11–20 of 97 posts
> "... 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Want a custom stereo in your new car with a fancy center stack setup with a non-standard-size stereo and possibly even integrated AC/heater controls? You're going to have to jump through a lot of hoops. Want software with more functionality than Apple exposes to developers? There's always jailbreaking...
In neither case has there been a substantial consumer backlash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 re…
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.
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."
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.
Actually, controlling aftermarket parts is crucial to automakers. Add nitrous, void your warranty. Modify chip, void your warranty. Make a cosmetic change, no problem.
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 Amoe…
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).