How are we going to prevent every single useful thing from coming up with its own crappy, poorly-maintained application? Because obviously having open standards is not enough.
So far the solution we've come up with seems to be "wait until one or a few companies dominate the market, come up with their own solution, and hope it's an open one and/or others adopt it."
This particular app might not be crappy, but I think my question still stands.
In the context of the early Web, should we have prevented any company from making their own website? Enforced some standard for how your website UX should work in the name of security and usability? Obviously not, as that diversity has led to more, better choices over time, and in the end the better UXs usually win out anyway.
Perhaps in a similar way, as Weber and other grill brands continue to sell into the IoT space, competition will drive them to differentiate in UX on their apps in addition to their hardware. Albeit at a slower pace given that their hook is their hardware unlike a digital product where the website is also usually the first impression.
> Enforced some standard for how your website UX should work in the name of security and usability?
Well, html, so ya, again, ya we did. And we could again. A lot of the functionality of apps simply don't justify requiring you to run a program.
The only thing you can really do with an app-tied product: complain loud and publicly, and hope the company realized that nobody is buying a locked in product if the app has two stars.