<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on Why the Intel switch is bad





Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeff Porten <civitan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 7, 2005 9:37:58 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Why the Intel switch is bad


Monday proved that I don't always know what I'm talking about. But for anyone who is interested in where I think this is going to go, I've got an essay on the topic posted at <http://www.jeffporten.com/ portentia>. Precis: sooner or later, Mac OS X is going to run on non- Macintosh hardware, and Apple is going to exploit all sorts of crossover angles before and after.

Following up on some points made here:

Richard Forno wrote:



Intel has already started selling CPUs with DRM built in that facilitate Hollywood's control over content played/processed by Wintel PCs. What if the change to Intel is designed to "protect" Apple from MPAA lawsuits etc or at least "better position it" (in Hollywood's eyes) from a technological sense if/when it starts to offer video-on-demand type stuff via iTunes?



Apple has proven that they have nothing against DRM or trying to enforce it. The most likely scheme I've read about to enforce "Mac OS only on Macintosh" involves chip-level DRM. But as I say in the essay, this is the biggest, juiciest target for the hacker community since... well, my metaphor generator fails me. I've been generically convinced by Cory Doctorow that DRM is doomed to fail.

Assuming I'm right about this, eventually the Mac hardware restriction goes the way of the same restriction for iPods. Apple is buying some breathing room so they can see what happens to hardware sales for the first year. Dual-boot capability will move more hardware into Windows-only enterprises, so eventually they can take the much smaller relative hit and start selling OS X for non-Mac hardware. I'm predicting that after Leopard ships, they can fire sale Tiger for $20 and take a serious run at the belief that people run Windows because they want to.

Jonathan Shapiro wrote:



If I wanted to *prevent* this behavior, it's very very easy. I take
advantage of the DRM technology on the latest generation of Pentiums to ensure that the OS only runs successfully on machines shipped by Apple.



I would love to hear from the computer scientists here on whether they think it's possible for Apple to ship bulletproof DRM. My thinking is, all they can do is restrict it to people who are willing to run off-license (and even then, good luck enforcing that against someone who purchased the software; you might be technically correct, but you'll get excoriated), and to people with the technical chops. Depending on the way this is written, they might be able to stop me from selling the setup service to my clients, but they won't be able to stop my clients from doing this on their own. Unless I'm wrong about bulletproof DRM.

Ross Finlayson wrote:



Personally, I'm concerned for Apple - not because of the technical challenges (they are surmountable) - but because of the likelihood that Apple has now 'Osbourned' themselves. For example, I had been planning for some time to replace my aging Intel laptop (running Windows NT) with an Apple PowerBook. But I now wonder if I should wait a year or so until Apple comes out with a (presumably much better performing) new Intel-based PowerBook.



Go ahead and buy it.  This is the topic of my next essay.

If Apple stays on schedule, then in 12 to 18 months you'll be able to buy the first generation of the new Intel hardware and you'll be exposed to all of the issues of first-generation machines. If the schedule slips, then you'll get to do the same thing 6 to 12 months later. That's presuming that the model you want isn't already scheduled for 2007. By then, your aging laptop will be downright geriatric.

My plan is to augment my workhorse 17" G4 PowerBook with an iMac G5, and that hasn't changed. I need the processor cycles now, not in 2007. Then I'll let other people guinea-pig themselves on the new hardware, and I'll replace my laptop as needed, as I have been doing since 1993.

Last question for the computer scientists here: is there enough competition between Intel and AMD to prevent a chip monoculture from forming? Or are there evolutionary concerns now that both major platforms will run on the same hardware?

Best,
Jeff




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/