A lawsuit has revealed Apple was close to acquiring Lux Optics, the developer of the Halide camera app for iOS, but the partnership between the cofounders later broke down over the alleged misuse of funds.
Apple's acquisitions are big news, but discussions are typically held with utmost secrecy, as per Apple's usual way of operating. While confirmations of acquisitions often surface after they have been agreed upon by both sides, it's rare to find out about failed acquisition attempts.
One such instance occurred to Lux Optics, makers of the third-party camera app Halide and video app Kino. The Information reports that Lux Optics was in talks with Apple for a potential acquisition during the summer of 2025.
People familiar with the talks claim that Apple wants to bring the iPhone 18 Pro's cameras to a professional grade for some unspecified features. To help get those changes done, Apple wanted to upgrade the built-in camera app with more advanced controls.
It seems that acquiring Halide would've given Apple a set of said controls it could add straight into the default Camera app.
However, the talks ended in September. Co-founders Ben Sandofsky and Sebastiaan de With believed that they could increase the value of the company by making more updates to Halide.
An internal breakdown
The discovery of the acquisition comes through an unusual direction. In a lawsuit, Sandofsky sued de With over claims the latter misused company funds.
Sandofsky accused de With of spending over $150,000 in company funds, all to cover personal expenses.
In October, Sandofsky investigated de With over the alleged spending, and placed him on leave. Lux later fired de With in December.
A month after leaving Lux Optics, de With began a second stint at Apple, joining the Design Team. The lawsuit also includes accusations that de With has taken "confidential materials" relating to Lux's future features with him to Apple.
His legal representatives deny that any Lux intellectual property was transferred or disclosed in joining Apple. Really, they claim that the lawsuit was retaliatory and an attempt by Sandofsky to "avoid scrutiny" after de With requested his own access to financial records to search for irregularities.
