Follow-Up on the Removal of Airfoil Speakers Touch | Hacker News Reader

Follow-Up on the Removal of Airfoil Speakers Touch

rogueamoeba.com

29 pointsryannielsen18 comments

No mention of the leaked AirPlay private key that they're using to emulate an authorized AirPlay receiver.

Very disingenuous on their part to pretend that they have no idea why Apple has pulled the app. At the very least they can acknowledge that it's in there but make a case that it is in no way a violation of the App Store Guidelines.

Not as disingenuous as Apple not just stating that. It seems unreasonable to hold RogueAmoeba to the standard of "Apple says you did something wrong: list all the things that you think they might disapprove of".

Not saying I agree with the way they run the app store, but their behavior is, at least, predictable.

We all know that licenses and agreements are unwieldy and quickly become incomprehensible when every edge case is covered. Apple's stance is, and always has been, that they have a specific vision for iOS applications, and they'll adapt the license agreement to adjust to "workarounds". This is an effort to avoid an unwieldy license, and I'll give them credit for that at least.

Again, not saying I agree, but look at what's probably going on. Apple uses the broadest possible interpretation of their ownership of AirPlay, including the protocol and any hardware that speaks it. All devices that work with AirPlay are licensed by Apple. Rogue Amoeba released an app that, while not specifically violating Apple's terms as written, is certainly implementing a technology in a way that is inconsistent with the way everyone else uses it (by licensing it from Apple).

Apple wants developers to innovate (whatever that means) on their platform, but only strictly within the boundaries of their vision for the platform. It's a glaring contradiction that has existed for a long time. However, I don't know that there are any laws against it. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so there's always the option to take your money elsewhere. Many people are.

It seems deeply unfair to me to criticize them for not engaging in baseless speculation beyond simply providing the facts.

It's not baseless speculation. There is no other reason for the app to have been pulled, and a similar app has been pulled for the same reason.

No other reason? This is Apple we're talking about. This very same app got rejected and sat in limbo for weeks a couple of years ago for the heinous crime of transmitting app and computer icons from a Mac and displaying them on the iPhone. Predicting what Apple will find fault with is really tough. Just because tons of random internet commenters feel comfortable with speculating doesn't mean these guys should.

They've changed a lot since then. Not trying to defend Apple (I disagree with a lot of what they do on the App Store), but I give them credit for learning from their mistakes (I think they need to reject more crappy/scammy apps with false advertisements though - like this one: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/record-call/id480526628?mt=8 )

Changed a lot, maybe, but I don't know about improving much. I still hear constantly about stupid app rejections, and I see no reason to assume that pulling this app from the store has to be motivated by a reason that outsiders would consider sane.

What the post fails to mention is that any piece of software or hardware that wants to act as an AirPlay receiver requires a key issued by Apple. The key used by most (if not all) of these unauthorized AirPlay receivers comes from an Airport Express (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/11/apple-airplay-private-ke...).

I support the idea of using an iOS device as an AirPlay receiver (I have a copy of AirView safely backed up in hopes of using an old iPhone or iPod touch as a way to turn any speaker into an AirPlay speaker), but they had to have known that using an unauthorized private key was going to get them in trouble.

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the protocols behind AirPlay, but assuming it transmits unencrypted data (because the client is trusted), then it would be possible to losslessly strip the DRM from protected files, something that could land Apple in hot water with the movie/TV studios.

I posted on the previous article as well, and on RA's blog as "concerned bystander", lest you think I'm just stealing his ideas ;)

I've done some googling and found a reference saying AirPlay is supposedly licensed by Apple for $4 per instance to device makers.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/24/airplays-hidden-agend...

Assuming RA would have been able to license it for the same price, they would have to charge $7 for the feature to make up the difference, which is pretty steep on the App store. The bigger question is: Would Apple give them a license? My gut says no, not for an iOS application, but who can say?

I asked on the "under the microscope" blog if Apple mentioned licensing at all in what little communication they've had... I noticed RA never seems to mention licensing, not sure if it's an intentional omission or just coincidence. They had to know going into this that they were playing with fire using the leaked key.

If Apple does claim the removal was over non-public APIs, I think they're being disingenuous. I can't believe a developer like RA would be doing that knowingly or not.

It's a weird situation, because the iPhone is already an Apple product. Why would Apple require a licensing fee for their own device?

Welcome to today's world of intellectual property. You're not buying a "thing" anymore. You're buying the thing, as well as a license for all the stuff that it can do.

The two are inseparable from a pragmatic standpoint, but current intellectual property law doesn't take that in to account. That is why you can jailbreak your phone without legal consequence, but Apple doesn't have to make any provisions in their software/firmware to allow you to do so.

The real issue here, as I see it, is that Apple needs to be 100% consistent about its app store approval process, and exceedingly clear when they yank an already approved app.

Why are they yanking it?

In a case like this, the reason seems pretty clear cut "Because you used an unauthorized AirPlay key" - but the way the current system works, Apple doesn't have to give a reason, they just pull the plug.

I am an unabashed Apple fan, but I think this aspect of the platform is broken and wrong and I wish they'd change their policies.

For a much less clear cut yanking incident, check out all the recent news on how they did this to iKamaSutra, which had no stolen copies of anything and got yanked for no reason at all, AND they refuse to work with the publisher to fix whatever violations may exist.

Everybody seems to be pilling on RA saying they should have known that using the unauthorized AirPlay key would cause problems.

But I think the real issue here is how Apple treats developers. Don't just rationalize what is happening because "RA should have known better". iOS developers need to start standing up for how their platform is run. If somebody doesn't make a stand soon, Apple is just going to keep shitting on you. Once Dev ID launches, and OSX becomes a walled garden just like iOS, the exact same stuff is going to happen. If Apple doesn't like you or wants what you have, they will simply shut you out. The only developers that stand a chance are big companies or loud bloggers.

I know you iOS developers love Apple more than life itself but have some pride in your platform and stand up for your rights for all of our sake.

A great example of the tyranny of the App Store. Call me cynical, but Airfoil is clearly disruptive to Apple's plans to control all of your playback devices with AirPlay, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they've suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of the "law". Extremely disappointing.

As great as Apple devices are, I fear a future where Apple controls every device in the home, because interoperability will be dead.

They used a stolen private key from Apple to fake their app as an Apple device, in case you didn't read the other comments...

Lexmark v. Static Control Components ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int%27l_v._Static_Contr... ) seems to suggest that even if they were using the "stolen" key, that such keys are functional, rather than creative, works, and not copyrightable. This is almost certainly a case of Apple abusing their powers as distributor to block legal software that they disagree with, because it interferes with their bottom line.

Of course, they didn't break the law (or they would've been trialed in a court, not merely yanked from the App Store), they broke App Store rules and Apple had every right to yank them. I disagree with a lot of Apple's practices regarding the App Store rejections, but no company in the world would've tolerated such thing (and rightly so).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com