8 ms·

“f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

184 points by KevinBongart 11y ago

api 11y ago
A platform as closed as iOS is a devil's bargain. You get cleanliness, ease of use, simplicity, and in many ways improved security. But in exchange you give up freedom, control of your own property, and ultimately the potential for any innovation beyond the imagination or agenda of the platform's benevolent dictators. The same, I think, is true for closed proprietary cloud platforms like those offered by Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. They're the enterprise version of iOS, and the trade is very much the same: do things our way and get a clean experience, but give up the opportunity to ever leave or to ever do anything in any way other than ours.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  the web is also similar, you are locked into a restrictive api that vendors choose to support (or not...)
  - dustingetz 11y ago
    if a web problem is worth solving we can build a new browser which solves it, which is what google did vs microsoft. That is simply not allowed on apple hardware.
    - throwaway2048 11y ago
      you could also build a new cellphone, the point is the barriers are extraordinarily high.
- elliptic 11y ago
  How is that a 'devil's bargain'? Just seems like an everyday deal to me.
- tshtf 11y ago
  How are the PaaS offerings of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google closed? You use their API or website to deploy standardized VMs, from which any open-source or COTS software can be used for configuration.
  - api 11y ago
    If you build your app around things like Amazon's databases, lambda, etc., then you can't run it (easily) anywhere but on Amazon EC2. It's basically a giant mainframe that runs a proprietary mainframe OS. Of course you can use a-la-carte VMs in EC2 and do it that way and avoid platform lock-in, but Amazon is increasingly steering users away from that toward managed systems. These managed systems do have short term benefits (just like iOS does), but the long term bargain is similar.
- specialist 11y ago
  With Apple, one gets (more) freedom from harassment. My partner is switching back from Android to iPhone. Her latest software update embedded ads everywhere and borked the contacts. It's too much. Some of us are older, tired of doing tech supp, and just want stuff to work.
  - izacus 11y ago
    And you can get stuff that works without supporting closed ecosystems. Age is a bad excuse to not take a moment to check what you're buying.
    - kup0 11y ago
      Or maybe for some of us it's okay to use a closed ecosystem as long as we understand the limitations that come with it? Maybe it's worth it for what we perceive as the benefits of such a system? "Age is a bad excuse" Do we need an excuse for using a closed ecosystem? It's a choice and one that doesn't have to be justified to anyone but ourselves.
      - izacus 11y ago
        You can choose to use whatever you like, but implying that good user experience requires closed ecosystem is a false dichotomy and those two aren't connected. There is absolutely no reason why iOS couldn't provide current user experience for majority of users and still allow applications with advanced functionality to be sideloaded. Also you may choose whatever you like, but painting non-Apple ecosystems as being homogenous is completely wrong. There are several manufacturers providing other OSes with different features and throwing all Androids (and others) with same stroke does annoy people. Just because you cannot be bothered to check a difference between a Samsung and a Nexus device it does not mean that such difference does not exist.
  - api 11y ago
    I think you're exactly right and I wish people wouldn't downmod. I've been downmodded to hell for bringing up the same point on several occasions. Open platforms have crummy UX, especially for people who are not computer experts. This explains why people are willing to make the bargain I outlined above. If open systems advocates are ever to offer a compelling alternative, they need to find alternative non-dictatorial ways to respond to these rather severe security and usability problems. The first step to fixing a problem isn't to pretend it doesn't exist.
sethbannon 11y ago
If you want to do something about this, the f.lux team has asked supporters on facebook to sign this petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/allow-flux-on-ios http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/allow-flux-on-ios
- sandstrom 11y ago
  Better signing an abolish software patent petition (or donate to EFF) than to support f.lux attempt to monetize a trivial 'invention'.
internet2000 11y ago
If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. There are fully open alternatives that Apple doesn't mind, like https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight I know where they're coming from, but all this wolf crying is getting annoying. I wouldn't mind if they came clear and said "we can't open source f.lux because we want to pressure Apple into letting us monetize it someday."
- striking 11y ago
  From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise. They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this." Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source. If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu). 1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ 2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.lumen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...
hannob 11y ago
Seems you haven't understood the Apple world. You get fancy designs. You loose your freedom to install what you want. They decide, not you. That's the deal. Live with it or don't buy their products. (I choose the latter.)
- usaphp 11y ago
  You have a freedom to install what you want by jailbreaking it. Its not about not allowing users to install f.lux, it's about not allowing developers to use development practices that are not approved by Apple, common - authors of f.lux are clearly doing something that is not allowed under iOS development terms and they want to change this rules just for them and let other developers use unapproved techniques which might cause security concerns for non technical users who are majority of the user base on iOS?
  - TheSoftwareGuy 11y ago
    while technically correct, jailbreaking is not something that apple supports, and in fact it is something they actively try to prevent.
- coldtea 11y ago
  I think you don't understand it either. While I do "lose the freedom to install what I want" (outside of the 1.5 millions apps that I can install that is), I get more than "fancy designs". I get a system where progress and adoption is faster, I get far less (close to statistical noise) malware compared to Android (none, actually, if I stick to top tier apps -- whereas there are Android phones that came with malware pre-installed by the carrier), I get most pro apps first and often (e.g. for music creation apps) exclusively, and a whole ecosystem that works admirably well, from laptop to watch, and, for my uses, better hardware.
  - untog 11y ago
    Sure, the OPs point was stated somewhat flippantly but the point still stands. If an average user owns an Apple device, they cannot install apps that are not on the App Store. Talking about what apps are available just seems like clouding the issue.
kinghajj 11y ago
Is there a quick explanation of why the f.lux can't simply be put into the App Store just like any other? Why did they have to try the "side-loading" method at all?
- izacus 11y ago
  Because the APIs they need are not approved by the platform owner.
- pbh101 11y ago
  By its nature, the functionality of their app breaks the app sandbox, currently via unsupported APIs. It is unclear whether Apple wants to ever support the functionality required to make f.lux run. My guess would be no, because it would be difficult/impossible to design without also allowing malicious behavior, and Apple is understandably keen to keep the App Store's reputation as a trusted and harm-free source of software. In addition, I imagine other app developers might not be happy with a sanctioned means to mess with the running of their app: more interactions means more to test and less control over the user experience. More likely is that this functionality will be incorporated into iOS itself in a future update. But it still runs the risk of Apple considering it aesthetically distastefuland thus never doing it.
- joblessjunkie 11y ago
  f.lux wants to modify how the screen appears when other apps are running. In general, this is not the sort of thing you want sandboxed applications to be doing. You can imagine the problems that a bad actor could create with this capability.
- tomku 11y ago
  f.lux needs to be able to control the screen at a very low level while other applications are running, which isn't possible using just the public iOS API. The sideloaded version of f.lux used some internal APIs to do that, which wouldn't fly if they submitted it to the App Store.
- lispit 11y ago
  Monitors are not perfectly calibrated, so if you send one a raw sRBG image, the result will look subtly wrong. To fix this we have monitor profiles (mappings from sRGB colors to the values needed to accurately display said colors on a particular monitor) and CLUTs (color look-up table, a table that the graphics chipset uses to perform said transformation on the fly as it synthesizes the video signal. It was implemented in analog video signals with RAMDACs, now with digital signals we don't need the "DAC" part, but you get the idea). What f.lux does is (ab)use the CLUT to change the color temperature of the video signal sent to your monitor, cheaply and without requiring any modification to existing software. This is great if you trust f.lux, however clearly Apple cannot trust random apps with persistent access to the CLUT, because people could use it to do things like, say, completely blacken the screen.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
This is why consumers need root access to their phones. These are more than just phones, they are pocket sized computers. We have root/admin access on our laptops and desktops, we should have it here.
- chillacy 11y ago
  I would counter that there are people whom you do not want to have root. As sudo says, with great power comes great responsibility. Having clueless users being able to break the sandbox would do them more harm. So while root would be useful to some consumers, the majority would be better off without it.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    It doesn't have to be either or. Having/ setting up an admin/root account should be an option, not the default. But it _should_ be an option for those of us who do have the abilities to use it wisely.
    - untog 11y ago
      Then get an Android device. Yes, I know that sounds absolutist, but not having root is part of the proposition Apple offers users.
- Bud 11y ago
  Except we shouldn't, because about 98% of people can't keep their devices secure, at all, if root is just floating around aimlessly for any apps to grab any privs. The security record of Android vs iOS illustrates this extremely well. The gatekeeper model works for mobile devices.
  - Nullabillity 11y ago
    And a brick of clay is even more secure. That doesn't mean it's a replacement for a computer. Not that Apple has a particularly great security track record anyway. Remember jailbreakme.com?
unquietcode 11y ago
The iPhone already supports various 'filters' through its Accessibility settings. I use the 'Low Light' filter every night, which allows the screen to go darker than usual. If they were to just add a low-light redshifted filter, that would be fine for most people I think. However, and to f.lux's point, people should expect their devices will keep their health in mind. I believe Apple is worried that opening up first class support for this sort of functionality is an admission that blue light is hazardous to one's sleep health, which could open them up to various liabilities.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's extremely silly, since practically every screen in the world has the same blue-light issue. Apple will never be held liable for people's inability to sleep after overexposing themselves to bright blue light, any more than flourescent light bulb manufacturers will.
- ecksor 11y ago
  There's also a way to shortcut this low light mode (triple click Home): https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/2ros9k/lpt_night_mode_on_apple_devices/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/2ros9k/lpt_nig...
phn 11y ago
I love f.lux but sheesh, their stance looks like they're just playing the game to get their stuff on the app store, ignoring why apple doesn't want them there. What APIs are they using exactly? I can see why apple might not want some app that messes with the display's color (controlled user experience and all that), and (please someone correct me if I'm wrong here) potentially access everything that's written on the screen. The only way I see similar functionality happening on iOS land is through an accessibility feature 100% controlled by apple. No money for f.lux here, I guess...
- izacus 11y ago
  They're not trying to get their app on AppStore. They got a warning from Apple for allowing people to sideload their app without the AppStore.
  - phn 11y ago
    I have been following the story. From the article: > f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS devices for four years, but we can't put our app in the app store without Apple's help.
- thedufer 11y ago
  CLUT is explained well enough elsewhere in this thread that I won't repeat, but it seems very clear that the API allows them to change color palettes but does not do anything like read/write access to the screen. As far as I can tell, the worst thing they could do with it is make the screen go all one color so nothing is visible. Which would suck for the user, but the app writer gains nothing and would be quickly caught (if it even made it through the review process).
hellbanner 11y ago
Other resources: * https://www.lowbluelights.com https://www.lowbluelights.com * http://www.theatrehouse.com/product/2811-34.html?1447618417836 http://www.theatrehouse.com/product/2811-34.html?14476184178...
chdir 11y ago
I used f.lux on my PC for a year or two but ultimately removed it because it occasionally caused the screen to flash (can't recall but probably on sleep / wake-up / UAC actions). Sometimes it would stop working altogether. If I were Apple, I'd be skeptical before allowing a low level driver access to an app that can potentially affect the device experience. I'd want to test it to death & be damn sure that the benefits outweigh the cost of allowing it. On a related note, the linked BBC article talks about phones needing a "bed mode" to "protect sleep". If you are really struggling with eye strain / disturbed sleep, a better advice would be to turn away your gadgets well before bed time and avoid the compulsive behavior of reading on your phone all the time. I tried f.lux along with better ambient lighting, screen dimming etc. (suggestions found on HN). The benefits were marginal. I would still wake up with groggy eyes & felt sluggish until I experimented with the rule of "no gadgets after dinner". That helped way more. Don't get me wrong, it may be an awesome piece of software for those who have to be in front of the screen for longer duration.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jws 11y ago
If Apple decides that having the screen temperature vary with time, lighting, whatever, I promise it is easier for them to write a few hundred lines of code than it is to engineer secure holes in the sandbox, develop policy around their use, and deal with f.lux. Adjusting white point is a feature, a little one in a long bullet item list, not a business model. ␄ Appendix: If you are doing this yourself, you can get an approximation of the white point for a temperature kelvin much more easily than computing it accurately. You are probably not doing astrophysics. A 1% or two error is ok. See: http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210 http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210 If you want to use it in your iOS app, you can get a UIColor.colorWithKelvin() function from this gist. https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2 https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2 Use the color multiply function, also in that gist and multiply all of your colors by your white point. Which of course is a lot of work compared to adjusting the display CLUT, but you can get in the Apple store and you don't get the ability to screw up the user's other apps. (Hint: Use the screen brightness to guess the ambient light. You aren't allowed to use the ambient light sensor.) ((Also, I'm relatively certain multiplying is not perceptually correct, but it seems close enough for things I've done so I haven't gone down that rat hole.))
- Eric_WVGG 11y ago
  I agree very much. Giving any old app access to the device’s gamma settings sounds like a recipe for mayhem. I know the Flux guys don’t like this, but I think this app needs to be Sherlock’ed.
bitmapbrother 11y ago
>f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help. Meanwhile it could have been available on Android for 4 years and without asking for Google's help or permission.
tacos 11y ago
I predicted "more drama" when this thread hit the HN homepage two days ago, and now we have it. Given what's going on in the world this weekend I'm not sure a "Twitter petition for f.lux" really should be on the top of our minds. But apparently the people behind f.lux think it should. Perhaps we could avoid making HN part of their ongoing social media awareness campaign? Happy to talk about technology features, happy to debate what I feel are highly-suspect medical claims being made on their site that defy common sense. But I'm not excited to debate open vs free vs app store twice in the same weekend over an app that so very obviously goes against Apple's core vision for their products. If and when Apple chooses to offer such functionality, it certainly won't look and behave like f.lux does. And I'm equally certain Apple won't make such wild claims regarding alleged health benefits.
rererererere 11y ago
$ codesign -vvv -d iflux Executable=f.lux-xcode-master/iflux Identifier=com.justgetflux.iflux Format=bundle with Mach-O universal (armv7 (16777228:0)) CodeDirectory v=20200 size=645 flags=0x0(none) hashes=23+5 location=embedded Hash type=sha1 size=20 CDHash=a32a120fefd588adbc6a420d6fc5786d223cfa72 Signature size=4340 Authority=iPhone Distribution: Michael Herf Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Signed Time=11 Nov 2015 01:41:42 Info.plist entries=35 TeamIdentifier=VZKSA7H9J9 Sealed Resources=none Internal requirements count=1 size=176 They were distributing a binary signed with their enterprise certificate and suggesting that user re-signs it. Additionally, flux.beta contains some auto-generated iOS project code, which is totally irrelevant. So it seems like the author himself does not quite understand what he was doing. It also makes sense that Apple took it down: it is against EULA to (publicly) distribute binaries signed with enterprise certificate.
bhauer 11y ago
Four days or four years? The first sentence suggests it has been four days. And then later in the comment it says "four years." Which is it? My guess is that it's supposed say be four days in both places.
d0m 11y ago
Apple probably want to have this feature built-in in the next version?
jeffehobbs 11y ago
If anyone has the uncomplied iOS code that they released the other day (but is now gone), I'd be innarested. I compiled it for my iPad, works great, but I'd love to have it on my other iOS devices.
- stqism 11y ago
  It wasn't actually uncompiled, it was a bunch of proprietary binaries wrapped around an Xcode project that resigns them.

184 points by KevinBongart 11y ago

api 11y ago

A platform as closed as iOS is a devil's bargain. You get cleanliness, ease of use, simplicity, and in many ways improved security. But in exchange you give up freedom, control of your own property, and ultimately the potential for any innovation beyond the imagination or agenda of the platform's benevolent dictators. The same, I think, is true for closed proprietary cloud platforms like those offered by Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. They're the enterprise version of iOS, and the trade is very much the same: do things our way and get a clean experience, but give up the opportunity to ever leave or to ever do anything in any way other than ours.

throwaway2048 11y ago
the web is also similar, you are locked into a restrictive api that vendors choose to support (or not...)
- dustingetz 11y ago
  if a web problem is worth solving we can build a new browser which solves it, which is what google did vs microsoft. That is simply not allowed on apple hardware.
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    you could also build a new cellphone, the point is the barriers are extraordinarily high.
elliptic 11y ago
How is that a 'devil's bargain'? Just seems like an everyday deal to me.
tshtf 11y ago
How are the PaaS offerings of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google closed? You use their API or website to deploy standardized VMs, from which any open-source or COTS software can be used for configuration.
- api 11y ago
  If you build your app around things like Amazon's databases, lambda, etc., then you can't run it (easily) anywhere but on Amazon EC2. It's basically a giant mainframe that runs a proprietary mainframe OS. Of course you can use a-la-carte VMs in EC2 and do it that way and avoid platform lock-in, but Amazon is increasingly steering users away from that toward managed systems. These managed systems do have short term benefits (just like iOS does), but the long term bargain is similar.
specialist 11y ago
With Apple, one gets (more) freedom from harassment. My partner is switching back from Android to iPhone. Her latest software update embedded ads everywhere and borked the contacts. It's too much. Some of us are older, tired of doing tech supp, and just want stuff to work.
- izacus 11y ago
  And you can get stuff that works without supporting closed ecosystems. Age is a bad excuse to not take a moment to check what you're buying.
  - kup0 11y ago
    Or maybe for some of us it's okay to use a closed ecosystem as long as we understand the limitations that come with it? Maybe it's worth it for what we perceive as the benefits of such a system? "Age is a bad excuse" Do we need an excuse for using a closed ecosystem? It's a choice and one that doesn't have to be justified to anyone but ourselves.
    - izacus 11y ago
      You can choose to use whatever you like, but implying that good user experience requires closed ecosystem is a false dichotomy and those two aren't connected. There is absolutely no reason why iOS couldn't provide current user experience for majority of users and still allow applications with advanced functionality to be sideloaded. Also you may choose whatever you like, but painting non-Apple ecosystems as being homogenous is completely wrong. There are several manufacturers providing other OSes with different features and throwing all Androids (and others) with same stroke does annoy people. Just because you cannot be bothered to check a difference between a Samsung and a Nexus device it does not mean that such difference does not exist.
- api 11y ago
  I think you're exactly right and I wish people wouldn't downmod. I've been downmodded to hell for bringing up the same point on several occasions. Open platforms have crummy UX, especially for people who are not computer experts. This explains why people are willing to make the bargain I outlined above. If open systems advocates are ever to offer a compelling alternative, they need to find alternative non-dictatorial ways to respond to these rather severe security and usability problems. The first step to fixing a problem isn't to pretend it doesn't exist.

sethbannon 11y ago

If you want to do something about this, the f.lux team has asked supporters on facebook to sign this petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/allow-flux-on-ios http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/allow-flux-on-ios

sandstrom 11y ago
Better signing an abolish software patent petition (or donate to EFF) than to support f.lux attempt to monetize a trivial 'invention'.

internet2000 11y ago

If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. There are fully open alternatives that Apple doesn't mind, like https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight I know where they're coming from, but all this wolf crying is getting annoying. I wouldn't mind if they came clear and said "we can't open source f.lux because we want to pressure Apple into letting us monetize it someday."

striking 11y ago
From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise. They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this." Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source. If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu). 1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ 2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.lumen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...

hannob 11y ago

Seems you haven't understood the Apple world. You get fancy designs. You loose your freedom to install what you want. They decide, not you. That's the deal. Live with it or don't buy their products. (I choose the latter.)

usaphp 11y ago
You have a freedom to install what you want by jailbreaking it. Its not about not allowing users to install f.lux, it's about not allowing developers to use development practices that are not approved by Apple, common - authors of f.lux are clearly doing something that is not allowed under iOS development terms and they want to change this rules just for them and let other developers use unapproved techniques which might cause security concerns for non technical users who are majority of the user base on iOS?
- TheSoftwareGuy 11y ago
  while technically correct, jailbreaking is not something that apple supports, and in fact it is something they actively try to prevent.
coldtea 11y ago
I think you don't understand it either. While I do "lose the freedom to install what I want" (outside of the 1.5 millions apps that I can install that is), I get more than "fancy designs". I get a system where progress and adoption is faster, I get far less (close to statistical noise) malware compared to Android (none, actually, if I stick to top tier apps -- whereas there are Android phones that came with malware pre-installed by the carrier), I get most pro apps first and often (e.g. for music creation apps) exclusively, and a whole ecosystem that works admirably well, from laptop to watch, and, for my uses, better hardware.
- untog 11y ago
  Sure, the OPs point was stated somewhat flippantly but the point still stands. If an average user owns an Apple device, they cannot install apps that are not on the App Store. Talking about what apps are available just seems like clouding the issue.

kinghajj 11y ago

Is there a quick explanation of why the f.lux can't simply be put into the App Store just like any other? Why did they have to try the "side-loading" method at all?

izacus 11y ago
Because the APIs they need are not approved by the platform owner.
pbh101 11y ago
By its nature, the functionality of their app breaks the app sandbox, currently via unsupported APIs. It is unclear whether Apple wants to ever support the functionality required to make f.lux run. My guess would be no, because it would be difficult/impossible to design without also allowing malicious behavior, and Apple is understandably keen to keep the App Store's reputation as a trusted and harm-free source of software. In addition, I imagine other app developers might not be happy with a sanctioned means to mess with the running of their app: more interactions means more to test and less control over the user experience. More likely is that this functionality will be incorporated into iOS itself in a future update. But it still runs the risk of Apple considering it aesthetically distastefuland thus never doing it.
joblessjunkie 11y ago
f.lux wants to modify how the screen appears when other apps are running. In general, this is not the sort of thing you want sandboxed applications to be doing. You can imagine the problems that a bad actor could create with this capability.
tomku 11y ago
f.lux needs to be able to control the screen at a very low level while other applications are running, which isn't possible using just the public iOS API. The sideloaded version of f.lux used some internal APIs to do that, which wouldn't fly if they submitted it to the App Store.
lispit 11y ago
Monitors are not perfectly calibrated, so if you send one a raw sRBG image, the result will look subtly wrong. To fix this we have monitor profiles (mappings from sRGB colors to the values needed to accurately display said colors on a particular monitor) and CLUTs (color look-up table, a table that the graphics chipset uses to perform said transformation on the fly as it synthesizes the video signal. It was implemented in analog video signals with RAMDACs, now with digital signals we don't need the "DAC" part, but you get the idea). What f.lux does is (ab)use the CLUT to change the color temperature of the video signal sent to your monitor, cheaply and without requiring any modification to existing software. This is great if you trust f.lux, however clearly Apple cannot trust random apps with persistent access to the CLUT, because people could use it to do things like, say, completely blacken the screen.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

This is why consumers need root access to their phones. These are more than just phones, they are pocket sized computers. We have root/admin access on our laptops and desktops, we should have it here.

chillacy 11y ago
I would counter that there are people whom you do not want to have root. As sudo says, with great power comes great responsibility. Having clueless users being able to break the sandbox would do them more harm. So while root would be useful to some consumers, the majority would be better off without it.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  It doesn't have to be either or. Having/ setting up an admin/root account should be an option, not the default. But it _should_ be an option for those of us who do have the abilities to use it wisely.
  - untog 11y ago
    Then get an Android device. Yes, I know that sounds absolutist, but not having root is part of the proposition Apple offers users.
Bud 11y ago
Except we shouldn't, because about 98% of people can't keep their devices secure, at all, if root is just floating around aimlessly for any apps to grab any privs. The security record of Android vs iOS illustrates this extremely well. The gatekeeper model works for mobile devices.
- Nullabillity 11y ago
  And a brick of clay is even more secure. That doesn't mean it's a replacement for a computer. Not that Apple has a particularly great security track record anyway. Remember jailbreakme.com?

unquietcode 11y ago

The iPhone already supports various 'filters' through its Accessibility settings. I use the 'Low Light' filter every night, which allows the screen to go darker than usual. If they were to just add a low-light redshifted filter, that would be fine for most people I think. However, and to f.lux's point, people should expect their devices will keep their health in mind. I believe Apple is worried that opening up first class support for this sort of functionality is an admission that blue light is hazardous to one's sleep health, which could open them up to various liabilities.

tptacek 11y ago
That's extremely silly, since practically every screen in the world has the same blue-light issue. Apple will never be held liable for people's inability to sleep after overexposing themselves to bright blue light, any more than flourescent light bulb manufacturers will.
ecksor 11y ago
There's also a way to shortcut this low light mode (triple click Home): https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/2ros9k/lpt_night_mode_on_apple_devices/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/2ros9k/lpt_nig...

phn 11y ago

I love f.lux but sheesh, their stance looks like they're just playing the game to get their stuff on the app store, ignoring why apple doesn't want them there. What APIs are they using exactly? I can see why apple might not want some app that messes with the display's color (controlled user experience and all that), and (please someone correct me if I'm wrong here) potentially access everything that's written on the screen. The only way I see similar functionality happening on iOS land is through an accessibility feature 100% controlled by apple. No money for f.lux here, I guess...

izacus 11y ago
They're not trying to get their app on AppStore. They got a warning from Apple for allowing people to sideload their app without the AppStore.
- phn 11y ago
  I have been following the story. From the article: > f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS devices for four years, but we can't put our app in the app store without Apple's help.
thedufer 11y ago
CLUT is explained well enough elsewhere in this thread that I won't repeat, but it seems very clear that the API allows them to change color palettes but does not do anything like read/write access to the screen. As far as I can tell, the worst thing they could do with it is make the screen go all one color so nothing is visible. Which would suck for the user, but the app writer gains nothing and would be quickly caught (if it even made it through the review process).

hellbanner 11y ago

Other resources: * https://www.lowbluelights.com https://www.lowbluelights.com * http://www.theatrehouse.com/product/2811-34.html?1447618417836 http://www.theatrehouse.com/product/2811-34.html?14476184178...

chdir 11y ago

I used f.lux on my PC for a year or two but ultimately removed it because it occasionally caused the screen to flash (can't recall but probably on sleep / wake-up / UAC actions). Sometimes it would stop working altogether. If I were Apple, I'd be skeptical before allowing a low level driver access to an app that can potentially affect the device experience. I'd want to test it to death & be damn sure that the benefits outweigh the cost of allowing it. On a related note, the linked BBC article talks about phones needing a "bed mode" to "protect sleep". If you are really struggling with eye strain / disturbed sleep, a better advice would be to turn away your gadgets well before bed time and avoid the compulsive behavior of reading on your phone all the time. I tried f.lux along with better ambient lighting, screen dimming etc. (suggestions found on HN). The benefits were marginal. I would still wake up with groggy eyes & felt sluggish until I experimented with the rule of "no gadgets after dinner". That helped way more. Don't get me wrong, it may be an awesome piece of software for those who have to be in front of the screen for longer duration.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jws 11y ago

If Apple decides that having the screen temperature vary with time, lighting, whatever, I promise it is easier for them to write a few hundred lines of code than it is to engineer secure holes in the sandbox, develop policy around their use, and deal with f.lux. Adjusting white point is a feature, a little one in a long bullet item list, not a business model. ␄ Appendix: If you are doing this yourself, you can get an approximation of the white point for a temperature kelvin much more easily than computing it accurately. You are probably not doing astrophysics. A 1% or two error is ok. See: http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210 http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210 If you want to use it in your iOS app, you can get a UIColor.colorWithKelvin() function from this gist. https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2 https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2 Use the color multiply function, also in that gist and multiply all of your colors by your white point. Which of course is a lot of work compared to adjusting the display CLUT, but you can get in the Apple store and you don't get the ability to screw up the user's other apps. (Hint: Use the screen brightness to guess the ambient light. You aren't allowed to use the ambient light sensor.) ((Also, I'm relatively certain multiplying is not perceptually correct, but it seems close enough for things I've done so I haven't gone down that rat hole.))

Eric_WVGG 11y ago
I agree very much. Giving any old app access to the device’s gamma settings sounds like a recipe for mayhem. I know the Flux guys don’t like this, but I think this app needs to be Sherlock’ed.

bitmapbrother 11y ago

>f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help. Meanwhile it could have been available on Android for 4 years and without asking for Google's help or permission.

tacos 11y ago

I predicted "more drama" when this thread hit the HN homepage two days ago, and now we have it. Given what's going on in the world this weekend I'm not sure a "Twitter petition for f.lux" really should be on the top of our minds. But apparently the people behind f.lux think it should. Perhaps we could avoid making HN part of their ongoing social media awareness campaign? Happy to talk about technology features, happy to debate what I feel are highly-suspect medical claims being made on their site that defy common sense. But I'm not excited to debate open vs free vs app store twice in the same weekend over an app that so very obviously goes against Apple's core vision for their products. If and when Apple chooses to offer such functionality, it certainly won't look and behave like f.lux does. And I'm equally certain Apple won't make such wild claims regarding alleged health benefits.

rererererere 11y ago

$ codesign -vvv -d iflux Executable=f.lux-xcode-master/iflux Identifier=com.justgetflux.iflux Format=bundle with Mach-O universal (armv7 (16777228:0)) CodeDirectory v=20200 size=645 flags=0x0(none) hashes=23+5 location=embedded Hash type=sha1 size=20 CDHash=a32a120fefd588adbc6a420d6fc5786d223cfa72 Signature size=4340 Authority=iPhone Distribution: Michael Herf Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Signed Time=11 Nov 2015 01:41:42 Info.plist entries=35 TeamIdentifier=VZKSA7H9J9 Sealed Resources=none Internal requirements count=1 size=176 They were distributing a binary signed with their enterprise certificate and suggesting that user re-signs it. Additionally, flux.beta contains some auto-generated iOS project code, which is totally irrelevant. So it seems like the author himself does not quite understand what he was doing. It also makes sense that Apple took it down: it is against EULA to (publicly) distribute binaries signed with enterprise certificate.

bhauer 11y ago

Four days or four years? The first sentence suggests it has been four days. And then later in the comment it says "four years." Which is it? My guess is that it's supposed say be four days in both places.

d0m 11y ago

Apple probably want to have this feature built-in in the next version?

jeffehobbs 11y ago

If anyone has the uncomplied iOS code that they released the other day (but is now gone), I'd be innarested. I compiled it for my iPad, works great, but I'd love to have it on my other iOS devices.

stqism 11y ago
It wasn't actually uncompiled, it was a bunch of proprietary binaries wrapped around an Xcode project that resigns them.