Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I get what you're implying, and I think it's a valid approach (connected). But so is the converse (unconnected).

The connected can be controlled by apps or heck, APIs, perhaps offers full flexibility etc. However, what guarantees the controlling app is going to keep being updated? What if there's a wi-fi vulnerability in a few years? What if there are calls to company servers that go offline? What if you phone is off and you want to quickly set the time?

The unconnected can be controlled by a physical unchanging interface. It offers few extra features, its buttons will wear and break, etc. But it probably will function just fine in 10 years time, is probably extremely easy -- and less time consuming in total to set. I disagree the experience will be poor or inconsistent -- those products usually obey a common language of household appliances that works well enough. Physical buttons are usually very responsive and easy to use. There is not much to go wrong.

The ultimate measures here are probably net productivity (time wasted on clock and setting time), cognitive load, and robustness. If you have specific timing requirements maybe the networked clock is for you, but for most people I'd say the good old digital clock is probably still easily best.

Maybe in the future the digital infrastructure will be standardized and simplified enough that more appliances will become connected, but the real value of 'iot-enabling' is still quite low for most objects.

Remember, newer or more flexible isn't necessarily better (even for very complex systems: see UNIX philosophy).



Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: