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."
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.
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).
2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...
(I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)
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.
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.
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.
"Just download this repo & compile for your own device" really isn't a solution for most people. There's a lot of people who would love to use f.lux on their devices, but wouldn't have a clue how to compile something with Xcode. Even offering the binary to sideload is a poor solution - what about people who don't own a Mac to connect their phones to?
For the maximum number of people to benefit from this, whether it's f.lux or GoodNight or another solution, it needs to be built into the OS (like Samsung has with Reading Mode) or on the App Store behind a big easy button that says "Get". That's what f.lux is campaigning for.
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.
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?
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.
Adjusting white point is a feature, a little one in a long bullet item list, not a business model.
␄
Appendix: If you are doing this yourself, you can get an approximation of the white point for a temperature kelvin much more easily than computing it accurately. You are probably not doing astrophysics. A 1% or two error is ok. See: http://www.zombieprototypes.com/?p=210
If you want to use it in your iOS app, you can get a UIColor.colorWithKelvin() function from this gist. https://gist.github.com/jimstudt/c5069349f305dd5bb6b2 Use the color multiply function, also in that gist and multiply all of your colors by your white point. Which of course is a lot of work compared to adjusting the display CLUT, but you can get in the Apple store and you don't get the ability to screw up the user's other apps. (Hint: Use the screen brightness to guess the ambient light. You aren't allowed to use the ambient light sensor.) ((Also, I'm relatively certain multiplying is not perceptually correct, but it seems close enough for things I've done so I haven't gone down that rat hole.))
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.
$ codesign -vvv -d iflux
Executable=f.lux-xcode-master/iflux
Identifier=com.justgetflux.iflux
Format=bundle with Mach-O universal (armv7 (16777228:0))
CodeDirectory v=20200 size=645 flags=0x0(none) hashes=23+5 location=embedded
Hash type=sha1 size=20
CDHash=a32a120fefd588adbc6a420d6fc5786d223cfa72
Signature size=4340
Authority=iPhone Distribution: Michael Herf
Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority
Authority=Apple Root CA
Signed Time=11 Nov 2015 01:41:42
Info.plist entries=35
TeamIdentifier=VZKSA7H9J9
Sealed Resources=none
Internal requirements count=1 size=176
I can see why apple might not want some app that messes with the display's color (controlled user experience and all that), and (please someone correct me if I'm wrong here) potentially access everything that's written on the screen.
The only way I see similar functionality happening on iOS land is through an accessibility feature 100% controlled by apple. No money for f.lux here, I guess...
From the article:
> f.lux has been ready to ship for iOS devices for four years, but we can't put our app in the app store without Apple's help.
I get a system where progress and adoption is faster, I get far less (close to statistical noise) malware compared to Android (none, actually, if I stick to top tier apps -- whereas there are Android phones that came with malware pre-installed by the carrier), I get most pro apps first and often (e.g. for music creation apps) exclusively, and a whole ecosystem that works admirably well, from laptop to watch, and, for my uses, better hardware.
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?
Perhaps we could avoid making HN part of their ongoing social media awareness campaign? Happy to talk about technology features, happy to debate what I feel are highly-suspect medical claims being made on their site that defy common sense. But I'm not excited to debate open vs free vs app store twice in the same weekend over an app that so very obviously goes against Apple's core vision for their products.
If and when Apple chooses to offer such functionality, it certainly won't look and behave like f.lux does. And I'm equally certain Apple won't make such wild claims regarding alleged health benefits.
The gatekeeper model works for mobile devices.
With a warning, that says, clearly 'this can seriously f••• up your phone'?
Not that Apple has a particularly great security track record anyway. Remember jailbreakme.com?
So while root would be useful to some consumers, the majority would be better off without it.
In addition, I imagine other app developers might not be happy with a sanctioned means to mess with the running of their app: more interactions means more to test and less control over the user experience.
More likely is that this functionality will be incorporated into iOS itself in a future update. But it still runs the risk of Apple considering it aesthetically distastefuland thus never doing it.
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.
In general, this is not the sort of thing you want sandboxed applications to be doing. You can imagine the problems that a bad actor could create with this capability.
The same, I think, is true for closed proprietary cloud platforms like those offered by Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. They're the enterprise version of iOS, and the trade is very much the same: do things our way and get a clean experience, but give up the opportunity to ever leave or to ever do anything in any way other than ours.
Meanwhile it could have been available on Android for 4 years and without asking for Google's help or permission.
My guess is that it's supposed say be four days in both places.
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 class support for this sort of functionality is an admission that blue light is hazardous to one's sleep health, which could open them up to various liabilities.
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.
Open platforms have crummy UX, especially for people who are not computer experts. This explains why people are willing to make the bargain I outlined above. If open systems advocates are ever to offer a compelling alternative, they need to find alternative non-dictatorial ways to respond to these rather severe security and usability problems.
The first step to fixing a problem isn't to pretend it doesn't exist.
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.
Next to all web-based software is even only usable by 4.28% of the global population: the US population. You need for many things an US credit card, or a .edu email, etc.
But the first part, "because we like/want the functionality" still holds whether there's a patent or not. If there's no alternative, either because nobody bothered, or because the software is patented, then people will still use it, regardless if it's proprietary or not.
Photoshop, the other example I gave, also has tons of patents, proudly listed on their "About" windows.
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.
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
"Age is a bad excuse" Do we need an excuse for using a closed ecosystem? It's a choice and one that doesn't have to be justified to anyone but ourselves.
Also you may choose whatever you like, but painting non-Apple ecosystems as being homogenous is completely wrong. There are several manufacturers providing other OSes with different features and throwing all Androids (and others) with same stroke does annoy people. Just because you cannot be bothered to check a difference between a Samsung and a Nexus device it does not mean that such difference does not exist.
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.
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?
Perhaps not in this case, but even an 1K line of C program could need tons of research to be written, extravagant math, etc.
There can be 1K programs that are orders of magnitude more complex to write than 100K programs -- e.g. cryptography vs a game engine.
It's a laughing joke. No one reads them, no one expects them to be read, and still they're everywhere.
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 ;)
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 malware targets the users of Android devices." http://media.kaspersky.com/pdf/Kaspersky-Lab-KSN-Report-mobi...
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).
Only developers or computer nerds even know about flux in the first place.
>I'm not sure if you're right in saying that "only developers or computer nerds" want to install apps other than those in the App Store.
Because most "regular" users don't even know there are apps outside the app store.
On the other hand, since nobody else has done it (or patented it yet), real life proves that it's not that "obvious".
Like the "egg of Columbus" some thing are obvious in retrospect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus
Regardless of whether it was obvious or not, I hate the idea of extremely simple solutions being locked up behind patents, keeping the world today worse for the sake of hypothetical future innovations. It seems especially scummy the way they're trumpeting over social media about the harm that blue light causes while quietly trying to profit over an extremely simple solution to it. More than likely they know that Apple will never allow this on their app store because of the potential for abuse the necessary APIs would provide, and their end game is hoping the angry mobs will convince Apple to implement this as an official feature (and thus, pay them royalties). And more than likely, Apple would have implemented this years ago, had f.lux been an open source student research program with no patent applications attached.
In the case of flux I think it's relatively clear that it would have been done without a patent, but maybe some people would disagree.
Obviously, neither of these applies here. There is absolutely no reason for us to grant patent protection to f.lux. This is so "patently" obvious that the burden of proof falls on those who would argue otherwise.
... which would hurt my head except that I have concluded that software patents are just straight up insane. There is no point in trying to figure anything out with respect to them.
But, then I saw your comment. I can get on board with this comment. The fact that they're attempting to patent something so trivial puts them right up there with the likes of Intellectual Ventures, etc., IMHO.
Also, to be clear, I doubt they're getting a patent on "changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain" but rather on the specific method they use for doing so.
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.
Also, many programs send a lot of details about your computer to the developer. They might send back hardware details, MAC addresses, lists of other running programs, and so on. All of which may seem innocuous but could still include personal information.
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?
I actually disagree with both -- let R&D happen by public research (e.g. universities) that competes for funds based on results, and then makes said results available for everybody (at least in the same country who did the paying).
But that said, I don't see why the people who did this "obviously" don't need a "fair chance to recoup their R&D investment". Does it say anywhere that the R&D investment must be huge? Because that's not the case with tons of patents -- some are just accidental inventions, like the fabled 3M's post-it notes.
>There is absolutely no reason for us to grant patent protection to f.lux. The burden of proof falls on those who would argue otherwise.
Actually if the patent office DOES grant them a patent, then the burden on proof falls on you.
Rather than haggling over what constitutes a "huge" investment, let's generalize the question a bit. True or false: we'd be better off if everything that could be patented under the present USPTO rules was patented.
If your answer is "true," we're done here.
If your answer is "false," then you agree with me that the current criteria for patent grants are inappropriate and counterproductive.
Because that's not the case with tons of patents -- some are just accidental inventions, like the fabled 3M's post-it notes.
Correct, and we need to ask what we got in return for allowing 3M to patent Post-It notes. If something is that trivial and that inexpensive to develop, then there's no need to incentivize it. We already have an institution called a "market" that's well-suited to sort out the winners and losers.
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).
How is Joseph Programmer von Notasleepscientist supposed to know that a blue-light dimming filter is something that he might want before he sees the effect in action? I'll give some credit to f.lux for popularizing the idea, but once the idea is out there, there are only two ways you can implement it: postprocessing in software, or postprocessing in the CLUT. You wouldn't need to know anything about how f.lux works to come up with one of them yourself, once you are aware of the idea.
Whether this patent protection incentive was necessary for them to try to get their product out there in the marketplace is a harder question to answer. Certainly, they have chosen a business model that relies on getting the public familiar with the technology and then licensing it to manufacturers. It does seem to me that many fewer people would know about flux if they were charging for it initially, but it also doesn't seem like a huge leap forward tech wise, though it may provide a lot of value. I'm kind of on the fence.
EDIT: I did a little digging. While I happened to have known about this fact for a long time, and am pretty sure it was in my textbooks as of around 2005 or 2006, it seems this may have been discovered around 2001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487664
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 solution before someone else does.
I'm would find it a bit suprising if someone on HN really thought that changing a CLUT because of the time is so hard that no one could figure out how without the promise of a government granted monopoly on the idea.
I will hasten to add that actually implementing, marketing, and maintaining a real life multi-platform proprietary solution sounds hard, in the sense of being plenty of work, and I think lots of people would gladly pay for that service.
The question we should be asking is: where is the public good in the government intervening to reduce competition in this space by creating a new abstract property right?
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.
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.