Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM? 326

Posted by Cliff
from the inevitable-or-avoidable dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM?

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
  • by Clockwurk (577966) * on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:23AM (#17384554) Homepage
    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.
    • by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:33AM (#17384608) Homepage
      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.
    • by Baricom (763970) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:37AM (#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.
    • by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacbe l l .net> on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:49AM (#17384724) Homepage
      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".
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @01:18AM (#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.
      • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
        ``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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
        ``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.
    • by ericdano (113424)
      Idiot. iTunes 7 allows you to do that EASILY. Get a clue.

      "And if you've got iTunes Store purchases you'd like to move from one computer to another, iTunes syncs in reverse, too -- from your iPod back to any authorized computer." [apple.com]

      You can authorize 5 computers. Do some research. Stop the FUD.
      • Ah, but what about the music you didn't by from the iTunes store, but ripped from CDs (or whatever)? How do you get that back off the iPod (in a supported way)?

        (Note: I have 2 Macs and an iPod, and I'm getting rather tired of Apple, in effect, punishing me for being a loyal customer by deliberately restricting its software in order to make it difficult for me to keep them in sync. With all Apple's vaunted "usability," my iPod should copy everything back and forth and I should be able to use iSync between t

    • by synx (29979)
      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 y
      • You are not correct - newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons

        If you read the page you linked it's only assumed that that's the case, because the system no longer reports the presence of the TPM. If you read further, though, you see this:

        Possible Caveat

        A reader reported the case of a disappearing TPM after a firmware update (details here [osxbook.com]). I have yet to look into it. Other than looking at the I/O Registry (on somebody else's computers), I haven't examined these newer systems enough

      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 u
  • 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."
  • Umm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rolfwind (528248) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:34AM (#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.
  • The day i notice it I'm selling my apple stock for redhat, and installing linux on my macbook. Fuck em.
  • 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
  • Not M$ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zebra_X (13249) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:49AM (#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$ (Score:4, Informative)

      by dangitman (862676) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @03:24AM (#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.

      • by Zebra_X (13249)
        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 ac
    • Macs have no TPM! (Score:4, Informative)

      by LKM (227954) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:03AM (#17385880) Homepage

      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.
      • by Zebra_X (13249)
        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)

        Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 [osxbook.com] that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.

        Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by defa
        • by LKM (227954)

          that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore

          How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.

          If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?

          Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

          That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is m

          • by Zebra_X (13249)
            How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.

            It still exists as a hardware device - it's just hidden from everyone, why? Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY? There is no reason, unless there are plans to use it. As far as I know, no one else is including it.

            That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than
            • by LKM (227954)

              Why is it included at all? Seriously, WHY?

              Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.

              WMA files won't play on your iPod

              And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies. Unprotected windows media files can easily be converted for the iPod. Why is it Apple's fault that the draconian MS DRM doesn't allow files to be converted for the iPod? I mean, your argument makes no sense at all. iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?

              Dude, Microsoft's DR

              • by Zebra_X (13249)
                Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.

                As I pointed out in other threads, Apple's hardware is completely custom. They design their own pcbs. The TCPM isn't something that you just throw in there - it's a design decision that Apple made, and there is a reason for it. We just don't know what it is, yet.

                And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies.

                Guess what! You can go buy another device that plays quick time movies, AND your drm'd WMA files. But you sure as hell aren't going to find a
                • by LKM (227954)

                  If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.

                  Okay, so your point is that Microsoft's DRM is less draconian because more manufacturers create devices that incorporate that particular DRM?

                  That's just weird logic. If my music is locked, I don't really care if there's a dozen or 50 playe

                  • by Zebra_X (13249)
                    I said this earlier, and I think we both agree - DRM sucks, in any form. It's all steaming pile of dog doo, PlayMaybe or FairPlay it doesn't make a different. I actually don't buy iTunes music anymore becuase "i can't do what i want with it".

                    With that said I think that Apple ends up giving consumers less choices, which is what I would consider "more draconian". I also think Apple's handling of the licensing situation for FairPlay is definatly draconian and anti-competitive.

                    But again, DRM is crap and when me
      • by MrHanky (141717)
        Your post reeks of fanboy. Apple's DRM is draconian because you need Apple's package to make use of the data you've bought: The AAC file you just bought from iTunes Music Store will only work on your iPod and in iTunes -- one of the few apps with more invasive installation than RealPlayer on Windows. When you decide the iPod is an overpriced fashion product, you can't switch to a more reasonable brand because Apple won't sell licenses for their DRM scheme to their competitors.

        Yes, Apple use their pseudo-mon
        • by LKM (227954)

          Apple's DRM is draconian because you need Apple's package to make use of the data you've bought: The AAC file you just bought from iTunes Music Store will only work on your iPod and in iTunes -- one of the few apps with more invasive installation than RealPlayer on Windowsl. When you decide the iPod is an overpriced fashion product, you can't switch to a more reasonable brand because Apple won't sell licenses for their DRM scheme to their competitors.

          How is that different from the Zune or (ignoring the

          • by MrHanky (141717)
            Double standards? I didn't advocate a particular product, which is what you're doing. And burning to CDs isn't 'moving on', it's moving backwards. You'd understand this if you'd ever bought something from ITMS and suddenly had the need for moving on from iTunes. The product lock-in is unacceptable.

            And I've never said I'd ever understand how someone would buy something as ridiculous as the Zune, that something you dreamt up with your stupid fanboy logic.
            • by LKM (227954)

              I didn't advocate a particular product, which is what you're doing

              Uhm, your post doesn't exist in a vacuum. You replied to my post, which claimed that the iTunes DRM is the most lenient you can get. Obviously, I'm not saying that iTunes is perfect. I'm saying that it's better than every other DRM solution. To that, you replied "Apple's DRM is draconian." Now either your reply was utterly pointless (as it now seems to be), or you implied that Apple's solution is worse than Microsoft's - which you now cla

      • by mactari (220786)
        Good points all around. Apple's very familiar with DRM, and I'd wager most DRM'd content on most Windows and Macintosh OS running hardware was provided by Apple. Microsoft's approaches, though less practically successful on the popular media front, are certainly more successful on the OS front, as another post [slashdot.org] slightly earlier has pointed out (quoted after this post).

        Here's the rub, taking us back to the OP (and away from the Zune vs. iPod discussion this thread has taken):

        None of the reasons given sugges
  • Wake up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:49AM (#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'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.

      • Actually, they are if it helps them sell their stuff.

        It would help them sell their stuff if there were any real difference between them. But there isn't.

        The end result from purchasing an iTunes song or a "PlaysForSure" (Microsoft DRM) song is exactly the same: unless you keep the same computer in working condition forever, you eventually lose all of the music you purchased and have to rebuy it for the next computer. There's nothing lenient or acceptable about that.
        • "Lenient" is a really strange choice of words when you're talking about the use of your own computer.

          I don't want lenience from Apple or Microsoft.

          I want them to sell me software that works for ME, not for someone else.
  • The short answer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by westlake (615356) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:59AM (#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.

  • Laptop (Score:2, Informative)

    by JoshJ (1009085)
    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 ano
    • Re:Laptop (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stewbacca (1033764) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @05:00AM (#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.
  • 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
  • by Mad Merlin (837387) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @02:59AM (#17385250) Homepage

    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?

  • 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.

  • by biglig2 (89374)
    Surely... OSX won't work on your laptop either?

  • They effectively controlled their hardware for 20 years so it isn't like they don't support the mindset. Just an observation from someone who couldn't justify getting a first Mac but who could afford a 10 mhz PC clone XT.
  • by amichalo (132545) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @09:28AM (#17387036)
    This is how I see the three platforms measuring up:

    LINUX - Since it doesn't embrasce DRM, content providers are not interested in supplying their creative to it. This means only non-commercial or very small indy media would be available. Further, since Linux is more of a "hacker's OS" it isn't well suited for households where a non-tech may want to jump on the web or download photos from the family digital camera. No Thanks.

    Windows Vista - "DRM isn't just for music any more." This should be the Vista theme. Actually it has started a while back. I love how MS office refuses to register becuase the key has been used too many times - no matter the computer hasn't changed, just been upgraded with more RAM and newer hard drive. But MS can't even decide on one DRM schema so they implemented "PlaysForSure" AND a non-compatible "Zune" DRM schema - THIS IS MORE FREIGHTENING! If the DRM provider stopps supporting the DRM content you are SOL. ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN - Either the Zune will fail or Plays FOr Sure will fail (is it too soon to think both have already failed?) and those who bought DRMed content and expensive players will have nothing to show for it. Which leads me to...

    Apple OS X - Making a DRM choice is important. One thing I like about Apple is that there are no license keys to type in. There is no "registering with big brother" even for high end software. Plus Apple is REASONABLE - $129 for a single OS upgrade or $199 for a 5 license Family Pack! Apple doesn't rely on DRM to secure their software, only the media that Apple doesn't even supply. Apple fought for user rights when they negotiated DRM with the RIAA and in my opinion, the rights are pretty good. I can still burn mixed CDs to give to friends, I can play on my work, home, and laptop computers - be they Mac or Windows - and I can use on a variety of iPods. I don't pretend to have super human ears or need OGG support and since I find the convenience of iTunes out weighs the "quality" of buying the CD/DVD I have settled into enjoying the DRM Apple is selling.

    This is my opinion. I have switched from Windows to Linux to the Mac and I don't see myself switching again until Windows, Linux, or another OS make radical advances.
    • "Further, since Linux is more of a "hacker's OS" it isn't well suited for households where a non-tech may want to jump on the web or download photos from the family digital camera. No Thanks."

      I don't know when you last used Linux, but that is a common and utterly incorrect misconception. With any modern distribution, you plug in a digital camera and IT JUST WORKS. With Windows, you have to find the driver disk, load the driver, then load the proprietary software. The Linux experience is far simpler. Also,
  • So what you are saying is that you would be willing to buy a new laptop for OSX, but not for Linux.

    OSX may not run on your current laptop -- I doubt you want to risk it. No -- lets be clear... OSX WILL NOT RUN.

    On to your question: yes, Apple is DRM friendly. May I recommend that that you just stick with XP? Really, its your best bet. Since you are incredibly biased against Linux, I would rather you NOT try that.

    Ratboy
  • The State of DRM (Score:3, Informative)

    by LKM (227954) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @10:45AM (#17387728) Homepage

    As far as I know it boils down to this:

    Windows XP
    DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).

    Mac OS X
    DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).

    Linux
    Kernel-level support for TPM.

    Vista
    DRM is a fundamental part of Vista. You can't get around it. [schneier.com]

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...