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 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're obviously one of those computer people.

▲

zmgsabst 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes

I claimed what?

	▲	zmgsabst 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

jeffbee 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

zmgsabst 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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

What is this FUD?

	▲	JumpCrisscross 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 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?
	▲	userbinator 24 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think the comment you're replying to is missing a /s

▲

zrm 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

somat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.