Apple Approves 'FlexBright' iOS App That Adjusts Display Temperature [Update: Pulled]

[ReneR]

Update: FlexBright has been removed from the App Store. No explanation for the removal has been provided by Apple at this time.

Article Link: Apple Approves 'FlexBright' iOS App That Adjusts Display Temperature [Update: Pulled]

Yeah, why should the Apple AppStore review process be either reasonable or otherwise helpful, ...

 

[Otago Lad]

If people have paid for the app will Apple refund?

I'm running ios9.3 beta on my iPhone, however I'm looking for an app that can replicate nightshift for my iPad 3. F.lux is great for my laptop, however would be great to have something work for non-64 bit iPads/iPhones.

 

[9052042]

The concept of no single app being able to affect how the phone in general and other apps run when not using the app is part of what makes the iPhone such a safe and stable platform. This principle has been broken up a little bit with background activity (which affect performance and battery life even when not using the app), third-party keyboards interacting (and possibly recording) what you do in another app and probably a few other things that escape me right now. One app affecting colours in a significant way in other apps would be another significant step. Any app that could do this and would be misbehaving (intentionally or unintentionally) could be a nightmare to track down as the source.
[doublepost=1457463088][/doublepost]
Yes, what you cannot do is an app that is only compatible with iOS 8 or 7. Every app submitted today must be iOS 9 compatible.

I definitely enjoy the benefits of sandboxing apps but as you mentioned Apple has already developed ways to allow apps for higher level access. But thats not even the point. Apple took this idea straight out of F.lux and as a small developer I expect Apple to approach that developer before adapting it into the OS. Now I understand that flux's functionality isn't ground breaking but the concept itself required a good understanding. Both from a scientific perspective, realizing from the research that came out that blue light affects sleep patterns and how to design an app that addresses that. This stuff doesn't just happen overnight and took hard work from these developers. Apple should have approached them with a buyout offer, or even took them on board to integrate it within the OS. Instead it rejected their app and made its own. Thats the worst way to handle such a situation and shows as I pointed out, the lack of appreciation it has towards its developers. Flux is now basically out of business and its one of many that got hit when Apple enters their space. Evernote, battery/case manufacturers and a few other areas. Apple isn't even entering these categories to make them better, they just take them over and inevitably kill the competition in that space

 

[C DM]

I definitely enjoy the benefits of sandboxing apps but as you mentioned Apple has already developed ways to allow apps for higher level access. But thats not even the point. Apple took this idea straight out of F.lux and as a small developer I expect Apple to approach that developer before adapting it into the OS. Now I understand that flux's functionality isn't ground breaking but the concept itself required a good understanding. Both from a scientific perspective, realizing from the research that came out that blue light affects sleep patterns and how to design an app that addresses that. This stuff doesn't just happen overnight and took hard work from these developers. Apple should have approached them with a buyout offer, or even took them on board to integrate it within the OS. Instead it rejected their app and made its own. Thats the worst way to handle such a situation and shows as I pointed out, the lack of appreciation it has towards its developers. Flux is now basically out of business and its one of many that got hit when Apple enters their space. Evernote, battery/case manufacturers and a few other areas. Apple isn't even entering these categories to make them better, they just take them over and inevitably kill the competition in that space

The idea wasn't from f.lux as it's been around unrelated to them, f.lux just had an implementation of that idea. Kind of similar to a word processing application--let's say Word is one of the more popular and widespread ones, but that doesn't mean that Pages or some other word processor owes something to Microsoft if they develop an app that does word processing.

 

[9052042]

The idea wasn't from f.lux as it's been around unrelated to them, f.lux just had an implementation of that idea. Kind of similar to a word processing application--let's say Word is one of the more popular and widespread ones, but that doesn't mean that Pages or some other word processor owes something to Microsoft if they develop an app that does word processing.

Of course blue light affects on sleep pattern were studied and researched independently long before flux but flux was one of the first to implement a good solution designed for gadgets (smartphones and tablets and such). Again you are missing the point. Flux was already a very good solution designed for MacOSX and iOS. Apple decided to kill it in favor of its own implementation. Instead of involving the developers with a great solution. Call me biased because I'm an indie dev myself but this in my opinion kills competition.

With regards to your word processing comparison, if a great word processing app came out before Microsoft word on Windows, I would call it also unfair. These companies create an OS with an SDK for a reason. To have developers design great apps around it. Its stupid to then come and kill them off.

I definitely understand that I'm biased on this, but if you read my article you will see me point out that Apple is not creating new revenue streams for developers while at the same time killing off competition. Reminds me of Microsoft in the glory days of Windows

 

[C DM]

Of course blue light affects on sleep pattern were studied and researched independently long before flux but flux was one of the first to implement a good solution designed for gadgets (smartphones and tablets and such). Again you are missing the point. Flux was already a very good solution designed for MacOSX and iOS. Apple decided to kill it in favor of its own implementation. Instead of involving the developers with a great solution. Call me biased because I'm an indie dev myself but this in my opinion kills competition.

With regards to your word processing comparison, if a great word processing app came out before Microsoft word on Windows, I would call it also unfair. These companies create an OS with an SDK for a reason. To have developers design great apps around it. Its stupid to then come and kill them off.

I definitely understand that I'm biased on this, but if you read my article you will see me point out that Apple is not creating new revenue streams for developers while at the same time killing off competition. Reminds me of Microsoft in the glory days of Windows

Seems like Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to control system-level functionality (let alone use private APIs and side load), so it seems like there wasn't much that a 3rd party developer could get done in relation to it all--even this one likely shouldn't have been approved to begin with (rather than being pulled after the fact, but pulled it got nevertheless).

 

[9052042]

Seems like Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to control system-level functionality (let alone use private APIs and side load), so it seems like there wasn't much that a 3rd party developer could get done in relation to it all--even this one likely shouldn't have been approved to begin with (rather than being pulled after the fact, but pulled it got nevertheless).

Ok again missing the point but I think there is no point to continue.

 

[C DM]

Ok again missing the point but I think there is no point to continue.

I got the point, but just pointing out some realities that play a role in it all. But anyway.

 

[Krizoitz]

Not only did Apple take the whole idea from F.lux and implement it natively into the OS, but it also doesn't allow the same level access to the developers to implement it. It has also done it with fitness apps on the Apple Watch and will continue to do it. This ultimately kills small developers.

Apple should have bought out f.lux and implemented it or allowed them native access to implement it themselves. This is a feature that really doesn't need to be in Apples hands, and certain developers should have OS access to implement it and maintain it.

The idea of adjusting display temperature of a device based on time of day predated F.Lux, as such they have no legal or I would argue moral claim on the idea, and so long as Apple doesn't steal their specific implementation (i.e. the code to do it) they are free to make their own version. It would certainly be generous of Apple to buy them out, but would also be financially poor decision making (and thus unethical towards its shareholders) if it did so without an intent to gain something substantial from the purchase which it would have been more difficult/impossible to obtain otherwise.

Certainly Apple would be legally required to pay to license/purchase any relevant patents, but it does not appear from anything I can find that F.lux had any such assets, so they don't owe F.Lux anything anymore than Toyota should buy Ford if it wants to make an automobile.

U.S. Law (which is most applicable here) has provisions in place, through the patent system, to protect unique and non-obvious ideas. It appears that nothing F.lux had fit that bill so Apple is and should be more than free to come up with their own version of the same idea. Apple should no more buy F.lux than it should have bought whomever developed the first camera phone software when it decided the iPhone too would be able to take pictures.

 

[manu chao]

I definitely enjoy the benefits of sandboxing apps but as you mentioned Apple has already developed ways to allow apps for higher level access. But thats not even the point. Apple took this idea straight out of F.lux and as a small developer I expect Apple to approach that developer before adapting it into the OS. Now I understand that flux's functionality isn't ground breaking but the concept itself required a good understanding. Both from a scientific perspective, realizing from the research that came out that blue light affects sleep patterns and how to design an app that addresses that.

I can tell you that I had the idea behind f.lux way before I even heard about the existence of f.lux. And if I did, then certainly somebody at Apple did as well.

This stuff doesn't just happen overnight and took hard work from these developers.

The 'hard' work is implementing the concept (ie, writing the code), not figuring out how to change the colour temperature. Have you ever looked at the white balance slider in image editing? Night Shift and f.lux are doing nothing else then adding a WB slider to the graphics pipeline. And I might add display calibration software already let's you choose a colour temperature. If you wanted, you could have simply created to display profiles with differing white point and manually switched between them. What f.lux has done is merely automating that switch.

Apple buys out smaller companies if they have special technology (or talent). It doesn't buy them out if they just have an implementation of a general idea. And Apple is no different than any other company in this regard. Imagine a company that added copy and paste to iOS 1 & 2. Should Apple have bought that company when it added copy and paste to iOS with iOS 3?

And there is a general problem with Apple buying companies that offer software for multiple platforms. Can you imagine Apple continuing to offer f.lux for Windows and Android. There is only one single example where they have ever done this: Beats/Apple Music (which is available for Android) and that follows the trend that Apple has done with porting iTunes to Windows (ie, supporting their most important product, originally the iPod, then the iPhone on Windows). I am sure that you would have been even more upset if Apple had discontinued f.lux for Windows and Android after purchasing it.
Having key functionality of your application being incorporated into the OS is a professional hazard on any OS platform. Getting your panties into a bunch over it is like crying over spilt milk. There even is a term for it: sherlocked (named after an application that searched the contents of your Mac which Apple made redundant by implementing Spotlight).


[doublepost=1457521835][/doublepost]

Of course blue light affects on sleep pattern were studied and researched independently long before flux but flux was one of the first to implement a good solution designed for gadgets (smartphones and tablets and such). Again you are missing the point. Flux was already a very good solution designed for MacOSX and iOS. Apple decided to kill it in favor of its own implementation.

F.lux is far from a perfect solution on the Mac. Highlights in videos are very often 'distorted' (blown out, show banding, I haven't bothered to figure out what is happening exactly but they definitely look weird and distracting).
[doublepost=1457522553][/doublepost]

Apple will always be able to get away with this. Their systems are essentially closed and as long as they say that integration and security are the reason for thier decisions they will never be questioned by the faithful.

And what does Apple gain by rejecting such apps except for limiting the damage third-party apps could possibly do? Does Apple get more revenue by selling Night Shift as a paid add-on? Wouldn't Apple gain more money via its 30% cut if it allowed the app?

 

[9052042]

The idea of adjusting display temperature of a device based on time of day predated F.Lux, as such they have no legal or I would argue moral claim on the idea, and so long as Apple doesn't steal their specific implementation (i.e. the code to do it) they are free to make their own version. It would certainly be generous of Apple to buy them out, but would also be financially poor decision making (and thus unethical towards its shareholders) if it did so without an intent to gain something substantial from the purchase which it would have been more difficult/impossible to obtain otherwise.

Certainly Apple would be legally required to pay to license/purchase any relevant patents, but it does not appear from anything I can find that F.lux had any such assets, so they don't owe F.Lux anything anymore than Toyota should buy Ford if it wants to make an automobile.

U.S. Law (which is most applicable here) has provisions in place, through the patent system, to protect unique and non-obvious ideas. It appears that nothing F.lux had fit that bill so Apple is and should be more than free to come up with their own version of the same idea. Apple should no more buy F.lux than it should have bought whomever developed the first camera phone software when it decided the iPhone too would be able to take pictures.

Like I said before, I'm probably biased on this. But like I said this has nothing to do with a legal right or patent. It also has nothing to do with who came up with the idea and the scientific research done around it.

It has to do with indie devs like me working hard to implement ideas and having them snatched away in seconds by the platform owner. Flux might not have been the first or a perfect solution but it was a strong solution that was available for a long time on OSX but couldn't come to iOS because of Apples restrictions (to some degree valid) You have to admit that Flux brought a lot of attention around blue light affects because of our devices.

Now a small team which worked a long time on making a great product are out of business because Apple decides it wants to implement it. Your argument about not ethical to buy them is bogus. Apple could have had a team and a working product on hand instead of having to start from scratch on their own solution. There is definitely value in buying them but Apple chose to go its own way for valid reasons I assume. Doesn't change the fact that they cut out a small developer and they continue to do so in various areas. covers/cases?, Battery cases?, Stylus?

Of course anyone looking to buy a case will directly go to Apple instead of third party. Apple in the end is trying to take back the ecosystem that was build by developers and 3rd party manufacturers. And that ultimately is the demise of any Ecosystem. Ask Microsoft!

 

[teslo]

iPhone 6 sticky outy camera…….just as ugly. All Apples work.

huh? the camera protrusion isn'tt great, but that's an otherworldly comparison... bright pink/blue 'tampon advertisement' skinned app vs. a minor hardware 'inconvenience' people seem to OCD about?

 

[9052042]

I'm sure you guys saw this. They followed the rules and still got removed. Anyone still think this isn't anti-competitive?

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...st-display-temperature-arent-allowed.1960416/

Seems like Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to control system-level functionality (let alone use private APIs and side load), so it seems like there wasn't much that a 3rd party developer could get done in relation to it all--even this one likely shouldn't have been approved to begin with (rather than being pulled after the fact, but pulled it got nevertheless).

The idea of adjusting display temperature of a device based on time of day predated F.Lux, as such they have no legal or I would argue moral claim on the idea, and so long as Apple doesn't steal their specific implementation (i.e. the code to do it) they are free to make their own version. It would certainly be generous of Apple to buy them out, but would also be financially poor decision making (and thus unethical towards its shareholders) if it did so without an intent to gain something substantial from the purchase which it would have been more difficult/impossible to obtain otherwise.

Certainly Apple would be legally required to pay to license/purchase any relevant patents, but it does not appear from anything I can find that F.lux had any such assets, so they don't owe F.Lux anything anymore than Toyota should buy Ford if it wants to make an automobile.

U.S. Law (which is most applicable here) has provisions in place, through the patent system, to protect unique and non-obvious ideas. It appears that nothing F.lux had fit that bill so Apple is and should be more than free to come up with their own version of the same idea. Apple should no more buy F.lux than it should have bought whomever developed the first camera phone software when it decided the iPhone too would be able to take pictures.

I can tell you that I had the idea behind f.lux way before I even heard about the existence of f.lux. And if I did, then certainly somebody at Apple did as well.


The 'hard' work is implementing the concept (ie, writing the code), not figuring out how to change the colour temperature. Have you ever looked at the white balance slider in image editing? Night Shift and f.lux are doing nothing else then adding a WB slider to the graphics pipeline. And I might add display calibration software already let's you choose a colour temperature. If you wanted, you could have simply created to display profiles with differing white point and manually switched between them. What f.lux has done is merely automating that switch.

Apple buys out smaller companies if they have special technology (or talent). It doesn't buy them out if they just have an implementation of a general idea. And Apple is no different than any other company in this regard. Imagine a company that added copy and paste to iOS 1 & 2. Should Apple have bought that company when it added copy and paste to iOS with iOS 3?

And there is a general problem with Apple buying companies that offer software for multiple platforms. Can you imagine Apple continuing to offer f.lux for Windows and Android. There is only one single example where they have ever done this: Beats/Apple Music (which is available for Android) and that follows the trend that Apple has done with porting iTunes to Windows (ie, supporting their most important product, originally the iPod, then the iPhone on Windows). I am sure that you would have been even more upset if Apple had discontinued f.lux for Windows and Android after purchasing it.
Having key functionality of your application being incorporated into the OS is a professional hazard on any OS platform. Getting your panties into a bunch over it is like crying over spilt milk. There even is a term for it: sherlocked (named after an application that searched the contents of your Mac which Apple made redundant by implementing Spotlight).


[doublepost=1457521835][/doublepost]
F.lux is far from a perfect solution on the Mac. Highlights in videos are very often 'distorted' (blown out, show banding, I haven't bothered to figure out what is happening exactly but they definitely look weird and distracting).
[doublepost=1457522553][/doublepost]
And what does Apple gain by rejecting such apps except for limiting the damage third-party apps could possibly do? Does Apple get more revenue by selling Night Shift as a paid add-on? Wouldn't Apple gain more money via its 30% cut if it allowed the app?

 

[C DM]

I'm sure you guys saw this. They followed the rules and still got removed. Anyone still think this isn't anti-competitive?

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...st-display-temperature-arent-allowed.1960416/

Well, that's the thing, did they follow the rules? Seems like that wasn't quite the case actually.

 

[9052042]

Well, that's the thing, did they follow the rules? Seems like that wasn't quite the case actually.

Oh they did. The main functionality of adjusting the display light is done through public APIs using their own classes. Apple found a technicality to remove it. See in order for the app to work in background, they had to fake a music player functionality to justify it. Apple used that. See even if the removed the background functionality by removing the fake music player, Apple would still not approve it. Thats unfortunately the problem.

 

[C DM]

Oh they did. The main functionality of adjusting the display light is done through public APIs using their own classes. Apple found a technicality to remove it. See in order for the app to work in background, they had to fake a music player functionality to justify it. Apple used that. See even if the removed the background functionality by removing the fake music player, Apple would still not approve it. Thats unfortunately the problem.

So basically they did something that was against the rules, as you mention.

 

[9052042]

So basically they did something that was against the rules, as you mention.

Sometimes I wonder why I discuss things with you. They did NOTHING against the rules, technically they had implemented a music player and just the additional functionality it provides to do other stuff. ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that.

 

[C DM]

Sometimes I wonder why I discuss things with you. They did NOTHING against the rules, technically they had implemented a music player and just the additional functionality it provides to do other stuff. ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that.

How is implementing something unrelated to the app to bypass things and trick the OS into allowing the app to run in the background indefinitely come off as being perfectly fine? Seems like Facebook was caught doing something similar (and they actually even provide sound/video playback, unlike that app) and your can see how many people felt that there was "ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that".

 

[9052042]

How is implementing something unrelated to the app to bypass things and trick the OS into allowing the app to run in the background indefinitely come off as being perfectly fine? Seems like Facebook was caught doing something similar (and they actually even provide sound/video playback, unlike that app) and your can see how many people felt that there was "ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that".

Not bypassing anything. If you add a music player into the app (Which by the way doesn't have to be physically shown, I have a music player in my app Chronic that I use to send out sounds, you get "extra powers". One of them is background tasking. So FlexBright uses that special power to run in the background, this then allows it to adjust screen brightness at all times. Technically it only needs to run in the background so it can do checks like 1. did the sun rise/set? etc.

 

[C DM]

Not bypassing anything. If you add a music player into the app (Which by the way doesn't have to be physically shown, I have a music player in my app Chronic that I use to send out sounds, you get "extra powers". One of them is background tasking. So FlexBright uses that special power to run in the background, this then allows it to adjust screen brightness at all times. Technically it only needs to run in the background so it can do checks like 1. did the sun rise/set? etc.

And just because that ability exists, doesn't mean that any app can just use it for its own purposes simply because--Facebook is a good example of how all of that has been treated.

It seems that calling out Apple in a negative connotation for using some "technicality" when they made a decision in relation to this app, while at the same time favorably looking at an app using some "technicality" in its favor to get around something to do what it needs creates a juxtaposition at the least.

 

[9052042]

And just because that ability exists, doesn't mean that any app can just use it for its own purposes simply because--Facebook is a good example of how all of that has been treated.

It seems that calling out Apple in a negative connotation for using some "technicality" when they made a decision in relation to this app, while at the same time favorably looking at an app using some "technicality" in its favor to get around something to do what it needs creates a juxtaposition at the least.

Haha you continue to amuse me Do you have an app on the App Store? If not, I highly recommend looking into it. Your view will completely change once you have some skin in the game. And so will your understanding of these "technicalities"

PS. Facebook did NOT get pulled for misusing its music player. See I'm biased for good reasons, and you are protective for all the wrong reasons. But it doesn't matter, I enjoyed the chat

 

[C DM]

Haha you continue to amuse me Do you have an app on the App Store? If not, I highly recommend looking into it. Your view will completely change once you have some skin in the game. And so will your understanding of these "technicalities"

PS. Facebook did NOT get pulled for misusing its music player. See I'm biased for good reasons, and you are protective for all the wrong reasons. But it doesn't matter, I enjoyed the chat

Facebook had to address it, so clearly that part of it wasn't within the rules or perfectly fine, which is what we were discussing. Again, the reasons for it all being pulled have been provided. And realistically the bigger underlying reason that pretty much everyone knows about and understands is that iOS doesn't really go for apps that change system level functionality. And, as for technicalities, of course they play a role, but they do from all sides of the equation.