Intel Insider DRM Risks Monopoly Investigations 217
Blacklaw writes "Intel's Sandy Bridge line of processors is impressing the tech community with its power, but a sneaky little feature designed to appease Hollywood has some concerned about Intel's intentions: Intel Insider. If a major video streaming service, such as Lovefilm or the US-based Hulu, were to implement Intel Insider technology on their movie streams — as a way of convincing Hollywood to release films sooner and in high definition without worrying about piracy — it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies. Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded."
In a blog post about this new feature, Intel denies that it is DRM.
DRM fails (Score:3)
It has to be decrypted to be displayed. There is always a way to tap into that. DRM fails again.
Close the analog hole by making video games (Score:3)
It has to be decrypted to be displayed. There is always a way to tap into that.
At the cost of millions of dollars to put probes directly into the chip. The point of DRM, as I understand it, isn't to make things impossible to decrypt but to A. make it cheaper to write, film, edit, and promote your own original work than to break a DRM system, and B. provide a hook for a circumvention lawsuit. If you're talking about analog reconversion, this works only for noninteractive media such as movies, not for interactive media such as video games.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to do that, HDCP is a joke to crack, just record off the hdmi link.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's my theory as to how it works:
The CPU generates a session key, encrypts it using the video site's public key (which comes from a certificate signed by Intel which is verified by the CPU) and sends this encrypted session key to the video site.
The video site then decrypts the encrypted session key using their private key, and then uses the session key to encrypt the video stream.
The CPU then takes the encrypted video stream, decrypts it with the session key, then produces an HDCP stream[1] which is sent
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in this case, the easiest way to decrypt it is probably to buy one of Intel's new expensive Sandy Bridge processors... at which point Intel have made their money and don't care hugely what you do with the decrypted data.
not surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Intel doesn't exactly have a history of being open and honest, but then again, what major corporation does?
This is going to be scenario where I vote with my dollars. Once Intel solved their heat problem and stopped adding latency layers, and thus began beating the pants off of AMD in benchmarks, I switched to Intel processors in my builds. And if Hulu, Amazon, Netflix et. al. join in on the fun, I'll abandon them as well.
I'm switching back, benchmarks be damned. I'll have plenty of processing power regar
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Once Intel solved their heat problem and stopped adding latency layers, and thus began beating the pants off of AMD in benchmarks,
At what price point? The $900-per-processor range?
I've been extremely happy as an AMD customer. And every time I run price-for-performance, AMD comes out king even today. They haven't won the "fuck it I'm a millionaire money is no object" speed crown in a while, but I can get a much faster AMD CPU for the same price in the $100-200 range every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about GPUs. But even if you were talking about CPUs this simply isn't true (or at least wasn't when I bought my processor)
Re: (Score:2)
the cpu still helps a lot in getting a good frame rate, especially when you are hosting the game
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but AMD has what, half as many different sockets as intel? I built my machine out of $100 components and when the lowest-grade Phenom II X6 hits that price (I predict it will happen within six months, but I've been wrong before) then I will likely upgrade from my Phenom II X3... because I can. (And because I need more cores for video encoding.) I won't have to upgrade anything around my processor.
Re: (Score:2)
I am an AMD fan and user myself, but there are a couple points where Intel matches/slightly exceeded AMD on price/performance at default clocks. The i5 750 and i7 920 are those points.
Not (not) DRM (Score:2)
WP sez:
Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices.
From TFA:
...it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies.
So Intel Insider could be used to limit the usage of digital content.
Intel, you are dirty, dirty liars.
Intel Inside (Score:2)
I miss MMX technology.
Incidentally, the word "Inside" is one of those words that loses its meaning the longer you look at it.
DRM is just a delay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could work on an "untrusted" principle. Google for Analog hole; the various *IAA have been trying to plug it for years.
It is possible to turn off the video output if the monitor is "untrusted", and to encrypt the entire video stream, from source to pixel.
The problem is that the technology right now is fragile, and would cause a huge uproar. It might also run afoul of some anti-monopoly laws, as only certain "approved" hardware platforms would be able to display the video stream.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always a time when the signal is unencrypted, because our brains are not capable of decoding the encrypted signal if it's displayed on a monitor that way. It would just look like noise.
Certainly, it can be made really, really hard to get at the unencrypted signal by doing the decryption inside the display device, but that will not prevent access to the unencrypted signal. It will just be a real pain.
When I first read Schneier's Cryptography, I was absolutely blown away by the idea of a zero knowled
Can't camcord a video game (Score:2)
Astounding Hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
From that link to Intel's website:
So it's not Digital Rights Management, it's just Content Protection. I feel better.
Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA "Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally."
No, obviously this isn't DRM, it is a technology to protect their rights to their digital content. Completely different. Not related. Nothing to see here, move along. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! [wikipedia.org]
Re:Astounding Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if it's not DRM, then it shouldn't be illegal to circumvent it.
Re: (Score:2)
(Also from the Intel blog post)
Re: (Score:2)
so would you consider TLS/SSL DRM? it is a form of multi "Content Protection"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW BBC use TLS/SSL to lock down content to specific devices, using vendor-specific root CAs, for their "iPlayer" online TV. TLS/SSL definitely can be used to build DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW BBC use TLS/SSL to lock down content to specific devices, using vendor-specific root CAs, for their "iPlayer" online TV. TLS/SSL definitely can be used to build DRM.
It can be used as a component of a DRM system, but it's not designed for it. In particular, TLS/SSL do not contain any functionality to help protect the keys or decrypted data from the person running the application, which is the hardest part of DRM. Intel's new scheme does.
Re: (Score:3)
But you missed his most important distinction that convincingly proves that Intel Insider is not DRM:
Can't argue with that iron-clad, and not entirely arbitrary, logic.
Re: (Score:3)
That explains getting pummelled by KY Jelly ads on Hulu lately.
Liars (Score:4, Informative)
I will say that Intel Insider is NOT a DRM technology.
So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection
Talk about doublethink.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern marketing at work. If a label get a bad vibe, find a new label for the same "product"...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
I will say that Intel Insider is NOT a DRM technology.
So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection
Talk about doublethink.
I like that his full explanation for why it isn't DRM is basically that "DRM is software."
Of course, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and a Google search [google.com] seem to disagree with that, but I guess Intel gets to make up their own definitions for terms to suit their (or Marketing's) needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
intel insider will be cracked in a week (Score:2)
Just buy 'em already (Score:5, Interesting)
Ars [arstechnica.com] had a nice writeup of this yesterday, referencing a 2006 post [arstechnica.com] of theirs. The basic gist is/was that DRM simply CANNOT be a good sell for tech companies, and given that Intel and the other consumer electronics companies are so massive when compared to production costs, why don't they just buy one? Intel could piss on its shoes and come out with the budget for a dozen major films, which they could then release DRM free, to the joy of all of their customers. Hollywood is big, but there are only six major production houses and a number of smaller ones... all of which are worth far less than the major tech companies. Want more movies on iTunes, Apple? You've got the cash, so BUY a production house.
I didn't mean to editorialize, but I think I started to convince myself by the end there.
Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Just take a look at Sony - they are even more paranoid about piracy as a result of owning a movie studio.
Re: (Score:2)
Want more movies on iTunes, Apple? You've got the cash, so BUY a production house.
Of course, if they go buy a raft of crap like Netflix did they can inflate their numbers without actually adding anything anyone wants to watch...
Not DRM! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's "Content Protection"
Which of course is, entirely different.
Monopoly Investigations...? (Score:2)
So if I am the only company that offers a service, I risk a monopoly investigation? Intel isn't trying to squash competition, nor are they trying to obtain market exclusivity. They have included a feature that they think will be appealing to people / industry. Nothing's stopping AMD or any other manufacturer from introducing a similar feature (save, perhaps, patents?).
Now, granted, a stream destined for an Intel Insider system will not work on an AMD equivalent, but there's nothing in there to preclude the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Note that they aren't being charged with anything yet - that's why it's called an investigation. And the reason why it's warranted is because Intel is already in a monopoly position, and so it's far easier for them to affect competition even with relatively small moves.
"Intel doesn't copy-protect, DRM copy-protects" (Score:2)
From reading Intel's blog post, it sounds like they're defining DRM to be a software component and pointing out that Insider is a hardware feature, so not DRM. I think they're probably even right. But it sounds like Intel Insider is a hardware feature that's intended for implementing DRM (although maybe it has other uses) and that they're marketing it as being an improvement for DRM. It seems a little bit misleading to say "It's not DRM but it has these benefits ". But that's just my take on the blog po
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that very few things can truly be defined as "hardware" these days. Even our hardware has software or firmware embedded in it.
I think Intel saw the $$$s and wet themselves with the joy of renewed opportunity and threw the consumer out with the bath water. Or just sold their soul to the devil.
Re: (Score:2)
From reading Intel's blog post, it sounds like they're defining DRM to be a software component and pointing out that Insider is a hardware feature, so not DRM. I think they're probably even right. But it sounds like Intel Insider is a hardware feature that's intended for implementing DRM (although maybe it has other uses) and that they're marketing it as being an improvement for DRM. It seems a little bit misleading to say "It's not DRM but it has these benefits ". But that's just my take on the blog post, maybe more technical information would change the picture.
As already pointed out, Wikipedia says otherwise. Of course that isn't necessarily a reliable source, but a quick search [google.com] seems to corroborate the gist - DRM does't specifically apply to hardware or software, it is generally considered "a system for protecting copyrights of digital media."
HDCP? (Score:3)
I thought that since HDCP was cracked [theinquirer.net] it's possible to make high-def copies via HDMI? So it doesn't matter what encryption exists inside the playback device since if it's going to be output to an HDMI device, it can be captured and recorded?
Or was the HDCP crack mitigated by new keys on new devices? Or is HDMI copying not practical in the real world?
Re: (Score:2)
the HDCP crack was the master key for which you make device and content keys - it makes HDCP usless - this might be it's replacement. Remember the HDCP leak was sourced from Intel.
either way this is not DRM per say but rather a HD video optimized encryption/decryption device.. (best i can tell) so it wouldn't be anymore DRM than TLS/SSL
Re: (Score:2)
either way this is not DRM per say but rather a HD video optimized encryption/decryption device.. (best i can tell) so it wouldn't be anymore DRM than TLS/SSL
Perhaps the best term to describe it would be "hardware assisted DRM." TLS is only intended to prevent your adversary from reading your messages in transit; this goes a bit further, in that it is supposed to prevent the receiving party from forwarding the message to your adversary after decrypting it. If this were just a crypto accelerator, they would not be spending so much time talking about how this will "enable" HD movies on your PC; they would be talking about how it improves your security and what
Re:HDCP? (Score:4, Informative)
my understanding is that if you own a bd player and 'risk' putting bd discs into your system (maybe even network) that it can detect hardware and handshake down and disable (!) hardware it does not, uhhh, like.
if you do not ever mount a bd disc then the block-list part of the bd spec won't ever run. I think your hardware won't ever get on a local blacklist.
but if you DO mount a new enough bd disc, it could very well detect some rogue hw and try to stop it.
evil!
I boycott bd. bd is just not for me. thanks though ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Which means that they should be shipping from Taiwan any day now.
Monopoly? Anti-competetive? (Score:2)
When Intel refused to ship purchased product unless a vendor refused to carry AMD, that was illegal. When Intel strong-armed vendors in other ways not to carry AMD, that was illegal.
Offering an exclusive feature with partners is not illegal. That is just an exclusive feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is assuming that every major media partner demands consumers have this processor, which hasn't happened yet.
Do you think iTunes is going to require this? What about Amazon video on demand?
And even then, having a large market share due to an exclusive feature still isn't illegal. Anti-competetive practices are.
For instance, EA has an exclusive partnership with the NFL for video games. That isn't illegal. You can still make a football game like Backbreaker, but Madden commands massive market share due to
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse your monopoly position. Releasing new "features" (whether we like them or not) is not abuse. Forcing a movie studio to use these new features would be abuse.
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been said before, but it needs to be repeated by high-profile writers until Hollywood listens.
DRM will always be cracked. You are not stopping pirates. You are punishing paying customers by treating them like criminals. Hollywood is convinced (like the music industry was) that no one would willingly pay for digital content if they have the capability to pirate it. The reality is that iTunes is the #1 seller of music, with Amazon #2. People do actually like paying for legal, digital content.
People will pirate. DRM isn't the solution. Finding ways to reward paying customers and treating them well is the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
but.. but.. customer service - no one like customer service.. what would we invest there..
Re: (Score:2)
All true, but I think the major point of your assertion, and the one that they always miss, is that EVERYONE doesn't have to break their DRM.
I think there is some assumption that if it takes an elaborate setup to break the DRM then it's OK, as not many people will bother, but the reality is once the DRM is broken, someone will release the content on P2P networks WITHOUT DRM. At that point, an easily copyable version is out in the wild. Game over.
That's what I don't get. They throw all this copyprotection
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to imply that. All it takes is one person to break DRM and then it is worthless because it is stripped for everyone else.
And for many of the pirates, simply the challenge of DRM, or the antagonizing by the executives is enough to motivate them.
No one hacked the PS3 when Linux was a legal and valid option on the console. When Sony decided to piss in the face of their consumers, it motivated GeoHot to truly break the console and release the hack in the wild.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that iTunes is the #1 seller of music, with Amazon #2. People do actually like paying for legal, digital content.
The fact that iTunes is the #1 seller of music says absolutely nothing about how much music is pirated, or how much would be if DRM were more effecive, or how much would be if DRM didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
They know that. You aren't smarter then they are, you don't know anything they don't in this regard.
Well, that leaves me wondering why DVDs are still being shipped with CSS...
Re:DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris [wired.com]
I can give you story after story about major executives who all said digital media will fail, and how consumers don't want digital media, or how it is impossible to do right.
I can give you story after story about executives who insisted consumers will never legally pay for digital media.
I can show you stories of executives saying Hulu was doomed for failure, and NBC only allowed the project to end the debate that putting full episodes of TV on the web was a valid business model.
Hollywood, video game executives and the music industry demand DRM beacause they don't know better. Even worse, they spend money on DRM. It costs them money to "protect their investment", which in turn costs them that much more in tech support and customer nightmares.
If they knew better, they wouldn't do it.
Not DRM, but copy protection. Still just as bad. (Score:2)
Fair enough, using the strict definition of DRM, Intel Insider isn't DRM, but it is still copy protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, using the strict definition of DRM, Intel Insider isn't DRM, but it is still copy protection.
What strict definition of DRM? The one Intel made up to suit their purposes? None of the sources I've seen in a few quick searches say anything about DRM being software. In most cases it is referred to as a system, where it is not explicitly stated that it can be software, hardware, or a combination of the two. So where does this strict definition come from that you refer to?
Intel don't care a bit about hollywood (Score:2)
As long as it's only used with content that would be DRM'ed anyway it's not something that strikes me as incredibly controversial.
Go ahead, Intel and Hollywood, make my day. (Score:3)
Pfft (Score:2, Funny)
Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded.
Hey, welcome to Linux. We stream our movies the old-fashioned way - from hard drives of friends.
Excellent! (Score:2)
I've always wanted my machine to not support DRM - if restricions management will require a processor feature that I don't have, then there's no way that me or my kids will put DRM-infected content on the computer. As for the 'access to the content' - anybody who wants my money will find a way to offer it without DRM, and pirates will have access anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel's "Set-Top Box" CPU (Score:3)
everyone's forgetting about intel's consumer division Set-Top-Box CPU, which is specifically banned / restricted (by intel themselves) from being sold as a Laptop / Desktop CPU. it's a SoC with an embedded 1ghz Intel Atom Core, combined with PowerVR SGX 3D and 1080p60 HD Video playback, which means that to do HDTV the Intel CPU Core is idling at about 3%. it does NOT use Intel's own GMA Graphics, nor Intel's own MPEG decoder, because they're too crap.
why am i mentioning this CPU? because it only has HDMI 1.4 - absolutely no LVDS, VGA or RGB/TTL out. why is that? it's to *stop* people from bypassing the DRM!
the holywood companies etc. are so paranoid, and so "in control" that even companies like Intel bow to them and create this kind of insane restricted cartel hardware.
i remain deeply unimpressed and i am hoping that the reduced price and the "freedom" afforded by the Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean markets (irony to call the Chinese markets "free" but that's by comparison to what hollywood+intel are up to), results in at least *some* mass-market CPUs being at least open enough to work with.
but, one thing that stops that is the fact that many of these Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean companies have to utilise Linux (because it's not Intel). that means that they are typically ignorant of the GPL; that means that they treat the Free Software Community's hard work and efforts with blatant disregard.
So, for those people reading this who actually want to make a difference: start doing GPL investigations of products and their firmware, get onto the gpl-violations mailing list, help to pressurise these Asian companies to comply, by educating them on their obligations. each person who does that takes up that company's time, to the point where eventually, like Ingenic did and VIA have (finally) and amazingly even Telechips recently, they will get the message and release GPL source code.
Anyone remember when they did this before with MMX (Score:3)
Back when MMX extensions first came out Intel set up some deals for content that were only available on processors with the new MMX extensions, but it was insignificant enough that nobody cared. Now they're doing it again, but with bigger content providers so it'll be noticed more.
My flame on their blog (Score:2)
0 comments on this piece of PR bullshit? What a surprise, the PR is leading to censorship!
All I can say is fuck off Intel, I will not be buying your products again. I do not pay for anything if it contains any form of anti-feature, no matter how appealing the features might be. When your hardware contains features that hand control of my property to a third party, that feature suddenly becomes an anti-feature. That third party will use their control ability to interfere with what I might want to do with my
can always be done in software (Score:2)
Whatever it is that Intel put into the cpu can always be done in software. Having the process native inside the CPU will make it faster, and means that a special DLL wouldn't be required. However, it will still be possible to do the same thing in software. So whatever it is, it will be cracked. QED.
Hey Geohot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And how exactly can it be "sneaky" when Intel makes all this information about this technology public [intel.com]. They even have a webpage [intel.com] all about it. This is about as far from "sneaky" as one can be.
Re:Sneaky (Score:2)
Because suddenly those nice happy streams you were enjoying get yanked away from you and are only eligible on Sandy Bridge chip machines. However, we only learn about this in January after you already bought a generic Windows 7 machine.
So now we not only have everyone making software lockins, we are seeing the first hardware lockins. You'll have to carry a chart around to figure out the dependencies.
Re: (Score:3)
Lock-in as in: video streaming company getting a "stream" of unsubscribing users because they no longer can use the service...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm.... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh? Of course if you are using a CPU that doesn't implement the technology that the service is based on you wouldn't be able to use it. This is like saying that "Intel Faces Monopoly Investigation" because x86 code only runs on... x86 processors.
Congratulations, you just proved the point. Intel DID face monopoly investigations for x86 instruction sets. That's why AMD exists, because Intel was forced to license the i386 instruction set.
If Intel doesn't license out this technology, and it becomes the dominant media distribution platform, they'll likely face the same problems again. However, Intel has learned, and these days AMD and Intel cross-license quite a bit. x86_64, for example, is AMD tech that Intel has licensed.
Re:Umm.... what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bigger joke is, pretty soon this DRM-crap will be in just about every new processor. So it'll only be people with older CPU's (read: anything not 1-2 years new) that lack.
Sort of the way that people with Windows Vista or Win7 get fucked for video quality hooking a laptop or HTPC up to a TV or projector that happens to have a VGA input rather than DVI or HDMI.
Welcome to "the future", where DRM is fucking everywhere and your rights as a consumer mean precisely Jack and Shit. And if you wonder how we got there, look no further than the two-party system where both sides are bought out by the same businesses [dailyfinance.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't consume DRM'ed products.
You don't need Hollywood or RIAA products, all of which are trifling bullshit that can be dispensed with.
If you WANT them, then shut up and KNOW that by spending your MONEY on them you are gorging on corporate cock.
Vote with your wallet or grab your ankles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If I somehow lose the ability to play DRM video on my general-purpose hobbyest computer, I won't miss it. An HD Roku box is $99 - I can watch streaming TV from that.
This is more interesting for phones and netbooks and iOverpaids. Handheld devices are rapidly replacing general-purpose computers, and while the DRM war is already lost on most of them, none of them use this new Intel chip, and many of them couldn't. Handhelds and set-top boxes are the primary customers for video in the years to come, the gen
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you just proved the point. Intel DID face monopoly investigations for x86 instruction sets. That's why AMD exists, because Intel was forced to license the i386 instruction set.
Wrong, that had nothing to do with a monopoly investigation or anything to do with such. It had to do with the fact that Intel broke an agreement made with AMD to provide them the technical details of their CPUs because IBM required all chips put into their PCs to be made by two sources. In the end, Intel wasn't forced to license anything and in fact due to the legal uncertainty over implementing the Intel microcodes, AMD was forced to do a clean-room implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM required all chips put into their PCs to be made by two sources.
Then why doesn't Lenovo, who bought IBM's PC division half a decade ago, continue to insist on this? "License it to AMD, or we'll unleash ARM laptops that dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows/ARM with Windows Mobile application compatibility."
Re: (Score:2)
Intel couldn't laugh at the "two source" requirement back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Lenovo doesn't have the marketshare sway that IBM did to make such demands?
Re: (Score:3)
However, Intel has learned, and these days AMD and Intel cross-license quite a bit. x86_64, for example, is AMD tech that Intel has licensed.
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with learning, that has to do with AMD beating Intel to the market with a useful 64 bit instruction set (Itanic is a joke and will always be nothing more than a footnote) and Intel having no choice but to follow AMD's lead. It's an illustration of what happens when you rest on your laurels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with learning, that has to do with AMD beating Intel to the market with a useful 64 bit instruction set (Itanic is a joke and will always be nothing more than a footnote) and Intel having no choice but to follow AMD's lead. It's an illustration of what happens when you rest on your laurels.
Depends on your viewpoint. I like AMD, and typically buy AMD, but realistically, it was moreso AMD that was resting on it's laurels. There is nothing really wrong with Itanium. It's a perfectly viable 64-bit instruction set. It's only major fallback was that well, it wasn't x86. Technical problems had little to do with it.
AMD basically shoe-horned 64-bit instructions into the x86 architecture. A far less creative and less impressive feat, but the reality is that market forces decide what succeeds and
Re:Umm.... what? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing really wrong with Itanium. It's a perfectly viable 64-bit instruction set. It's only major fallback was that well, it wasn't x86. Technical problems had little to do with it.
That is a load of dingo's kidneys. Intel can not get anything like the promised performance out of Itanium and where they get close it requires massive code changes because they have not managed to get enough magic into the compiler, which is why everyone and their mom is dropping it. Nobody bought Itanium on purpose, it was all crap like being forced to upgrade to it because the old system is on Alpha and the only upgrade path for the software you are running is to go to Itanium. I saw this happen personally at a community college which is now hosting their student info on an 8-way itanium that is maybe using 10% of its capabilities. A two-processor system would have covered their needs nicely for decades.
AMD basically shoe-horned 64-bit instructions into the x86 architecture. A far less creative and less impressive feat,
That's a load of nonsense because "the x86 architecture" is a meaningless phrase. x86 is an instruction set, full stop. amd64 processors bear no resemblance whatsoever to an i386 except that they can handle processing the same code. Everything that makes Hammer look like an x86 is in the LSU and op-decode.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. Itanium's ISA makes much much greater demands of compilers than x86 does. Much of the reason for Itanium's failure is that Intel could not squeeze sufficient performance out of it because of this. Clear technical reason contributing to its failure.
Re: (Score:2)
if you charge me again and again for the same beatles album (or, relevant to kids today, the same star wars movie) then, YES, we have the moral right to stuff our pockets with the silverware on the way out.
fair is fair. you stop and we'll stop. deal?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly did they force you to buy anything? If you don't like the game they're playing, you're free to not participate.
Re: (Score:3)
When you monopolize a market you basically kill it except for yourself. Death of a market means no competition and higher costs. You can also use certain markets to lock out other markets. DirectX is one of them. Most programming is done to Microsoft's tune using their tools. There used to be others such as those product produced by Borland. If you can keep those areas locked down then you can keep your main monopoly alive for significantly longer periods of time.
So, if Intel implements this DRM schem
Re:Umm.... what? (Score:4, Interesting)
You message insinuates that the actions of producing a computer chip with some technology is clearly and inexcusably morally wrong.
In this case, that insinuation is considered by many to be correct.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]
Once a hugely-powerful system like this is fully-implemented, "stupid DRM tricks" are actually the least worrisome aspect. What government can accomplish in the way of control of everyone's information & digital communications is far more worrisome.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think Hollywood would cut its nose to spite its face, you clearly haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
fucking blatant-ass liars.
quoting intel:
DRM means ‘Digital Rights Management’ and is used to control the use of digital media by controlling access, and preventing the ability to copy media such as movies.
nice selective omission, there, buddy. but its not just for MEDIA, but its also does include data that travels from src to dest. yes, drm is THAT vague and encompasses anything, not just 'media' like you seem to imply.
lets read further what the fucking liar intel says:
So Intel created Intel
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it as an armoured truck carrying the movie from the Internet to your display, it keeps the data safe from pirates...
You wouldn't want those nasty pirates to hijack your data and replace little Susie's episode of Dora the Explorer with donkey porn, would you? Think of the children! Dear God, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Thank you, Intel, for the safe and secure armored truck of Intel Insider!