Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

I haven't been in the market for a WiFi router for a long time so I thought all the consumer stuff still used a web server for config. Enterprise stuff is either the same or has a serial port. In any case, it doesn't make sense to require a separate app that they also have to spend resources maintaining when their users will already have a browser they can use, so I suspect the only reason is the app collects usage information that they can sell...

On the bright side, maybe someone can get Claude or some other LLM to figure out how to crack it; and perhaps even vibe-code an alternative app.

View on HN

> On the bright side, maybe someone can get Claude or some other LLM to figure out how to crack it; and perhaps even vibe-code an alternative app.

LLMs are great for this, though the more people use it for blackhat style things, the more I fear they will lockdown LLMs which are useful for reversing things that are legacy as heck and abandonware.

I listened to an interview with the guy who nearly cured his dog's cancer with ai and he expressed concern multiple times that going public with the story would cause the labs to cut off the ability.

Nearly?

It greatly shrank some of the tumors but not all.

For reference for other readers, here's the primary source: https://x.com/paul_conyngham/status/2036940410363535823

Also, thanks for mentioning! I wasn't aware of this

What is it with the AI bros that seemingly can’t write two pages without their precious LLM doing it for them. It could be a genuinely cool story, but I’m just put off by the LLMism everywhere

Tbf in this case it might also just be that the guy talked _extensively_ over years with those LLMs, shaping language.

At least nothing tipped me off for that specific text. What did you see?

Wow, that is one of the best use cases for AI I've seen. I wonder what the cost of all that was.

Thanks for this. Absolutely incredible read.

I'm really hoping these new tools will empower a new generation of people. It's sad that there even needs to be a term 'citizen scientist'.

I've been doing some light reverse engineering with Chinese models on Opencode and have found they are already far less reluctant. Just don't ask about Taiwan..

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.)

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...

You're obviously one of those computer people.

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.

> Your claim people prefer apps to QR codes

I claimed what?

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.

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

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".

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.)

A real router has no radio. It has no SSID. It routes traffic. It applies a set of ACLs to determine if traffic should be forwarded. That’s it. No switching. No WiFi. Just routing. If routes traffic on the wire.

Yes. In the purest technical sense, a router routes.

A Cisco 2501 is a router.

But words can mean more than one thing. Both in the common vernacular and in the context of these Motorola-branded devices: A router is a thing that routes, and also includes radios, and SSIDs, and switching.

I've had more QR codes direct me to my device's app store than I have to a web site lately.

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

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

What is this FUD?

> 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?

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.

> 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?

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

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com