5 ms·

So it's a violation of the developer agreement, that's why they pulled it? Of course it's a violation. What do they care? They signed no such agreement and they

So it's a violation of the developer agreement, that's why they pulled it? Of course it's a violation. What do they care? They signed no such agreement and they are not registered Apple developers. Developing for Cydia is a violation of the developer agreement as well, that doesn't seem to stop them. Honestly, I don't get it. It's extremely disappointing, as the app works great but needs some fine tuning. Which we will now never see because they capitulated that they were violating an agreement they were never party to in the first place.

mikeash 11y ago
Are you sure they are not registered Apple developers? Seems to me that their being registered Apple developers is the simplest explanation here.
- shinratdr 11y ago
  I suppose it's possible, but they don't have any applications under their f.lux brand/company published anywhere. If they're just unpublished but registered developers, then sign up for a new account under a different identity. The only way this threat holds any water is if there is a revenue stream or published application they are at risk of having removed. As far as I can tell, they have no such issue.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    On the other hand, they may want to maintain a good relationship with Apple so if/when Apple allows apps to modify the screen's gamma through approved API's they'll be able to start using it immediately.
    - shinratdr 11y ago
      How does developing the most famous jailbreak tweak for five years constitute "maintaining a good relationship with Apple". As far as I can tell, that went out the window years ago.
  - derefr 11y ago
    Theoretically, Apple could revoke/blacklist the signing certificate for the OSX F.lux app.
    - sjs382 11y ago
      The way this was distributed, everyone who wanted to install had to sign the binary with their own certificate.
      - jevinskie 11y ago
        Notice the parent mentioned the desktop app, not the mobile app.
    - shinratdr 11y ago
      That's true, but it would be both extremely petty and a violation of the spirit of the Developer ID program, which is to only revoke Developer IDs in the case of malware. Not because you don't like what they are doing with wholly unrelated applications.
  - badlogic 11y ago
    IIRC you have to agree to Apple's TOS even if you only sign up for an account to deploy to your device.
    - shinratdr 11y ago
      I don't doubt that, nor do I disagree they are (or the users sideloading) are violating some agreement. I'm saying, who cares? Jailbreaking and installing f.lux the old way is just as much of a TOS violation and that never stopped them before.
  - pmjordan 11y ago
    Isn't their OSX app signed with a Developer ID certificate? If a relevant person at Apple has their feelings sufficiently hurt by f.lux for iOS, they could revoke said certificate.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
brazzledazzle 11y ago
I think you're disappointed in the wrong party here. But I supposed people being disappointed in Apple has never been much of an influence on them before.
- shinratdr 11y ago
  > I think you're disappointed in the wrong party here. If saurik suddenly decided that developing Cydia was harming his relationship with Apple and pulled it, I would be disappointed in him, not Apple. It's their game, their rules. We all know the consequences of performing an end run around those rules, as developers of arguably one of the most famous jailbreak tweaks ever, they should know. All of this was obviously going to happen from the get go. The only odd part was when they caved because Apple sent them a sternly worded letter.
slg 11y ago
It seems like this was a stunt to put pressure on Apple to make the APIs used public. The temporary solution they came up with was never realistic for a overwhelming majority of users, but it made clear that the only reason why an app like this can't exist is because of Apple's rules.
- tacos 11y ago
  I like the idea of the product but after sundown frankly it could be replaced with a 20 cent piece of plastic.
  - Crito 11y ago
    > it could be replaced with a 20 cent piece of plastic. That's not a terrible idea... Are there any cellphone cases on the market that would make swapping out such a piece of plastic sufficiently straightforward?
    - gknoy 11y ago
      Our local astronomy club just gave out red celophane plastic bags. You could probably use a sheet of that (which looks to be about $15 for a package that you could cut yourself?), and keep it on your nightstand. I know it's neither as convenient nor as easy to use as a case mod or f.lux, but it's worth a shot.
    - patcon 11y ago
      Someone could probably make it work via a manual mechanism built into a case -- a loop of transparent film through the case, filtered on side of the loop, with some sort of locking mech to pull the moveable filter tight against glass during usage.
  - cachvico 11y ago
    That's the point - you don't have to carry a piece of plastic around with you. Also the effect appears gradually.
rhubarbquid 11y ago
I'm no lawyer, but encouraging registered developers to violate their contract with Apple could be pretty shaky ground, legally speaking.
- shinratdr 11y ago
  What contract? All I see is the same clickwrap you violate when you jailbreak your device and install f.lux the old fashioned way. This is an end-run around Apple's policies, just like jailbreaking. Apple doesn't like it, just like jailbreaking. The only hard to understand or confusing part is where the f.lux developers deicde they suddenly care enough about what Apple does or doesn't like to pull their app.
- nroach 11y ago
  It's called tortious interference with contract and the standards vary state by state. However, the common elements are (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional; (3) the act was a proximate cause of the claimant's damage; and (4) actual damage or loss occurred. Some states also recognize causes of action for interference with prospective relationships, although these are notoriously hard to prove.
MBCook 11y ago
You sign an agreement when you start up XCode for the first time. I imagine it was covered there.
ex3ndr 11y ago
Apple solved this bug. After latest update xcode, not a one build tool will run until you accept XCode license even make wouldn't work.

mikeash 11y ago

Are you sure they are not registered Apple developers? Seems to me that their being registered Apple developers is the simplest explanation here.

shinratdr 11y ago
I suppose it's possible, but they don't have any applications under their f.lux brand/company published anywhere. If they're just unpublished but registered developers, then sign up for a new account under a different identity. The only way this threat holds any water is if there is a revenue stream or published application they are at risk of having removed. As far as I can tell, they have no such issue.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  On the other hand, they may want to maintain a good relationship with Apple so if/when Apple allows apps to modify the screen's gamma through approved API's they'll be able to start using it immediately.
  - shinratdr 11y ago
    How does developing the most famous jailbreak tweak for five years constitute "maintaining a good relationship with Apple". As far as I can tell, that went out the window years ago.
- derefr 11y ago
  Theoretically, Apple could revoke/blacklist the signing certificate for the OSX F.lux app.
  - sjs382 11y ago
    The way this was distributed, everyone who wanted to install had to sign the binary with their own certificate.
    - jevinskie 11y ago
      Notice the parent mentioned the desktop app, not the mobile app.
  - shinratdr 11y ago
    That's true, but it would be both extremely petty and a violation of the spirit of the Developer ID program, which is to only revoke Developer IDs in the case of malware. Not because you don't like what they are doing with wholly unrelated applications.
- badlogic 11y ago
  IIRC you have to agree to Apple's TOS even if you only sign up for an account to deploy to your device.
  - shinratdr 11y ago
    I don't doubt that, nor do I disagree they are (or the users sideloading) are violating some agreement. I'm saying, who cares? Jailbreaking and installing f.lux the old way is just as much of a TOS violation and that never stopped them before.
- pmjordan 11y ago
  Isn't their OSX app signed with a Developer ID certificate? If a relevant person at Apple has their feelings sufficiently hurt by f.lux for iOS, they could revoke said certificate.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

brazzledazzle 11y ago

I think you're disappointed in the wrong party here. But I supposed people being disappointed in Apple has never been much of an influence on them before.

shinratdr 11y ago
> I think you're disappointed in the wrong party here. If saurik suddenly decided that developing Cydia was harming his relationship with Apple and pulled it, I would be disappointed in him, not Apple. It's their game, their rules. We all know the consequences of performing an end run around those rules, as developers of arguably one of the most famous jailbreak tweaks ever, they should know. All of this was obviously going to happen from the get go. The only odd part was when they caved because Apple sent them a sternly worded letter.

slg 11y ago

It seems like this was a stunt to put pressure on Apple to make the APIs used public. The temporary solution they came up with was never realistic for a overwhelming majority of users, but it made clear that the only reason why an app like this can't exist is because of Apple's rules.

tacos 11y ago
I like the idea of the product but after sundown frankly it could be replaced with a 20 cent piece of plastic.
- Crito 11y ago
  > it could be replaced with a 20 cent piece of plastic. That's not a terrible idea... Are there any cellphone cases on the market that would make swapping out such a piece of plastic sufficiently straightforward?
  - gknoy 11y ago
    Our local astronomy club just gave out red celophane plastic bags. You could probably use a sheet of that (which looks to be about $15 for a package that you could cut yourself?), and keep it on your nightstand. I know it's neither as convenient nor as easy to use as a case mod or f.lux, but it's worth a shot.
  - patcon 11y ago
    Someone could probably make it work via a manual mechanism built into a case -- a loop of transparent film through the case, filtered on side of the loop, with some sort of locking mech to pull the moveable filter tight against glass during usage.
- cachvico 11y ago
  That's the point - you don't have to carry a piece of plastic around with you. Also the effect appears gradually.

rhubarbquid 11y ago

I'm no lawyer, but encouraging registered developers to violate their contract with Apple could be pretty shaky ground, legally speaking.

shinratdr 11y ago
What contract? All I see is the same clickwrap you violate when you jailbreak your device and install f.lux the old fashioned way. This is an end-run around Apple's policies, just like jailbreaking. Apple doesn't like it, just like jailbreaking. The only hard to understand or confusing part is where the f.lux developers deicde they suddenly care enough about what Apple does or doesn't like to pull their app.
nroach 11y ago
It's called tortious interference with contract and the standards vary state by state. However, the common elements are (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional; (3) the act was a proximate cause of the claimant's damage; and (4) actual damage or loss occurred. Some states also recognize causes of action for interference with prospective relationships, although these are notoriously hard to prove.

MBCook 11y ago

You sign an agreement when you start up XCode for the first time. I imagine it was covered there.

ex3ndr 11y ago

Apple solved this bug. After latest update xcode, not a one build tool will run until you accept XCode license even make wouldn't work.