1. 19
  1.  

  2. 5

    I was really excited when I saw that a version of f.lux was available for non-jailbroken iOS devices, as I thought this was a great use of the ability for anyone to install applications via Xcode. I’d like to know which portion of the Developer Program Agreement this has violated since I’d been hoping more things like this would start being released.

    1. 3

      Apple does not provide an official API with the functionality they need. They used undocumented APIs which developers are apparently not supposed to use (I wonder why apple doesn’t just disable the use of those APIs through technical means?)

    2. 4

      I thought this was exactly the sort of situation for which the “developer ID” certs were created - independent distribution so that Apple isn’t the sole gatekeeper of what software people can use. What exactly is Apple’s position here? That it’s not okay to distribute apps outside the store, in general? That apps not on the store still have to abide by the store’s policy? Is this actually part of their terms, or are they just invoking a “we’ll kick you out of the developer program” thing?

      1. 4

        By “exactly” what developer ID is for, wouldn’t that be developing and testing your own app? “Side loading” of somebody else’s app seems like an end run around the rules. (No argument about the rightness of the rules.)

        1. 2

          It may well be that they always did talk about it in those terms. That isn’t how I understood it, but…

        2. 3

          Developer ID is only a Mac thing: https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/

          The iOS thing is different. From https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/WhatsNewXcode/Articles/xcode_7_0.html:

          Now everyone can run and test their own app on a device—for free. You can run and debug your own creations on a Mac, iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, or Apple Watch without any fees, and no programs to join.

          Seems to clearly say you are supposed to run “your own creations”.

          1. 1

            Ah! Thanks. That clarifies what’s going on, then.

        3. 3

          But would that stand in a way of an open source release without any advertising of the sideloading option?

          1. 3

            I agree with you. And I think one of the main concerns of apple could have been also that they were using the sideload option to install a binary blob…

            1. 2

              There are open source applications on the App Store, like VLC, so apparently they are not taking issue with that.