Two questions

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to implementation, if Apple don't have the guys or gals who can do it
(and they likely do - in spades) they can buy the guys, gals or co. that
can do it well within the rounding errors of their payroll statement in
the quarterly report.

And Rambus, the patentee, will help them. One way or another they will
have to do it if they are not to be left out.

nonsense. apple does't need them and they have nothing to offer apple.

Fat lot you know.

apple has enough clout that they can come up with their own solution
and almost certainly will.

On 2015-09-20 00:00, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:57:20 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-19 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:27:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-19 00:58, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:02:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant
battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost.

high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future.

I suspect that SCSA (The Secure Content Storage Association), trading
as Vidity will have a major impact on who does what with which in the
near future.

how would that affect apple transitioning to another cpu platform?

I believe it will require a secure chipset. We shall have to wait and
see.

Apple can implement such independently of CPU choice. If you look at
how they implemented functions such as Secure Enclave and Apple's
various encryption schemes found in Messages, etc., implementing Vidity
is pretty ho-hum ordinary for them.

I don't know that they have any experience dealing with Differential
Power Analysis attacks. I think that's part of it.

I assume first that if Apple employ the technology they will do so
legally - that is to say with appropriate license and NDA's and all the
other nice stuff.

As to implementation, if Apple don't have the guys or gals who can do it
(and they likely do - in spades) they can buy the guys, gals or co. that
can do it well within the rounding errors of their payroll statement in
the quarterly report.

And Rambus, the patentee, will help them. One way or another they will
have to do it if they are not to be left out.

I meant to add, and forgot to, that Apple are champion at doing their
own thing in their own way - the "left out" could be everyone but Apple
from Apple's POV. Apple already provide for DL'd content (movies,
programs, music) to be viewed on all devices that are owned by the
person who DL'd the content.

On 2015-09-20 00:28, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to implementation, if Apple don't have the guys or gals who can do it
(and they likely do - in spades) they can buy the guys, gals or co. that
can do it well within the rounding errors of their payroll statement in
the quarterly report.

And Rambus, the patentee, will help them. One way or another they will
have to do it if they are not to be left out.

nonsense. apple does't need them and they have nothing to offer apple.

I meant to put something along those lines in my prior post.

On 2015-09-20 01:02, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:28:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I can't imagine Apple building 4K machines which will not handle
vidity. In that case they are limited to whoever can provide Crypto
Management hardware.

who said anything about building 4k machines?

They already do. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856

just the other day you said you can't imagine they'll make a 4k machine
without vidity and now you point it out.

you're also confusing connecting a 4k display with playing protected
content. they are two different things.

No I'm not. I'm saying a 4K machine without Vidity capability will be
handicapped in the market.

Not at all. You know the saying, "build it and they will come"?

Well Apple have been doing that rather well over the last 15 years
without bending to other's standards. All while securely implementing
DRM across devices.


also, a processor transition has nothing to do with any of that.

It's got to work in with Crypto Manager which is not just software but
hardware.

Again, Apple have implemented H/W dependent crypto in devices like the
iPhone (within their own Ax chips) w/o taking time to wipe their hands
first. Apple are industry leaders where it comes to crypto, DRM and
multiple devices accessing licenced content for a given licensee. It's
already old news to them.

Implementing someone else's scheme (if they bother to) would be rounding
errors in the budget.


If Vidity becomes a power in the land then Apple will have to
incorporate Crypto Manager or be left out.

I agree with nospam. Apple are more likely to completely ignore it and
do their own thing. They have more crypto/DRM noos that is a decade old
than Vividy has actually brought to the stage.

On 2015-09-20 01:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:28:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to implementation, if Apple don't have the guys or gals who can do it
(and they likely do - in spades) they can buy the guys, gals or co. that
can do it well within the rounding errors of their payroll statement in
the quarterly report.

And Rambus, the patentee, will help them. One way or another they will
have to do it if they are not to be left out.

nonsense. apple does't need them and they have nothing to offer apple.

Fat lot you know.

Nospam is right. Apple are more likely to impelement DRM across users
device scape using the methods Apple already have in place.

On 2015-09-20 04:38, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:02:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:28:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I can't imagine Apple building 4K machines which will not handle
vidity. In that case they are limited to whoever can provide Crypto
Management hardware.

who said anything about building 4k machines?

They already do. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856

just the other day you said you can't imagine they'll make a 4k machine
without vidity and now you point it out.

you're also confusing connecting a 4k display with playing protected
content. they are two different things.

No I'm not. I'm saying a 4K machine without Vidity capability will be
handicapped in the market.

also, a processor transition has nothing to do with any of that.

It's got to work in with Crypto Manager which is not just software but
hardware.

See the diagram on http://www.rambus.com/key-issuance-center/

Apple's DRM system has been doing a similar function for years so that a
users various devices can play paid-for content. That includes "owned"
content and "rented" content.

I know you don't think much of Apple but they have more DRM and crypto
nous than Rambus and the entire collection of companies that are members
of the Vividity consortium put together.

On 9/20/2015 9:45 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-20 01:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:28:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As to implementation, if Apple don't have the guys or gals who can
do it
(and they likely do - in spades) they can buy the guys, gals or co.
that
can do it well within the rounding errors of their payroll
statement in
the quarterly report.

And Rambus, the patentee, will help them. One way or another they will
have to do it if they are not to be left out.

nonsense. apple does't need them and they have nothing to offer apple.

Fat lot you know.

Nospam is right. Apple are more likely to impelement DRM across users
device scape using the methods Apple already have in place.



He may be. One of the issues I have with nospam's statements is that he
fails to distinguish fact from opinion. When called on it, he arrogantly
states that his opinion is fact.
In your statement once you use the the words: "more likely," that you
are rendering an opinion is clear. While nospam's opinion may be well
founded, doesn't change the statement from an opinion to a fact.


--
PeterN

On 9/19/2015 8:59 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-19 11:18, PeterN wrote:
On 9/18/2015 4:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

snip


Offhand you'd be fine with a higher clocked i5 (rather than an i7),
plenty of memory (16 better than 8) and as much SSD as you think you
need. But a lower clocked quad core i7 with HT will be much more
responsive.

As to SSD and photos, my opinion is less SSD is fine - you really want
the OS and application in there - and store photos on cheaper spinning
mass externally. So 256 - 512 GB of main disk SSD is probably ample
unless you really want a lot of other stuff on the main disk SSD.


Thanks,
What you are saying makes eminent sense. At this point I am not getting
an SSD. I currently keep all my images on external drives, and that has
been working fine. The new machine will have sufficient power and
expansion capacity to switch to an internal RAID configuration.
I have pretty much decided on a Lenovo P300, which I am configuring.


What nospam says. Get SSD for the system disk. You cannot regret it
performance wise.



In an ideal world you would be right. However, I do not have an
unlimited budget, and the machine is for a hobby. My programs are using
a little over 200 GB. An SSD to accommodate that would add about $400 to
the cost of the machine. As of now I am up to about $1,200, and would
prefer not to go much higher. My treasurer would not OK much higher,
either. And I really cannot justify that additional cost. I prefer to
put my money in the CPU and the graphics card. Memory is so cheap, that
is not even a factor.

--
PeterN

On 20/09/2015 18:21, PeterN wrote:
[]
In an ideal world you would be right. However, I do not have an
unlimited budget, and the machine is for a hobby. My programs are using
a little over 200 GB. An SSD to accommodate that would add about $400 to
the cost of the machine. As of now I am up to about $1,200, and would
prefer not to go much higher. My treasurer would not OK much higher,
either. And I really cannot justify that additional cost. I prefer to
put my money in the CPU and the graphics card. Memory is so cheap, that
is not even a factor.

Amazon are offering 240/250 GB SSDs for less than $100...


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...GB%2Caps%2C228

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And Rambus, the patentee, will help them. One way or another they will
have to do it if they are not to be left out.

nonsense. apple does't need them and they have nothing to offer apple.

Fat lot you know.

Nospam is right. Apple are more likely to impelement DRM across users
device scape using the methods Apple already have in place.

He may be. One of the issues I have with nospam's statements is that he
fails to distinguish fact from opinion. When called on it, he arrogantly
states that his opinion is fact.
In your statement once you use the the words: "more likely," that you
are rendering an opinion is clear. While nospam's opinion may be well
founded, doesn't change the statement from an opinion to a fact.

aside from being a bogus accusation, do you have any *facts* contrary
to what's been claimed? if not, then stfu.

you also might try reading what's been said before you stick your foot
in your mouth any deeper than it already is. does this look like an
arrogantly stated fact? no it does not.
In article , nospam
wrote:
apple has enough clout that they can come up with their own solution
and almost certainly will.