the developer macintel x from ending up on half of the world's computers before the real deal comes out.

DRM (2, Insightful)

lemist (638625) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211603)

Now it all makes sense. The switch from IBM to Intel has nothing to do with speed, heat, or anything else anyone has suspected. It's control. Apple (and the RIAA) knows that it basically has a monopoly of the online music business and that people accept FairPlay as a DRM method. Most people think that Apple, much like Google, can do no harm and people won't revolt or get angry over extensive use of restrictive technology. The next move into consumer entertainment, as many suspect, is online movie distribution. Apple got it "right" with music, so why not with movies?

The move to Intel is all about controlling consumers. And don't label me as paranoid. This is a strategically advantageous move. Apple knows that if they can get the movie industry to trust Apple and only allow online distribution through Apple's online store then Apple will have something others dont. If the rumors are false, and Apple lets the next OS run on all PC hardware, anyone who wants to get the highest quality movies (H.264, anyone?) must buy the Intel Mac OS or Apple hardware.

This move makes sense for both companies. Microsoft, despite its "evil nature," will not lock out the huge customer base who don't want DRM'd processors. Apple, on the other hand, has no problem doing this - after all, Apple likes to be "exclusive." And if they're launching a new OS anyway, why not start it off this way?

Again, I'm not trying to be paranoid, I just think that this development really brings a new understanding to the switch from IBM to Intel.

Re:DRM (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211637)

I would mod you up if I had the points. Very believeable theory...

Im willing to bet... (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211670)

Im willing to bet that that idea wasnt considered by apple until you (parent post) wrote about it here :P

Re:DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211672)

I think Apple is concerned about being left behind in a TCPA world, as IBM didn't plan on implementing it I don't think.

Note to Steve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211616)

Note to Steve.

I am coming over to kick your ass!

~ Woz

Before you freak out... (4, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211620)

Seriously, what did anyone expect?

Apple does not want OS X installed on every generic PC out there. If Mac sales die tomorrow, Apple and OS X go with it. And no, they wouldn't open all the source after the liquidation and you would be stuck with Linux and Windows on the desktop. With both options being crap (for differing reasons).

I would absolutely love for OS X to be sold for any machine with an Intel or AMD chip inside, but it's just not going to happen because Apple is not positioned to do so and survive.

Fortunately, Apple has never even hinted at taking a route other than having OS X run on their machines and their machines only. Any disappointment should be tempered with the knowledge that they have had their cards on the table on this for some time. I don't think there was any question of another outcome.

Apple is not screwing anyone over, they are just continuing what they have done for the past 21 years (even the brief period of Mac clones only involved the OS running on approved hardware).

Perhaps things will change sometime down the road with Apple making further inroads into consumer electronics and successfully diversifying their business. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. The seamless integration between hardware and software is at the very core of the Mac experience.

It's unfortunate that OS X is going to stay on one set of hardware, but it is just the way it has to be for the time being.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211648)

I would, but I just wasted my last mod point on the damned gaming router story. :(

Re:Before you freak out... (1)

Jestrzcap (46989) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211676)

I probably just dont understand the business well enough but if Apple could sell 5 million copies of OS X for (generic) Intel system, why wouldnt they? Is -all- of their money made off of the hardware? How does selling lots of copies of OS X equal Apple losing money? I'm not saying you're wrong, but please clairify, I'm genuinely interested.

EVIL! (1)

piecewise (169377) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211630)

wait. this means i won't be able to break the license that comes with the OS to do stuff i wanna do? unconstitutional!

Time to ditch Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211633)

Damn Micro$hit! Time to ditch Apple.

Kernel..I thought it was Darwin ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13211634)

Are apple going to break away from open source then ? Seems pretty dumb.

I'm already planning to move away from Apple when they go Intel.

Not in the kernel (5, Informative)

annodomini (544503) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211656)

The headline states "Mac OS X Intel Kernel Uses DRM". According to TFA, it's Rosetta (the PPC emulator, which isn't written by Apple) that uses DRM, not the kernel of the OS itself: We've discovered that the Rosetta kernel uses TCPA/TPM DRM. Some parts of the GUI like ATSServer are still not native to x86 - meaning that Rosetta is required by the GUI, which in turn requires TPM. In fact, we already know that the kernel doesn't use DRM and can run on any Intel box you want, because it's open source and can be downloaded here [apple.com] . It's the GUI that Apple wants to be locking in to their hardware, not the kernel. I suspect that they probably will make something other than Rosetta check the TCPA chip, but that's not what is going on right now.

and just for a few fleeting moments (1)

damonsmith (811051) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211668)

apple were cool.

Can the OS authenticate the TCPA chip? (2, Insightful)

jay2003 (668095) | more than 9 years ago | (#13211679)

From what I've read, the windowing system is using a kext to validate the hardware. The kext could be replaced with a fake one that replies anything. The real question is can software authenticate the TCPA chip through the kext. To do so, the chip would have have a private key embedded in it that was chained to a public key embedded in the OS.

I don't known anywhere near enough to know if TCPA supports this. Apple would be the only user of the OS authenticating the hardware I can think of so it's possible TCPA leaves out this feature. There are plenty of uses for the hardware authenticating the OS but the other way around is rare since most software vendors want to run on as many types of hardware as possible.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?