This is crazy, apple needs something like this. Infact they should of put it on themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34744859
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34744859
Is every reply now going to link to the same story?This is crazy, apple needs something like this. Infact they should of put it on themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34744859
Lot's of interesting comments here (wink)
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015/11/12/f-lux-no-longer-be-sideloaded/
Almost a decade later, is any of this still somehow new or surprising in some way?As others have said, this is such an incredibly off-putting attitude of Apple. It is insulting and belittling, as if I am not capable of deciding what is useful and "safe" on my own phone. It is also harming me as a user - I absolutely in no way benefit from Apple's refusal to admit this in the Appstore. And finally, now they even try to interfere with side-loading - in other words, if someone had written this themselves, it would be fine, but distributing the code is not? Talk about heavy-handedness. Instances like this remind that, no matter all the smooth talk about "open-mindedness", etc., this is simply a big company with a highly controlling attitude.
That makes sense how exactly?Or, you know, hopefully this sends a message to f.lux and they’ll open source their software.
Exactly. Don't sign the agreement if you don't want to stick to it.This should not make you hate Apple... It's a great idea but they've gone about it the wrong way.
I'm not convinced the reason for not releasing the source code is to protect their patents. A patent for this (if approved) would prevent competitors from making a clone of this app even using their own code. Likewise they can open source the software and still hold copyright over it to prevent anyone else passing it off as their own or trying to sell it on. It's not likely to be for nefarious purposes but it's probably because they don't want anyone to know what private APIs they've used.Some of you aren't getting the point. Apple isn't preventing them from releasing the source. I think the main issue is that the "source" you download has a pre-compiled binary in it. A binary that can be f.lux, or can be malware that sends all of your data to a remote server. There's no way of you knowing. They won't release the actual source code because what they do is patent pending. If the released full source code to github as a proof of concept or something, there's nothing Apple could do to them.
I don't think that's quite correct.in other words, if someone had written this themselves, it would be fine, but distributing the code is not?
User 1 • 4 days ago
Here ya go: [download link]
- User 2 • 4 days ago
Please don't download this copy, not the original version!!
Should be:
MD5 = 5245665a6d745cda946f6a09afefefa5
SHA1 = f1ee4e38eddc467e7fbfe5708841bbc84f520d7e
- User 1 • 4 days ago
It's the original copy. I have re-zipped the folder.
- User 2 • 4 days ago
Well, that explains the checksum difference. Sorry mate.
So good that we are forced to continue burning our retinas every evening and morning. Probably they will come out with a new health device in a couple of year that will heal our sore eyes.
Doesn't the easy access dimmer control already accomplish this.
Or perhaps not quite as plain and simple as the dicussion about it all in another thread that deals with it shows.Apple "Sherlocked" f.lux. Plain and simple.
You do realize this makes no sense ... yes? If this wasn't for iOS users ... Apple wouldn't have made a flux clone with Night Shift built into iOS.Nobody cares because this is for tech users and not iOS users.
I rest my case.Hopefully the popularity of this sends a message to Apple and they'll add something similar in an upcoming iOS. This is the kind of low hanging fruit that can be picked off once a platform is mature.
Apple "Sherlocked" f.lux. Plain and simple.