4 ms·

I would be so much angrier than this post is. Dude thinks they might want to team up after Apple fucked them in 2x in a row.

themagician 11y ago
The reality is that Apple doesn't need them and their company was built on a single feature. It sucks, but the harsh reality is that most startups today are just that—features. They aren't companies. They aren't businesses. They are a missing feature to another product. Even companies like Spotify become redundant once someone like Apple decides to get into the game. They can hang on for a while because of their service, loyal fanbase, or particular implementation–but they can no longer grow. All of the growth as a result of new users and population growth just ends up going to the Apple product. Companies are about growth, and if someone like Apple can throw their hat into the ring and completely freeze your growth then chances are you weren't really a company to begin with. Much of the startup world is based on selling before people figure this out.
- msrpotus 11y ago
  Does Flux have a real business? Do they make any money? Just because they created something doesn't mean they have a company.
  - themagician 11y ago
    My point is that Apple doesn't need them. At all. Whether they are a company or a product or whatever they call themselves. They are now irrelevant.
  - nimish 11y ago
    It's a closed-source color temperature changer on a timer. I don't think it's gotten any new features in years, and they didn't patent this feature so sucks to be them.
    - espadrine 11y ago
      Their main page: > f.lux is patent pending. Do you make a cell phone, display, lighting system, or other cool sleep tech, and want to talk about collaboration? Email us: support@justgetflux.com
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - themagician 11y ago
    Okay. EDIT: Oh, the irony.
- MBCook 11y ago
  As Steve Jobs said: "You're a feature, not a product."
eridius 11y ago
How did Apple "fuck them"? f.lux depends on APIs that are not public, and probably never will be. There is no legal way for f.lux to operate on iOS short of being distributed as open source and compiled by every customer (the same mechanism they tried to abuse a few months ago to distribute a precompiled binary). Since f.lux cannot be distributed for iOS to begin with, Apple's not doing anything wrong by building the feature into the OS.
- eridius 11y ago
  Am I wrong? I don't think I am. If I were a f.lux developer, given the reality that f.lux will almost certainly never be allowed to distribute on the iOS App Store, I'd be happy that Apple decided the functionality was useful enough to put into the OS. It's not like they're charging money for f.lux anyway, so there's no lost revenue here.
- lawnchair_larry 11y ago
  It's completely legal to operate on iOS, it's just against the App Store rules. They made it available to jailbroken users starting with the 3G iPhone and have a pretty strong following.
  - eridius 11y ago
    What exactly do you mean by "legal" if not "conforms to the App Store rules"?

themagician 11y ago

The reality is that Apple doesn't need them and their company was built on a single feature. It sucks, but the harsh reality is that most startups today are just that—features. They aren't companies. They aren't businesses. They are a missing feature to another product. Even companies like Spotify become redundant once someone like Apple decides to get into the game. They can hang on for a while because of their service, loyal fanbase, or particular implementation–but they can no longer grow. All of the growth as a result of new users and population growth just ends up going to the Apple product. Companies are about growth, and if someone like Apple can throw their hat into the ring and completely freeze your growth then chances are you weren't really a company to begin with. Much of the startup world is based on selling before people figure this out.

msrpotus 11y ago
Does Flux have a real business? Do they make any money? Just because they created something doesn't mean they have a company.
- themagician 11y ago
  My point is that Apple doesn't need them. At all. Whether they are a company or a product or whatever they call themselves. They are now irrelevant.
- nimish 11y ago
  It's a closed-source color temperature changer on a timer. I don't think it's gotten any new features in years, and they didn't patent this feature so sucks to be them.
  - espadrine 11y ago
    Their main page: > f.lux is patent pending. Do you make a cell phone, display, lighting system, or other cool sleep tech, and want to talk about collaboration? Email us: support@justgetflux.com
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- themagician 11y ago
  Okay. EDIT: Oh, the irony.
MBCook 11y ago
As Steve Jobs said: "You're a feature, not a product."

eridius 11y ago

How did Apple "fuck them"? f.lux depends on APIs that are not public, and probably never will be. There is no legal way for f.lux to operate on iOS short of being distributed as open source and compiled by every customer (the same mechanism they tried to abuse a few months ago to distribute a precompiled binary). Since f.lux cannot be distributed for iOS to begin with, Apple's not doing anything wrong by building the feature into the OS.

eridius 11y ago
Am I wrong? I don't think I am. If I were a f.lux developer, given the reality that f.lux will almost certainly never be allowed to distribute on the iOS App Store, I'd be happy that Apple decided the functionality was useful enough to put into the OS. It's not like they're charging money for f.lux anyway, so there's no lost revenue here.
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
It's completely legal to operate on iOS, it's just against the App Store rules. They made it available to jailbroken users starting with the 3G iPhone and have a pretty strong following.
- eridius 11y ago
  What exactly do you mean by "legal" if not "conforms to the App Store rules"?