4 ms·
Apple could have done any number of things to do that. You're thinking about this from the limited perspective of how Apple could have done it that RA couldn't
by AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
Apple could have done any number of things to do that. You're thinking about this from the limited perspective of how Apple could have done it that RA couldn't have worked around (code signing) but that isn't remotely required.
All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software.
if (process == "AudioHijack") { dont_stream_audio();}
AudioHijack would find some way to work around that, as I'm sure they can, the RA team is wicked smart but their software would be broken for a day/week/month until they did and then Apple would analyze their workaround (using their exponentially greater manpower and better understanding of the system and find a way to break it again.
Cue cat and mouse game. The thing is in that scenario, Apple loses nothing when RA fixes their software (they can just tell the RIAA they're trying -- and they are!) but every time Apple breaks Audio Hijack they would be eating away at the userbase and inserting doubt into potential purchasers. Am I going to spend $65 on something which my OS manufacturer clearly doesn't want me using and is probably going to break in a month or three for an indeterminate amount of time.
You're seeing this as "can apple unequivocally disable this software" but that is the wrong question, even today it's not true (I can disable gatekeeper/SIP/etc if I'm determined enough and if I want i'll just run Ashai) but the real game here is Apple making it more difficult to use it and the REAL game would have been Apple instilling doubt in existing customers and potential purchasers.
Anyway I'm glad Apple didn't do that, RA produces some great software.
- lapcat 4y ago> Am I going to spend $65 on something which my OS manufacturer clearly doesn't want me using It was actually much cheaper back in the day, not that it matters much to the argument.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoYeah I figured someone would call that out :) My memory is not good enough anymore to remember how much it was and the button for the wayback machine is too far away to use that.
- GeekyBear 4y ago> All Apple needed to do was to push an update which breaks the software. Windows 3.1 famously refused to run on top of Digital Research's DOS. > DR-DOS has problems running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future." Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)" https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/ https://www.theregister.com/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_inc...
- Kwpolska 4y agoThe code used to enforce MS-DOS was disabled in the final release. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
- calgarymicro 4y agoTrue, but by then the damage was already done; as far as the software development community and tech-savvy public was concerned, per the beta releases, Windows 3.1 didn't run on DR-DOS. This hugely harmed sales, which is much of the reason why Microsoft eventually had to pay Caldera (the new owners) $280 million in a settlement.
- GeekyBear 4y agoAfter what they were doing was discovered, sure. > Beta testers of Windows found that if they were using DR-DOS, this was detected and false error messages were generated. Microsoft's encrypted code to disguise what it had done was unravelled by Geof Chappell in England, who commented at the time that "the only error' is that the user is running Windows with someone else's version of DOS." https://web.archive.org/web/20081005102243/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/600488.stm https://web.archive.org/web/20081005102243/http://news.bbc.c...