5 ms·

If memory serves, f.lux was banned for the "private" API's they used, which was necessary to control the the screen warmth. So now that Apple has released thei

If memory serves, f.lux was banned for the "private" API's they used, which was necessary to control the the screen warmth. So now that Apple has released their own screen dimming app, is Apple's implementation any different than flux's? Or did Apple effectively just abuse their app policy so that they could proactively kill a competitor to their "new" feature?

ceejayoz 11y ago
It may not have been so malicious. "Huh, how is f.lux doing that? The API looks like it's private."
k-mcgrady 11y ago
It doesn't matter if the implementation is the same. Apple has access to API's that the rest of us don't and it's not so they can have more power than us. They can't be expected to make public API's for everything and maintain them for every release. Not to mention I'm sure Apple has been working on this for a while. The whole f.lux thing didn't occur too long ago.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Apple has access to API's that the rest of us don't and it's not so they can have more power than us. Sometimes I wonder. It sounds like if an API change breaks your app, then your app is broken and should simply get pulled for that. Furthermore, they tapped the flux guys on the shoulder and told them hosting their code with the instructions for people to sideload it themselves isn't allowed. https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ Don't confused Apple's infamously controlling nature with some desire to adhere to good development practices. It's just Apple being Apple.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    >> "It sounds like if an API change breaks your app, then your app is broken and should simply get pulled for that." A simple solution but a terrible one for users. Imagine apps on your device regularly breaking and having to wait several weeks for developers to update them. If they update them at all. Apple would also have to monitor user reports, test supposedly broken apps, then make a decision to pull them. And if they got the decision wrong they would be killed for it in the press.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Imagine apps on your device regularly breaking and having to wait several weeks for developers to update them. You mean like we get right now whenever there's an iOS update? And if they got the decision wrong they would be killed for it in the press. You mean like they already are when they make an arbitrary, asinine, illogical decision about pulling someone's app? Apple's approach to developer relations can be charitably described as that of the honey badger.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The whole f.lux thing didn't occur too long ago. Just for reference: f.lux first released an app for iOS in 2011. So there's been four years, half of the entire lifespan of iOS.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    The first commit on Redshift is November 2009, and I don't think it was the original implementation of this idea. https://github.com/jonls/redshift/commit/4818f331cedeba94bb769fb15fd972dc759fd31f https://github.com/jonls/redshift/commit/4818f331cedeba94bb7...
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Oh, f.lux was released in February 2009 for desktops, I was just talking about the iOS app.
    - Luyt 11y ago
      That's correct. Way back in the 90's I was tweaking the VGA color palette registers of my MSDOS computer to make the colors more easy on my eyes at night. I never released that small program...
MBCook 11y ago
Apple has not released a screen dimming app, they will be building it into the OS. This isn't a case where Apple did something incredibly arbitrary and capricious and then immediately ripped someone off (such as if they kicked all poker games out of the store and then included their own poker app). Apple enforced long standing app store rules. F.lux legitimately deserved to get yelled at, they used private APIs and attempted to circumvent the app distribution system. Both were against the license agreements you have to agree to if you want to use Xcode. Obviously you can argue about whether the rules should exist, etc. But there was no question that what they were doing would be 100% shot down.
- nathankunicki 11y ago
  While you are correct, the concern to which you have responded to is by no means the community's primary one. Yes, it is true Apple rejected the app due to private API's. It was against the rules to use those API's, and Apple was within their right to reject them. Just as it is within the communities right to petition Apple afterwards and ask them to open up those API's. The concern now is that without any form of communication, Apple has gone and released an alternative. It is a "ripoff", and there's no two ways about it. The people from f.lux were very diplomatic in their response. (You can call it an inbuilt feature instead of an "App" all you want, but the US Department of Justice and EU Regulators have had long-standing concerns against OS vendors bundling in features in an effort to stem competition. To say nothing of the irrelevance of how the feature is distributed.)
  - MBCook 11y ago
    I do wonder if it's a ripoff. I'd heard of this idea before flux, and I wonder if Apple is nimble enough to be able to 'respond' that quick. Frankly I doubt it, especially if they put lots of thought into it. I mentioned 'app' because if it WAS an app (which isn't their style, even their apps are often bundled with the OS it would be especially egregious since they'd be doing the exact thing they told flux not to (and as we all know Apple is happy to break their own rules). I completely agree that in the anti-trust sense (like what happened to MS) the app/built in this is irrelevant.
timonovici 11y ago
didn't they do the same thing with the iphone meteo app? It was on the front page a year ago or so... PS: I'm not very familiar with this expression, but isn't it like.. "co*k blocking"?
- timonovici 11y ago
  After some long searching, I found it. The story is a bit olderd than 1 year though. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5858065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5858065

ceejayoz 11y ago

It may not have been so malicious. "Huh, how is f.lux doing that? The API looks like it's private."

k-mcgrady 11y ago

It doesn't matter if the implementation is the same. Apple has access to API's that the rest of us don't and it's not so they can have more power than us. They can't be expected to make public API's for everything and maintain them for every release. Not to mention I'm sure Apple has been working on this for a while. The whole f.lux thing didn't occur too long ago.

Karunamon 11y ago
Apple has access to API's that the rest of us don't and it's not so they can have more power than us. Sometimes I wonder. It sounds like if an API change breaks your app, then your app is broken and should simply get pulled for that. Furthermore, they tapped the flux guys on the shoulder and told them hosting their code with the instructions for people to sideload it themselves isn't allowed. https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ Don't confused Apple's infamously controlling nature with some desire to adhere to good development practices. It's just Apple being Apple.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  >> "It sounds like if an API change breaks your app, then your app is broken and should simply get pulled for that." A simple solution but a terrible one for users. Imagine apps on your device regularly breaking and having to wait several weeks for developers to update them. If they update them at all. Apple would also have to monitor user reports, test supposedly broken apps, then make a decision to pull them. And if they got the decision wrong they would be killed for it in the press.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Imagine apps on your device regularly breaking and having to wait several weeks for developers to update them. You mean like we get right now whenever there's an iOS update? And if they got the decision wrong they would be killed for it in the press. You mean like they already are when they make an arbitrary, asinine, illogical decision about pulling someone's app? Apple's approach to developer relations can be charitably described as that of the honey badger.
icebraining 11y ago
The whole f.lux thing didn't occur too long ago. Just for reference: f.lux first released an app for iOS in 2011. So there's been four years, half of the entire lifespan of iOS.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  The first commit on Redshift is November 2009, and I don't think it was the original implementation of this idea. https://github.com/jonls/redshift/commit/4818f331cedeba94bb769fb15fd972dc759fd31f https://github.com/jonls/redshift/commit/4818f331cedeba94bb7...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Oh, f.lux was released in February 2009 for desktops, I was just talking about the iOS app.
  - Luyt 11y ago
    That's correct. Way back in the 90's I was tweaking the VGA color palette registers of my MSDOS computer to make the colors more easy on my eyes at night. I never released that small program...

MBCook 11y ago

Apple has not released a screen dimming app, they will be building it into the OS. This isn't a case where Apple did something incredibly arbitrary and capricious and then immediately ripped someone off (such as if they kicked all poker games out of the store and then included their own poker app). Apple enforced long standing app store rules. F.lux legitimately deserved to get yelled at, they used private APIs and attempted to circumvent the app distribution system. Both were against the license agreements you have to agree to if you want to use Xcode. Obviously you can argue about whether the rules should exist, etc. But there was no question that what they were doing would be 100% shot down.

nathankunicki 11y ago
While you are correct, the concern to which you have responded to is by no means the community's primary one. Yes, it is true Apple rejected the app due to private API's. It was against the rules to use those API's, and Apple was within their right to reject them. Just as it is within the communities right to petition Apple afterwards and ask them to open up those API's. The concern now is that without any form of communication, Apple has gone and released an alternative. It is a "ripoff", and there's no two ways about it. The people from f.lux were very diplomatic in their response. (You can call it an inbuilt feature instead of an "App" all you want, but the US Department of Justice and EU Regulators have had long-standing concerns against OS vendors bundling in features in an effort to stem competition. To say nothing of the irrelevance of how the feature is distributed.)
- MBCook 11y ago
  I do wonder if it's a ripoff. I'd heard of this idea before flux, and I wonder if Apple is nimble enough to be able to 'respond' that quick. Frankly I doubt it, especially if they put lots of thought into it. I mentioned 'app' because if it WAS an app (which isn't their style, even their apps are often bundled with the OS it would be especially egregious since they'd be doing the exact thing they told flux not to (and as we all know Apple is happy to break their own rules). I completely agree that in the anti-trust sense (like what happened to MS) the app/built in this is irrelevant.

timonovici 11y ago

didn't they do the same thing with the iphone meteo app? It was on the front page a year ago or so... PS: I'm not very familiar with this expression, but isn't it like.. "co*k blocking"?

timonovici 11y ago
After some long searching, I found it. The story is a bit olderd than 1 year though. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5858065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5858065