×

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!

Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM?

Cliff posted more than 7 years ago | from the inevitable-or-avoidable dept.

326

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

326 comments

Step Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384520)

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

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

Re:Step Up (1, Insightful)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385036)

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

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

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

Seriously, these arguments are old and tired.

Re:Step Up (2, Insightful)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385368)

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer?
To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices. For example, the only machine I would get for 'real' gaming, is the top one from Apple, because they don't have something in between that would allow me to use a decent graphics card.
Do Mac owners want to deal with cheap hardware, driver problems, things not working?
To be fair.. Often Apple hardware has issues often. Just do a Google on airport express cards, too much thermal paste causing the hardware to get too hot to touch, high pitch whining (many people can't hear that, but I can) etc.
And what is the cost benefit? Like $100?
Perhaps the benefit is that you know the hardware won't fail on you, and you know that you don't have to deal with Applecare's horrible service.

And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM.
The fairest DRM is SonicStage. Letting you create unlimited copies with the latest version, de-DRM them etc.
You can burn unlimited copies of the music (you are limited to a certain number per playlist, but you can make a new Playlist and do more).
You're not limited on SonicStage.
You can always burn a CD, and re-import it.
You lose sound quality that way.

Re:Step Up (2, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385726)

So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer? To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices. For example, the only machine I would get for 'real' gaming, is the top one from Apple, because they don't have something in between that would allow me to use a decent graphics card.
My 20" iMac is the best PC gaming machine in my house (out of two "real" pcs and 2 macs running Win XP). My PC's have better video cards, and faster cpu cycles, but are outperformed by the Core 2 Duo iMac. The Core 2 Duo in my iMac more than makes up for the inferior X1600 256 mb video card in the iMac. For example, I get over 100 fps in Live for Speed with maximum everything settings at 1620xwhatever resolution. Neither of my PCs can break 50 fps, with "superior" video cards. The X1600 isn't a spectacular video card, but it maxes out the last round of video game technology (Half Life 2 runs exceptionally well with everything maxed out and looks beautiful). So until games bring more to the table, the X1600 is just fine.

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

No, they won't follow the MS lead (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384528)

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

riiiight... (2, Insightful)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385692)

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

If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one already (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384534)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (4, Informative)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384900)

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

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385876)

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

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

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384962)

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

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385014)

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

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (2, Funny)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385184)

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

Re:If you want a Mac so badly, just buy one alread (0, Troll)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385486)

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

Interesting fact (0, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384538)

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

Interesting fact-I'm tone deaf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384604)

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

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

Re:Interesting fact-I'm tone deaf. (4, Interesting)

ericdano (113424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385052)

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

Re:Interesting fact (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384886)

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

Re:Interesting fact (0, Flamebait)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385118)

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

Re:Interesting fact (1)

hunterkll (949515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385166)

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

Re:Interesting fact (2, Interesting)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385204)

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

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

You're not fooling anyone.

Re:Interesting fact (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385808)

Go pull out an oscilloscope and do a frequency analysis on that "lossless" copy, will you? Then come back and tell me that it's the same signal. You'll be surprised to find that it IS NOT.
Good thing my ears aren't an oscilloscope, otherwise I might actually be able to hear a difference!

Re:Interesting fact (0, Flamebait)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385220)

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

Re:Interesting fact (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385848)

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

Re:Interesting fact (1)

mikolas (223480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385884)

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

Does it really matter that much in reality? (1)

SeeManRun (1040704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384542)

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

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality? (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384786)

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

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385012)

Then don't use Media Player.

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385946)

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

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

Re:Does it really matter that much in reality? (4, Informative)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385194)

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

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

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

news to me... (1)

gralem (45862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384552)

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

Re:news to me... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384860)

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

Apple already loves DRM (3, Insightful)

Clockwurk (577966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384554)

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

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

There's DRM and then there's DRM (4, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384608)

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

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384672)

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

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384792)

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

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM (1)

binford2k (142561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384996)

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

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM (1)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385152)

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

Re:There's DRM and then there's DRM (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385254)

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

Re:Apple already loves DRM (4, Insightful)

Baricom (763970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384640)

There are alternative explanations. The content industry wouldn't release anything to Apple without DRM protection, and the only way TPM has been used so far is to make sure OS X only runs on Apple hardware. I'm not giving them an out, but these behaviors seem benign, relatively speaking. Consider the alternative:
  • Make sure you don't misplace your product key, in case you need to reinstall later.
  • Cross your fingers when Microsoft phones home during activation to discover whether you're worthy of using Windows.
  • Cross your fingers again as Microsoft checks whether you're a criminal every time you download patches.
  • Cross your fingers yet again as you wonder whether end-of-life means your purchase will no longer activate.
  • Remember to opt out of Windows Media Player's helpful tendency to DRM-infect files from CDs you rip yourself.
  • Consider whether PlaysForSure or Zune DRM is more likely to be future-proof.
I don't deny that Apple might behave this way given the majority market share, but I think they're a long way from reaching that. If the tables are turned in ten years, I'll just do what I did to the Republicans: switch to the better candidate, even if that means Microsoft.

Re:Apple already loves DRM (1)

RFaulder (1016762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384708)

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

A few mistakes in your post (4, Informative)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384724)

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

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

Apple already tolerates DRM (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384876)

Every intel mac ships with a "trusted" computing module

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

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

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

You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD

You can if you simply copy it.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385938)

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

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

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

Re:Apple already tolerates DRM (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385970)

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

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

Re:Apple already loves DRM (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385504)

you can't transfer music from an ipod to a computer (easily)
Senuti is pretty easy.

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

Re:Apple already loves DRM (1)

synx (29979) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385530)

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

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

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

Apple not as bad as Win, Linux not perfect either (2, Informative)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385702)

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

This simply doesn't compare to what Microsoft is doing [schneier.com].

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

Doubtful (1)

Baricom (763970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384558)

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

Re:Doubtful (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384714)

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


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


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


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


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


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

Lossier and Lossier (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385732)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing to CD is not akin to taping to a cassette! (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385784)

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

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

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

User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack 2 (0, Troll)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384590)

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

Obey or Die - brought to you by Microsoft.

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384748)

From your post, I can surmise the following:

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

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack (1)

Kisil (900936) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384768)

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


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

Re:User control ended at Windows 2000 service pack (2, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385170)

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

Umm.... (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384614)

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


And OS X will? (Legally?)

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

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

Apple doesn't already "do" DRM? (0, Troll)

wframe9109 (899486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384616)

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

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

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

No shit. Itunes shows DRM is profitable. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384700)


Apple follows? APPLE LEADS the market in terms of DRM.

They taught Microsoft how it should be done.

Typical Apple fanboy-ism. Apple is much worse of a company then Microsoft ever was. For example: Apple sues their own fanboys about leaking products, Microsoft gives them laptops. The only reason people don't realise this is because Apple lost against Microsoft and they are not able to throw their weight around.

Here is Apple attempting to strike down the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution in regards of freedom of the press and bloggers.
http://news.com.com/Apple+lawsuit+Thinking+differe nt/2010-1047_3-5611497.html [com.com]

Do you people understand that? APPLE WAS SUING TO REMOVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS of a online person for publishing secrets about their products.

"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth -- and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago."
-- Steve jobs in Fortune, Feb. 19, 1996 interview.

Be less stupid, check your facts (2, Insightful)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385852)

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

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

Actually, *you* are uninformed. (2, Informative)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385832)

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

Apple simply can't compare with this.

Linux... Wow. (1)

JimXugle (921609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384648)

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

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

Re:Linux... Wow. (1)

binford2k (142561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385018)

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

Re:Linux... Wow. (1)

JimXugle (921609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385076)

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

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

Re:Linux... Wow. (1)

binford2k (142561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385298)

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

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

I've used all of them (1)

mind21_98 (18647) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384660)

Here's my take on them:

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

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

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

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

Not M$ (3, Insightful)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384722)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Not M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384850)

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

Re:Not M$ (3, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385356)

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

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

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

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

Re:Not M$ (1)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385854)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Not M$ (1)

happycorp (809344) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385632)

> To be clear, MS is not leading this charge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macs have no TPM! (3, Informative)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385880)

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

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

Wake up (3, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384726)

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

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

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

They are, if it makes them money (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385892)

They're not interested in your freedom

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

That's very much a competitive advantage.

The short answer (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384770)

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

The short answer is "Yes."

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

If you want to sell HD content through iTunes.

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

Re:The short answer (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385614)

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

Laptop (2, Informative)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384834)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Laptop (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384852)

Gah, I missed a </B> in there. My apologies.

Re:Laptop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385350)

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

Re:Laptop (4, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385670)

Don't blame linux or os x for being "broken" when "broken" really just means "different". This is generally more a problem with old geezers/technophobes, but also a problem with people who are used to Windows's way of doing things. It's been said by some that the people who have the hardest time switching are the "power users", because they have a lot of knowledge of "how to do *somewhat advanced thing*" that isn't the same across OSes. An example would be something like changing the screen resolution, or maybe a bit more advanced, setting up a printer; or adding/removing users.
I had a Windows nerd friend help me last weekend install Win XP on my intel Mac, and I spent the first 30 minutes educating him that Macs can indeed to all that and more, just not the way he is used to. In nearly every case, the Mac way is simpler, and more elegant, once you drop the preconceived windows-way of doing things and figure out how to do it on a Mac. I hate it when people try to apply Windows logic to a Mac (no, there still isn't a registry, get over it). This is the #1 reason behind all the Linux/Macs suck comments: blatant ignorance.

Consider the precedent... (1)

Chief Typist (110285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17384904)

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

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

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

-ch

Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385020)

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

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

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

Activation (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385752)

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

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

Oh and 'sceme' is spelled 'scheme.'

Bullshit yourself (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385900)

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

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

apple already -has- DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17384914)

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

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

Spend money, but only for OS X? (2, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385250)

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

Re:Spend money, but only for OS X? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385264)

System76 [system76.com] is also another vendor one can use for Linux systems.

Re:Spend money, but only for OS X? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17385770)

They're pretty expensive.

If most of your time is spent writing and surfing (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385418)

then why are you even worried about DRM?

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

Are you just being awkward? (1)

harryman100 (631145) | more than 7 years ago | (#17385874)

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

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

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...