Once again, Apple computers can go fuck themselves.

[oneirophrenia]

Looks like Apple Computers is going to build some kind of DRM bullshit directly into the new OS X kernel for Intel processors.

Now, here's my take on that, in a nutshell: I can't stand ANY form of DRM. Period. I use iTunes exclusively to play mp3s, because I really like its simplicity and effectiness...but I've only ever bought four songs from the iTunes Store--one of them the Beck song I'm currently listening to (they were iTunes exclusives, alas). I, of course, re-encoded them seconds after downloading them to strip the DRM shit out of them, and never bought another song from that service.

The thing is, as many of you know, I really like post-2000 Mac machines and software--not as much as siliconedreamer or Cory Doctorow, but they're really cool and generally work extremely well. In fact, I was pretty excited when I heard Apple was switching to Intel processors because, well, as much as I like Apple hardware, I'm not a big fan of proprietary hardware, which always sort of wrecked the PowerPC core for me. Anyway, that's irrelevant now. Now it seems that Apple is writing DRM functions directly into the OS kernel designed for Intel processors. Yet another reason I say to Apple Computer, "You and Steve Jobs can go fuck yourselves."

Gods know I'm not a GPL freak like many--I have no problem using software that saves data in proprietary formats (such as, for instance, Microsoft Office...although, to be honest, the .doc format has by now become so well-known and -supported by even non-MS apps that it might as well be declared open-source), although I naturally prefer open-source data formats for universal interoperability reasons. Adding some fucking DRM scheme to that equation, however, is a deal-breaker: I am not ABOUT to chain my data to a certain chipset ID or a particular machine or installation of software. That shit can flatout blow me.

Yet another reason I can't stand Apple Computers (the company, not the hardware). I still want, say, a Mac Mini so I can run Mac-only audio software, but I'll probably grab one fairly soon rather than wait for the Intel switchover in order to avoid this DRM shit. Which, mind you, will probably end up being cracked anyway, but still...one less hassle I can avoid.

Don't think I won't say the exact same thing about Microsoft or ANYone else who pulls this DRM bull, either. I recall a while back MS was planning some kind of monitor-based DRM scheme, which of course earned them a big ol' Mister Rogers Middle Finger, as well. But it seems they have backed down from that...and, hell, anything MS writes into their OS can be cracked thirteen seconds after it's released, anyway.

Comments

[alternakittyn.livejournal.com]

Mind you, I haven't read all that much about it (since I'd like to avoid having one of these Mactel machines) but it basically boils down to this: Apple is insisting it's a hardware company. If they're using standard Intel chips and MOBO setups, they must do something to ensure that people continue to use their hardware. It's retarded, but that's what they've decided to do. Personally, I'm seeing freeing the OS from Apple hardware as an opportunity for them to make mad cash and overtake Windows in the OS market. They're not taking it.

My best case scenario? Being able to walk into Fry's, purchase myself a copy of OS 10.5 along with the Apple-approved (or made) mobo, dropping it in my tower, installing the OS and rockin' out OSX style. That's just a dream though...

[oneirophrenia.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm seeing freeing the OS from Apple hardware as an opportunity for them to make mad cash and overtake Windows in the OS market. They're not taking it.

Which is just idiotic. Literally idiotic. They could make money hand over fist if they just separated themselves from the stupid notion of being a primarily-hardware company. The reason more people don't use OS X is simple: Macs cost too much fucking money. If they relaxed their hardware stranglehold a bit and focused on promoting their OS, they'd eclipse Microsoft in about an hour. IF THAT.

I like your best-case scenario, too, btw. Hell, I'd do it to if I didn't just sink $1800 on a God-powered dual-core Sony Vaio Media Center. :)

[shad0ws.livejournal.com]

might i offer, though....

a big part of the reason that OS X is so desirable is the fact that it works. and, like it or not, a huge part of this work-ability is that it's running on hardware it knows and was specifically built for.

OS X without proprietary hardware would, simply put, not be OS X anymore. if you want one, you have to have the other; and yes---this does cost more to produce, and yes, the price is going to be higher in the absence of competition to keep it down. but personally, i see that as paying for reliability, professional support, and the increased functionality that comes from not having to worry with drivers/compatibility/service issues.

Apple under Jobs is just as much into being a "hardware company" as ever, but i'm not sure that their core philosophy really allows for anything else. for all the criticism you can pile onto it, at least they're not allowing OS X to become the mishmash of incompatibilites that is prettymuch every version of Windows to date (and every concievable version, methinks, without proprietary hardware or hardware-specific distributions).