Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller • Hacker News Board

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#21

Post by rbritton » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 5:19 AM UTC

noibl wrote: post #13

dhugiaskmak wrote: post #9

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…

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#22

Post by yesyes » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 5:20 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #15

yesyes wrote: post #12

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.

Well, car manufacturers have certainly not been very aftermarket-friendly with their center stack over the past decade. It might actually be fairly similar after all: 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 e…

What hoops? If the purchaser wants to install a stereo he can choose to do it himself or take the car to a shop that installs stereos. What's happening in this case is, roughly, by analogy, the car manufacturer is trying to exercise control over a shop that is selling stereos that can be installed in the car. Is that overreaching? Would consumers complain if a car manufacturer actually tried to do that? The factory installed stereo better be very good.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#23

Post by spicyj » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 5:23 AM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #20

pbreit wrote: post #18

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…

"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).

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#24

Post by pooriaazimi » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 5:36 AM UTC

trobertson wrote: post #17

pooriaazimi wrote: post #11

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.

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.

Ever heard "do as I say, not as I do"? :) That's Apple talking to us.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#25

Post by simcop2387 » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 6:00 AM UTC

trobertson wrote: post #17

pooriaazimi wrote: post #11

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.

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.

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#26

Post by majormajor » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 6:04 AM UTC

yesyes wrote: post #22

majormajor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, car manufacturers have certainly not been very aftermarket-friendly with their center stack over the past decade. It might actually be fairly similar after all: 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 e…

What hoops? If the purchaser wants to install a stereo he can choose to do it himself or take the car to a shop that installs stereos. What's happening in this case is, roughly, by analogy, the car manufacturer is trying to exercise control over a shop that is selling stereos that can be installed in the car. Is that overreaching? Would consumers complain if a car manufacturer actually tried to do that? The factory i…

Go look at a car from the 90s with a DIN or double-DIN stereo, then go look at one from the past five years, where the prevalence of nonstandard sized stereos has gone way up, as has the complexity of how tightly coupled they are to the rest of the car. Those are the hoops. I don't think the manufacturers are upset at all that one of the side effects of this trend has been to make aftermarket head unit installs a lot less convenient.

And I don't know any manufacturer that will sell you someone else's head unit as an aftermarket piece. It's up to you to find out how to take everything apart and fit something else in there on your own, or to find someone who knows—basically, jailbreaking your dashboard. Except you generally lose stuff (like steering wheel controls), while I hear jailbreaking is pretty painless these days.

Edit: Apple's app store isn't some third party stereo store, it's a store owned by the manufacturer itself. And car manufacturers are famous for having highly priced proprietary replacement parts, especially when it comes to electronics like stereos, if you aren't willing to deal with an outside store/brand. I really don't see any way Apple's less flexible with the iPhone than a car manufacturer is with their cars.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#27

Post by yesyes » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 6:20 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #26

yesyes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hoops? If the purchaser wants to install a stereo he can choose to do it himself or take the car to a shop that installs stereos. What's happening in this case is, roughly, by analogy, the car manufacturer is trying to exercise control over a shop that is selling stereos that can be installed in the car. Is that overreaching? Would consumers complain if a car manufacturer actually tried to do that? The factory i…

Go look at a car from the 90s with a DIN or double-DIN stereo, then go look at one from the past five years, where the prevalence of nonstandard sized stereos has gone way up, as has the complexity of how tightly coupled they are to the rest of the car. Those are the hoops. I don't think the manufacturers are upset at all that one of the side effects of this trend has been to make aftermarket head unit installs a lot…

Agreed. I simply wanted to point out that the car manufacturer does not actively try to prevent the car owner or the installation shop from installing a stereo. However Apple does this with their devices. Everything must pass through Apple even after the sale is complete and the user owns the device, and that is just absurd. I can't imagine what older Macs that we used for audio applications would have been like if all software had to be approved by Apple. Apple does not have the expertise to write all that software. When I say Apple's strategy will backfire I mean that the more tightly they try to exercise control, the easier jailbreaking is going to get. The auto manufacturers may have made it very difficult to do stereo installations on newer models but they are not actively trying to interfere with stereo makers and installers after the car is sold. And why should they? The buyer made his choice when he bought the car whether he wanted any factory installed audio options or not. If after the sale the buyer wants to buy parts, or get service from an authorized dealer, she can do so. But the manufacturer does not try to interfere with her choice to get service (e.g. stereo installation) elsewhere. Imagine if every car stereo maker had to get approval from car manufacturers and could only sell their products in the manufacturer's distribution centers.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#28

Post by Xuzz » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 6:25 AM UTC

simcop2387 wrote: post #25

trobertson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Dropbox is just a folder — the reverse engineering was to inject themselves into the Finder for their custom icons and context menus.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#29

Post by collypops » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 6:46 AM UTC

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#30

Post by jyap » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 6:56 AM UTC

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.