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

121–126 of 126 posts

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

#121

Post by untog »

alextgordon wrote: post #91
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.

You can, as of 2015. 1. Download Xcode 2. Pair your iPhone with Xcode 3. Download source code of the app you want to install 4. Build and run. You just can't install closed-source software. iOS may yet become Stallman's dream platform ;)

There's a reason why I said "average user", though.

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

#122

Post by stqism »

jeffehobbs wrote: post #112

If anyone has the uncomplied iOS code that they released the other day (but is now gone), I'd be innarested. I compiled it for my iPad, works great, but I'd love to have it on my other iOS devices.

It wasn't actually uncompiled, it was a bunch of proprietary binaries wrapped around an Xcode project that resigns them.

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

#123

Post by pbhjpbhj »

elipsey wrote: post #119
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you level that complaint at all pharma firms though too? At least if it doesn't encourage those behind f.lux to continue beneficial activities (promoting the benefit of redshifted screen use) then it should encourage others to develop health focussed apps in the hope of getting paid? FWIW I use redshift.

Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. Changing a pallete was a solved problem. "Doing something when it's a time" was a solved problem. But if you change a CLUT "becuase it's a time" your software belongs to someone else. It seems like the only innvoation here is observing a need discovered by health researchers, and patenting the existing components of the solutio…

>Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. //

All patents are for ideas, in order to acquire a patent you have to give details of how to perform it - how to create a product/device or how to work a system/method to use the idea - but patents are not given for products per se.

I'm not that familiar with pharma patents but the few I've seen were quite abstract, they make claims that cover many different chemicals rather than one "product" (this when attached to that group; this when attached to some other group; etc.).

That said I was specifically responding to the [paraphrasing] "you have to pay them to be healthier if they patent the medically beneficial method/technique/device/drug" - which is true for all companies holding healthcare patents that they don't give free licenses on.

WRT the particular product you do it a disservice - yes changing things at a time were known, yes changing colour palettes were known but there is synergy in the idea of removing blue light elements from a monitor gradually as dusk passes in order to prevent the negative effects of blue light on people and the method of changing a CLUT to achieve this end forms more than just a colocation of known ideas.

One argument in this sort of situation has always been quite powerful to me - if it was so obvious then it would have been done, the need was known, the individual concepts were available. Almost every idea seems obvious post hoc.

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

#124

Post by elipsey »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #123
elipsey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. Changing a pallete was a solved problem. "Doing something when it's a time" was a solved problem. But if you change a CLUT "becuase it's a time" your software belongs to someone else. It seems like the only innvoation here is observing a need discovered by health researchers, and patenting the existing components of the solutio…

>Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. // All patents are for ideas, in order to acquire a patent you have to give details of how to perform it - how to create a product/device or how to work a system/method to use the idea - but patents are not given for products per se. I'm not that familiar with pharma patents but the few I've seen were quite abstract, they make…

>> in order to acquire a patent you have to give details of how to perform it

Software patents don't have to include code, and generally are not useful to a skilled practitioner in actually creating software. The are written in legalese by persons incentivized to seek as boad a claim as possible, while revealing as little usefully information as possible.

>> if it was so obvious then it would have been done

By this reasoning every new product should be protected by a monopoly. Sometimes how to do something is obvious, but no one wanted to do it before.

The question should be whether treating every new situation as an oportunity for government sponsored property grab is good for society, or just the first guy to file.

A huge number software developers get sued because they wrote software that violated a patent they had never heard of for a "business method" type of task, but "with a computer". There are hundreds of thousands of software patents, so it's not possible to read them all before selling software to make sure one hasn't infringed, assuming one could actually be sure without simply defending a trial. The reason there are so many lawsuites is because it WAS obvious, and lots of people did the same thing without ever hearing of the patent untill they got sued.

I'm guessing that your not a programmer who's read any software patents. I have never met one who has that did not agree that the contents of software patents were obfuscated and worthless for creating a storehouse of usefull knowlegde that benefits society, what is the constituionally mandated purpose of patents in the first place.

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

#125

Post by pnt12 »

kuschku wrote: post #117
pnt12 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Actually, there was a case with online EULAs where the user had to check a box to agree with them, and even those were found to be legally null and void for any non-standard clauses, as you can’t expect a user who wants to buy something online to read a 40 page contract.

Well, the same would apply to pretty much any non-enterprise software then. Who's gonna read an EULA to run a program? Who's gonna pay for software, later find the EULA is abusive and stop using their paid product/service?

It's a laughing joke. No one reads them, no one expects them to be read, and still they're everywhere.

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

#126

Post by Nullabillity »

Bud wrote: post #115
Nullabillity wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why would we possibly care about jailbreakme.com, or think that any security issue involving an intentionally-jailbroken phone would in any way reflect on Apple? Are you seriously bringing up stuff that was patched in iOS 1.1.2? Dude. It's 2015. Also, it's really quite clear that the iPhone and iOS devices in general are, in fact, THE replacement for computers for hundreds of millions of users. So I don't think we re…

> Why would we possibly care about jailbreakme.com, or think that any security issue involving an intentionally-jailbroken phone would in any way reflect on Apple?

Except JBM was based on exploits in the official firmware, that the jailbreak would fix.

> Are you seriously bringing up stuff that was patched in iOS 1.1.2? Dude. It's 2015.

4.3.4.

> Also, it's really quite clear that the iPhone and iOS devices in general are, in fact, THE replacement for computers for hundreds of millions of users. So I don't think we really need to waste time debating that. Apple won. Apple succeeded in making a device which is useful for that purpose.

According to IDC[1] their market share is ~14%. I'd hardly call that winning.

1: http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp

Post reply on HN