More and more IP cameras can't be set up without a phone app. TP-Link's Tapo line is really bad about it. Even some Reolink cameras can't be setup on their own.
Now that high quality, affordable brands like Dahua got banned (w/o evidence), there's less pressure on the survivors to not be awful.
I just installed 10 Reolinks and I had to set up a phone app for two of them that didn't have an Ethernet connector.
I have one Tapo and ran their app from an android emulator. I won't buy another.
- it was more clear when buying a product that an app is required to activate/use/etc a device
- that people who rebelled against this kind of nonsense were backed up by others and respected "more power to you!"
Based on the screenshots I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s because someone forgot to update, or just stopped paying for, the server license.
The insistence they go through a server is why they suck
the Motorola MotoSync+ app is required to set up all new compatible
WiFi routers released by Motorola
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.
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.)
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...
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.
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.
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.
opinion based on their support system, correspondence and android updates,
As mentioned in the article, they are products of Premier LogiTech, LLC, who have licensed the Motorola brand name.
Its wifi/bt card broke exactly one year after I bought it. It worked exactly for 365 days. That was 100% hardware failure and planned obsolescence.
Needless to say never bought not even looked at anything Motorola ever since.
In 2011/2012, it was divided into different parts. The biggest were Motorola Solutions (mostly focused 2-way radios and related communications infrastructure; stuff commonly used by public safety entities) and Motorola Mobility (mostly cell phones and related stuff).
Google bought Motorola Mobility. It has been said that this was because Google wanted their patent portfolio. In 2014, Google sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo: The same Lenovo that makes ThinkPads is also who makes Motorola phones today.
Somewhere along the line, their name also got licensed out for home networking bits. That appears to be the products that the Mashable article writes about. This history is murkier, but it appears that some combination of Premier LogiTech and Boundless Devices (whoever tf these companies are) is responsible for making the Motorola-branded routers in question.
---
tl;dr, the Motorola that makes the radios that cops carry on their hip, the Motorola that makes Android phones that consumers carry in their pocket, and the Motorola that makes home routers are not the same company. Like -- at all.
Conflating them is easy because it is, frankly, a confusing mess.
But still: The shitty software on a Motorola phone is not cut from the same cloth as the shitty software on a Motorola router. They're products of very different companies that share nothing but a common trademark.