![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
discontent Within the last few days, it has become known that these developer machines utilize a digital rights management chip (also made by Intel) called TPM, or Trusted Platform Module. Apparently this chip is the reason why efforts to crack the x86 version of MacOS X and make it run on generic PC hardware has been as yet unsuccessful. For some reason, this has created a lot of hubbub. Daring Fireball does a good job of addressing these issues here: http://daringfireball.net/2005/08/trust
What they don't quite come out and say is this: Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. The vast majority of their revenue comes from hardware sales (which is not just iPods). The upcoming switch to Intel CPUs creates the obvious possibility of someone taking OS X and trying to install it on a generic PC, which - if it became a trend - would be disastrous to Apple's bottom line. Clearly then, they want to do something to prevent that, on have used TPM on the developer machines to accomplish that. Such a move is hardly unexpected. I really don't see why it's surprising or why people have a problem with it. After all, all Apple is doing is maintaining the status quo. That is, that Mac OS only runs of Mac hardware. While using PowerPC CPUs, the CPU acted as a de facto lock-in, since a version of MacOS X compiled for PPC can't run on x86 hardware. The switch requires a different kind of lock. Big flipping deal.
Now Paul Thurrott has stepped in with this claim:
We all want to believe that Apple's move to a PC-like platform will mean that OS X will eventually be portable to true PCs. Obviously, this is not something Apple wants. Clearly, access to TPM was one of the reasons Apple chose Intel. [Emphasis added]
First of all, who is "we all?" The answer is PC geeks like Paul, who have forever whined about Macs beings too expensive/slow/whatever. They want to have their cake and eat it, too: the elegant, stable, secure OS X on cheap, generic PC hardware. Sorry, not going to happen in this lifetime, if ever, since as Paul rightly points out, Apple doesn't want this.
So clearly, Apple's switch to Intel was partly motivated by a desire to use TPM?
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make a lick of sense. There isn't a single shred of logic behind that statement at all. As Daring Fireball pointed out, it would be suicidal for Apple to implement TPM in any that really restricts the user in their computing experience. It's as I said: they need to prevent OS X from running on generic hardware to protect their bottom line.
That means that the use of TPM is a necessary consequence of the switch to Intel, not a reason driving the switch. How could it be? If that were true, then that means Apple wanted to switch to Intel because Intel has a solution to the problem that switching would create. And that's just dumb. If that was their motivation, then all it does is bring them a full 360 degrees to where they've been all along: with an OS tied to their own hardware. That's hardly a motivation to switch CPU platforms.
Think of it this way. Apple switching to Intel to get access to TPM would be likely furniture manufacturers who use that new stain-proof microfiber cloth to "regular" cloth because there's a great product called ScotchGuard that prevents staining.
Let's make a problem for ourselves so we can fix it. Does that make sense to do? Of course not. It's a zero-sum equation. One that in this case would cost Apple a boatload of R&D dollars, not to mention pissing off their user base and obsoleting at a stroke every existing piece of Mac hardware and software. No, TPM can't (and isn't) a reason for Apple's switch to Intel. They did that for completely different reasons (many of which I don't' agree with, but that's another story).
Clearly, access to TPM was one of the reasons Apple chose Intel? No, clearly not.
