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

Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

rogueamoeba.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#41

Post by jyap »

jrockway wrote: post #31
jyap wrote: post #30

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…

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.

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#42

Post by glogla »

stickfigure wrote: post #35

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.

They would definitely sue you for doing that.

Which would be pretty nice irony too.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#43

Post by fpgeek »

parley wrote: post #39
fpgeek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#44

Post by imjoel »

lloeki wrote: post #38
kevingadd wrote: post #3

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.

> 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 extr…

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)

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#45

Post by chj »

stickfigure wrote: post #35

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.

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.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#46

Post by NyxWulf »

imjoel wrote: post #44
lloeki wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 extr…

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)

heh, I was about to, but then I saw your response. Thanks.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#47

Post by jguimont »

imjoel wrote: post #44
lloeki wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 extr…

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)

Clef de voûte is the polygonal piece at the center top of a voute (big wall opening in cathedrals for example).

Without it everything falls appart.

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#48

Post by cafard »

NyxWulf wrote: post #46
imjoel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

heh, I was about to, but then I saw your response. Thanks.

Keystone, then?

Re: Rogue Amoeba responds to Phil Schiller

#50

Post by officemonkey »

spicyj wrote: post #23
pcwalton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

Post reply on HN