3 ms·

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 If they're just unpublished but registered dev

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 If they're just unpublished but registered developers, then sign up for a new account under a different identity.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.

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.