[ssl-3]

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 dedicated app can have lower friction for initial setup for the "I'm not a computer person" crowd than other alternatives do.

(I know, I know. It's terrible. It even feels something like betrayal sometimes. But that's how it be, anyway -- and you and I are powerless to do anything about it.)

[userbinator]

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...

[jonathanlydall]

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]

You're obviously one of those computer people.

[zmgsabst]

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]

> Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes

I claimed what?

[zmgsabst]

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]

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

[jeffbee]

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

[zmgsabst]

There is no way in which opening external control is more secure than local-only control.

What is this FUD?

[jeffbee]

I would say the list of ways that cloud relays are superior to local interfaces is pretty long. I don't want a router that will ever accept a connection of any kind, under any circumstances. I definitely do not want a router with a web app and authorization/authentication data that can be tampered with by drive-by attacks in my web browser.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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]

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]

> 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?

[userbinator]

I think the comment you're replying to is missing a /s

[zrm]

> 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]

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]

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]

> 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]

> 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?

[ssl-3]

I meant precisely what I wrote, and not a single word more nor less.

> implied

Any implied meanings are your own creations, not mine.

I assure you that if I had meant something different than what I wrote, then I would have written something different instead.

I'm not shy.

Be well.

[somat]

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]

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]

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.