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

101–110 of 126 posts

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

#101

Post by OopsCriticality »

coldtea wrote: post #92
lispit wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production. " In the past people did other hacks with CLUTs (like some early 3D games baking gamma correction into the CLUT so that proper linear lighting could be displayed without an expensive postprocessing pass). If you were aware of the blue light effect (I'm not a sleep scientist, I don't know how long they've been aware of…

> I said "obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production." That doesn't change my argument. That too was known for ages, and still no light changing apps for it like flux (with the exception of a Linux app which I think came later).

In fact, a long felt and unmet need in the field would serve as a secondary indicia of non-obviousness.

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

#102

Post by austenallred »

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 dare they try to sell what they made!

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

#103

Post by austenallred »

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."

The purpose of the app goes against Apple's interest.

I'm OK with no apps being on the App Store that will affect the appearance of other apps. The app is, in a way, a partial rewrite of the operating system. Of course Apple doesn't want apps that alter the OS in the store.

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

#104

Post by Nullabillity »

Bud wrote: post #59
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #30

This is why consumers need root access to their phones. These are more than just phones, they are pocket sized computers. We have root/admin access on our laptops and desktops, we should have it here.

Except we shouldn't, because about 98% of people can't keep their devices secure, at all, if root is just floating around aimlessly for any apps to grab any privs. The security record of Android vs iOS illustrates this extremely well. The gatekeeper model works for mobile devices.

And a brick of clay is even more secure. That doesn't mean it's a replacement for a computer.

Not that Apple has a particularly great security track record anyway. Remember jailbreakme.com?

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

#105

Post by m45t3r »

DavideNL wrote: post #84
untog wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the OPs point was stated somewhat flippantly but the point still stands. If an average user owns an Apple device, they cannot install apps that are not on the App Store. Talking about what apps are available just seems like clouding the issue.

The answer is quite simple, many people don't want or need any other apps than those in the App Store. Most people are not developers or computer nerds. And what they get in return is for example an (almost) malware free device. I'll probably get downvoted for saying this... Anyway here's an example, Google them, all reports show the same results: > "Kaspersky Lab experts estimate that 98.05% of all existing mobile m…

And the majority of Android users does not install applications outside from Google Play Store either, and the lastest malwares that appeared for Android are from places outside Google Play Store. So where is the point?

If the user jailbreak (iOS)/allow external applications (Android), they increase the chances of malware simple of the fact that there is nothing Apple/Google can do outside App Store/Google Play Store. If they don't, the chance is reduced by far (however it is not 0, there is cases of malwares in both App Store/Google Play Store; the most recent case was in App Store btw).

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

#106

Post by kobayashi »

joosters wrote: post #79
kobayashi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people find update checking unacceptable?

It's a form of monitoring. Some update checks run whenever you start the program, so in the case of a program like f.lux, the developer gets to see exactly when you turn on and use your computer. Or, the update check might run periodically, in which case it's a constant survey of who in the world is running your code. That alone is a vast amount of information. Also, many programs send a lot of details about your com…

That's a great point.

You didn't say that you necessarily disagree with that monitoring, if you do, how do you feel about using Google Chrome, with it's near-constant communication with Google servers, looking for updates and alike?

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

#107

Post by lostgame »

Bud wrote: post #59
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #30

This is why consumers need root access to their phones. These are more than just phones, they are pocket sized computers. We have root/admin access on our laptops and desktops, we should have it here.

Except we shouldn't, because about 98% of people can't keep their devices secure, at all, if root is just floating around aimlessly for any apps to grab any privs. The security record of Android vs iOS illustrates this extremely well. The gatekeeper model works for mobile devices.

How about this: the option should exist?

With a warning, that says, clearly 'this can seriously f••• up your phone'?

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

#108

Post by pnt12 »

kuschku wrote: post #89
takeda wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 organ…

> (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); This is already completely null and void in multiple jurisdictions. I don’t think these developers have even consulted a lawyer while writing their EULA.

Not that I read EULAs often, but I think that's quite a common clause. They do talk about exceptions in some jurisdictions at the end.

A bit off-topic, but what I do find hilarious are websites EULAs, when you're not even asked to agree before using the service. Then you somehow discover them in a hidden page and they state "by using this site, you agree with our terms". That seems ludicrous, since you can't agree with a contract that wasn't presented to you. Anyone knows if there was ever any case regarding these?

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

#109

Post by pnt12 »

ucha wrote: post #46
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.

I don't have an opinion on this particular case, but FOSS benefits people even when they don't code. I mean, who has read a significant portion of the Linux kernel? Close to no one. How many have beneffited from it being GPL? Millions, who get access to a kernel that is developed by a great deal of companies with interest in it. That wouldnt happen if it was freeware only, with no rights to modify or share.

Should f.lux go FOSS? That's up to them and their business model. Is their patent crappy? Perhaps so. Although Ill say, if it is so simple to do what they do, why dont we have a bunch of similar apps, legal or not?

Post reply on HN