4 ms·

I’m surprised f.lux isn’t mentioned here, if I remember correctly not only Apple copied its functionality but it also prevented the app from being published on

I’m surprised f.lux isn’t mentioned here, if I remember correctly not only Apple copied its functionality but it also prevented the app from being published on the App Store https://justgetflux.com/ios.html https://justgetflux.com/ios.html

duskwuff 7y ago
> …but also prevented the app from being published on the App Store… The only thing Apple did to "prevent" f.lux from being published on the App Store was to not offer any public APIs that could be used to implement it. This wasn't some sort of deliberate decision to get in the way of f.lux; there was simply no clear use case for an API to allow an app to change the behavior of the screen on a global basis.
- jedberg 7y ago
  > there was simply no clear use case for an API to allow an app to change the behavior of the screen on a global basis. Except to implement color shifting for nighttime use, which they implemented themselves in a later version. That's a pretty tough justification to pull off.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    There's a pretty big difference between allowing the system to alter the display settings in a specific, well-defined way, and making that available to any app in a more general form.
- deadmutex 7y ago
  > there was simply no clear use case for an API to allow an app to change the behavior of the screen on a global basis. A usecase is f.lux's functionality. There is definitely a clear use case. The decision to expose the API could have other factors to it, but lack of use case doesn't seem to be it.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    An API use case for a single app is pretty hard to justify, especially when it's coupled with other concerns like "but wouldn't this require the app to stay running in the background" or "but what happens if two apps both try to do this".
    - cma 7y ago
      How about an app for helping with colorblindness?
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        There are already accessibility settings for this.
- esotericn 7y ago
  "no clear use case" Indeed, the use case was translucent.
- mastazi 7y ago
  As I said I’m not sure if IIRC but isn’t that the case that there was a functioning version of f.lux that got submitted to the App Store and rejected? It’s been a few years and I wasn’t able to find news articles from that time but I thought it was a case of “the app works but they won’t let us publish it” rather then “Apple bad because they won’t give us an API that we can use”.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    No. Per the web site linked by the parent post: "To make f.lux work on iOS, we've had to go outside the bounds of what apps are normally allowed to do. Currently, iOS does not allow developers to access the Private APIs we need to make f.lux work on iOS."
    - mastazi 7y ago
      Thank you, yes from reading that statement you’re definitely right.
    - wingerlang 7y ago
      Actually they did publish a functioning app, on their own site. Which was taken down after Apple contacted them. https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ https://justgetflux.com/sideload/
- karmajunkie 7y ago
  The use of private APIs is a key indication of anticompetitive behavior in software platforms.
post_break 7y ago
Flux literally cheered because that’s all they wanted in the first place, to be baked into the os. So many people jailbroke just for that feature alone.

duskwuff 7y ago

> …but also prevented the app from being published on the App Store… The only thing Apple did to "prevent" f.lux from being published on the App Store was to not offer any public APIs that could be used to implement it. This wasn't some sort of deliberate decision to get in the way of f.lux; there was simply no clear use case for an API to allow an app to change the behavior of the screen on a global basis.

jedberg 7y ago
> there was simply no clear use case for an API to allow an app to change the behavior of the screen on a global basis. Except to implement color shifting for nighttime use, which they implemented themselves in a later version. That's a pretty tough justification to pull off.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  There's a pretty big difference between allowing the system to alter the display settings in a specific, well-defined way, and making that available to any app in a more general form.
deadmutex 7y ago
> there was simply no clear use case for an API to allow an app to change the behavior of the screen on a global basis. A usecase is f.lux's functionality. There is definitely a clear use case. The decision to expose the API could have other factors to it, but lack of use case doesn't seem to be it.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  An API use case for a single app is pretty hard to justify, especially when it's coupled with other concerns like "but wouldn't this require the app to stay running in the background" or "but what happens if two apps both try to do this".
  - cma 7y ago
    How about an app for helping with colorblindness?
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      There are already accessibility settings for this.
esotericn 7y ago
"no clear use case" Indeed, the use case was translucent.
mastazi 7y ago
As I said I’m not sure if IIRC but isn’t that the case that there was a functioning version of f.lux that got submitted to the App Store and rejected? It’s been a few years and I wasn’t able to find news articles from that time but I thought it was a case of “the app works but they won’t let us publish it” rather then “Apple bad because they won’t give us an API that we can use”.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  No. Per the web site linked by the parent post: "To make f.lux work on iOS, we've had to go outside the bounds of what apps are normally allowed to do. Currently, iOS does not allow developers to access the Private APIs we need to make f.lux work on iOS."
  - mastazi 7y ago
    Thank you, yes from reading that statement you’re definitely right.
  - wingerlang 7y ago
    Actually they did publish a functioning app, on their own site. Which was taken down after Apple contacted them. https://justgetflux.com/sideload/ https://justgetflux.com/sideload/
karmajunkie 7y ago
The use of private APIs is a key indication of anticompetitive behavior in software platforms.

post_break 7y ago

Flux literally cheered because that’s all they wanted in the first place, to be baked into the os. So many people jailbroke just for that feature alone.