Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Developers Behind F.lux Call on Apple to Allow F.lux App for iOS Devices

Krevnik said:
Actually, patent law allows for treble damages if you willfully infringe. That's the reason why large companies tell their employees not to look.

1) I'd rather settle, and barring that, not suffer treble damages if we fail to settle.
2) I'd rather not open myself up for treble damages because someone was curious about a patent in an unrelated part of the company (say, Apple getting hit with treble damages because someone in Pages looked up a cellular radio patent at one point that was found in discovery).

The system of additional damages in the case of willful infringement makes it desirable to just do whatever makes sense in isolation, and pay royalties when needed through settlements, rather than risk treble damages because you screwed up a patent search or the court disagrees that you don't infringe because of some detail that you thought made it different.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that the standard for willful infringement is so low? Because the way you make it sound, it seems almost impossible to avoid accidentally willfully infringing a patent.

I know for a fact that clients of our patent firm regularly ask for patent searches to check whether a planned product infringes on any patent, and I haven't seen our lawyers advise against such searches.
 
I'd rather use f.lux's version than Apple's native, simply for the auto-scheduling based on location and sunset / sunrise data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
mdelvecchio said:
wrong, wrong, wrong. only apps you give permission to can do those things, and even then they can only do it within their own app -- they cant listen or watch at any time from anywhere, the way this app would need to. thus the use of private APIs, which is a known no-no.
Click to expand...

Oh good grief. Yes, only apps you give permission to can access sensitive things. Come on, connect the dots...
 
Also, remember Apple put that API call in, which means that this was in development before flux. People generally don't just put random APIs in for no reason.
 
procrastinasn said:
It's a system-wide thing, and because of that, Apple wants control of it. I don't see what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Apple should just hire the f.lux team and pay them a nice salary to help integrate the features. They spent $3 large for the Dre fiasco. Why can't they hire some people that would actually benefit the platform too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
usarioclave said:
Also, remember Apple put that API call in, which means that this was in development before flux. People generally don't just put random APIs in for no reason.
Click to expand...

f.lux for iOS has existed since 2011 with support for iOS 5 and up. I doubt Apple had this feature in development for over 4 years and 4 major iOS releases.

The only reason f.lux released their Xcode sideload version of their app is because Apple recently made it easier for users to officially sideload non-App Store apps.
 
procrastinasn said:
It's a system-wide thing, and because of that, Apple wants control of it. I don't see what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Other than ripping off their idea and then telling the original creators of the feature that they're not allowed on the App Store?

There's a line between protecting your OS and being anticompetitive
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
leftynaut said:
Sure, but only to the relatively small customer base who knows what f.lux is. To the general populace, they will be heralded for creating this feature.
Click to expand...

So true! People will say "Wow, look what Apple invented. It's so smart!" when this feature becomes available.
 
displayblock said:
f.lux for iOS has existed since 2011 with support for iOS 5 and up. I doubt Apple had this feature in development for over 4 years and 4 major iOS releases.

The only reason f.lux released their Xcode sideload version of their app is because Apple recently made it easier for users to officially sideload non-App Store apps.
Click to expand...

Somebody thought enough about it to put in an API and implement it. In general, engineers don't just go around implementing API calls for no reason. Could be that the research re: screens at night bubbled the feature up the priority list.

Remember, without that API call flux couldn't exist. There isn't an API fairy that goes around just implementing APIs randomly.
 
Lazlow said:
I'd rather use f.lux's version than Apple's native, simply for the auto-scheduling based on location and sunset / sunrise data.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what Apple's iOS implementation provides as well?
[doublepost=1452887248][/doublepost]
8281 said:
Other than ripping off their idea and then telling the original creators of the feature that they're not allowed on the App Store?

There's a line between protecting your OS and being anticompetitive
Click to expand...
They implemented something, the idea is one that existed even before them. Just like an idea of word processing has existed for some time, but it doesn't mean that a new company creating a word processor somehow ripped off other existing word processor applications just because of that, right?
 
usarioclave said:
Somebody thought enough about it to put in an API and implement it. In general, engineers don't just go around implementing API calls for no reason. Could be that the research re: screens at night bubbled the feature up the priority list.

Remember, without that API call flux couldn't exist. There isn't an API fairy that goes around just implementing APIs randomly.
Click to expand...
A lot of people seem to think that all f.lux did was call a SET_DISPLAY_TEMPERATURE=3800k API. In all likelihood, they tapped into the Gamma values used for display calibration on any display, and use that to modify IOMobileFramebuffer. That's how GoodNight and GammaThingy do it. Those APIs would have been there whether or not Apple had thought or heard of such a feature because they're crucial to display calibration.

APIs can be combined in ways the designer never intended, and does not necessarily imply the existence of an API fairy.
 
drumcat said:
This is what IP laws were intended to discourage. They don't work, clearly. I hope f.lux embeds a link in their about screen to sites describing all of these shenanigans.
Click to expand...
HA! you hope that an app that isn't available, has an "about screen", that contains a link, that will take someone to a website, that will explain their position on the topic of Apple incorporating features others thought of first... Ya.. that sounds like something that the masses will be able to access and then start a real conversation on the matter.

Not. Going. To. Work.
 
KALLT said:
But it is still observable behaviour. All F.lux does is use publicly available information on sun exposure in a given location at a given time and adjust the profile accordingly. It was easy for Apple to implement this, because they use these algorithms in other areas of the system already. All they needed to add is a coupling to the screen colour temperature and a settings panel. That is pretty much it.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the fact that it's "observable behaviour" or "easy" are relevant: a lot of stuff is "observable" and "easy" to implement once you can have a look at it but not easy to figure out before.
 
manu chao said:
Everybody complains how slow older devices are on the latest OS. And that is while Apple is already cutting some features that are performance hogs from the OS these older devices get. So what is planned obsolescence: Offering features (including general OS versions) that slow devices down or cutting features (that would otherwise slow devices down). It seems, whatever Apple does on this front they get blamed.
Click to expand...


again and again: f.lux does not slow down older models.
 
Is this based on science or is this some made up crap? Because this sounds like made up crap.

Edit: looked it. Very preliminary data and no evidence changing lights impacts humans outside lab. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
jimbobb24 said:
Is this based on science or is this some made up crap? Because this sounds like made up crap.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing that just going by what things sound like isn't the best way to go about things (despite the fact that many people do that unfortunately). The article links to the f.lux developer response that references the science. It's fairly easy to look up more information about it all as well.
 
8281 said:
Other than ripping off their idea and then telling the original creators of the feature that they're not allowed on the App Store?

There's a line between protecting your OS and being anticompetitive
Click to expand...

The original "creator" didn't research, merely implemented it, which isn't hard AT ALL.

The original "creator" HAD NO I.P. so, they're entitled to NOTHING.

Let them sue if they like; sure that will get them well, nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back