Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#21

Post by pbh101 »

kinghajj wrote: post #9

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?

By its nature, the functionality of their app breaks the app sandbox, currently via unsupported APIs. It is unclear whether Apple wants to ever support the functionality required to make f.lux run. My guess would be no, because it would be difficult/impossible to design without also allowing malicious behavior, and Apple is understandably keen to keep the App Store's reputation as a trusted and harm-free source of software.

In addition, I imagine other app developers might not be happy with a sanctioned means to mess with the running of their app: more interactions means more to test and less control over the user experience.

More likely is that this functionality will be incorporated into iOS itself in a future update. But it still runs the risk of Apple considering it aesthetically distastefuland thus never doing it.

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#22

Post by [deleted] »

striking wrote: post #13
internet2000 wrote: post #5

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 https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight 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."

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, atte…

[deleted]

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#23

Post by api »

specialist wrote: post #14
api wrote: post #2

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. The same, I think, is true for closed proprietary cloud platforms like those offered by Amazon, Micr…

With Apple, one gets (more) freedom from harassment. My partner is switching back from Android to iPhone. Her latest software update embedded ads everywhere and borked the contacts. It's too much. Some of us are older, tired of doing tech supp, and just want stuff to work.

I think you're exactly right and I wish people wouldn't downmod. I've been downmodded to hell for bringing up the same point on several occasions.

Open platforms have crummy UX, especially for people who are not computer experts. This explains why people are willing to make the bargain I outlined above. If open systems advocates are ever to offer a compelling alternative, they need to find alternative non-dictatorial ways to respond to these rather severe security and usability problems.

The first step to fixing a problem isn't to pretend it doesn't exist.

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#24

Post by joosters »

striking wrote: post #13
internet2000 wrote: post #5

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 https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight 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."

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, atte…

What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer.

(I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#25

Post by joblessjunkie »

kinghajj wrote: post #9

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?

f.lux wants to modify how the screen appears when other apps are running.

In general, this is not the sort of thing you want sandboxed applications to be doing. You can imagine the problems that a bad actor could create with this capability.

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#26

Post by tomku »

kinghajj wrote: post #9

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?

f.lux needs to be able to control the screen at a very low level while other applications are running, which isn't possible using just the public iOS API. The sideloaded version of f.lux used some internal APIs to do that, which wouldn't fly if they submitted it to the App Store.

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#27

Post by lispit »

joosters wrote: post #24
striking wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, atte…

What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer. (I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)

It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.

Re: “f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS for four years, but we need Apple's help.”

#28

Post by makepanic »

elipsey wrote: post #15
internet2000 wrote: post #5

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 https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight 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."

Exactly. There's a linux version too, but I won't use this because it's closed, not because it isn't free as in beer. I don't like breaking my OS with crappy vendor packages that only work on half the versions of half the distros. Also, the monetization strategy suggests an ulterior motive that makes it hard for me to accept the idea that this is important for my health, or public health, at face value.

http://jonls.dk/redshift/ is a good open source alternative to f.lux
Post reply on HN