Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

devblog.thefamoussoftwarecompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#41

Post by fpgeek »

mr_donk wrote: post #14
mikeash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airfoil, at least, was developed long before Apple had any sort of third party licensing model. Reverse engineering for interoperability is completely legal and ethical.

There's 2 parts to AirTunes (the part of AirPlay that Airfoil and AirFloat use), Sending and Receiving. Up to now, AirFoil only used the AirTunes protocol to SEND streams to AirPlay devices. If you reverse engineer the protocol you can send to any AirPlay device. No problem. It's harder to make an AirPlay receiver, because iTunes won't send anything to an AirPlay receiver that doesn't encrypt the request with the pro…

> There's 2 parts to AirTunes (the part of AirPlay that Airfoil and AirFloat use), Sending and Receiving. Up to now, AirFoil only used the AirTunes protocol to SEND streams to AirPlay devices. If you reverse engineer the protocol you can send to any AirPlay device. No problem.

How do you know there's no problem with AirPlay sending?

Other than Apple's past behavior (which, as shown here and many other places, is no guarantee of future results) I'd have thought the correct assumption is that Apple wouldn't want anything to do with unlicensed implementations of either side of the AirPlay protocol.

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#42

Post by rabidsnail »

cageface wrote: post #39
rabidsnail wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a crapshoot if all you do is drop your app in the store and assume that people will find it by magic.

I've heard several very successful iOS devs say that they basically did exactly that. I think the secret is finding a rich but unexplored niche but of course that's getting more difficult over time.

The thing about crapshoots is that sometimes you win.

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#43

Post by Steko »

fpgeek wrote: post #35
Steko wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It no more legal or ethical than Apple using their right to exclude whoever they want from their store. It's like if I have a party and you are doing something to annoy me personally even though you are being legal and ethical I can tell you to get the fuck out. Today's lesson is don't be that guy at the party, don't be that guy in the app store, the one who decided to reverse engineer the store owner's shit and then…

Why shouldn't Rogue Amoeba have "caused a scene"? As another comment notes, they've probably had the code to do this for a while. Why should Rogue Amoeba continue to sit on it instead of taking the chance? Unless they were banned from the App Store entirely (unlikely based on past practice and probably less of a concern since their app was a free add-on anyway), they'd have lost nothing (and gotten a decent amount of…

Hey everyone can do whatever they want. I'm pointing out the reality of the situation is not one of ethics or legality (see grandfather). The reality is if you play close to the lines, don't be surprised if you're found to occasionally be out of bounds.

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#44

Post by mr_donk »

fpgeek wrote: post #41
mr_donk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's 2 parts to AirTunes (the part of AirPlay that Airfoil and AirFloat use), Sending and Receiving. Up to now, AirFoil only used the AirTunes protocol to SEND streams to AirPlay devices. If you reverse engineer the protocol you can send to any AirPlay device. No problem. It's harder to make an AirPlay receiver, because iTunes won't send anything to an AirPlay receiver that doesn't encrypt the request with the pro…

> There's 2 parts to AirTunes (the part of AirPlay that Airfoil and AirFloat use), Sending and Receiving. Up to now, AirFoil only used the AirTunes protocol to SEND streams to AirPlay devices. If you reverse engineer the protocol you can send to any AirPlay device. No problem. How do you know there's no problem with AirPlay sending? Other than Apple's past behavior (which, as shown here and many other places, is no g…

That's a good point... I based my assumption on the fact that they require a private key for receiving, but not sending.

I guess that doesn't necessarily prove anything...

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#45

Post by mikeash »

mr_donk wrote: post #40
mikeash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I object to your continued use of "stolen" etc. I believe extracting the key for the proposes of interoperability is still legitimate, even if Apple doesn't like it. Let's say that's the reason, in any case. Why would Apple pull the whole app rather than simply making them remove the key and reverting back to the old functionality? Some petty sense of retribution?

I did put stolen in quotes every time I used it because I'm not sure that is the correct term. Here's how I see it. AirPlay is something Apple sells a license to. Assume Rogue Amoeba didn't buy a license, but used someone else's, and then sold the functionality that buying the license would have entitled them to. What's that? Piracy? DMCA violation? Within Rogue Amoeba's rights? I don't know. Is Apple allowed to lock…

DeCSS is only illegal because it circumvents the copy protection system on DVDs. Absent that, there would be nothing allowing the DVD people to force companies to license CSS rather than simply cracking it.

As far as I know, Apple is allowed to lock things down by requiring keys, and other people are allowed to crack Apple's lockdown if they can.

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#46

Post by mr_donk »

mikeash wrote: post #45
mr_donk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did put stolen in quotes every time I used it because I'm not sure that is the correct term. Here's how I see it. AirPlay is something Apple sells a license to. Assume Rogue Amoeba didn't buy a license, but used someone else's, and then sold the functionality that buying the license would have entitled them to. What's that? Piracy? DMCA violation? Within Rogue Amoeba's rights? I don't know. Is Apple allowed to lock…

DeCSS is only illegal because it circumvents the copy protection system on DVDs. Absent that, there would be nothing allowing the DVD people to force companies to license CSS rather than simply cracking it. As far as I know, Apple is allowed to lock things down by requiring keys, and other people are allowed to crack Apple's lockdown if they can.

That's my point. Isn't getting the private AirTunes key equivalent to the DeCSS case?

If Apple had just made a proprietary undocumented protocol, that'd be one thing, and I'd agree that Apple wouldn't be able to force licenses on people. Absent the private key, there wouldn't be anything to stop you.

However, they made a proprietary protocol, sold licenses to use it and implemented a key enforce the license. Isn't circumventing the private key equivalent to circumventing copy protection? They obviously intended to restrict it to licensees, the way the DVD people intended to restrict CSS to licensees.

Wasn't there some case where printer manufacturers were doing something to stop 3rd parties from making cheaper ink/toner? How did that go? Maybe it's a more apt comparison (for the record, I honestly don't remember how this case turned out, so I don't know if I'm helping or hurting my argument).

Re: The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store]

#47

Post by mikeash »

mr_donk wrote: post #46
mikeash wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DeCSS is only illegal because it circumvents the copy protection system on DVDs. Absent that, there would be nothing allowing the DVD people to force companies to license CSS rather than simply cracking it. As far as I know, Apple is allowed to lock things down by requiring keys, and other people are allowed to crack Apple's lockdown if they can.

That's my point. Isn't getting the private AirTunes key equivalent to the DeCSS case? If Apple had just made a proprietary undocumented protocol, that'd be one thing, and I'd agree that Apple wouldn't be able to force licenses on people. Absent the private key, there wouldn't be anything to stop you. However, they made a proprietary protocol, sold licenses to use it and implemented a key enforce the license. Isn't ci…

The key long predates any licensing deals. In fact, the system used for licensing is different from the one that the key in question applies to. The AirTunes/AirPlay system has changed over the years, and the key that was extracted is for an older (but still supported) system than in used for third-party licensees.

I don't see how it would be covered by the DMCA like DeCSS is, as the encryption is not for a DRM system.

Even if it is, well, I think most of us will agree that cracking encryption for the purposes of circumventing DRM for legitimate purposes should be allowed. But of course that gets us into discussions of how things are versus how things should be.

Post reply on HN