Author of f.lux here:<p>After reversing the new APIs in iOS9, it’s really really clear that Apple has added lots of great features to iOS (and the new devices) to adjust screen colors. The new models even have RGB color sensing, so they are an ideal platform to build f.lux on. (I was pretty excited about our next version!)<p>If this were only about reverse-engineering or using LLVM to compile code I wrote, it would be reasonable to fight it. The remarkable thing about their agreement is that it concerns using information <i>that is not provided under the agreement</i>. This is a reasonable term for app store distribution, but it seems unprecedented and heavy-handed for unsigned binaries.<p>Ultimately, we pulled the app both to show good faith, and also because we were asking hundreds of thousands of people to use Xcode to make accounts and sign our software. When Apple calls up and says they don't want that to happen, it is not really a thing you can fight. It’s their infrastructure, and they can decide how it is used.<p>We were feeling pretty good about introducing “building stuff in Xcode” to people who’ve never tried it before.<p>We have been as polite as we can to Apple in hopes that they will open up the platform to developers like us. The demand for f.lux is certainly incredible.
I usually don't get annoyed at fans wearing rose-tinted glasses (aka fanboyism), but I feel that people sticking up for Apple here is some variant of the Stockholm syndrome. We're heading for a world where advanced users might not be allowed to interact with their devices because They (et al.) Know Best. Protecting knowledgeable users from running arbitrary code is generally a pretty solved problem. There are layers of trust in the system, and human connections that keep the system alive. This delegation of critical thinking to Apple is an unfortunate path.<p>P.S. I say all of this as someone who has recently converted to iOS from Android after many years of loving Google Nexus devices, and wanted to see what the integrated design of the iPhone 6s Plus was like. I absolutely don't support ANY of the major technology companies as people who won't do the wrong thing so that they can make more money. They're all self-interested actors! We should never forget that. They can be just as evil as big oil or the textile industry.<p>EDIT: to fix phrasing and the omission of a couple words
This would be a lot more interesting if f.lux was actually distributing source code. Instead, they were just distributing a binary that you sign with your own dev cert.<p>Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users and never had a chance of being tolerated by Apple. Such abuse puts the new free-tier Xcode dev program in jeopardy.
So it's a violation of the developer agreement, that's why they pulled it? Of course it's a violation. What do they care? They signed no such agreement and they are not registered Apple developers.<p>Developing for Cydia is a violation of the developer agreement as well, that doesn't seem to stop them. Honestly, I don't get it. It's extremely disappointing, as the app works great but needs some fine tuning. Which we will now never see because they capitulated that they were violating an agreement they were never party to in the first place.
All this passionate advocacy, and they won't even mention that this is allowed on Android (with a few apps doing it distributed through the Play Store) - or build an Android app themselves? I get that people are iOS fans, but there seems like a bit of Stockholm syndrome here.
An open source version that is not affiliated with f.lux:<p><a href="https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/thomasfinch/GammaThingy/</a>
Geez Apple just keeps doing terrible on the app developer relations front. I have talked with startup founders time and time again they tell me their iOS apps are more barebones because Apple's policies or permissions prevent them from implementing the same features they can implement on Android
Goddamn it. Shows what I get for waiting to download it.<p>I found a mirror on GitHub, but I haven't verified it: <a href="https://github.com/jefferyleo/f.lux" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/jefferyleo/f.lux</a>
Curious what the violation of the developer program agreement is. It contained a binary, presumably signed, so maybe that's it?<p>I downloaded it this morning, very excited to try it as I can't stand the blue glow of my phone after dark.
This is tough. On one hand, there's obviously a demand (of which I am part) for f.lux, but on the other, 15 million downloads, despite being a respectably big number, barely registers compared to an install base that can grow by 75 million in a single quarter. Using private APIs does negatively impact the iPhone experience (witness the constant screen wakes in the pulled Xcodeproj), and making those APIs public has development overhead – As big as the iOS team may be, its human resources are finite (even if Apple's cash reserves are barely so).<p>That said... What percentage of Apple's user base lives with disabilities? What percentage is visually impaired; what percentage has motor difficulties? These are clearly worthy, comparatively small populations of users that Apple devotes an otherwise-inordinate amount of development resources to. Maybe it's time Apple considers melanopsin sensitivity worthy of admitting to this circle.
<p><pre><code> repost from yesterday's thread
</code></pre>
We can only hope that control of blue light emissions will be natively implemented by all phone and tablet manufacturers, to protect the future health of billions of humans. Here are some articles about the impact of blue light on eyes and sleep.<p><a href="http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/04/23/7-things-can-right-now-protect-vision/" rel="nofollow">http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/04/23/7-things-can-righ...</a>, <i>"Blue light is able to pass through what is called the retinohypothalamic tract, or pathway. This pathway is responsible for regulating our circadian rhythm and a number of other biological and behavioral processes."</i><p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831986/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831986/</a>, <i>"Hastings and Sweeney’s paper, published in the December 1958 Biological Bulletin, gathered dust for decades. No one thought these findings might hold any relevance for humans, whose circadian rhythms were then widely believed to be relatively insensitive to light. But scientific discoveries in the past two decades have changed all that."</i><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/a-dark-night-is-good-for-your-health-39161" rel="nofollow">https://theconversation.com/a-dark-night-is-good-for-your-he...</a>, <i>"In the last decade or two it has become clear that the genes which control the endogenous circadian rhythm (the “clock genes”) also control a large part of our entire genome including genes for metabolism (how we process the food we eat), DNA damage response (how we are protected from toxic chemicals and radiation), and cell cycle regulation and hormone production (how our cells and tissues grow)."</i><p>There is room lighting with low-blue content, e.g. the G.E. Align PM bulb, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PLR3M0M" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PLR3M0M</a> & <a href="https://gigaom.com/2014/09/01/what-is-the-blue-light-from-our-screens-really-doing-to-our-eyes/" rel="nofollow">https://gigaom.com/2014/09/01/what-is-the-blue-light-from-ou...</a>, <i>"It remains unclear whether our screens themselves will soon emit less blue light — Hansler is pessimistic because he says that changing the amount of blue light will be like admitting that the screens are causing health problems, and lawsuits could ensue."</i>
Next best - <a href="http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-dim-your-ios-screen-with-an-accessibility-setting-trick/" rel="nofollow">http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-dim-your-ios-scr...</a>
Has anyone tried GoodNight [1] on iOS?<p>> Based off of Thomas Finch's "GammaThingy"<p>> GoodNight is an app that allows you to directly access the screen's gamma levels, and modify it using IOMobileFramebuffer. With this you can do any of the following:
Change the screen temperature, Put the brightness lower than iOS would normally allow you to, Adjust the RGB values of the framebuffer<p>> This application uses dlsym, which loads in the private symbols at runtime, rather than using headers, so no additional setup is needed once you download the source.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight</a>
Atwood captured this well in the past: <a href="http://blog.codinghorror.com/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-king/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.codinghorror.com/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-...</a>
This is why I much prefer using Android devices. Apple and their grandiose pretense think they know what's best for us, I prefer a bit more control. It's so sad because they do make the best hardware!
I don't get it. Is Apple against programmers publishing their own source code? If the authors are giving away the code anyway why not just put it on GitHub and let anyone clone it and use it?
I setup a shortcut on my iPhone. When I triple tap the home button, my screen becomes dimmer than the dimmest setting on a MBP. If I triple tap again, it returns to the previous brightness settings.<p>How to: <a href="http://lifehacker.com/toggle-your-iphones-brightness-with-a-home-button-trip-1651329242" rel="nofollow">http://lifehacker.com/toggle-your-iphones-brightness-with-a-...</a>
Incredible how developers are always ever so gosh darn polite when complaining about Apple, who in turn tend to respond/not respond in a blatantly passive-aggressive manner.<p>And on and on it goes.
Is there anything stopping you from throwing this up on Github with a CC non-commercial license, or does that also break the Apple Developer Agreement?
Well I got screwed and couldn't obtain the original version (was in airport at the time) but I seem to have obtained an alternate. Been waiting for this for years, no surprise Apple tried to screw users immediately.
Why the shock? This is iOS.<p>There are a lot of compelling and expedient reasons why iOS is the way it is. Apple isn't the only player on the market, and they aren't misleading or a monopolist like IBM was in the 80s or Microsoft in the 90s.<p>As for why can't you do on iOS what you can do on your Mac... Apple doesn't want the types of problems that android has.
Speaking as an iOS developer, you do not screw with the fruit.<p>> Developer learns iOS
> Developer uses private APIs (which is neither easy, or allowed per the terms they agreed to)
> Developer sends in app for approval, is rejected for above because duh
> Developer whines on the Internet and gets a bunch of people angry at Apple, who likely will not change.<p>You know I feel the need to point out that Apple doesn't lock us out of code to be mean, they do it because it ensures their devices don't suck, because we as developers do not have access to the system level things that can make them suck.