4 ms·

While I'm glad about the functionality becoming available, is Apple rejecting third-party apps only to copy them?

by bad_user 11y ago

cballard 11y ago
That's not really what happened, Flux was using private API, and distributing it as a binary blob (!!!).
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  So, it's OK because Apple gets to use the "private" API?
  - jonknee 11y ago
    Well, Apple didn't treat Flux any differently than other developers who used private APIs or tried to distribute binary blobs to iOS users. Software running in the background is something Apple tightly controls in iOS (battery life and security being major concerns). They also don't let apps make changes to the OS appearance. That may be the wrong approach, but Apple is at least consistent in it. This was either an OS level feature or a no go from Apple's perspective. As a user I'm happy it's a feature!
  - cballard 11y ago
    Yes, that's the whole point of private APIs - they're not supported, and they can be changed or removed whenever. It's just access control at the framework level. Apple could embed a copy in each application using the framework, but that's inefficient, so they install it at the system level.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It totally sucks that Apple prohibits third-party apps from offering useful functionality that requires deep integration with the system. So no, it is not exactly "OK." However, it has nothing to do with rejecting apps because of it, and offering their own version of the functionality. Apple has always reserved this domain for themselves from day one, and f.lux would have had the exact same problems even if Apple hadn't been doing their own version of it.
- duskwuff 11y ago
  Not only that, but the private APIs f.lux was using led to a really awkward implementation, complete with huge gotchas like the phone waking up every time the color profile changed.
- gurkendoktor 11y ago
  It is odd that it is a binary blob, but it isn't dangerous in the same way as binary driver blobs on Linux. Everything you install via Xcode is sandboxed in exactly the same way as the binary blobs you download from the App Store.
- baby 11y ago
  Yeah, they wanted to monetize it. Then Apple stole their idea instead of letting them do it via an API. Not that I care about Flux. But this is definitely not helping them.
kolinko 11y ago
Apple didn't have an API ready for that for external devs - not due to malice, but due to the lack of need. There are virtually no other use cases for such API, so no wonder they didn't release it.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  It was "always" available, but as a private API. I could see other uses - photography apps, perhaps, to do things around White Balance...
  - kolinko 11y ago
    Within a context of one app it's not that difficult to change the colour balance. What kind of an app would want to change the balance of colours system-wide?
walid 11y ago
Yes.

While I'm glad about the functionality becoming available, is Apple rejecting third-party apps only to copy them?

cballard 11y ago

That's not really what happened, Flux was using private API, and distributing it as a binary blob (!!!).

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
So, it's OK because Apple gets to use the "private" API?
- jonknee 11y ago
  Well, Apple didn't treat Flux any differently than other developers who used private APIs or tried to distribute binary blobs to iOS users. Software running in the background is something Apple tightly controls in iOS (battery life and security being major concerns). They also don't let apps make changes to the OS appearance. That may be the wrong approach, but Apple is at least consistent in it. This was either an OS level feature or a no go from Apple's perspective. As a user I'm happy it's a feature!
- cballard 11y ago
  Yes, that's the whole point of private APIs - they're not supported, and they can be changed or removed whenever. It's just access control at the framework level. Apple could embed a copy in each application using the framework, but that's inefficient, so they install it at the system level.
- mikeash 11y ago
  It totally sucks that Apple prohibits third-party apps from offering useful functionality that requires deep integration with the system. So no, it is not exactly "OK." However, it has nothing to do with rejecting apps because of it, and offering their own version of the functionality. Apple has always reserved this domain for themselves from day one, and f.lux would have had the exact same problems even if Apple hadn't been doing their own version of it.
duskwuff 11y ago
Not only that, but the private APIs f.lux was using led to a really awkward implementation, complete with huge gotchas like the phone waking up every time the color profile changed.
gurkendoktor 11y ago
It is odd that it is a binary blob, but it isn't dangerous in the same way as binary driver blobs on Linux. Everything you install via Xcode is sandboxed in exactly the same way as the binary blobs you download from the App Store.
baby 11y ago
Yeah, they wanted to monetize it. Then Apple stole their idea instead of letting them do it via an API. Not that I care about Flux. But this is definitely not helping them.

kolinko 11y ago

Apple didn't have an API ready for that for external devs - not due to malice, but due to the lack of need. There are virtually no other use cases for such API, so no wonder they didn't release it.

FireBeyond 11y ago
It was "always" available, but as a private API. I could see other uses - photography apps, perhaps, to do things around White Balance...
- kolinko 11y ago
  Within a context of one app it's not that difficult to change the colour balance. What kind of an app would want to change the balance of colours system-wide?

walid 11y ago

Yes.