Live data from Hacker News

The Physical Web

github.com

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The Physical Web

#71
post #56

Most normal people I see carrying a smartphone actually never use the browser. Never. I mean NEVER.

I don't see how this is relevant. The proposal is for ble to broadcast a URL. Native apps can open URLs too.

Re: The Physical Web

#72
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Home Depot is terrible at actually tracking their inventory. There app is useless when it tells you where the item is, only to find out that they actually don't have any in stock despite what their tracking system says. I order easily 20x as many items from Amazon, and never had an email saying "oops, we actually don't have any in stock".

And this is why the stores don't give out their actual inventory numbers to the public: because they can't accurately track those numbers. Things get stolen, lost in storage, and moved off their shelf to promotional displays.

And then people complain about how "useless" the app is. This is much less of a problem for Amazon where there aren't any thieving customers in the store.

Re: The Physical Web

#73
I guess one of the biggest questions here would be authentication and reputation. You want to make sure the device is what you think it is. So they will need to have cryptographically signed messages, ie MAC, and you need to obtain a certificate as well from their server on the web in order to interact with them.

But once you have those, you WON'T need the internet in order to communicate. The vending machine could be in a basement and bluetooth would be enough.

I'm a big proponent of re-decentralizing the internet again, and the web (and physical web) is a big part of that. There's no reason why people in an african village MUST have all their cell signals travel up to a balloon and to Facebook's servers just to communicate with each other. Mesh networking and distributed power generation will bring about a revolution.

Re: The Physical Web

#74
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this similar to pet microchip implants? If there were a way to robustly put a QR code on my pet instead of using a microchip, I would - you'd be able to identify easily that the pet is tagged, and the readout devices would be more widespread. I also don't see at all how this is better than a QR code on a physical object, other than that it's invisible - which is itself not great, since unless you allow these t…

How is this similar to pet microchip implants In that it's a thing that's hidden in an object that you can scan for that identifies it and gives information about it. there's no built-in call to action. It's trivially and plainly better than a QR code on a physical object. Even if you did have to have a sticker on everything saying "I support Physical Web", the fact that I don't have to scan the sticker -- instead I…

[deleted]

Re: The Physical Web

#75
post #56

Most normal people I see carrying a smartphone actually never use the browser. Never. I mean NEVER.

People use the browser very regularly and don't realize it because it's an embedded webkit. A classic example is people sharing articles on social networks.

Native apps are a bad experience for this kind of application because they are not ephemeral. If everything in your environment has an app associated with it, then your phone will be clogged with hundreds or thousands of apps, 99% of which you never open. You want a transaction-cost free model for envirnonmental interaction, the same as 'surfing' the web. No persistent cost for experimenting or trying something out.

The whole idea of "installing" stuff has really regressed computing back to the 90s. The web introduced the idea of emphemeral applications which are cached, so that you never need to manage the memory of your device.

I'd like to see mobile native apps adopt Web-style model. You can pin the cache and permanently install apps that are important to you or have giant resources (like huge games), but most of your apps should backup-and-delete themselves on the fly when coming into disuse and space is needed.

I'm sick of being asked to rate apps, and sick of having to delete apps to make space.

Steve Jobs once said "if you see a task manager, they blew it" Because people shouldn't have to manage the kernel resources of their phone. To that I would add, "if you see an install button, they blew it", because people should not have to manage their flash memory.

I thought the nightmare of cleaning up your computing devices went out with utilities to clean Windows drives and registry in the 90s.

Re: The Physical Web

#76
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just put QR codes everywhere.

http://picturesofpeoplescanningqrcodes.tumblr.com/

It is funny, but I would argue that the reason people don't use QR codes is that they haven't yet gotten enough value out of them. When there will be an incentive to scan those codes suddenly everyone will be using them.

Re: The Physical Web

#77

" . . . a vending machine, a poster, a toy, a bus stop, a rental car, and not have to download an app first in order to use it." I can, and do, do that now. I don't need or use an app to interact with any of those things, and when I have been offered apps, they've been worse than useless. Seriously, worse than nothing, they've been annoying, harassing, clunky junk. I just want to be able to approach any of these thin…

> but I can't have access to that information before I enter the store?

Because why would they want you to have that information? They are making money on you not knowing where stuff is - they're hoping that you'll pick up additional items you didn't plan to buy as you wander around the shop looking for the things you need.

Ditto for "worse than useless" apps - they are not meant to help you, they are meant to take money from you.

So pg recently wrote again, that the best way to get money is to make something people want. But it's not true. Time and again, businesses from Comcast to Target, to Uber, to browser toolbar makers, to the guys that give away pendrives that secretly install as keyboard and open their website, to your random SaaS "we'll kill e-mail and your puppy" toilet-paper startup - all of them keep proving that the best practical way to make money is to lie, cheat and bully people into paying.

We need a really strong, aggressive pushback against dishonest business practices, and that includes pretty much the entire advertising industry. We're already drowning in manure, having to use stuff built for the reverse of stated purpose.

Re: The Physical Web

#78
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason it couldn't mean that anyway - if a device is open to the Internet then the URL it serves via Physical Web could easily be its own. But it allows for less-smart devices too. The biggest problem I can see, as with all proximity devices, is spoofing. How do I know the item listed as "Bus Stop" is actually the bus stop, and not someone's malicious Raspberry Pi hidden in the bush next to it?

>How do I know the item listed as "Bus Stop" is actually the bus stop, and not someone's malicious Raspberry Pi hidden in the bush next to it? The same way you know that top search results are accurate for a given word/phrase. As stated multiple times throughout the introduction[1] the solution for filtering out spam will probably have an implementation similar to internet search engines. [1]: https://github.com/goog…

I don't think so. I think the proper analogy, that authors of the proposal have missed, is not search & spam, it's ATM and skimmers. How do you know you're not inserting card into a scanner?...

... well, everything proves that most likely, you have no clue.

Re: The Physical Web

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriating technology". The number of smart devices is going to explode because we want to automate all the things, and collect lots of data. It'd be great if I could ask my stove what food I've eaten this month, how healthy it was, how expensive it was, maybe even tell it to start preparing dinner at a certain time. The way to do that is to put a computer in everything.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriating technology". People accepting, wanting, using and integrating said technology in everyday life. > The number of smart devices is going to explode because we want to automate all the things This is precisely what I'm questioning. "We want"? How can you know that? I believe you want that, I believe that maybe people in your circles do, too. Still, that is no evidence at al…

Because time and again history proves a point that a surprising amount of smart people keep missing - that technology works on Blub paradox. People will use everything you throw at them, so you can't assume that "no one wants to use feature X". If you build it and ship it and make people buy it (hello advertising), they will use it, for things you haven't even thought of.

> I believe you want that, I believe that maybe people in your circles do, too. Still, that is no evidence at all to extrapolate that "we want".

There are three kinds of people. A small group that wants to automate stuff, a smaller group that doesn't want to automate stuff, and the majority who just mindlessly buys whatever is in stores today. You think people wanted smartphones? The tech crowd, maybe. But the rest? They just started buying them as mobile networks rolled them in to their offers.

Post reply on HN