Apple drops IBM, MACs to become ordinary Intel based PC's 6-5-05

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: govtcheez75

I read an interesting Blog stating that the reason behind the change was to prepare for Apple's full venture into music/video/movies downloads that they plan to sell through iTunes (probably will change to iMedia or something).

There is something in the Intel's next gen chips that allow for security within the hardware for some sort of a copy protection that will keep people from sharing their downloaded music and movie files illegally.

This made a lot of sense to me at the time that I was reading it. It maybe be because I was all drugged up on flu/cold meds at the time, but definitely interesting reading.

You are correct, Intel has hardcoded DRM into all of their CPU's going forward now. It works in conjunction to new Microsoft DRM.

Between the two they have FULL control over all aspects of your computer.

Not if you change your nic card cuddles.

 

[govtcheez75]

Originally posted by: Artek
This could be good, the prices of mac computers could drop a bit

from what I've read...intel chips cost considerably more than what Apple pays for G4/G5 chips.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Not if you change your nic card cuddles.

The remote management depends on Intel's NIC, not the DRM. From what I've seen so far, there is no way to turn the DRM off.

 

[rise]

bah, theres already a flame war, well skirmish anyway, on the drm. just search drm.

 

[filterxg]

The biggest reason Apple picked Intel over AMD is simple, for all Intel's problems they still are the best at encoding video. Jobs sees the Mini Mac being used as an HTPC. I (and I think he does to) believe that if they can get some things worked out, it'll be the next Ipod. The problem was that G4's weren't fast enough for HD content, and G5's were both too pricey and exotic with the water cooled setup. Intel solves the hardware problem, better than AMD could. They still need to workout software problems, but that is just a matter of time.

Now the better question is if OSX will be generally available for other x86 computers, or just for Apple built ones.

 

[bersl2]

OK, let me put this simply: if you consent to using this new set of DRMed products, for whatever it's worth, I will have zero respect for you.

The corporations are now in conspiracy against the consumers. Are you going to do anything to protect yourself? Do you have the balls to go without the latest and greatest in technology in order to prove a point to them that you are not to be abused?

I seriously wonder how any combination of economic and technical arguments can possibly outweigh losing the final word in control of the hardware you bought and the data you purchased the right to use/created. How can there possibly be a single person here who will side with them, other than tools who readily submit to show of authority? Please, justify your position, given that all companies will lie and cheat in order to get you to consent to anything (and if you want to argue that even isn't a given fact, by all means, go ahead).

 

[SNM]

Originally posted by: pm
Personally, I have been VERY impressed with OS X, and - were it priced for less than $200, I'd definitely buy a copy.

I'd say there are good odds on that, since it's $120 right now and has been for years....but the odds of it running on a home-built machine are still pretty slim.

 

[Leper Messiah]

I posted the following at another forum, and thought I'd post it here, to show what I thought about DRM in intel products.

Execpt that the public is too stupid to stop it. Now we're going to have to buy reverse engineered mobo's to stop this ????????. My privacy is far more important than lining the wallets of already over-paid MIAA and RIAA exectutives. And don't give me the ???????? about the everyday worker, 'cause if they really cared about how the supposed massive piracy was affecting them, they'd take a pay cut.

And what these companies don't even realize, is that they were making the most money they'd ever made when napster was king. People enjoyed being able to sample music and go and buy what they liked. Now they know that the MIAA and the RIAA are a bunch of greedy bastards, which is half the reason why so many people pirate. Its to get back at the system.

Seriously, whats next with this? Are we going to start looking for pr0n on kids computers, or anything else like that? Tell me nobody1, how we can guarnetee the fact that my privacy is not being comprosmised by such an act. Until you (or anyone else) can convince me of that, I WILL NOT buy any new hard ware that has this enabled.

 

[imported_jvrobert]

Seriously, this paranoia about DRM is getting old.

It's an enabling technology, and most people will have no problem using it. Turn it off and don't use any of the media which is distributed via this mechanism if you don't like it. If it doesn't allow fair use (real fair use, not your imagined "right to do anything"), then complain to the vendor.

Without DRM the content producers won't allow useful methods of distributing the media. It's as simple as that.

With DRM: New technologies, ways to get media
Without DRM: Same crap we have today - fewer new technologies.

The argument is silly, AMD is not going to be some rebel's holdout on the DRM issue, they will provide it as well.

About the other technologies, to think that they haven't thought about security issues of remote management is just silly. Get real. There have been all kinds of remote management technologies around for many years. It's just that now they're being standardized in the chipset.

 

[sonoran]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Between the two they have FULL control over all aspects of your computer.

What utter hogwash.

Intel says there's no DRM in 945 chipset

Anyone interested in facts instead of FUD might also want to take a look at Intel's policy on DRM: LaGrande Technology Policy on Owner/User Choice and Control. It states about as clearly as humanly possible that the user should not only be allowed to turn off DRM, but should be the one to turn it on if they want to access protected content.

PS - I presume you don't use a cable or satellite TV box either, since they both have DRM technology built in to "control" what you can watch.


* Not speaking for Intel Corp *

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: sonoran

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Between the two they have FULL control over all aspects of your computer.

What utter hogwash.

Intel says there's no DRM in 945 chipset

Anyone interested in facts instead of FUD might also want to take a look at Intel's policy on DRM: LaGrande Technology Policy on Owner/User Choice and Control. It states about as clearly as humanly possible that the user should not only be allowed to turn off DRM, but should be the one to turn it on if they want to access protected content.

PS - I presume you don't use a cable or satellite TV box either, since they both have DRM technology built in to "control" what you can watch.


* Not speaking for Intel Corp *

When you say "Not speaking for Intel Corp," am I to take this as an indication that you work for them?

If so, how does it feel to be associated with an organization complicit in the largest money and power grab in a long time, at the expense of users' rights? Oh, wait, I forgot, users don't have rights. Silly me.

If not, how can you possibly believe a single goddamn word that comes from them. All of this has been obfuscated from the public. They only say things that will make them money. And they stand to make the most money by taking media money to implement DRM in hardware, then turning around and selling such hardware to the public, lying about its purpose. The only required obligation a corporation has is to its stockholders, and the rest of the world be damned.

 

[SNM]

Originally posted by: bersl2
The only required obligation a corporation has is to its stockholders, and the rest of the world be damned.

Welcome to capitalism. Get used to it.:roll:

 

[MBrown]

Does this mean we will be able to put Windows on macs and OSX-86 on PCs?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: MBrown
Does this mean we will be able to put Windows on macs and OSX-86 on PCs?

From what I remember reading somewhere (probably the article on the AnandTech front page), you will be able to have Windows on Mac hardware, but not MacOS X on "generic" Intel or AMD hardware.

 

[RussianSensation]

So wait a second? Why would someone pay more for Mac systems if they will have same intel processors as 2-3x cheaper intel systems? Surely the operating system is not worth that much. And if Apple systems are to be 2-3 cheaper than now and essentially cost same as Intel systems, why would anyone still choose them over Intel systems? I am lost.

 

[Pabster]

You'll spend the premium for Apple because of DESIGN and AESTHETICS. Apple's stuff looks real nice. That's the only thing that has kept them in the game with the dismal performance of PowerPC thus far. Intel will put them back in the game...but you'll still pay a premium for Apple's design. I must admit the dual G5 servers have an incredibly well-laid out case and, yeah, they look sharp too. Not sure if that is worth a few thousand extra...

I think (eventually) Tiger WILL be running on our machines, but they'll likely only support a certain "set" of hardware components. It would be much too difficult to get Tiger to support the wide range of stuff Winbloze does.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: SNM

Originally posted by: bersl2
The only required obligation a corporation has is to its stockholders, and the rest of the world be damned.

Welcome to capitalism. Get used to it.:roll:

Oh, no, I have no problem with capitalism. But capitalism implies the non-failure of the market. And the technology market has more than its fair share of market failures.

The corporations won't self-regulate, since those who cause the market failure often benefit the most from it. The government shouldn't regulate the market, because they can't do anything right anyway. That leaves the consumer by default.

Basically, this means we're screwed, but that still doesn't exempt those of us who understand what is going on to try to inform those who do not.

Oh, and it would also help us achieve capitalism if the corporate lobbying were stopped. That's caused a lot of problems too.

 

[trinketsummoner]

I'm gonna guess that Apple will tie their OS to the hardware, kind of like Dell and its OEM Windows. If you dont have an "Apple/Intel" board, it wont run.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Pabster
You'll spend the premium for Apple because of DESIGN and AESTHETICS. Apple's stuff looks real nice. That's the only thing that has kept them in the game with the dismal performance of PowerPC thus far. Intel will put them back in the game...but you'll still pay a premium for Apple's design. I must admit the dual G5 servers have an incredibly well-laid out case and, yeah, they look sharp too. Not sure if that is worth a few thousand extra...

I am sorry but who in their right mind would pay 2-3 more for equivalent performance just for looks alone? This isnt a car that can get you a date or your freinds to pat you on the back. It's a freaken' box that's sole purpose is performance. I was under the impression most apple users paid for stability, looks/usage of the operating system and software for audio/video work that works best for apple pcs? not looks.

 

[Genx87]

Didnt read the whole thread but economies of scale come to mind on this one.

Apple can buy 200 dollar pentiums that are faster than the 400 dollar G5s they buy.
On top of that they have a supplier who has a sole interest in having the fastest CPU out there and will spend lots of R&D to make sure it is.

Right now they probably have to get IBM to up the clock on the G5 kicking and screaming.

 

[earthman]

To heck with them all. Bring back Cyrix! Cyrix Rules!

 

[JBird7986]

Originally posted by: trinketsummoner
I'm gonna guess that Apple will tie their OS to the hardware, kind of like Dell and its OEM Windows. If you dont have an "Apple/Intel" board, it wont run.

I doubt it...think of the market now open to OSX? Sell it at a small premium or same price as Windows XP and watch the cash flow in.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
And if Apple systems are to be 2-3 cheaper than now and essentially cost same as Intel systems, why would anyone still choose them over Intel systems? I am lost.

Because it is an alternative to Windows and they are not a geek that can compile their own linux kernel.

And the reason for choosing OSX over Windows?: Melissa, Netsky, Sasser, MyDoom, Klez, Zafi; the 24,101 Windows Spyware listed in Spybot; the 28 new Windows viruses detected in the last 7 days: http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/vinfodb.html, etc.

 

[Greenman]

Nothing would put a bigger smile on my face than seeing Apple and Micro$oft in an OS price war.

 

[SNM]

Apple whoops on MS with a price war. Even admitting that in buying a copy of OS X you're essentially buying an upgrade, it costs $130.
XP Pro upgrade is $200. That's one serious price difference, even without OS X being a better OS.