While their version of events might be true, it’s also possible that it is not true and this lawsuit is completely without merit. Why are the people in the company that instigated that lawsuit automatically more trustworthy than Apple? Do you know them personally and know the history of what really happened?
I think the wisest approach is to withhold judgment until the case is done.
Why yes, I do know them personally—in fact, I was one of about 15–20 people who worked there at the time! (
Proof.)
Apple’s
Continuity Camera was widely praised by users when it launched—after all, it lets any modern iPhone double as a high-quality webcam with minimal setup. However, this case highlights the perennial tension between Big Tech platforms and independent developers. It’s
not unusual for Apple to integrate ideas pioneered by third-party apps or the jailbreak community (the practice even has a nickname, “getting
Sherlocked”). Over the years Apple has rolled popular app features into iOS—from night-mode blue light filters to swipe keyboards (e.g.,
FlickType)—often to the dismay of the original creators.
What’s different here is that Reincubate secured patents on its implementation, and is willing to take on Apple in court. That adds legal weight to what would otherwise be a one-sided fight over “who copied whom.”
From a technical standpoint, it’s easy to see why Apple pursued its own version of
Camo. Seamless iPhone–Mac webcam integration is a compelling feature for the ecosystem, especially after the remote-work boom.
But the allegations, if true, paint Apple’s behaviour as underhanded—essentially stringing along an indie developer, gleaning their solution, then leveraging platform control to edge them out. It’s the
sort of move that antitrust regulators are increasingly interested in, blurring the line between healthy platform improvement and stifling a potential competitor. On the other hand, Apple claims that there’s nothing nefarious here, and it’s certainly possible that its engineers tackled the problem independently (Apple undoubtedly was aware of the general demand for better webcams). The outcome of this lawsuit may hinge on the specific patent claims—e.g., whether Continuity Camera’s inner workings
truly mirror Reincubate’s patented methods for splitting and coordinating video tasks between devices. If they do, Apple could face an injunction or monetary damages; if not, Reincubate’s case might fizzle on technical grounds.
In my opinion, Apple's communications with Reincubate regarding this issue demonstrate
a clear disregard for smaller app developers. Despite actively supporting Camo's development by encouraging internal testing of the application, Apple's subsequent release of Continuity Camera appears as though they
abused their position to leverage Camo as an effective pilot. Reincubate invested their own capital in proving the feature and Apple benefitted at a reduced cost—and a significant cost to Camo. Apple was contacted by Reincubate about the issue soon after Continuity Camera was released, but consistently went back on their word, doing little to address the situation. Perhaps they thought that awarding Camo "finalist" status at the 2023 Apple Design Awards would sedate the issue—however, it is clear that they underestimated Reincubate's integrity. While working at Reincubate (a small team of roughly 15–20 people), I recall it being a touchy subject, and was even advised not to speak on the matter when attending an Apple Developer Session with a prototype of the Apple Vision Pro in late 2023. Ironically, Apple damaged my iPhone during this session while applying tape to its cameras, promised to contact me and resolve it afterwards—but then never did.
Either way, it’s a notable test of how far a smaller developer can go in challenging a platform owner’s appropriation of an app idea. Many developers worry about being Sherlocked, but few have the resources (or legal basis) to fight it. Reincubate’s CEO, Aidan Fitzpatrick, has framed the dispute as about more than just Camo—it’s about whether developers can safely build innovative device-integrations
“that level the experience between platforms” without having the rug pulled out from under them. A court win for Reincubate could set an interesting precedent, perhaps pressuring Apple to
approach third-party innovations more cautiously (or at least license the tech). However, taking on a tech giant is always an uphill battle. As a tech enthusiast, former jailbreak tweak developer, and former employee of Reincubate, I’m keen to see how this unfolds and am heartened that
someone has finally taken a stand against Apple—it could influence Apple’s future relationship with developers and the balance of openness vs. lock-in in its ecosystem, which is something I care very deeply about.
