Apple, iTunes and Competition

[jxyama]

If you're not inconvenienced by being required to replace everything in your computer or buying a new machine, then you've got a lot more money than I do. Apparently you missed the implication that Longhorn, TCI, and the DRM OS approach will require everyone to refresh their hardware in order to be allowed to use the next generation media.



Why?

I just showed you all kinds of things in support of my position, but you've yet to show a single shred of evidence that consumers "won't stand" for the alterations. Can you show me documentation of large numbers of people leaving Windows over things that Microsoft has done? How about the media companies actually losing money when they move to restrictive DRM and copy-protection?

mass consumers buy computers that are already pre-built. people buying from dell are not going to notice that what they have is crippled.

i gave you an example. copy protected CDs - the ones you can't rip. and they were massively unpopular because they didn't meet the standard expectations of what CDs should be capable of. people complained and they are being pulled because people won't buy them. another example: DVDs that "expire" after a few playbacks. they went nowhere too because people didn't accept being made to "buy" something that "expires" against their will.

right now, multimedia playback on PCs is something mass consumers expect. if that's somehow crippled, people will complain and then leave. there's no documentation of large numbers of people leaving because manufacturers know they won't get away with it. M$ hasn't cripped windows to disallow playbacks because they know that just won't sell. there's no system with full implementation of palladium because M$ knows people will not stand.

you seem to think manufacturers exist in a void and can do whatever they want. i believe they can, but only to a certain degree, until they cross a certain line of mass consumer expectations (which i contend things such as multimedia playback crippling will do)

 

[iMan]

mass consumers buy computers that are already pre-built. people buying from dell are not going to notice that what they have is crippled.

i gave you an example. copy protected CDs - the ones you can't rip. and they were massively unpopular because they didn't meet the standard expectations of what CDs should be capable of. people complained and they are being pulled because people won't buy them. another example: DVDs that "expire" after a few playbacks. they went nowhere too because people didn't accept being made to "buy" something that "expires" against their will.

Right now a lot of people embraces online music stores - although not as popular as CDs people are far more positive to this approach than copyprotected CDs. But they essentially are the same thing - only the online music is even poorer quality.

I think the original comment was a bit in the paranoid area myself, but that said - the "threat" is actually quite real. It is important to differ between already existing products beeing hampered with and something "new". And there are a lot of ways to sneak this kind of thing in on the regular user without them even noticing it in the first place - so the danger lies actually in the fact that noone will ever know before it is already too late. For instance; there are a lot of reasons that Windows is #1 OS in the world - none of which are because it is the best, the most versatile or flexible one.

One interesting news this week is the google-harddisk search. Yahoo and Microsoft is planning something similar. I know this is on the paranoid side again - but how convenient to collect information like this... I am pretty much unplugging myself right away

 

[thatwendigo]

One interesting news this week is the google-harddisk search. Yahoo and Microsoft is planning something similar. I know this is on the paranoid side again - but how convenient to collect information like this... I am pretty much unplugging myself right away

Do a search for "software attestation" and see what it comes up with.

For the lazy, I'll summarize:

Under the TCI platform, there's a chip that sits between the processor and everything else called the Trusted Computing Module. It checks anything going in and out for status as authorized code, and includes a call-home feature if it detects something it's been programmed to think of as supicious. This can be media without DRM, programs that have been altered (cracks, anyone?), or anything else the manufacturers, vendors, and OEMs decide to put in.

But nobody will stand for it, right?

I guess that's why the Windows XP hardware registration was taken ou... Oh, wait. It wasn't.

 

[jxyama]

I think the original comment was a bit in the paranoid area myself, but that said - the "threat" is actually quite real. It is important to differ between already existing products beeing hampered with and something "new". And there are a lot of ways to sneak this kind of thing in on the regular user without them even noticing it in the first place - so the danger lies actually in the fact that noone will ever know before it is already too late. For instance; there are a lot of reasons that Windows is #1 OS in the world - none of which are because it is the best, the most versatile or flexible one.

good point, definitely can see that.

 

[displaced]

you seem to think manufacturers exist in a void and can do whatever they want. i believe they can, but only to a certain degree, until they cross a certain line of mass consumer expectations (which i contend things such as multimedia playback crippling will do)

Indeed.

Circa 2007, Dell advert: "New Dell Trustiplex TCI-50! Completely unable to play any of the 700 million songs sold on the iTunes Music store. Won't allow viewing of any DivX-encoded files. Unique new AutoFBI feature. Buy now, whilst stocks last!"

As long as there's an alternative -- either whitebox-builders offering TCI-free systems or other capable platforms (Apple, IBM non-x86 systems, etc) then those who implement TCI will be at a competitive disadvantage.

There's a staggering inertia in business also. If the new TCI'd Office suite won't run existing 'unsigned' stuff (e.g. the huge swarm of custom-built Access systems) then businesses aren't gonna rush to it. If the're facing having to re-engineer all their systems no matter what, I wouldn't be surprised if they choose something like Linux and F/OSS technologies. Because Microsoft aren't going to make this transition cheap, that's for sure.

MS can huff and puff all they want, but despite appearances, they do not control the x86 (IBM PC-AT-compatible) platform. They naturally have huge sway over what those machines run, but if there's demand for an alternative, there's absolutely zip that Microsoft can do to stop manufacturers making alternative hardware.

 

[thatwendigo]

As long as there's an alternative -- either whitebox-builders offering TCI-free systems or other capable platforms (Apple, IBM non-x86 systems, etc) then those who implement TCI will be at a competitive disadvantage.

You didn't pay much attention to what I pointed out before, did you? Intel and AMD are looking at ways to integrate TCI into their processors, while Via, ATI, Intel, and other chipset manufacturers are all onboard for working on making this thing a standard all across the market. There won't be a market for whitebox manufacturers top build non-TCI systems if there aren't any non-TCI parts made anymore, which is what Microsoft and the media companies want to see happen.

Also, this kind of thing is a guaranteed hardware lock-in for the OEMs, and it's the kind of thing that lets them dictate the upgrade cycle once more. It's out of consumer hands entirely if it happens.

There's a staggering inertia in business also. If the new TCI'd Office suite won't run existing 'unsigned' stuff (e.g. the huge swarm of custom-built Access systems) then businesses aren't gonna rush to it. If the're facing having to re-engineer all their systems no matter what, I wouldn't be surprised if they choose something like Linux and F/OSS technologies.

You're just not looking at this with enough cynicism:

1) The aim is to have all hardware run TCI, and to have all suppliers onboard for the "platform agnostic" measures that it will require. All major chip and motherboard chipset manufacturers are now in line with TCI, so that means Apple might have to play along just to keep from being left in the dust. In case you weren't reading my earlier comments, IBM and Motorola/Freescale are both members of the TCA, and IBM is a founding member that's been working on this kind of technology since 1999, not to mention being one of the first companies to offer a TCI-compliant machine (as of this year).

2) What will Linux run on, if all processors require signed code to even operate? How long can it keep up if new computers all have TCI Modules embedded, forcing anyone not on the standard to use outdated hardware? Also, could you name me a business that wouldn't love to have hardware-signed creation stamps on all documents, the knowledge that workers can't get unapproved applications or hardware in for entertainment or theft, or the ability to shut off data they don't want people to be able to access?

In a coporate IT environment, this is a wet dream.

MS can huff and puff all they want, but despite appearances, they do not control the x86 (IBM PC-AT-compatible) platform.

Would you say that, oh, IBM, Intel, AMD, Via, ATI, nVidia, Toshiba, Samsung, Dell, Motorola, Texas Instruments, National Semiconductor, Hewlett Packard, Sony, Sun, and Infineon "control the x86 platform?"

That's who's behind this, amongst other smaller players.

They naturally have huge sway over what those machines run, but if there's demand for an alternative, there's absolutely zip that Microsoft can do to stop manufacturers making alternative hardware.

Why in the world would they want to stand in the way? This is guaranteed money, if it's played right. It won't be a swift, single blow that makes people rebel, but the steady kind of chipping away that's allowing people's rights to be taken in exchange for "security" in the US. People are ignorant and stupid, and they'll accept that these measures make them safer.

Remember, you're talking about the population that puts up with roadblocks in DC and New York, the TIA, the Patriot Act, and other laughable "security" measures.

 

[displaced]

Fair enough -- given the total hardware lock-in, your scenario is likely.

However I'd be interested in your response to my comments regarding the reaction vendors are likely to get from their customers (without which, they do not exist).

Why would your average business re-develop their software to run on this? Bear in mind the quite archaic systems that are still working today. They're presenting a product to both business and personal customers that's fundamentally broken regarding the execution of today's systems.

I think hardware vendors are smarter than this. Why abandon 25 years of consistent development, compatibility (albeit with a few wrinkles) and a guaranteed market? I suspect that hardware vendors are not so enthralled to Microsoft as to subjugate themselves completely.

Is there anything from AMD/Intel/Transmeta/VIA that suggests that TCI-restricted systems will be the *only* choice? Or will it simply be the only choice for those wishing to take part in the latest step of Microsoft's game-plan? Because an increasing amount of the market is losing interest in Microsoft's vision.

 

[thatwendigo]

However I'd be interested in your response to my comments regarding the reaction vendors are likely to get from their customers (without which, they do not exist).

Why would your average business re-develop their software to run on this? Bear in mind the quite archaic systems that are still working today. They're presenting a product to both business and personal customers that's fundamentally broken regarding the execution of today's systems.

The steps are already being taken to get people accustomed to aspects of this system/platform, though. Stop for a minute and consider all the warnings that flew around the internet when Microsoft released SP2, especially for corporate customers that had programs broken by it. Add onto that the hardware scanning nature of Windows XP, and people still using it despite the hassle of doing so. Sprinkle liberally with DRM restrictions that limit your ability to use media you've duly purchased...

This isn't a mailed fist slamming into the face of a consumer. It's a gradual tightening of the thumbscrews so that there's no single, loud outcry, but rather an acceptance of the discomfort.

When it comes to businesses, though, there are distinct advantages to the TCI proposals and standards, if you have no trust in your employees and would rather rule by fiat. In a properly configured TCI system, no program will run that isn't vetted by the module that sits between the processor and the rest of the system. Your employees can only do things you approve of, and any deviation is watched over by the chip, logged, and reported. All documents are watermarked and encrypted with an ID that would be pretty hard to completely duplicate, given that it comes from the hardware components in the system that generates the content. Beyond that, it means that external hardware has that much harder a time being used - removable media, for example, would be more difficult to use in a theft.

This makes a lot of sense for corporations, and far less for consumers, unless you take the stance of the corporations. The "attestation" process can watch to see if you modify their content or software, and call home when it's detected. It can shut off your right to use a piece of information by revoking the "trusted" status from it.

Is it coming clear, now?

I think hardware vendors are smarter than this. Why abandon 25 years of consistent development, compatibility (albeit with a few wrinkles) and a guaranteed market? I suspect that hardware vendors are not so enthralled to Microsoft as to subjugate themselves completely.

With Palladium/TCI and the hardware lockdown, they have a more guaranteed market than ever before. All it takes is an occasional breakage in the formats to require Upgrade X to function, and then the companies that manufacture that part will rake in the cash. The update cycle is in their hands, not ours, if this happens.

Microsoft has long pushed the software side of this as much as possible, bloating their code to help OEMs sell new machines. Now they're just going to be blatant about it, and let the media companies in on the party.

Is there anything from AMD/Intel/Transmeta/VIA that suggests that TCI-restricted systems will be the *only* choice? Or will it simply be the only choice for those wishing to take part in the latest step of Microsoft's game-plan? Because an increasing amount of the market is losing interest in Microsoft's vision.

It's pretty tight-lipped whether there will be other options. Most of the chatter, when they get down to specifics, is how their next-generation chipsets and processors (by requireing the chipsets, if not embedding them) will be TCI-compliant.

Intel's Sonoma chipset for mobile applications is one example, since it's the only one they're talking about for the next Centrino campaign that they're aiming for Q1-Q2 of next year.

 

[displaced]

The steps are already being taken to get people accustomed to aspects of this system/platform, though. Stop for a minute and consider all the warnings that flew around the internet when Microsoft released SP2, especially for corporate customers that had programs broken by it. Add onto that the hardware scanning nature of Windows XP, and people still using it despite the hassle of doing so. Sprinkle liberally with DRM restrictions that limit your ability to use media you've duly purchased...

Hehe. SP2's problems are sadly yet another example of Microsoft's rather hap-hazard approach to coding a secure system. Funnily enough, the SP2-related problems we've seen with our systems find their root in the fact that SP2 manages to block Microsoft's own services (DCOM, COM+ RPC etc) from behaving how applications expect them to. We're rectifying this by using the MS-provided registry edits required to ease the stupidly-behaved firewalling. Nothing more nefarious than MS's own incompetence.

XP took an incredibly long time to penetrate business. Still, we prefer 2k systems to XP. Voluntary business upgrade purchases of XP are like gold-dust. The only reason it's here in our corp is that new machines come with it (thus 'activation' is a non-issue), and that our software only required extrememly minor changes (largely GUI related) to behave properly. A far, far cry from having to start coding our business systems from scratch for what would, essentially, be an entirely new platform.

Heck, we'd probably be more likely to switch to the Mac or IBM PPC-based Linux systems if we were faced with TCI/Palladium.

This isn't a mailed fist slamming into the face of a consumer. It's a gradual tightening of the thumbscrews so that there's no single, loud outcry, but rather an acceptance of the discomfort.

But the nature of what you're describing is that at some point, existing systems will simply no longer work. If the final result is any kind of half-way house, the entire idea is useless.

When it comes to businesses, though, there are distinct advantages to the TCI proposals and standards, if you have no trust in your employees and would rather rule by fiat. In a properly configured TCI system, no program will run that isn't vetted by the module that sits between the processor and the rest of the system. Your employees can only do things you approve of, and any deviation is watched over by the chip, logged, and reported. All documents are watermarked and encrypted with an ID that would be pretty hard to completely duplicate, given that it comes from the hardware components in the system that generates the content. Beyond that, it means that external hardware has that much harder a time being used - removable media, for example, would be more difficult to use in a theft.

Some of what you're describing is inter- and intra-business information exchange, where TCI would indeed seem to be useful. However, we already have systems like this in place, without crippling the utility of our systems, or re-implementing everything from scratch. PGP-signed email, MD5-summed binaries, etc. Best of all, these solutions are open for our partners to inspect also -- we don't have to blindly place our trust in a third-party (MS).

Much of what you describe is network administration. Very little of which is actually impossible today with existing systems -- especially those we use which are not Windows based. If I were to have to promote this to our board, I'd be scrabbling for genuine reasons.

This makes a lot of sense for corporations, and far less for consumers, unless you take the stance of the corporations. The "attestation" process can watch to see if you modify their content or software, and call home when it's detected. It can shut off your right to use a piece of information by revoking the "trusted" status from it.

Makes sense for content providers and software vendors. But again, this offers no benefit to organisations whose operations depend on their own in-house software. Not only that, but depend upon that software running properly on new machines. Why would we re-code our systems, into which tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of man-hours have been put, just to satisfy some requirement of some crippled hardware? Why would any of the hundreds of thousands of other companies in the same position, whose custom is the lifeblood of vendors such as Dell?

And if we're in such a position, where re-development was an absolute necessity for the business to continue, why would any of us choose such a restricted platform when there are alternatives (Apple, PPC-linux, or some other entrepreneurial vendor who chooses not to toe the MS line)?

Is it coming clear, now?

Well, the MS-sponsored hype for the project all sounds very nice for them. But if high-volume customers do not adopt, then alternatives will flourish.

With Palladium/TCI and the hardware lockdown, they have a more guaranteed market than ever before. All it takes is an occasional breakage in the formats to require Upgrade X to function, and then the companies that manufacture that part will rake in the cash. The update cycle is in their hands, not ours, if this happens.

The market will fracture, and I believe a sizeable portion will simply find Palladium/TCI unsuitable for their requirements.

Microsoft has long pushed the software side of this as much as possible, bloating their code to help OEMs sell new machines. Now they're just going to be blatant about it, and let the media companies in on the party.

But Windows (or at least the PC platform as we know it today) has, for all its faults, offered two excellent features: extremely versatile utility and long-term compatibility. What you propose completely eradicates the second advantage, and seriously hinders the first.

It's pretty tight-lipped whether there will be other options. Most of the chatter, when they get down to specifics, is how their next-generation chipsets and processors (by requireing the chipsets, if not embedding them) will be TCI-compliant.

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this is simply h/w vendors hedging their bets. Companies make a lot of noise around these sorts of things.

 

[thatwendigo]

I just thought that I'd point out IBM's releasing ThinkPads with embedded TCI.

Downplay it all you want, but it's starting. The movement is picking up steam and manufacturers love it.