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

41–50 of 126 posts

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

#41

Post by lispit »

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?

Monitors are not perfectly calibrated, so if you send one a raw sRBG image, the result will look subtly wrong. To fix this we have monitor profiles (mappings from sRGB colors to the values needed to accurately display said colors on a particular monitor) and CLUTs (color look-up table, a table that the graphics chipset uses to perform said transformation on the fly as it synthesizes the video signal. It was implemented in analog video signals with RAMDACs, now with digital signals we don't need the "DAC" part, but you get the idea).

What f.lux does is (ab)use the CLUT to change the color temperature of the video signal sent to your monitor, cheaply and without requiring any modification to existing software. This is great if you trust f.lux, however clearly Apple cannot trust random apps with persistent access to the CLUT, because people could use it to do things like, say, completely blacken the screen.

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

#42

Post by chdir »

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.

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.

Don't get me wrong, it may be an awesome piece of software for those who have to be in front of the screen for longer duration.

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

#43

Post by tptacek »

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…

It "wants to be free"? Why does this particular software want to be more free than a word processor?

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

#44

Post by takeda »

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…

Easier to read version of the EULA (without using preformatted text):

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, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering);

(c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or

(d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise.

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

#45

Post by tptacek »

unquietcode wrote: post #33

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. 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…

That's extremely silly, since practically every screen in the world has the same blue-light issue. Apple will never be held liable for people's inability to sleep after overexposing themselves to bright blue light, any more than flourescent light bulb manufacturers will.

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

#46

Post by ucha »

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."

How does making it open source helps 95% of the iPhone owners out there? Outside of this tech ivory tower, most people don't even understand what a compiler does.

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

#47

Post by kobayashi »

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)

Why would people find update checking unacceptable?

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

#48

Post by coldtea »

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…

>Why do people support this software?

Same reason we use Photoshop, Pro Tools, etc: because we like/want the functionality. Build an open source alternative as good, and we'll use that.

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

#49

Post by striking »

tptacek wrote: post #43
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…

It "wants to be free"? Why does this particular software want to be more free than a word processor?

I meant that in terms of patent rights. Would you patent a word processor?

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

#50

Post by derefr »

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…

The incentives align to make me want to support f.lux here, I think. Not because I want f.lux (the product) to win, but because having Flux (the commercial organization) in the market means that they'll "hunger" for that money and use it to push Apple to open the gamma API.

Having done so, though, anyone can then use that gamma API. If there's no special advantage to f.lux's patented implementation, then some other (maybe FOSS, maybe not) gamma-shifting app will win the market. If f.lux has especially clever secret sauce in how and when exactly they gamma-shift, then f.lux will win the market.

The real question: should someone be able to clone f.lux's (latitude, time, and option-dependent) gamma curve formula without paying f.lux? Is a gamma curve formula patentable? I don't really know. I do know that it's easy enough to create your own that probably works nearly as well without it being f.lux's formula.

Post reply on HN