

Follow-Up on the Removal of Airfoil Speakers Touch - ryannielsen
http://rogueamoeba.com/utm/2012/05/29/follow-up-on-the-removal-of-airfoil-speakers-touch/

======
bgentry
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.

~~~
ianferrel
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".

~~~
bradleyland
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.

------
martingordon
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...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/11/apple-airplay-private-key-
exposed-opening-door-to-airport-express-emulators/)).

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.

------
mr_donk
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...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/24/airplays-hidden-agenda-apple-
tv-sets/)

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.

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

~~~
bradleyland
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.

------
Feoh
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.

------
thechut
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.

------
untog
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.

~~~
pooriaazimi
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...

~~~
Sanddancer
Lexmark v. Static Control Components (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int%27l_v._Static_Contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int%27l_v._Static_Control_Components)
) 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.

~~~
pooriaazimi
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).

