F.lux says it is 'original innovator' of nighttime display color tech, asks Apple to open Night Shi

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,747member
    netrox said:
    Even to this day, Apple won't let apps access Settings so why should they expect Apple to allow access to display temperature? 
    What do you mean by "accessing Settings"? There are many features accessible via the Settings app to which 3rd-party developers have legitimate access.
    macgui
  • Reply 42 of 52
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    foggyhill said:
    Then why bother innovating if the big dogs are just going to take it away from you? 
    This is not innovation; innovation could be patented and that's what would protect your from the "big dogs"(tm).
    Where does it say innovation can be always be patented? 
    macgui
  • Reply 43 of 52
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,176member
    Oh, come on. The effect of blue and red light on alertness has been well known for decades.
    Yes, that's precisely why militaries all over the world rig for red certain space because they well know that the best way to preserve night vision is to make service men sleepy.

    And you've been changing the color temp of your displays for over 10 years?  Bullshit.
  • Reply 44 of 52
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,176member
    As far as I can tell f.lux isn't doing anything that's not been done before and I don't get the sense they have any strong patents around their implementation. They had to know Apple would eventually integrate this at a system level. And who knows maybe Apple will eventually open up an API for this.
    Been done before? I'm curious, where has it been done before?

    Any exactly why did they "have to know" that Apple would Sherlock this functionality? Certainly there are a lot of examples of Apple doing exactly that. But there are thousands of apps that Apple hasn't and won't Sherlock so why should the f.lux have "known" that Apple would choose their app? I don't see any reasoning supporting your statement.
  • Reply 45 of 52
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,176member
    useful features get assimilated.
    So no worries when Samsung assimilates useful features from Apple, right? LIke Living Pictures?


  • Reply 46 of 52
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,176member

    buy it for what purpose? its a good feature, but theres no IP, or code, or business model that is needed here. they dont need anything from the flux devs in order to implement this feature into their own product.
    No need to buy it when you can just co-opt it.  They guys may not have had a patent which makes it very easy for Apple to "innovate" this feature. But Apple has famously ignored patents and trademarks in the past.

    Now any company can come up with a new implementation of somebody else's idea and innovatively incorporate someone's tech. This is a valid and legal practice, if the implementation is different enough.

    Even if these guys have a patent I'd bet Apple would or will say "Sosumi".
  • Reply 47 of 52
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,176member

    tenly said:
    Who cares how many crappy copies end up in the App Store?  How does that affect you or anybody else?  90% of the existing apps are crap.
    I care, and Apple cares, on occasion, kind of. Because 90% of the apps are crap is precisely why everybody should care especially when Apple touts the "billions and billions" of apps downloaded.
  • Reply 48 of 52
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,176member
    If the feature is going to be built into iOS, is there a need for f.lux at all? 
    Well, if f.lux's implementation is perfect for everybody and Apple has copied it exactly then no.

    But the App Store is full of apps that have similar functionality of Apple apps (particularly in iOS) and take the feature set beyond what Apple would do.  Calendar, Clock, Music, Maps, Notes, Podcasts, and others are just a few examples of Apple apps that have third-party alternatives because they have more granularity or more or missing features even though they do basically the same thing. And these are often updated more frequently than Apple's stuff.

    I doubt Apple will open a private API for this and don't know that they should. OS X is permitted more flexibility in letting third-parties have system level access. iOS has their biggest user base and I'm sure they don't want to let the user experience get screwed up at the system level by a careless or malicious dev. They've got enough on their plate.
  • Reply 49 of 52
    http://www.techradar.com/us/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-may-head-back-to-the-galaxy-s4-for-its-new-galaxy-s7-feature-1313185
    So when Apple puts existing tech in a smartphone it's innovative, when someone else does it's not? 
    Who is saying this is innovative? And f.lux has little to no valuable IP around this. This was a feature not a product. They had to know Apple would eventually incorporate it as an OS level feature.
    So using your logic, if it wasn't patented it can be copied with free reign?
  • Reply 50 of 52
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    macgui said:
    useful features get assimilated.
    So no worries when Samsung assimilates useful features from Apple, right? LIke Living Pictures?


    Living Pictures isn't from Apple, except the name.
  • Reply 51 of 52
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,747member
    cnocbui said:
    macgui said:
    So no worries when Samsung assimilates useful features from Apple, right? LIke Living Pictures?


    Living Pictures isn't from Apple, except the name.
    I'm not 100% certain what you mean by your comment. I'm guessing you mean that Samsung mimicked Apple's branding of Live Photos to create the Living Pictures brand, which should be without any legal entanglements.

    As to how Samsung's Living Pictures work, I don't know, but I would doubt it's the same as Apple's Live Photos; even though I would argue that using a 1.5s @15fps MPEG4 video with JPEG cover image isn't patentable. The container for the video/audio and image media, could be, but with so many containers out there that would be a worthless pursuit for Apple, even if they made it work exactly the same as Live Photos.

    It's for that reason why I also wish Apple would have just made this open source so that Live Photos would have a chance of being adopted universally, especially the web by using a simple HTML tag.
  • Reply 52 of 52
    Keep calm, acquihire and carry on
Sign In or Register to comment.