
“f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.” - KevinBongart
https://www.facebook.com/justgetflux/posts/932125010157582
======
internet2000
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
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.l...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.lumen)

~~~
joosters
What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to
let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely
malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add
advertising to your computer.

(I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count
as unacceptable)

~~~
lispit
It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea
of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain,
which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue
light affects melatonin production.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the
> idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye
> strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that
> blue light affects melatonin production._

On the other hand, since nobody else has done it (or patented it yet), real
life proves that it's not that "obvious".

Like the "egg of Columbus" some thing are obvious in retrospect:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus)

~~~
lispit
I said "obvious and trivial thing to do _once you know that blue light affects
melatonin production._ " In the past people did other hacks with CLUTs (like
some early 3D games baking gamma correction into the CLUT so that proper
linear lighting could be displayed without an expensive postprocessing pass).
If you were aware of the blue light effect (I'm not a sleep scientist, I don't
know how long they've been aware of it) and had some low-level graphics
programming knowledge, I don't think it would require great leaps to come up
with this solution. It's just that no one else was interested in or aware of
this problem.

Regardless of whether it was obvious or not, I hate the idea of extremely
simple solutions being locked up behind patents, keeping the world today worse
for the sake of hypothetical future innovations. It seems especially scummy
the way they're trumpeting over social media about the harm that blue light
causes while quietly trying to profit over an extremely simple solution to it.
More than likely they _know_ that Apple will never allow this on their app
store because of the potential for abuse the necessary APIs would provide, and
their end game is hoping the angry mobs will convince Apple to implement this
as an official feature (and thus, pay them royalties). And more than likely,
Apple would have implemented this years ago, had f.lux been an open source
student research program with no patent applications attached.

~~~
coldtea
> _I said "obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light
> affects melatonin production."_

That doesn't change my argument. That too was known for ages, and still no
light changing apps for it like flux (with the exception of a Linux app which
I think came later).

~~~
lispit
>That too was known for ages, and still no light changing apps for it like
flux

How is Joseph Programmer von Notasleepscientist supposed to know that a blue-
light dimming filter is something that he might want before he sees the effect
in action? I'll give some credit to f.lux for popularizing the idea, but once
the idea is out there, there are only two ways you can implement it:
postprocessing in software, or postprocessing in the CLUT. You wouldn't need
to know anything about how f.lux works to come up with one of them yourself,
once you are aware of the idea.

~~~
SapphireSun
This fact is in neuroscience and psychology text books. It has been well known
for quite a while. That said, it's true that others haven't done this prior to
f.lux coming out. From a business model perspective, they are making a utility
that could have been bundled into the OS. It's a small feature, not a whole
business, unless they can gain exclusive use of their invention.

Whether this patent protection incentive was necessary for them to try to get
their product out there in the marketplace is a harder question to answer.
Certainly, they have chosen a business model that relies on getting the public
familiar with the technology and then licensing it to manufacturers. It does
seem to me that many fewer people would know about flux if they were charging
for it initially, but it also doesn't seem like a huge leap forward tech wise,
though it may provide a lot of value. I'm kind of on the fence.

EDIT: I did a little digging. While I happened to have known about this fact
for a long time, and am pretty sure it was in my textbooks as of around 2005
or 2006, it seems this may have been discovered around 2001.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487664](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487664)

------
jws
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
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.

------
chdir
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.

------
rererererere

      $ 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.

------
phn
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
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
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.

------
hannob
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.)

~~~
coldtea
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
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.

~~~
DavideNL
The answer is quite simple, many people don't _want or need_ any other apps
than those in the App Store. Most people are not developers or computer nerds.
And what they get in return is for example an (almost) malware free device.

I'll probably get downvoted for saying this...

Anyway here's an example, Google them, all reports show the same results: >
"Kaspersky Lab experts estimate that 98.05% of all existing mobile malware
targets the users of Android devices."
[http://media.kaspersky.com/pdf/Kaspersky-Lab-KSN-Report-
mobi...](http://media.kaspersky.com/pdf/Kaspersky-Lab-KSN-Report-mobile-
cyberthreats-web.pdf)

~~~
heinrich5991
f.lux seems to be an exception to this. I'm not sure if you're right in saying
that "only developers or computer nerds" want to install apps other than those
in the App Store.

~~~
coldtea
> _f.lux seems to be an exception to this._

Only developers or computer nerds even know about flux in the first place.

> _I 'm not sure if you're right in saying that "only developers or computer
> nerds" want to install apps other than those in the App Store._

Because most "regular" users don't even know there are apps outside the app
store.

------
tacos
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.

------
JustSomeNobody
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.

~~~
Bud
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
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?

~~~
Bud
Why would we possibly care about jailbreakme.com, or think that any security
issue involving an intentionally-jailbroken phone would in any way reflect on
Apple? Are you seriously bringing up stuff that was patched in iOS 1.1.2?
Dude. It's 2015.

Also, it's really quite clear that the iPhone and iOS devices in general are,
in fact, THE replacement for computers for hundreds of millions of users. So I
don't think we really need to waste time debating that. Apple won. Apple
succeeded in making a device which is useful for that purpose.

~~~
Nullabillity
> Why would we possibly care about jailbreakme.com, or think that any security
> issue involving an intentionally-jailbroken phone would in any way reflect
> on Apple?

Except JBM was based on exploits in the official firmware, that the jailbreak
would fix.

> Are you seriously bringing up stuff that was patched in iOS 1.1.2? Dude.
> It's 2015.

4.3.4.

> Also, it's really quite clear that the iPhone and iOS devices in general
> are, in fact, THE replacement for computers for hundreds of millions of
> users. So I don't think we really need to waste time debating that. Apple
> won. Apple succeeded in making a device which is useful for that purpose.

According to IDC[1] their market share is ~14%. I'd hardly call that winning.

1: [http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-
share.jsp](http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp)

------
kinghajj
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?

~~~
pbh101
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.

------
api
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.

~~~
specialist
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
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
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
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.

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

------
bitmapbrother
>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.

------
hellbanner
Other resources:

* [https://www.lowbluelights.com](https://www.lowbluelights.com) * [http://www.theatrehouse.com/product/2811-34.html?14476184178...](http://www.theatrehouse.com/product/2811-34.html?1447618417836)

------
jeffehobbs
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
It wasn't actually uncompiled, it was a bunch of proprietary binaries wrapped
around an Xcode project that resigns them.

------
bhauer
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.

------
unquietcode
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
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.

------
d0m
Apple probably want to have this feature built-in in the next version?

