Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pavel_lishin 2426 days ago
I'd be fine with a clock that has a wifi chip, provided I didn't need to install a fucking app on my phone to change the goddamned alarm.
2 comments

Agreed. My phone already has an alarm clock app that sounds an alarm through the phone speaker. If someone tries to sell me a separate alarm clock hardware device that requires a smartphone app to accomplish basic functionality that is already available on the phone itself, I am liable to become very hostile and recount unflattering anecdotes about the salesperson's mother.

It's a GDMF clock. We already have well-established user interface paradigms for clock-setting that require only two binary input buttons, in devices that cost less than $0.05 to manufacture.

The use case for a network-connected clock is to never have to set the time manually, or update it for daylight savings. That is a feature you add to a clock that is already completely functional without a network. You can add a wifi password with just two buttons and a 16-segment LCD, if you are patient enough.

"You can add a wifi password with just two buttons"

Reminds me that I bought a printer with wifi, which I didn't really want, but it didn't come with a cable, so then I found out you had to enter passwords by hitting an up or down button to scroll through all possible characters.

Eventually I found a USB cable that worked with it.

> I'd be fine with a clock that has a wifi chip, provided I didn't need to install a fucking app on my phone to change the goddamned alarm.

It's worse than that. You have to create an account. I facepalmed reading that. I hate companies that create such garbage.