9 ms·

Let Maya Speak For Herself

124 points by dutchbrit 14y ago

ColinWright 14y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103344 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103344
- dutchbrit 14y ago
  Thanks for adding the link!
praptak 14y ago
Maybe someone is writing a similar app for a less totalitarian platform? I'd gladly support such effort by donating.
- dutchbrit 14y ago
  I agree 100%, and actually emailed Maya's parents with an idea of creating an Android Tablet App, and donate a Tablet to them to test/keep. Also created a thread looking for likeminded developers here that would want to help develop such an app: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019 If anyone is interested in hacking something cool together, send me an email: sam.granger@gmail.com They received a few similar emails, and replied to me today. This part was regarding my idea on creating an Android App: "App design, programming features, and all of the software-related stuff goes right over my head! I appreciate you offering your help---the best people to talk to about tech-related solutions would be the team at Speak for Yourself, who you can reach at this email address: info[@]speakforyourself.org There have been some other similar emails that have come my way, but I've just directed them all over to the SFY team. They would be the best people to ask about whether there are others to assemble." I did send them an email, offering help, but I doubt they'd be interested since "patents" and a possible lawsuit is probably their current main concern. To be honest, I don't think creating an app would be all that hard, and to avoid having to speak in thousands of words (which I'd consider to be the dullest part), you'd be able to generate the word sounds through Google's Text to Speech API. At the end of the day, I hope the App gets accepted back into the store, only time will tell... In the meantime, something open source could be developed in no time.
  - roel_v 14y ago
    "I did send them an email, offering help, but I doubt they'd be interested since "patents" and a possible lawsuit is probably their current main concern." There's that, and also the "hey would you help us re-create your product so that we can give it away for free and destroy your business" angle.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    I did find this app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.digitalscribbler.quicktalk&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.digitalscr... Does anyone know how it compares to Speak for Yourself?
- ovi256 14y ago
  You seem to think a SfY app on a different platform would not be taken down. Apple took the app down after a simple letter from the patent holder. The patent holder could have asked for relief in court, enumerating the infringing apps. IANAL, but that's a common request in patent cases, and usually granted by the court. All app stores would have to comply then, however free (or non-totalitarian), maybe even removing the already installed apps.
  - freyrs3 14y ago
    It could be taken off the Android market, but Google doesn't forbid alternative installation modes. It's not foolproof, but at least with Android you own the software and can install it without having to go through a corporate monolith like Google/Apple.
    - nudded 14y ago
      IANAL, but would they still be allowed to distribute their app themselves?
      - praptak 14y ago
        From a country with no software patents? IANAL either but I don't see how this could be stopped, especially in case of an app whose development had been funded via donations and which is distributed free of charge.
        nudded 14y ago
        Say, they do distribute it this way and are found guilty of patent infringement. Would they then need to pay for each copy downloaded? I have no idea how this works, it would be really helpful if somebody with some knowledge could chime in.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    If it were an Android app, the author could simply put it up for sale on their website.
- wtn 14y ago
  Yes—it's called American Sign Language, and it's easier to learn than Spanish.
  - metageek 14y ago
    And presumably the autistic community knows about ASL, and the children who can learn it, do—it'd be greatly preferable to carrying around a multi-thousand-dollar device. I think we can assume that this child's problems leave her unable to learn ASL.
- wkriski 14y ago
  I'm willing to work on an open source app - and you can do a lot with HTML5 web-based apps now and they work on any tablet since they all have browsers.
wseymour 14y ago
2689 votes at the time of writing. If everybody donated a dollar instead of a signature, there'd be an app available on another platform by now.
- its_so_on 14y ago
  if you can create a life-changing app that is worth this much to this many people, and can do it for $2689 all-told, I'd like to get in touch with you.
  - wseymour 14y ago
    You can find me on Twitter - @woogoose - let's take it from there!
  - VikingCoder 14y ago
    Creating the app is apparently not the challenge. Defending it against patent suits is apparently the challenge.
tintin 14y ago
Maybe a stupid question: but do you need iTunes to install an .ipa file? I've seen some programs that can just install these files on any iDevice without the use of iTunes. And isn't Xcode and an Apple acount enough to sign the app?
- spacemanaki 14y ago
  Are you talking about distributing ipa files outside of the App Store? As I understand it, you also need $100/year and you're limited to provisioning 100 UDIDs. I don't think this is actually an alternative.
  - sp332 14y ago
    The app maker could sell a XCode project. Each end-user would pay Apple's $99 license fee, provision their own devices, and sign the app with their own key.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
seclorum 14y ago
This is an opportunity for someone to write a Speaking app in a platform like MOAI (http://getmoai.com/ http://getmoai.com/), which will put the app on Windows, MacOSX, Linux, iOS and Android platforms, where there will never be a question again about whether it can be yanked from a child in need.
xd 14y ago
Would I be right in understanding; Apple can remove an application, from your devices, you have already paid for? Edit: This comment summed up my feelings on the subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4104485 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4104485
- EwanToo 14y ago
  They can do this, but I don't believe they've done so yet.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Yes, so can Android, and they can remotely install apps too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/google_remote_android_application_install/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/google_remote_androi...
- arnoooooo 14y ago
  yes
- peterkelly 14y ago
  I'm not sure about apps on the app store, but I know Amazon has this capability with kindle books, which they've used in the past: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama... The book in question? 1984.
jeromeparadis 14y ago
Seriously? PRC are selling to people with disabilities a software with a Windows 7 tablet: https://store.prentrom.com/product_info.php/cPath/11/products_id/142 https://store.prentrom.com/product_info.php/cPath/11/product... And check the options... +475$ for an additional 2GB of RAM! Prices for other options are as outrageous. I don't know what price Speak for Yourself was selling for but I'm glad they are making these kind of tools more accessible.
drcube 14y ago
They keep talking about Apple updating the OS, but why in the world would they let that happen? Turn updates off! This is your child's voice, don't put somebody else in control of it! Turn off wireless, mobile data, everything. This should be a dedicated device, and if I were the family, I wouldn't use it for anything else, and wouldn't allow any changes. I mean, it sucks for the kids who don't have this app yet who need it, but for people who rely on it already, don't just sit there and lament the sword of Damocles dangling over your head, get out from under it.
- myko 14y ago
  They haven't let that happen, but they're worried about future updates, etc. FTA: > At the moment, we still have the app. But we are now shadowed by a huge, impending threat. With the removal of Speak for Yourself from the iTunes store, the SfY team has lost the ability to send out updates or repairs to the people who are currently using the app. At this point, an update from Apple to the iPad's operating system could render SfY useless. Our app could stop working, and Maya would be left unable to speak, and no one would be able to help us.
  - drcube 14y ago
    I know, that's my point. I don't have an iPad, but can't you turn off updates? Can't you turn off networking entirely? If so, how would an update even occur? Don't just sit there in fear of an update, prevent it.
    - Splines 14y ago
      I think the larger issue is that any iPads purchased in the future may not be compatible with this software.
      - drcube 14y ago
        Sure, I'm not saying there isn't an issue here. Apple is in the wrong and so are the litigators in the patent suit. My point is that they shouldn't be in fear of their daughter losing her voice any time soon. Are other kids going to lose by not having this app available in the future? Yes. Are they prevented from getting any software updates to this app? Yes. Will their ipad eventually die? Yes. Should they be afraid of Apple remotely removing their app from their device or updating the OS so that the app no longer works? No, they shouldn't be.
droithomme 14y ago
The app they are running is in fact a near clone of an app sold by a company who personally trained the authors of the clone. The app does use patented technologies. So from a legal standpoint, there is little chance this app and its company will survive the suit. One possibility for successful defense would be software patent law unexpectedly collapsing during litigation due to a surprise ruling by SCOTUS on some other case. This is a long shot. Another possibility would be the defending party countersuing, challenging the validity of the patent and succeeding. This is possible, but expensive to do and will take many years. Even if they succeed overturning the patent, it will still be challenging to prevail overall, given their intimate association with the patent holder and likelihood of existing contracts between them. So what to do in the meantime? Normally what would happen is the plaintiff would seek the judge to issue an injunction against sales pending trial, which would have to prove there is a high likelihood they would prevail in the litigation. This is being skipped because of the App Store situation, where there is a gatekeeper able to remove products from sale for arbitrary or even nonexistent reasons. The existence of these stores, free from competition (they certainly can not go to the Amazon iPad store and download the software there because Amazon isn't allowed access to install iPad apps therefore there is no competition and Apple has a monopoly on running iOS software stores) is a large threat to software and customer freedom. I agree this is a really bad situation, but it is one that Apple customers voluntarily accept when they buy products for this platform, and that developers accept when they develop products for this platform. It's like buying a house with an authoritarian Homeowners Association that is capricious and issues fines for painting your fences the same color as before without paying $2200 to the History, Style and Architecture Review Committee to have a public hearing to review and approve your fence painting plans. It is no secret the system exists or how it works, and persons subjecting them to the whims of others in these situations know what they are getting into and accept the terms. So what to do? Many things are possible. Here are a few. 1. As has been mentioned, disable all updates, turn off wifi, use this iPad only for this app and buy another iPad if you want to update it. 2. Purchase the multi-thousand dollar version on custom hardware published by the plaintiff. (Presumably insurance companies normally pay for this option.) 3. Jailbreak the iPad and convince the program's authors to release a jailbroken compatible version. 4. Convince the publisher to relocate outside the US in a country that does not recognize software patents this encompassing and sell the program on the Android pad platform.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
billpg 14y ago
I wonder what the patent is for? Back in the 80s, I remember playing with some software which had a command-line interface. You could type "*SAY Hello" and "Hello" would come out of the speakers. http://bbc.nvg.org/doc/Speech.html http://bbc.nvg.org/doc/Speech.html
- mbreese 14y ago
  If I remember correctly, it's the organization of the buttons on-screen.
  - mcteapot 14y ago
    do you have a link to any article explaining the patent?
jheriko 14y ago
it is a shame this sort of software is not just free to begin with... i know people making it must make a living, but ideally this sort of thing would be freely available. imo charging for this software is as ethically questionable as blocking access to it - from a certain point of view they are identical actions. its also a shame that the ios platform is the way it is but apple have the right to exercise their freedom.
- rubinelli 14y ago
  No, these actions have nothing in common. The application had a reasonable, one-time fee, that anyone who could afford an iPad could pay, so they were not blocking access to it at all.
  - jheriko 14y ago
    Its a fine argument, but its fundamentally flawed - firstly you assume the person wanting the app actually bought the iPad and can afford one. The concept of a gift invalidates this assumption. Personally I feel this sort of software would be best serving the people who would benefit from it if it was free and multi-platform. Targeting iPad and having a sale price is an obvious money making strategy, and does, absolutely, limit access to it.
carb 14y ago
Am I the only person that sees a huge 999999px tall red block whenever I visit any change.org site? It's like someone added another <body> tag with ridiculous properties.
gdubs 14y ago
My understanding is that the patent is over the design & layout. Essentially though, it's a sampler. Why not release an app that allows you to fill the screen with icons/sounds from a library, and lay them out yourself (as the user)? By default, the layout would be a bunch of blank buttons. But, if the user wanted to, they could reconstruct the original interface on their own...

124 points by dutchbrit 14y ago

ColinWright 14y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103344 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103344

dutchbrit 14y ago
Thanks for adding the link!

praptak 14y ago

Maybe someone is writing a similar app for a less totalitarian platform? I'd gladly support such effort by donating.

dutchbrit 14y ago
I agree 100%, and actually emailed Maya's parents with an idea of creating an Android Tablet App, and donate a Tablet to them to test/keep. Also created a thread looking for likeminded developers here that would want to help develop such an app: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4107019 If anyone is interested in hacking something cool together, send me an email: sam.granger@gmail.com They received a few similar emails, and replied to me today. This part was regarding my idea on creating an Android App: "App design, programming features, and all of the software-related stuff goes right over my head! I appreciate you offering your help---the best people to talk to about tech-related solutions would be the team at Speak for Yourself, who you can reach at this email address: info[@]speakforyourself.org There have been some other similar emails that have come my way, but I've just directed them all over to the SFY team. They would be the best people to ask about whether there are others to assemble." I did send them an email, offering help, but I doubt they'd be interested since "patents" and a possible lawsuit is probably their current main concern. To be honest, I don't think creating an app would be all that hard, and to avoid having to speak in thousands of words (which I'd consider to be the dullest part), you'd be able to generate the word sounds through Google's Text to Speech API. At the end of the day, I hope the App gets accepted back into the store, only time will tell... In the meantime, something open source could be developed in no time.
- roel_v 14y ago
  "I did send them an email, offering help, but I doubt they'd be interested since "patents" and a possible lawsuit is probably their current main concern." There's that, and also the "hey would you help us re-create your product so that we can give it away for free and destroy your business" angle.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  I did find this app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.digitalscribbler.quicktalk&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.digitalscr... Does anyone know how it compares to Speak for Yourself?
ovi256 14y ago
You seem to think a SfY app on a different platform would not be taken down. Apple took the app down after a simple letter from the patent holder. The patent holder could have asked for relief in court, enumerating the infringing apps. IANAL, but that's a common request in patent cases, and usually granted by the court. All app stores would have to comply then, however free (or non-totalitarian), maybe even removing the already installed apps.
- freyrs3 14y ago
  It could be taken off the Android market, but Google doesn't forbid alternative installation modes. It's not foolproof, but at least with Android you own the software and can install it without having to go through a corporate monolith like Google/Apple.
  - nudded 14y ago
    IANAL, but would they still be allowed to distribute their app themselves?
    - praptak 14y ago
      From a country with no software patents? IANAL either but I don't see how this could be stopped, especially in case of an app whose development had been funded via donations and which is distributed free of charge.
      - nudded 14y ago
        Say, they do distribute it this way and are found guilty of patent infringement. Would they then need to pay for each copy downloaded? I have no idea how this works, it would be really helpful if somebody with some knowledge could chime in.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  If it were an Android app, the author could simply put it up for sale on their website.
wtn 14y ago
Yes—it's called American Sign Language, and it's easier to learn than Spanish.
- metageek 14y ago
  And presumably the autistic community knows about ASL, and the children who can learn it, do—it'd be greatly preferable to carrying around a multi-thousand-dollar device. I think we can assume that this child's problems leave her unable to learn ASL.
wkriski 14y ago
I'm willing to work on an open source app - and you can do a lot with HTML5 web-based apps now and they work on any tablet since they all have browsers.

wseymour 14y ago

2689 votes at the time of writing. If everybody donated a dollar instead of a signature, there'd be an app available on another platform by now.

its_so_on 14y ago
if you can create a life-changing app that is worth this much to this many people, and can do it for $2689 all-told, I'd like to get in touch with you.
- wseymour 14y ago
  You can find me on Twitter - @woogoose - let's take it from there!
- VikingCoder 14y ago
  Creating the app is apparently not the challenge. Defending it against patent suits is apparently the challenge.

tintin 14y ago

Maybe a stupid question: but do you need iTunes to install an .ipa file? I've seen some programs that can just install these files on any iDevice without the use of iTunes. And isn't Xcode and an Apple acount enough to sign the app?

spacemanaki 14y ago
Are you talking about distributing ipa files outside of the App Store? As I understand it, you also need $100/year and you're limited to provisioning 100 UDIDs. I don't think this is actually an alternative.
- sp332 14y ago
  The app maker could sell a XCode project. Each end-user would pay Apple's $99 license fee, provision their own devices, and sign the app with their own key.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

seclorum 14y ago

This is an opportunity for someone to write a Speaking app in a platform like MOAI (http://getmoai.com/ http://getmoai.com/), which will put the app on Windows, MacOSX, Linux, iOS and Android platforms, where there will never be a question again about whether it can be yanked from a child in need.

xd 14y ago

Would I be right in understanding; Apple can remove an application, from your devices, you have already paid for? Edit: This comment summed up my feelings on the subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4104485 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4104485

EwanToo 14y ago
They can do this, but I don't believe they've done so yet.
nicholassmith 14y ago
Yes, so can Android, and they can remotely install apps too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/google_remote_android_application_install/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/google_remote_androi...
arnoooooo 14y ago
yes
peterkelly 14y ago
I'm not sure about apps on the app store, but I know Amazon has this capability with kindle books, which they've used in the past: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama... The book in question? 1984.

jeromeparadis 14y ago

Seriously? PRC are selling to people with disabilities a software with a Windows 7 tablet: https://store.prentrom.com/product_info.php/cPath/11/products_id/142 https://store.prentrom.com/product_info.php/cPath/11/product... And check the options... +475$ for an additional 2GB of RAM! Prices for other options are as outrageous. I don't know what price Speak for Yourself was selling for but I'm glad they are making these kind of tools more accessible.

drcube 14y ago

They keep talking about Apple updating the OS, but why in the world would they let that happen? Turn updates off! This is your child's voice, don't put somebody else in control of it! Turn off wireless, mobile data, everything. This should be a dedicated device, and if I were the family, I wouldn't use it for anything else, and wouldn't allow any changes. I mean, it sucks for the kids who don't have this app yet who need it, but for people who rely on it already, don't just sit there and lament the sword of Damocles dangling over your head, get out from under it.

myko 14y ago
They haven't let that happen, but they're worried about future updates, etc. FTA: > At the moment, we still have the app. But we are now shadowed by a huge, impending threat. With the removal of Speak for Yourself from the iTunes store, the SfY team has lost the ability to send out updates or repairs to the people who are currently using the app. At this point, an update from Apple to the iPad's operating system could render SfY useless. Our app could stop working, and Maya would be left unable to speak, and no one would be able to help us.
- drcube 14y ago
  I know, that's my point. I don't have an iPad, but can't you turn off updates? Can't you turn off networking entirely? If so, how would an update even occur? Don't just sit there in fear of an update, prevent it.
  - Splines 14y ago
    I think the larger issue is that any iPads purchased in the future may not be compatible with this software.
    - drcube 14y ago
      Sure, I'm not saying there isn't an issue here. Apple is in the wrong and so are the litigators in the patent suit. My point is that they shouldn't be in fear of their daughter losing her voice any time soon. Are other kids going to lose by not having this app available in the future? Yes. Are they prevented from getting any software updates to this app? Yes. Will their ipad eventually die? Yes. Should they be afraid of Apple remotely removing their app from their device or updating the OS so that the app no longer works? No, they shouldn't be.

droithomme 14y ago

The app they are running is in fact a near clone of an app sold by a company who personally trained the authors of the clone. The app does use patented technologies. So from a legal standpoint, there is little chance this app and its company will survive the suit. One possibility for successful defense would be software patent law unexpectedly collapsing during litigation due to a surprise ruling by SCOTUS on some other case. This is a long shot. Another possibility would be the defending party countersuing, challenging the validity of the patent and succeeding. This is possible, but expensive to do and will take many years. Even if they succeed overturning the patent, it will still be challenging to prevail overall, given their intimate association with the patent holder and likelihood of existing contracts between them. So what to do in the meantime? Normally what would happen is the plaintiff would seek the judge to issue an injunction against sales pending trial, which would have to prove there is a high likelihood they would prevail in the litigation. This is being skipped because of the App Store situation, where there is a gatekeeper able to remove products from sale for arbitrary or even nonexistent reasons. The existence of these stores, free from competition (they certainly can not go to the Amazon iPad store and download the software there because Amazon isn't allowed access to install iPad apps therefore there is no competition and Apple has a monopoly on running iOS software stores) is a large threat to software and customer freedom. I agree this is a really bad situation, but it is one that Apple customers voluntarily accept when they buy products for this platform, and that developers accept when they develop products for this platform. It's like buying a house with an authoritarian Homeowners Association that is capricious and issues fines for painting your fences the same color as before without paying $2200 to the History, Style and Architecture Review Committee to have a public hearing to review and approve your fence painting plans. It is no secret the system exists or how it works, and persons subjecting them to the whims of others in these situations know what they are getting into and accept the terms. So what to do? Many things are possible. Here are a few. 1. As has been mentioned, disable all updates, turn off wifi, use this iPad only for this app and buy another iPad if you want to update it. 2. Purchase the multi-thousand dollar version on custom hardware published by the plaintiff. (Presumably insurance companies normally pay for this option.) 3. Jailbreak the iPad and convince the program's authors to release a jailbroken compatible version. 4. Convince the publisher to relocate outside the US in a country that does not recognize software patents this encompassing and sell the program on the Android pad platform.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

billpg 14y ago

I wonder what the patent is for? Back in the 80s, I remember playing with some software which had a command-line interface. You could type "*SAY Hello" and "Hello" would come out of the speakers. http://bbc.nvg.org/doc/Speech.html http://bbc.nvg.org/doc/Speech.html

mbreese 14y ago
If I remember correctly, it's the organization of the buttons on-screen.
- mcteapot 14y ago
  do you have a link to any article explaining the patent?

jheriko 14y ago

it is a shame this sort of software is not just free to begin with... i know people making it must make a living, but ideally this sort of thing would be freely available. imo charging for this software is as ethically questionable as blocking access to it - from a certain point of view they are identical actions. its also a shame that the ios platform is the way it is but apple have the right to exercise their freedom.

rubinelli 14y ago
No, these actions have nothing in common. The application had a reasonable, one-time fee, that anyone who could afford an iPad could pay, so they were not blocking access to it at all.
- jheriko 14y ago
  Its a fine argument, but its fundamentally flawed - firstly you assume the person wanting the app actually bought the iPad and can afford one. The concept of a gift invalidates this assumption. Personally I feel this sort of software would be best serving the people who would benefit from it if it was free and multi-platform. Targeting iPad and having a sale price is an obvious money making strategy, and does, absolutely, limit access to it.

carb 14y ago

Am I the only person that sees a huge 999999px tall red block whenever I visit any change.org site? It's like someone added another <body> tag with ridiculous properties.

gdubs 14y ago

My understanding is that the patent is over the design & layout. Essentially though, it's a sampler. Why not release an app that allows you to fill the screen with icons/sounds from a library, and lay them out yourself (as the user)? By default, the layout would be a bunch of blank buttons. But, if the user wanted to, they could reconstruct the original interface on their own...