7 ms·

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

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.

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.