4 ms·

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

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 4mo ago
You're obviously one of those computer people.
- zmgsabst 4mo 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 4mo ago
    > Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes I claimed what?
    - zmgsabst 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
Cloud command and control is obviously a better user experience, and it is much more secure.
- zmgsabst 4mo ago
  There is no way in which opening external control is more secure than local-only control. What is this FUD?
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
        It depends on whether you or not you like the cut of their jib.
  - userbinator 4mo ago
    I think the comment you're replying to is missing a /s
jonathanlydall 4mo 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.

ssl-3 4mo ago

You're obviously one of those computer people.

zmgsabst 4mo 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 4mo ago
  > Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes I claimed what?
  - zmgsabst 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago

Cloud command and control is obviously a better user experience, and it is much more secure.

zmgsabst 4mo ago
There is no way in which opening external control is more secure than local-only control. What is this FUD?
- JumpCrisscross 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
        It depends on whether you or not you like the cut of their jib.
- userbinator 4mo ago
  I think the comment you're replying to is missing a /s

jonathanlydall 4mo 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.