Developers Behind F.lux Call on Apple to Allow F.lux App for iOS Devices

[mkldev]

I'm pretty sure the issue for f.lux being removed wasn't them telling people to install - it was that their "container" app could download and execute an arbitrary IPA file. The reason being is that the f.lux source code is not open source, so they didn't want to distribute that. Instead the container is able to execute arbitrary IPA files, meaning that some could use it to pirate apps.

You can do that anyway. Their "container", as you call it, is just an Xcode project that uses your own code signing cert to sign a precompiled binary. There's nothing magic about that. Xcode does the exact same thing every time you build a project from source. The only thing they did was make it slightly easier by removing the need to run the commands by hand in Terminal.

It was removed because Apple said that distributing an iOS app outside of the App Store without using enterprise app distribution violates the developer program agreement, which means they can't distribute the unsigned, compiled binary in the first place.

On mac, f.lux provides an extra option to change the color temperature settings on the basis of apps. For instance, while running Quicktime one can disable f.lux. To do the same in iOS would require f.lux to know what apps are running and track them. Its against iOS privacy policy.

Only since iOS 9 has Apple actually prevented apps from getting a list of running processes. And IMO, this is just one example of why that change was a bad idea, though there are certainly examples of why the change was a good idea. Another example is VPN provider apps, who benefitted from knowing what apps users were running, to help them determine how best to prioritize testing of apps while the VPN is connected. So IMO, this is another case where certain apps should have an exception from those rules, simply because the rules interfere with legitimate behavior (as opposed to ad frameworks checking for other apps en masse for dubious purposes).

Except in this case, f.lux for iOS never existed (outside the jailbreak community) in the App Store. They can't even claim to be ousted by Apple, because Apple never let them in in the first place. As long as Night Shift isn't announced for OS X, Apple is not even in competition with f.lux. All there is, are demands to break the App Store rules, because the f.lux duo claims to have good intentions regarding chronobiology.

You are technically correct—the best kind of correct. However, f.lux originally had a scheme where if users signed up for a free developer program membership, they could grab a pre-compiled binary of the app and run a script to sign it themselves for their own, personal devices. Apple forced them to stop doing that, effectively relegating the tool to the jailbreak community, whereas before, users could use it without jailbreaking their devices. IMO, that's some serious overreach on Apple's part, despite the fact that their licensing terms do technically give Apple the right to make such demands.

This is yet another reason that we desperately need a usable set of third-party developer tools for OS X and iOS. No company should have that much control over what products can and cannot be made available to their users.

Also, remember Apple put that API call in, which means that this was in development before flux. People generally don't just put random APIs in for no reason.

Considering that f.lux has been running on iOS for five years in the jailbreak community, you're trying to tell me that Apple has been developing this minor feature for five years? As others have pointed out, the APIs in question are used by other parts of the OS for various color management reasons. I doubt Apple management even considered this feature until they got so much backlash from the user community for telling f.lux to stop distributing unsigned binaries for end users to sign themselves.

With enough continued public backlash, they might even relent and grant f.lux permission to use the SPI officially. It certainly can't hurt to try.

 

[Mercifull]

It'll never happen now because 1) Apple don't like apps that replicate native features and 2) if the APIs were public how would the phone react if there were multiple apps trying to do the same thing at different schedules? Seems like its way open for errors

 

[bretm]

Sure, but only to the relatively small customer base who knows what f.lux is. To the general populace, they will be heralded for creating this feature.

Really? Because my $35 Amazon Fire tablet has this annoying feature.
[doublepost=1452902630][/doublepost]

Neither. I'd expect Apple to do what they usually do—grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis for developers who have specific reasons to need to do those things.

So here's the thing. I understand that f.lux has patents on their way through the patent system. Chances are, Apple is infringing them. My advice would be to try to work with the f.lux people now to get their product in the App Store and keep them happy.

It sounds like a token amount of effort (an API usage exemption—probably little more than a custom provisioning profile) would satisfy them and keep this out of court. If that's the case, then Apple's management would have to be utterly stupid to not do so.

The longer they are blocked from selling their app while Apple uses potentially infringing copies of their technology as part of the OS, the bigger the potential damages if this ends up going to court later, and the more likely they are to be awarded treble damages for willful infringement.

And even if it later comes to light that any patents f.lux holds would not be infringed by Apple's implementation, they still haven't lost anything, and they've gained a fair amount of good will with the developer community.

And how would they calculate damages from loss of sales of an app that's free?

 

[C DM]

It'll never happen now because 1) Apple don't like apps that replicate native features and 2) if the APIs were public how would the phone react if there were multiple apps trying to do the same thing at different schedules? Seems like its way open for errors

AS far as 1) goes, it seems like it might apply at times, but not at other times, given that there are plenty of flashlight and calculator apps even though those are native features, just as there are plenty of weather and stock apps, and other maps apps, and other mail and browser apps, and other podcast apps, and book reading apps, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Mercifull]

AS far as 1) goes, it seems like it might apply at times, but not at other times, given that there are plenty of flashlight and calculator apps even though those are native features, just as there are plenty of weather and stock apps, and other maps apps, and other mail and browser apps, and other podcast apps, and book reading apps, etc., etc., etc.

This is different though. In this case its not an app, its a core feature of the OS.

 

[C DM]

This is different though. In this case its not an app, its a core feature of the OS.

Well, in that sense flashlight isn't really an app and a feature of an OS too you can say. But, in that vein, mainly it seems that it's less about apps replicating native features as much as it would be about apps doing something on an OS level, which is something that the OS should be doing and not an app (let alone a third party app).

 

[manu chao]

And referring back to the post you are replying to, you can't think of any way to stop this being a problem? Not even if you give it two minutes of really intense thought?

Of course you can add exceptions and try to minimise the potential damage an app can do. But take applications that [with the help of a separate 'measuring' device] calibrate your computer monitor (ie, create a custom monitor profile). I have used on of the cheaper products that resulted in my screen having a slight pinkish tint (the result of hardware limitations of the display, the profiling hardware and software, it doesn't take much for such slight casts to appear). This certainly isn't the end of the world and any semi-literate computer user probably would know how to fix this (re-select the previously used monitor profile).

The point is that Apple wanted to (and has to a large degree) an OS and device that is as foolproof as possible. And severely restricting what third-party apps can do is the way this was achieved. Sure, a small change here and a small change there will allow more types of apps and won't alter the foolproof-ness very much.

But it is also clear that the default position for Apple is to say no and only add exceptions gradually in a very calculated manner. App extensions are an example, apps still have their sandbox but they can talk to each other over controlled channels. Thus expecting Apple to just allow f.lux because it asked nicely is either not understanding the principles iOS is built on or simply wishing that Apple would throw out those principles.

And like app extensions solve some class of problems while still maintaining the sandbox, Night Shift is solving the two-much-blue light problem without needing to add more exceptions whenever an idea for an app comes along.

 

[Rafagon]

does f.lux have a technical requirement of 64bit processor? If not then why does apple have it?

I have an old, original iPad mini that I use just for Netflix and twitch stuff to fall asleep - f.lux or night shift would be great on this old device.

Because Tim Crook wants to send your old device to an early grave so that you have to buy a new one.

 

[manu chao]

First, what is a system setting? Is something a system setting only because Apple puts it in the "Settings" app? If so, it's kind of odd that Personal Hotspot is in the settings because that is a bonafide functionality that could be a standalone app. Likewise, the Watch app is really mostly settings, so it is odd that it isn't in the Settings app. I don't question Apple's choices here, I question your emphasis on the distinction. I think it's a distinction without a difference.

To answer your question though, many apps play sounds even if the ringer switch is on vibrate. Apps can change the brightness of the screen - surely that is a "setting" and incidentally a very close comparison to changing the hue.

A system setting is something that affect things outside an app in a permanent way, ie, it has a system-wide effect. An alarm clock might ring while the user is using another app but that is a very isolated effect of limited duration.

And there are really apps that can change the brightness of screen while another app is being used? Apps of course can change what is displayed on the screen while they are the foreground app.
[doublepost=1452907932][/doublepost]

Because Tim Crook wants to send your old device to an early grave so that you have to buy a new one.

No, you are not thinking wide enough. It's limited to 64-bit, so people like you can claim that Apple wants to 'force' people to buy new devices. Because Tim Cook wants to ensure that people that would think like this feel pissed off. It's a ploy to mess you.

 

[8281]

Isn't that what Apple's iOS implementation provides as well?
[doublepost=1452887248][/doublepost]
They implemented something, the idea is one that existed even before them. Just like an idea of word processing has existed for some time, but it doesn't mean that a new company creating a word processor somehow ripped off other existing word processor applications just because of that, right?

That's not the same at all. Apple is pulling an Amazon when they pulled the Apple TV and and chromecast from their store.

 

[Glideslope]

And there's something to back up that theory?

Yes, my theory.

 

[C DM]

That's not the same at all. Apple is pulling an Amazon when they pulled the Apple TV and and chromecast from their store.

Except f.lux was never in Apple's App Store to begin with, so not the same as that at all.
[doublepost=1452913022][/doublepost]

Yes, my theory.

Got it. Well at least we have actual scientific/medical information to go by.

 

[alvindarkness]

Do what you want, but don't keep us informed. This is not the Ubuntu on Phones forum. We already decided for iOS and want to read rumors about it's future. We know it's traits or shortcomings if you like and have chosen it anyway. Night Shift only continues a trend in which Apple enables features previously available on more open systems (like third party keyboards, browser add-ons etc.) without giving up tight control about what's happening in iOS. That's why no matter how buggy the app, a single push on the home button always sends the phone back in a stable state, ready to make a call. This is the experience Apple wants to provide, not what you want to see fit.

This is a forum to express opinions. Thats what a forum is. It's a concept that might be hard for you to understand. If I find something Apple does to be offensive, as an Apple user, I will express that opinion. If you find everything they do to be perfect, then you can express that too. How wonderful is that hey? I wouldnt be using Apple products if I didnt find something about them better than the competition.

Also the number of assuptions you have made is outstanding, including me looking at linux as an alternative because of financial reasons. But hey, we all live in our own reality bubbles, so view things with whatever filter you wish.

 

[cocky jeremy]

And that is why it's an option: simply don't use it.

Obviously, I don't. Thanks for the groundbreaking idea though. I'm sure it would have taken me many hours to come up with that particular fix to the problem.

 

[C DM]

Obviously, I don't. Thanks for the groundbreaking idea though. I'm sure it would have taken me many hours to come up with that particular fix to the problem.

No problem.

 

[MacBH928]

I don't think it matters if it's "true" (in terms of circadian rhythm) because it's still subjectively less harsh to a lot of people to see a "warm" screen at night rather than the "cool" screen during the daytime. Primally, you can think of it as being closer to the light given off by a fire at night vs. the light given off by the sun in mid day

but what about pictures colors in photos and film? They will be very off from the original and its even worse if you are working on someone's else photo or video

 

[8281]

Except f.lux was never in Apple's App Store to begin with, so not the same as that at all.
[doublepost=1452913022][/doublepost]
Got it. Well at least we have actual scientific/medical information to go by.

Different philosophies I guess. I think Apple would do better lowering the wall in their garden.

 

[Four oF NINE]

Have you tried the app-specific auto-disabling or the 2-hour movie mode? They work fine for colour-critical work and watching video content, IMHO…



As another user mentioned, it is a scheduled and gradual process (which Apple didn't, AFAIK – because I'm not running the beta – bother to emulate? Guess I'll just keep running my sideloaded copy of F.lux until it craps out on me, then…), and it offers, apparently, a lower lowest colour temperature setting (yet another reason to stick with F.lux).



F.lux already offers a Darkroom setting which could be a killer feature for photography development, especially if run on a future iPhone with an OLED screen, and which would work great for the applications you just mentioned.

Just curious, does the Apple native version for iOS offer the darkroom option? (for those unfamiliar, the dark room setting switches to a red-black monochrome negative display)

 

[C DM]

Different philosophies I guess. I think Apple would do better lowering the wall in their garden.

Well, that's a somewhat different aspect and is a more general concept that is at issue with how iOS has been designed for years from the beginning.

 

[blackcrayon]

but what about pictures colors in photos and film? They will be very off from the original and its even worse if you are working on someone's else photo or video

This is a setting that can be turned on and off so you'd just disable it if you need accurate color. If you think about it, pictures would be off (or appear off) if you have the regular brightness at extreme settings too.

 

[Altis]

I'd still much prefer an actual dark color theme or night mode. Off-white helps, but having a black background and white text is much, much easier on the eyes in dark environments.

 

[Fenez]

As someone who has no platform loyalty... And no device loyalty.... I use everything and buy a lot of phones and other tech related stuff... I couldn't care less where any company gets its tech from, as long as it benefits the user. On a separate note and not even bothering to get into the hair splitting and semantics of some people commenting... Is it flat out thievery? Maybe...is it unethical? Absolutely.... With that said... Who cares?

 

[sudo1996]

I tried f.lux, and it was too annoying to read and code when the background was brownish. Made it blend in with the text almost, and I felt my eyes being strained hard. I don't understand the hype.

 

[Glideslope]

Except f.lux was never in Apple's App Store to begin with, so not the same as that at all.
[doublepost=1452913022][/doublepost]
Got it. Well at least we have actual scientific/medical information to go by.

Agreed.

 

[ardent73]

TVOS needs sometging like this as well. ,

Almost every television for over a decade has this already, okay it's not automatic, but is pressing a button a few times really that hard?