A new way of parental control
-
@BRRABill said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Only works with Apple devices... lol
I think it works with any device, but can only be configured on iOS.
@JaredBusch said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Only works with Apple devices... lol
Can you read before you jump to conclusions?
It works with any wireless device. The management application is an iOS application only right now.
Hence it only works with Apple.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Hence it only works with Apple.
Semantics. Defines works. LOL.
I guess if you don't have an iOS device, you could borrow one to configure it, then never have to access it again.
Though if there is a lot of interaction with it, that is indeed a pretty odd limitation.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@BRRABill said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Only works with Apple devices... lol
I think it works with any device, but can only be configured on iOS.
@JaredBusch said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Only works with Apple devices... lol
Can you read before you jump to conclusions?
It works with any wireless device. The management application is an iOS application only right now.
Hence it only works with Apple.
That's like saying that a car doesn't work with children because it requires an adult to operate it. The product works with whatever, it just is managed from a single platform. Annoying, but it doesn't change what it works with. If you apply this to other scenarios, you can't use "works" in this way.
-
@BRRABill said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Hence it only works with Apple.
Semantics. Defines works. LOL.
I guess if you don't have an iOS device, you could borrow one to configure it, then never have to access it again.
Though if there is a lot of interaction with it, that is indeed a pretty odd limitation.
It's a crappy limitation, but unless the goal of the device is to be managed and not to be parental controls, it's not limited to iOS.
-
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 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.
I get that it is very limiting. But once set up it "works" with all devices. Yes you have to set it up in one way, but you don't refer to things as "working" or "not working" based on the setup. Like we say "You have to set that up before it will work." So the setup requires iOS it seems, okay. that's annoying and limiting. But once setup it works with everything. The "thing that it does", the "reason that you buy it" are not in any way limited to iOS.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Something that is currently locked into a single manufacture platform makes it useless to me.
But not from working, only from being setup. Yes, you have to set it up to work, but if someone set this up for you, it would work. If I got this for someone in my family and set it up for them, it would work even though they own no iOS devices, for example. Lots of things in IT like that.
-
Sorry, but I agree with @DustinB3403 . That's a huge product fail if you can only configure it on iOS. They shouldn't have released the device if it wasn't configurable by the majority of devices (iOS, Android, and Windows). There is really no reason, that they couldn't do this on a responsive web interface that would work with all 3 IMO.
-
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
I figured that they were not doing some weird Apple promotion and just hitting low hanging fruit first to get the product out and onto the market.
-
@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.
-
@IRJ said:
Sorry, but I agree with @DustinB3403 . That's a huge product fail if you can only configure it on iOS. They shouldn't have released the device if it wasn't configurable by the majority of devices (iOS, Android, and Windows). There is really no reason, that they couldn't do this on a responsive web interface that would work with all 3 IMO.
It is about speed to market. They chose the easy solution to get on the market as fast as possible.
-
@IRJ said:
Sorry, but I agree with @DustinB3403 . That's a huge product fail if you can only configure it on iOS. They shouldn't have released the device if it wasn't configurable by the majority of devices (iOS, Android, and Windows).
It's pretty strong to say what they "should do". If they want to market to IT people, yes, they should do that I suppose. But they are not. If you have to put in an IP address into a browser you are likely too complicated for non-IT folks. I think that that is likely a bad idea. Drobo doesn't do that either, but we don't regularly complain about that as a show stopped. They don't do it because it would raise the cost because that requires more overhead and makes security more difficult.
It's a consumer, not an IT, product. Nothing wrong, in fact it is very smart, to get a product out the door and designed for end users to use if end users are your audience.
-
@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.
First of screw you.
I don't hate Apple. I simply don't own their products because I don't need it, nor are the capable of performing what I need.
Second piss off!
-
@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?
