News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:MusicKit JS by jamsinclair on Saturday February 22, 2020 @07:25PM (#22394273)
A 99 USD commercial web API. This one, and their other endpoints, require being part of paid Apple Developer program. I understand, but it's frustrating if you're wanting to play around or use in free open source.
Re:MusicKit JS by rochak on Sunday February 23, 2020 @12:39AM (#22395338)
This is also the reason why I couldn’t contribute to an open source project that required being part of Apple Developer Program.
Re:MusicKit JS by saagarjha on Saturday February 22, 2020 @07:30PM (#22394302)
Do any competing platforms have a similar API with a less imposing barrier?
Re:MusicKit JS by mixedCase on Saturday February 22, 2020 @11:07PM (#22395074)
Spotify and Deezer, OTOH.
Re:MusicKit JS by cptskippy on Saturday February 22, 2020 @08:09PM (#22394445)
I'm ok with it.

It deincentivizes abuse not unlike how SSL originally worked before it became a farming operation.

Re:MusicKit JS by devwastaken on Saturday February 22, 2020 @08:46PM (#22394554)
I'm curious how SSL is being abused.
Re:MusicKit JS by cptskippy on Saturday February 22, 2020 @11:00PM (#22395039)
Once upon a time businesses had to submit paper work verifying their business to a registrar to get an SSL cert. It wasn't just about encryption but also identity.

I remember as late as 2004 trying to scrounge up copies of our business license to fax or mail into our registrar.

Today the SSL cert has lost it's identity aspect and is just a sign of secure communication, not trusted.

Re:MusicKit JS by duskwuff on Sunday February 23, 2020 @12:01AM (#22395240)
> Once upon a time businesses had to submit paper work verifying their business to a registrar to get an SSL cert. It wasn't just about encryption but also identity.

And those policies made it impossible for personal and hobbyist sites to use secure communications, while doing very little to actually prevent abuse. (Most of the apparent "success" of these policies was simply because the motivations for abuse were lower at the time.)

Re:MusicKit JS by devwastaken on Sunday February 23, 2020 @03:02AM (#22395699)
SSL was never a sign of trust. That's what people made up. The algorithm has no intention of 'trust'.

Ease of SSL certs provides significantly better protection from threats between you and legitimate sites than potential illigitimate sites.

Re:MusicKit JS by cptskippy on Sunday February 23, 2020 @05:12PM (#22399906)
Originally SSL required identity verification and financial costs were very high.

Fraudulent SSL certs weren't a thing because the barrier to entry way so high and the rewards for spoofing a site were low since e-commerce was insignificant.

Re:MusicKit JS by nine_k on Saturday February 22, 2020 @11:25PM (#22395142)
Extended validation certificates still exist, and do require the paperwork.
Re:MusicKit JS by tonyedgecombe on Sunday February 23, 2020 @07:51AM (#22396602)
As do code signing certs (for Windows developers).
Re:MusicKit JS by cptskippy on Sunday February 23, 2020 @05:13PM (#22399911)
Yes and no one really gives a crap about them anymore.