Hacker News Reader

Comment by shinratdr | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

I like the idea of the product but after sundown frankly it could be replaced with a 20 cent piece of plastic.

> 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?

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.

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.

That's the point - you don't have to carry a piece of plastic around with you.

Also the effect appears gradually.

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

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 If they're just unpublished but registered developers, then sign up for a new account under a different identity.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

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.

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.

Theoretically, Apple could revoke/blacklist the signing certificate for the OSX F.lux app.

The way this was distributed, everyone who wanted to install had to sign the binary with their own certificate.

Notice the parent mentioned the desktop app, not the mobile app.

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.

IIRC you have to agree to Apple's TOS even if you only sign up for an account to deploy to your device.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com