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

11–20 of 126 posts

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

#11

Post by tshtf »

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…

How are the PaaS offerings of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google closed? You use their API or website to deploy standardized VMs, from which any open-source or COTS software can be used for configuration.

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

#12

Post by usaphp »

hannob wrote: post #6

Seems you haven't understood the Apple world. You get fancy designs. You loose your freedom to install what you want. They decide, not you. That's the deal. Live with it or don't buy their products. (I choose the latter.)

You have a freedom to install what you want by jailbreaking it.

Its not about not allowing users to install f.lux, it's about not allowing developers to use development practices that are not approved by Apple, common - authors of f.lux are clearly doing something that is not allowed under iOS development terms and they want to change this rules just for them and let other developers use unapproved techniques which might cause security concerns for non technical users who are majority of the user base on iOS?

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

#13

Post by striking »

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, 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.
They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this."

Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source.

If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu).

1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/

2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...

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

#14

Post by specialist »

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.

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

#15

Post by elipsey »

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.

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

#16

Post by izacus »

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?

Because the APIs they need are not approved by the platform owner.

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

#17

Post by TheSoftwareGuy »

usaphp wrote: post #12
hannob wrote: post #6

Seems you haven't understood the Apple world. You get fancy designs. You loose your freedom to install what you want. They decide, not you. That's the deal. Live with it or don't buy their products. (I choose the latter.)

You have a freedom to install what you want by jailbreaking it. Its not about not allowing users to install f.lux, it's about not allowing developers to use development practices that are not approved by Apple, common - authors of f.lux are clearly doing something that is not allowed under iOS development terms and they want to change this rules just for them and let other developers use unapproved techniques which m…

while technically correct, jailbreaking is not something that apple supports, and in fact it is something they actively try to prevent.

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

#18

Post by monochromatic »

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…

How is this different from a standard closed-source EULA?

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

#19

Post by izacus »

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.

And you can get stuff that works without supporting closed ecosystems. Age is a bad excuse to not take a moment to check what you're buying.

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

#20

Post by api »

tshtf wrote: post #11
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…

How are the PaaS offerings of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google closed? You use their API or website to deploy standardized VMs, from which any open-source or COTS software can be used for configuration.

If you build your app around things like Amazon's databases, lambda, etc., then you can't run it (easily) anywhere but on Amazon EC2. It's basically a giant mainframe that runs a proprietary mainframe OS.

Of course you can use a-la-carte VMs in EC2 and do it that way and avoid platform lock-in, but Amazon is increasingly steering users away from that toward managed systems. These managed systems do have short term benefits (just like iOS does), but the long term bargain is similar.

Post reply on HN