11 ms·

Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

• taligent 14y ago
  I don't understand where Rogue Amoeba is coming from here. They don't have a "right" to be on the App Store. It's Apple's store ergo their rules. And everybody knows that the rules are more guidelines and Apple can and will change their mind about them at any time. Especially if you try and undermine them e.g. by using their private encryption key. Does it suck. Absolutely. Is it unfair. Probably. But this has been the game for the last 3 years and Rogue Amoeba should not act surprised.
  • kevingadd 14y ago
    Removing an app from the store is one thing. Bending the truth or outright lying to your own customers in order to deflect blame for a decision that you made arbitrarily is entirely another. The fact that this nonsense is coming from a high-level Apple employee and not some customer service rep who can claim not to have known the truth makes it worse.
    • taligent 14y ago
      I agree that it is ridiculous the way Apple basically changes the rules as it goes along. I just don't understand the outrage or surprise. There has been 3 years of developers trying to bend the rules and posting complaints like this. FACT: They reverse engineered Apple's proprietary technology and want Apple to help sell their app. MY POINT: You must be nuts if you think that will happen.
      • dfxm12 14y ago
        I just don't understand the outrage or surprise. The moment we get complacent is the moment we lose. What's the worst that can happen from trying or speaking up? At worst Apple says "no", and maybe the public becomes more aware of the situation and thus might feel compelled to apply pressure to Apple. This is the reason for the outrage.
      • fpgeek 14y ago
        One interesting question is whether or not this sort of thing will be grounds for revoking a Gatekeeper certificate. Apple certainly could argue that accessing AirPlay streams without proper authorization is a form of malware / something they have to police because of agreements with content providers / etc
        • parley 14y ago
          I know commenting just for the sake of agreeing is advised against, but this time I had to. If there's an outrage over app store rejection for these reasons, then imagine the reaction to gatekeeper cert revocation for the same reasons.
          • fpgeek 14y ago
            That's the thing. To me the level of outrage seems startlingly low, plus Apple seems generally impervious to outrage in general. In my opinion, this does not bode well for the future.
    • omfg 14y ago
      What? Schiller lays out the reasons the app was rejected quite clearly. Rogue's response is to suggest that these issues are ambiguous because it hasn't been clearly defined by Apple. Well, guess what, now it has. Rogue should've just let it go.
    • dhugiaskmak 14y ago
      I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that this is an arbitrary decision by Apple, or that Apple is lying about something in the matter. It seems clear to me that even though Apple keeps using the term "approved API" what they mean is "the AirPlay encryption key that you don't have a license for". It's an odd use (or misuse) of terminology but it doesn't change the facts.
      • noibl 14y ago
        It's more than terminology. "We have an Airplay licensing program explicitly to assist companies in creating AirPlay capable products. Apple never said that we would pull the rug out from anyone, we in fact worked with this developer to ensure they update their app and remain on the App Store" The clear implication there is that Apple had procedures available for getting this to work and RA just ignored them. RA's response directly contradicts this. P.S. thanks for the unexplained downvotes.
        • deleted 14y ago
          [deleted]
        • rbritton 14y ago
          RA did state that they inquired as to licensing it for a software product and were told that there were no plans to make that available. So, they didn't ignore the procedures as much as they ignored the response. In the end it's Apple's store with Apple's rules. The rules have changed without warning in the past and will likely do so countless times in the future. The tradeoff for this is what is likely one of the most lucrative app stores to date for developers.
          • cheatercheater 14y ago
            Except if you build a system to which millions (yes, millions) of people contribute in one way or another, pretend everyone's invited, and then decide to do something very self-righteous against the good of nearly anyone else involved just in order to feed your fat butt, then you are labelled an oppressive, opportunistic sociopath, and very rightly so.
    • lloeki 14y ago
      > Bending the truth or outright lying to your own customers in order to deflect blame for a decision that you made arbitrarily is entirely another. This entire sentence applies to Rogue Amoeba. The Airplay protocol has been reverse engineered years ago: it's basically RTSP with an encrypted stream. Creating an AirPlay audio receiver is currently subject to a license, and requires a private key. This key has been extracted from a dumped AirPort Express ROM. Rogue Amoeba can say what they want about reimplementing the whole AirPlay protocol on their own, the clef-de-voûte is this private key, only available through licensing. When Schiller mentions private APIs, I believe he is not talking about an iPhone private API (which I'm positively sure Rogue Amoeba took great care of not using) but the remote AirPlay API, which they have no right to use without licensing. The key point here is that there's a key virtually locking the API. I think it's perfectly apt to say now that — thanks to the Google/Oracle case — implementing an API is licit, but you would subsequently have to use your own public/private keys. Yet existing AirPlay sources encrypt the stream with Apple's public key, hence the content is at the sole destination of Apple's private key. Compare this to the following situation: you publish you PGP public key and someone writes you an email and encrypts it with your public key. If someone steals your private key, that does not entitle him to decrypt and read the message whose sole intended recipient is you. This is, I believe, the crux of Apple's AirPlay licensing. I generally don't like Apple's silent hammer, and I really like Rogue Amoeba and their software (which I bought multiple times), but — since I knew what was in play technically — when reading the last status report of Rogue Amoeba, it was obvious to me that they were concealing information with the goal of bending the truth to support their side of the argument.
      • imjoel 14y ago
        Exactly. Despite Apple's schizophrenic application of their guidelines, Rogue Amoeba simply needs to take responsibility for everything you pointed out here. To continue to do otherwise is unprofessional and only hurts them in the end. Apple will continue to make billions. P.S. Who else had to Google clef-de-voûte? FYI: It basically means "most important component" or "key element." (via bab.la)
        • NyxWulf 14y ago
  • wmf 14y ago
    Goading Apple into breaking their own rules is a bit trollish, but when all else has failed maybe trolling is what we need.
  • dmbaggett 14y ago
    It's Apple's store ergo their rules. Subject to the rule of law, of course.
• majormajor 14y ago
  I don't think they're making the right case in that response. It should be focused solely on the "this should be allowed by Apple" argument, because telling users that it's not illegal doesn't matter when it's Apple's store and Apple's rules, for better or for worse. They say that the encryption around AirPlay streams appears to primarily be there to prevent third parties from creating applications that work with AirPlay—so it's easy to assume that Apple wouldn't approve of something they tried to prevent. Is releasing something you know will get kicked out the best approach to take when you can't provide an approved solution? Maybe, if you think the resulting discussion and PR is your best chance at getting things changed... but then, again, you need to keep your message perfectly focused. Claiming that they didn't violate any agreements feels too defensive to me. EDIT: and it's not just this response... initially they professed something much closer to ignorance/surprised innocence over the removal, while it now looks like there wasn't much reason for any surprise.
• pooriaazimi 14y ago
  Haha.. > "... Reverse engineering is, among other things, largely responsible for the PC revolution and the computing landscape we enjoy today. Should we stop providing users with products that work together simply because other vendors dislike competition?" We all know Apple loves reverse-engineering of its products, so I'm sure this kind of reasoning helps your case.
  • trobertson 14y ago
    Bear in mind, however, that reverse engineering is also respected at Apple (or it used to be, a couple years ago). I remember reading a story where Steve Jobs personally visited and tried to buy Dropbox, because they reverse engineered Apple's file system, or something like that.
    • pooriaazimi 14y ago
      Ever heard "do as I say, not as I do"? :) That's Apple talking to us.
    • simcop2387 14y ago
      Don't know why they'd need to do that, what i suspect it could be would be reverse engineering the kernel interface to add their own. That way they can do a very much nicer automatic sync with their service that won't have as many issues. I believe they do it that way on linux with FUSE and with IFS on windows.
      • Xuzz 14y ago
        Dropbox is just a folder — the reverse engineering was to inject themselves into the Finder for their custom icons and context menus.
  • recoiledsnake 14y ago
    Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected by law, regardless of Apple's wishes. So it helps their case for legal purposes, just not in the app store court run by Apple. The problem here is that Apple's wishes can be and are regularly applied in the app store regardless of whether they're actually good for the users(disallowing malware is good). This is a nasty side effect of the app store model and we'll be seeing more of such issues in the future with the Windows 8 Metro app store.
• yesyes 14y ago
  This is going to backfire on Apple. It is absurd the lengths they are going to. Imagine if when you bought a car the manufacturer tried to control what stereo you could install. "We made this car, and you have to play by our rules." Insane.
  • Terretta 14y ago
    Actually, controlling aftermarket parts is crucial to automakers. Add nitrous, void your warranty. Modify chip, void your warranty. Make a cosmetic change, no problem.
    • yesyes 14y ago
      Is the warranty the issue here? Isn't it the right to add some functionality to the device? I could see your point if there was an argument between Amoeba and Apple about voiding warranties. But I don't see that being the issue.
      • uxp 14y ago
        A warranty is just a contract, much like the contract put in place that allows Rogue Amoeba to sell software on the iOS and Mac platforms. Adding in support for AirPlay to an app and selling that won't void your or my iPhone's Warranty if we were to install it, but it can void the contract put in place between Rogue Amoeba and Apple, if even just for that singular app. Here is the real reason Apple threw this app out of the store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4087666 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4087666 RA was using a private key derived from a firmware update for the Apple Airport Basestations in order to encrypt the audio stream in accordance of the AirPlay protocol.
        • yesyes 14y ago
          That reason makes Apple look worse. The example of PGP is silly. PGP is an open protocol. The user can control their own encryption. Apple like Adobe wants to take an open protocol for streaming, in Apple's case RTSP, and make it proprietary. And like Adobe they are finding this is not so easy. The more they seek to exert unreasonable control over how people use devices they have already paid for, the more motivation they give for people to find workarounds. There are benefits to everyone in having open protocols, as the thousands of examples in the RFC's demonstrate, but the only benefit of the "AirPlay" protocol is to Apple. Making devices that can only communicate with other devices you make is dubious business where networking is concerned. It just make everyone's life more difficult- except Apple's. You can't blame people for trying to get devices and accessories made by different manufacturers to work together. RA should not even have to jump through these hoops. These devices that Apple makes should be able to network with devices from other manufacturers. We do not need an "AirPlay" protocol controlled by one company.
• pbreit 14y ago
  I'm reluctantly siding with Apple on this one. Rogue's response is pretty pathetic. Hijacking audio streams is obviously something Apple might have a problem with. The hypothesis that it has to do with Apple preparing to bring out a competitive offering is laughable. Airfoil would not have a gram of impact on anything Apple does in this realm. Rogue conspicuously makes no mention of this part: "Apple asked Rogue Amoeba to update their app to remain in compliance with our terms and conditions."
  • pcwalton 14y ago
    "Hijacking audio streams is obviously something Apple might have a problem with." But it's not Apple's audio stream, it's the user's audio stream. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect that user should be able to decrypt his or her own data (assuming we're talking about data that isn't under DRM; DRM is another issue).
    • spicyj 14y ago
      assuming we're talking about data that isn't under DRM; DRM is another issue Though AirPlay does work on DRM'ed streams, there's little advantage to using that over simply recording from the audio out from your computer and no advantage over using something like Audio Hijack Pro (another Rogue Amoeba product) or Soundflower to record the audio output of your computer.
      • officemonkey 14y ago
        The DRM exists to limit rights of unauthorized people to play content, not to limit the rights of authorized people to play content. If an authorized user initiates playing the content, DRM shouldn't prevent it from occurring.
        • Karunamon 14y ago
          >The DRM exists to limit rights of unauthorized people to play content, not to limit the rights of authorized people to play content. On paper, yes. In practice, "unauthorized people" don't have to deal with it, and only "authorized people" have to struggle.
• collypops 14y ago
  Please entertain my crazy analogous thought processes for a minute... Imagine you were eating out at KFC one night, and using taste alone, you managed to work out their secret recipe. You then decided you wanted to get into the fried chicken business, but you didn't want the overhead of renting commercial space, or buying the kitchen/service equipment you need to run your own business. So you choose to walk into your local KFC, use their kitchen to fry your chickens, wrap them up in all the KFC packaging and branding, and begin to sell them at their counter. This goes unnoticed for a few hours, but then the manager notices what you're doing, and points you towards the exit. Surely you'd understand why KFC wouldn't let this behaviour continue. You didn't steal their recipe; you worked it out on your own. You're perfectly within your right to sell chicken based on this recipe, but you'd better do it at your store, and put your own label on it. If KFC don't want you selling products based on their recipe (however legally you discovered it), you can't wrap them in KFC packaging, and you certainly can't sell them at KFC.
  • AngryParsley 14y ago
    The analogy doesn't work. iPhone users can only get apps from the Apple store.* Also, Rogue Amoeba isn't deceiving users. People who buy Airfoil know that it's not made by Apple. *I know someone will bring up jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is not a solution. It's difficult, voids the warranty, and can cause issues with stability and software updates. It's a non-starter for the vast majority of users. By limiting Airfoil to jailbroken phones, Apple kills 90% of Rogue Amoeba's revenue.
    • collypops 14y ago
      The analogy still fits. I was suggesting that they don't build apps for iPhones, Apple TVs, Macs, etc. You can't put your chicken in a KFC bucket, even though you worked out the secret recipe. You can't put your app in an iPhone, just because you reverse-engineered a piece of technology. > By limiting Airfoil to jailbroken phones, Apple kills 90% of Rogue Amoeba's revenue. Although you're right in saying this, it's only because 100% of Airfoil's revenue comes from the App Store. If they had revenue streams outside of the App Store (by choosing a different platform or devices), Apple wouldn't be able to block a cent of that income.
• jyap 14y ago
  I was never on Rogue Amoeba's side. Phil Schiller's response totally the reasoning and response that I felt was correct. Not letting this issue drop just paints Rogue Amoeba in a bad light and confirms their immaturity to people like me who already thought they were in the wrong. Add to the fact that the feature is still in the app (you just need to upload a plist file) and I won't be surprised if Apple totally bans the app and takes further action with the developers and suspends their account.
  • jrockway 14y ago
    Rogue Amoeba wrote code that implemented a network protocol. Apple pulled their app because they did not ask Apple to license that network protocol. Which protocol will Apple claim you need a license for next? HTTP? The fact that encryption is involved is completely irrelevant.
    • jyap 14y ago
      AirPlay is a proprietary protocol stack/suite. Apple chooses to license this on their terms. This is their technology to for their competitive advantage to use against companies products such as say your company, Google. Apple does not want an unlicensed and unauthorized app to use AirPlay on their app store. Case closed. AirPlay isn't HTTP so don't compare the 2. Your comment about encryption is moot.
      • jrockway 14y ago
        AirPlay is a proprietary protocol stack/suite. It was at one point. But then The Internets figured out how it worked, and now it's as easy for someone to implement as any other open protocol. Remember: no particular legal protection applies to protocols. Apple is kicking Rogue Amoeba out of the app store out of pure malice, not because of any law that was violated. ("We'd like to sell you this product, but you figured out how to make it yourself, so you're gone.")
        • stonemetal 14y ago
• stickfigure 14y ago
  Once more, a reminder that we - the hackers - should stop giving Apple our money. This is not the kind of computing environment we want to encourage. It's time for someone to re-edit Apple's 1984 commercial and swap the logos.
  • glogla 14y ago
    They would definitely sue you for doing that. Which would be pretty nice irony too.
    • Karunamon 14y ago
      They could try. Parody is protected.
    • ktizo 14y ago
      title it "sosume.wav"
  • chj 14y ago
    Well said. iOS is Apple's best achievement, but it is also his own toy and he don't really want to share it with you. Face it, he's not going to change, and we should really leave him alone with his own balls.
  • Terretta 14y ago
    We, the hackers, can do anything we like with Apple's gear. At the same time, Apple is under no obligation to make it easy for us to trample on their licensing deals for technologies that form part of Apple's unique selling proposition in a consumer's mind. AirPlay is so well implemented, consumers find it magical. To keep that mystique, Apple has a right to review and license AirPlay to those vendors that it finds aligned with its long term goals. If you want Apple to be forced to do something different, you're not a "hacker", you're on the side of big government and "Big Brother" demanding to oversee and meddle in a company's right to sell the product it wants that works in the way that it wants. Finally, I personally want to encourage the hell out of a computing environment that makes everyday people find computing approachable and fun. Just as you don't want a power outlet that needs constant tweaking before you can plug something in, normals don't want a computer or smartphone that requires maintenance just to be able to have fun and get things done. Apple's forced the mainstream computing industry to stop designing for ourselves, and start thinking about everyone else. This is why computing has finally gone viral. Did you use that first Mac? It was never about "open" or "hackable", it was about appliance computing that gets the computer out of the user's way. Nothing has changed since Apple's 1984 when Apple adopted the slogan, "The computer for the rest of us."
• jasomill 14y ago
  It's plausible that Apple has agreed not to distribute AirPlay client software in agreements with AirPlay hardware licensees, and (unfortunately) also plausible that the details of these agreements are under mutual NDA. In other words, it's (disconcertingly) conceivable that Apple is contractually obligated to reject Rogue Amoeba's feature without a good explanation.
• xsmasher 14y ago
  The talk about the DMCA and reverse engineering is a red herring - Apple is not taking legal action against Rogue Amoeba. You're seeing the full power of Apple's control over the app store, though - they can stop distributing apps they don't like for any reason. The same power that Barnes & Noble has over the book market, and your cable provider has over your local TV market.
  • tammer 14y ago
    your country has over your internet?
    • xsmasher 14y ago
      No. You government has a monopoly on force, and on the ability to regulate. Apple and B&N do not have monopolies.
• henrymazza 14y ago
  The thing is encrypted! It says it all: don't mess with me! Sure they are wrong here! This "reverse engineering is not crime" is BS.
• Gring 14y ago
  Phil Schiller clearly has egg on his face. Until Apple stops their stupid policies and starts communicating openly, they will embarrass themselves again and again.
• gonzo 14y ago
  My only problem with with RA is that they keep claiming to have reverse-engineered AirPlay when that work was already done. They may have re-implemented that work, but they did not reverse-engineer.
• surferbayarea 14y ago
  would this guy be ok if someone 'reverse engineered' his email password. Every product wants to protect its IP in some sense...google won't like if someone reverse engineered their search ranking, apple won't obviously like if someone hacked the iphone to run android, intel won't like if someone was able to reverse engineer the chip design and then sell it for a tenth of the cost..heck would these guys like if I was able to hack their app and bypass the license check? Certain internal software API's are as much intellectual property as is the physical hardware design.