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 <a href="https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight</a><p>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."
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.<p>Adjusting white point is a feature, a little one in a long bullet item list, not a business model.<p>␄<p>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: <a href="http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210" rel="nofollow">http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210</a><p>If you want to use it in your iOS app, you can get a UIColor.colorWithKelvin() function from this gist. <a href="https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2</a> 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.))
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.<p>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.<p>Don't get me wrong, it may be an awesome piece of software for those who <i>have</i> to be in front of the screen for longer duration.
<p><pre><code> $ 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
</code></pre>
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.
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 <i>why</i> apple doesn't want them there. What APIs are they using exactly?<p>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.<p>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...
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.)
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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?
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.<p>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.
If you want to do something about this, the f.lux team has asked supporters on facebook to sign this petition: <a href="http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/allow-flux-on-ios" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/allow-flux-on-ios</a>
>f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.<p>Meanwhile it could have been available on Android for 4 years and without asking for Google's help or permission.
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.
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?<p>My guess is that it's supposed say be four days in both places.
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.<p>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.