> Enforcing TPM requirements isn't about making users make changes, it's to scare OEMs into including TPMs by default so they don't get complaints from users.
Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours.
> Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts.
Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?
> Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours.
Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem.
> Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?
I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach. Consider something like iOS where the developers can just make it very uncomfortable to do something like download a video and watch it. There's no bittorrent app or p2p file-sharing, there's no real filesystem, and there is no real standalone video player. So users rely on streaming services to do this for them, and you can charge money to middle-man that service.
You don't need to strictly enforce copyright like with DRM, just use trusted computing so that the entire system discourages general computer-like operations (including copying files, running programs, etc.) and encourages acting like a thin client to some server. This is a much better model because some small fraction of users still DO need to have general-purpose computing to make consumables in the first place (for example, video editors or musicians, writers, programmers) but the majority of the user-base is discouraged for a variety of reasons. The more you can separate the creator of information from the user of information, the more you can charge the user to access the creator.
You can't replace the OS or any of the parts of the machine because of trusted computing, so you cannot really use reverse engineering to simply break the system (and if you do, it may break the trust chain you now need to access now-networked services). Another example is that on a lot of phones and laptops these days, you can't add removable storage, so you are heavily encouraged to use cloud storage. And you are discouraged from using cloud services from any third party (usually on an API level, as services provided from the OS vendor can integrate better with the system). Consider how Apple pushes iCloud and Microsoft pushes OneCloud.
> Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem.
Ah I see what you mean. I over-focused on the full integrated system with pre-installed windows.
> I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach.
Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours.
> Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts.
Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?