5 ms·

Regular consumers increasingly use apps to do stuff instead of web browsers. They seem to prefer it this way. And at least for connected devices at home, a de

• userbinator 5mo ago
  They seem to prefer it this way. Strong doubt. What's lower friction, "visit this address in your browser and login to start configuring" vs. "go download this app, open it, possibly log in and register an account, add 'your' device, and only then start to configure it"? Let's also not forget the possible chicken-and-egg situation of needing the Internet to download an app to setup your new router to access the Internet...
  • ssl-3 5mo ago
    You're obviously one of those computer people.
    • zmgsabst 5mo ago
      No — regular people use QR codes all the time. Point your phone at the QR sticker on the router, click open, boom you’re on the config page! That’s a faster experience, doesn’t require any searching, doesn’t require wondering if you downloaded the right app, doesn’t require you sign up, etc. Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes is highly doubtful.
      • ssl-3 5mo ago
        > Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes I claimed what?
        • zmgsabst 5mo ago
          You claimed they don’t like browser based flows — of which QR codes are the common low friction, smartphone friendly implementation/entrypoint. Ie, what normal people use regularly every day.
          • Natfan 5mo ago
            because apps can't use their own protocol:// and use QR codes within their native apps? sorry but this comment doesn't seem to make sense
            • punchmesan 5mo ago
              The point he's making is that a QR-based flow that doesn't require downloading and installing an app, and instead uses the already-installed web browser, is even lower friction and can be used by ordinary folks just as well, if not better, thanks to having fewer friction points. Requiring an installed proprietary app to manage a physical device that would otherwise be manageable via a web interface is not a net improvement to the usability or accessibility of the product. Especially if it's something you set and forget, "normies" are not going to go back to that app for a very long time and likely will forget about it. Hard requiring app setup for a router is a play to sell usage and location data, it is not looking out for those that aren't "computer people".
              • ssl-3 5mo ago
                On one hand: A thing that requires an app for setup does not necessarily require a login to some new party's outside service; it often gets shaped that way, but it does not need to be that way. On the other hand: A thing that requires a web browser for setup does not necessarily allow strictly-local configuration; it often gets shaped that way, but it does not have to be that way. There's no rule or law that says that these things have to be one way or another. It's a moot distinction. > Hard requiring app setup for a router is a play to sell usage and location data, Speaking of moot points: It's a router. And by "router," I mean: It's a whole-ass black-box computer with some Ethernet ports, a collection of radios, and an Internet connection. If/when companies decide to be in the business of selling usage and location data, they don't need an app to do that. They can just package it up and send it forth. (Location? From wifi? Yeah, that's been a solved problem for a long time now. It was first demonstrated to me in 2008 with the OG iPod Touch, which lacked both GPS and Bluetooth, but did an amazingly-good job of delivering the beholder's location using a combination of observed wifi signals and a central database.) --- Moving on: I guess we can talk about things like web browsers, IP addresses, QR codes, and SSIDs, and setting up routers using our pocket supercomputers. Old way: Fire up router, manually connect to its SSID (it used to be wide-open; these days, there's usually a password printed on a label instead), set it up with a browser, and then at the right points manually connect to the newly-configured SSID instead, and [optionally] manually go to the new address (if chosen) to continue configuration (if necessary). Manually remove the old factory SSID for cleanliness. (I cut my teeth on this method and I like it just fine, but I'm one of those computer people.) QR+browser way: Fire up router. Connect to its SSID with a QR code. Connect to its web interface by scanning another QR code. Configure the thing. Connect to the new SSID manually (or perhaps invent a workflow to scan and use a QR code using only 1 pocket supercomputer). Optionally continue configuration by remembering the name/IP of the device, or maybe printing a QR code or something. Manually remove the old factory SSID for cleanliness. (Login to third-party server at some stage? Yeah, maybe. See above.) App way: Fire up router. Download app using familiar processes (perhaps including a QR code). App temporarily connects to router's default SSID. User uses app to configure router. At the right times, the app automatically disconnects from the old SSID, adds the new SSID to the network list, and reconnects using the new address (if selected). Optionally, continue configuring the device using the app. (Login to third party server at some point? Yeah, maybe. Again, see above.)
  • jeffbee 5mo ago
    Cloud command and control is obviously a better user experience, and it is much more secure.
    • zmgsabst 5mo ago
      There is no way in which opening external control is more secure than local-only control. What is this FUD?
      • JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > What is this FUD? For whatever it's worth, I associate the term FUD with crypto bros. Both of you simply stated an assertion at fact and then flipped out when someone deigned to defy that. Maybe argue your points properly?
        • SturgeonsLaw 5mo ago
          FUD existed before them. So did the word crypto, as a matter of fact. That's two things they ruined. While we're at it, I think them claiming the term Web 3.0 is very self-aggrandizing.
          • JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
            > FUD existed before them. So did the word crypto, as a matter of fact Yup. But as a broad signal, is the person getting uppity about FUD usually making a valid point or safe to ignore?
            • ssl-3 5mo ago
              It depends on whether you or not you like the cut of their jib.
      • userbinator 5mo ago
        I think the comment you're replying to is missing a /s
  • jonathanlydall 5mo ago
    I’d never defend the lack of web based configuration, but there is an argument to be made that if the app uses Bluetooth to communicate with a router (though I don’t know if that’s true in this case), it is inarguably easier to configure for the average person who is intimidated by having to work with an IP address in any way.
• zrm 5mo ago
  > And at least for connected devices at home, a dedicated app can have lower friction for initial setup for the "I'm not a computer person" crowd than other alternatives do. For a router? This is the device that you will often not have internet access with which to download an app until after it's configured. Many people have wired internet specifically because they live somewhere with poor cellular reception. Meanwhile the device can give out DHCP and use the standard captive portal mechanisms to automatically direct any client device to its configuration page.
  • ssl-3 5mo ago
    Yep. For a router. I didn't say that I thought it was right, or fair, or just. I didn't say I liked it, or that I agree with it. In fact, I think it's a pretty ugly state of affairs when a person in an area of poor connectivity needs to climb the hill/go into town/otherwise make plans before they can get their shiny new router to work. I can accept that things are the way they are, or I can pretend that they're different. Acceptance seems to be a lot more honest.
    • zrm 5mo ago
      You made the claim that companies require apps because it has lower friction for ordinary users. That claim is in error. The implication that there is nothing anyone can do to improve the existing state of affairs is also incorrect.
      • ssl-3 5mo ago
        > You made the claim that companies require apps because it has lower friction for ordinary users. I did not. > That claim is in error. My motivation to further discuss a hallucination is insignificant.
        • zrm 5mo ago
          > I did not. This is the exact quote: > And at least for connected devices at home, a dedicated app can have lower friction for initial setup for the "I'm not a computer person" crowd than other alternatives do. What good does it do you to dispute that you implied it as a justification for the status quo when your error is contained in the part you're not disputing?
• somat 5mo ago
  If only the app could be stored on the router. Unfortunately the only tech stack that can do this is the web, (serial/remote shell comes close). In fact I regard this as the major failure of the app method of program deliverance. Why do you need to install them at all? It should be like the web, hit an address load the app. It is why I am thankful that the web was not developed as a commercial project. No for-profit entity would have let it escape their control like that. It would have been designed exactly like the app system for phones is. enforced central blessed "app-stores" and manual install processes.
• post_below 5mo ago
  I'm not sure they prefer it. I think tech companies have been pushing apps as the default solution for a long time and people accept it because they just want to do whatever thing is locked behind the app. If the default was something else I suspect people would accept that too, especially if it was lower friction. I'd say typing a few characters into an address bar (or scanning a QR code) is, at the least, not higher friction than downloading an app and creating an account.
• Tanoc 5mo ago
  They don't "prefer" anything. They just take what's given to them because they don't know that there are other methods. Companies purposely keep them uninformed to reduce hassle when dealing with customers and to make them more likely to follow the route that the company prefers.