Slashdot Log In
Trusted Computing Rollout Hits the Desktop
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:53 AM
from the they're-watching-you dept.
from the they're-watching-you dept.
Alsee writes "Previously appearing in a few rare laptops, ExtremeTech reports on the first major computer manufacturer making a full scale Trusted Computing rollout. Samsung will now install the Phoenix Core Managed Environment (cME) BIOS in every computer they make. Previous Slashdot reports on this BIOS include Phoenix Bios to Incorporate DRM and Microsoft Taking Over the BIOS."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: DRM Based on Trusted Computing Chips 484 comments
An anonymous reader writes "We've always know that Trusted Computing is really about DRM, but computer makers always denied it. Now that their Trusted Computing chips are standard on most new PCs, they've decided to come clean. According to Information Week, Lenovo has demonstrated a Thinkpad with built-in Microsoft and Adobe DRM that uses a Trusted Computing chip with a fingerprint sensor. Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Trusted Computing Rollout Hits the Desktop
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 520 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
The race is off (Score:4, Interesting)
I would bet on 3 months.
Re:The race is off (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 13 2005, @02:25PM)
Still, this is one more reason I'm considering a Mac as my next computer.
Macs etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 09 2006, @03:53PM)
This situation sucks because the only way we can fight it is by being Good Consumers - but since non-MS users are in a minority, the value of our informed consumerism is limited.
GNU/Linux is proof that if freedom only requires hard work, people will work for freedom - now the proprietary world realises that freedom must be made either illegal or obsolete.
That's the ticket (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://thepeckfamily.us/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 28, @01:55PM)
The penchant around here for apple is proof to me that more linux geeks are interested in being a part of an 'exclusive' minority than in being involved in things that are open and free (as in speach).
Re:That's the ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 09 2006, @03:53PM)
The problem with the new BIOS is that it controls your system software - actions must be validated. To make this work, unfree software will be required. This means that you mightn't be able to install GNU/Linux on DRM-PCs, or if you can, you'll have to run unfree software on your system to validate your actions.
The idea of Trusted Computing is that the content owners can trust your computer to do what they say. Code Is Law - except when the code is free. On Mac hardware, you can run a free code OS - so buying a Mac (and replacing the OS with GNU/Linux or *BSD) instead of a DRM-PC is a great idea.
Re:That's the ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's the ticket (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.pobox.com/~meta/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 29 2004, @09:19AM)
If you want to look at the OS X source code, you can get it from http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ [apple.com].
I'm not sure why the source to Apple's Open Firmware isn't available, but I imagine it's because they licensed it from one of the commercial Open Firmware vendors.
Re:That's the ticket (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://dotgnu.org/)
The GNU project will never in any way directly or indirectly endorse the so-called "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) stuff which has no purpose besides making it more difficult to copy and distribute digital data.
The reason I would love DRM, is that I can go to a friends house, and use his computer, without having to worry if he has started a keylogger.
Preventing keyloggers isn't part of the job description of the implementors of DRM systems. Their job is just to (try to) kill the P2P filesharing revolution, nothing more, nothing less.
Don't be so sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
There are hardware keyloggers [thinkgeek.com] out there you know.
Also, get some new friends, man...
By actions they have shown active avoidance. (Score:5, Insightful)
As we all know "trusted" computing is eaxctly about not trusting the users. Apple trusts the users, and therefore has no reason to deploy a "trusted" platform (which also adds cost, a double whammy).
Basically, Apple is your last large commercial hope. If you want to stop stuff like trusted computing, then head over and support the vendor who is at least trying to head the other way, instead of joining the crowd headed down the path you don't like.
Backing up the entire OS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Backing up the entire OS (Score:5, Insightful)
And seriously, cost of the media? How much could this possibly cost (even if the partition is only the size of a CDROM; 700MB or less)?
Re:Backing up the entire OS (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.mu-sly.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 17 2004, @06:15AM)
What a fucking joke that is!!
Your hard drive gets screwed (hardware failure, for exmaple), so you can't re-install on a new disk because you don't have the installation media?
And I suppose it also has the "feature" that it'll automatically "fix" any "corrupt" (Linux/BSD) partitions it discovers on bootup?
What a stupid, usless waste of hard drive space to save on the price of an install DVD. This just smacks of taking choices away from the user (other than the choice to boycott this kind of shit completely).
Re:Backing up the entire OS (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 21 2006, @04:58PM)
No doubt it will be compressed so I'd expect it to be about 1.5GB for a typical consumer PC preinstalled with windows XP, DVD player, burner software etc. They will still describe it as having an 80GB disk,. not 75GB free space. Manufacturers are happy to save a few dollars by slowing down PC's with software modems and sound synthesis done in software so I doubt they will balk at this oportunity.
Re:Backing up the entire OS (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.obscurereality.net/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 11 2004, @02:37AM)
If the drive dies, they send you a new drive with all the OS info pre-loaded....the average user doesn't even realize that they are using space...
What next. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What next. (Score:5, Insightful)
Screencap... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
the problem with trusted computing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the problem with trusted computing. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://netdial.caribe.net/~adrian2/)
Trusting you to do the wrong thing (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 24 2003, @04:07AM)
Remember "eXistenZ?" It's like that - half the world's computers are under the control of anyone willing to run regular nessus scans and a few backdoor control panels. So.. yeah, maybe some in the linux crowd resent this because the boon won't last more than a few more years. But honestly, something HAS to be done. If that means creating software and system that then set the precedent of forcing corporations to become responsibe administrators of the systems they market on wide scale, so much the better.
This doesn't mean I have to buy one, or that there won't always exist other mechanisms for connecting to the public internet. But most people don't know a fucking thing about free specch - hell, many of them believe "free software" is illegal in any form. All they want is a terminal in their home that feeds them the latest buzz from aol and msn and ebay - and the internet is a fucking mess today because of these users and their five year old Windows 98 and ME security siphons.
The internet exists well outside the US, and many countries are making a giant leap in the direction of OSS. Combine that with a giant push toward obsoleting those fucked up "legacy" systems and we all move closer to a more secure AND more usable internet for everyone.
Sorry... I'll go put my chicken little costume back on now and join you all back at the shack...
this just in! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:this just in! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://neil.verplank.org/)
http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/
DON'T BUY IT! (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the EFF report [eff.org] to see why if TCPA were not designed with user control in mind, they could have implemented some very simple changes (user override) to make sure that the user had access and control over all aspects of his own machine. They didn't: instead they opted for to create a system whereby the TCPA chips can be used exactly for the things they claim they have nothing to do with (shipping them with so called "Endorsement keys" which are vendor signed, user inaccessible keys that can verify to third parties that you are using an Operating System that they like).
The logic of the rebutle is backwards all over the place. For instance they claim that TCPA is not for DRM since the chips are not tamper resistant to hardware attacks: This rather shows, unlike what some people have argued, that the chips are not designed to help against things like hardware theft and corporate espionage. For DRM you don't need tamper resistance since laws like the DMCA will keep the means of tampering out of the hands of most of the population.
Also, the argument against the endorsement keys being used for DRM is something like "nobody has a system to running for signing and verifying them today" which is supposed to convince us that such a system will not exist when they are widely deployed (note that as a feature they are 100% useless without such a system.)
BIOS DRM Labeling (Score:5, Interesting)
Would be a good idea if these PC manufacturers labeled their PCs as using BIOS DRM.
That way an informed consumer can make a choice whether or not they want DRM on their system.
Just a thought.
Re:BIOS DRM Labeling (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't matter much, because most people don't care either way. Worse yet, the salesman simply tells the customer that the feature will "enable access to new media formats" and the sucker takes the bait.
Re:BIOS DRM Labeling (Score:5, Insightful)
But people will start to care once stories start coming out of people not being able to run their software that they "brought home from work".
You'll then start to see people actively looking for PC's that don't have DRM enabled.
The proles are our only hope. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://127.0.0.1:82/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @01:53PM)
Case in point : DIVX.
It wouldn't hurt for slashdotters to educate people when the chance comes up. To be effective, try to be informed, not shrill.
Re:The proles are our only hope. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://penguin.lvcm.com/)
The "PC revolution" was built on casual piracy. When media moguls try to eliminate that sort of network marketing, they do so at their own peril.
I'm sure they will (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Kjella
Next thing you know (Score:5, Funny)
Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://127.0.0.1:82/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @01:53PM)
Good thing I build all my computers from components recycled from the dumpster bay at Texas Instruments in Austin.
Not a PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw that idea!
Trusted? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ckwop.me.uk/)
The XBOX was an attempt at some kind of DRM and it got hacked to pieces because DRM is just impossible. Plus the fact that Microsoft write overly complicated software with bad tools and bad programmers.
But Microsoft bashing aside, they aint alone. I don't think there is any company or organisation capable of deliverying decent computer security at the moment.
The tools do not yet exist to manage projects containing millions of lines of code in a way that won't introduce security flaws.
Si.
Re:Trusted? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.jacksoncomputing.com/)
The problems with digital information management have never come from the tools and software involved. Design flaws in the software can certainly make it easier to do stupid or ignorant things, but the real issue is that the vast majority of computer users view their computer as an appliance like a dishwasher or a laundry machine rather than the complicated, time-consuming device that it really is. As such, they will never take the time to proper train themselves on security and rights management.
In the corporate environment, this is not that large of an issue since the IT department normally takes care of training, containing, and issuing permissions. In the SOHO market though, this is a real issue, and this is one reason why these Microsoft worms have been spreading as fast as they could. I would love it if computer use was regulated the way a car was here in the U.S. You're allowed to do whatever you want with it when you're on the roads, but you have to be trained to use it before you can drive, and you have to be periodically inspected to make sure that you're not a danger to everyone else on the roads. It sounds like a big hassle, I know, but I really think that it's the only way to rid us of the ignorance clause, even if it involves nothing more than studying a pamphlet and answering 20 out of 25 multiple choice questions correctly.
It will never work (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://anti-dmca.org/)
Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday September 25 2006, @05:14PM)
With DRM infected appliances, the latter is locked out of their own machines to a certain extent. You'll no longer have the ability to solve your own problems but have to rely on the magical mystery software that comes with the computer.
The distinction will probably be slight at first, but I think it's hardly appropriate to call a DRM infected machine a "computer", since there will be technology in place to prevent the owner from doing certain general purpose computations. DRM infected machines will be entertainment/office appliances and horribly undesirable to people interested in their computers.
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)
One additional note: It is very likely that anyone wishing to make software that would install on your PC will need to obtain a license from whomever is the encryption key issuing "authority" in the "trusted" computing world. This will put an end to making your own sofware and also it probably will financially impact small software companies. Not to mention that it will give total control of what software will be granted a "license" to the few signatories of the "trusted" computing. In essence Microsoft will get to decide who will be allowed to make software for the PC platform.
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
So it's completely peachy and great that there's a backup copy of your OS partitioned off on your drive, and tech support can just walk you through a reinstall unless you somehow managed to hose the partition.
Then, they start shipping computers that do an automatic OS reinstall when certain conditions are met. Maybe annoying for power users, but it will serve most people well.
Then a third-party vendor asks, "Hey, can we get in on this? Have our software phone home telling how the owner uses it. Then we can improve future versions." Annoying, but for a good cause, right?
Then the data this third-party is getting shows that people are jumping ship on their application for one that costs less, and they cripple cross-functionality...and keep sending updates to your computer even if you patch it back the way you want it to be. But you don't get to say anything, because you clicked Yes on the EULA.
Then, seeing the success, a bunch of other vendors jump on the "trusted" bandwagon, and suddenly your computer is about as much yours as if it were part of a bot net. Incremental steps toward a worst-case DRM-everything, your-PC-is-controlled-by-vendors future is what the worry is about.
Is it a justified worry? Given the tendency of, well, humanity to take a mile when given an inch, and the disturbingly long and broad reach of corporations, I'd say yes.
Second, I think the furor over trusted computing is a matter of principle. Allowing control of one's computer to be placed in the hands of one or many corporations, or the government, is something many people, me included, find abhorrent. It's a thread of libertarianism (little "l," moderators, not the political party) that, as far as I can tell, runs through a great many of the more common Slashdot opinions.
-Carolyn
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.microsoft.com/)
You can also look at documents at Trusted Computing Platform Alliance [trustedcomputing.org], and I recommend reading The TCPA; What's wrong; What's right and what to do about [umd.edu] by William A. Arbaugh [umd.edu]
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I've a programmer and I've been reading the techincal specifications on the system. I'm pretty much an expert on it. I will keep this post as non-technical as I can.
Trusted Computing pertty much does two things. Number one, it keeps some keys hidden inside a special chip. These keys are sort of a cross between a unique seirial number to identify your computer and a password to lock files. The nasty part is that it secures the computer AGAINST the owner. It locks your data such that YOU can't get at it, except in the approved manner. Number two, it allows other people to "look" inside your computer to see EXACTLY what programs are running - it snitches on the owner.
If you don't like something about how your computer works and you try to change anything, your files go dead and unusable. If you try to change anything then whenever you connect to a website or any other machine, and that machine asks to "look" inside, then your computer will report that the owner has made an "unauthorized modification" and the other computer will refuse your connection.
To put it in more concrete terms, say you go to a website. Say the website has ADs. As soon as you try to connect the website will ask to peek inside your machine. If is sees that you have pop-ups blocked it will refuse to you see the webpage. It will be impossible to see the website unless you "voluntarily" view their ADs, and do so in exactly the manner they want.
If you go to another website it can refuse to show the webpage unless you install their spyware. If you refuse the spyware it is impossible to see the webpage.
Microsoft is advertizing new DRM e-mail. If you you don't have a Trusted machine, or if your machine is non-compliant then it is impossible to see the e-mail. If your machine is compliant then you can see the e-mail, but your computer will be physically incapable of printing out that e-mail or saving it or forwarding it, and your computer will enforce it's deletion after a certain date. Some companies (like Microsoft) will love this feature because it means that old incriminating e-mails vanish and can't embarassingly pop-up in court later.
Cisco has announced a new router. It is supposedly an "anti-virus" system, and even the Slashdot story on it reported "Cisco to block viruses at the router". Actually it does not block viruses. What is actually does is look inside your computer to verify that you are running specific approved software. The *advertized* purpose is to check that you are running approved and up-to-date anti-virus software and firewall. It then locks out any potentialy "vulnerable machines" becuase they are a "threat" becuase they "might get infected". If your ISP isntalls one of these machines then you will be denied any internet access at all unless your machine is "compliant". It you aren't running Trusted Computing then they can't verify compliance and you are denied acces. If you aren't running EXACTLY the software they require, or of you alter it in any way, then you are denied internet access. And they can require you to run anything they like, not just security software. Tehy can require you to run software that forces your computer to throttle your own internet connection speed. They can force you to run software that displays ADs. They can force you to run software that tracks everything you do to collect marketing data.
The President's Cybersecurity advisor spoke at a computer conference where he called on ALL broadband providers to install such routers and to REFUSE access to anyone not running a Trusted Computing compliant system.
Pretty much all software will require "Product Activation". It will be impossible to even install the software without submitting to any activation procedure they dream up. If you try to alter the installed program in any way then your data will be locked and unusable, and the software won't run at all.
It will be impossible for people to make interoperable software. And "secure" data saved by on
What really worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://orangelist.com/)
I recall something about one of the Phoenix guys saying that the consumer was not their customer, the media companies were. DRM put directly into the BIOS, with no option to get a motherboard without it is going to be a real issue. Reminds me of when all the local banks in my area added thumbprint for check cashing on the same day. You couldn't bring your business elsewhere because they all did it.
So wants to start up a BIOS company?
Re:What really worries me (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:31AM)
Uh, no.
He said that the motherboard manufacturers are their customers. Which is true. Have you ever called pheonix and ordered a BIOS?
He said nothing about your imagined conspiracy theory about the "media companies".
Oh, BTW, the FDIC mandated those thumbprints.
Re:What really worries me (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.smashtech.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 14 2004, @11:15PM)
Alternative BIos (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Oh, and what about all that esoteric proprietary hardware? ( especially in laptops, but this point holds true for future appliance based PC's ) Who is going to write bios routines for those, with out any documentation?
Its a grand idea, but i dont think it will work out in practice, when it counts and we really need alternatives...
Consumer Aspect? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.onelinguist.net/)
.. and in other news (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 16 2003, @07:07AM)
Don't worry , its only the BIOS (Score:3, Informative)
loader whether it be LILO or NT loader. After that the bios is bumped out of memory and ignored. Windows may well use portions of this BIOS if it suits MS but linux and other
OSs can just happily ignore it and nothing will change. Or have I missed something?
Making "trusted" computing go away (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see whether this is, indeed, trusted computing. The article was somewhat vague in some ways. If it is the full-fledged hardware portion of the Pallidium initiative, as part of the article implies, it's very, very bad. If, instead, it's a way to save money on a system restore disk by having the hardware hide a portion of the hard drive from normal software, it's annoying, but probably fine, depending on how it is done (if there's a PKI, that's bad, but if it's just read-only, that's fine).
If trusted computers do appear in your area, I would suggest the following strategy for making them go away:
This assumes the companies have a 30-day no-questions-ask return policy (which is usually the case). You can even say that the "trusted" computing was the reason you returned it. Once they start losing tons of money, it'll go the way of DiVX (not the codec -- the old DVD standard which needed to call home to get authorization). It was pushed by Circuit City, which had a ton of people do this to them, so they introduced restocking fees, and lost a lot of customers who knew nothing about DiVX. Eventually, Circuit City backed off the DiVX thing.
If you want to be illegal (which I don't recommend), some people have a modified scheme:
This costs them a heck of a lot more, and gets around the place of returns without restocking fee. If you need to buy a DRMed product, you can also use this to make sure the company pays the manufacturing costs for 2 of 'em instead of one, and loses money on the sale. It is, however, illegal, and probably unethical.
The question is though, (Score:4, Funny)
I'm building a computer... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://hoodlumzproductions.com/)
Speaking with your wallet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder.... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 01 2004, @03:20PM)
I think Microsoft and Sony are locked in a struggle right now (hence the XBOX, Microsoft's shot accross Sony's bow), so I can't see Sony going along with this.
Trusted vendors being obnoxious (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 19 2002, @04:41PM)
So I ask you, what's worse: having a malicous virus annoy you and interupt your workday or having an application you paid for essentially behave even worse? At least virus authors don't nag you to register.
So my point is "secure" and "trusted" computing is obviously a joke when the companies driving this initiative are more intrusive and disruptive to the average work day than most virus authors.
I think businesses DO want this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey all,
While it's easy for us geeks to be upset by this, do you think that it's just the media companies that want this sort of thing?
For instance, Lotus Notes (used by corporations "serviced" by IBM the world around) has a nifty feature whereby should a sender wish, they can block access to many client features like, oh, printing or forwarding. Making an unpopular/possibly illegal move with your company? Do it by e-mail! No whistleblowers (save the truly geekiest that can get around this sort of thing) will bother you. Being subpoenaed by the FBI (like Microsoft has been over and over and over again via e-mails)? Have your trusty computer eat it! Simple!
The geeks, for our part, must take a stand and make sure people who buy this equipment are appropriately punished for it. This includes our friends and family -- if they buy something containing this sort of embedded DRM, refuse to help them with anything and everything regarding the cursed device. Assuming you'll be able to get around the DRM and help them to begin with...
Bah. Paranoia sucks.
C
Hmmmm...I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 08 2003, @01:45PM)
These things are all now flashable anyway, right?
I was thinking about ridding myself of extra MBs (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.theschmoejoes.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 19 2004, @02:56PM)
Really, I think the first customer of these Samsungs is going to be some giant corporation that will pick up a pile of these and deploy them all over. Perhaps the Attorney General's office in California will grab some. :P
Companies like Verisign, Network Solutions, and Microsoft have shown that those who are supposed to be trusted, can't and shouldn't.
How is 'Trustworthy Computing' supposed to work when you can't trust the providers of the technology?
Think of the software lock-in and stranglehold that licenses are going to have on these machines - or the uselessness of a boat anchor when it gets hacked by a virus that will be allowed to run on it during its rollout period, or when it gets hacked.
Ugh. Keep your old machines, geeks! (Sorry, wives and girlfriends...)
A shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Now I am compelled to take measures to ensure that no potentially illegal activities (corporate) are able to be hidden by this DRM nonsense. I will have to bring a digital camera into my workplace as soon as I start running into unprintable emails, documents, etc. As soon as I get any document with an expiration/self-destruct date. I will start taking steps to ensure that all such items are "documented" via digital photography, if need be, so that I can safely be a whistleblower as required. I will not, under any circumstances, EVER be party to illegal activities by any corporation for the sake of money. I will not be party to unethical activity of any kind. If I come across such, I am compelled to blow the whistle and if M$ and other corporations feel the need to try to cover their unacceptable, illegal, unethical behavior via DRM crap, then I WILL sidestep it one way or another. I am honor-bound to do no less.
On a personal note, it is automatic that I will never ever again purchase any system that contains a phoenix bios chip in it. Old or DRM-enabled new, phoenix has ceased to exist as far as my money is concerned.
Easily hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.
I also predict the reaction of the companies will be to
(1) make it even *more* draconian.
(2) Whine that the entire computer industry as we know it will be destroyed (and the terrorists will win!) unless Congress enacts laws that will make it illegal to break into "Trusted" computers which given the way Congress usually drafts laws will probably be so vague and broad that merely open the case of any computer (w/o a government sanctioned license) will count as infringement worthy of 5 years jail. (Maybe we should call this the Patriot Computing Act?) And if they are really good, enact laws force everyone to upgrade to Trusted computing within say 5 years or else via legislating that within 5 years every new computer sold in the US has to be a "Trusted" computer.
Remember, in the field of "intellectual property" and anything associated with "computers" or "digital" or "internet", if something fails, it's not because it's a technological impossibility, your business model is failing or your customers plain don't want it or even hate it. It's because you just haven't made it draconian enough, your customers are your enemies who need to be punished and made to toe the line and you need draconian broad-based legislation otherwise the economy will collapse, WWIII will happen and of course, the terrorists will win.
Just sent my tinfoil email off to Samsung.. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.last.fm/)
China (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://garethpotter.com/)
Simply put, whether the threat they perceive is real or not, there is no way they are going to allow American proprietary rubbish (with evil spyware code to boot) to penetrate the Peoples' Republic. So if we have to start importing all our parts from the commies, then so be it, but even if dumbass consumers in the West buy this kinda rubbish (and, as others have said, they undoubtedly will), it simply will not fly politically elsewhere.
The push for Linux in Asia is clear - HP are going to ship Linux boxen [slashdot.org], China has variously shown its keenness towards the open OS, NTT DoCoMo [nttdocomo.co.jp] are putting Linux in phones [infoworld.com] and so on - this kind of stuff really does matter. At the very least, American hardware manufacturers are going to consider the bigger picture before alienating large numbers of potential consumers.
Microsoft is not invincible. It has failed in the mobile phone market, failed to crush Java (now, of course, flourishing on mobiles) and has a long time to examine consumers' reactions before Longhorn comes out. I really don't think it will try to push this too hard...
iqu