A new way of parental control
-
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
I simply don't agree. It can be rather difficult depending on what you are doing and it can add complications that won't match their intended market. It's not always the simple thing that you imply. How would you tell the end user what IP address to use, for example?
If they did what you describe, we'd be having the exact same conversation about how ridiculous it was to use a web interface for end users who have no idea what an IP address is.
-
Be nice boys....
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The product is a very limited device, currently designed to only be managed from an Apple device makes it worthless to me. We don't own or like apple products in our house.
Something that is currently locked into a single manufacture platform makes it useless to me.
It only works, when you're attempting to manage it from an apple device.
I won't be posting to this topic any more.. starting to get a bit upset.
@DustinB3403 i was responding to what you clearly posted. You are the one using term like worthless and useless while stating you do not like Apple products.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
I simply don't agree. It can be rather difficult depending on what you are doing and it can add complications that won't match their intended market. It's not always the simple thing that you imply. How would you tell the end user what IP address to use, for example?
If they did what you describe, we'd be having the exact same conversation about how ridiculous it was to use a web interface for end users who have no idea what an IP address is.
The app works on some type of interface, correct? Why not include this interface on the web as well. Some users are technical enough to figure out. Maybe some aren't, but that at least increases your market until you get the android app out.
-
@IRJ said:
The app works on some type of interface, correct? Why not include this interface on the web as well. Some users are technical enough to figure out. Maybe some aren't, but that at least increases your market until you get the android app out.
That makes perfect sense... assuming a few things..
- That development costs nothing.
- That the hardware is powerful enough that this isn't a problem.
- That securing the device is simple and/or free.
- That any useful portion of the market would buy this because of this feature greater in value than the cost of developing and supporting it which is incredibly unlikely.
- That this is more important that a similar interface on Android.
-
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
-
Also, this is Disney, who have earned a strong reputation of decades of being epically behind other companies in technology. This is a company that has long struggled with internal IT dramatically. Something like a working web interface might actually be difficult for them to make or understand.
-
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
Less than half? The iPhone only has 15% of the market, but it has something like 90% of the online mobile sales on Black Friday.
I'm glad to hear they are coming out with support for Android (though they should be making a Windows desktop client as well). But frankly they looked at their desired market and realized that they would cover WAY over 50% of them with apple support.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
-
I have found on my website which receives 90% mobile traffic. That only about 20-30% of the devices are apple devices. The market is shifting towards android very fast. $50-100 devices are readily available for android. I would assume many parents would rather buy a $50-100 device than a $500 apple device. It's not like young kids don't understand technology these days.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Now, this is very true. And if that is all that the app does, then you would be right that there is no excuse.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Now, this is very true. And if that is all that the app does, then you would be right that there is no excuse.
Of course the app would need to scan the network for the device before connecting so it would automatically find the IP, but this seems easy enough to implement
-
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
Less than half? The iPhone only has 15% of the market, but it has something like 90% of the online mobile sales on Black Friday.
I'm glad to hear they are coming out with support for Android (though they should be making a Windows desktop client as well). But frankly they looked at their desired market and realized that they would cover WAY over 50% of them with apple support.
remember that the market here is not "phones" but "families with kids that want parental control that will buy a device branded Disney". That's a VERY limited set of customers and I think that you will find that...
- Apple is by far the dominant device and/or is in by far the majority of households (you only need one device in a multiple device house)
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
Less than half? The iPhone only has 15% of the market, but it has something like 90% of the online mobile sales on Black Friday.
I'm glad to hear they are coming out with support for Android (though they should be making a Windows desktop client as well). But frankly they looked at their desired market and realized that they would cover WAY over 50% of them with apple support.
remember that the market here is not "phones" but "families with kids that want parental control that will buy a device branded Disney". That's a VERY limited set of customers and I think that you will find that...
- Apple is by far the dominant device and/or is in by far the majority of households (you only need one device in a multiple device house)
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
I completely agree.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Sure, but the glorification is the part that makes it friendly to non-technical end users. Doesn't matter how little extra it does as long as the extra part is the differentiating factor.
But that didn't answer my question... how many real sales are they losing by going after the biggest market first?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
But so what? iPhone owners have already proven that they don't care about cost - they bought an iPhone. With that in mind they have proven they have the cash and are willing to spend it.
-
@IRJ said:
I have found on my website which receives 90% mobile traffic. That only about 20-30% of the devices are apple devices. The market is shifting towards android very fast. $50-100 devices are readily available for android. I would assume many parents would rather buy a $50-100 device than a $500 apple device. It's not like young kids don't understand technology these days.
Sure, but the market decision is about households, not devices. We are a six iOS family (four people) but are switching a few devices to Android. That will help bolster the Android numbers. But the household still has iOS. You are looking at a number that is slightly suggestive but not the market number driving the decision making. This is where metrics get dangerous - no matter how many devices Android has on the market, it's the adult household iOS penetration number for people interested in the product that matters.
In our household where we would not want this product, the kids are moving to Android but not the adults. A common thing, I think. I know lots of people doing this this year. To sell to us, the iOS decision would make sense and Android would not, even though we statistically support your theory. Does that make sense?
-
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Now, this is very true. And if that is all that the app does, then you would be right that there is no excuse.
Of course the app would need to scan the network for the device before connecting so it would automatically find the IP, but this seems easy enough to implement
Depends on the security, auditing, potential other features, etc. There is every reason to assume that it is nothing like this because this suggests that there is a web page on the device that we just can't find. It's safe to assume that that is not true.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
Sure, but it is also fragmented. Getting into the Google Play store doesn't get you onto Fire devices and vice versa. Getting into Android is a lot of steps with a lot of vendors. And the cost of getting into the store is nothing compared to the cost of development - that's what they really care about. And they are doing it, it's all about prioritization, not choosing one over another.
