[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

[punchmesan]

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".

[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?

[ssl-3]

It depends on whether you or not you like the cut of their jib.

[userbinator]

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