Apple, Apple, Apple...Whatever Does It Mean?

GROKLAW ^ | June 06 2005 | Pamela 'PJ' Jones

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I don't know what it means that Apple is switching to Intel chips. As far as I can tell, no one else knows either. Of course, I have the world's worst cold, and it's hard to pay attention to anything with this fever. Steve Jobs knows. Here's his keynote, so you can make up your own mind.

At first, I thought this theory made the most sense out of all the opinions out there today on why Apple is going to Intel, from Wired: they think it's to satisfy Hollywood's lust for a DRM'd locked-down environment, so folks will have to do what they are told with movies:

But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.

Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet. . . .

And that's why the whole Mac platform has to shift to Intel. Consumers will want to move content from one device to another -- or one computer to another -- and Intel's DRM scheme will keep it all nicely locked down.

But then, someone pointed out that Intel claims there is no DRM in the chip:

Intel supports several technologies of content protection, such as DTCP-IP, which is offered by a large number of companies. DTCP-IP is aimed at securing the transmission of compressed material in a local network.

Several products signed by Intel include data protection technologies such as: Macrovision, DTCP-IP, and in the second half of the year, Intel will also offer support for technologies like COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others.

Intel is a strong supporter of including technologies for content protection, but Pentium D and the 945 Express chipset will not include them.

Tom's Hardware says

it all depends on how you phrase things. What Intel actually said was that there were no "unannounced DRM technologies implemented":

However, the issue about DRM in Intel products is not really whether the tech is there or not. Instead, it really depends on the wording of such a claim. Intel does not deny that certain DRM technologies are supported by its hardware. "Many of Intel's products today, including those just mentioned do work with existing content protection technologies out there including DTCP-IP. In the second half of 2005, Intel will deliver an updated graphics driver that will also support additional content protection technologies including COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others," Skoog said.

In other words, Intel says it is not building DRM technologies right into its hardware, but rather supports existing technologies, if they are used by copyright holders.

So the Wired piece could be on target. John Dvorak thinks it means that Linux is doomed. Of course, that's what he always says, no matter what the latest news story happens to be.

Joe Brockmeier has more analysis here. He doesn't see Apple's move as spelling doom for Linux on the desktop, and here's why:

Apple’s move to Intel isn’t going to change much. Firstly, Apple seems poised to continue its exclusionary stance, and will require users who want to run Mac OS X to buy the whole kit and kaboodle from Apple. The ZDNet piece quotes Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller as saying that "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." This means that Apple computers will still continue to carry a price premium that many users are unwilling to pay unless they’re already convinced they want to run Mac OS X. Even Apple’s low-end Mac Mini is still high-priced compared to similarly-equipped Dell computer.

"We will not allow." How those words resonate. The corporate world is dividing into two camps: the controllers and those that treat their customers like human beings, with a measure of respect for what freedom means to the human spirit.

So. Now what? Terra Soft's Yellow Dog Linux is still there. They announced they are sticking with PowerPC:

We will not transition to support an x86/ia64 architecture.

Terra Soft remains in good standing with Apple. Their announcement does not immediately affect our ability to sell nor support Apple PowerPC hardware. Nor does it affect our ability to support non-Apple Power Architecture offerings. Things are already in motion to enable a world of greater Power Architecture diversity.

"A world of diversity" versus "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Take your pick.

If you'd like to listen to another MP3, here's Dan Farber interviewing Ina Fried about what it all means, and here's

David Berlind's list of the questions they discuss, with time codes, so you can find what interests you. Hmm. Here's one I think I'll go listen to: "03:28 - Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run Windows on an x86 Mac but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple x86 systems.  What’s behind that?"

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"At first, I thought this theory made the most sense out of all the opinions out there today on why Apple is going to Intel, from Wired: they think it's to satisfy Hollywood's lust for a DRM'd locked-down environment, so folks will have to do what they are told with movies."

[SengirV]

And that is why the movies are available within hours of their launch - so people can do what THEY want to do with the movies. You will always be able to find un-DRM'd versions somewhere. You might have to go to some seedy parts of town, or the internet, but they will be there.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

And that is why the movies are available within hours of their launch - so people can do what THEY want to do with the movies. You will always be able to find un-DRM'd versions somewhere. You might have to go to some seedy parts of town, or the internet, but they will be there.

I don't have time to watch movies.

The travesty here is that the open architecture of the PC is what has driven the tremendous advances in technology over the past 25 years, which has in turn powered our economy, and that open architecture is about to be sacrificed so that Hollywood can continue to collect royalties and eventually extend copyright protection into perpetuity.

Make your sniveling, self-righteous remarks, but you are helping kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[The_Victor]

why Apple is going to Intel

The answer is COST.

If Apple is ever seriously going to compete for market share beyond the current Mac devotees, they are going to have to get the cost of Macs down. The current chip set is four times (I think that's what I read) the cost of the Intel Pentium series. If the Pentium D can work under Mac OS (obviously with some revision) it makes sense to switch.

[AgThorn]

The travesty here is that the open architecture of the PC is what has driven the tremendous advances in technology over the past 25 years, which has in turn powered our economy, and that open architecture is about to be sacrificed so that Hollywood can continue to collect royalties and eventually extend copyright protection into perpetuity.

So "open architecture" to you means no copy protection?

One could more easily argue that 'with' good copy protection, you protect an industry that lets you and I see and hear movies and music at a good price while securing the 'rights' of the originator. Without continual DRM technology advancements, we would have chaos and no incentive to continue to 'create' well priced software, music, video, etc.

[SengirV]

Make your sniveling, self-righteous remarks, but you are helping kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

The travesty is there we are limited to ONE architecture(Intel's) for PCs. Now that there is a stranglehold over the entire consumer market, we are going to get this stuff shoved down our throats.

In the not too distant future, we will only be purchasing a license to view/use the content that hollyweird wants us to see. Oh wait, that day is already here.

[advance_copy]

I don't know what it means that Apple is switching to Intel chips.

It means Motorola's RISC architecture is better suited for specific high-end applications (network components, control systems, etc.) than it is for business and personal computer applications. It also means Apple sees a chance to grab more of the OS market.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So "open architecture" to you means no copy protection?

No, it means you can make the chip do whatever the underlying instruction set will enable you to do, without an overlying set of policy instructions.

[AgThorn]

No, it means you can make the chip do whatever the underlying instruction set will enable you to do, without an overlying set of policy instructions.

Not wanting to get into a 'where in the instruction set is it" detailed discussion, I do think that the chip manufacturers providing a method of DRM 'within' the chip code for those that want to use it easily fits your definition. If the chip manufacturers would make such use mandatory, now that would not be open. But they don't, so I still don't see your argument.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If the chip manufacturers would make such use mandatory, now that would not be open. But they don't, so I still don't see your argument.

My argument is that they will eventually make it mandatory.

It will be of no use to the RIAA unless it is, and it is at the behest of the RIAA that it is being included in the first place.

The RIAA wants to cripple all technology so that they can continue to use a business model based on ancient technology.

[Golden Eagle]

The RIAA wants to cripple all technology so that they can continue to use a business model based on ancient technology.

Translation: creators of unique works want their ownership protected, but that is an ancient business model that needs to be replaced with free everything for everyone.

[AgThorn]

Translation: creators of unique works want their ownership protected, but that is an ancient business model that needs to be replaced with free everything for everyone.

That's what I read ...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Translation: creators of unique works want their ownership protected, but that is an ancient business model that needs to be replaced with free everything for everyone.

Let's make computers illegal so that the record companies can continue to use the vinyl recording business model. It's not fair that they should have to change, just like it was unfair that buggy whip manufacturers were driven out of business by the automobile.