5 ms·

I detest this trend of needing an app for every piece of hardware. Just put the damn interface on the hardware. You are after all selling the hardware, not the

by dheera 2y ago

I detest this trend of needing an app for every piece of hardware. Just put the damn interface on the hardware. You are after all selling the hardware, not the app.

jagged-chisel 2y ago
They are not selling the hardware. They are taking your money in exchange for the privilege of utilizing the hardware they created to use a service they built so their customers can obtain data about your usage of the device and whatever it connects to. I fear that small companies without VC are the only ones interested in making a thing they sell that doesn’t require some ongoing commitment from buyers. And those companies run the risk of folding overnight. It’s fine for the customers since their hardware continues to function, but it’s not an attractive business model.
- consp 2y ago
  > but it’s not an attractive business model It's been the business model for over 100+ years with bikes. It's not an attractive VC buisness models as it cannot needlessly extract wealth beyond the product sale. It is double dipping as you fully pay for the bike, and people fall for it somehow.
  - charcircuit 2y ago
    The electronic computer didn't exist 100+ years ago. You can't ignore the exponentially growth of technology that has happened and pretend that the market dynamics are the same that they were such a long time ago.
    - JadeNB 2y ago
      > The electronic computer didn't exist 100+ years ago. You can't ignore the exponentially growth of technology that has happened and pretend that the market dynamics are the same that they were such a long time ago. One can't argue that manufacturers won't try to get away with this stuff, because they will, but one can argue that it's parasitic rent-seeking, which it is. Certainly, there are new classes of device that can be made by leveraging new technology in previously impossible ways, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about classes of hardware that functioned perfectly well 100+ years ago (for a bike), or for other cases discussed in this thread less long ago but before the internet age, that are being artificially hobbled to allow additional revenue extraction.
- pyfon 2y ago
  Do a Dell. Sell the laptop. Sell support. This is a win win for customer and business.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  > so their customers can obtain data about your usage I can't prove it, but I suspect selling data is a very minor consideration in the appification of everything. Aside from there actually being people who like that kind of thing (and them apparently being more common than people who like physical forms of self-flagellation), the main benefit of appifying everything is the opportunity to sell you "value-add services", aka sell you a subscription for the hardware you already bought.
  - myself248 2y ago
    I've been in the room when the decision was made to app-ify things. The revenue stream is 100% of the point.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
      The data revenue stream or the subscription revenue stream? How much revenue can you get from knowing when someone was doing their laundry?
      - myself248 2y ago
        Both, plus the captive advertising revenue stream. If you can push ads during the laundry app, or do tie-ins where a given detergent enables some bullshit feature...
        myself248 2y ago
        Replying to myself here. I just found myself shopping for a washer and dryer, and indeed, ran across one that takes manufacturer-branded detergent cartridges and offers to order more, right in the app, when they run low. It can use third-party detergent by manually adding it at the start of the cycle, but adding some _during_ the cycle (which ultimately uses less) is only supported if using their cartridge. I wish I was making this up.
observationist 2y ago
VCs mandate that every possible avenue of rent seeking be exploited in order to maximize the amount and frequency of transactions. You're not getting hardware funded; the VC will steal your idea and pawn it off on some other party capable of exploiting the potential for your product as a service. Because if you don't, someone else will, and they'll have more money to outcompete your product, because enshittification is how FAANG got to be trillion dollar companies. A person existing is sufficient to make these people assume they are entitled to something for it.
- kennywinker 2y ago
  The phrase rent-seeking is such a funny one to me. Like, if rent-seeking is bad that should apply across the board. I.e. being a landlord, literally seeking rent from tenants. Yet I fear the issue most people on here have with “rent seeking” is the harm it does to a theoretical idea of free market capitalism - rather than the tangible harm of extracting wealth from someone’s need for a place to live.
  - teemur 2y ago
    Rent-seeking is a pretty well-known term that has not much to do with rents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
    - kennywinker 2y ago
      “Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth” So, renting out a home. Just the manipulation of social and political environment has already been done. Rent sought, not rent seeking. Rent as in rent paid to live in a home fits the definition of “economic rent” perfectly. Because housing rent is an example of economic rent. The cognitive dissonance i am pointing out is that seeking economic rent is bad, but using already created structures to obtain economic rent is… not bad somehow?
      - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AlienRobot 2y ago
But how do we know people use the light on the bike if the bike isn't IoT? Bikes need Google Analytics.

by dheera 2y ago

I detest this trend of needing an app for every piece of hardware. Just put the damn interface on the hardware. You are after all selling the hardware, not the app.

jagged-chisel 2y ago

They are not selling the hardware. They are taking your money in exchange for the privilege of utilizing the hardware they created to use a service they built so their customers can obtain data about your usage of the device and whatever it connects to. I fear that small companies without VC are the only ones interested in making a thing they sell that doesn’t require some ongoing commitment from buyers. And those companies run the risk of folding overnight. It’s fine for the customers since their hardware continues to function, but it’s not an attractive business model.

consp 2y ago
> but it’s not an attractive business model It's been the business model for over 100+ years with bikes. It's not an attractive VC buisness models as it cannot needlessly extract wealth beyond the product sale. It is double dipping as you fully pay for the bike, and people fall for it somehow.
- charcircuit 2y ago
  The electronic computer didn't exist 100+ years ago. You can't ignore the exponentially growth of technology that has happened and pretend that the market dynamics are the same that they were such a long time ago.
  - JadeNB 2y ago
    > The electronic computer didn't exist 100+ years ago. You can't ignore the exponentially growth of technology that has happened and pretend that the market dynamics are the same that they were such a long time ago. One can't argue that manufacturers won't try to get away with this stuff, because they will, but one can argue that it's parasitic rent-seeking, which it is. Certainly, there are new classes of device that can be made by leveraging new technology in previously impossible ways, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about classes of hardware that functioned perfectly well 100+ years ago (for a bike), or for other cases discussed in this thread less long ago but before the internet age, that are being artificially hobbled to allow additional revenue extraction.
pyfon 2y ago
Do a Dell. Sell the laptop. Sell support. This is a win win for customer and business.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
> so their customers can obtain data about your usage I can't prove it, but I suspect selling data is a very minor consideration in the appification of everything. Aside from there actually being people who like that kind of thing (and them apparently being more common than people who like physical forms of self-flagellation), the main benefit of appifying everything is the opportunity to sell you "value-add services", aka sell you a subscription for the hardware you already bought.
- myself248 2y ago
  I've been in the room when the decision was made to app-ify things. The revenue stream is 100% of the point.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
    The data revenue stream or the subscription revenue stream? How much revenue can you get from knowing when someone was doing their laundry?
    - myself248 2y ago
      Both, plus the captive advertising revenue stream. If you can push ads during the laundry app, or do tie-ins where a given detergent enables some bullshit feature...
      - myself248 2y ago
        Replying to myself here. I just found myself shopping for a washer and dryer, and indeed, ran across one that takes manufacturer-branded detergent cartridges and offers to order more, right in the app, when they run low. It can use third-party detergent by manually adding it at the start of the cycle, but adding some _during_ the cycle (which ultimately uses less) is only supported if using their cartridge. I wish I was making this up.

observationist 2y ago

VCs mandate that every possible avenue of rent seeking be exploited in order to maximize the amount and frequency of transactions. You're not getting hardware funded; the VC will steal your idea and pawn it off on some other party capable of exploiting the potential for your product as a service. Because if you don't, someone else will, and they'll have more money to outcompete your product, because enshittification is how FAANG got to be trillion dollar companies. A person existing is sufficient to make these people assume they are entitled to something for it.

kennywinker 2y ago
The phrase rent-seeking is such a funny one to me. Like, if rent-seeking is bad that should apply across the board. I.e. being a landlord, literally seeking rent from tenants. Yet I fear the issue most people on here have with “rent seeking” is the harm it does to a theoretical idea of free market capitalism - rather than the tangible harm of extracting wealth from someone’s need for a place to live.
- teemur 2y ago
  Rent-seeking is a pretty well-known term that has not much to do with rents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
  - kennywinker 2y ago
    “Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth” So, renting out a home. Just the manipulation of social and political environment has already been done. Rent sought, not rent seeking. Rent as in rent paid to live in a home fits the definition of “economic rent” perfectly. Because housing rent is an example of economic rent. The cognitive dissonance i am pointing out is that seeking economic rent is bad, but using already created structures to obtain economic rent is… not bad somehow?
    - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

AlienRobot 2y ago

But how do we know people use the light on the bike if the bike isn't IoT? Bikes need Google Analytics.