Originally Posted by KevinVelo (Post 23658755)

I currently own a pair of Farina branded headlights. Great lights on there own, however, they originally had the ability to connect to an app to provide additional features. Sadly, the company or app is no more.

Originally Posted by KevinVelo (Post 23658755)

Has anyone found a secondary app that allows communication with these lights?

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659257)

Some want to control brightness, flashing or not flashing. The flash pattern. Turn signaling and much more.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659176)

If they made Ant+ compatible lights, then they'll probably be operable by any Garmin Edge or other brand of GPS/cyclometer that uses the Ant+ standard.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659176)

I didn't find any Farina lights that boasted Ant+ capability of the very few I found. If they published the API's needed to code for them, then maybe someone has written something. Or they could.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659257)

Some want to control brightness, flashing or not flashing. The flash pattern. Turn signaling and much more.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659257)

Some want to control brightness, flashing or not flashing. The flash pattern. Turn signaling and much more.

Originally Posted by phughes (Post 23659296)

I can control brightness on my Piko 3 with a button. An app would be more work and unnecessary.

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 23659280)

It makes some sense to not require having to buy a Garmin (or similar) unit.

But, in hindsight, that would have been better than how things ended up.

Originally Posted by I Like To Ride (Post 23659293)

Majority of lights don't need an app to control those functions. This is the first time I heard of a light that can't be used without an app.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659343)

I don't think any requirement to buy Garmin was stated or implied. Though Garmin does have the Ant+ standard that is well defined. And it allows for the monitoring and control of many things we use as cyclist or other sporting activities.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659343)

And if things haven't changed since I last ever looked at the Ant+ programming toolkit, it's free for those that are only writing their own apps and sharing them on a non-commercial level.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659343)

No big motivation. But some do provide it. And sometimes you have to dig for it. I'm surprised at the ones that do.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659343)

Not really for someone that is use to programming. If it's for oneself, then it doesn't have to be pretty or coded to prevent crashes from the foolish things users do. But it's definitely something the average person wouldn't be doing. Most that could would probably just get a new light from a current manufacturer. It's certainly cheaper nothing one would do for monetary gain.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard (Post 23659666)

My Christ, an app for a damn bicycle light.

Originally Posted by rsbob (Post 23659689)

Next you will need a app to flush the toilet

Originally Posted by indyfabz (Post 23659696)

That’s when I stop flushing. :D

Originally Posted by njkayaker (Post 23659643)

???

You definitely are not following some basic stuff.

We aren’t talking about supporting ANT+. We are talking about supporting a little-used protocol created by a defunct company with (I guess) not many users.

ANT+ is a good standard.

But you need some sort of head unit to use it. (There are/were a few phones that support it but it’s not common.)

The Farina lights used the phone you already owned (no extra head unit was required).

While “fancy” lights don’t (shouldn’t!) need a phone/head-unit to work, the OP wants to be able to use his phone.


???

The issue is that whatever the hell the Farina lights are using, it isn’t ANT+.

ANT+ is a reasonable standard for programmers.

But users still need a head unit that supports it (they won’t generally be able to use the phone they already have).


So what? In this case, they haven’t published the API. It’s very unlikely they are going to.


You don’t program. I do. I’ve written Garnin IQ apps. It’s a lot of work.

It appears supporting the Farina lights would be a waste of time.

For personal use, it would be much cheaper (in terms of time) to chuck them and buy new lights (and, maybe, program for ANT+). For supporting other users, there probably aren’t that many users and, since the company no longer exists, it’s a dead end.

Originally Posted by Darth Lefty (Post 23659309)

We are entering a weird era where it's going to be cheaper and easier to put a wireless chip inside the light, than a physical switch that's exposed to the elements and wears out. Better get used to it

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659865)

You seem to mix up the times I'm talking in generalities and not specifically the Farina unit. Or Garmin. Or Ant+.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659865)

Though it depends on the API set being available. C# probably wouldn't be too difficult porting something to a phone app. Writing a program that I'd give to anyone else to use is quite a different thing. And is somewhat difficult.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659865)

I agree. I only suggested it as a flippant comment along with the rest. Not that it was "the" solution.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23659865)

But then you came in and got pedantic about it.

Originally Posted by Darth Lefty (Post 23659309)

We are entering a weird era where it's going to be cheaper and easier to put a wireless chip inside the light, than a physical switch that's exposed to the elements and wears out. Better get used to it

Originally Posted by noglider (Post 23660044)

My spouse bought a Tesla car 2-1/2 years ago, and many of the car's functions are accessed from the big touch screen. It's so stupid, and I think it's dangerous and should be illegal. You can use your vision -- even your peripheral vision -- to locate a knob or button, and you can push it or turn it without looking. To use onscreen controls, you need to watch your finger, as there is no tactile feedback. I believe Tesla is not the only maker going this way. They save money this way. They might claim higher reliability because knobs and switches wear out. There is more versatility because an area of the screen is used for different functions at different times. But for a car, this is terrible in my view.

Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN (Post 23660120)

I read sometime back that several car makers were re-thinking their use of digital and switching back to buttons and analog gauges instead of touch screens for the exact reasons you cited.

But I really hate it when a gauge is a fake gauge. My 2003 Land Rover D2 had a temp gauge with an actual needle that moved. But, the needle stayed on low until the engine temp rose to about 145 (F), then the needle would move up to the middle position where it stayed. You would think that it would actually show a rough estimate of the temperature, but no, the physical needle had three positions, L M and H. (Fortunately, I never saw the hot position on the gauge, I just assume there was one.)