Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mac App Store Apps Already Hacked

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-didn't-take-long dept.

Desktops (Apple) 148

Stoobalou writes "The Mac App Store has only been open for 24 hours but methods for circumventing Apple's DRM are already hitting the Web."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sweet (1, Funny)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790766)

it's about time hackers switched to apple. Leave use PC guys alone.

Re:Sweet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790800)

Not PC guys, windows users. Linux and BSD users are quite happy with their PCs.

BSD? PC? (3, Informative)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790964)

Well, The Mac is just an expensive PCs and OS X is based on BSD. So, what's your point?

Re:BSD? PC? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793206)

How is this flamebait? How are current Intel Macs any different from other PCs? And OS X is based on BSD.

Re:Sweet (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791968)

we dont have "linux PCs", you insentive clod. we have a linux BOXES.

Re:Sweet (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792008)

AHEM.

We call them Linux boxen because that's what it's akin to hurding!

Re:Sweet (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792064)

I thought we called them boxen to prevent the spread of virii

Re:Sweet (-1, Offtopic)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792568)

Only if you can't spell "viruses".

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34793608)

whoooooooosh......

Re:Sweet (1)

emaname (1014225) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792834)

Think about giving credit for the quote you use in your sig to the ever-famous Alfred E. Neuman [wikipedia.org] of MAD Magazine fame. MAD had been my go-to source for commentary re politics and culture (go figure) for quite a while.

He's also been known to be a write-in candidate for various political offices.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790894)

Euhm piracy also exists on the mac platform (even on IOS) so this kind of play isn't new.

Re:Sweet (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791276)

...because Apple doesn't make personal computers? Or did you mean, "us Windows users?"

Re:Sweet (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791888)

Exactly, Apple does not make 'personal' computers. The machines are actually owned by Steve Jobs for all eternity, along with your soul if you ever decide to buy one. :P

Re:Sweet (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792006)

...because Apple doesn't make personal computers?

Blame Apple marketing... "I'm a PC"

Re:Sweet (2)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792838)

Pfft, you use Personal Computers?

I prefer impersonal computers. My computer won't allow me to even use my name as a logon. I have to use user names like "Guy" or "Bloke", and themes are disabled.

Re:Sweet (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791310)

Don't worry, the article just has an inflamatory headline. It's not not apple's security that's been broken, it's the security of apps that haven't followed apple's documented method of verifying that they're installed in a valid way.

Re:Sweet (-1, Troll)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791352)

>> apps that haven't followed apple's documented method of verifying that they're installed in a valid way.

Then what the fuck apple is doing? Just making sure porn does not get onto macs?

Re:Sweet (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791746)

Providing a service to sell applications and games in a convenient way?

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34793062)

Tell me, is it hard to praise apple while steve's big fat cock is lodged firmly in your throat?

oh let me guess, they have an app for that.

Re:Sweet (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793024)

Then what the fuck apple is doing?

Apple is apparently trying to flog the same sort of crapware that telcos tend to load up on our phones. I have a (free second-hand) MacBook that I inherited from my wife when she upgraded her machine. Since I'm an ancient Unix hacker, I can coexist perfectly well with the hardware, but really hate Apple's business model. So, with the exception of the software that comes out of the box, I run OSS apps pretty much exclusively.

The briefest glance at the "App Store" offerings was enough to convince me that there was nothing to see there, so I quickly removed that launcher from my dock.

I have allowed Apple into my life because their computers (emphasis on that last word: iPads don't count) are essentially *nix boxes with a proprietary GUI. I am (more or less) willing to overlook the latter for the convenience of the former, but my complaisance is wearing thin with every petty, nasty-minded attack on personal liberty that Apple perpetrates. Come the time when I have to (actually pay money to) replace this laptop, my wallet will be voting in favour of another Linux box.

Re:Sweet (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793778)

Troll, really?? So, those with modpoints think that my remark that Apple is taking control of the application and then failing to secure them in any way is a troll?

Seems macboys got few mod points today.

Re:Sweet (1)

Dexy (1751176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792104)

Inflammatory headlines? In my /. ?

It's more likely than you think.

Re:Sweet (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792370)

So it's like early third-party Steam apps that didn't integrate with the Steam DRM so you could copy the game folder right out of the SteamApps\common dir and it would still work.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792890)

I know I'm off topic, but hearing technical proficient people referring to non apple hardware as pcs worries me.

slightly better article (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790778)

Hate to link to the reg but their article is actually a bit more detailed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/07/app_store_receipt_fail/ [theregister.co.uk]
Note that this only works if developers ignored Apple's recommendations on validating receipts.

Re:slightly better article (1)

drosboro (1046516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792382)

Exactly. Partly, I'm sure, that's because Apple's recommendations involve writing decidely non-Cocoa-ish code that's a little hard to understand if you've never done any crypto before, and they don't (for obvious reasons of security) provide sample "here it's all done for you, just copy and paste" code but describe the process and tell you to do it yourself in your own unique way. My guess, having looked at the quality of some of the apps on there, that a bunch of these apps were either a) written in a hurry to get submitted before the deadline or b) written by someone who simply couldn't implement Apple's guidelines due to their own capabilities (or lack thereof).

On the flip side, they probably wouldn't have written any better DRM if they were distributing it through any other channel, anyways.

Re:slightly better article (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792738)

Partly, I'm sure, that's because Apple's recommendations involve writing decidely non-Cocoa-ish code that's a little hard to understand if you've never done any crypto before, and they don't (for obvious reasons of security) provide sample "here it's all done for you, just copy and paste" code

You mean, the obvious reason that they believe that obscurity adds significantly to security in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary?

They DARE defy Father Steve?!?!? (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790802)

Surely they're aware that they're jeopardizing their souls (and certainly their lives) by such a blatant act of Apple rebellion??

Chill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790974)

And just by using Macs, they are daring to defy both Overlord Bill and Master Linus.

Don't be so conceited: computer users all bow to someone. It is only a matter of changing the names and the nuances of the bow.

(Our answer to the great question is the right one! Praise Science!)

Re:Chill (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791282)

It may be the right one, but I still don't understand how "42" is supposed to help me.

Re:Chill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791874)

It may be the right one, but I still don't understand how "42" is supposed to help me.

Easy. What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

Re:Chill (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792046)

I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe.

Re:Chill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792060)

It may be the right one, but I still don't understand how "42" is supposed to help me.

Easy. What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

54?

Re:Chill (1)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793676)

Funny, I got an AC who doesn't know where his towel is.

Re:Chill (1)

Lundse (1036754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791706)

And just by using Macs, they are daring to defy both Overlord Bill and Master Linus.

Don't be so conceited: computer users all bow to someone.

I have a hard time identifying who I am bowing to, when I use Free Software... Not Linus, nor Stallman, is telling me what to do with my machine.

But you are right that we cannot blame Apple for non-documented usage that leads to problems. Unless of course there is a good reason ('refusing to bow' if you will) for non-compliance (I have no clue whether this is the case, but I could think of some possible ones) - in that case, they are suffering problems for which Apple is to blame. Any comparable harm on a Free Software system is from negligence, not malice (either you did not follow documentation out of negligence, or the documentation was somehow suboptimal).

Re:Chill (1)

lavacano201014 (999580) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792966)

Don't be so conceited: computer users all bow to someone. It is only a matter of changing the names and the nuances of the bow.

The bow (before it became associated with totalitarian/monarchial government) is shown as a sign of respect. And I only bow in that context - if someone does something I respect, I bow. In that vein, if someone makes a program (or even an OS) I like, I bow.

So stop trying to change the definition to "On one's knees, moving their torso towards the ground and back with hands straight up repeatedly."

If you build it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790832)

the hackerz will come!

Summary fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790838)

This is only a but in Angry Birds, and won't affect other apps.

This Is Completely Misleading (4, Informative)

pyite (140350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790852)

The Mac App Store wasn't hacked. Developers aren't properly checking licenses when the app is run, so of course using any arbitrary license file will work. Complete FUD.

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (4, Informative)

Stoobalou (1774024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790890)

It doesn't say 'Mac App Store Hacked'... it says 'Mac App Store *APPS* Hacked', which is quite clear in my book.

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (4, Interesting)

getNewNickName (980625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791304)

But it implies that all apps can be hacked, which is clearly misleading. Saying "Some Mac App Store Apps Already Hacked" would be more accurate, but much less sensational.

It's all relative (4, Funny)

jwietelmann (1220240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791504)

This headline is stellar by Slashdot standards. Count your blessings.

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (1)

smart_ass (322852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792208)

To be fair .... the headline isn't "All Mac App Store Apps Already Hacked"

You were the one who assumed a totality. Which rarely exists [ notice I didn't say never ;-) ]

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (1)

KyleJacobson (788441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793616)

But it implies that all apps can be hacked, which is clearly misleading. Saying "Some Mac App Store Apps Already Hacked" would be more accurate, but much less sensational.

The way you are reading it, it should say "All Mac App Store Apps Already Hacked" but they never said all. The way it is written only implies that Mac apps in the store have been hacked, which is correct.

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (2)

pyite (140350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791810)

It doesn't say 'Mac App Store Hacked'... it says 'Mac App Store *APPS* Hacked', which is quite clear in my book.

They're not even hacked! Since when does not implementing something count as being hacked?

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792378)

The terms "hacking" and "hacker" have been carelessly misused for a very long time. When something as blatantly simple as manipulating a file in a package is considered to be an act of hacking, it makes me twitch, too. Kind of like the way that all the script kiddies in the world are referred to and feared as "hackers."

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (4, Informative)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791998)

But the summary says Apple's DRM has been circumvented.

DRM isn't mentioned in the article, and it is clear from reading TFA that this has nothing to do with Apple's DRM scheme (that is not mentioned in the article), but a way to trick the Rovio app.

Complete waste-of-time non-issue FUD.

Re:This Is Completely Misleading (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793236)

They must have forgotten that a real Mac is a general purpose computer and not a walled garden like the iThings are.

Fix for mac developers (2)

Rikiji7 (1182159) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790902)

This article is more suited to the slashdot crowd: http://www.craftymind.com/2011/01/06/mac-app-store-hacked-how-developers-can-better-protect-themselves/ [craftymind.com]

Re:Fix for mac developers (0)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791042)

No it isn't. 90% of /. thinks all software should be free and piracy is awesome - but they themselves get paid outstanding salaries.

Re:Fix for mac developers (2)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791344)

90%? Outstanding salaries? All slashdotters are hypocritical developers? Where did you get this information?

Re:Fix for mac developers (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793306)

For the record, as a long-term Slashdot reader, my income for the last 3 years has been $0.00. And I'm not even dodging tax: I have to earn something to do that. I'm living off debt.

Re:Fix for mac developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791636)

No it isn't. 90% of /. thinks all software should be free and piracy is awesome - but they themselves get paid outstanding salaries.

Given the crushing ignorance of how computers work displayed by most Slashdot comments, I very much doubt most of the comment authors have jobs.

Re:Fix for mac developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792178)

I'm unemployed you insensitive clod!

Have been for a few months now, and likely to be for several more.

horrible title (3, Informative)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790998)

Did the poster read the article? Angry Birds can be copied freely by switching out a file used for Twitter because Angry Birds didn't use Apple's recommended security.

I love to take jabs at Apple and the Cult of Steve, but this is a completely inappropriately titled article.

Re:horrible title (0)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791034)

"Did the poster read the article? Angry Birds can be copied freely by switching out a file used for Twitter because Angry Birds didn't use Apple's recommended security." Angry Birds is an app. It was hacked. What's inappropriate about the title?

Re:horrible title (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791128)

If that is what's passing for hacking these days, oh how far we have fallen.

More accurate, but less sensational, would be "developers ignore security suggestion from Apple and are bitten by weak receipt checking". It's less catchy too, as a title.

Re:horrible title (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791280)

It's entirely possible that the revelant developers simply don't care that much.

DRM is an end user annoyance that ultimately doesn't stop piracy. Perhaps someone decided it would be good to be less annoying.

Or perhaps they just aren't that fixated.

Re:horrible title (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791398)

The Mac App Store provides recipts/DRM, but there is no automatic checking. The developer needs to add a couple lines of code to check that 1. the receipt exists and 2. it's my receipt. Both steps are optional (yes, you can distribute DRM-free apps) so if they didn't care, they wouldn't do either. They did step 1 which looks a lot more like a bug or misreading of the DRM validation guidelines.

Re:horrible title (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791484)

Quite possibly - Rovio are already probably annoyed from all the paper cuts on their tongues from using forks made of money, so losing a little revenue to people copying the desktop version of Angry Birds is unlikely to worry them unduly. They're probably more focused with fixing the crash bug. The app is crashing on launch for a non-trivial number of users, resulting in a flurry of 1 star posts in their review section. Their priority will be to fix that.

In general serial numbers and licences on the Mac platform have always been pretty token - the OS X install CD itself simply has a text file that says "don't copy me" and has no serial numbers or online activation or anything, so you can install it on any number of Macs with no issue (other than your own ethics over purchasing licences).

I have no doubt the licence system is not all that draconian - much as Fairplay wasn't (and had a big gaping designed-in-from-the-start hole). The goal being "make it convenient and reasonable enough in cost and people will buy" rather than forcing to end run around you (like Windows Genuine Advantage, or Ubisoft's brainless game 'protection', or SecuROM etc)

Re:horrible title (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793566)

DRM is an end user annoyance that ultimately doesn't stop piracy. Perhaps someone decided it would be good to be less annoying.

Here's what Apple does: If you download app X onto Macintosh Y then it comes with an unforgeable receipt that says "app X is allowed to run on Macintosh Y". Free apps do nothing if they don't care about being copied. If you care, you check: 1. Is there a receipt. 2. Is it a valid receipt. 3. Is it a valid receipt for this Macintosh. 4. Is it a valid receipt for this application. If one of these four steps fails then the app should exit.

If an app ignores step 3. then obviously the app with the receipt can be freely copied. If an app ignores step 4. then the hack is possible: Download an app with a valid receipt, put the app you want to copy together with the receipt. That step has to be repeated for every Macintosh.

To put this into perspective, the iTunes store sells about 10 million songs or so without copy protection. So maybe we should trust users to be honest. Plus I think what the non-purchaser of the app has to do is enough (1) to make it very clear that they are doing something illegal, (2) to make sure that lots of people would never manage to do it, and (3) turn this from plain copyright infringement into a DMCA violation with much harsher penalties.

Re:horrible title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791300)

Why should the developer have to worry about receipt checking? Isn't that generally the stores problem to worry about? Why should a developer selling an application through a store worry about the receipt at all? What other store works this way?

Re:horrible title (3, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791548)

Steam works this way too. Any store with a centralised system that handles the user accounts and requires third parties to access them if they want to have a serial number. The store happens to work that way, and selling an app through it doesn't necessarily require a licence check (eg, free apps) but if you want to sell your app, the method for linking a licence key to an iTunes account is documented.

Re:horrible title (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792564)

Since when was taking advantage of gaping exploits in software not hacking, regardless of how sloppy the programmers were? Now if it had suggested the App Store was hacked I'd be with you, but saying that merely the app was hacked is entirely accurate, and if people jump from one conclusion to the other that's their misreading of the situation.

Re:horrible title (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792720)

Read the title again...

"Mac App Store Apps Already Hacked"

So far, only one has. But the title suggests many, and as if it were a Mac App Store problem.

Re:horrible title (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792722)

I think it's a trivially accessed exploit rather than actual hacking. I'm not trying to downplay the error, just accurately categorise it.

I'm sure it's the first thing that the actual hacker tried - what happens when you drop a certificate from a free app into a paid one and try to hit the server for a licence key.

Everyone else doing it is hardly hacking though.

It would be hacking if they reverse engineered the certificate algorithm and made a certificate generator, but that's not what they did - they just took advantage of a sloppy check by the Angry Birds app.

I think it's more like realising that a pound coin on a string can make the pool table work, and is recoverable rather than tricking the mechanism with a more elaborate scheme that involves taking it apart.

Re:horrible title (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793724)

Since when was taking advantage of gaping exploits in software not hacking...

Since when is not implementing strict DRM an exploit? Quick OS X has a huge exploit and doesn't check for a valid serial number! Quick OpenOffice has a huge exploit, you can copy it without paying anyone!

The level of DRM a developer wants to implement is up to them. If they decide not to check or to check only for any valid account, that's up to them. They might make such a decision because they want to get to market faster and don't want to code and test it or because they actually don't mind people copying as they think that will promote more sales in the long run. Calling it an "exploit" seems a bit hyperbolic.

Re:horrible title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791346)

I was at my friend's house the other day, and I noticed that he left his Facebook account sitting wide open, so I posted a fake status update! Hacked!

I'll be presenting the details at Black Hat this year.

Re:horrible title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792072)

I was at my friend's house the other day, and I noticed that he left his Facebook account sitting wide open, so I posted a fake status update! Hacked!

I'll be presenting the details at Black Hat this year.

The scary part is, that right there is exactly how the vast majority of people get hacked: simply not using the security that's already there and working properly.

Case in point. Five or six years ago, I discovered that one of my "computer savvy" users (in quotes for a reason) was using the password "Password1". Note that this actually meets the default complex password requirements in Windows. It's more than eight characters, and it has both uppercase and lowercase letters as well as numbers.

Re:horrible title (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792852)

Indeed, in the origins of the popularity of the term hacking (cracking as it was originally) in sources such as Neuromancer, there was often some aspect of gaining physical access/entrance to a computer system in order to make changes that would give you some kind of control (naturally so, since the idea of a global network of computers back then was alien to a lot of people). A cracker in the original meaning could equally be someone who uses a remote exploit to take control of a system in another country or a guy who breaks into the house next door to install a trojan. The original meaning of hacker was more technical and its perhaps only because the two have blended over the years that there's this concept that hacking is all about cleverly circumventing cyber security with coded solutions.

Movies (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791114)

Apps cracked and yet there is still no way to remove the DRM from iTunes Movies....

Re:Movies (1, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791262)

Only a clueless moron would buy DRM encumbered music or movies from iTunes. The fresh fruit is free, the rotten fruit is pay.

Re:Movies (2)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791416)

Only clueless moron would buy ANYTHING from itunes. The fresh fruit is free (of the hardware and software), the rotten fruit is to bind yourself to one manufacturer.

Re:Movies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791786)

iTMS music is DRM-free 256k AACs -- higher quality than MP3, playable almost everywhere.

Re:Movies (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793222)

MP3 320kbps is higher quality than AAC 256kbps. Just sayin. iTunes AAC also embeds your personal details into each and every track you buy, to catch you if you share (Google). Ever get tired of being slapped in the face by Apple?

Re:Movies (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793434)

Higher quality than MP3-what? Almost anything is better than 128-kbps MP3 (which is fine for a voice-only podcast), but MP3 at the better end of the quality spectrum offers fine competition to AAC.

Re:Movies (0)

Gorbag (176668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792118)

Only clueless moron would buy ANYTHING from itunes. The fresh fruit is free (of the hardware and software), the rotten fruit is to bind yourself to one manufacturer.

Parse that for me will you? Isn't fruit (and brains for that matter) hardware? Isn't the software your mind? the notion "fresh fruit" is already bound to both hardware and software. Suggest you work on your metaphors and your case isn't helped by the ad hominim.

Re:Movies (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792634)

Only clueless moron would buy ANYTHING from itunes.

Meh... the DRM-free music is not bad and quite quick, especially when not in front of your computer. The $0.99 games for my kid won't kill me, either. Really it is no different than buying a game for any other platform... And renting a movie for $0.99 is no different than checking one out on a RedBox, except that you don't have to move your large ass over to the grocery store.

Why one would PURCHASE a movie on iTunes, I cannot say.

Re:Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791774)

a) post a link to a non-DRM encumbered version of the movie I want to buy: Transformers

b) name a song currently sold through iTunes that is DRM encumbered.

Re:Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791918)

Only a clueless moron would buy DRM encumbered music or movies from iTunes.

Actually, it'd take some serious effort to find DRM encumbered music on iTunes. If you can do that, I'll give you half an internets!

Who is surprised? (4, Interesting)

mitchell_pgh (536538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791148)

I don't think the goal of the App Store was to provide an impervious DRM store solution. We have known for years (and many vendors will tell you) that is an unrealistic expectation. Apple simply wants a revenue stream where people can easily purchase and install licensed versions of software. As a store, they should try to disrupt all illegal sharing to the best of their ability. Don't be surprised if the 1.1 version of all the software requires a license check. I'm of the opinion that they are going to use the same "we'll annoy them to death" method they have used for the iTunes store which has proven to be a good business model. Sure, you can usually find cracked free stuff, but you must be willing to hack your system or jump through hoops to make it work normally... but it's always one update away from not working.

The older I get, the less I like to jump.

Re:Who is surprised? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791230)

They already do - and the developers who have been burned by this simply didn't follow Apple's recommendation to have more rigorous checking in place.

Re:Who is surprised? (1)

Headw1nd (829599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792406)

The older I get, the less I like to jump.

Sadly, I've found this true IRL as well.

Re:Who is surprised? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793648)

Apple simply wants a revenue stream where people can easily purchase and install licensed versions of software.

Like iTunes and the iPhone App Store, I suspect this is about selling hardware. Taking a 30% cut of app sales while providing the hosting and the credit card processing and while taking on the burden of hosting the lion's share of all the freeware in existence is unlikely to be a significant money maker. It certainly has not been on the IPhone. Rather, this is a way to make more people think Macs are easy to use by making getting apps easier, reducing crashes, and slightly mitigating security risks. The store is about selling hardware, just like their other stores.

Deary! (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791166)

Hey hackers, leave steve ALONE!

Re:Deary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792302)

Another App in the Store
(sung to The Wall, by Pink Floyd)

We don't need no
Licence checking
We don't need no
Copy control

No DRM or
App store purchase
Did you leave those Apps alone?

HEY! HACKER! Leave Steve Jobs alone!

All in all it's just another App in the Store.

(thanks, bazmail, for the inspiration)

Re:Deary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34792710)

And yes, I know that "copy control" doesn't quite fit rhythmically, but it was off the top of my head, and it matches the original lyrics.

Marketing trick (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791174)

Maybe this was intentional: first loads of people who don't normally buy games, will jump on this opportunity to get a free game. Then there will be a software update and when they unwittingly click "OK", the game will update and not work anymore. "But I love playing that game, and now it does not work anymore! Where's my credit card?"

Re:Marketing trick (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792972)

Or the fact that they're working on Angry Birds 2 (someone behind the game was on the radio talking about it recently), the world and his dog who were interested in Angry Birds 1 already bought it, and as you say this is a great way to get the game out to people who wouldn't have bought it and to get everyone talking about Angry Birds just at the time the studio wants them talking about it. Of course, they could have given it away for free but that might eat some of their potential Birds 2 customers - as you say, this way they can give everyone a free taster, make it the hot topic again just as people were getting bored with it, then release the sequel (and patch the hole in the original).

Mac App Store reports back all your applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791692)

There are reports from various forums implying that the Mac App Store collects info on all the applications that reside in your computer and reports them back to apple. So, if you applied the 10.6.6 update, chances are apple knows all the applications you used to run till today and has them associated with your itunes id.

This can be such a massive privacy breach that I can't even fathom the implications. But one thing is certain, many many many mac users simply would not tolerate it.

This is not sarcasm, even Windows would be preferable to this stupidity.
 

Re:Mac App Store reports back all your application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34793598)

There are reports from various forums implying that the Mac App Store collects info on all the applications that reside in your computer and reports them back to apple. So, if you applied the 10.6.6 update, chances are apple knows all the applications you used to run till today and has them associated with your itunes id.

FUD. Let's state your bolded text more accurately: "apple knows all the applications you bought on the App Store and has them associated with your itunes id." Any store that has any sense keeps track of customer purchases. Even retail stores do that.... ever been to a Radio Shack recently? How they ask for your phone number? I give them a fake one. Not sure that does any good, but at least they can't call me.

And as for Microsoft...... You don't think they track anything with Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage? It's already been caught phoning home [wikipedia.org] , and as far as I know, it still does.

Stupid Summary (0)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792016)

DRM isn't mentioned in the article, nor is it even inferred.

But hey, what better way to get a bunch of hyper-sensitive DRM haters to click a link!?

Re:Stupid Summary (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793114)

DRM isn't mentioned in the article, nor is it even inferred.

But hey, what better way to get a bunch of hyper-sensitive DRM haters to click a link!?

Line one of the article, in case you missed it (easy to do, it's in 15px and bold):

The Mac App Store has only been open for 24 hours but methods for circumventing Apple's DRM are already hitting the Web.

I agree this actually has nothing to do with DRM amd DRM is not mentioned in the original tutorial, but it's definitely mentioned in the article linked from the summary.

Re:Stupid Summary (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793294)

Oh yes, indeed, there it is. Proof that, in making everything BOLD, nothing stands out (page layout 101).

Then it's not a bad slashdot summary, it's a bad article summary.

Protection not worth the effort (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792606)

Apple's recommended piracy checks consist of calling certain system routines to check the validity of the receipt. How hard do you think it's going to be to intercept those calls? I can see an automated cracking application appearing in three... two... one...
That's why I personally did not even bother trying for my own brick game Colibricks. I just hope enough honest people are going to download it. If they can dig into an application bundle to replace a file, they will certainly be able to download the latest automated app cracking application which I'm actually surprised hasn't arrived yet.

Pirate software, much? (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34792636)

Is this really any different from any other way of obtaining pirate commercial software? Sure there are extra steps app store developers could take to make it more difficult but there's plenty of commercial software that installs quite happily with just a serial number, and at any rate you can use all the DRM and copy protection in the world but all it takes is one hacker to post a cracked version on bittorrent and anyone can get hold of it just as easily.

The real story: App Store DMR cracked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34793304)

Gizmodo has the real story: http://gizmodo.com/5727080/mac-app-store-cracked-for-piracy

"... by installing a software called Kickback, you will be able to pirate any applications in the store."

Re:The real story: App Store DRM cracked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34793492)

Gizmodo has the real story: http://gizmodo.com/5727080/mac-app-store-cracked-for-piracy

"... by installing a software called Kickback, you will be able to pirate any applications in the store."

The slashdot story is not worth mentioning, but this is something different. They are the same people who cracked the iOS DRM and they don't want to release the tool until the App Store "has a lot of crap in it". Funny guys...

Apps Don't Use DRM - Everyone Panic! (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34793548)

Seriously, the whole story is that some apps aren't checking to see if the Mac in question has a receipt for that app. Most apps on OS X don't bother checking registration now. Heck, OS X doesn't even check to see if the user has a valid key. First, how is this news? Second, why the hell is apps not using DRM being spun on Slashdot as a BAD thing? Seriously, when did Slashdot become pro-DRM? Oh no apps are freely copyable and users can share them without DRM getting in the way, if the app developer made them that way! Seriously people?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?