4 ms·

This pattern is pervasive. I also dislike needing an app and an internet connection for the most basic functionality with some purchased device. At some point,

This pattern is pervasive. I also dislike needing an app and an internet connection for the most basic functionality with some purchased device. At some point, we need to own the things we buy and that line keeps getting pushed back further and further. Anec-data: I purchased a cooking device for my parents in December and it has a single button to turn it off. The only way to use it is with an app which requires a login to the company's service. The device even has local bluetooth capabilities. You may be wondering, "What is this device supposed to do?" and the obvious answer is: "It's supposed to boil water." The real answer seems to be, "it collects usage data about customers boiling water."

javajosh 5y ago
Not interesting data. The real reason is that it's easier to connect things through a central service. I sometimes email myself for the same reason.
- ectopod 5y ago
  This is true for things that are connected to the network anyway. It is not true for unconnected devices controlled by Bluetooth. The gratuitous app login is straightforwardly malign.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    Speaking from personal experience, I am far more comfortable with a web interface than a BT interface. If I were hired to write code for an IoT kitchen thing I'd probably implement a web thing, rather than a BT thing. That would not be malicious on my part, just laziness (if you're being unkind), or pragmatism (if you're being kind).
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Why did you buy that?
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  I have a similar device and was recommended the newer and upgraded version from someone I know. Given time pressure and other priorities at the time, I took the recommendation without much further investigation.
vorpalhex 5y ago
I'm assuming you are talking about a sous vide device. This is one of the few (unrooted) smart devices I actually appreciate. You can easily configure it for a specific task (steak? chicken? brussels?), get push notifications when it's done and even turn off it's warm setting remotely if needed. And given that most of the thing is immersed in boiling hot water, it makes sense to not put controls on the device itself.
- newaccount74 5y ago
  And in two or three years, when that cloud service inevitably shuts down, you'll be stuck with a pot that doesn't heat water.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    The app doesn't need the cloud for bluetooth usage or basic wifi usage (though "out of your house" usage likely uses their relay service). You would no longer get "recipe of the week" stuff, but that is a small loss. The real danger is that eventually the app goes away due to not being maintained. Hopefully they release the API spec before then, but my specific device has already been reverse engineered at least.
    - yencabulator 5y ago
      The app will eventually stop working because of incompatible updates to the phone OS.
      - phatfish 5y ago
        Yup, "smart" devices will require an accompanying phone of a similar age with the app already installed in case it was removed from the App/Play store -- if you want to keep using it much after 5 years.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago
        Yeah, that is the danger I tried to allude to in my second paragraph. I hope we do see phone/OS/store ecosystems that focus on longterm stability of features and UI. Keep devices repairable by end users, supply parts for the whole of the phone's lifespan. Fair phone is trying to do this for phone hardware, and Framework is doing similar for laptops. We still need OS and store ecosystems.
Nextgrid 5y ago
This is true for most consumer tech (whether software or hardware) nowadays. The primary objective is to get "engagement" out of it. Any useful work the product might be doing is the bare minimum needed to convince the user to "engage" with the product.
foxfluff 5y ago
> I also dislike needing an app and an internet connection for the most basic functionality with some purchased device. Yeah, my watch supports setting (and syncing) the time and timezones using bluetooth. But before you can do that, you must agree to the maker's ridiculous privacy policy which includes consenting to sending them all kinds of data that has fuck all to do with setting the time on a watch. Immediately uninstalled. So that feature is dead weight to me unless/until someone reverse engineers the watch.

javajosh 5y ago

Not interesting data. The real reason is that it's easier to connect things through a central service. I sometimes email myself for the same reason.

ectopod 5y ago
This is true for things that are connected to the network anyway. It is not true for unconnected devices controlled by Bluetooth. The gratuitous app login is straightforwardly malign.
- javajosh 5y ago
  Speaking from personal experience, I am far more comfortable with a web interface than a BT interface. If I were hired to write code for an IoT kitchen thing I'd probably implement a web thing, rather than a BT thing. That would not be malicious on my part, just laziness (if you're being unkind), or pragmatism (if you're being kind).

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Why did you buy that?

imoverclocked 5y ago
I have a similar device and was recommended the newer and upgraded version from someone I know. Given time pressure and other priorities at the time, I took the recommendation without much further investigation.

vorpalhex 5y ago

I'm assuming you are talking about a sous vide device. This is one of the few (unrooted) smart devices I actually appreciate. You can easily configure it for a specific task (steak? chicken? brussels?), get push notifications when it's done and even turn off it's warm setting remotely if needed. And given that most of the thing is immersed in boiling hot water, it makes sense to not put controls on the device itself.

newaccount74 5y ago
And in two or three years, when that cloud service inevitably shuts down, you'll be stuck with a pot that doesn't heat water.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  The app doesn't need the cloud for bluetooth usage or basic wifi usage (though "out of your house" usage likely uses their relay service). You would no longer get "recipe of the week" stuff, but that is a small loss. The real danger is that eventually the app goes away due to not being maintained. Hopefully they release the API spec before then, but my specific device has already been reverse engineered at least.
  - yencabulator 5y ago
    The app will eventually stop working because of incompatible updates to the phone OS.
    - phatfish 5y ago
      Yup, "smart" devices will require an accompanying phone of a similar age with the app already installed in case it was removed from the App/Play store -- if you want to keep using it much after 5 years.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      Yeah, that is the danger I tried to allude to in my second paragraph. I hope we do see phone/OS/store ecosystems that focus on longterm stability of features and UI. Keep devices repairable by end users, supply parts for the whole of the phone's lifespan. Fair phone is trying to do this for phone hardware, and Framework is doing similar for laptops. We still need OS and store ecosystems.

Nextgrid 5y ago

This is true for most consumer tech (whether software or hardware) nowadays. The primary objective is to get "engagement" out of it. Any useful work the product might be doing is the bare minimum needed to convince the user to "engage" with the product.

foxfluff 5y ago

> I also dislike needing an app and an internet connection for the most basic functionality with some purchased device. Yeah, my watch supports setting (and syncing) the time and timezones using bluetooth. But before you can do that, you must agree to the maker's ridiculous privacy policy which includes consenting to sending them all kinds of data that has fuck all to do with setting the time on a watch. Immediately uninstalled. So that feature is dead weight to me unless/until someone reverse engineers the watch.