Manage updates with the Download AppNovember 9, 2005 11:16 AM PST
Apple tries to patent 'tamper-resistant software'
- Related Stories
-
Apple aims to protect Rosetta mark
November 8, 2005 -
Developers get taste of Intel-based Macs
June 10, 2005 -
The brains behind Apple's Rosetta: Transitive
June 8, 2005 -
Apple throws the switch, aligns with Intel
June 6, 2005
The Mac maker has applied for a patent to cover a "system and method for creating tamper-resistant code." Apple describes ways of ensuring that code can be limited to specific hardware, even in a world in which operating systems can be run simultaneously, in so-called virtual machines. The patent application was made in April of 2004, but only made public last Thursday.
In its application, Apple describes a means of securing code using either a specific hardware address or read-only memory (ROM) serial number. Apple also talks about securing the code while interchanging information among multiple operating systems. Mac OS X, Windows and Linux are called out specifically in the filing.
"This invention relates generally to the field of computer data processing and more particularly to techniques for creating tamper-resistant software," Apple says in its patent filing. Specifically, Apple refers to the technique of "code obfuscation," in which software makers employ techniques that make it harder for those using debuggers or emulators to figure out how a particular block of code is working.
Apple's patent application comes as the company prepares to offer its Mac OS X operating system for Intel-based chips, with the first machines slated to go on sale next year.
Historically, the company has had to worry less about the Mac running on non-Apple hardware because it has used different chips and other components from those that power Windows PCs. With its move to Intel chips, though, the innards of the Mac will become more similar to those of its Windows-based counterparts.
The company said it is not planning on supporting Windows or other operating systems on the Intel-based Macs it sells but has also said it doesn't plan on taking steps to prevent Mac owners from running other operating systems.
"We won't do anything to preclude that," Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller told CNET News.com in June.
However, Schiller also said Apple has no plans to allow its operating system to run on non-Apple hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said. An Apple representative declined to comment Wednesday on the patent filing. Clearly, though, Apple is gearing up the intellectual property push around the Intel move.
The company has reportedly been beefing up the technology that constrains the Intel versions of Mac OS X to run only on authorized machines, to this point a set of test Macs given to developers. The company has also applied for a trademark on Rosetta, its technology for running existing Mac programs on the Intel chips.
53 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
We'll see. I don't think Apple is going anywhere but up.
For every security measure, there's always a way to get past it, but I hope they can pull it off.
If you could run their os on a normal pc, why would anyone want to buy their hardware?
machine, that would be the end of Mac as we know it."
Your comment assumes that every computer user is going to
jump through hoops in order to run Mac OS X on their machine.
I think most people understand that their time is more valuable
than the few dollars they'd save buying a Dell or HP over an Intel
Mac Mini or something similar.
I don't think circumvention of Apple's OS lock in (if that's what
we're talking about; it's anything but clear that this is what the
patent applies to) would mean bad things for Apple - the
certainty of support and seamless operation are worth a lot to
average consumers. These everyday Joe buyers helped Chrysler
out of near-bankruptcy in the 1980s, partially on the strength of
the best-in-class new car warranties Iacocca was offering at the
time.
Apple you need to stop relying on the hardware as your cash cow and copy the market leader which is Microsoft.
Separate the software from the hardware. You cater to the masses and not to the selective few with your hardware offering. I give you credit, youre hardware design is among the elite but I cant and will not shell out money for something proprietary.
Steve Jobs, you started NEXT as a platform independent software company. Follow that strategy with MAC OS X. As a user of MAC OS X, WINDOWS, and Linux, I really like Apples value proposition. You know how to take an operating system that is difficult to understand and market to the masses. I like the fact youve taken UNIX from the GEEK realm and placed it on every desk with every computer. Do not stop there.
Remember your Think Different campaign. Maybe you need to THINK DIFFERENT . NO HARDWARE lock in.
I know you want to control the quality of the OS with the interaction of the hardware. Do not underestimate you user base. Most of us are all technically savvy.
Salam,
Nael Mohammad
interaction of the hardware.
Yes - this is important. It's not *just* the software - controlling
the hardware simpifies the OS, maintenance, and the user's
experience.
> Do not underestimate you user base. Most of us are all
technically savvy.
You really think that "most" Mac users are technically savvy? I
don't think so; not by a long shot! (In fact, I doubt that the
majority of Windows users are technically savvy.)
for the Wintel platform that competed with Windows. Let's call it
"Delldows". ;-)
Would you suggest Dell abandon their hardware sales and only
sell Delldows? I doubt it, because it would be suicide. Their
revenue stream would disappear, then Microsoft would squish
them like a little bug.
How is that different than what you are suggesting for Apple?
for dual-booting Mac OSX and WIndows (and/or Linux, so triple-
booting).
Allowing the Mac OS to run on non-Apple boxes? Bad for Apple.
Hence the patent mentioned in the article.
Allowing other OS's to run on a Macintel with little effort beyond
an installation? Great for Apple. Not necessarily bad for MS.
Realize that this means Apple is confident its OS will come
across as superior (I think it already does).
2nd. Who says he won't? Imagine if the sales are good, and other hardware manufacturers adhere to a standard (i.e. firewire on all models, USB 2.0 and all keyboards/mice/etc. be able to access USB, Firewire) they may actually license it out or start selling OS X for regular PC's.
It's a long road ahead. I'm betting it'llbe a good one.
I like Apples, I always have, ...heck, I still have practically every "Apple ][http://" model ever made. And, I still periodically power them-up, ...just for sentimental reasons (In fact, I am looking for a set of original "Integer-Basic" ROMS to restore an owner-upgraded "Apple |http://" model ever made. And, I still periodically power them-up, ...just for sentimental reasons (In fact, I am looking for a set of original "Integer-Basic" ROMS to restore an owner-upgraded "Apple ][+" to its original "glory").
I also love "OS-X". But, Apples biggest problem has always been their seemingly-uncontrollable lust for control, through proprietary-technologies. That is why they "lost" the "personal-computer war" in the first place (sorry, but 5-percent market-share is due, very much, to a certain Steves repeated refusal to allow his "Insanely Great", and many admit, superior-technologies, out into the larger world, ...un-tethered to Apple, ...where it could be driven by more than just "Apple Computer").
This, long-term, behavior has also resulted in the "price problem", which Apple is still trying to conquer.
But, if they (Apple) keep trying to force the industry into an unwanted (by consumers) direction, for their own benefit, Apple is just going to remain a "bit-player", who is constantly admired (and copied) but never is the "player" they really should be.
I disagree with your contention that Jobs is to blame for Apple's
problems. Jobs QUIT Apple shortly after the Mac introduction in
1984. He wasn't around to make all the bad decisions you
claim.
Since his return in 1998, Apple has become more and more
open. And open Unix core. Agressive use of standards such as
USB. Etc.
Next year, Apple will sell PC's that can run OS X, Windows, or
Linux. And Dell/Gateway/HP/Etc will also continue to sell PC's
that can run Window or Linux. What's the difference?
Why is Apple "following an unwanted direction for their own
benefit" when compared to Dell/Gateway/HP/Etc?
Sounds like a big double-standard to me.
Fortunately, I've learned that the fastest way to destroy your own
credibility is to become irate or start throwing insults.
The second fastest way to destroy your credibility is to admit that
you prefer/own Apple computers.
I'm only guilty of the latter. ;-)
Whoppi Goldberg is to Liberals.
Everytime she opens her mouth, liberals look stupid.
As long as Apple locks up the ability to run OS X on its machines, all the "IBM PC-Compatible" guys had better look at new revenue streams.
For Apple this is totally a 180 degree turn from the clone licensing days.
I have to agree with Nael. I do not believe Apple will make much noise, as far as market share, until they release their OS to run on ordinary PCs. The hardware is irrelevant. The money is in the software, in this case, OSX. There can be no clearer evidence of this than Microsoft. Think about it, when we compare the market share of Apple, Linux, and Microsoft, we aren't comparing the hardware. We are comparing how many computers are running the OS.
Will Apple eventually take this route? I hope so. Competition breeds better products and innovation. And no they are not competing with Microsoft right now, not with 5% of the market. Most people who don't like Macs would buy a stand-alone copy of OSX. I can almost guarantee it. They are anti-Apple because of the hardware/software combination. Offer it alone and Apple market share will climb at a fast rate.
Oh yeah, it has to be able to play video games! People love chalking up video, photo, and music editing, but it's the gamers and enthusiats who really propel the PC market. Besides the business market of course.
My .02
"One of the previous poster's said Apple is a hardware company
like Dell. I have to disagree with that point. Though their
hardware makes up for the majority of their sales, OSX is what
really drives Macs. Because of that I believe they are a software
company first, then the hardware comes in second."
If you believe that, you haven't used a Mac long enough (or at
all). I had a difficult video shoot (in a huge freezer environment),
and I decided that I wanted to make sure I had redundancy in my
video set up (in case of sticking DV tape due to the cold). So I
brought my new iMac G5 to run a firewire feed into the iMac
from the camera, in addition to the tape. Everyone that saw the
computer was in awe of it. They were literally standing around
watching FCP import video (not seeing any of the OS bells and
whistles). They loved the design, the screen, the look, and even
the feel -- yes, they felt the thing! And this company is very Mac
prejudiced!
Oh, and not to be sarcastic, but the last time I checked, iPods
don't generally run OSX (although some have forced it onto
them, according to rumor sites). It is the iPod hardware that
creates the so-called "halo" effect which has been reported to
have brought over at least 1,000,000 switchers to Mac. So Apple
is very much a hardware company. They are also a software
company... in service to their hardware.
You also said:
"The money is in the software, in this case, OSX. There can be no
clearer evidence of this than Microsoft. Think about it, when we
compare the market share of Apple, Linux, and Microsoft, we
aren't comparing the hardware. We are comparing how many
computers are running the OS."
Well, they're actually comparing hardware... sort of. To get that
95% worldwide marketshare Microsoft crows about, they count
MACHINES that run Windows, including cash registers and public
informational kiosks among other things. If you were to seperate
the pre-installed (OEM) sale of Windows from the stand-alone
units, you would see a huge drop in units sold, as you would
with Apple.
The fact is, if a box came with no OS pre-installed at all, it might
actually be Linux that gets the highest marketshare. But people
want something that comes off the shelf and plugs into the wall
with very little hassle, hence the pre-installed OS' such as
Windows and Mac. So, in a way, Microsoft is actually closer to
the hardware business model than most people think. The only
difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft has
chosen to let other people build the hardware. Unless you count
XBox. (Now there was a very Apple-like decision! :)
Eric
Apple has always used CPU's from Motorola and IBM. Now they
are switching to intel.
As for "performance", it depends how you quantify that metric. If
you mean raw CPU performance (important for some games),
then Macs have slightly lower performance. If you mean
stability, reliability, usability, or security, then Macs have higher
performance.
As for price, an Apple PC already costs the about the same as a
comparable Dell or HP PC, so I wouldn't expect much price drop.
However, the switch to Intel will improve their CPU performance,
especially for laptops.