My doctor/'s office was just forced to switch to app-instead-of-website for patient interation. Ironically, the old and this new software came from same megacorp I work for (different department, same story).
The old web interface was rather good and rather sensible-practical-sane. It was almost as if someone had asked a doctor what he actually needed for his patients, and then understood his answer and also managed to actually implement and deliver it.
The new smartphone app.. Not so much. It looks more like some MBA types managed to solve "what is the cheapest thing we can get away with, lawfully?"
Internally, I know it is because the original dev team has been gutted, development outsourced to india, and just a skeleton crew from the original team manages the chinese-whispers process with the huge indian team.
As a result, the use case flow (IE the only way you can operate it..) of the app, goes as follows:
1 close the app
2 launch the app and sign in
3 do ONE action
4 enjoy the result of the action
5 repeat from 1..
You might wonder why that is.. Well, that is because your software is not allowed to display any errors - because that might indicate there were bugs..
So instead, whenever an error happens, you just display the '... still loading..' animation... forever.
So, technically, there are no errors, no bugs.. "IT IS JUST TAKING TOO LONG TO RESPOND".
(spoiler: it will NEVER respond, because hidden behind the screen, is a series of unhandled web api errors..)
But again, as an "internal" employee, I have seen our management claim all this is a huge success (client paid/pays).
Back to using it: When I have to interact with my doctor, I write the texts on my PC, and mail them to myself. Then I cut/paste them from gmail into this wonderful app.
The perpetual spinner thing happened at my last job too, and I developed the opinion that putting a spinner into your site at all is a sign of incompetence. For any normal CRUD app, it should take milliseconds to do whatever task. Even with network delays, 150 milliseconds is a reasonable upper bound for end-to-end processing. If you have an animation at all, then your thing is either ridiculously slow or broken. Either way the animation is a crappy attempt to paper over a bad job.
As an Australian whose parents have 300kbps internet, please continue to add spinners to your apps. The round trip time to US west is 270ms for a good connection here. That 270ms doesn't include any processing (maybe 60ms or so) and the wifi tax (another 20ms). Then your round trip time gets doubled by HTTPS, which goes up to tripled if you're sending more than 14 KB of data.
This means it takes a full second to load most websites or apps, and this is further compounded by slow server code, daisy-chained sequential calls, living further away from the undersea cables, and bad infrastructure.
Imagine the entire UI of an email client becoming inoperable, diplaying "loading..." and a spinner every time you send mail. We don't do it now nor did we do that when 300kbps connections were more common. Spinners are a crutch for undercooked, bad software.
Keep in mind that spinners can also be used (as well as other indicators) that something is being processed client side, e.g. rendering a video and if the total time can't be estimated a spinner is reasonable.
> For any normal CRUD app, it should take milliseconds to do whatever task. Even with network delays, 150 milliseconds is a reasonable upper bound for end-to-end processing
This is only really true with stable, high speed internet connections. We still cannot take for granted that everyone has that, especially not in rural areas and double especially not on mobile devices
So many places in apps just wait for no reason. Let's take a hypothetical situation:
Suppose you're doing gig delivery. You're delivering to two customers in the same neighborhood on the same run. You drop the first order, take your photo of the drop, and the app spins. It's waiting for the photo to be delivered before it moves on. You can't get directions to the next customer until the app moves along. Why can't it just take the photo, take the text description, and hold that until service is better? Just give the driver the map, and upload the other stuff when you can.
I have similar issues with every app. It seems like every user interaction, every button press requires a round-trip to the server before the app moves to the next step. There's no reason for this. I wager that every app can keep its UI and the user's data locally, and send and receive teensy data updates.
But all "the best" software development employees (that they claim their hiring process hires) in these companies can't seem to work that out.
While doing Instacart deliveries here in Maine, I dropped off a leave-at-the-door order which requires uploading a picture of the shopping bags at the entrance. However, there wasn’t any service in the rural area I was delivering to, and the app required a connection to even open the camera interface. So I had to drive away down the road until I had service, open the camera, drive back to the delivery point, take the picture, then drive away again to upload the picture and complete the order.
They require a mobile phone number now. If I give them one, they'll enforce SMS as a login path.
I live in an area with excellent cell service, except for a few miles around my house. I'm not going to try to log in, while buying something, then drive down the road and wait for the SMS.
The whole point of having an app is to collect data, show ads, and “engage the customer with the brand.” Any additional capabilities beyond that are incidental.
The delivery driver is not the customer, but I wouldn't be surprised if some MBA bonehead thought showing ads to workers was a win. "They have to use the app to schedule and do the work, so it's a captive audience!"
Hell, I got shown an ad after I paid for a ride on Lyft the other day. Even if you’re the customer, you’re still the product. If there’s not already ads in the drivers’ views, I’m shocked it’s taken them this long.
Why do you think only MBAs have the idea to insert ads? It's not exactly specialized thinking. Plenty of startup founders with technical chops decide to insert ads because they desperately need the revenue.
Because "MBA" has become a generic derogatory term for greedy and short termist management, because its easy to blame a group of people than face the fact that the problem is a wider one of incentives and ethics that pervades the whole of western society.
> Why can't it just take the photo, take the text description, and hold that until service is better? Just give the driver the map, and upload the other stuff when you can.
The obvious answer is because asynchronous workflows are brittle, and require intervention from the end user to correct if they break
Then most end users aren't going to care to fix it when it breaks, or be able to fix it when it breaks for a variety of reasons
Better they can't continue than they do the last order wrong, amirite?
There's some strong "Seeing Like a State" vibes here. I'm pretty sure these apps are intentionally designed as tools to force the users (here, drivers) into a specific flow, a flow that minimizes complexity for the vendor, reality be damned.
Another way to look at it: the job of the driver side of a delivery (or taxi) app isn't to be useful to the driver; the job is to be a remote control with which the business can control the driver like they were an automaton.
Lots of delivery jobs are effectively paid by the piece or paid by the route. The driver is not paid hourly.
This is one reason that package delivery drivers often will say that they've attempted delivery when they at best drove past the delivery point. Marking the delivery as attempted gets them off the hook for that delivery, and they can finish their shift that much faster.
Having a broken app that forces the driver to 100% complete every delivery before moving to the next one thus costs the company relatively little, but saves some complexity, missing proof of delivery, etc.
It's dispute resolution in a low-trust environment.
When a customer shows up saying something went wrong with the delivery, the CSRs will need evidence and if the driver did their job then they can be exonerated.
The logistics are a bit more complex than a restaurant where customers are eating at tables in the same building.
Relevantly, in this specified case, the picture of their delivered food is shown to the customer immediately. This is more than a nice to have (imagine a large apartment building, where your food could be dropped in any number of locations).
At least on my mobile, I get ~100 ms ping to most things. Admittedly I don't use it very often so it's hard to have a real world feel for how frequent things like dropouts are, but that's mostly because data costs a lot. That kind of also ties into developers doing a bad job though (e.g. sending me 10 MB of who knows what when the task (like paying for parking) fundamentally should be doable with a few kB, most of which are the TLS handshake). If they didn't do that, their thing would be instant with 3g speeds. Most CRUD generally just doesn't need a lot of data to actually accomplish the desired task.
Satellite Internet will be slow, but should still be well under a second? I'd still expect that even extreme cases, you wouldn't expect a spinner to complete a single revolution. So it still seems unnecessary.
Anyway, I'm generally on a reliable 300 Mbit/s connection where my pings are more like 20-70 ms, so I suppose you could alter my statement to "if I see a spinner, I interpret it as incompetence".
Then it should give explicit status information like
uploading to server (xx%)...OK
waiting for response...delayed. Check again in 3 minutes.
Not as cool, but at least somewhat informative. Engineers have a responsibility to push back on this kind of thing, because marketing people frequently do not think about failure modes or actually put themselves in the customer's shoes.
> marketing people frequently do not think about failure modes or actually put themselves in the customer's shoes
It’s literally the job of marketing people to put themselves in the customer’s shoes. If engineering isn’t looping in marketing on UX challenges, or if marketing is too focused on top-of-funnel vanity metrics to engage deeply with product usability, things fall through the cracks.
But that’s a company culture issue, not a marketing deficiency.
It should be, but it isn't in my experience. Marketing people care about onboarding and engagement numbers, and are a major driver of dark patterns - everything from popups to moving the 'close dialog' icon to unintuitive places like the bottom left of unasked-for video embeds.
I’m sorry you only worked with terrible, unethical, incompetent marketing people. There are good ones, just like there are bad programmers who do all sorts of terrible and dumb things without creating universal truths about programmers.
I don't think so; I said marketing people frequently do bad stuff, which is not the same as saying they're all bad. I stand by 'frequently', because just look at how much terrible adware, clickbait, spam etc there is on the web. It's a Gresham's law-type situation.
Of course marketing people do a valuable job in terms of figuring out how to sell things and minimize the gap between producers and customers. But - just like engineers - there are lots of cynical and amoral people who work in that industry who make things worse for everyone else. By contrast, I can't think of any society that is suffering because they don't have enough advertising.
Effective marketing (not just comms, but real positioning and messaging) is why people can find the right products and services, why small businesses can compete, and why entire industries grow. It's unequivocally a good.
If anything, societies suffer when good marketing is absent—because that’s when bad actors fill the void with misinformation, hype, and scammy tactics.
> If anything, societies suffer when good marketing is absent—because that’s when bad actors fill the void with misinformation, hype, and scammy tactics.
Except, marketing too is a market for lemons. Scammy marketing outcompetes good marketing. Simple as that.
Scammy marketing can sometimes be effective in the short term, but the problem with it it’s inherently self-limiting.
Deceptive brands burn their audiences, lose customer trust, and either get regulated out of existence or collapse under their own churn rates. Meanwhile, companies that invest in clear, honest positioning, strong customer relationships, and long-term brand value consistently outperform in the long run. Apple, Patagonia, and Tesla aren’t winning because they spam pop-ups.
If marketing were purely a race to the bottom, all successful brands would look like clickbait farms. They don’t.
Where I used to live, in NY (not NYC, but close to _a_ major city), I had to go out onto my front porch to use my cell phone. It wasn't a great signal out there, but it was better than the _no_ signal inside my apartment.
I think it's an art, not a science. The alternative to a spinner is to show some sort of error to the user; a connection error or something specific that went wrong that they can report. Sometimes this is useful.
I frequently put spinners just in the individual components that need loading. I tend to use them more for large data loads that will hang around awhile, so I have to do fewer round trip transactions. Loading a list of a customer's last 1000 transactions? I'm going to bring on all that data at once, not keep calling the server as you try to scroll through it.
I want user actions to have an INSTANT consequence, not 150ms latency. So even if not a spinner, that button needs to gray out and something should affirm that they tapped it.
Also, spinners are very useful for me in tracking down bugs. When a few customers report stuck spinners in the same day, I can almost immediately determine if some particular action is failing or whether it's a server issue. Even better, they can send screenshots helping me isolate the problem. If no stuck spinner and the app just freezes, they reload it and forget what exactly they did to trigger an error. And endpoints do go down, nothing has 100% uptime. I want to FEEL how long a call is taking on a heavy operation on a busy day.
Some things in the real world simply take longer than milliseconds; this is not a failing. I'm working with a system that takes over 10 seconds to get a list of wifi access points, and you bet we throw up a spinner while that's happening.
Now of course if the spinner is merely cosmetic and doesn't represent any actual work going on, that can be a problem especially if the process you're waiting for dies.
Nah. We have a spinner, but I also have a timeout handler.
The reason is that the app's backend (and many of the servers on which it depends) can be hosted on the lowest-tier-dogshit-shared-hosting plan. I would love to have a better backend server, but we are a nonprofit, and can't afford better. This app would be a lot faster, with a more robust backend.
But error handling/reporting is a true art, and should never be an afterthought. In my experience, I need to start thinking about error management, as soon as I start planning.
In my experience, the best error handling is to not have errors, and, quite often, good UX is the answer to that. If the user doesn't do something that might cause agita, then they don't get an error.
> I developed the opinion that putting a spinner into your site at all is a sign of incompetence
This so much. If your site is so slow that it can load what is usually a video file (non-SVG animated graphics) before it can load the text on the page, then you have failed at making a website
Looking at Discourse® here, and iirc Google AMP did something similar except it was a blank page for 8 seconds (until it hit a timeout) if you blocked their tracking
Not sure if it counts as CRUD but, when downloading files, it can take a while to prepare the files. If that while is long enough the user may thing something isn't happening, and a "I'm working on it" signal is not unreasonable.
The annoying part is that website can just be used as an app. For a booking app we don't need native performance; just a webpage-inside-an-app is fine. In most cases, it should be fairly straight-forward and cheap to make this work.
What happens is they hire some contracting firm and they go "whole thing will have to be redone" so they get more work, and that's how you end up with a "solution" like this. Basically the software equivalent of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq6WME576ZE
What’s even more asinine is the website can be updated without publishing to an app store. You always have the latest version and all these apps are just a thin veneer on some CRUD endpoints anyway.
This is the entire philosophy behind all of the apps run by DHH/Basecamp. The web should be the default and native apps should only be used for software that just isn’t possible through the web (yet).
Ideally, Web is either for thin clients or text/visual focused content with minimal interaction (i.e. anything more than basic forms). Apps are for when a user needs more control (i.e. important or sensitive data that persists on their hard drive or account) or access to your hardware for proper function (aka, games or other resource-specific/intensive tasks).
In reality, you want to push everything to an app that you can or one day want to monetize. Web is to be avoided except to advertise the app. I hate it with a passion. Easily my least favorite shift over the 2010's. We advanced past flash to make proper use of HTML5, and can now start blur the lines with aspects like Webassembly and PWAs, but corporate is angry that the WWW never properly optimized itself to monetize easily.
The problem is that users much prefer native apps. The idiomatic UI, the use of OS specific capabilities (even if the same result could be done without), the appearance of better performance because the app launches before a network connection is made.
We can opine all we want about how things should work, but the ground truth is a good native app has higher user satisfaction, more engagement, whatever metric you want other than development cost/non-customer concerns.
It’s very hard to tell users they should feel differently than they do, no matter the technical or philosophical high ground.
> We can opine all we want about how things should work, but the ground truth is a good native app has higher user satisfaction, more engagement, whatever metric you want other than development cost/non-customer concerns.
No way / at most, HIGHLY context dependant. Facebook/Insta/social media slug of the year? Yes, probably app is desired.
My bank? Maybe, at a strech, if it's good.
My local doctor? The real estate agent im trying to rent a house from? Amazon/AliExpress/Shopee? A movie theatre? My council street parking system? My university? Fuck no i dont want your shitty apps on my device.
My bank has been fine as an app. My main nitpick is that it makes it very hard to fully detach from the app store since none of the banks publish elsewhere (I can easily ditch social media on the go or use a website, in comparison).
I went to college early enough in the smartphone era that they didn't have an app as a freshman but did by senior year... I don't miss it.
part of that is old perceptions that have long went away. And the other part is the huge push against PWAs, especially from Apple. Web-based app development has come so far but Apple is showing off its control freak tendencies as usual to make it not seem so.
Hearing the story above about infinite loading to hide crashes really boils my blood and shows that it's simply a matter of care these days (and not hardware/bad middleware) that determines how smooth something feels.
> The problem is that users much prefer native apps.
I imagine there is some data on this, but it goes against my observations of me and my circle.
I have maybe 4 apps that I use heavily and another 10 that I use when I have to. I actively avoid installing another app when the web version is sufficient. I don't need the weekly updates to clog up my storage. I don't need notifications going off at all hours. And I don't need creepy unfathomable permissions requests.
Is there some 500ms delay if I click a button on the web version? Maybe. Honestly, I'm not so busy to have noticed.
I’ve worked on a few native apps for large companies where there was already a decent web app but we were losing to competitors’ native apps.
User feedback was loud and clear: many users see web apps as cost savings efforts that are inferior products and only exist so a lazy / cheap company doesn’t have to invest in native.
Remember that permissions and notifications can also be a problem in web apps; that’s one thing the “make web apps as good as native” crowd has gotten us.
> it goes against my observations of me and my circle
Your friends are probably tech savvy. That means your browser is well configured (or configured at all), running an ad blocker and on a modern machine. You probably value the privacy attributes of using a browser, versus most of the population than will trade privacy for convenience.
For a GP booking app that most people only use once in a blue moon it really doesn't matter much. And most users will absolutely prefer a well-designed webapp vs. a crummy semi-working native app, as the previous person described. In short, this is just boring thoughtless repetition of a cliché with no consideration for context.
people here is web biased, people forgot that mobile world exist and I can tell you navigating web in mobile vs native mobile app is like heavenly different
if people commenting from web dekstop perspective I can see that point, but from mobile?? where hardware processing power and network is sometimes unreliable???
I’m gonna punt on the question of where the line is for hostile actions and use some past legal justification of “I know it when I see it” and I see it clearly here.
The second part is the more interesting question to me:
Appropriate reactions would seem to include:
- finding a new doctor/practice/provider. Super hard in practice as they seem to be geographical monopolies a la the cable networks
- providing appropriately hostile feedback to your current doctors — but this is likely only to garner empathy as the docs have little say over this
- stop using smartphones and claim hardship — not sure how this would pan out. Probably not well?
- channeling Luigi and murdering the people responsible for our ongoing dystopia
Seriously what other options are there? You can either complain to the ether and it goes nowhere. Or you can take up violence and it still likely goes nowhere and you fuck up your life.
This is why so many people are content to let the world burn. It ain’t for us anymore anyway.
> stop using smartphones and claim hardship — not sure how this would pan out.
This is basically what I do now. When someone tells me to install their app or give them my cell phone number I tell them that I don't have a cell phone. Sometimes I do it while holding a cell phone in my hand.
I've told employers that if they make using an app a requirement they'll need to buy me a cell phone.
If people really push on why I won't use an app I'll tell them all about how my buying a phone doesn't make me the owner of one since multiple people at multiple companies have privileged access to the device I paid for far beyond my own level of access which enables them to access/add/remove/modify files and settings at any time and for any reason without my permission or even without making me aware that they've done it. Why would I use a system controlled by an unknown number of others who are only interested in enriching themselves to keep highly personal information like my medical history or banking information? Cell phones are inherently insecure and adversarial devices designed to collect and leak our private information while stealing our attention.
wcag has provisions regarding cognitive issues, I have been thinking about writing an article arguing that dark patterns being liable under accessibility laws - but have not really shopped it around.
Of course one thing is nobody wants to sue someone because they don't understand something, because they think it means arguing they are stupid.
They are protected if we collectively-enough (laws, or culture, religion, ethics, or...?) agree to provide equitable access to people with disabilities.
Human rights are made up (the local deer that spent the night in the woods near where I spend the night have no rights, they just exist in a mix of cooperation, reciprocity, and some competition. Actually, I don't know if they afford each other rights in the way we do that. Likewise, I don't know if deer focus on "productivity" as much as so many of us do...), and for good reasons (?). I wonder if rights were codified back when we were far less numerous and living so much closer to the land, amidst so much more abundant life.
That's my question, am I a protected class for not being able to operate a smartphone? I think many of a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category.
> a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category.
My 95 year-old mother can't use apps on her iphone because she can't figure out the navigation and various modes. Because of this her phone usage is limited to answering incoming calls, making calls to the six icons we've preset on her home screen, receiving texts and replying to the last text she received (because it's still on the screen). Anything else is iffy. And she's not cognitively impaired. She's actually quite sharp for her age and lives on her own within an assisted care community.
I don’t think “person who is unable to operate a cellphone” is a protected class. There might be some overlap between those people and people in other protected classes. But it is hard to say just based on a hypothetical, right?
This is all downstream of consolidation of ownership in private equity of clinics, community health centers, emergency rooms, veterinarians offices, end-of-life care facilities, etc.
This is what happens when you let the bean counters and MBAs a quarter turn around the world with no on-the-ground experience or institutional knowledge make decisions from their spreadsheets to "optimize out inefficiencies".
Where can I vote for "Medical establishments should have an accessible-friendly browser-accessible no-javascript webpage for all functionality"?
I see the "democrat" and "republic" checkboxes, but I don't see the magical third "Good apps, and also health insurance companies have to cover medical claims without questioning whether my doctor is competent, denying each claim once, and requiring 3 months of arguing on a phone"
I've been voting, and as far as I can tell every option I have ever been able to vote for has been fully in support of crappy apps and crappy healthcare.
There are no sane choices. We're only stuck with republicans now because democrats were happy to maintain a status quo that was keeping them rich but wasn't addressing the needs of the people. The dems might throw us a bone now and then, but they weren't willing to make the kind of meaningful changes that might threaten their power or the interests of the corporations and industries bribing them. Now we're left with folks who just want to pillage everything they can and burn the rest to the ground.
> The fact that murder is on your list but not voting is mind boggling.
for hundreds of years our government and the corporations who bribe them have worked to limit the influence of the average person on the laws and regulations that we live under. After seeing our broken two party system, the gerrymandering and voter suppression, the open bribery, the lack of integrity or accountability, the inability/unwillingness of congress to do their job, and the growing list of laws and policies most Americans support and problems we want solutions for that get ignored time and time again while laws are being passed to appease corporations and industries, I really don't blame people for thinking that their ballot box is not the solution to their problems.
When people feel they don't have a way within the system to get the things they need they'll look for ways to get them outside of the system. Our government used at least put in the effort to give the appearance that working within the system could be successful, but these days they barely bother to do that.
Personally I still like to hold onto hope that voting can make a difference, especially at the local level, but it's a hard sell these days and getting harder all the time.
The users of the sub-par app are captive, the hospital or insurance company is mandating it, and neither the doctor nor patients are free to choose a competing app.
If you create a technically better app for the users, people still won't be able to use it unless you also are chosen by those higher up, and since there's likely already a strong existing relationship between the executives at the existing company and at the medical compan(ies), that means creating a competitor also will require building a lot of social capital with the decision makers, taking them to dinner and on golf trips, and so on.
It will take years of your life, millions of dollars (since a 1-man company will never be seen as legitimate enough to provide a medical app, you'll need a large company with many employees), and the chance of success is minimal.
I don't see how this is an "appropriate" response to a bad app.
I was just thinking of a better front end for the same API that trifticon mentionned. Still a lot of work of course, but may not require as many approvals.
I wish we lived in a world where all these APIs were open, regulated, and everybody could compete on the implementation on both sides... One day, if capitalism survive technofeudalism...
Even avoiding the problems with getting a foothold into this space any start up that tried to do the right thing would get bought up by someone else and enshitified until it was just as bad if not worse. There's more money to be made by screwing over the public than by not screwing them and our entire system is centered around making the most money at any cost and placing money over every other concern.
> The fact that murder is on your list but not voting is mind boggling.
It's not. Unlike voting, it has a nonzero chance of improving the app situation.
In this situation, instead of anything on the list above, I recommend going to press/Twitter and stressing the angle that this bullshit actually ruins people's lives permanently (or kills them prematurely).
I vote. I am 50. I have voted in every election I was able to. In my life my preferred candidate has won exactly twice: Obama’s second term and Biden’s first. This includes local, state elections, and national.
To quote George Carlin: “If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it”.
Trump lost in 2024 but took the win because his cronies disqualified enough voters in enough states to win.
So, please, spare me. We’re up to violence already. You’re just well behind the times unfortunately.
Your argument is, violence is an option, because your preferred candidates don't win as much as you like?
I would see a point in saying voting is pointless, because no matter who you vote for, all end up on the payroll of the people doing enshitification. But not because your side always loose. Because this then won't likely change when you turn to violence - your side will be still the smaller one and we tried the whole voting thing, to not have all arguments solved with bloodshed.
I googled around, but I couldn't find an authoritative source showing either the numbers disqualified, the reasons, and that those ballots were majority not-trump ballots.
Can you provide a source for that data for a specific swing state of your choice?
when the functioning of the app means that people with disabilities, including cognitive disabilities, will be denied medical access, and the retaliation is probably a lawsuit appropriate to your jurisdiction, if your jurisdiction does not support accessibility legislation then you're probably out of luck.
I tend to push back against this nonsense pretty firmly, and would go so far as to request paper documents be sent, as "I don't have a device up to the task" (which sometimes is true, as I use old hardware until I luck into a handmedown or the thing breaks). I get that paper and postage and time are costs. So is user time and stress level.
Do a little reverse engineering/analysis on the app, to parallel-construct the claims of 'fifticon (as to not require them to leak internal info or become a whistleblower). If it's as bad as it sounds, go to press. Or just dump an expose on Twitter/X to maximize public awareness.
> who is even "the user" here?
The doctors and their patients. If it's as bad as it sounds, it actively degrades the ability of doctors to provide care, so it quite literally hurts actual people.
People should instead just vote with you feet and dollars. That'll be inconvenient, but if it bothers you enough, you'll make the effort.
A crucial part of this approach is to let your doctor know exactly why you're leaving. If they're losing business over it, they'll look for alternatives. And if the EHR company loses money, they'll look to make changes, too.
> Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes.
It's not some coincidence that just about every company in every sector is screwing over more and more people. This is all extremely calculated. We've decided that making the most money is all that matters and we're seeing the inevitable results of that choice everywhere around us. If shareholders got richer by providing people with quality healthcare and well designed websites and the freedom to use or not use mobile technology we'd already have those things. No one cares how shitty they make our lives or even how many of us they kill as long as they keep the ability to stuff more money into their pockets this quarter than they did last quarter. The people doing this shit to us aren't incompetent. What we want from them isn't what they're optimizing for. Maybe you haven't noticed the massive amount of consolidation in every industry going on, but consider that voting with your wallet gets harder over time. Consider how many companies you're personally giving your money to right now while wishing you had an alternative that better met your needs. Voting with your wallet is not a real option. The fattest wallet will always win.
So we should condemn large swaths of the rural population to not only abject poverty, but remove health care access too?
Is this what you're seriously arguing? That people should be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis?
Do you not see how people read this as completely heartless and devoid of empathy towards their fellow man?
Surely it's not a well-functioning market, when the client (the medical organization) had accepted and paid for a clearly dysfunctional software that harms their operations. Yet, they somehow survive and continue to function despite it.
And thus it's questionable whenever voting with wallet would work. It works in healthy, free and competitive markets with rational actors, and we probably aren't looking at one.
Yea, I wouldn't put up with a doctor that required me to interact with him through an app. I'd switch doctors, and hopefully find a way to let the old doctor know why I'm switching. That's often the hardest part--actually finding an owner who is harmed when a customer leaves.
Feels like this well written piece by Atol Gawande is relevant if you haven't seen it. I showed it a couple of years ago to my very competent and conscientious doc and she got PISSED. She talked about how she spent literally half of her doctoring time working through poorly designed menus in {epic, cerner} to carefully document everything she could about the patient, only to discover that most doctors don't pay attention to any of that info.
My hospital system has a surprisingly decent web app. I can log in and see my appointments, pre-register for office visits, view lab results, medications, request appointments, do virtual visits...
The amazing stupid part is when I have to sign in at the actual doctor's office.
They have an iPad which does some sort of remote/citrix setup, resulting in a frustrating experience that is full of lag where you interface with what might be their actual EMR system.
I had kaiser permanente and had google/doubleclick tracking through the entire website, including investigating conditions, doctor communication, and test results.
I complained, they played dumb, but eventually they came up with "the website is a convenience". I stopped using it.
The app was much worse.
A couple years later, other people must have complained
At the doctor's office I'll just ask for paper if there is no real website. Apps freaking suck. I probably won't be able to do this forever though. Example of enshitification #456249
I just leave restaurants that have gone to the online-only menu. It's usually an indicator that there are other terrible cuts in service and quality going on as well.
I leave because I go to a restaurant to enjoy a meal with my family and friends and to connect. Forcing everyone to stare at their phones for the first five minutes is a bad start.
I’ve thought of this - if there’s no paper menu available, to avoid tracking, I always just search for the restaurant and navigate to the menu from their webpage rather than using a QR code.
Tell them you can't use your phone for whatever reason, and then ask them to just tell you what they have. I think enough people must have done this already because I've seen paper menus return in many places.
(This fall under the general pattern of "make it their pain")
There's a restaurant my parents take me to when I come to visit that requires you to scan a QR code to get to a website and then order and pay for your food on your phone. You are prompted to provide a tip up front before anybody has even done anything. Then when the food's ready your phone alerts you, and you have to get up and grab the food from a shelf outside the kitchen. So if you do tip, you end up tipping... the management, I suppose.
It's just about the most cynical dining experience I've ever had the misfortune of enduring.
I ask the waiter what’s good, and usually end up going back forth a few times. It’s not as efficient, but it keeps me from reaching for my phone, which is covered in germs.
I've seen this trend regressing where I live, most restaurants I go to have done away with the QR codes (unless it's a brewery/distillery kind of establishment).
"Online menus" are fine; they allow quick updates without requiring the restaurant to re-print menus, and allow for just one copy/version of the menu to be used everywhere.
But then they should also display them publicly outside/inside, and/or have a bunch of tablets ready for visitors to use.
Oh I think the only reason they did that is because that was the "hip" and "schnazzy" UX flow that everyone signed off and loved because "oh this will be amazing for users".
So apps, and even websites, have just become ways to market and push to users. It's not about functionality or enabling the user.
Another, maybe smallish, manifestation of this that I've seen is that devs, UX, and everyone involved is so downright hostile to direct "links". Devs because it forces them to think about what stupid react/angular router they want to use, devops has to do URL-rewrites, PMs are worried about the "additional scope", and UX folks' brains absolutely explode that there is no "flow" to the entity (it just pops up, omg). Instead you, as the user, are forced to click through the search UI or to type the right thing, to trigger the flow or whatever, before you get to that entity you want. You can't just create it as a link, and thereby enabling users to have "emergent" behavior of sharing links or emailing them, etc.
Is the threat of criminal punishment the only incentive that works on you? You never do things because it would make someone happy or you a better person?
> this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
I've heard the arguments, so if you're thinking you're going to win an argument with me about whether this means anything or not, you're not; but supplemental information about why what's printed on our money doesn't mean it's legally money to pay a debt to a doctor, go for it.
I don’t think you understand how the system works. Or perhaps you do, but fantasize that reality were different.
First, in a non-urgent situation, you’re going to be asked about payment prior to service, and they may refuse to treat you if you can’t pay.
Second, in an emergency situation where you’re unable to provide affirmative assent, you’ll be liable for costs under the doctrine of quantum meruit (quasi-contract). If you don’t pay, the provider can sue you, in which case, the court may force you to pay on their terms.
I was really expecting your personal usage of the app to involve invoking developer privileges, and inserting your text through the much more user friendly UX of DBeaver..
It's kind of annoying the article burns up all the space talking about various discounts and benefits you get from Apps. Aka far less of a problem as they're optional quid pro quo and doesn't talk about the creeping enshittification of those functionalities. Im fine with a council making an option to do important things through an app. But I'm not fine with it being compulsory and I'm even less fine with it being some non functioning trash made in a software sweatshop that doesn't provide a contact number when it goes wrong and noones ever on the hook if it's dysfunctional. It rarely if ever actually improves functionality or makes important things self service. It more often reduces what I can actually do but with a flashier interface for "computer says no".
One thing this article doesn’t mention is how this all falls apart when you spend time in more than one country.
My UK bank (Barclays) won’t let me install their app on my US iPhone (i.e. my phone that uses a US based iCloud account). Tesco won’t let me use their loyalty app. I can’t install an app that’ll let me order Starbucks or McDonalds in the UK (I only have access to the US versions of these apps). I can’t watch Star Trek because the US paramount plus app detects I’m in the UK and I can’t install the UK version.
I could switch to a UK iCloud account but then when I’m in the states everything falls apart the other way round.
I recently travelled to Europe and found that a number of transportation apps disallowed me installing them. Toll road apps, public transit, etc…
It was a major pain, and to make it worse I got fined €130 by Ausfinag for not paying tolls, but I couldn’t install their app and I bought the wrong sticker at the gas station because as it turns out there are a bunch of special areas with additional tolls above the base toll. I tried my best to comply but the system is totally user hostile.
Also as a tourist, I’m glad that DB app just works for me to register and buy tickets so easily with out hassle (though their trains scheduling is the problem)
My ugly solution to this problem is to have a free Oracle Cloud VM in the other country that I use to run a VPN (Oracle provides instructions [1]). I then connect to this using OpenVPN on my phone, which allows me have a Google account that thinks I am in the other country and so allows me to install apps that are restricted to that country. I don't have the VPN connected all the time - only when I want to access the App Store using the Google account that I have for the other country.
To be a little pedantic, your solution is a solution to your problem, but only a fraction of the problem you're responding to. Your VPN won't help access the UK apps that require a UK phone localization if those same services aren't also available in the region of your VPN exit node. And since he's talking about UK-specific apps and services, VPNing his US phone back to the US isn't any help.
I feel your pain. I’ve been dealing with this since 2011. The thing that makes it even worse is subscriptions. You can’t switch app stores while you have subscriptions.
I recently complained to my local cities transportation office that their mobile app for bus tickets was only available for German Google users. The actually changed it now.
> I could switch to a UK iCloud account but then when I’m in the states everything falls apart the other way round.
If it’s only two countries, you can sign in and out of the App Store only with two regions. This is how I maintained a Japan and US region account on the same device. The thing that sucks is changing between accounts for updates, but it does work to some degree.
Yep, as someone who also travels between countries regularly, it's complete nonsense. "This app isn't available in your region" - what do you mean, I am literally in your region.
The sad part is sometimes just switching languages/locales on your phone (i.e. changing the language from US English to British English) fixes this as it's all the code checks.
If you create multiple Apple accounts in different regions, you can switch to that regions app store in the App Store app (this doesn't have to do with your iPhone iCloud account) by logging in to the relevant account.
I have a US and an Aus Apple Account, and I switch the account on App Store to get apps that are region locked.
That might also be because it's not legal to geoblock consumers within the "single european market" EU strategy thing. The bank might have not blocked German residents from using their UK bank account before and now they noticed there's no reason to bother people with geoblocking and so it still works after the UK broke out of the EU
You can also sideload or use something like Aurora Store to access Play Store content without restrictions. Yet another reason iOS is a nonstarter for me.
I had to keep two phones for this purpose[0] and pay two cellphone bills, one in the USA and one in the UK. It helped when traveling in Europe though because then you are only paying UK data rates, not USA-on-vacation rates.
It is still an insane situation, though.
[0] LloydsTSB had the same restriction on app store
I can't buy overnight bunk tickets on Ukrainian trains anymore because I need to authenticate, and the only authentication methods require either Ukrainian citizenship or residency cards.
I can't install the app for my new Amex card because my Google account was opened in Canada and I live in Germany now.
And it keeps getting worse every year. I'm worried that eventually my American and Canadian banking apps will stop working...
The internet was supposed to make this shit simpler.
> I can't buy overnight bunk tickets on Ukrainian trains anymore because I need to authenticate, and the only authentication methods require either Ukrainian citizenship or residency cards.
In fairness, that specific case is probably intentional. They have quite limited train capacity as all passenger air travel was forced to switch to trains/busses, and I suspect they're trying to save it for locals. It is annoying though; I've been to Ukraine quite a few times recently and have used that app myself.
It's actually to stop buying and selling tickets on the secondary market, which is fair. It's just the tech mismatch causing unintended consequences. Even the guys at Privatbank were shaking their heads at the absurdity (and they're the ones who run one of the authentication mechanisms. Even having a bank account there in your name is not enough).
You can add multiple Google accounts - one for each country, and switch between them on the Play Store. That's how I'm able to access apps from my home country and resident country.
As for using the apps themselves, you might run into issues depending on what restrictions they have - IP address, SMS verification, etc.
I have two Google accounts, one in the us, one in Germany. So far that has divided to get around this for the apps I encountered it. But I'm not a heavy phone user...
Yes, I've long given up trying to reconcile this mess and bought three separate cell phones with three separate sim cards to for the three countries where I spend non-trivial amount of time.
I have an account at a credit union that only offers SMS 2FA, and requires it for every login. I can't connect to that phone number when I'm abroad, so I can't access my account.
AFAIK this is only a problem on iPhone, not Android?
Note: I have an iPhone. It sucks. Same issue. I have bank accounts in other countries. The app needs an update. To install the update I have to switch countries on my account which instantly voids any and all subscriptions through Apple. It's insane.
It's even more crazy that every single Apple employee I know has this issue but for whatever reason it's not fixed.
When I was young in Europe the trend was that the place where you live will dictate and limit less and less of your life. Technology, traveling, motivation of people will allow roaming, postcode independent existence.
Well, the trend froze up very fast and is in full reverse nowadays, I am in my early 50s and I believe me and my children's life will such more and more, be even more difiicult by the reverse of intents towards a more unified humanity. The law and all working with law will remain a big fucking barrier even if the representatives the people choose to form their life (politicians) would magicly become nice and selfless and efficient, they fight hard to do business the same shitty way as 100s of years ago, all differenty in all puny geographic regions, in as much diverse as possible, as incompetible with each other as possible. And several happily collaborate as it is a fix income to do unoptimal and fragmented way, happily waste our resources providing services in this muddy water.
Not just freedom of living and work, but things even more basic:
Have you tried crossing the border with Germany or Austria by train? You'll most likely get a mini deportation squad on board, despite all agreeing to Schengen Convention.
It's funny how people in this thread keep saying "well if you're going to complain about people being penalized for not using apps, you might as well complain about people being penalized for not using telephones/cars/internet"... and yes, I am going to complain about all of those things. I imagine that many or most homeless people don't have reliable access to any of the above. I have an anxiety disorder that makes it hard for me to drive or talk on the phone, and I'm sure there are many people with more extreme conditions for whom it's impossible. There are people like Richard Stallman and members of certain religious communities who have strong moral objections to using certain technologies. Society should accommodate all sorts of people and all sorts of ways of living.
> I imagine that many or most homeless people don't have reliable access to any of the above.
In the US there is a specific government program called "Lifeline" that provides cell phone service to low income people, https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons... (whether it gets DOGEd remains to be seen...) And where I live there are a bunch of programs that provide free cell phones to homeless people.
It's not a panacea because lots of homeless people have other problems that make it difficult to keep a cell phone and not lose it. But that's really a separate issue - not having access is really not much of a barrier for the homeless, at least in the US.
IMHO at some point it makes sense to start requiring the internet, it makes a lot of things easier. But when we do that we need to ensure that everyone is supported. For example ensuring that people have ready internet access at public libraries. Providing government-provided email inboxes for receiving government communication (lots of homeless people get locked out of regular free mail providers). Train support staff at these libraries (or whatever institution provides these services) to help people who need assistance though the government processes, including doing it on their behalf when required.
Immigrants are often left out for various reasons, such as not having the right documents, having an unsupported kind of passport, not having an address they can register as their home, not having an app store account in the right country, not having a local payment method, and a variety of other issues.
For me, it's less about lifestyle choices, and more about managing failure domains. If a person is kicked off their ISP/ cell carrier due to a private dispute with them, why should their entire life have to grind to a screeching halt in every other area? It's maddening how little recourse there is and how difficult it can be if you lose both your phone and number, and I vehemently disagree that we should be ok with any of it.
If we replace "taxes" with "paying for an army, paying for police, etc." than the above statement seems strange. I can understand "I don't like what society choose to build (with the taxes)", but some things can't be let to the free market.
> I have to go do the fucking IRS's job
That's a society choice. I have no experience with IRS, but other countries have tax systems that are much more automatic (come prefilled with most info for example). But taxes are maybe a bit higher (because if you don't do the job, someone needs to maintain the systems that allow the automation).
The only reason you have to do the IRS' job is because the "free market" you love so much spends obscene amounts of money buying out your government and making sure people have to use their products in order to not go insane filing their taxes.
In most countries filing taxes is a painless process that takes 5 minutes and is more or less completely automated for you.
> Sorry to hear about your condition, and while I think society can decide to accommodate to some conditions, I disagree with that idea that it "should accommodate". It is a common decision, and sometimes the answer will be "no, we don't accommodate for that, sorry". In the end, everything has a cost (being it effort, resources, time, etc.).
This falls apart when you realize this isn't just a consistent percentage of the population. It's a large portion of the population at different portions of their lives. It's something like 90% of adults will be disabled in their lives.
How many times have you lost your phone, or broken it without an immediately available backup?
In your world, people in wheelchairs would be housebound. But I guess we shouldn't accommodate them by requiring wheelchair ramps or curb cut-outs. They are lesser than us.
I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
> 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
Duolingo isn't really a replacement for classes (which are obviously a magnitude or few more expensive) but self learnings books, tapes and such (IMHO it's mostly inferior to those too but not by a such high degree).
I'm kind of puzzled by your first point. In my experience, parking apps require you to pay in larger chunks of hours than paying with coins used to; many times I have to pay for a minimum of 2 hours of parking with the app when I could pay for just 10 or 15 minutes of parking with coins.
On public transport I can tap in and tap out with the wallet on phone or any bank card. Car parks could work in exactly the same way, but instead there are 15 apps.
Strange, I only have experience with two parking apps, but they both let you pay in 15-minute increments.
I have seen meters that have smaller increments, like sub-10-minutes, but when the increments cost something like 50 cents, it's hard to really care that much.
The parking app I use in Berlin, easy park, works in the sense that I pre-select a timeframe I think im going to park which then gives me an estimate for how much it'll cost and reserve that amount using my CC. When I end the parking before that timer ends, the actual time I've parked will be taken and only that amount is charged.
It used to be even better in the sense that you'd only start and then end parking without having to pre select a time. But I think too many people, me included, forgot to end the parking when taking off and paid way more than they actually parked for.
Of course the apps could easily detect that parking has ended. They could note your location when you park. When the phone returns to that location, and then moves at driving speed, parking has ended.
But they don't because they make more money by profiting from people who forget to "clock out" when they are done parking.
> Of course the apps could easily detect that parking has ended. They could note your location when you park. When the phone returns to that location, and then moves at driving speed, parking has ended.
They could at least start with adding proper CarPlay and Android Auto support so you can just end the parking from the infotainment. But I think there can be at most a single engineer working on this app if at all. Up until a couple months ago it didn't even have the option for a persistent notification to remind you that you had an ongoing parking...
> But they don't because they make more money by profiting from people who forget to "clock out" when they are done parking.
fwiw, at least in this case, the app that profited from you not clocking out got shut down and bought out by the app that asks you to pre-set your parking time. Which I guess is still not great, but at least somewhat of a step up.
> But I think there can be at most a single engineer working on this app if at all.
I assume they’re contracted out to the lowest bidder.
In my city the payment schedule on the app significantly lags the meters/official rates. Fine when prices go up, but pretty annoying to app-users when the app charges more than the official parking rates. Maybe if they get their merchant account sanctioned for too many chargebacks someone will take notice.
>In my experience, parking apps require you to pay in larger chunks of hours than paying with coins used to;
Here in Nashville, they sold out our public street parking to a private company. Now instead of coins in a meter for the time you want, you have to buy at least an hour for $1.75 (or more), pay by scanning a QR code (which is misprinted on the signs) unless you're in one of the spots where there's a working pay machine, and it now is enforced 24/7 instead of having holidays and weekends off (IIRC it was also free after 6, which was great). Also they had two hour limits where you can't simply move your car, you have to park somewhere they don't check for an indeterminate amount of time. How is any of this an improvement unless you get a cut of the money?
Parking apps requires registration. I arrive, park my car then
(1) via machine: insert my card into the machine, get ticket, leave
(2) via app: spend 10 minutes registering an account, email, password, phone number, wants verification via email or phone number, wants me to register my credit card and the agree to them selling all my data.
IF on the other hand, they just made it use some kind of common e-cash and no registration, no tracking, no account, I'd be 100% for it.
If you pay with a card, then they can track you, so it doesn't really matter if you put that card into a machine or into an app account.
For places where I don't expect to return (or only rarely), sure, having to do an app is annoying. But for places where you expect to use it often enough, it can be a time-saver, after the initial time cost of setup.
The idea of a parking app is better than the physical process of using a meter generally. But I have not really seen an app flow better than the physical process despite having parked in many cities. In fact, I can come up with a simple physical process better than the apps by far: tap the meter in and tap the meter out with your NFC chip in the card.
Pay for the exact time, or if you forget, pay the full time period you’re legally allowed to park.
Instead, on my city’s app I must select a car (despite having only one), select a zone (despite GPS), and then manually enter my card (despite it being my account default). Every time.
The Pay By Phone app works well for me. It automatically figures out what parking area you are in from the phone GPS, it already knows your license plate, and it has your credit card.
Basically the flow for me is open the app, and hit how long I want to park for. And then the app will let me know when my parking is running out and I can add time on my phone without going back to the car.
> Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
Why do iOS and Android phones have a "wallet", and why a boarding pass would have anything to do with it?
There's an electronic solution strictly better than the app, for when you have no printer handy: just give the user the goddamned PDF! Works everywhere, works offline, can be printed if needed, and the user can manage, send or back it up however they like.
You can do that if you want. Most airlines issue PDF boarding passes and both iOS and Android can store and show those files.
Apple Wallet (and Apple Pay) are actually one of my favorite smartphone features. The built-in Wallet (speaking for iOS here) has a few advantages over a folder of PDFs:
- The QR code is always fairly big without having to pan and zoom a PDF file
- The display brightness is automatically increased to make reading the QR code easier
- The Wallet syncs with my Apple Watch (where passes use a different, optimized layout) giving me backup if something where to happen to my phone during boarding
- Passes can be updated by the airline (e.g. gate changes)
- Passes automatically expire, I don’t have to cleanup myself. (There’s archive in case I need an old one)
- Passes can be shown on your lock screen during the boarding time for easier access
- Passes can be multilingual, adapting to your phone’s language
> Why do iOS and Android phones have a "wallet", and why a boarding pass would have anything to do with it?
It's not that deep, just a skeuomorphic name for somewhere where you'd keep importants/valuables for quick access, credit/debit cards, boarding passes, concert tickets
Not unlike keeping a folded up copy of a pass in a physical wallet (Which may not be universal, but I would have guessed not that uncommon either)
And if your phone is out of order? I used a PDF version of the boarding pass on my laptop in the past due to a flat phone. Even when my phone is available I still just use the PDF version that was emailed to me. I never use my phone 'wallet' for anything.
You can do all those things if you want. Download the PDF to your laptop, add the pass to your phone's wallet, even print out a backup copy if you want. And then when you get to the airport, use whichever is most convenient for you.
I generally just get the mobile pass and put it in Google Wallet. If I ever run into a situation where my phone is lost/broken/battery-drained, I'll just go up to the check-in desk or a kiosk and get my boarding pass printed. No big deal.
Since I use my phone to pay for things, book rides between places and basically existing in general
I also keep a power bank on my person and a spare phone in my house
But if I'm not confident on availability I also keep alternatives, I've not used physical money in months (Other than local bus fares), but I do keep some cash on my person, as well as the physical cards that I use virtually on my phone and copies of boarding passes when necessary, not that I've needed any of them recently, I just like covering my bases, it's not a binary situation, I'd also like to keep spares if my only copy was physical
In the unlikely event my phone dies (hasn’t ever happened in 20 years of having phones) then I’ll go to the desk and ask them to print a boarding pass.
The wallet allows activation by proximity like RFID. So if the pass is in the wallet you don't need to go digging around for wherever the PDF is stored in the phone. Tap, the pass is requested, the pass responds, go.
Until two years ago, I flew out of ATL - the busiest airport in the US. Am I suppose to look on the board and look for my flight out of the hundreds of flights to see if anything has changed and keep looking every 30 minutes?
If I’m sitting at a restaurant or a bar I should get up every 20 minutes to see if something has changed?
Should I also print out MapQuest directions before I go somewhere and wait for the paper boy to deliver the newspaper to get the news?
And it’s literally a mile from one end of the airport to the other. Is it somehow better to look on a board than just look on a phone?
And then you also get notifications when the flight changes so drastically that I need to completely change my flight plans. Just this past weekend we were suppose to fly MCO - MSP - LAS and flight changes meant we were going to misd our layover.
Luckily we were notified as soon as the change happen and we were able to make a change to MCO - ATL - LAS and get two of the last seats.
The same happen on the way back. It was LAS - MSP - MCO and we were able to change it to LAS - LAX - MCO.
Things always change when you fly a lot. The sooner you know about those changes the better.
> Until two years ago, I flew out of ATL - the busiest airport in the US. Am I suppose to look on the board and look for my flight out of the hundreds of flights to see if anything has changed and keep looking every 30 minutes?
That’s what I usually do. It’s not that much of an effort to look at the screen right at the gate you’re sitting at to confirm that nothing has changed. I‘ve been to ATL twice, it’s not that bad.
What are you going to do when something happens to your phone …
Can you imagine… how did we manage to live before everyone and their dog had a phone in their pocket.
So yeah… yeah? That’s exactly what you supposed to be doing.
> What are you going to do when something happens to your phone
Uh... look at the big departures board, duh. I don't see why it's weird to want to use an indisputably more convenient method (auto-updating pass on my phone) for the common case, but still be able to fall back to a less-convenient method (departures board) if the uncommon case comes up.
And no big deal if I need a paper boarding pass. I can just walk over to the gate, show them my ID, and ask them to print me one.
> That’s what I usually do. It’s not that much of an effort to look at the screen right at the gate you’re sitting at to confirm that nothing has changed. I‘ve been to ATL twice, it’s not that bad.
And you somehow think that’s more efficient? Do you also think polling is more efficient than web hooks and push notifications? Why would I do that?
And the restaurants are usually not right at the gate you’re sitting at. Well in our case we are usually sitting in the lounge…
> What are you going to do when something happens to your phone
Well, I personally would take out my cellular equipped iPad on the rare occasions that I was flying by myself and I would still get text notifications on my cellular equipped watch or depend on my wife having her phone, cellular equipped iPad or Watch.
If all that failed yes I would have to get a paper ticket - which you can do at the gate.
How often do you actually fly? My wife and I have been flying over a dozen times a year post Covid.
I was in ATL either flying in, out or through ATL over 25x last year alone.
> Can you imagine… how did we manage to live before everyone and their dog had a phone in their pocket.
I personally had my first phone in my pocket in 1995. Never once in 30 years has anything “happened to my phone”.
What is there to be more efficient? You’re sitting there waiting for a flight. This isn’t a shopping mall, even if it appears to look like one.
Re push vs pull… which one do you prefer more? Kafka or MQTT? On a more serious note… pull because I don’t sit snd stare at the phone all the time. Phone stays in the pocket. So the act of taking it out of the pocket is a pull action.
There are no screens and announcements at the lounge? You went to the airport to fly somewhere, not shopping or a dinner for two, no? What’s more important than getting to your destination?
I really don't get why you're being so hostile here. If you don't want to rely on modern conveniences, don't. There's no reason to get up in arms that some of us think that other ways can be easier.
> What is there to be more efficient? You’re sitting there waiting for a flight. This isn’t a shopping mall, even if it appears to look like one.
That’s just it, even if I didn’t have lounge access, I would be hanging out at a restaurant or a bar that isn’t near the gate. I would have to be constantly looking on the board with all of the flights. ATL has 192 gates spread across seven concourses and two terminals.
> pull because I don’t sit snd stare at the phone all the time. Phone stays in the pocket
Of course I have an alarm set for when I need to start heading toward my gate. But gate changes and when it’s time to board are both push notifications to both my phone and my watch.
> There are no screens and announcements at the lounge
2100 flights take off per day from ATL. That’s over 100 flights an hour - I think there are at least 6 hours a day where no flights take off. They explicitly say they don’t make announcements.
This goes back to do you really want to be searching for your flight on a board with that many flights?
> You went to the airport to fly somewhere, not shopping or a dinner for two, no
If you either get to the airport early to avoid rush hour or have a long layover, you probably will end up having a meal or drinks while you wait. We had a four hour layover at LAX last week.
1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?
I recently got bitten in the rear by Delta not updating boarding passes stored in Apple Wallet, even though it had / has all permissions to do so.
Only when I checked the time and wondered why we weren't boarding yet, and opened the app did I notice that the gate changed.
Even afterwards the one stored in Apple Wallet did not update. I even tried to do the pull-to-refresh. Eventually I pulled to refresh, and that worked.
No, but when you have a device in your hands, with an app provided by the company you're dealing with, and they specifically request permissions to send you notifications, you start to rely on it.
An unreliable boarding pass in Apple Wallet is worse than a paper boarding pass.
With the paper one I know I need to check the screens etc. With the Apple the app implies that you no longer have to do this.
And you get used to it. You stop doing the things you did before. That muscle memory disappears. Not dissimilar to driving with GPS, or programming with AI.
Actually, it is updated more currently usually. Apple wallet will not update for me with the current gate. By the time I show up to the airport 2 hours before the flight and get a paper pass on the other hand usually the gate is already set. But apple wallet still won't always reflect that update to the gate. Whereas my printed pass does. As well as the good old fashioned boards of flights, which are pretty easy to gleam considering they are alphabetized.
This is my experience most flights to be honest. LAX doesn't assign gates until the last minute so apple wallet is usually wrong. Google search for the flight number always works of course.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late
But they are worse than mid-2000s tech. I used to have a tag with an lcd timer that I loaded up with cash periodically. When I parked in a metered space in the city, I just turn the thing on and hang it on my driver window. It was synced with the parking schedule, so the timer wouldn’t run until metered parking started and stopped at the end of metered parking. Parking enforcement simply had to look at the tag to make sure it was on and had a positive value. When I came back, I just shut the thing off—I paid for exactly what I used, always. Great UX: turn on thing, hang in window, remove, turn off thing, plug into computer to add money every few months.
Compare to now where there’s An App that requires multiple taps to tell it which street your on, which car, oh look it forgot your credit card and they don’t take Apple Pay, time to enter all that data in again… oh yeah, also you have to overbuy parking and they charge transaction fees every time if you try to buy exact and add time later.
Also, now parking enforcement has to key in everyone’s license plates to figure out if they’re legal or not (no automated plate readers—they’re illegal in this state). Apart from being annoying, now that data is conveniently harvested.
> Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
You can just print at the airport at the check-in machines.
I never even bother checking-in in advance of arriving at the airport. I theorize that they assign bad seats to early checkins to incentivize people to pay to choose a different seats. I have at various times been assigned to upgraded seats (not upgraded class, but e.g. emergency row, bulkhead, etc.) when checking in at the airport.
Don’t people just print their boarding passes at home before they leave for the airport? Or worst case, use the kiosks at the airports which print passes? Very few of the passengers in line ahead of me are using their phones.
Printing a boarding pass at home works for the flight out. But what about the returning flight?
Just last week I flew back home from SFO. I needed to change the flight at the last minute. The app failed to update with the new flight. The airline had removed all the boarding pass kiosks from that airport and only seemed to have luggage drop service. I asked an airport employee how I could get a boarding pass printed, and he pointed to a poorly-marked lane with a sign about "special accommodations" or something, like I was blind. I waited in that line for about 20 minutes along with people who were trying to check their bags. Eventually I got to someone who seemed really put out that I hadn't checked in yet and that they'd need to push a few more buttons on their computer to do that for me.
I don't trust apps, I don't mind using them for stuff that doesn't matter much, like parking og supermarket loyalty programs. For travel information, absolutly fucking not. I print everything. At the airport I mostly see people using their phones as boarding passes, I absolutely refuse to do that, I have zero trust that that will work as well as the paper boarding passes.
I mean, they do demonstrably work. And if for some reason yours doesn't, no big deal, just walk two feet over to the gate desk and ask them to print you one.
I prefer to use mobile boarding passes so I don't have to waste paper, and don't have to keep track of yet one more thing while traveling. (I'm already bringing my phone, so I have to keep track of that regardless.)
I really hate that the basic cost for participation has gone up, a smartphone and quality internet (in the USA) can be a significant cost.
But I've never had a problem with a screen capture of a boarding pass, and I've found the Apple wallet to work as well. The airport kiosks are good for printing out the pass when you check in, or even for just printing if you checked in on-line 24 hours prior.
That's what I do, because phones are too fiddly and I don't want to have to deal with unlocking it and finding wherever the barcode went off to when it's my turn to check in, but my wife does something with an app instead and seems to like it.
Perhaps that's the thing with an app my wife is doing. I don't have a wallet app, myself; I mistrust phones (and the corporations which own them) too much for that.
Depends where you are and which flights. Around me, maybe 60% of people use mobile. From the other 40%, some probably got their paper tickets when they checked in their baggage and going with that now.
> boarding passes at home before they leave for the airport
It’s been years I’ve heard or seen anyone doing it. Even my parents in their 70s get theirs at the airport.
> I don't think most people worry about that at all. Why wouldn't it be available? If you're heading to the airport from home, your battery is charged.
You're assuming the phone works and the internet connection works and the app works and the service behind it responsive. That's a lot of trust in thousands of moving parts.
Meanwhile I have a printed boarding pass which depends on nothing other than me having it in my pocket, so it basically 100% fail-proof.
While I always use the paper boarding pass, I do also check the boarding pass on the app out of curiosity. Easily like half the time on the American Airlines app, when I'm at the gate about to board and click on show boarding pass, the app hangs for many minutes and never responds. I'm always glad I have the paper boarding pass in my pocket instead.
> You're assuming the phone works and the internet connection works and the app works and the service behind it responsive
At check-in (24 hours before my flight), I add the boarding pass to Google Wallet. Doesn't require an internet connection afterward, or having to rely on the airline's often-shitty app. Yes, the phone has to not be broken, but that's a pretty low bar: in my 15 years of owning smartphones, my phones have been broken and unusable for perhaps a grand total of a few days of time (so under 0.01% of the time). Yes, Google Wallet has to be functioning, but that particular app being broken would be an unusual, surprising occurrence.
And if by 0.01% chance, I can't get the boarding pass off my phone for some reason, I can always go to the check-in desk or kiosk or gate and ask them to print me one.
> Meanwhile I have a printed boarding pass which depends on nothing other than me having it in my pocket, so it basically 100% fail-proof.
I've never lost a phone before, but I have lost paper boarding passes on more than one occasion.
Maybe I'm weird, but when I go on a trip, I generally pack my smartphone, if I bring it at all. It would be a royal pain to go find it again when I get into line to board.
Same, I do recognize that walking around without a smartphone starting to become "weird" to others though. I don't mind being weird.
I live in a major US city and get hit up for cash by the homeless sometimes. When I explain I do not have a cellphone to them when they ask for money through some cash app. They look bewildered. Just 20 years ago I was the only one carrying around such a device for IT reasons. Now I am putting limits on my digital life, and it makes me socially "weird".
OTOH
Currently, the only thing I don't pay regularly by using a smart device, are bus fares, which are a solved problem, my city just hasn't implemented that yet
Everything else, I can either use a digital wallet for, or an instant bank transfer (Which I've been given to understand are a bit more of a hassle in the US)
I'd basically never expect to be without a device for an extended period of time, specially not in an airport
I am aware of the single point of failure though, so I do take particular care of not running out of battery, keeping an accesible spare, and some cash around for emergencies I just never use it
Almost nobody carries around small cash or change anymore.
And social services provide the homeless and those in poverty with free smartphones, since they're far more effective at ensuring communications with social services.
So how is the world weird? It all seems quite rational and reasonable to me.
> It's often €50 now to print boarding pass at the counter in Europe.
I was about to respond, "No way this is true. I don't believe you." But then I found an article claiming that yes, indeed you can be fleeced like this for simply showing up and asking for your boarding pass. Unreal.
Depends on where you are. My experience in American airports is almost all apps, but Spain's Iberia, for example, is basically all paper, typically printed by the airline and not even someone at home. So for them, minimal changes over how flying worked in the 1990s.
At a certain point, low-cost airlines become high-cost, at least in time and annoyance. I have a cousin who insists that Sprit saves him money, and every family holiday his plane is delayed or cancelled, and he had to fly to a different city and drive to where we are.
Just US domestic flights. Most people just have the paper passes. They are guaranteed to work. And I guess I just assumed everyone with a computer had some sort of printer. If not, how do they, you know, print things out? I use my printer constantly for things like forms I have to mail, printing out documentation to read later, hobby stuff…
You act as if the same QR codes scanned on your phone don’t work. Even if your phone dies or something happens, the gate agent can still print out your ticket at the gate.
What are you printing off and mailing so often?
Any documents you I don’t want to read on my phone, I read on my iPad.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Maybe it's better these days, but back when I used to use online apps/sites to pay for parking in private lots, 4/5 times I still got a "ticket." I never had to pay the fine with money, only with time.
I think it really was the 4th time I decided to stop using those apps entirely.
Sometimes I wonder if the devs behind these apps and processes feel embarrassed by the results. I would be, even if the failures weren't my fault.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Pay-on-exit car parks are the answer to this. Combined with contactless card payment and that's peak parking experience.
Except having the actual barrier is expensive. The license plate reader is cheaper, so they'll do that instead, and if it malfunctions, hope you don't mind paying for a full day of parking!
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
In my experiece, apps have increased costs around 50% and some even try to add monthly subscription.
> > 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
The last time I tried parking in downtown Salt Lake City the city's app wouldn't even install on my phone, complaining about being built for an older Android version. Fortunately the web site still worked. Sort of. I had to try a couple of different browsers before I found one that functioned with the site.
When riding Caltrain I get charged for the maximum amount I could possibly pay (all stops) when I board. Then when I get off at my stop I tap again and get refunded for all the stops I ended up not getting to. It works fine. Seems a meter could be a "tap in/tap out" thing. If it's 5 hours until it's free to park, put a hold for 5 hours of time. If you get back in 2 hours, release the hold and only charge for 2 hours when you tap out.
It's even possible to do this with cash. Imagine a machine that calculates your change and spits out bills and/or coins. Oh wait, yeah, we've had that technology since around 1959. It would just need to print out a ticket with a bar code or something to authenticate that you're the one who paid in the first place. Did you lose your ticket? Sorry, looks like you're paying for the rest of the day. But that's still a lot cheaper than a citation.
I suspect it's not "pay max/get refund" because municipalities can't stop milking those sweet sweet citations from people who fail to correctly guess how much time they'll need up front.
For me it is less about being concerned about my device running out of batteries. It's more about some weird incompatibility between my device and the scanner.
It's one less thing to worry about when I just want to get on the plane. My paper ticket isn't going to lock before I get to the gate, or not be bright enough. I won't have to "play" with my ticket to keep it active and proper for the scanner.
> It's more about some weird incompatibility between my device and the scanner.
I think I held up an entire flight for nearly an hour because the QR code on my Graphene OS Android phone scanned fine at the TSA checkpoint but didn't scan at all at the gate. They ended up letting me on the flight without properly registering that I boarded in their system. That triggered some crazy security hold that prevented the crew from obtaining permission to pull back from the gate.
When that happens (and note it happens to paper boarding passes as well) I've always seen gate agents simply type in the details off the boarding pass. E.g. name, sequence number, etc and do a manual entry that way. I've had this happen to me at least once, and the agent very quickly just typed in something in their terminal and it was all done with no fuss. Really surprised no one thought of doing this in your situation.
> and god forbid if your drop your smartphone and get it cracked
Then you print a boarding pass at the kiosk? But I've cracked a phone once in ten years, it's not really something I'm worried about.
And paper isn't reliable. For most people, you're much more likely to lose a random sheet of paper than for your phone to suddenly permanently stop working.
Those kiosks are gone from many airports. You're going to have to wait in line to get anything printed. And if you fly Ryanair it will cost you over 50 euro.
I didn't know that. Based on what do they print a boarding pass, or perhaps rather: why don't they check {whatever the answer to the previous question is} at boarding instead of you having to hold onto a pass that apparently is a proxy for something else?
> That's not a thing. They're literally just cameras looking for a QR code.
And yet for me one time earlier this year said QR code on my Graphene OS phone scanned fine at the TSA checkpoint but refused to scan at the gate, leading to mayhem as the crew couldn't figure out for nearly an hour why the number of people sitting on the plane wasn't equal to the number of people who they registered as boarding.
I've had airline machines fail to scan the barcode on my poorly printed paper boarding passes (e.g. faded ink or unfortunate located gaps etc in the barcode area). The solution is simple, just type in the details off the BP into the terminal to look up my PNR and type the command to confirm I've boarded. I've seen this done for both paper and mobile boarding pass issues. Not a mobile issue but obviously poor staff training and problem solving which occurs with or without mobiles.
I’m gonna say something stupid — the chances of my phone running out of battery and me not being able to charge it is lower than me losing the paper ticket.
It's not that hard to maintain a random piece of paper, you do it with your ID, which presumably you do not keep on your phone. It is much harder to ensure an iPhone won't randomly be miscalibrated and shut off at 30%.
I do it with my ID because I've conditioned myself to check for it everytime I'm going to move places, or rather, check for my wallet, which usually has my ID inside it, but has burned me on a couple of ocassions
Also, some people do keep their ID on their phones, either directly on the back of the case (I've seen it more on young women, maybe because lack of pockets) or with something like a magnetic wallet
Louisiana has digital ID, I don't use it but my wife does and it seems to work OK. I think you can have your phone locked with the ID up, which is the only way I'd consider using it, anyhow.
Its been a while since I've heard any issues with it. I prefer the physical card still.
Not it's not hard, but it is significantly harder, and why introduce unnecessary additional complexity into my life?
My ID is in my wallet. A sheet of paper doesn't fit in my wallet. So I have to put the folded paper in a pocket, where it might fall out when I take out my gloves, or I forget if I put it in my backpack, and in which pocket, etc.
A sheet of paper is extra. My phone isn't. And I sure as heck don't bring a phone with low charge to the airport... when I know I'm probably going to be using it for hours... and I've got my charger with me anyways in case I somehow did.
You could lose your phone, or even have it stolen.
I think of it as multitasking. A paper ticket means I can focus on reading etc on device, while the ticket can serve its purpose. I keep all pertinent materials in a pouch in front of me however so not hard to find.
At the airport? That’s fine. I’ll just talk to the agent and get a ticket if needed. I think these are just extreme cases that applies to extremely tiny percentage of people.
> > 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Yeah... nothing more I love than having to scan a QR code to get an app from someone I don't know, then go through the signup process, then input a buncha personal information into an app... instead of just dropping 10 quarters into a metal stick and walking away for the next two hours.
> > 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
> Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
Looking to the left or right of your desk is how you should be finding your printer. They're not gold bars. They're not expensive.
> Looking to the left or right of your desk is how you should be finding your printer.
The desk at my AirBnB doesn't seem to have one.
> They're not gold bars. They're not expensive.
If someone has an alternate solution to owning a printer that works for them, whats it to you? Owning a printer so you can print half of the boarding passes you need every time you fly seems excessive to me
> Yeah... nothing more I love than having to scan a QR code to get an app from someone I don't know, then go through the signup process, then input a buncha personal information into an app... instead of just dropping 10 quarters into a metal stick and walking away for the next two hours.
Quality of execution obviously matters. I find EasyPark (Swedish company, used all over the place) a lot better than the usual parking meters. Plus I can use it in several cities with different currencies (in my case Euros and Czech Koruna), saving me from carrying more change.
The point is all these things should be options, not single points of failure. We should be able to pay by coin/tap, or app when at a place we frequent. Apps should use a single system per region, props for being an open standard.
> Yeah... nothing more I love than having to scan a QR code to get an app from someone
True. I does suck when travelling. Locally I find it much more convenient though.
> dropping 10 quarters
You're always carrying a bag full of coins wherever you go? And even if I did I'd end up overpaying/underpaying half of the time.
> Looking to the left or right of your desk is how you should be finding your printer.
So I should waste space with a huge device that I use <10 times per year?
I mean I could bring it over from the other room or the attic or wherever it's lying around but why would I waste time and mental energy each time I'm travelling having to keep track of some piece of paper that I mustn't lose? Seems rather pointless...
Cheap Android phones aren't expensive either and can provide a lot more than a printer for most people these days.
A few months ago, I had to use street parking in Long Beach, California. They no longer had individual meters along this particular street, but rather one parking sticker machine. The parking sticker machine was broken, so I had to download the advertised parking payment app which was not one of the parking apps I already had on my phone. Finally, I had to pay an additional “convenience” fee on top to use this app that I wouldn’t have needed to pay using physical payment infrastructure.
So everyone wins here, except us: the app company gets to make a killing on compulsory payment processing, and City of Long Beach gets to continue to pull in parking revenue without worrying about whether their payment machines still work—a broken machine is not an excuse because you can still pay with the app because everyone has a smartphone with an up-to-date OS and functioning cell service with appropriate bandwidth, right? I’m sure I could have complained to the city and gotten my +/-dollar back, but I didn’t have time just to do so for the principle of the thing.
I don't think I could disagree more with your number 4. Adding a boarding pass to Apple Wallet and having it update itself with gate changes, delays, etc, notifying you and even scribbling skeuomorphically what changed on the pass [0] has been one of the strongest delighters I've experienced in recent times.
Are you not also paying attention to the gate itself and to departure boards? Why do you need your phone to tell you what's posted on numerous displays that you walk past?
So you disregard what's in front of your face, in preference to your device.
Other folks here were talking about how their devices did not update in a timely fashion. They had to force refresh several times to get a response. Meanwhile the gate screens have a single job and update within seconds.
You can do that with a boarding pass downloaded from the airline website or emailed to you by the airline. But some airlines like to hide this option in order to force you to download their app.
Why would you need to do that? The boarding pass has a QR code on it; the QR code links to your ticket. If you need to change your booking, they can email you a new one.
And? These are available on google, on the airline's website, and on screens throughout the terminal. Many airlines will send them to you via SMS. There's no need to have a whole app just to check your gate assignment.
My apple wallet boarding passes never update on time. At LAX they sometimes put you as a placeholder at the international terminal for your gate on boarding pass. So then you show up, slog through the international terminal to this gate, and see that no you are actually in terminal 7. Enjoy the resulting 2.5 mile walk I hope you baked in extra time.
Now I don’t trust it. Googling the flight number brings in the updated gate. Not the apple wallet boarding pass though.
I had a frustrating experience with this. We were staying in a small town and the casino had a ferry to cross the river, which would save 20 minutes driving and be kind of neat. I'm guessing they had issues with the staff collecting payments, so they had switched to a parking app to pay for it. You pay for the ferry as a "parking lot" and it should all work fine.
Signs at the road to it say to pay before proceeding, so I do. After driving all the way up, it turns out the ferry wasn't running (they neglected to close the gate at the start of the road). The parking app was tied into a pair of license plate readers on the boat, but since I couldn't drive past the "exit", they never considered my "parking" to end and it racked up a charge over two days. Of course, the "parking" starts without my car being detected going on to the boat.
Fortunately, I got a refund, but it required jumping through a bunch of hoops. If we paid the way it used to be done this wouldn't be possible at all!
>Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
Delta's app is pretty good. I really like the peace of mind from being able to see where my bags are, including when they get put on the conveyor.
You know what all these stories kind of sound like me? When some new technology comes out and you see somebody and they're like, one of the first people to buy it and they're like, oh, check this out. And then they try to show you something, but it doesn't work?
So if the parking thing is broken and I don't have my phone with me I can't go to the doctor today?
Cool. If a meter was broken I could just go to another spot with a working meter.
In Laguna beach they had $1 coin machines to get around the "ten quarters" thing, and this was 20 years ago!
Ehhhhh. In the case where it's a one-off, yes, because I'm not going to install an app and give it my payment details if I only expect to rarely park in a particular place.
But, for example, in downtown Truckee, California, I always use the parking app, especially in the winter, so I don't have to futz with a machine out in the cold while my fingers are freezing. I pay from inside the warmth of my car, or inside the building I'm going to. Even in the summer, it's nice to be able to pay while I'm walking to my destination, rather than stand there staring at a machine, waiting for it to charge my credit card.
It's also great to be able to "feed the meter" from my table at the restaurant if end up there longer than I expected, and the time has run out.
> Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
To each their own, I guess. In general I prefer not to waste paper for one-time use things, and when I'm traveling I already have my phone, and not having to keep track of more things is a plus. I do worry about situations where I could lose or break my phone (though I could lose a printed boarding pass too) or its battery runs out, but if that happens I can still go to the check-in counter or a kiosk and get a boarding pass printed, so I'm really no worse off than if I didn't have the mobile app in the first place.
Case in point - Toronto Parking Authority (Green P)'s app forces you to keep a balance and refill in multiples of $20 CAD, whereas street parking meters can charge your credit card in any increment as necessary (e.g. $1.25).
Having taken both academic classes in Spanish, and using Duolingo for multiple years, I feel like Duolingo is a faster, more cost effective option for establishing a foundation. Obviously if you want to approach fluency, submersion is necessary.
I would dispute your points 2 and 4. But yes, the trend towards apps is not very good. I am not sure if the apps are cheaper or just makes people think they are doing something modern and better. One thing is for sure, most apps based devices won't age well.
I generally agree, but I’ve had a great experience with one of those. I just wish they all did the same streamlined thing this one particular app I used did.
The QR code I had to scan actually ran an App Clip instead of taking me to a website. Everything was done in one screen: enter plate, parking stall number, hours. My physical interaction with it was just scrolling a little and hitting a button. Done. Wonderful.
Most parking solitions are a shitshow though. Multiple screens (seriously, why?!), having to create an account, not handling payment via Apple Pay so I have to enter my credit card manually. Having to enter the parking location manually (how come it’s not a parameter in the QR code URL?). I’d really like to know what happens at the companies that develop those. It’s borderline criminal how bad they are.
Printing a boarding pass for the return trip when you can only check in 36 hours before departure is a lot trickier than printing at home. I'd prefer to print but this is one of the things that is simpler.
The only annoying part is when the app gets battery killed with terrible reception in the airport and then takes 2 minutes to show you the boarding pass it already downloaded.
Generally, yes, (it may have improved since I left but the Chicago one was a nightmare a few years back) however the best experience I've ever had was in Nashville (don't recall the company name).
I signed up via the web (no app) and then the parking lot has cameras/sensors that detect my plate. Any parking lot owned by that company is now accessible to me in the city. I can just pull in, it detects me (notifying me my "session" has started), and then charges my card on file when I pull out (either in an hour, or even the next day).
As with a lot of things, there are often examples of well-executed solutions at the fringes, they're just not deployed at a large enough scale to cancel out the other negative examples. Software can improve a lot, but it's down to the team/individuals involved to care enough to do it right (and not be distracted by other incentives).
> 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
Whenever I fly business class for an international trip, I always check in at the counter. It's just as fast, but getting that boarding pass printing on cardstock and tucked into the photo page of my passport feels so quaint and charming.
In general, I agree with your observation, but in terms of Duolingo it does not matter whether language classes would have been better, because I was never going to sign up for them. Letting myself get hooked on another daily word game was a commitment I could actually make, and after plugging away at it with steadily increasing enthusiasm for a little over a year now, I've gained a significant degree of fluency I would not otherwise have. Thus I think that Duolingo offers a genuinely valuable service, not directly comparable to language classes.
I've seen good airline apps and bad airline apps. The good ones allow you to do things like checking your own bags and dropping off bags without talking to anyone. The bad ones simply are slow and have missing features: you may be able to buy a ticket but changing it requires calling a number. (Of course if you are the type to prefer human customer service, these won't appeal to you.)
women, and a small pool of men, use Tinder to efficiently find hookups. IRL speed dating is actually a much bigger pain in the ass for that purpose. it's "uber for nookie"
Re no. 1, what are you supposed to do in those cities if you don't have a smartphone? Just get a ticket? Seems heavily discriminatory against the poor.
The customers for these apps are the parking lot operators and they love the apps.
> 2. Tinder is worse than IRL speed dating.
It is now, it definitely wasn't when it first came out. Prime example of enshittification, but not an example of what you're conveying.
> 3. Duolingo is worse than language classes.
This one I feel has the most merit, but still not a lot. What % of Duolingo users would've actually taken classes were it not for these apps? Also, some people don't learn well from classes (I'm one of them). Not that that makes Duolingo any better, but despite its pretenses it's squarely aimed at extremely shallow, casual, surface-level learning that might be useful on a holiday. And people don't take classes for that.
> 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
In what way? Admittedly I've only used the apps of 2 airlines, but they worked fine.
I had come to this conclusion long ago i.e. computers/software are now majorly being oriented towards purely money-making (for certain vested interests) rather than doing any good for people/society or the world in general. The original idealism is long gone.
But all of those situations require human labor or oversight which is extremely expensive in the developed world. So in the sense that they allow people to access these things for cheaper they are better. And Tinder, Duolingo, etc. are at least cheaper. The other two the cost savings is gained by the government or the airline
Yes, in the digital world these folks feel like they can strongarm you, in a way they would never have the gall to do in person. By demanding full information and customer-hostile rules. Sorry, we don't "support" anything else at this time!
When visiting the UK last summer we tried to go to a train museum. There were three public parking lots around with different app based parking systems. We were unsuccessful in using any of them due to various issues relating to poor cell service, lack of UK phone number etc. In the end we had to leave without visiting the museum. It was farcical.
As a North London resident, the parking app situation is just as farcical for me.
There are at least three different apps for parking around me: RingGo, PayByPhone and JustPark.
I went to East London recently to visit the Velodrome, and discovered yet another one: Evology.
It's always great fun, standing around in the car park trying to wrangle your cards whilst creating yet another account to pay for 30 minutes of parking.
Then, of course, there's the 50/50 chance that my iPhone has decided to offload the parking app you need because you haven't used it in the last month or so.
And occasionally RingGo will decide to log me out, and when I go to log back in for some reason the last password I have in my password manager doesn't work, so now I also have to reset my password.
Agreed, paying for parking has turned into a total farce.
If people just stopped paying for parking en masse, things might change. I'm in the US, so maybe my attitude is different, but if I parked in a parking lot that didn't let me pay without installing some weirdo app, I would just park without paying and let them come after me if they can find me. If they send me a bill, I can refuse to pay. If they send it to collections, collections will probably not pursue over such a small amount. And if the debt collector does pursue, I can send them a dispute letter, forcing them to prove I have a debt obligation, which 99 times out of 100 will make them go away.
This is like the people who think “admiralty court” is a magic phrase to get out of paying taxes. What actually happens is that your car gets towed if you ever park anywhere affiliated with the same company (hope you never need to go to the same place twice), or you get tired of dodging collectors and having that mounting debt affect your credit and employability. Not liking how a business runs doesn’t give you a right to use their services without paying, your choice is still to pay or not use them.
They sell the debt at lower price to companies specialized in debt collection, the longer you wait then to pay them the more they are allowed to collect from you.
If you try not to pay at all, they put you in court against lawyer working for the company whose only job is to collect debt, so he knows his job pretty well and the bonus is that you end up having to pay the lawyer fee.
Of course you could still refuse to pay that, get cops to show up at your house and then you have to shoot to get them to leave.
At some point of course you would think it's a bit much for a parking ticket.
If you don't like it, just don't use it, like everyone else does.
Nobody takes you to court to collect small amounts. They only do that if the amount is sufficiently large and they have good documentation and they believe they will be able to collect a judgement against you (ie either you have assets or you have stable employment so they can garnish wages).
Mostly nothing will happen except daily phone calls for years plus the hit to credit score.
And cops aren't showing up unless aforementioned judgment happened, you ignored it, and the court eventually authorized physical seizure of your property to recover funds.
Thanks to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), those phone calls should be able to be stopped with a simple Debt Validation Letter. No need to even get an attorney involved. Demand that the collector provide proof that you owe the money. Debt collectors will frequently just give up at that point if it's a tiny amount of money like a parking ticket.
The thing is they can tow your car away potentially. At which point your little protest is over as you are now being extorted for hundreds for something you can’t ignore.
Even those having phone and app have trouble in the form of hefty penalties when cell service does not allow them paying in the hard 5 minute mandated. There was a little 'scandal' (more like the usual random weekly media article pick for traffic increasing annoyment from among the thousands of similar f ups not getting any traction) recently provoking thunderous and colorful statements from officials. Regualation change may come in some form sometime perhaps that solves something possibly, but change something for certain, perhaps.
I think this article is city-centric. I am in a rural area in the US and I have only had a smart phone for 2 years and have never installed any apps beyond Mumla that I use for my own self hosted uMurmur server. I have never browsed the web from the phone. My life today is just as it was in the 1970's in that regard. All the businesses here have printed coupons. There are local printed newspapers. I have zero dependency on any "smart" features of phones unless one considers texting to be a smart feature given that was not a thing in the 70's. I do not expect any of that to change. The people here like keeping things simple. With exception of Amazon to get things small shops here do not carry I could even kill my internet connection and life would go on just fine. I would probably even get healthier. All the local businesses know me by name so I guess that makes up for a lack of cookie tracking.
It's an article about the situation in the UK. If your "rural area" is in the US, it is not surprising that it's a bit different than anything in the article.
That makes sense. I think the US tries to mimic big city behavior in the EU so it's probably just a matter of time for big cities in the US to have the same problems. Maybe that means I have a few more decades for any of that to find it's way to me. Curious how prevalent this behavior is in the rural parts of the UK.
I realize this might not be a kosher comment for HN, and i aphid for that. But you seem to have imagined some inherent divide between the mechanics of urban and rural (and apparently foreign and domestic) lives or at least governance. With this imagined division, you are free to ascribe whatever outcome that affects cities to whatever cause, since you live in a different state of existence.
I'm not saying that as an insult, but rather because I don't think there's an inherent difference, I just think rural communities are harder for companies to monetize, for multiple reasons - think density and average income.
But like Amazon, they will get there, and unlike cities, rural communities have less ability to resist and less ability to support a diversity of options. Think about the takeover of Walmart and Dollar General/Tree.
I don't think there's anything special inherent to your rural community that protects you from all this "progress". You're just living through the time before it catches up to your community. And i bet if you think about the effects of the arrival of changes like Walmart's rural expansion, you might find that they upset rural life as well, reducing wages, extracting money from the local economy instead of allowing it to continue to circulate locally, and then investing driving distances, and the associated costs in fuel and time among others.
My guess is that you will go from blaming cities for their problems to blaming cities for your communities problems once they reach you.
But maybe if you reevaluate your perspective, you could help your community prepare to resist those changes while you still have time.
In the US large companies in rural areas also often use apps in the same way as they do in the city (at least they did the last time I visited) and at least all the people I know in rural areas have had smartphones for a long time and use apps a lot (though maybe the fact that the area I know well is near a major university has made it a bit techier). The smaller local stores don't use apps so even in Chicago most places I actually went to didn't. I just went through my phone and the only app like that I have is for Taco Bell
People here do have smart phones and I'm sure some have apps installed. What I am saying is none of that is required today. Nobody here is penalized for not installing some app.
I would have to pay more regardless. The closest McDonalds is a 2 hour drive each way and going up steep mountains on the way back. The burgers at the local restaurant are much better and healthier ... well ... as healthy as a burger gets.
Practically every store now significantly subsidizes their products through their apps. Especially all the fast food chains. But even my local rural gas station does. Need that juicy, juicy data and those notifications.
No worries. This troglodyte will bury his head in the sand. There will be a documentary about us and even the Amish will be shaking their heads. People in the 25th century will look back in envy after the machines take over and they had to reset civilization with EMP's back to agrarian or hunter gatherers. All of that pales in comparison to what happens from the years 201 BG to 108 BG during the Butlerian Jihad.
I live in very rural America. The only thing within 25 miles is a gas station. If I didn't have the gas station's app I would pay a lot more for a lot of the items I buy as they are discounted/on offer/free only on the app.
Well, not so much city-centric as it is population-centric. Cities are population centers, so there is correlation.
The scale you are thinking in is comparable to a small web forum being sustainably moderated by the owner of the site, while the majority of the world exists in a place like reddit that has more moderator users than even large web forums have in total. Reddit would not be sustainable if they had to pay a moderation staff, and similarly rural living cannot be scaled up to support cities without becoming city-like.
So assuming you accept all that, why even read this article or post a reply in the discussion?
I'm not trying to gatekeep here, I'm just saying I don't see why you find this topic interesting? It's like replying to a thread about how life in Afghanistan is really difficult, and you're saying "I think this article is not about America because of all the American things I experience."
I'm not trying to gatekeep here, I'm just saying I don't see why you find this topic interesting?
My ulterior motive and secret agenda is to let people know they can escape that nonsense. Many rural areas are getting faster internet but are much more chill. There are pros and cons people can research themselves. For me most of the cons are pros.
If I can save even one person per year from the social, government and store apps that have massive teams of marketing psychological warfare experts manipulating them then I have done my hero's doodie.
I have never had any of the apps people are talking about on my cellphone since I moved to Louisiana. I just rarely eat fast food anymore, once I realized that I was paying nearly double for my app-free lifestyle. I didn't notice because of inflation at first.
The nearest fast food place to my house is 25 minutes away. Same with Walmart, Kroger, my bank, and nearly everything except dollar general and gas stations.
No ubet, Lyft. There is the food delivery, but only "in town". So far I have never been able to convince anyone to deliver food to my house.
I could use digital ID/license but I don't.
"Reward cards" are just phone numbers, at least the two I use (Kroger and horror fright). Oh and 1 gas station rewards.
I grew up in Los Angeles and spent 33 years there.
I don't think it's a natural urban/rural division. I suspect that that division is more an artifice of capitalism. These new services want to grow, so they target places with the most potential customers. If the pitch to the municipality is that they can take the cost of coin collection and meter maintenance out of the budget entirely, and switch the enforcement from a human walking around, checking meters and wiring tickets to a car that drives past with license plate readers and a sass subscription, then it will come for anywhere with meters, and may eventually come for everywhere, because the original pitch for meters required justifying the expense with projected revenue. And now, if the expense of a few signs and a subscription are low enough, and the license readers are already on police cars, then that evaluation changes.
Of course, as with all of it, local jobs disappear from the local budget, and that money gets shipped off to Wall Street.
My city has parking meters that I can't use because the website has a broken credit card form and the app "isn't available on your version of Android." And of course they don't accept cash.
City of Vancouver parking meters have to accept cash still.
If you try putting a quarter in and it doesn't work (as is often the case because of tampering with the coin slots), I believe you don't have to pay for parking.
going back to pre-smartphone but still true, in the US at least, it is generally illegal to park at a broken meter and you can get a ticket -- because otherwise there would be incentive to break the meter so you could park there for free.
Unfortunately, people have bought into the idea that enforcing laws which are disproportionately broken by the socially disadvantaged is tantamount to oppression. Vandalism and property crime tends to be committed by the poor underclass, often by racial minorities to boot. So people don't want to enforce laws against those people, whose lives are already kinda crap, because they think it's just oppressing them further. Unfortunately, while this thinking is well-intentioned it has really cost society in general dearly.
> If you try putting a quarter in and it doesn't work (as is often the case because of tampering with the coin slots), I believe you don't have to pay for parking.
Huh? That's the exact opposite of most municipalities I know of.
Normally it is "If the meter is broken, you cannot park there. It's an automatic ticket."
Otherwise, everybody just jams something in the slot and all your meters wind up broken.
That's exactly what it is. That is the only real reason. More tracking, more data harvesting, more control for the publisher at the expense of user agency.
Embedded browser with a 450mb app size of course. I wish you can sort by size on app store. It is a signal for quality when you find a 4mb app that does the same thing as a 450mb app.
I wanted to make one but I wanted it to work without networking but be able to trigger notifications on a timer. I don't know anything about cellphone development or JavaScript so I gave up and made a discord bot instead.
For example, he cannot access his bank account via his desktop anymore.
He have to go to his agency in person.
Well we all did that for years so it's just annoying, because he still have the possibility to do it and it's his choice.
But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ? When will it be mandatory to get a smartphone for his bank app, just to have access to his money ?
While I have a smartphone, I choose to not have a Google account.
One of the banks that I am using has terminated its on-line banking service, which I had been using for almost 20 years, replacing it with an app.
That would not have been a problem if they would have provided the app themselves on their Web site, but they refuse to do this and they provide the app only in the Google on-line store, which I cannot use because I do not have a Google account, despite the fact that the app is free.
Therefore I have reduced a lot the number of operations that I do through that bank, redirecting them to another bank, which still has on-line banking on their Web site. Fortunately, for now the bank that has closed their on-line banking Web site still keeps an SMS service, which allows me e.g. to check the balance of my account from my phone and which notifies me about the transactions on my credit card.
Many years ago, I have closed all my accounts at a bank that has annoyed me by updating their on-line banking Web site so that it no longer accepted any browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer. At that time I have hoped that it will be the last time when I leave a bank because they believe that they can force their customers to also be customers of unrelated third parties, but now this problem with Google has appeared.
I am not a US citizen and the bank is not from USA. I doubt that it can be legal for a bank here in Europe to condition their services by their customer becoming the customer of a foreign entity that is Google. However I cannot afford to waste time and money to determine the legality of their actions.
I was not aware of it, so when I will have time I will experiment with it, to see if it works for downloading the app I need when logging in anonymously.
> But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ?
Hello, it's me from the future, reporting live from Germany. My bank is online only and to talk to a person, I need to call the hotline and wait (I shit you not) 20~25 minutes for the PIN input prompt to repeat itself once too many times and time out, handing me off to a very confused human who is wondering how I'm speaking to them unauthenticated (they're very suspicious and will not answer most questions; it's a pretty useless party trick). Alternatively, you can have the answering machine send you an authentication code by snail mail which you can then use once in the next few days to call them one time
I put up with it because the other bank account I applied for rejected me for not being creditworthy (never had a debt in my life, but also no loan, so there is no credit data and apparently that's suspicious; on the other hand, students get accounts there with no problem, so maybe it's a combination of no credit data and age? Or not having citizenship? They're not saying of course, I can only assume it's an illegal reason because why else not say it). The other bank card I own from a neighboring country isn't accepted in most supermarkets, I'd need to bring cash into the country or pay extra for using an ATM abroad. Single European Market is really lovely, you should try it
> If you want to do stuff at a physical bank you pay fees for everything
This hasn't been my experience at all in the US. If you need something in-person, going to the bank is the best option since they don't charge fees like a random ATM does.
The solution is that banks should support any TOTP client for authentication and not just their proprietary app. So you can use open source software or a hardware key.
But they won't. HN is quite good at suggesting a lot of genuinely intelligent and valid potential technical solutions, but most banks won't even think about supporting TOTP broadly. They'll lean into smartphones and apps because this is where the bast majority of their customers are. In this case the 'tyranny' is the overwhelming preference of other people. The masses have spoken, and they want everything to be on their phones.
Also because ticking boxes. You just provide an app that fulfills all the silly security requirements for banking apps and then if something goes wrong, the customer has the burden of proving it's the banks fault.
I've had my banking app installed on an old Samsung phone running lineageos. I only powered it on when I had to do online banking. At some point I needed to update the app and they started checking for rooted devices, so it wouldn't work anymore. Now I've installed it on a much newer android device that I also use for a lot of other crap and sketchy stuff I don't want on my main phone. Also it's powered on all the time. Whether that's really more secure than what I did before is questionable.
Maybe not for you, but rooted phones are a legitimate risk for users that do sideload pirated games and malware etc. I still think the risks are arbitrary, but I can understand why banks want to avoid rooted phones
Then they should also avoid rooted Windows machines where malware is a legitimate risk and orders of magnitude more prevalent than on mobile. Doing one but not the other is arbitrary and just pushes people towards having a locked-down device that they don't fully control with them all the time (can't uninstall tracking software from the vendor, for example). A locked-down computer that just sits in your office all day would be less worrisome
The ING has a small Android based single-purpose authenticator device they offer to customers without smartphones. It can scan the QR code and do the auth.
I had a couple of such TOTP clients from different banks. For approving an operation, both of them required me to sign the amount of money transferred by that operation (i.e. they generated a one-time code that depended on a hash of the amount of money), so no confusions were possible.
My bank used to provide you with a small TOTP device the size of a usb key. Sadly they eventually deprecated it and recently dismissed it entirely in favor of their increadibly slow app.
In the UK loads of bank branches have closed. They've opened up "hubs" which are a joke, some are open only have weekend opening hours of Saturday morning and you usually have to travel to a different town to get to it.
I had some hilariously degenerate experiences with this recently. There are basic services that branches won't provide at all anymore like cashing cheques, which can be annoying in some circumstance. But the real dumb one was being blocked from taking a certain action in the online banking with a message like "present yourself with 2 forms of government ID at a local branch". OK. Fine. Drive there, wait in line, blah blah blah. The teller looks at me like I'm crazy when I say that online banking sent me there. They figure it out, do the KYC process, unblock me and I say great now can you do the thing I was trying to do before all this? "No, you must use online banking for that."
Related issue: how every website seems to migrate to some smartphone-optimized version that looks like a mobile app blown up to a bigger screen that works much worse on desktop. Hall of Shame: Twitter, Facebook, even Vanguard.
What's even more confusing/frustrating is that, despite being developed with very elaborate, mature frameworks, they still lack basic UI accommodations, like making clickable elements detectable by add-ons, or allowing you to open up a detail view in a new tab.
I get if Joe Shmoe's cobbled-together app forgets some things, but why wouldn't stuff like that be rolled in as a default, with all the development hours applied to it?
My bank is developing a new version of their online banking solution. They've decided to model in on their app, which I refuse to use because it's absolutely garbage. So now I have a online banking platform that can't do copy/paste on, hides much of the relevant information and is generally much harder to use than the old version.
I've provide feedback on multiple occasions, but I don't have high hopes for them to fix anything. If I where running a business and to use the site every day I'd be pissed and threatening to move my business else where.
Good news is we are already hitting upper limits of how many people we can reach via apps/smartphone/internet.
Limits that in the past 2 decades (of scaling) the people who built these Platforms didn't have to think about. Now they do. And they are coming under serious pressure because they have built out more Supply than there is Demand.
For example, we got the explosive growth of Netflix. Everyone sees that and piles into streaming. When growth slows in one country they immediately move into another and they keep growing until they run out of countries to expand into. So Netflix has been in India (a country advertised as having zillions of consumers) for nearly 10 years now but they haven't found more than 25 million paying subscribers. Learning takes time. And everyone is learning there are limits to growth based purely on the online model.
i can't access any of my online accounts without a phone. one at least still does simple sms, so it doesn't require a smartphone, but it requires a phone nonetheless. the other requires an app. the problem is that this is a trend. more and more banks switch to requiring apps. if we don't fight the trend, then all banks will do it. switching banks now does not work because the new bank does not know that this is the reason you switched, and the old bank is also unlikely to track this detail.
You're getting downvoted, but here in a populated but not very interesting part of Pennsylvania there must be 15 different banks or credit unions with brick & mortar offices within 10 miles. I lament that not everyone has this degree of choice, but it's not a fantasy.
There may be an online-only bank somewhere in the USA that's app-only, but I wouldn't know. Every bank I've ever encountered has a very functional web site.
We have an app only bank in Canada called WealthSimple, but hardly the only choice.
The problem here seems to be that people want the free accounts and low fees of app only banks, but still want the costly things they got rid of that make those possible like branches.
I rather get the impression that the market doesn't always work like economists would like it to work. But do we really need competing banks just for the basic stuff like processing payments? It seems plausible that it's a good idea to have multiple competing banks for the more complex services but perhaps the basic processing of payments could be handled by the government, which already has the monopoly of providing the currency in the first place. Just a thought. Free markets are a tool, not a religion, right?
Some people might insist that a government monopoly would be worse but here in the UK I've noticed that government web sites are usually less crap than web sites created by the private sector.
Not sure what you mean. There are numerous online banks that can operate country wide, and surely there is at least one of them that offer web banking without requiring an app?
That's a huge jump from "no smartphone" to "off the grid."
I prefer using laptops and I prefer doing my banking on my laptop. I'm online a lot. I do have a smartphone, usually an older one, for calls, messaging, playing music and taking photos. I even have an old Samsung tablet, for reading ebooks.
It should be possible to do your banking from a laptop.
I just don't want apps on my phone, because they will track me, I don't like using apps on the phone in general, and banking apps in particular because the bank wants to control what I can and can't do with my own phone. Want a rooted phone? No banking for you.
"Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?"
To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles. This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.
So are many other political and philosophical ideas—essentially any field involving ethics is fraught with perils and consensus is never fully reached.
Just because unanimity is never achieved in respect of some philosophical idea doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration and or it's never put into practice. Utilitarianism has been the subject of much study and debate and it's been widely practiced over several hundred years.
I'm well aware of the debates over utilitarianism and its ethics, any why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do. That ought to have been obvious by my use of the word 'consensuses'.
BTW, I could have made the same argument from a different philosophical perspective but the previous commentator specifically invited a utilitarian-type response by the words he used. That said, no matter what philosophical argument I'd have used someone would have found fault with it.
My main point still stands, which is that obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones. Note, I've deliberately not used the word 'best' for the above reasons.
You could just as easily have cited Aristotle or Augustine or Aquinas or any other philosopher who wrote an ethics. The previous commentator didn't invite a utilitarian-type response. He implicitly posed a question about the justification for the ordering of goods in society. Nothing about that statement is definitively answered (or even satisfyingly questioned) by big-U Utilitarianism.
Since you appear to enjoy a little bit of philosophical discussion, let's break down what you ackshually said:
> To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles.
The "beginning" of ethics hardly begins with Bentham or Mill or even the Enlightenment. Utility is quite a modern concept in ethics. The question of what is "the good" is presupposed in any system of value. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is perhaps one of the more perverse interpretations of human good on record.
> This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
The majority of modern states and cities were most emphatically NOT "founded" on utilitarian models. Most states predate any notion of such post-hoc rationalizations. Cities were largely founded as commercial centers along trade routes or ports, or sometimes intentionally as colonies. States were largely the results of conquest by militarized groups that were certainly NOT utilitarian. Quite the contrary. In the bronze age, they would have simply been warrior bands centered around family/tribal bonds and vassal/suzerainty relationships founded on violence. By the time of the great early empires around the Mediterranean, formal structures of militarism and class privileges won through violence were the organizing forms of society, not "give-and-take" consensus gathering (unless you mean one group giving up the fight and the other either enslaving them or killing them outright).
Maybe you could have argued they are founded on something like Hobbesian social contract theory (certainly not Rousseau's version) but that, too, would suffer from being simply "not true in fact."
The main point that "obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones" suffers from being trivial, condescending, and a non sequitur. The commenter didn't offer a solution as such, but raised the obvious question of why they should have to pay for someone else's choices. Utilitarianism is the worst of all philosophical answers because it entails the most absurdities.
Point proven, your comment just confirms what I said earlier:
…an(d) why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do.
I'm aware of those issues and omissions for brevity's sake. Also, I would point out that what I said was a passing comment on HN and not meant for a paper in a learned philosophical journal.
BTW, in case you didn't notice, I never mentioned whether I was for or against utilitarianism specifically because discussion about it inevitability ends in arguments that usually remain unresolved. That it was just an example ought to have been obvious.
It would be informative to compare the syllabus content at your philosophy school versus that of mine.
My philosophy school was a library card. Am I presuming too much by your handle that you are a lover of the higher mathematics? Although I think it would be hard to derive a workable ethics from number theory, I believe it has been tried. Descartes and Spinoza metaphysics come to mind, but Plato's number magic is probably a more entertaining place to start.
As you say, not relevant to you, but do you think mathematicians generally have some kind of affinity for Utilitarian ethics?
There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes it's one's best tutor.
I'm not a mathematician but I've studied mathematics in conjunction with my bread-and-butter subjects science and engineering. It's thus fair to say the analytical philosophers and their ilk have had a strong influence on my thinking—Frege, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, and G.E. Moore—I can even see my copy of Principia Ethica on the bookshelf on the other side of the room from where I'm sitting.
(BTW, In my world I cannot see any relevant connection between number theory (as mathematicians understand it) and ethics.)
The analytical strand of philosophy is particularly significant for me as formal logic has a direct bearing on some of my technical work (they're closely related). It also led to me electing to take HPS.
Philosophy is a remarkably broad church and its analytical strand is only one section, and in no way do I consider myself pigeonholed to just one or two of its strands; Being and Nothingness, The Social Contract, Leviathan, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (the) Republic are just a few titles from the large compulsory corpus from which I was trained.
I will not delve further into utilitarianism given what I've already said except to say I have neither the talent of Shakespeare nor am I an APL programmer, so it would be impossible for me to present my rather convoluted views on the matter in a short HN post without some part being misinterpreted. To do it linguistic justice and present a watertight case that precisely and accurately explains my view I'd likely require a dozen pages of typed text, and clearly that's not possible on HN.
That's not a copout, it's just fact. Moreover, philosophy taught me long ago that précising and brevity can easily lead to misunderstandings unless one's words are very carefully chosen. I was reminded of that again earlier today when you came on the attack.
In general (there are exceptions) most adhere to the broader set of consequentialism of which utilitarianism is one form of.
A number would say that ethics and morality are subjective and not objective and thus an attempt to apply a utilitarian metric or measure of "good" along with a (partial?) ordering such as "greatest good" is a doomed endeavour.
Few would deny that from this, that would follow (for some specific values of this 'n that).
I have a smartphone. However I choose to use a mobile OS that is neither Android nor iOS, why should I get penalized that banks don't invest in applications for my OS too?
It’s business. Should a steakhouse be required to have vegan offerings? If that’s not what their customers want, then why would they invest hundreds of thousands on building and maintaining an app that maybe five people would use?
They do not have to build an app. They could build a mobile website that is accessible from almost any computing platform.
For something so core and critical to society (banking), I don’t think it’s reasonable to leave it up to the private sector and say “well, if some people get left behind—ho hum, thems the breaks”
If we’re talking about a florist, then sure. The market wants what it wants and if you’re not in the majority it kinda sucks. Not great, but probably not a place for government intervention. Banking, though? There should be accessibility guidelines and standards, absolutely.
When businesses provide essential services (like banking) I feel like they should be held to the same standards as government services. Not that some governments don't treat users without Android or iOS as third class citizens.
So, to clarify, there are banks that have their full business value accessible only through mobile, and as a person needing banking but doesn't have access to mobile, I can make an informed decision and not be their customer. But when I create a bank account in a physical office, and then the office gets closed in favour of an alegedly much more accessible mobile application, I feel like there should be some measure protecting me from that. Do you find that unreasonable?
> "should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?”
Yes! There are many things you cannot do without a physical bank location. It is worth paying[1] something to have them. I used to use an online-only bank, but I realized I wanted to be able to walk into a branch at times, so I switched to a new bank.
[1] “Paying” can mean a variety of things, including lower interest rates on savings accounts, for example.
What are those mythical actions that can't be done outside of a physical location? How many of them are things you do ~once in a lifetime, like getting a mortgage?
At least for me, the problem is not the closing of the brick-and-mortar branches, though that has happened near me, because for the last 25 years I have used those only seldom, preferring on-line banking.
What annoys me now is the closing of the on-line banking Web sites, which could be used easily and without any problem from any computer or smartphone, and their replacement with apps, which may force you not only to have a smartphone but also to be a customer of Apple or Google, because some banks refuse to provide their Android apps otherwise than through the Google app store.
How is this different though. Infrastructure costs money. Apps are the new hotness. The same "well, I don't use it so whatever" you bring is what it seems like the online banking folks are saying to the brick and mortar people.
Has anyone looked at the world lately and thought "hey maybe all these apps aren't the greatest idea"? Amazon, Shein, Temu, AliExpress have all but made history just visiting a mall and browsing.
I know Walmart loved the pandemic, too, because all the mom and pop stores that survived the first 20 years of amazon couldn't survive the local and state and federal government interfering with their commerce.
JoAnns is closing hundreds of stores. This whole subject is on my mind a lot lately.
At least in germany, there are both traditional banks with offices and online-only banks and one of the reasons given for the fact that traditional banks have worse conditions (less interest, sometimes monthly charges for even having an account etc.) is that they hvae to pay the offices somehow.
I had a tangential experience to this phenomenon lately. I moved continents a few years ago. Eventually I had to switch my Play Store country to where I moved. That restricted my access to certain versions of apps but my downloaded apps continued to function anyway.
Then, a few months ago, I finally bought a new phone. I quickly found out that there was no way I could get this one banking app from my home country on the new phone (other than switching my country setting again, which isn't worth the potential hassle right now). Fortunately, I could still do online banking with on my browser...right?
I try to login to my online banking. They say they will send me an OTP on my registered mobile number. Makes sense, and, thanks to the wonders of roaming, I will be able to receive it. Except...instead of just sending me the actual OTP like any sane platform would do, I had to first confirm that I was, indeed, trying to sign-in to online banking by replying "YES" to their SMS prompt. And due to the wonders of SMS roaming protocol, though I could receive their messages, I simply could not reply to them no matter which gods I invoke.
Security design by committee. I curse the manager who though this was a necessary and valuable addition to the whole OTP scheme.
It's not so much a "convenience tax" as in the article but, I guess, a penalty for moving countries. I have no choice now but simply to just settle this when I go on vacation to my home country. There is probably no convenient resolution to this even when I am in the correct geospace.
PS. I have two banks from home country and I was able to install the other bank's app in my new phone without a hitch. I try to avoid cynicism but this simply has the stink of Managerial Software Engineering Best Practices all over it.
One thing not mentioned yet is what happens when you've got a cheaper phone filled with photos and videos. At various times I've had to spend a few minutes deleting things just to download some stupid 100 meg app that I need to use for a total of 5 minutes to complete some basic task.
A lot of suggestions ask the poster to not store photos on their phone, but this takes away the functionality from their phone that they actually want in service using 1 app for 5 minutes.
Is your cheaper phone unable to interface with a computer? I'm no advocate of an app-based economy, but your phone shouldn't be the archive for your photos.
plug in USB cable, drag and drop entire directory from one drive to another with file explorer, is the only reasonable way to manage photos. Get everything off the device at the end of each day. Why would you ever put things back on the phone?
Ah yes, let me just walk home for 20 hours instead of taking a train because I need to first transfer the pictures I took on a trip to my computer before I can install the local transport company's app to get home now that they removed ticket machines from platforms and are telling people to use their app to buy tickets...
I can think of various solutions (from companies not requiring an app in the first place to inserting an SD card) but suggesting that people simply not store user data on their phone is a new one
I feel your pain. I managed to use my first smart phone, an iPhone 6s, for almost 10 years. In that time the system data took up more and more of what little space I had on there (16GB I think? So unthinkably small to most people that they think I'm confusing it with RAM) to where I was basically dealing with a few mb of storage to use for photos and work-critical apps like Authenticator. I also refuse to use iCloud on principle (tried it once, and realized when I wanted to download all my photos onto my computer that it would only let me do 1 at a time, or low quality versions, or something scummy like that).
It got so bad I had to do things like delete my Internet history if I even wanted to copy and paste something! And I would do everything I could to not have to pick which photos and conversations I needed to delete forever just to download some fucking app I would only use one time to order food or park somewhere or do first-time router setup.
Finally I had to give in and get a new phone, because managing phone storage was making my life much more difficult than it needed to be. But I'm still so mad that I had to, because daily living seems to demand more and more storage space. And people accept it!! Ugh. The dang thing didn't even have a scratch on it either. Would've used it for 20 years if I could.
Perhaps I can be patient and explain the underlying concepts here, since they seem to be unintuitive to a small minority of very condescending commenters:
1. I like to have access to my photos and videos while I'm on the go. You never know when the subject of some trip or experience from 2 years ago will come up in conversation, and I'll want to show a photo of it to someone I'm talking to. Since photos and videos don't weight anything inside my phone, it's no trouble to carry them.
2. I don't like to give cloud services all my photos and videos. Despite the extremely dark pattern in Google Photos where it tries multiple times a month to trick me into enabling cloud backup, I've kept it off. Some of my photos may be sensitive things like personal documents, I'd rather not have to think about what's in the cloud and what isn't, and what is deleted where. These services also often aren't free and I'd prefer not to pay for them.
3. I back up my phone regularly to my personal computer, so losing my phone doesn't mean I lose all the media on my phone.
4. And since I know someone will ask, I lock my phone. Not with a fingerprint; with a passcode. It's not perfect but I'm comfortable with the level of security.
> Since photos and videos don't weight anything inside my phone, it's no trouble to carry them.
But in your example they -do- weigh something, measured in megabytes. So there is an obvious tradeoff in terms of what you can fit on your phone with some spare empty margin, similar to physical goods that you need to fit into a backpack when you know you might pick something else up along the way.
Digital storage is so far removed from this concept. Let us not excuse poor business practices by trying to offload a piece of their business systems on to their customers' devices.
I shouldn't have to provide space on my property to conduct business with another organization.
To extend the already poor and tortured analogy, imagine if a paper train ticket were the size and weight of an 800 page textbook that you had to lug around, and 799 of the pages were filled with some boilerplate copied from a different company's train ticket book, that nobody ever needed to look at.
But if you have a problem with the train ticket textbook, people will come out of the woodwork to tell you that you're not managing or carrying your belongings properly. I should get a bigger bag, or I should carry fewer of the books I actually want to read. Why am I carrying around so many things anyway? It's irresponsible! Sure I've got room for a piece of paper, but that's not enough these days. Don't I know that I'll need space for the train ticket textbook?
> If you have a place to live, you shouldn't carry all your belongings with you in a backpack when you go outside.
I really don't like this analogy. These are entirely different concepts. A backpack has weight, dimension in real space that impacts the real world. A phone full of videos has no extra weight or volume in the real world.
Clearly, they are facing very similar physical restrictions. Not in weight but in bytes. If they want to carry many TBs on a phone in 2025 but then complaining that they can't install a 100mb app, yeah, they are carrying too much in their backpack.
> If they want to carry many TBs on a phone in 2025
What are you talking about? Only the most expensive flagship phones have a terabyte of storage space. There are no phones that have "many TBs". Mine certainly doesn't.
Regardless, none of the following functionality needs an app. It all works great on a website, and doesn't take up any space permanently on my device:
- Buying a ticket
- Checking transit times
- Receiving notifications (not only does email exist, but websites can send notofications)
- Joining a loyalty program
I don't have any problem with people who want to carry these apps around, but as an infrequent user of many businesses, it's death by a thousand cuts. I resent how what were once perfectly workable mobile websites are slowly being degraded in order to force me to download hundreds of megabytes of copy-paste support libraries for what half the time are just wrapped webviews anyway.
People are writing this off, but it eventually becomes impossible not to own a smartphone; an expensive device, with an expensive monthly plan, and an absolutely terrible privacy record. Eventually more businesses will require smartphone usage just to use their services. There could even be a time when government services require it.
A landline phone is about the cost of a cheap smartphone, and the landline itself costs about as much as the cheapest cell plans.
But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
I still agree you shouldn't need it, especially if you already have a computer. But it's only "expensive" if you choose the higher tiers.
> But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
The cheapest device you can get will be unusably slow - good luck doing anything out and about without inconveniencing everyone else while you wait for your device to load and pray the app opens in a timely fashion. Oh, that is, if your outdated device can even download and run it.
Access to wifi isn't really as ubiquitous as you make it seem either - what if the business you're needing to use the app for doesn't have wifi? Run down the street to the coffee shop?
A landline phone doesn't spy on you, and has often better audio quality (unless you're in an area with great cell coverage). And you can also use the mobile network with a "feature phone", like those that were around until smartphones arrived, they're still around.
The UK is an incredibly competitive and well-regulated market. If you're in receipt of welfare benefits, you can get a tariff with unlimited 5G data for £12 ($15) per month. If you're a light user, you can get a tariff with a few gigabytes of data for as little as £5 ($6.50) per month.
A cheap but perfectly useable phone costs less than £100 new from a brand like Xiaomi, Motorola or TCL; on any high street, you'll find a shop selling second-hand phones for as little as £30. I cannot think of any object in human history that provides so much utility for so little money.
Totally true that smartphones are useful. But people can decide they don't want one for many reasons, including not wanting to accept 20-pages-long T&C just to turn them on, and surrendering lots of personal data. If you're a lot into tech stuff, you might go around that by blocking most data collection, but most people don't have the competence for this, or have better things to do with their lives.
This is actually something the US does pretty well, actually. The Lifeline Assistance Program (colloquially known as "Obama Phones") gives low income people (basically anyone who qualifies for food stamps) a phone, with calling and internet, at no cost to the individual.
I wouldn't bet on that being around much longer, because for some reason it makes a lot of conservatives absolutely seethe. Many of them convinced themselves poor people were being given the latest luxury model iphone out of taxpayer funds.
Depending on where you live, a smartphone can be bought for 100 bucks and a basic line (voice, messages, 2GB of data) for less than 5 bucks. It's not ideal but it's not a sacrifice anymore.
If having a smartphone and a cellular plan will become an absolute requirement to partake in the society, carriers certainly are going to hike prices. Here in Finland, cellular plans used to be very cheap, but now the prices have been soaring after the society has become more and more reliant on the phones.
You can also use wifi. Even free wifi. You can get a very nice used phone with many years of updates for 100 dollars. You can find a worse phone for much less if you really want to.
edit: You can even get a free phone from your community. Possibly a better one than the a53. Most people have a phone or several in a drawer.
Before that, government services required phone calls, or fixed addresses to receive mail, or a free public transit program to get people to government buildings. Comparatively, it's a lot easier and cheaper to just give the needy smartphones and data plans. Hence the Lifeline Assistance Program (Obama phones), which does just that.
This has always been the case though. Before the smartphone, it was computers and internet; before that it was landline phone service. Both of the latter were far more expensive than a modern smartphone, so we are actually making progress in reducing barriers to social participation.
Landlines didn't spy on people. Computers and Internet, well, depends on which OS you are on, but there are options that don't. What about smartphones? IMHO that's the big issue, not what they cost.
I think that ends up pretty nuanced. A cheap $50 Android will receive security updates for one year if you're lucky. So now you have a choice between buying a new cheap phone yearly, forgoing security, or being technically savvy enough to put a 3rd party OS on your phone. With regard to privacy, smart phones really don't have options for privacy unless you go with a 3rd party OS. And, if you do so, you might not even be able to run the various apps which the various businesses require. I just don't see this as a valid alternative.
The larger point is that to use the mainstream apps you would buy a smartphone for, you are forced into a contract (or at least to agree to terms of service) with one of two third parties, Apple or Google.
Not only do I need a smartphone for "everything" in my live.(managing my local gym membership for example)
I also only have the choice between two us companies: Google or Apple.
I had an ubuntu smartphone at some point but it's practically useless.
If I want a appointment with my doctor in Germany living in the same street as I, the Californian Company Google has to be involved for some reason.
App store monopoly hurts us way more than it is talked about. Suddenly, not only we are not to chose which devices to use to access what could be a simple website. Now unrelated third party decides if we have access to it based in, for example, country of residence. Or at all. Apple routine forces censorship on our phones as if it was it's property.
I still believe it was a tragedy that Microsoft folded their attempt into mobile. To explain my level of desperation, I feel our next best hope here is China.
I'm glad to see people talking about this. I'd love to see a new right: The right to not have your phone on you.
For whatever reason. Maybe it was stolen. Maybe it's being fixed. Maybe the battery is dead.
(Maybe you don't want to get a Google or Apple account. But that's not the only use case.)
All public services and essential services (government services, banks, car parks, etc) should respect this right. It's bizarre that people think it's such an outlandish request.
Maybe the currently shitty transatlantic political climate will force politicians to think about the reliance on 2 US tech companies for every single piece of mobile software.
The UK tried to force Apple to Do Evil and failes. Who's to the say the US wouldn't be (or hasn't been) more successful?
If I were a politician relying on WhatsApp for secure communications (as many over here seem to be), I'd be very worried.
The increasing necessity of the Internet is also why giving companies the power to exile someone from the Internet is an extremely broad power that is increasingly like a prison sentence. E.g. the recent cases of publishers demanding ISPs cut off users who have pirated content.
It is not even about privacy and safety or freedom of choice really. Besides very soon - in this duopoly you really will not be owning phones or even access to apps would be limited/controlled to more draconian measures than it is today.
Anyways. I took an auto ride few weeks back and an old gentleman picked me up. He did have a tattered smartphone. But he didn't have the UPI app or a QR code (QR is the way here; UPI the instant payment thingie in India). He was not agitated but really looked embarrassed and helpless and told me in broken English he tried a few times but he forgets many kinds of PINs and messes up and his bank account gets blocked and then he has to run around with documents to get it unblocked and then again. I had some cash and I was able to pay him. But it's horrible. There are people for whom cash is the ONLY way. Even going to the bank (or ATM; which anyway is still a difficulty for me) means sometimes half to one day's work gone. Just like that. This has a lot to do with political climate changes. So many people get trampled over without any check and balances because they have the vote without a voice or any real power.
I think a lot of us, and for many of us who tap and pay at a Starbucks as if it's bill there lowest currency denomination in our consciousness, never stop to try and understand this and realise this. This is not merely inconvenience in huge part of this planet - it's a real life pain. I don't think even this article considered such a case/life struggles due to smartphones and everything getting tied to a SIM et cetera.
ok - but despite this well-meaning story.. the answer IMO is still cash; use it, support it, continue it. The alternatives are not stable over time -- not a joke.
I saw on Usenet about "Digitalzwang". Here is the quotation:
> The German movement "Digitalcourage" has coined the term "Digitalzwang" (compulsory digitalisation) for this feature. For instance, some public funding programmes cannot be used unless you have access to a PC (a smartphone is not sufficient) hooked up to the internet.
> Digitalcourage support responsible digitalisation by offering help in the usage of secure authorisation and encryption but strictly disapproves of any form of compulsory digitalisation. People who refuse using public data networks, whatever their motives, must have equal rights as everybody else.
What they describe is not quite what the linked article describes, but is similar and is related.
I would further say, that in addition to that (and the stuff mentioned in the linked article), you should not be required to use computers with specific complicated software (including web browsers), or to use computers (including smartphones) or credit cards at all, if that is applicable to whatever you are doing working with. There is also the issue of a smartphone running out of battery power or otherwise not working, even if you do have it.
(I have once been in a restaurant where a app is required, although customers who do not have a smartphone can borrow a iPad from them. This is not as bad, but still it is not as good as just not requiring it at all.)
The big group that keeps getting ignored are older people who actually do have smartphones, but find them increasingly difficult to use as they age, due to how fiddly touch interfaces can be and visuals designed by and for people in their 20s, not 70s and 80s.
Typing on a smartphone is impossible for my 70-something father, even on the larger models.
Touchscreens also frequently don't work with older people's skin which is often dry. They often literally cannot type because the screen doesn't pick up the electrical currents in the drier, more insulated fingers. Physical keyboards wouldn't have this problem.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what my dad’s problem boils down to. He worked in construction for half a century, specializing in concrete, so heaven knows what that did to the skin on his fingertips.
Same for my parents (ironically, my 90-something grandmother can use an iPhone with no problem). My dad has Raynaud's (poor fingertip circulation), so touch screens sometimes just won't work for him anyways. Making things app-only is practically discrimination.
It mentions parking which is a similar category of annoyance, but I think the multitude of mutually incompatible apps for EV charging pose a real barrier to adoption too. Maybe not in a way people are explicitly aware of, but it certainly makes up part of the stories about difficulty and inconvenience with public charging.
I can pay for petrol with any card or, if I'm feeling really old school, by going into a building and handing a person cash. Someone like my mum, who still likes to draw the cash she'll need for the week and spend that, wouldn't even entertain the idea of having to download and maintain a suite of apps for every brand of charger.
Apps are a good convenience option for those that want them, but they shouldn't be the only option, especially not for something as essential as fuelling your car. I would welcome regulation on these, even a baby step of "all chargers must accept contactless payment". I'd like to see manned charging stations and cash options too—and I say that as someone who pays for everything by card—but I fear in the short term that might hamper infrastructure rollout.
> And at the bakery chain Greggs, you can collect loyalty “stamps” for free food and drink and get “exclusive app-only gifts”. You currently get a free hot drink just for downloading the app.
> McDonald’s is running a high-profile promotion called Deal Drop, where it offers items at “bargain” prices, such as a classic Big Mac for £1.49 (normally £4.99) and a children’s Happy Meal for £1.99 (normally £3.59) – but all of the discounts are available exclusively with the company’s app.
The article paints a painstakingly detailed photo of the UK's app culture, but fails to explain exactly why app users are entitled to such discounts. What exactly is McDonald's doing with your data that is worth a whopping £3.50 Big Mac discount, and more?? Why is the app so important?? I have never found an article that does more than scratch the surface on this topic. Any suggestions?
I think such discounts are not as much because of the data, they're a way to tier your customers, similar to coupons.
That way you both get to take the full price from people whose time is expensive enough that they won't bother with the apps, and also those who wouldn't pay the full price but have enough time to use the apps.
I never eat McD's, but I see the pattern everywhere. If you make between the minimum and average wage in Slovenia and don't own property, you practically can't get by without dedicating 6h per week to grocery shopping in various different 'discount' chains (Lidl, Hofer AKA Aldi Sud, Euro Spin), keeping up with the weekly discount catalogs and using all the app discounts (more recently).
As a user of Greggs and McD (UK) I can maybe offer some insight.
Fairly obviously the discounts are to encourage customer loyalty so you keep going to McD rather than somewhere healthier. Also to get you to come back - if you haven't been for ages they may offer a 99p big mac to get you back in.
As to why apps rather than paper coupons, my closest McD has a typically had group of about 20 people waiting for the 50 items they ordered with new stuff ordered every 30 seconds or so. The last thing the low wage rushed staff need are customers going can you explain this coupon to me an is it valid for extra fries on Friday etc.
I've also seen it explained that it's part of their toolset in extracting maximum "value" from a customer.
Richer customers self-select to pay higher prices without the app as they can't be bothered faffing around to find the digital coupon/deal/whatever combination (you can, of course, only use one of the wide range of deals at a time). Poorer customers will invest the time in finding and using a deal.
They both get the same sandwich, but McD got them to pay different prices for it.
Most forms of direct marketing require unambiguous consent in the UK (likewise for data collection used for direct marketing). Culturally, many Brits are relatively suspicious of authority and will not consent to the use of their data 'just because'. Loyalty apps are a great invention: they give advertisers a direct channel to the consumer, and the consumer a way to receive something of value in exchange for their deliberate engagement.
I think the idea is to get as many people as possible to install and set up the app, so they then have more incentive to become repeat customers. Theyre probably making some loss on new signups and hope to get it back later on.
Market segmentation through user profiling and individualized discounts based on the entire order, making it hard for people to tell if they are being treated "fairly."
Get more people to use McD's app. When they order, give them a personalized coupon giving you a discount. The discount is different for everyone. Use the response rate, plus information about your buying habit (always buys a family-sized order on Fridays) to optimize the discount.
Raise the non-app prices so the people using the app think they got a deal ... while the overall price is on average higher than if McD's had flat rates for everyone.
People tend to think flat rates are more fair when the services are identical, and get pissed off when they find it isn't.
A factor not mentioned in this article is people not being able to install apps because they've run out of space.
I've seen this a bunch with people who buy the less expensive phones with smaller amounts of storage: they take photos until their phone is full, and now if they need to install a new app they have to delete something else (including potentially their photos) to make space for it.
Yes! I've often said "software engineers should be doomed to use what they create. Or at least watch others try to use it." One example is our local Costco parking garage. They replaced the old push-button ticketing kiosk (which had nothing wrong with it) with one that had a touchscreen. Many times the line is backed up and one day I saw why. The guy was pushing the touchscreen button as if it were physical, and it wasn't registering the tap. He was using multiple fingers and mashing instead of using one finger and doing a clean tap inside the digital button.
I have a big issue with this, and the truth is that the majority of people simply do not care and/or do not understand the implications.
By tying your service to a smartphone your are basically refusing to provide service if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS. If the app doesn't complain about emulation or something different than Android or IOS you are in luck, but that's not the case with most banking apps. And that's only talking about people who don't have it by choice and have money to buy one.
For me, once, it went beyond: I took my first dose of the Covid vaccine, and the second dose's date would still be announced. I asked where it would be available to the nurse, "On the Instagram page of the <local health body>". "But i don't have Instagram" i said, and the nurse shrugged. It requires both a phone and a social media account with your real info, but since absolute nobody complains about it they just do because it's easier.
This will continue as long people are complacent with it. In some places the government is required to provide you services, by law, by any means available and not depending on 3rd party service, but they do require apps anyway and people stay quiet. Phones as an alternative is fine, it's a tool, but should not be an obligatory device for you to be considered an human being.
Sure, I own a smartphone, it runs just plain android but without any google accounts or services because I do not agree to Googles terms of services. I never did, and as an European citizen especially with recent developments I feel that has been the right choice.
The thing is, without google account there is no play store, and without play store I am not able to install the majority of apps - no banking, no parking, and all the other services people complain about in these threads.
This is my choice, and I stick to it. I'm also pretty vocal about it and complain when needed. Doctors office informs me I only can get medicine with the app? Apparently they can make exceptions when you complain, because I'm allowed to get medicine with a simple phone call. My bank tried to force me to use their app, but apparently they still do have an alternative login method when you complain. Sure, I know it's a fight I will lose in the long run, but I enjoy it while it lasts.
> if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS.
Or if Apple or Google arbitrarily decide that they don't like that customer. You don't have to have done something wrong, they can decide that you're likely associated with someone who did.
When people ask for examples, I point to a NYT report of a man in San Francisco whose young son had redness on his penis and complained about it feeling sore. The pediatrician asked for some photos to make a diagnosis online. Google flagged it as child porn and notified the police. The police said it wasn't, but Google declined to restore service.
In India, Google locked an engineer from Gujarat out of his Google
account because it contained explicit content potentially involving
child abuse or exploitation. The engineer believes it's because the
account contain images of him as a child being bathed by his
grandmother.
I use these examples specifically because many in my government want "Chat Control", where snitchware scans messages for child porn and the like, and notifies the police. It will be full of false positives like these, especially if the scanning software continues to be built by puritanical American companies.
Another class is people who the US deems to be a security threat. How long will it be until the US extends its sanctions against the ICC by ordering Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and Google to shut down the accounts for the ICC and anyone involved in their genocide investigation, work and personal?
Although I have a smartphone, I understand the problem. It amazes me how many businesses create so many unnecessary obstacles between the user and the purchase these days. It doesn't make sense to me.
> The consumer group is among those to have highlighted Lidl’s loyalty scheme, Lidl Plus, as one that is only accessible via an app, with an email address also required.
At least here in Finland Lidl Plus is one of the few which can be used by just entering a phone number.
That said, all "loyalty programs" should be outright banned. They stifle competition, make pricing less transparent and discriminate against the less well off.
> loyalty programs" discriminate against the less well off.
The opposite: supermarket loyalty cards are often designed so that the well off pay more: i.e. it is the well off that are being discriminated against. The barriers are designed to allow poorer people to pay less. The topic is called price discrimination.
All the poorer people I know use loyalty cards because they judge them to be valuable (despite the extra hassle).
The less well off often get lower prices (plus valuable rewards) because of the loyalty programs in New Zealand.
I often use my friend's loyalty accounts: so I get the item discounts but they collect the loyalty rewards/cash. Also I like to screw the data surveillance up - I don't get tracked so much and my friend's account is spammed with higher cost items.
Coupons are designed for the same purpose. Allowing poorer people to choose to trade their time/hassle for savings (according to their values).
In loyalty programs the benefit percentage often increases as a function of money spent, disproportionally benefiting the more well off who spend more. I've yet to encounter a loyalty program that would do the inverse (probably there are some that cap the benefits, which could be interpreted to be to this direction). Neither have I seen a loyalty program that would only accept poor people.
Price discrimination is anything where the same product is sold at different price for different buyers. All loyalty programs are price discrimination.
Those without smartphones _and_ those who do not wish to install trash on their smartphones, _and_ those who do not wish to use Android (or an Android build blessed by the corporations) or iOS.
I use my phone primarily for messaging. In fact, I often forget and have the Anti-Distraction mode turned on, so I only get important comms but no app notifications.
SIDENOTE
People need to chill out with the word "tyranny". It's like saying that you are being "assaulted" by a different opinion, or claiming that ordinary platform moderation is "censorship". You are not being terrorized, assaulted, or censored.
There are people in the world who are truly subjected to those things, and you have NO idea what that's actually like.
I agree on two points in your sidenote. The first is that online moderation is rarely, if ever, "censorship". The second thing is that the majority of us have no idea what it's actually like being terrorized or assaulted.
That said, words can take on different meanings depending on context. We can only imagine the tyranny of being a prisoner of war but we can also complain about the tyranny of noise pollution in modern cities; that doesn't mean I think they're equal. I know some people suffer assault domestically but I can also label some perfumes as an assault to the senses; it doesn't lessen the gravity of the former. And yes, Calvin, you are allowed to think your household is a den of censorship and oppression (https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....).
My problem with gatekeeping words is that it is performative. We can indeed chill out on using these words save for their most extreme interpretations but it doesn't really help anyone suffering from these things and just makes language less colorful for the rest of us. And, once more, nor does their usage dismiss the extent of any of these situations because you don't need to be a genius to know that words can have subtle changes in meaning depending on context.
I think you're in a very small minority if you think that someone using the phrase "tyranny of notifications" is implying they live under a dictatorial regime. Most people just understand the hyperbole.
Scary things make people pay attention and click the links. I loathe the casual use of the term “lynching” by people in the public eye but same rules apply, using exaggerated, scary words to sell your weak point. Not saying I agree with it, but it’s marketing and journalism.
Forcing apps on people keeps the Apple/Google duopoly in place. Every alternative mobile OS fails unless it has an Android compatibility layer. And even then it will fail because Google's anti-competitive Play Integrity API won't work, and many users will be unable to use bank/payment apps.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, you started to see more and more interactive phone systems appear due to touch-tone phones being common place. However, I grew up poor, and for quite some time we still had rotary phones (when we could afford to have a phone that is), making those systems inaccessible to us.
I chose to use a flip phone over a previous Android phone around 10 years ago when ISPs/Phone providers showed that security lapse issues for them was just a cost of doing business. I used to store private client info in Exchange and sync it, but I could not, in good conscience, continue to do so with the knowledge of that information's exposure.
I recently worked with NetGear support to have a new router replaced after we determined the firmware was known to be problematic, and the only way the level 2 support person had of correcting it required their app.
So fortunately, there may still be ways around working with IT without a "smart" phone, and I will continue to blaze that trail as needed.
United Airlines used to accept credit cards to pay for meals during the flight. It worked great. At some point they dropped that and replaced it with something that involves their slow bloated buggy app that crashes on my phone. So I stopped buying their meals.
Yeah, I remember reading something like that, but isn't the United app required to pay for the meal on the flight, so that they know which credit card to charge? To be honest, I have never been able to understand their payment process, and since the United app doesn't run on my phone, I just gave up on the in-flight meals.
The discoverability is horrible, but in this case there actually is a somewhat accessible way to pay: if you visit https://united.com/inflightpayment, you can add your card details for a specific flight before the flight (possibly also during the flight using in-flight WiFi, but don't quote me on that).
I actually find it more convenient than presenting a card in person, because my country uses chip-and-pin cards and many American (soft-)POS terminals break when presented with one. There's also less of a chance of my bank arbitrarily flagging the transaction as suspicious.
Do your best to make these decisions cost them, even if it's only a few pennies. Call their customer support up and tie up one of their representatives as long as possible. Who knows, if enough people do that, and they log the reason, then maybe, just maybe these SuperUltraMegaCorps have a chance of changing their mind.
I know people who love having specific apps for everything, but I generally find them a much worse user experience than the browser. Can't select/copy text. Sometimes if it's a terrible developer you can't paste. Can't arbitrarily zoom in.
I know Android now lets me copy from the screen but it still flows incorrectly sometimes, like copying from a PDF.
The entire history of technology is our becoming dependent on one invention after another, such that anyone with any interest in the area(s) that invention touches no longer has a realistic choice not to use it. They may technically be able to, but only through outsize sacrifice that leaves them worse off than they would have been before the thing was invented.
I guess I’m just lucky (or don’t live in UK). Nothing in my daily life requires a smartphone. Banking is either with a local branch or on the web. Making an appointment with a doctor or dentist is a voice phone call to the office. All my routine bills can be paid by check or over the postal mail. All my usual restaurant spots have paper menus. Sometimes I go a week or so and forget that I have an old iphone7 in a drawer with a now drained battery. I don’t think I regularly use a single app on it besides the browser.
My greatest aspiration in life (yes, hyperbole) is to retire and get rid of my smartphone, and I can imagine it’s just going to be harder and harder as time goes on. I went into a restaurant recently and asked for a menu and they looked at me like I was from another planet.
I made it five days but could have gone for longer. It was interesting to see how the system worked from without, and how people reacted to requests that would have been banal in the nineties. For the most part, it went well. Very few things were unavailable. I only remember hotel phones being missing or broken. However it was impossible to handle things back home and my life would have started falling apart after a few weeks of ignoring emails.
Agreed. After 27 years of working in IT and having to carry a mobile device (first a pager, then a flip phone, & now a smartphone) for on-call duties, carrying a mobile device has always felt like a punishment to me. The days when I can walk around device-free are the happiest, most stress-free times of my life. But the tech companies are making it harder and harder to do.
Resist! If a bank forces you to use a surveillance device (smartphone) to do Internet banking or forces you to install invasive apps on your PC, don't.
TAN apps were still reasonable. TAN generators too, though the hardware sucked and used an insane amount of batteries. Then banks forced apps and smartphones and that is the point where to say no thanks.
They are still required to perform transactions by filling out forms with a pen.
It sounds like a lot of work but it really isn't. Use cash or credit cards and cut down the number of manual transactions.
Somewhat unrelated to the piece, but this is the second website I’ve seen in two days that appears to not have properly merged an edit?
“ The RAC’s head of policy, Simon Williams, says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking. It has been trialled by a number of councils, but a big question mark hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn.
The RAC’s head of policy Simon Williams says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking, and it has been trialled by a number of councils. However, a big question mark now hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn imminently.”
I think the other one was an npr piece posted on HN yesterday? Is there a bug with wordpress or are people just getting sloppy?
It's unfortunate the article accepts the questionable argument about apps being more secure - companies say that to soften people up to handing out personal data access that apps enable.
My anecdote for the pile is that my apartment complex uses one of those apps to pay for laundry services, but is slightly less expensive than the coin based counterparts on the same machine.
What's even worse is that the app is incredibly poorly made such that occasionally some payments just fall into the void and either start the machine for free or require a double charge. Anytime I have reached out to complain about these I just get told to bring my phone closer to the machine.
I see that this thread is full of a lot of very valid complaints about the hellish world we've created. But my reaction when these things come up is to point out that we effectively demanded this with our revealed preferences. We're at the triangulation of people preferring to use their phones for most things, while also demanding the lowest price possible. At a certain point, it's natural for companies to realize they can make more money—which is their reason for existing—by discontinuing products and lines of services that can be replaced by cheaper alternatives. I think everyone (over a certain age at least) has had the thought that brick and mortar stores all seem to be gone, and the realization that it's because everyone shops online, and then, if they are self-aware, the realization that they're part of that process. This is that at a somewhat zoomed-out scale.
Government services are a different case. I suppose they feel cost pressure as well, but it's right to expect them to accommodate more people than private businesses.
I don't think that's the case. Just because companies have successful business models doing things this way doesn't mean this is what people want or that it's the only way. It could just as easily be this is the most profitable way (which does not equate with delivered value) and these decisions are made by a subset of people who profit off of the fallout.
If my revealed preference is that you should pay extra to subsidize my shopping, does that really make you any more complicit in the redistribution scheme?
And in the good old day. Apple will force its hands on these sort of issues. But 10 years after Apple Pay and the Claims to replace your wallet. They are still millions miles away from doing it.
In many ways Apple without Steve Jobs feels more Google and Microsoft but with better taste of software and hardware.
>"So the people who make the company more successful are the sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the ‘product people’ get run out of the decision-making forums.
The companies forget how to make great products. The product sensibility and product genius that brought them to this monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product vs. a bad product. They have no conception of the craftsmanship that’s required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product.
>"And they really have no feeling in their hearts about wanting to help the costumers.” *
> 10 years after Apple Pay and the Claims to replace your wallet. They are still millions miles away from doing it.
Clearly we have very different experiences here, because Apple Pay has effectively replaced my wallet. I don’t carry any cash and carry one or two cards for the rare times when tap to pay is unavailable.
My grandfather does not have a cellphone, however he seems pretty creative about getting around situations where he would need an app. For example, my sister had some sporting event where the only way to get a ticket was to use an app, so he snuck into the hand stamping line, and entered the event.
Where I live in the US, only fairly recently have I started encountering parking where you cannot pay without doing it over the internet on a device. I haven't seen any where you need an app specifically, but you do need a smartphone or internet capable device. I am very annoyed by this.
I refuse to use service specific apps (on personal devices) and let the chips fall where they may. So far the vast majority of stuff continues to work ...
I write small utility apps that are often used by friends, families, the teams my kids are on, etc. None of them are overly complicated or aiming for award-winning polish. While I personally like installed apps, many people seem to prefer a link they can click. To accommodate that, I've been leaning towards Flutter as an acceptable compromise. The installed app has some better characteristics regarding device integration and storage, but I've been pleasantly surprised at how well the web versions work. When run on phone it’s hard to tell (visually) that it’s not the app. (UX is laggier though.)
In my country the same reason is used to make things more expensive and give contracts via nepotism to allow for "alternative use without apps" to companies to make the whole thing through SMS or physical office while making the whole thing expensive for everyone and inefficient.
Just saying, 99% of the app could be replaced by a browser bookmark.
Of course some companies don't want it so they make their website unusable to smartphone.
There isn't really much that technically would prevent people from using their web browser to pay the parking or to pay McDonald.
You can have geolocation on browser too, save your account, take picture and so on.
It's just better for these companies if we have their app because we can't use ad blocker and just close the browser. The app, it can send data 24/24.
For instance, I have yet to find an llm or ai chatbot app that doesn't force me to have the Google play store enabled on my phone and to be logged in with my Google account.
What the FCK they care if I have a Google account on my phone to be able to use chatgpt, deepseek, Mistral, lama and others ? More and more do that, recently the app I used to use to track food quality (Yuka) did that too.
The more thing goes, the less app I use and the more I rely on web browser. And those who refuse to work in browser, i just ditch them.
I feel like we reached a plateau years ago and now things are going downhill with android and iPhone.
It is even worse: people with smartphones not running software from either Google or Apple are penalized. I have huge problems right now because the only second factor from one of my banks (that also has the inbox for my insurances) is a Android app that requires play protect.
I was in a full service restaurant a few months ago, and they were steering everybody to scan a QR code for their menus. Had eaten there several times before and this was new. I demanded a physical menu, even though the waiter said it might be outdated. Wanted a beer, but the drink menus were no more. I stared the waiter down and snapped, "WATER!" You must push back or else they'll think their lazy changes are fine. Maybe next time they'll expect me to bus the table?
Another thing that irritated me is app designers assuming I have email on my phone. I don't, I use it for work and will use my laptop when I want to check email. Too many apps send you a "magic link" in your email to login with no alternative.
I do have email on my phone and it still doesn't work: the app that triggered the email doesn't have a URL bar so I can't paste the link into there. The link is often also not a real link but the epitome of phishing. After resolving the tracking link to the real link, I need to somehow trick an app into sending a system broadcast event for the OS to notice that there is an app that wants to overwrite valid HTTP(S) URLs and handle them inside this app instead of in a browser
What ever happened to the protocol part of the URL to direct the data to the right software handler, I will probably never understand
In Germany you would mostly be forced to fill forms on paper and send it back and forth by mail, do payments in cash or use support hotlines on the phone, which take a long waiting time to get to somebody... Apps would be fine :-)
I hate this trend with a passion.
Digital can make a lot things easier, but frankly speaking for a majority of those use cases a mobile website will do just fine as well.
My bank is digital only and doesn't have any local branches. That works for me and is fine. It's not like I'm switching banks every few weeks. They still have an all phone line access as well though. You can call people round the clock to do transfers, get your balance, etc. Even my analog grandmother has her bank account with them.
On the other hand, you have restaurants and other businesses that just over do it. There is a restaurant around my work place that I went to once or twice a month. Nothing special but fair prices and good lunch menus. Then they went all digital. Want a menu? Scan this barcode. Want to order? Create an account and place you order with your table number. Want to pay? You can click pay on your phone and enter your details.
Don't have a phone? Totally sorry, we don't have any printed back-ups and our servers don't have any card terminals anymore anyway.
This is why I wished all apps were backed by webapps of similar capabilities. I know that I personally see how it goes with the website first before I install an app. I prefer the browser sandbox by far to the phone OS
I never install apps, and I don't have any problem with private companies offering discounts or whatever via apps. The market will do its thing.
But where I have a big problem is when my local government requires me to install apps to do basic things like parking. It would almost be okay if the apps were developed in house and were open source. But of course they're not. And anyway there's no reason they can't just be web based.
So now I just don't pay for parking and I pay the ticket if I get a ticket...
Markets' "thing" is concentration of capital and the whittling of service/product providers until just a few major ones, or a single one, is left, and then they collude on pricing, bypassing/preventing regulation, psychological manipulation of customers etc.
Maps seem like a distinct failure mode of web apps. How do you load the map data on the website to navigate or orient yourself if you got lost outside the network coverage area?
Yeah, that's how that works. The world moves on and progress happens. You don't have to necessarily like it, or embrace it. But if the entire world is moving a certain direction and you decide to not move with it, that fine. But it's a choice you're making. You may not like that the entire world is going from horses to automobiles, but if you refuse to embrace them you can't be surprised when the grocery store is now a 3 hour walk away.
I was just whini- er, talking about this, this morning.
The main issue is that end-users not only accept crappy software, they pay for it (sometimes, quite a bit). They also recommend it to others, give it good reviews, and subcultures of "tech-macho" workarounds to bugs cause people to actually prefer crap. It's infuriating (to me, but not, perhaps, to many tech companies).
As long as that keeps happening, the quality of software is going to remain in the shitter. It doesn't make economic sense to write good software. Writing high-Quality software is a lot more expensive than writing crap.
My software tends to be pretty high-Quality, but that's mainly because it is free software, and I tend to work alone, so its scope is quite limited. I would not expect a commercial company to develop software the way that I do. It would just cost too much.
...following some excerpts from an article in the NZZ (swiss newspaper): "Right to an offline life and much more: French-speaking Switzerland is becoming a global pioneer of a new digital fundamental right". Source: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/die-romandie-mausert-sich-zur-wel...
Neuchâtel is including "digital integrity" in its constitution, and other cantons could follow. The National Council had criticized a proposal as purely symbolic. But the consequences are visible in Geneva.
The first time it could be dismissed as an accident, the second time not: that's what Alexis Roussel, the driving force behind a fundamental right to digital integrity, says. Roussel, a member of the Pirate Party and former president, is in good spirits. After Geneva in 2023, his home canton of Neuchâtel also enshrined the new fundamental right in the constitution on November 24. Both times the people voted yes by a very clear margin: 94 percent in Geneva and almost 92 percent in Neuchâtel.
From the new legislative period in 2025, the Neuchâtel constitution will therefore guarantee not only the right to physical, mental and psychological integrity, but also the right to digital integrity. The new right only applies in relation to the state. It includes, for example, the right to security in digital space, the right "not to be monitored, measured and analyzed", the right to an "offline life" and the right to be forgotten.
[...]
In Geneva, Alexis Roussel is already seeing the first consequences of the right to digital integrity. Secondary school students there no longer use the office software Microsoft Office, but the non-commercial alternative Libre Office. The education department explained the change to the newspaper "Le Temps" by saying that Microsoft has been receiving personal data such as names and email addresses since an update to its licensing terms. However, the canton is only allowed to process data at foreign companies if they are "adequately" protected there.
[...]
In the canton of Neuchâtel, too, the new fundamental right is already being mentioned in concrete terms in political debates. The liberal municipal councillor Catherine Zeter said on RTS television about the planned closure of the post office in Boudry that the company would probably prefer to offer its services only digitally. But, said Zeter, this "completely" violates the right to an offline life that the people of Neuchâtel have just decided on with their new fundamental right.
I didn't own a smartphone until 2022. Now, after three years of carrying this dopamine-slothed brick, I’m ditching it—but first, let’s autopsy the “security” demands forcing ownership.
Peak security theater: banks (at least in Europe) mandate smartphones as “safe,” yet the device itself is the ultimate attack vector.
- 2FA apps? Single point of failure (SIM-jacking, zero-days, bricked phone = locked out of life).
- Biometrics? Your face now lives in a corp database that will get breached.
The irony? A YubiKey was objectively safer: no GPS, mic, or app permissions. But we’ve normalized “security” as surrender to surveillance capitalism. Banks want your data, not hardware tokens.
Smartphones manufacture threats:
- AirTag stalking requires… a smartphone to detect.
- Signal/encrypted chat? Tied to a phone number (→ ID → surveillance graph).
- “Find My Phone” = backdoor with a UX polish.
The system isn’t securing you, it’s securing access to you. Every forced 2FA method is another node to map, monetize, and manipulate.
Toronto, Canada. Tried to pay for street parking using their machine and with credit card. It spat out some gibberish on display that flashed too fast to read. Parking ticket guy was hanging around so I asked him WTF is going on. He said I must use the app or he will give a ticket. I tried to argue with him that they must still accept the other form of payment and I do not want to pollute phone with the app. He said that he does not give a shit and will issue ticket regardless of what fucking Toronto's parking website pages say.
I for one will never ever do any kind of banking or monetary
transaction on a Smart Phone.
As for other apps, I just have a couple of simple games and Firefox, which I only use when in waiting an office for am appointment. So far where I am, it is not an impediment.
I hate having to use a metro app or bank app or app for conferences or whatever. Who knows what the privacy and security of all these are. I am sure it’s a matter of time before they all get breached.
I don't mind having a phone, but the only way I'll put personal information on it is if I have root access and can run a firewall. anything else and it's not my phone.
more and more apps are starting to reject rooted phones. I'm dropping them for now, but I worry that at some point I'll have to carry a decoy phone for essential apps. or maybe I'll learn to just not put anything more personal than the stuff required to use the essential ones like health care and transport.
I don't have a permanent address nor a permanent (mobile) phone number. It's impossible to do so many things without these. I have to use my mother's address and my mother is currently suing me in court, so go figure how much mail reaches me. Without a permanent address, you can't open a bank account, you can't use many government services,...
It's a "required" field on many online forms. It's such a pain because they don't need those info to give me the services they offer...
This is mostly overblown, but the really annoying cases are the UK government themselves! Both the NHS app and HMRC app provide access to things you can't get to just from the web, even though they are just webview apps!! It's so dumb.
But generally... just buy a phone and download the apps. I imagine in the 1800s someone wrote an article "those without telephones are unfairly penalised". This is just a modern version.
It is unfair. A close friend of mine has brain damage, is low income, and he can't really use a smart phone. He just has a simple flip phone and it's all he has. It has been isolating for him with working and managing his life.
Tell your friend what good company he is in, as one of many, many of
us, who do not fit a fleeting mythical stereotype. There are hundreds
of reasons why people can not or will not use smartphones. Eyesight.
Dexterity. Poverty. Location tracking by hostiles. Privacy. Poor
memory. Security needs. Environmental concerns...
We should not play the victims. Being without one of those cursed
things is a blessing. We get good mental health. We get focus and
calm. We get a profound sense of freedom, time to think, to create, to
talk to real people, to see the world go by. We learn to enjoy being
bored. We interact with other real people. We willingly pay more for
freedom and privacy.
What we lose is being tied up in pointless abusive machinations of an
already dying "online" culture, one that is over-extended, fragile,
dysfunctional, and we dodge much of the abusive enshitified corporate
hell that every living being now hates.
Please, big-up your friend instead of painting him as a victim.
This entire article is fodder for techbros to circle jerk about how impactful they are despite any productivity gains being marginal or nonexistent.
It's goes further into nonsensical territory when a progressive shows up and starts complaining about how the people who don't want to participate in society are being unfairly punished. That being poor is somehow not only a problem, but also YOUR problem.
Some of these website-in-apps drive me fucking nuts. They will switch you to the app, ask for validation through email, and then when you go to check the email, it loses your place in its internal browser, sending it back to the login screen, and so the number you've retrieved is worthless unless you know how to specifically minimize the app on the screen, which it will not tell you beforehand how to do. The bouncing back and forth is annoying and idiotic.
That's like saying the tyranny of credit cards prevents me from enjoying discounts in some venues. Or that the tyranny of educational system prevents me from working as a doctor.
No, I don't like installing apps for every stupid parking lot or restaurant. But calling it "tyranny" is clickbait and bad journalism. I pay more for my sons bus pass because I don't want him to have a smartphone.
That's a choice I made. My solution isn't to make everyone else pay more because the same discount can't be given without a smartphone. I see why businesses would want to reward me when I let them send me push notifications. Again, not even remotely tyranny. If anything this is tyranny of bad writing.
If the app is required - which has happened already (eg. bank apps, car charging) or could happen in the future - then I think it's reasonable to call this bad. Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?
We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites to provide phone service with exactly the same pricing. Guess what the effect will be? Higher prices.
The same is true with apps, some things make no financial sense without them.
If the pen collected location information continuously and sent it to a insecure cloud endpoint, and sent me spammy notifications every day, then probably I would.
If the pen was somehow of financial benefit to the bank, and I didn't benefit, and they won't let me use a different pen, I'd still resent it. No, I don't want to jump through a hoop to make your business some extra money.
Sure, but that's a different debate. You can see why it would be in the interest of the business for you to install that app and why it would be worth enough for a discount.
We're giving them something that provides value and saves on costs.
It's not always your choice. In my country, you're basically cut off from banking services if you don't own a smartphone. I lived without one for years and had to give in a couple of years ago (second hand but perfectly usable — thanks to LineageOS).
The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
I guess you're right ultimately, if there's choice. But the alternatives get more expensive. Basically all kinds of businesses have figured out they can get us to sell our privacy in return for a relatively cheaper product - and as this becomes the norm, it no longer even seems to be cheaper, it's just that resisting selling your privacy gets more expensive.
Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen?
The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .
Accessibility is a great point. In that regard apps often exceed pens in their accessibility support and laws such as the ADA require organizations like banks to comply with accessibility regulation.
Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case.
Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
> Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them
You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers.
Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those.
My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems.
So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
You're right, accessibility and disability are large and complex subjects with a huge gradient of issues/conditions/situations.
One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank?
Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc?
No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist?
Yes.
I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that:
* Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly.
* Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Ticketmaster is the worst of these for me. They have a near monopoly, and started forcing this shit on everyone a few years ago with covid as the excuse. Now going to one of their concerts is like taking an international flight.
Forget privacy, forget having a paper stub as a souvenir (not even an option), forget paying with cash. As I avoid ticketmaster, I've avoided most concerts the last few years... only going to small local venues, which provide the options above.
Even for those who is OK with Ticketmaster - there is little "surprise" - hostile location/IP-based blockings. Do you want to buy some tickets for concert in Germany while being on trip in non-EU country? No way - we are just blocking you! They even learned to detect whether a client use VPN so latter could not circumvent this ridiculous obstacle.
I'm all-in on this. If the only way for me to attend an event is to deal with an app on my phone, I automatically assume there are a few dozen other activities or events I'd enjoy doing more during that time and choose to go do one of those instead.
Ticketmaster is the one of the shittiest apps I've ever used in my life. Constantly have to reactivate because it forgets your info, it fails to display tickets, it shows ads, etc.
But I recently discovered you can just view the tickets in your mobile browser instead and it will work fine for whatever scanners the venues use.
So, what's this story getting unfairly penalized for? It's been bumping around between page and 2 and 3 after it had more than 80 upvotes and not even half the comments; meanwhile there's a story with not even half the votes, that is also older, which is firmly near the top.
I remember the European young folk who had RFID chips implanted in their arms so they could fast track the lines in dance clubs. I wonder how many of those chips are still in arms, today.
I'm not denying smartphone adoption. I'm just giving it 20 years to mature. During which time I can observe it from the outside, and better track dystopian policies that may result from it and slow their progress... by using a desktop computer and advocating for arms-length 'security' solutions, instead of installing apps and losing all control. The opaque app sandbox is just as menacing to the user as to the hypothetical hacker. Currently I'm thinking, why should I EVER decide to use a device for which I cannot easily attain God-Mode? That includes defeating end to end encryption so I can see the plaintext the device uses to communicate. If that itself carries another layer of encryption, I will suspect it to be devious by default, and isn't that rational?
It just seems like Darwin In Action, and my quick adoption would make me the brunt of some cosmic joke. I will never buy a cellphone without an easily removable battery, either. On general principle. Some things are not features, they are curses disguised as features.
All of the council car parks in my local town now expect you to use a parking app to pay. They removed cash devices and the recent BT switch-off of 3G clobbered the credit card devices
Paying for parking that way was never very successful. Machines often failed to work even before apps. Apart from the inherent discrimination more people probably pay successfully now.
Agree, the article's prime example is also that ppl cannot get LIDL loyalty discounts, which to me seems a bit tame too commonplace for the "tyranny" word choice.
Do you consider “going to your GP” a minor area of life, on par with rewards programs? Because if you can only pay for parking or buy bus tickets with an app, I’m not sure how most people get to their GP.
Very weird logic. As the article points out, this is an intentional choice for many people. So you shoulder the consequences, that seems fair to me?
I don't currently drive a car, and to be honest, I have anxiety about driving. I could bitch about how US is hostile to people who don't drive, to the point that it's difficult to go to places/get things done, but that's useless. I can 1) move to NYC and never leave the city 2) get a car, work on my anxiety, and start enjoying life or 3) talk to Guardian and complain all day long. 1) is not actually a bad choice, and literally millions of people choose that, but I am working on 2) because that's the sensible thing to do. If I intentionally choose not to drive, not because of a physical disability or not being to afford a car, I bear the consequences.
We all shoulder the consequences of slowly sliding into a society of lock-in and surveillance, which is what unnecessarily requiring smartphones advances. That there are choices along the way doesn't make it fair - if I let you choose which of your fingers I cut off, am I being fair? Wait a few years, and the "choice" will be between living in the woods, and carrying an always-on telescreen with you at all times.
I do drive and the having do download a bunch of parking apps is a pain the arse. And for each one you have to spend five minutes entering your address card number etc.
We really got to get away from this vibe that other people's underbelly feelings aren't valid unless they can back them up with seventy scientific articles. It doesn't matter whether this "moron" has a good or a bad reason to not want apps. Apps make him feel insecure, so he doesn't want them. Why can't that be enough?
The general attitude of companies that make apps doesn't help. No wonder he feels insecure, even if he can't articulate the specific reason in every case.
It could have been explained better, but there are lots of reasons to prefer paper over digital and websites over apps. Apps can collect very invasive information, often unnecessarily (my Fuji camera app requires that I enable fine-grained location information in order to open the app at all).
"Security reasons" might be standing in for an inexpressible distaste about being tracked, even if nothing specifically bad is likely to result from it.
Yes, only paranoid morons would doubt the security of random apps, when they, and smartphones in general, have such a stellar security and privacy record.
> He does own a smartphone – an Apple iPhone he bought secondhand about three years ago – but says: “I don’t use apps at all. I don’t download them for security reasons.”
Yes and?
He makes a choice and he is being penalized for it. Presumably the benefits for him outweigh the costs. For Richard Stallman they do.
There is no innate human right to grocery store coupons or private parking lots.
I have to install an app to communicate with my child's state-sponsored daycare. I'll have to install an app to communicate with the teachers at his future school. Is this still fine?
It'd be one thing, if it were just apps. But all of these apps are essentially just containers for some web application.
Do you get access to the web application without the app? No.
So what's the point of the apps? So they can send you notifications and annoy you with irrelevant updates concerning other groups at the same daycare all day long, because they don't care to filter?
Here in Sweden, it took me about 5 months but I was able to get the school to send me info by email. They switched to an app-only system, and I have no smartphone.
Setting aside any issues related to privacy or US corporate control over my life, I'm one of the people who doesn't use a smartphone because the temptation to be online, at the drop of the hat, is too much to resist.
I compare it to being like someone who needs to lose weight, so keeps all chocolate out of the house, while everyone seems to expect me to have a luscious bar of high quality chocolate with me all the time, just sitting there, begging me to eat it.
There is an ongoing debate about smartphones at school, and the addiction and distraction they can be for kids. I think my strongest argument is that the addiction and distraction don't simply disappear for adults, and there was no way they were going to force me to get a smartphone.
I don't think that would work for those with a smartphone, but it's a crack keeping an alternative open.
Thank you for pointing this out. However, it seems that HN crowd really doesn't like this kind of viewpoint. "If you cannot do everything without a smart phone, that's the society's fault, not yours.", as echoed by comments under my (also downvoted) comment.
Many people here seem to have trouble understanding how the world works. If all you do is complain (which will change nothing) instead of adapt, good luck with your miserable life.
Because it's dismissive, sophomoric, and can be applied to literally anything you might complain about - eg "If you don't like how the 'HN crowd' votes, then stop coming here". In reality, Exit is not the only option.
You'd be right if, 30 years ago, people were required to download proprietary software and run that on a locked-down computer (you don't get to have administrator-level access to it) in order to do simple things like pay a parking meter
Internet is (increasingly: was) an open system that you can connect to on your own terms. Browsers do your bidding, for the most part anyway and you can switch if you don't like one of them. However, you can't simply install an open source version of Google Play Services on your phone and if the Deutsche Bahn app doesn't work for you, there is no alternative that you can install to talk to their server and buy that train ticket (no equivalent to installing a different browser aka 'user agent')
30 years ago, the internet was a novelty, nothing more, and it remained so easily for another ten years after that. It wasn't until the widespread adoption of smartphones that permanent connectivity came to be taken for granted.
It was actually very easy to get by without any of it until quite recently, when legacy options for all kinds of things began being phased out.
Eh? 30 years ago would be 1994. Most people did not have internet in 1994.
But let's use 10 years: you absolutely could get by without internet 10 years ago. It would have been a bit of a hassle for a few things, but internet access wasn't needed for lots of every-day basic activities like parking a car, ordering in a restaurant, using tickets at a concert, etc.
Also: it was easy to use internet at a library, often at zero to no costs. You didn't need to have a personal device only used by you.
Absolutely. The internet stopped being something you accessed and became something you were connected to 24/7, and that you have a persistent, high-speed connection. That was a huge shift.
It feels on a par with illiteracy. The motives and circumstances are different, but it's got a similar level of assumption. It's kinda rare and requires significant adaptation, so it's just way easier to assume it doesn't happen.
I don't think that a law to help people get smartphones is the answer, the way we made literacy education mandatory. But it's rapidly going to be seen as a handicap.
I don't think a skill is the same as a leased possession
Literacy is something the state funds for you to acquire and that can't simply be taken away
A smartphone is something you need to acquire and manage yourself, and it furthermore needs to comply with the rules set by an overseas corporation: you can choose between Apple or Google services but neither of them needs to take you as a customer while they're gatekeeping access to certain government and most transportation services
Literacy skills increase monotonically though. If you learn to read adult novels while in grade school, you can still continue reading grade school books as well. Whereas if you learn tech to the proficiency of understanding how corporate apps are attacking you, or if you simply take administrative control of that computer you carry everywhere, then you can then find yourself unable to engage despite having higher than the basic skill level.
> Some of the best savings rates are offered by app-only providers – made up of banks and “electronic money institutions” (EMIs), which do not have their own banking licence, but put your money in a bank that does.
Okay, this wins for euphemism of the week. "We're not a bank, we're a money institution!"
The US government hands out smartphones with service for free. Elsewhere you can get used phones for practically nothing. Most places have wifi these days so you don't even need to pay for service just to use an app at a store.
Not having a smartphone is a choice. Nobody is obligated to support you in that choice. It's not "unfair". Not everything you dislike is "unfair".
What's actually unfair is the app store monopolies that dictate what you can and can't do with the phone you "own". But I don't really expect The Guardian to understand the true issue.
My doctor/'s office was just forced to switch to app-instead-of-website for patient interation. Ironically, the old and this new software came from same megacorp I work for (different department, same story). The old web interface was rather good and rather sensible-practical-sane. It was almost as if someone had asked a doctor what he actually needed for his patients, and then understood his answer and also managed to actually implement and deliver it.
Internally, I know it is because the original dev team has been gutted, development outsourced to india, and just a skeleton crew from the original team manages the chinese-whispers process with the huge indian team.As a result, the use case flow (IE the only way you can operate it..) of the app, goes as follows:
1 close the app 2 launch the app and sign in 3 do ONE action 4 enjoy the result of the action 5 repeat from 1..
You might wonder why that is.. Well, that is because your software is not allowed to display any errors - because that might indicate there were bugs.. So instead, whenever an error happens, you just display the '... still loading..' animation... forever. So, technically, there are no errors, no bugs.. "IT IS JUST TAKING TOO LONG TO RESPOND". (spoiler: it will NEVER respond, because hidden behind the screen, is a series of unhandled web api errors..)
But again, as an "internal" employee, I have seen our management claim all this is a huge success (client paid/pays).
Back to using it: When I have to interact with my doctor, I write the texts on my PC, and mail them to myself. Then I cut/paste them from gmail into this wonderful app.
The perpetual spinner thing happened at my last job too, and I developed the opinion that putting a spinner into your site at all is a sign of incompetence. For any normal CRUD app, it should take milliseconds to do whatever task. Even with network delays, 150 milliseconds is a reasonable upper bound for end-to-end processing. If you have an animation at all, then your thing is either ridiculously slow or broken. Either way the animation is a crappy attempt to paper over a bad job.
As an Australian whose parents have 300kbps internet, please continue to add spinners to your apps. The round trip time to US west is 270ms for a good connection here. That 270ms doesn't include any processing (maybe 60ms or so) and the wifi tax (another 20ms). Then your round trip time gets doubled by HTTPS, which goes up to tripled if you're sending more than 14 KB of data.
This means it takes a full second to load most websites or apps, and this is further compounded by slow server code, daisy-chained sequential calls, living further away from the undersea cables, and bad infrastructure.
Spinners are a lie. Nowadays, you hardly encounter a spinner that actually shows the progress of the action you started.
For this reason, they are mostly useless. Even worse than useless if errors aren't even propagated to the user.
Imagine the entire UI of an email client becoming inoperable, diplaying "loading..." and a spinner every time you send mail. We don't do it now nor did we do that when 300kbps connections were more common. Spinners are a crutch for undercooked, bad software.
Keep in mind that spinners can also be used (as well as other indicators) that something is being processed client side, e.g. rendering a video and if the total time can't be estimated a spinner is reasonable.
> For any normal CRUD app, it should take milliseconds to do whatever task. Even with network delays, 150 milliseconds is a reasonable upper bound for end-to-end processing
This is only really true with stable, high speed internet connections. We still cannot take for granted that everyone has that, especially not in rural areas and double especially not on mobile devices
So many places in apps just wait for no reason. Let's take a hypothetical situation:
Suppose you're doing gig delivery. You're delivering to two customers in the same neighborhood on the same run. You drop the first order, take your photo of the drop, and the app spins. It's waiting for the photo to be delivered before it moves on. You can't get directions to the next customer until the app moves along. Why can't it just take the photo, take the text description, and hold that until service is better? Just give the driver the map, and upload the other stuff when you can.
I have similar issues with every app. It seems like every user interaction, every button press requires a round-trip to the server before the app moves to the next step. There's no reason for this. I wager that every app can keep its UI and the user's data locally, and send and receive teensy data updates.
But all "the best" software development employees (that they claim their hiring process hires) in these companies can't seem to work that out.
While doing Instacart deliveries here in Maine, I dropped off a leave-at-the-door order which requires uploading a picture of the shopping bags at the entrance. However, there wasn’t any service in the rural area I was delivering to, and the app required a connection to even open the camera interface. So I had to drive away down the road until I had service, open the camera, drive back to the delivery point, take the picture, then drive away again to upload the picture and complete the order.
Same thing with paypal.
They require a mobile phone number now. If I give them one, they'll enforce SMS as a login path.
I live in an area with excellent cell service, except for a few miles around my house. I'm not going to try to log in, while buying something, then drive down the road and wait for the SMS.
Sheer stupid.
That’s bizarre. The whole point of having an app instead of a website is to have more processing occur locally, right?
The whole point of having an app is to collect data, show ads, and “engage the customer with the brand.” Any additional capabilities beyond that are incidental.
The delivery driver is not the customer, but I wouldn't be surprised if some MBA bonehead thought showing ads to workers was a win. "They have to use the app to schedule and do the work, so it's a captive audience!"
Hell, I got shown an ad after I paid for a ride on Lyft the other day. Even if you’re the customer, you’re still the product. If there’s not already ads in the drivers’ views, I’m shocked it’s taken them this long.
Why do you think only MBAs have the idea to insert ads? It's not exactly specialized thinking. Plenty of startup founders with technical chops decide to insert ads because they desperately need the revenue.
Because "MBA" has become a generic derogatory term for greedy and short termist management, because its easy to blame a group of people than face the fact that the problem is a wider one of incentives and ethics that pervades the whole of western society.
Don't forget bait and switching with updates so you can do all that later, possibly after you sell your quality app to someone else and cash out.
> The whole point of having an app instead of a website is to have more processing occur locally, right?
One would think this is the case. I agree it should be.
> That’s bizarre.
Unfortunately, it's not. It's normal operation.
Why is it so?
The whole point of app is to gather your info from the phone and to send you tons of notifications.
And don't forget mandatory updates, when you open an app and cannot use it without updating to the latest crappy version.
Many apps are shortcuts. They live rent free on people's home screens/launchers.
Plenty could exist as a web app.
No, the whole point of apps is data collection, background tasks (when the device is closed) and push notifications.
History has shown over and over again that you cannot trust the client.
> Why can't it just take the photo, take the text description, and hold that until service is better? Just give the driver the map, and upload the other stuff when you can.
The obvious answer is because asynchronous workflows are brittle, and require intervention from the end user to correct if they break
Then most end users aren't going to care to fix it when it breaks, or be able to fix it when it breaks for a variety of reasons
And what should one do if the network is down? Stand there indefinitely hoping it comes back up?
Recall the driver can’t continue without an address.
Better they can't continue than they do the last order wrong, amirite?
There's some strong "Seeing Like a State" vibes here. I'm pretty sure these apps are intentionally designed as tools to force the users (here, drivers) into a specific flow, a flow that minimizes complexity for the vendor, reality be damned.
Another way to look at it: the job of the driver side of a delivery (or taxi) app isn't to be useful to the driver; the job is to be a remote control with which the business can control the driver like they were an automaton.
So the automaton can’t deliver to the next customer because the app can’t phone home.
I don’t see how this benefits anyone.
Lots of delivery jobs are effectively paid by the piece or paid by the route. The driver is not paid hourly.
This is one reason that package delivery drivers often will say that they've attempted delivery when they at best drove past the delivery point. Marking the delivery as attempted gets them off the hook for that delivery, and they can finish their shift that much faster.
Having a broken app that forces the driver to 100% complete every delivery before moving to the next one thus costs the company relatively little, but saves some complexity, missing proof of delivery, etc.
For the control system, no delivery is better than a delivery that they can't track.
It's dispute resolution in a low-trust environment.
When a customer shows up saying something went wrong with the delivery, the CSRs will need evidence and if the driver did their job then they can be exonerated.
The logistics are a bit more complex than a restaurant where customers are eating at tables in the same building.
If the network is down it really doesn't matter if your app does synchronous or asynchronous operations because both will fail?
I'm not entirely sure what your point is at all
Relevantly, in this specified case, the picture of their delivered food is shown to the customer immediately. This is more than a nice to have (imagine a large apartment building, where your food could be dropped in any number of locations).
it's shown when the driver gets a network connection again, was the way I read that.
Because "[driver] doesn't know where to go till it confirms the upload"
I'm proficient in optimizing these UX flaws, and have been unable to land a full time job in two years, even after hundreds of applications.
Nobody cares about quality anymore.
At least on my mobile, I get ~100 ms ping to most things. Admittedly I don't use it very often so it's hard to have a real world feel for how frequent things like dropouts are, but that's mostly because data costs a lot. That kind of also ties into developers doing a bad job though (e.g. sending me 10 MB of who knows what when the task (like paying for parking) fundamentally should be doable with a few kB, most of which are the TLS handshake). If they didn't do that, their thing would be instant with 3g speeds. Most CRUD generally just doesn't need a lot of data to actually accomplish the desired task.
Satellite Internet will be slow, but should still be well under a second? I'd still expect that even extreme cases, you wouldn't expect a spinner to complete a single revolution. So it still seems unnecessary.
Anyway, I'm generally on a reliable 300 Mbit/s connection where my pings are more like 20-70 ms, so I suppose you could alter my statement to "if I see a spinner, I interpret it as incompetence".
Then it should give explicit status information like
Not as cool, but at least somewhat informative. Engineers have a responsibility to push back on this kind of thing, because marketing people frequently do not think about failure modes or actually put themselves in the customer's shoes.> marketing people frequently do not think about failure modes or actually put themselves in the customer's shoes
It’s literally the job of marketing people to put themselves in the customer’s shoes. If engineering isn’t looping in marketing on UX challenges, or if marketing is too focused on top-of-funnel vanity metrics to engage deeply with product usability, things fall through the cracks.
But that’s a company culture issue, not a marketing deficiency.
It should be, but it isn't in my experience. Marketing people care about onboarding and engagement numbers, and are a major driver of dark patterns - everything from popups to moving the 'close dialog' icon to unintuitive places like the bottom left of unasked-for video embeds.
Massive over-generalization.
I’m sorry you only worked with terrible, unethical, incompetent marketing people. There are good ones, just like there are bad programmers who do all sorts of terrible and dumb things without creating universal truths about programmers.
I don't think so; I said marketing people frequently do bad stuff, which is not the same as saying they're all bad. I stand by 'frequently', because just look at how much terrible adware, clickbait, spam etc there is on the web. It's a Gresham's law-type situation.
Of course marketing people do a valuable job in terms of figuring out how to sell things and minimize the gap between producers and customers. But - just like engineers - there are lots of cynical and amoral people who work in that industry who make things worse for everyone else. By contrast, I can't think of any society that is suffering because they don't have enough advertising.
Effective marketing (not just comms, but real positioning and messaging) is why people can find the right products and services, why small businesses can compete, and why entire industries grow. It's unequivocally a good.
If anything, societies suffer when good marketing is absent—because that’s when bad actors fill the void with misinformation, hype, and scammy tactics.
> If anything, societies suffer when good marketing is absent—because that’s when bad actors fill the void with misinformation, hype, and scammy tactics.
Except, marketing too is a market for lemons. Scammy marketing outcompetes good marketing. Simple as that.
Scammy marketing can sometimes be effective in the short term, but the problem with it it’s inherently self-limiting.
Deceptive brands burn their audiences, lose customer trust, and either get regulated out of existence or collapse under their own churn rates. Meanwhile, companies that invest in clear, honest positioning, strong customer relationships, and long-term brand value consistently outperform in the long run. Apple, Patagonia, and Tesla aren’t winning because they spam pop-ups.
If marketing were purely a race to the bottom, all successful brands would look like clickbait farms. They don’t.
Also, inside buildings in very urban areas
Also in my house in the first world because our telcos are an order of magnitude worse than third world telcos.
> my house in the first world because our telcos are an order of magnitude worse than third world telcos
Hello fellow Canadian
Where I used to live, in NY (not NYC, but close to _a_ major city), I had to go out onto my front porch to use my cell phone. It wasn't a great signal out there, but it was better than the _no_ signal inside my apartment.
Hello fellow german
And when your users are in the same continent as your backend.
It sucks to live with a dial in nowadays.
I think it's an art, not a science. The alternative to a spinner is to show some sort of error to the user; a connection error or something specific that went wrong that they can report. Sometimes this is useful.
I frequently put spinners just in the individual components that need loading. I tend to use them more for large data loads that will hang around awhile, so I have to do fewer round trip transactions. Loading a list of a customer's last 1000 transactions? I'm going to bring on all that data at once, not keep calling the server as you try to scroll through it.
I want user actions to have an INSTANT consequence, not 150ms latency. So even if not a spinner, that button needs to gray out and something should affirm that they tapped it.
Also, spinners are very useful for me in tracking down bugs. When a few customers report stuck spinners in the same day, I can almost immediately determine if some particular action is failing or whether it's a server issue. Even better, they can send screenshots helping me isolate the problem. If no stuck spinner and the app just freezes, they reload it and forget what exactly they did to trigger an error. And endpoints do go down, nothing has 100% uptime. I want to FEEL how long a call is taking on a heavy operation on a busy day.
Some things in the real world simply take longer than milliseconds; this is not a failing. I'm working with a system that takes over 10 seconds to get a list of wifi access points, and you bet we throw up a spinner while that's happening.
Now of course if the spinner is merely cosmetic and doesn't represent any actual work going on, that can be a problem especially if the process you're waiting for dies.
Monitor the process if it fails hide spinner, show the user an error and provide a Retry button to restart the process :)
Nah. We have a spinner, but I also have a timeout handler.
The reason is that the app's backend (and many of the servers on which it depends) can be hosted on the lowest-tier-dogshit-shared-hosting plan. I would love to have a better backend server, but we are a nonprofit, and can't afford better. This app would be a lot faster, with a more robust backend.
But error handling/reporting is a true art, and should never be an afterthought. In my experience, I need to start thinking about error management, as soon as I start planning.
In my experience, the best error handling is to not have errors, and, quite often, good UX is the answer to that. If the user doesn't do something that might cause agita, then they don't get an error.
> I developed the opinion that putting a spinner into your site at all is a sign of incompetence
This so much. If your site is so slow that it can load what is usually a video file (non-SVG animated graphics) before it can load the text on the page, then you have failed at making a website
Looking at Discourse® here, and iirc Google AMP did something similar except it was a blank page for 8 seconds (until it hit a timeout) if you blocked their tracking
Not sure if it counts as CRUD but, when downloading files, it can take a while to prepare the files. If that while is long enough the user may thing something isn't happening, and a "I'm working on it" signal is not unreasonable.
>150ms
Server in Australia?
> For any normal CRUD app, it should take milliseconds
For most CRUD apps
Sometimes wheels within wheels can slow down even modern computers.
The annoying part is that website can just be used as an app. For a booking app we don't need native performance; just a webpage-inside-an-app is fine. In most cases, it should be fairly straight-forward and cheap to make this work.
What happens is they hire some contracting firm and they go "whole thing will have to be redone" so they get more work, and that's how you end up with a "solution" like this. Basically the software equivalent of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq6WME576ZE
What’s even more asinine is the website can be updated without publishing to an app store. You always have the latest version and all these apps are just a thin veneer on some CRUD endpoints anyway.
This is the entire philosophy behind all of the apps run by DHH/Basecamp. The web should be the default and native apps should only be used for software that just isn’t possible through the web (yet).
Ideally, Web is either for thin clients or text/visual focused content with minimal interaction (i.e. anything more than basic forms). Apps are for when a user needs more control (i.e. important or sensitive data that persists on their hard drive or account) or access to your hardware for proper function (aka, games or other resource-specific/intensive tasks).
In reality, you want to push everything to an app that you can or one day want to monetize. Web is to be avoided except to advertise the app. I hate it with a passion. Easily my least favorite shift over the 2010's. We advanced past flash to make proper use of HTML5, and can now start blur the lines with aspects like Webassembly and PWAs, but corporate is angry that the WWW never properly optimized itself to monetize easily.
The problem is that users much prefer native apps. The idiomatic UI, the use of OS specific capabilities (even if the same result could be done without), the appearance of better performance because the app launches before a network connection is made.
We can opine all we want about how things should work, but the ground truth is a good native app has higher user satisfaction, more engagement, whatever metric you want other than development cost/non-customer concerns.
It’s very hard to tell users they should feel differently than they do, no matter the technical or philosophical high ground.
> We can opine all we want about how things should work, but the ground truth is a good native app has higher user satisfaction, more engagement, whatever metric you want other than development cost/non-customer concerns.
No way / at most, HIGHLY context dependant. Facebook/Insta/social media slug of the year? Yes, probably app is desired.
My bank? Maybe, at a strech, if it's good.
My local doctor? The real estate agent im trying to rent a house from? Amazon/AliExpress/Shopee? A movie theatre? My council street parking system? My university? Fuck no i dont want your shitty apps on my device.
My bank has been fine as an app. My main nitpick is that it makes it very hard to fully detach from the app store since none of the banks publish elsewhere (I can easily ditch social media on the go or use a website, in comparison).
I went to college early enough in the smartphone era that they didn't have an app as a freshman but did by senior year... I don't miss it.
part of that is old perceptions that have long went away. And the other part is the huge push against PWAs, especially from Apple. Web-based app development has come so far but Apple is showing off its control freak tendencies as usual to make it not seem so.
Hearing the story above about infinite loading to hide crashes really boils my blood and shows that it's simply a matter of care these days (and not hardware/bad middleware) that determines how smooth something feels.
> The problem is that users much prefer native apps.
I imagine there is some data on this, but it goes against my observations of me and my circle.
I have maybe 4 apps that I use heavily and another 10 that I use when I have to. I actively avoid installing another app when the web version is sufficient. I don't need the weekly updates to clog up my storage. I don't need notifications going off at all hours. And I don't need creepy unfathomable permissions requests.
Is there some 500ms delay if I click a button on the web version? Maybe. Honestly, I'm not so busy to have noticed.
I’ve worked on a few native apps for large companies where there was already a decent web app but we were losing to competitors’ native apps.
User feedback was loud and clear: many users see web apps as cost savings efforts that are inferior products and only exist so a lazy / cheap company doesn’t have to invest in native.
Remember that permissions and notifications can also be a problem in web apps; that’s one thing the “make web apps as good as native” crowd has gotten us.
> it goes against my observations of me and my circle
Your friends are probably tech savvy. That means your browser is well configured (or configured at all), running an ad blocker and on a modern machine. You probably value the privacy attributes of using a browser, versus most of the population than will trade privacy for convenience.
For a GP booking app that most people only use once in a blue moon it really doesn't matter much. And most users will absolutely prefer a well-designed webapp vs. a crummy semi-working native app, as the previous person described. In short, this is just boring thoughtless repetition of a cliché with no consideration for context.
people here is web biased, people forgot that mobile world exist and I can tell you navigating web in mobile vs native mobile app is like heavenly different
if people commenting from web dekstop perspective I can see that point, but from mobile?? where hardware processing power and network is sometimes unreliable???
huft
At what point does this constitute a hostile action against the user and what degree of retaliation is appropriate? Open question for everyone.
I’m gonna punt on the question of where the line is for hostile actions and use some past legal justification of “I know it when I see it” and I see it clearly here.
The second part is the more interesting question to me:
Appropriate reactions would seem to include:
Seriously what other options are there? You can either complain to the ether and it goes nowhere. Or you can take up violence and it still likely goes nowhere and you fuck up your life.This is why so many people are content to let the world burn. It ain’t for us anymore anyway.
> stop using smartphones and claim hardship — not sure how this would pan out.
This is basically what I do now. When someone tells me to install their app or give them my cell phone number I tell them that I don't have a cell phone. Sometimes I do it while holding a cell phone in my hand.
I've told employers that if they make using an app a requirement they'll need to buy me a cell phone.
If people really push on why I won't use an app I'll tell them all about how my buying a phone doesn't make me the owner of one since multiple people at multiple companies have privileged access to the device I paid for far beyond my own level of access which enables them to access/add/remove/modify files and settings at any time and for any reason without my permission or even without making me aware that they've done it. Why would I use a system controlled by an unknown number of others who are only interested in enriching themselves to keep highly personal information like my medical history or banking information? Cell phones are inherently insecure and adversarial devices designed to collect and leak our private information while stealing our attention.
You have forgotten sabotage or whistle blowing. If i would work for such a crappy manager, i would let upper management know.
Feeling helpless is the moment you loose.
Is stupidity instead of hardship a legally valid claim? Are cognitively disabled people, unable to operate a smartphone, a protected class?
wcag has provisions regarding cognitive issues, I have been thinking about writing an article arguing that dark patterns being liable under accessibility laws - but have not really shopped it around.
Of course one thing is nobody wants to sue someone because they don't understand something, because they think it means arguing they are stupid.
They are protected if we collectively-enough (laws, or culture, religion, ethics, or...?) agree to provide equitable access to people with disabilities. Human rights are made up (the local deer that spent the night in the woods near where I spend the night have no rights, they just exist in a mix of cooperation, reciprocity, and some competition. Actually, I don't know if they afford each other rights in the way we do that. Likewise, I don't know if deer focus on "productivity" as much as so many of us do...), and for good reasons (?). I wonder if rights were codified back when we were far less numerous and living so much closer to the land, amidst so much more abundant life.
If the entire world requires smartphones to take part and you are unable to use a smartphone you deserve some protection, yes.
If you see other options I’d be happy to hear them?
My question is can I sue based on that?
If you’re a protected class I would assume yes. IANAL this is not legal advice and this is not a real situation anyway
That's my question, am I a protected class for not being able to operate a smartphone? I think many of a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category.
> a typical doctor's constituency fall into that category.
My 95 year-old mother can't use apps on her iphone because she can't figure out the navigation and various modes. Because of this her phone usage is limited to answering incoming calls, making calls to the six icons we've preset on her home screen, receiving texts and replying to the last text she received (because it's still on the screen). Anything else is iffy. And she's not cognitively impaired. She's actually quite sharp for her age and lives on her own within an assisted care community.
No. You're not.
Blind people are. At least, insofar as we still have the ADA.
One thing these companies are doing is charging blind people extra. Phrase it that way and you can maybe move some policy levers.
I don’t think “person who is unable to operate a cellphone” is a protected class. There might be some overlap between those people and people in other protected classes. But it is hard to say just based on a hypothetical, right?
This is all downstream of consolidation of ownership in private equity of clinics, community health centers, emergency rooms, veterinarians offices, end-of-life care facilities, etc.
This is what happens when you let the bean counters and MBAs a quarter turn around the world with no on-the-ground experience or institutional knowledge make decisions from their spreadsheets to "optimize out inefficiencies".
Let's call it what it is: strip mining.
VOTE MOTHERFUCKER
Local government politics work. State politics even kinda work.
The fact that murder is on your list but not voting is mind boggling.
Where can I vote for "Medical establishments should have an accessible-friendly browser-accessible no-javascript webpage for all functionality"?
I see the "democrat" and "republic" checkboxes, but I don't see the magical third "Good apps, and also health insurance companies have to cover medical claims without questioning whether my doctor is competent, denying each claim once, and requiring 3 months of arguing on a phone"
I've been voting, and as far as I can tell every option I have ever been able to vote for has been fully in support of crappy apps and crappy healthcare.
Democrat is the only sane choice if you want a functioning government. Republicans have departed reality.
There are no sane choices. We're only stuck with republicans now because democrats were happy to maintain a status quo that was keeping them rich but wasn't addressing the needs of the people. The dems might throw us a bone now and then, but they weren't willing to make the kind of meaningful changes that might threaten their power or the interests of the corporations and industries bribing them. Now we're left with folks who just want to pillage everything they can and burn the rest to the ground.
> The fact that murder is on your list but not voting is mind boggling.
for hundreds of years our government and the corporations who bribe them have worked to limit the influence of the average person on the laws and regulations that we live under. After seeing our broken two party system, the gerrymandering and voter suppression, the open bribery, the lack of integrity or accountability, the inability/unwillingness of congress to do their job, and the growing list of laws and policies most Americans support and problems we want solutions for that get ignored time and time again while laws are being passed to appease corporations and industries, I really don't blame people for thinking that their ballot box is not the solution to their problems.
When people feel they don't have a way within the system to get the things they need they'll look for ways to get them outside of the system. Our government used at least put in the effort to give the appearance that working within the system could be successful, but these days they barely bother to do that.
Personally I still like to hold onto hope that voting can make a difference, especially at the local level, but it's a hard sell these days and getting harder all the time.
Ok, maybe something less desperate than voting but appropriate in this case: create a competitor to disrupt the suckers? Maybe using the same API?
The users of the sub-par app are captive, the hospital or insurance company is mandating it, and neither the doctor nor patients are free to choose a competing app.
If you create a technically better app for the users, people still won't be able to use it unless you also are chosen by those higher up, and since there's likely already a strong existing relationship between the executives at the existing company and at the medical compan(ies), that means creating a competitor also will require building a lot of social capital with the decision makers, taking them to dinner and on golf trips, and so on.
It will take years of your life, millions of dollars (since a 1-man company will never be seen as legitimate enough to provide a medical app, you'll need a large company with many employees), and the chance of success is minimal.
I don't see how this is an "appropriate" response to a bad app.
I was just thinking of a better front end for the same API that trifticon mentionned. Still a lot of work of course, but may not require as many approvals.
I wish we lived in a world where all these APIs were open, regulated, and everybody could compete on the implementation on both sides... One day, if capitalism survive technofeudalism...
Even avoiding the problems with getting a foothold into this space any start up that tried to do the right thing would get bought up by someone else and enshitified until it was just as bad if not worse. There's more money to be made by screwing over the public than by not screwing them and our entire system is centered around making the most money at any cost and placing money over every other concern.
> The fact that murder is on your list but not voting is mind boggling.
It's not. Unlike voting, it has a nonzero chance of improving the app situation.
In this situation, instead of anything on the list above, I recommend going to press/Twitter and stressing the angle that this bullshit actually ruins people's lives permanently (or kills them prematurely).
I vote. I am 50. I have voted in every election I was able to. In my life my preferred candidate has won exactly twice: Obama’s second term and Biden’s first. This includes local, state elections, and national.
To quote George Carlin: “If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it”.
Trump lost in 2024 but took the win because his cronies disqualified enough voters in enough states to win.
So, please, spare me. We’re up to violence already. You’re just well behind the times unfortunately.
Your argument is, violence is an option, because your preferred candidates don't win as much as you like?
I would see a point in saying voting is pointless, because no matter who you vote for, all end up on the payroll of the people doing enshitification. But not because your side always loose. Because this then won't likely change when you turn to violence - your side will be still the smaller one and we tried the whole voting thing, to not have all arguments solved with bloodshed.
Don’t mean to be antagonistic here, but do you have a source for the claim that trump took the win?
Would be really curious to see how this could be proven or at the very least convincingly induced.
Go look for how many ballots were disqualified in the swing states?
I googled around, but I couldn't find an authoritative source showing either the numbers disqualified, the reasons, and that those ballots were majority not-trump ballots.
Can you provide a source for that data for a specific swing state of your choice?
Contra Carlin, if voting didn’t matter they wouldn’t be putting so much effort into making it harder.
when the functioning of the app means that people with disabilities, including cognitive disabilities, will be denied medical access, and the retaliation is probably a lawsuit appropriate to your jurisdiction, if your jurisdiction does not support accessibility legislation then you're probably out of luck.
I tend to push back against this nonsense pretty firmly, and would go so far as to request paper documents be sent, as "I don't have a device up to the task" (which sometimes is true, as I use old hardware until I luck into a handmedown or the thing breaks). I get that paper and postage and time are costs. So is user time and stress level.
what retaliation are you imagining and against whom? who is even "the user" here?
Do a little reverse engineering/analysis on the app, to parallel-construct the claims of 'fifticon (as to not require them to leak internal info or become a whistleblower). If it's as bad as it sounds, go to press. Or just dump an expose on Twitter/X to maximize public awareness.
> who is even "the user" here?
The doctors and their patients. If it's as bad as it sounds, it actively degrades the ability of doctors to provide care, so it quite literally hurts actual people.
People should instead just vote with you feet and dollars. That'll be inconvenient, but if it bothers you enough, you'll make the effort.
A crucial part of this approach is to let your doctor know exactly why you're leaving. If they're losing business over it, they'll look for alternatives. And if the EHR company loses money, they'll look to make changes, too.
Usually when people say vote with your wallet, it means those with more money make the rules.
What recourse does an individual have if they live in a rural area with 1 or 3 doctors that all use the same hostile software?
Should they suffer because they don't have money or the ability to go else where?
Most people don't have 3 doctors let alone 3 which all use the same niche/bad customer facing software.
Those that do should organize to make their displeasure known. Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes.
If they live somewhere with 1 doc they should vote with their feet by leaving before the town finishes dying around them.
Most such bad software is provided by a small number of very large companies, so none of it is "niche".
> Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes.
It's not some coincidence that just about every company in every sector is screwing over more and more people. This is all extremely calculated. We've decided that making the most money is all that matters and we're seeing the inevitable results of that choice everywhere around us. If shareholders got richer by providing people with quality healthcare and well designed websites and the freedom to use or not use mobile technology we'd already have those things. No one cares how shitty they make our lives or even how many of us they kill as long as they keep the ability to stuff more money into their pockets this quarter than they did last quarter. The people doing this shit to us aren't incompetent. What we want from them isn't what they're optimizing for. Maybe you haven't noticed the massive amount of consolidation in every industry going on, but consider that voting with your wallet gets harder over time. Consider how many companies you're personally giving your money to right now while wishing you had an alternative that better met your needs. Voting with your wallet is not a real option. The fattest wallet will always win.
So we should condemn large swaths of the rural population to not only abject poverty, but remove health care access too?
Is this what you're seriously arguing? That people should be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis?
Do you not see how people read this as completely heartless and devoid of empathy towards their fellow man?
Yeah I should move out of the subtropical rain forest and move back to urban asthma and traffic and crime, and noise.
The idea that my neighbors and I are gunna go picket the only person within 20 miles that can write a prescription is ludicrous.
>Be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis?
Literally already the case and more so care isn't cheaper unlike land so your lesser dollars buys lesser care and no realistic access to specialists
Surely it's not a well-functioning market, when the client (the medical organization) had accepted and paid for a clearly dysfunctional software that harms their operations. Yet, they somehow survive and continue to function despite it.
And thus it's questionable whenever voting with wallet would work. It works in healthy, free and competitive markets with rational actors, and we probably aren't looking at one.
Yea, I wouldn't put up with a doctor that required me to interact with him through an app. I'd switch doctors, and hopefully find a way to let the old doctor know why I'm switching. That's often the hardest part--actually finding an owner who is harmed when a customer leaves.
I imagine legal retaliation as the perpetual loading could be framed as blocking access to medical care.
Feels like this well written piece by Atol Gawande is relevant if you haven't seen it. I showed it a couple of years ago to my very competent and conscientious doc and she got PISSED. She talked about how she spent literally half of her doctoring time working through poorly designed menus in {epic, cerner} to carefully document everything she could about the patient, only to discover that most doctors don't pay attention to any of that info.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/12/why-doctors-ha...
My hospital system has a surprisingly decent web app. I can log in and see my appointments, pre-register for office visits, view lab results, medications, request appointments, do virtual visits...
The amazing stupid part is when I have to sign in at the actual doctor's office.
They have an iPad which does some sort of remote/citrix setup, resulting in a frustrating experience that is full of lag where you interface with what might be their actual EMR system.
I had kaiser permanente and had google/doubleclick tracking through the entire website, including investigating conditions, doctor communication, and test results.
I complained, they played dumb, but eventually they came up with "the website is a convenience". I stopped using it.
The app was much worse.
A couple years later, other people must have complained
https://www.classaction.org/news/kaiser-permanente-shares-we...
https://www.classaction.org/news/data-breach-lawsuit-says-ka...
I believe the same thing happens with apps and websites provided by other health care providers, but nobody investigates and nobody cares.
At the doctor's office I'll just ask for paper if there is no real website. Apps freaking suck. I probably won't be able to do this forever though. Example of enshitification #456249
I often can no longer ask for a menu at restaurants that expect me to scan a QR code. Well…I can ask, but they don’t have any to provide.
I just leave restaurants that have gone to the online-only menu. It's usually an indicator that there are other terrible cuts in service and quality going on as well.
I leave because I go to a restaurant to enjoy a meal with my family and friends and to connect. Forcing everyone to stare at their phones for the first five minutes is a bad start.
It makes it easier for them to regularly increase pricing without printing new menus. I wonder if any restaurants are doing A/B testing with pricing
I’ve thought of this - if there’s no paper menu available, to avoid tracking, I always just search for the restaurant and navigate to the menu from their webpage rather than using a QR code.
I'm not generally evil, so I never would have thought of doing this. Therefore it must be the correct answer.
> I just leave restaurants that have gone to the online-only menu
I would if I'm by myself but if I'm out with friends I'm not comfortable making everyone leave.
> It's usually an indicator that there are other terrible cuts in service and quality going on as well.
I've seen no such correlation.
Most I see restaurants switching to card only, pay in app. I can seem some benefits from them.
* they don't need cash to make change * they have no money to be robbed * employees can't pocket any money
Most of my friends like going cashless so they see it as a benefit too.
[dead]
Tell them you can't use your phone for whatever reason, and then ask them to just tell you what they have. I think enough people must have done this already because I've seen paper menus return in many places.
(This fall under the general pattern of "make it their pain")
There's a restaurant my parents take me to when I come to visit that requires you to scan a QR code to get to a website and then order and pay for your food on your phone. You are prompted to provide a tip up front before anybody has even done anything. Then when the food's ready your phone alerts you, and you have to get up and grab the food from a shelf outside the kitchen. So if you do tip, you end up tipping... the management, I suppose.
It's just about the most cynical dining experience I've ever had the misfortune of enduring.
I ask the waiter what’s good, and usually end up going back forth a few times. It’s not as efficient, but it keeps me from reaching for my phone, which is covered in germs.
And in case of paper menu? It is also covered in germs. Do you read it or refuse and ask a waiter?
I’m banking on the assumption that a paper menu has fewer germs than my cell phone. Life has risks.
I've seen this trend regressing where I live, most restaurants I go to have done away with the QR codes (unless it's a brewery/distillery kind of establishment).
"Online menus" are fine; they allow quick updates without requiring the restaurant to re-print menus, and allow for just one copy/version of the menu to be used everywhere.
But then they should also display them publicly outside/inside, and/or have a bunch of tablets ready for visitors to use.
Oh I think the only reason they did that is because that was the "hip" and "schnazzy" UX flow that everyone signed off and loved because "oh this will be amazing for users".
So apps, and even websites, have just become ways to market and push to users. It's not about functionality or enabling the user.
Another, maybe smallish, manifestation of this that I've seen is that devs, UX, and everyone involved is so downright hostile to direct "links". Devs because it forces them to think about what stupid react/angular router they want to use, devops has to do URL-rewrites, PMs are worried about the "additional scope", and UX folks' brains absolutely explode that there is no "flow" to the entity (it just pops up, omg). Instead you, as the user, are forced to click through the search UI or to type the right thing, to trigger the flow or whatever, before you get to that entity you want. You can't just create it as a link, and thereby enabling users to have "emergent" behavior of sharing links or emailing them, etc.
Companies need to be held accountable for their negligent behaviour
How? What do you propose?
Holding C-level executives criminally liable for the actions of the company would be a start.
eye-for-an-eye, any time a company's app is showing a customer a spinner, the c-suite's phones should also be showing spinners
I've stopped submitting all electronic forms for medical purposes. I simply don't want to chatbot my health concerns to anyone. So I don't.
I also stopped signing anything in the waiting room.
What are you going to do when they refuse to provide care because you won’t fill out or sign forms?
they took an oath not to refuse.
Doctors take an oath to do no harm. With few exceptions, they are not required to treat patients.
If you were correct, you could get cosmetic surgery for free and with no prerequisites, assuming it wouldn’t harm you.
Why shouldn't they?
That would be called “slavery.”
You equate doing things for other people without money transactions, with slavery?
If it’s mandated by law, yes.
What would you call it if you were required to work—paid or otherwise—under threat of criminal punishment?
Is the threat of criminal punishment the only incentive that works on you? You never do things because it would make someone happy or you a better person?
Make it so I can pay without using an app and a new login to keep track of and you'll get paid.
That’s not a condition you are entitled to create or enforce. If you want that to be enshrined in law, speak with your local representatives.
Then I can't pay you for the services you rendered.
> this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
I've heard the arguments, so if you're thinking you're going to win an argument with me about whether this means anything or not, you're not; but supplemental information about why what's printed on our money doesn't mean it's legally money to pay a debt to a doctor, go for it.
I don’t think you understand how the system works. Or perhaps you do, but fantasize that reality were different.
First, in a non-urgent situation, you’re going to be asked about payment prior to service, and they may refuse to treat you if you can’t pay.
Second, in an emergency situation where you’re unable to provide affirmative assent, you’ll be liable for costs under the doctrine of quantum meruit (quasi-contract). If you don’t pay, the provider can sue you, in which case, the court may force you to pay on their terms.
I was really expecting your personal usage of the app to involve invoking developer privileges, and inserting your text through the much more user friendly UX of DBeaver..
I can't decide if I'm disappointed or relieved
It's kind of annoying the article burns up all the space talking about various discounts and benefits you get from Apps. Aka far less of a problem as they're optional quid pro quo and doesn't talk about the creeping enshittification of those functionalities. Im fine with a council making an option to do important things through an app. But I'm not fine with it being compulsory and I'm even less fine with it being some non functioning trash made in a software sweatshop that doesn't provide a contact number when it goes wrong and noones ever on the hook if it's dysfunctional. It rarely if ever actually improves functionality or makes important things self service. It more often reduces what I can actually do but with a flashier interface for "computer says no".
One thing this article doesn’t mention is how this all falls apart when you spend time in more than one country.
My UK bank (Barclays) won’t let me install their app on my US iPhone (i.e. my phone that uses a US based iCloud account). Tesco won’t let me use their loyalty app. I can’t install an app that’ll let me order Starbucks or McDonalds in the UK (I only have access to the US versions of these apps). I can’t watch Star Trek because the US paramount plus app detects I’m in the UK and I can’t install the UK version.
I could switch to a UK iCloud account but then when I’m in the states everything falls apart the other way round.
I recently travelled to Europe and found that a number of transportation apps disallowed me installing them. Toll road apps, public transit, etc…
It was a major pain, and to make it worse I got fined €130 by Ausfinag for not paying tolls, but I couldn’t install their app and I bought the wrong sticker at the gas station because as it turns out there are a bunch of special areas with additional tolls above the base toll. I tried my best to comply but the system is totally user hostile.
Also as a tourist, I’m glad that DB app just works for me to register and buy tickets so easily with out hassle (though their trains scheduling is the problem)
Truth be told, the tolls in Austria are a total mess.
Ha seems like the app is the scapegoat for this one
My ugly solution to this problem is to have a free Oracle Cloud VM in the other country that I use to run a VPN (Oracle provides instructions [1]). I then connect to this using OpenVPN on my phone, which allows me have a Google account that thinks I am in the other country and so allows me to install apps that are restricted to that country. I don't have the VPN connected all the time - only when I want to access the App Store using the Google account that I have for the other country.
[1]: https://blogs.oracle.com/developers/post/launching-your-own-...
To be a little pedantic, your solution is a solution to your problem, but only a fraction of the problem you're responding to. Your VPN won't help access the UK apps that require a UK phone localization if those same services aren't also available in the region of your VPN exit node. And since he's talking about UK-specific apps and services, VPNing his US phone back to the US isn't any help.
Netflix? Sure UK NHS? Not so much.
Interestingly EU consumer protection cooperation is currently claiming this is illegal within the EU/between EU markets: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/ip_24_...
I hope they manage to change things.
I’ve had the same issue between Spain and France, so it might be illegal but it’s still the case.
UK is not part of EU.
Even more so now
I feel your pain. I’ve been dealing with this since 2011. The thing that makes it even worse is subscriptions. You can’t switch app stores while you have subscriptions.
I recently complained to my local cities transportation office that their mobile app for bus tickets was only available for German Google users. The actually changed it now.
> I could switch to a UK iCloud account but then when I’m in the states everything falls apart the other way round.
If it’s only two countries, you can sign in and out of the App Store only with two regions. This is how I maintained a Japan and US region account on the same device. The thing that sucks is changing between accounts for updates, but it does work to some degree.
Yep, as someone who also travels between countries regularly, it's complete nonsense. "This app isn't available in your region" - what do you mean, I am literally in your region.
The sad part is sometimes just switching languages/locales on your phone (i.e. changing the language from US English to British English) fixes this as it's all the code checks.
If you create multiple Apple accounts in different regions, you can switch to that regions app store in the App Store app (this doesn't have to do with your iPhone iCloud account) by logging in to the relevant account.
I have a US and an Aus Apple Account, and I switch the account on App Store to get apps that are region locked.
This is all rather easy on Android. You can have multiple Google (Play) accounts set to different countries.
But most app developers don't even enforce it. I had UK bank apps installed through my "German" Google account.
That might also be because it's not legal to geoblock consumers within the "single european market" EU strategy thing. The bank might have not blocked German residents from using their UK bank account before and now they noticed there's no reason to bother people with geoblocking and so it still works after the UK broke out of the EU
You can also sideload or use something like Aurora Store to access Play Store content without restrictions. Yet another reason iOS is a nonstarter for me.
I had to keep two phones for this purpose[0] and pay two cellphone bills, one in the USA and one in the UK. It helped when traveling in Europe though because then you are only paying UK data rates, not USA-on-vacation rates.
It is still an insane situation, though.
[0] LloydsTSB had the same restriction on app store
I can't buy overnight bunk tickets on Ukrainian trains anymore because I need to authenticate, and the only authentication methods require either Ukrainian citizenship or residency cards.
I can't install the app for my new Amex card because my Google account was opened in Canada and I live in Germany now.
And it keeps getting worse every year. I'm worried that eventually my American and Canadian banking apps will stop working...
The internet was supposed to make this shit simpler.
> I can't buy overnight bunk tickets on Ukrainian trains anymore because I need to authenticate, and the only authentication methods require either Ukrainian citizenship or residency cards.
In fairness, that specific case is probably intentional. They have quite limited train capacity as all passenger air travel was forced to switch to trains/busses, and I suspect they're trying to save it for locals. It is annoying though; I've been to Ukraine quite a few times recently and have used that app myself.
It's actually to stop buying and selling tickets on the secondary market, which is fair. It's just the tech mismatch causing unintended consequences. Even the guys at Privatbank were shaking their heads at the absurdity (and they're the ones who run one of the authentication mechanisms. Even having a bank account there in your name is not enough).
[dead]
Is this the same on Android side ? I know that you can more easily sideload app there so it could be an issue only on iphone walled garden.
You can add multiple Google accounts - one for each country, and switch between them on the Play Store. That's how I'm able to access apps from my home country and resident country.
As for using the apps themselves, you might run into issues depending on what restrictions they have - IP address, SMS verification, etc.
> As for using the apps themselves, you might run into issues depending on what restrictions they have - IP address, SMS verification, etc.
sure but that is the case on iphone too, at least you are not blocked by the phone manufacturer to download the app you need.
I have two Google accounts, one in the us, one in Germany. So far that has divided to get around this for the apps I encountered it. But I'm not a heavy phone user...
Android app can still geolocate the user so yeah, still the same issue.
Yes, I've long given up trying to reconcile this mess and bought three separate cell phones with three separate sim cards to for the three countries where I spend non-trivial amount of time.
I have an account at a credit union that only offers SMS 2FA, and requires it for every login. I can't connect to that phone number when I'm abroad, so I can't access my account.
AFAIK this is only a problem on iPhone, not Android?
Note: I have an iPhone. It sucks. Same issue. I have bank accounts in other countries. The app needs an update. To install the update I have to switch countries on my account which instantly voids any and all subscriptions through Apple. It's insane.
It's even more crazy that every single Apple employee I know has this issue but for whatever reason it's not fixed.
When I was young in Europe the trend was that the place where you live will dictate and limit less and less of your life. Technology, traveling, motivation of people will allow roaming, postcode independent existence.
Well, the trend froze up very fast and is in full reverse nowadays, I am in my early 50s and I believe me and my children's life will such more and more, be even more difiicult by the reverse of intents towards a more unified humanity. The law and all working with law will remain a big fucking barrier even if the representatives the people choose to form their life (politicians) would magicly become nice and selfless and efficient, they fight hard to do business the same shitty way as 100s of years ago, all differenty in all puny geographic regions, in as much diverse as possible, as incompetible with each other as possible. And several happily collaborate as it is a fix income to do unoptimal and fragmented way, happily waste our resources providing services in this muddy water.
Not just freedom of living and work, but things even more basic: Have you tried crossing the border with Germany or Austria by train? You'll most likely get a mini deportation squad on board, despite all agreeing to Schengen Convention.
If you're on Android, apkmirror.com or another similar site is a good and safe solution.
On the safety point, how would I ensure that e.g. the APK for my banking app is authentic and unmodified?
It's funny how people in this thread keep saying "well if you're going to complain about people being penalized for not using apps, you might as well complain about people being penalized for not using telephones/cars/internet"... and yes, I am going to complain about all of those things. I imagine that many or most homeless people don't have reliable access to any of the above. I have an anxiety disorder that makes it hard for me to drive or talk on the phone, and I'm sure there are many people with more extreme conditions for whom it's impossible. There are people like Richard Stallman and members of certain religious communities who have strong moral objections to using certain technologies. Society should accommodate all sorts of people and all sorts of ways of living.
To quote something from a favorite fiction-series, where someone has traveled to a relatively backwards planet:
> "Poor?" said Cordelia, bewildered. "No electricity? How can it be on the comm network?"
> "It's not, of course," answered Vorkosigan.
> "Then how can anybody get their schooling?"
> "They don't."
> Cordelia stared. "I don't understand. How do they get their jobs?"
> "A few escape to the Service. The rest prey on each other, mostly." Vorkosigan regarded her face uneasily. "Have you no poverty on Beta Colony?"
> "Poverty? Well, some people have more money than others, of course, but... no comconsoles?"
> Vorkosigan was diverted from his interrogation. "Is not owning a comconsole the lowest standard of living you can imagine?" he said in wonder.
> "It's the first article in the constitution. 'Access to information shall not be abridged.' "
-- Shards of Honor (1986) by Lois McMaster Bujold
In the 39 years since this was published, I would have hoped our real society would have advanced a bit more in that direction.
> I imagine that many or most homeless people don't have reliable access to any of the above.
In the US there is a specific government program called "Lifeline" that provides cell phone service to low income people, https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons... (whether it gets DOGEd remains to be seen...) And where I live there are a bunch of programs that provide free cell phones to homeless people.
It's not a panacea because lots of homeless people have other problems that make it difficult to keep a cell phone and not lose it. But that's really a separate issue - not having access is really not much of a barrier for the homeless, at least in the US.
You cannot receive Lifeline benefits without an address in most states.
IMHO at some point it makes sense to start requiring the internet, it makes a lot of things easier. But when we do that we need to ensure that everyone is supported. For example ensuring that people have ready internet access at public libraries. Providing government-provided email inboxes for receiving government communication (lots of homeless people get locked out of regular free mail providers). Train support staff at these libraries (or whatever institution provides these services) to help people who need assistance though the government processes, including doing it on their behalf when required.
Immigrants are often left out for various reasons, such as not having the right documents, having an unsupported kind of passport, not having an address they can register as their home, not having an app store account in the right country, not having a local payment method, and a variety of other issues.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
For me, it's less about lifestyle choices, and more about managing failure domains. If a person is kicked off their ISP/ cell carrier due to a private dispute with them, why should their entire life have to grind to a screeching halt in every other area? It's maddening how little recourse there is and how difficult it can be if you lose both your phone and number, and I vehemently disagree that we should be ok with any of it.
[flagged]
> I don't like paying taxes.
If we replace "taxes" with "paying for an army, paying for police, etc." than the above statement seems strange. I can understand "I don't like what society choose to build (with the taxes)", but some things can't be let to the free market.
> I have to go do the fucking IRS's job
That's a society choice. I have no experience with IRS, but other countries have tax systems that are much more automatic (come prefilled with most info for example). But taxes are maybe a bit higher (because if you don't do the job, someone needs to maintain the systems that allow the automation).
The only reason you have to do the IRS' job is because the "free market" you love so much spends obscene amounts of money buying out your government and making sure people have to use their products in order to not go insane filing their taxes.
In most countries filing taxes is a painless process that takes 5 minutes and is more or less completely automated for you.
> Society is about conforming.
This is an expression of personal preference. It is a common preference but not universal.
Society is what people invented so that different people can live together. If you do not conform you're banished to jail.
[flagged]
Have some empathy for your fellow humans. Life is better for everyone, you included, when you give people some grace and don't assume bad intentions
[flagged]
> Sorry to hear about your condition, and while I think society can decide to accommodate to some conditions, I disagree with that idea that it "should accommodate". It is a common decision, and sometimes the answer will be "no, we don't accommodate for that, sorry". In the end, everything has a cost (being it effort, resources, time, etc.).
This falls apart when you realize this isn't just a consistent percentage of the population. It's a large portion of the population at different portions of their lives. It's something like 90% of adults will be disabled in their lives.
How many times have you lost your phone, or broken it without an immediately available backup?
I've heard in the US adults spend >10% of their life sick or otherwise incapacitated.
I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was much higher than I would have expected the mean to be.
In your world, people in wheelchairs would be housebound. But I guess we shouldn't accommodate them by requiring wheelchair ramps or curb cut-outs. They are lesser than us.
[dead]
Your argument is of course predicated on the assumption that "society" doesn't fail to accommodate you...
Requireing purchase of a private companies product, and accommpanying service, to access merdical or government services should be illegal...
Apple or goggle don't speak for me...
I’m fascinated by this phenomenon of apps proposing solutions that are far worse than the previous existing solutions.
For example:
1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
2. Tinder is worse than IRL speed dating.
3. Duolingo is worse than language classes.
4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
5. Etc
It really makes me frustrated as someone who builds software and generally thinks it improves the world…
> 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
> 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
Duolingo isn't really a replacement for classes (which are obviously a magnitude or few more expensive) but self learnings books, tapes and such (IMHO it's mostly inferior to those too but not by a such high degree).
Can't disagree about Tinder/etc. though.
I'm kind of puzzled by your first point. In my experience, parking apps require you to pay in larger chunks of hours than paying with coins used to; many times I have to pay for a minimum of 2 hours of parking with the app when I could pay for just 10 or 15 minutes of parking with coins.
On public transport I can tap in and tap out with the wallet on phone or any bank card. Car parks could work in exactly the same way, but instead there are 15 apps.
Strange, I only have experience with two parking apps, but they both let you pay in 15-minute increments.
I have seen meters that have smaller increments, like sub-10-minutes, but when the increments cost something like 50 cents, it's hard to really care that much.
The parking app I use in Berlin, easy park, works in the sense that I pre-select a timeframe I think im going to park which then gives me an estimate for how much it'll cost and reserve that amount using my CC. When I end the parking before that timer ends, the actual time I've parked will be taken and only that amount is charged.
It used to be even better in the sense that you'd only start and then end parking without having to pre select a time. But I think too many people, me included, forgot to end the parking when taking off and paid way more than they actually parked for.
Of course the apps could easily detect that parking has ended. They could note your location when you park. When the phone returns to that location, and then moves at driving speed, parking has ended.
But they don't because they make more money by profiting from people who forget to "clock out" when they are done parking.
> Of course the apps could easily detect that parking has ended. They could note your location when you park. When the phone returns to that location, and then moves at driving speed, parking has ended.
They could at least start with adding proper CarPlay and Android Auto support so you can just end the parking from the infotainment. But I think there can be at most a single engineer working on this app if at all. Up until a couple months ago it didn't even have the option for a persistent notification to remind you that you had an ongoing parking...
> But they don't because they make more money by profiting from people who forget to "clock out" when they are done parking.
fwiw, at least in this case, the app that profited from you not clocking out got shut down and bought out by the app that asks you to pre-set your parking time. Which I guess is still not great, but at least somewhat of a step up.
> But I think there can be at most a single engineer working on this app if at all.
I assume they’re contracted out to the lowest bidder.
In my city the payment schedule on the app significantly lags the meters/official rates. Fine when prices go up, but pretty annoying to app-users when the app charges more than the official parking rates. Maybe if they get their merchant account sanctioned for too many chargebacks someone will take notice.
Don't android and IOS try to prevent background location tracking? The location permission dialogs don't even have that option
Yes, that’s what we need, parking apps tracking user’s location 24/7.
>In my experience, parking apps require you to pay in larger chunks of hours than paying with coins used to;
Here in Nashville, they sold out our public street parking to a private company. Now instead of coins in a meter for the time you want, you have to buy at least an hour for $1.75 (or more), pay by scanning a QR code (which is misprinted on the signs) unless you're in one of the spots where there's a working pay machine, and it now is enforced 24/7 instead of having holidays and weekends off (IIRC it was also free after 6, which was great). Also they had two hour limits where you can't simply move your car, you have to park somewhere they don't check for an indeterminate amount of time. How is any of this an improvement unless you get a cut of the money?
Has nothing to do with technology.
Parking apps requires registration. I arrive, park my car then
(1) via machine: insert my card into the machine, get ticket, leave
(2) via app: spend 10 minutes registering an account, email, password, phone number, wants verification via email or phone number, wants me to register my credit card and the agree to them selling all my data.
IF on the other hand, they just made it use some kind of common e-cash and no registration, no tracking, no account, I'd be 100% for it.
If you pay with a card, then they can track you, so it doesn't really matter if you put that card into a machine or into an app account.
For places where I don't expect to return (or only rarely), sure, having to do an app is annoying. But for places where you expect to use it often enough, it can be a time-saver, after the initial time cost of setup.
I depends on the app I guess, where I am you just click to start/stop and (IIRC) get billed at 15 minute increments.
The idea of a parking app is better than the physical process of using a meter generally. But I have not really seen an app flow better than the physical process despite having parked in many cities. In fact, I can come up with a simple physical process better than the apps by far: tap the meter in and tap the meter out with your NFC chip in the card.
Pay for the exact time, or if you forget, pay the full time period you’re legally allowed to park.
Instead, on my city’s app I must select a car (despite having only one), select a zone (despite GPS), and then manually enter my card (despite it being my account default). Every time.
The Pay By Phone app works well for me. It automatically figures out what parking area you are in from the phone GPS, it already knows your license plate, and it has your credit card.
Basically the flow for me is open the app, and hit how long I want to park for. And then the app will let me know when my parking is running out and I can add time on my phone without going back to the car.
> Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
Why do iOS and Android phones have a "wallet", and why a boarding pass would have anything to do with it?
There's an electronic solution strictly better than the app, for when you have no printer handy: just give the user the goddamned PDF! Works everywhere, works offline, can be printed if needed, and the user can manage, send or back it up however they like.
It's a simple solution that works.
You can do that if you want. Most airlines issue PDF boarding passes and both iOS and Android can store and show those files.
Apple Wallet (and Apple Pay) are actually one of my favorite smartphone features. The built-in Wallet (speaking for iOS here) has a few advantages over a folder of PDFs:
- The QR code is always fairly big without having to pan and zoom a PDF file
- The display brightness is automatically increased to make reading the QR code easier
- The Wallet syncs with my Apple Watch (where passes use a different, optimized layout) giving me backup if something where to happen to my phone during boarding
- Passes can be updated by the airline (e.g. gate changes)
- Passes automatically expire, I don’t have to cleanup myself. (There’s archive in case I need an old one)
- Passes can be shown on your lock screen during the boarding time for easier access
- Passes can be multilingual, adapting to your phone’s language
> Why do iOS and Android phones have a "wallet", and why a boarding pass would have anything to do with it?
It's not that deep, just a skeuomorphic name for somewhere where you'd keep importants/valuables for quick access, credit/debit cards, boarding passes, concert tickets
Not unlike keeping a folded up copy of a pass in a physical wallet (Which may not be universal, but I would have guessed not that uncommon either)
And if your phone is out of order? I used a PDF version of the boarding pass on my laptop in the past due to a flat phone. Even when my phone is available I still just use the PDF version that was emailed to me. I never use my phone 'wallet' for anything.
You can do all those things if you want. Download the PDF to your laptop, add the pass to your phone's wallet, even print out a backup copy if you want. And then when you get to the airport, use whichever is most convenient for you.
I generally just get the mobile pass and put it in Google Wallet. If I ever run into a situation where my phone is lost/broken/battery-drained, I'll just go up to the check-in desk or a kiosk and get my boarding pass printed. No big deal.
If on hand, a smart watch also does the trick
Since I use my phone to pay for things, book rides between places and basically existing in general I also keep a power bank on my person and a spare phone in my house
But if I'm not confident on availability I also keep alternatives, I've not used physical money in months (Other than local bus fares), but I do keep some cash on my person, as well as the physical cards that I use virtually on my phone and copies of boarding passes when necessary, not that I've needed any of them recently, I just like covering my bases, it's not a binary situation, I'd also like to keep spares if my only copy was physical
In the unlikely event my phone dies (hasn’t ever happened in 20 years of having phones) then I’ll go to the desk and ask them to print a boarding pass.
The wallet allows activation by proximity like RFID. So if the pass is in the wallet you don't need to go digging around for wherever the PDF is stored in the phone. Tap, the pass is requested, the pass responds, go.
Can a PDF automatically update with gate changes and delays?
You’re already at the airport. Just look around, stop staring at the phone.
Why is the old way better? That's just a default bias.
Until two years ago, I flew out of ATL - the busiest airport in the US. Am I suppose to look on the board and look for my flight out of the hundreds of flights to see if anything has changed and keep looking every 30 minutes?
If I’m sitting at a restaurant or a bar I should get up every 20 minutes to see if something has changed?
Should I also print out MapQuest directions before I go somewhere and wait for the paper boy to deliver the newspaper to get the news?
And it’s literally a mile from one end of the airport to the other. Is it somehow better to look on a board than just look on a phone?
And then you also get notifications when the flight changes so drastically that I need to completely change my flight plans. Just this past weekend we were suppose to fly MCO - MSP - LAS and flight changes meant we were going to misd our layover.
Luckily we were notified as soon as the change happen and we were able to make a change to MCO - ATL - LAS and get two of the last seats.
The same happen on the way back. It was LAS - MSP - MCO and we were able to change it to LAS - LAX - MCO.
Things always change when you fly a lot. The sooner you know about those changes the better.
> Until two years ago, I flew out of ATL - the busiest airport in the US. Am I suppose to look on the board and look for my flight out of the hundreds of flights to see if anything has changed and keep looking every 30 minutes?
That’s what I usually do. It’s not that much of an effort to look at the screen right at the gate you’re sitting at to confirm that nothing has changed. I‘ve been to ATL twice, it’s not that bad.
What are you going to do when something happens to your phone …
Can you imagine… how did we manage to live before everyone and their dog had a phone in their pocket.
So yeah… yeah? That’s exactly what you supposed to be doing.
> What are you going to do when something happens to your phone
Uh... look at the big departures board, duh. I don't see why it's weird to want to use an indisputably more convenient method (auto-updating pass on my phone) for the common case, but still be able to fall back to a less-convenient method (departures board) if the uncommon case comes up.
And no big deal if I need a paper boarding pass. I can just walk over to the gate, show them my ID, and ask them to print me one.
> That’s what I usually do. It’s not that much of an effort to look at the screen right at the gate you’re sitting at to confirm that nothing has changed. I‘ve been to ATL twice, it’s not that bad.
And you somehow think that’s more efficient? Do you also think polling is more efficient than web hooks and push notifications? Why would I do that?
And the restaurants are usually not right at the gate you’re sitting at. Well in our case we are usually sitting in the lounge…
> What are you going to do when something happens to your phone
Well, I personally would take out my cellular equipped iPad on the rare occasions that I was flying by myself and I would still get text notifications on my cellular equipped watch or depend on my wife having her phone, cellular equipped iPad or Watch.
If all that failed yes I would have to get a paper ticket - which you can do at the gate.
How often do you actually fly? My wife and I have been flying over a dozen times a year post Covid.
I was in ATL either flying in, out or through ATL over 25x last year alone.
> Can you imagine… how did we manage to live before everyone and their dog had a phone in their pocket.
I personally had my first phone in my pocket in 1995. Never once in 30 years has anything “happened to my phone”.
What is there to be more efficient? You’re sitting there waiting for a flight. This isn’t a shopping mall, even if it appears to look like one.
Re push vs pull… which one do you prefer more? Kafka or MQTT? On a more serious note… pull because I don’t sit snd stare at the phone all the time. Phone stays in the pocket. So the act of taking it out of the pocket is a pull action.
There are no screens and announcements at the lounge? You went to the airport to fly somewhere, not shopping or a dinner for two, no? What’s more important than getting to your destination?
I really don't get why you're being so hostile here. If you don't want to rely on modern conveniences, don't. There's no reason to get up in arms that some of us think that other ways can be easier.
> What is there to be more efficient? You’re sitting there waiting for a flight. This isn’t a shopping mall, even if it appears to look like one.
That’s just it, even if I didn’t have lounge access, I would be hanging out at a restaurant or a bar that isn’t near the gate. I would have to be constantly looking on the board with all of the flights. ATL has 192 gates spread across seven concourses and two terminals.
> pull because I don’t sit snd stare at the phone all the time. Phone stays in the pocket
Of course I have an alarm set for when I need to start heading toward my gate. But gate changes and when it’s time to board are both push notifications to both my phone and my watch.
> There are no screens and announcements at the lounge
2100 flights take off per day from ATL. That’s over 100 flights an hour - I think there are at least 6 hours a day where no flights take off. They explicitly say they don’t make announcements.
This goes back to do you really want to be searching for your flight on a board with that many flights?
> You went to the airport to fly somewhere, not shopping or a dinner for two, no
If you either get to the airport early to avoid rush hour or have a long layover, you probably will end up having a meal or drinks while you wait. We had a four hour layover at LAX last week.
I have a few qualms with this app:
1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?
I recently got bitten in the rear by Delta not updating boarding passes stored in Apple Wallet, even though it had / has all permissions to do so.
Only when I checked the time and wondered why we weren't boarding yet, and opened the app did I notice that the gate changed.
Even afterwards the one stored in Apple Wallet did not update. I even tried to do the pull-to-refresh. Eventually I pulled to refresh, and that worked.
To be fair, a printed boarding pass also didn’t update when the gate changed.
No, but when you have a device in your hands, with an app provided by the company you're dealing with, and they specifically request permissions to send you notifications, you start to rely on it.
An unreliable boarding pass in Apple Wallet is worse than a paper boarding pass.
With the paper one I know I need to check the screens etc. With the Apple the app implies that you no longer have to do this.
And you get used to it. You stop doing the things you did before. That muscle memory disappears. Not dissimilar to driving with GPS, or programming with AI.
Actually, it is updated more currently usually. Apple wallet will not update for me with the current gate. By the time I show up to the airport 2 hours before the flight and get a paper pass on the other hand usually the gate is already set. But apple wallet still won't always reflect that update to the gate. Whereas my printed pass does. As well as the good old fashioned boards of flights, which are pretty easy to gleam considering they are alphabetized.
But you also don't expect it to.
This is my experience most flights to be honest. LAX doesn't assign gates until the last minute so apple wallet is usually wrong. Google search for the flight number always works of course.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late
But they are worse than mid-2000s tech. I used to have a tag with an lcd timer that I loaded up with cash periodically. When I parked in a metered space in the city, I just turn the thing on and hang it on my driver window. It was synced with the parking schedule, so the timer wouldn’t run until metered parking started and stopped at the end of metered parking. Parking enforcement simply had to look at the tag to make sure it was on and had a positive value. When I came back, I just shut the thing off—I paid for exactly what I used, always. Great UX: turn on thing, hang in window, remove, turn off thing, plug into computer to add money every few months.
Compare to now where there’s An App that requires multiple taps to tell it which street your on, which car, oh look it forgot your credit card and they don’t take Apple Pay, time to enter all that data in again… oh yeah, also you have to overbuy parking and they charge transaction fees every time if you try to buy exact and add time later.
Also, now parking enforcement has to key in everyone’s license plates to figure out if they’re legal or not (no automated plate readers—they’re illegal in this state). Apart from being annoying, now that data is conveniently harvested.
>Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
And once the gate or departure time changes, your printed boarding pass will start lying to you.
> Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
You can just print at the airport at the check-in machines.
I never even bother checking-in in advance of arriving at the airport. I theorize that they assign bad seats to early checkins to incentivize people to pay to choose a different seats. I have at various times been assigned to upgraded seats (not upgraded class, but e.g. emergency row, bulkhead, etc.) when checking in at the airport.
> You can just print at the airport at the check-in machines.
I have been to airports a non-trivial amount of times where there were lines even at the self-service kiosks.
> I theorize that they assign bad seats to early checkins
Oof, I would never fly an airline or buy a fare class that didn't let me choose a seat immediately, at time of booking.
Anyway, this theory of yours needs some evidence... doesn't really pass the smell test for me.
Don’t people just print their boarding passes at home before they leave for the airport? Or worst case, use the kiosks at the airports which print passes? Very few of the passengers in line ahead of me are using their phones.
Huh, interesting, I suppose it depends on where you live, but most people I see at airport gates are scanning a boarding pass on their phone.
Most people I know also don't even have a printer at home. (I didn't either, until a few years ago.)
Printing a boarding pass at home works for the flight out. But what about the returning flight?
Just last week I flew back home from SFO. I needed to change the flight at the last minute. The app failed to update with the new flight. The airline had removed all the boarding pass kiosks from that airport and only seemed to have luggage drop service. I asked an airport employee how I could get a boarding pass printed, and he pointed to a poorly-marked lane with a sign about "special accommodations" or something, like I was blind. I waited in that line for about 20 minutes along with people who were trying to check their bags. Eventually I got to someone who seemed really put out that I hadn't checked in yet and that they'd need to push a few more buttons on their computer to do that for me.
What airline was this so I stay far away
I don't trust apps, I don't mind using them for stuff that doesn't matter much, like parking og supermarket loyalty programs. For travel information, absolutly fucking not. I print everything. At the airport I mostly see people using their phones as boarding passes, I absolutely refuse to do that, I have zero trust that that will work as well as the paper boarding passes.
I mean, they do demonstrably work. And if for some reason yours doesn't, no big deal, just walk two feet over to the gate desk and ask them to print you one.
I prefer to use mobile boarding passes so I don't have to waste paper, and don't have to keep track of yet one more thing while traveling. (I'm already bringing my phone, so I have to keep track of that regardless.)
I really hate that the basic cost for participation has gone up, a smartphone and quality internet (in the USA) can be a significant cost.
But I've never had a problem with a screen capture of a boarding pass, and I've found the Apple wallet to work as well. The airport kiosks are good for printing out the pass when you check in, or even for just printing if you checked in on-line 24 hours prior.
That's what I do, because phones are too fiddly and I don't want to have to deal with unlocking it and finding wherever the barcode went off to when it's my turn to check in, but my wife does something with an app instead and seems to like it.
Really? I click on a button twice and my wallet pops up on my phone with my boarding pass
Perhaps that's the thing with an app my wife is doing. I don't have a wallet app, myself; I mistrust phones (and the corporations which own them) too much for that.
The Wallet app is built in on the iPhone.
Do you also print out directions from Mapquest before you leave home?
I'm sure that is convenient for those iPhone users who want to make use of the feature.
> Do you also print out directions from Mapquest before you leave home?
That sure was the way it used to work, wasn't it?
Thomas Guide is more my style.
Depends where you are and which flights. Around me, maybe 60% of people use mobile. From the other 40%, some probably got their paper tickets when they checked in their baggage and going with that now.
> boarding passes at home before they leave for the airport
It’s been years I’ve heard or seen anyone doing it. Even my parents in their 70s get theirs at the airport.
I guess I am weird. I still do this.
I just don't want to have to worry about my device being available during boarding nor do I want to have to stop at a kiosk.
Just print at home, go through security and scan at the gate.
> I just don't want to have to worry about my device being available during boarding
I don't think most people worry about that at all. Why wouldn't it be available? If you're heading to the airport from home, your battery is charged.
And if your phone somehow breaks on the way, you print at a kiosk.
It seems far more likely that I'd lose a random piece of paper on the way to the airport than lose my phone...
> I don't think most people worry about that at all. Why wouldn't it be available? If you're heading to the airport from home, your battery is charged.
You're assuming the phone works and the internet connection works and the app works and the service behind it responsive. That's a lot of trust in thousands of moving parts.
Meanwhile I have a printed boarding pass which depends on nothing other than me having it in my pocket, so it basically 100% fail-proof.
While I always use the paper boarding pass, I do also check the boarding pass on the app out of curiosity. Easily like half the time on the American Airlines app, when I'm at the gate about to board and click on show boarding pass, the app hangs for many minutes and never responds. I'm always glad I have the paper boarding pass in my pocket instead.
> You're assuming the phone works and the internet connection works and the app works and the service behind it responsive
At check-in (24 hours before my flight), I add the boarding pass to Google Wallet. Doesn't require an internet connection afterward, or having to rely on the airline's often-shitty app. Yes, the phone has to not be broken, but that's a pretty low bar: in my 15 years of owning smartphones, my phones have been broken and unusable for perhaps a grand total of a few days of time (so under 0.01% of the time). Yes, Google Wallet has to be functioning, but that particular app being broken would be an unusual, surprising occurrence.
And if by 0.01% chance, I can't get the boarding pass off my phone for some reason, I can always go to the check-in desk or kiosk or gate and ask them to print me one.
> Meanwhile I have a printed boarding pass which depends on nothing other than me having it in my pocket, so it basically 100% fail-proof.
I've never lost a phone before, but I have lost paper boarding passes on more than one occasion.
Maybe I'm weird, but when I go on a trip, I generally pack my smartphone, if I bring it at all. It would be a royal pain to go find it again when I get into line to board.
Same, I do recognize that walking around without a smartphone starting to become "weird" to others though. I don't mind being weird.
I live in a major US city and get hit up for cash by the homeless sometimes. When I explain I do not have a cellphone to them when they ask for money through some cash app. They look bewildered. Just 20 years ago I was the only one carrying around such a device for IT reasons. Now I am putting limits on my digital life, and it makes me socially "weird".
OTOH Currently, the only thing I don't pay regularly by using a smart device, are bus fares, which are a solved problem, my city just hasn't implemented that yet
Everything else, I can either use a digital wallet for, or an instant bank transfer (Which I've been given to understand are a bit more of a hassle in the US)
I'd basically never expect to be without a device for an extended period of time, specially not in an airport
I am aware of the single point of failure though, so I do take particular care of not running out of battery, keeping an accesible spare, and some cash around for emergencies I just never use it
Wait, destitute people who have nothing are asking to send money through a smartphone app?? I'd argue the world is weird, not us.
Why is that weird?
Almost nobody carries around small cash or change anymore.
And social services provide the homeless and those in poverty with free smartphones, since they're far more effective at ensuring communications with social services.
So how is the world weird? It all seems quite rational and reasonable to me.
Yup, that's definitely weird.
Most people get pretty bored going to the airport, in line at the airport, waiting for boarding, waiting to take off, during the flight.
A smartphone loaded with books and magazine articles and podcasts seems pretty essential by this point for nearly everyone.
Not to mention loved ones who want to reach you by text or phone...
You’re supposed to raw dog the flight.
That's because they don't fly low coasters. It's often €50 now to print boarding pass at the counter in Europe.
> It's often €50 now to print boarding pass at the counter in Europe.
I was about to respond, "No way this is true. I don't believe you." But then I found an article claiming that yes, indeed you can be fleeced like this for simply showing up and asking for your boarding pass. Unreal.
https://www.the-independent.com/travel/news-and-advice/check...
That's a European thing. Here in Australia/New Zealand it's free to print boarding passes at the airport on LCCs like Jetstar and Air NZ.
Depends on where you are. My experience in American airports is almost all apps, but Spain's Iberia, for example, is basically all paper, typically printed by the airline and not even someone at home. So for them, minimal changes over how flying worked in the 1990s.
People still have printers at home?
Low-cost airlines charge a fee for printing boarding passes at the airport.
At a certain point, low-cost airlines become high-cost, at least in time and annoyance. I have a cousin who insists that Sprit saves him money, and every family holiday his plane is delayed or cancelled, and he had to fly to a different city and drive to where we are.
What airline are you flying and in what country?
And who has printers at home anymore?
My wife and I fly quite often and mostly Delta - over a dozen times a year. Very few people still use paper tickets.
Just US domestic flights. Most people just have the paper passes. They are guaranteed to work. And I guess I just assumed everyone with a computer had some sort of printer. If not, how do they, you know, print things out? I use my printer constantly for things like forms I have to mail, printing out documentation to read later, hobby stuff…
You act as if the same QR codes scanned on your phone don’t work. Even if your phone dies or something happens, the gate agent can still print out your ticket at the gate.
What are you printing off and mailing so often?
Any documents you I don’t want to read on my phone, I read on my iPad.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Maybe it's better these days, but back when I used to use online apps/sites to pay for parking in private lots, 4/5 times I still got a "ticket." I never had to pay the fine with money, only with time.
I think it really was the 4th time I decided to stop using those apps entirely.
Sometimes I wonder if the devs behind these apps and processes feel embarrassed by the results. I would be, even if the failures weren't my fault.
>> 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Pay-on-exit car parks are the answer to this. Combined with contactless card payment and that's peak parking experience.
>Pay-on-exit car parks are the answer to this
Except having the actual barrier is expensive. The license plate reader is cheaper, so they'll do that instead, and if it malfunctions, hope you don't mind paying for a full day of parking!
Peek (parking) experience is the car having a tag and paying for itself, on parks, fuel pumps, toll roads at 120km/h (75mph), etc.
parking apps tend to replace metered street parking in my experience, not garages.
>Can't disagree about Tinder
And what wrong with Tinder? It is great if you are hot or a woman. And if you are not - well, nobody never cared anyway.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
In my experiece, apps have increased costs around 50% and some even try to add monthly subscription.
> > 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
The last time I tried parking in downtown Salt Lake City the city's app wouldn't even install on my phone, complaining about being built for an older Android version. Fortunately the web site still worked. Sort of. I had to try a couple of different browsers before I found one that functioned with the site.
When riding Caltrain I get charged for the maximum amount I could possibly pay (all stops) when I board. Then when I get off at my stop I tap again and get refunded for all the stops I ended up not getting to. It works fine. Seems a meter could be a "tap in/tap out" thing. If it's 5 hours until it's free to park, put a hold for 5 hours of time. If you get back in 2 hours, release the hold and only charge for 2 hours when you tap out.
It's even possible to do this with cash. Imagine a machine that calculates your change and spits out bills and/or coins. Oh wait, yeah, we've had that technology since around 1959. It would just need to print out a ticket with a bar code or something to authenticate that you're the one who paid in the first place. Did you lose your ticket? Sorry, looks like you're paying for the rest of the day. But that's still a lot cheaper than a citation.
I suspect it's not "pay max/get refund" because municipalities can't stop milking those sweet sweet citations from people who fail to correctly guess how much time they'll need up front.
what if your phone runs out of battery?
For me it is less about being concerned about my device running out of batteries. It's more about some weird incompatibility between my device and the scanner.
It's one less thing to worry about when I just want to get on the plane. My paper ticket isn't going to lock before I get to the gate, or not be bright enough. I won't have to "play" with my ticket to keep it active and proper for the scanner.
> It's more about some weird incompatibility between my device and the scanner.
I think I held up an entire flight for nearly an hour because the QR code on my Graphene OS Android phone scanned fine at the TSA checkpoint but didn't scan at all at the gate. They ended up letting me on the flight without properly registering that I boarded in their system. That triggered some crazy security hold that prevented the crew from obtaining permission to pull back from the gate.
When that happens (and note it happens to paper boarding passes as well) I've always seen gate agents simply type in the details off the boarding pass. E.g. name, sequence number, etc and do a manual entry that way. I've had this happen to me at least once, and the agent very quickly just typed in something in their terminal and it was all done with no fuss. Really surprised no one thought of doing this in your situation.
> It's more about some weird incompatibility between my device and the scanner.
That's not a thing. They're literally just cameras looking for a QR code.
And unlocking your phone and adjusting brightness is pretty effortless, I dunno. I already do those things lots of times a day.
Its not effortless...and god forbid if your drop your smartphone and get it cracked. This headache is simply avoided with plain old paper reliability.
> and god forbid if your drop your smartphone and get it cracked
Then you print a boarding pass at the kiosk? But I've cracked a phone once in ten years, it's not really something I'm worried about.
And paper isn't reliable. For most people, you're much more likely to lose a random sheet of paper than for your phone to suddenly permanently stop working.
> Then you print a boarding pass at the kiosk?
Those kiosks are gone from many airports. You're going to have to wait in line to get anything printed. And if you fly Ryanair it will cost you over 50 euro.
In Europe yes. Other parts of the world don't charge for printing boarding passes and it's easy to find a kiosk.
In that - hopefully exceptionally rare case - the gate could just print you a boarding pass. It’s not a big deal.
I didn't know that. Based on what do they print a boarding pass, or perhaps rather: why don't they check {whatever the answer to the previous question is} at boarding instead of you having to hold onto a pass that apparently is a proxy for something else?
> That's not a thing. They're literally just cameras looking for a QR code.
And yet for me one time earlier this year said QR code on my Graphene OS phone scanned fine at the TSA checkpoint but refused to scan at the gate, leading to mayhem as the crew couldn't figure out for nearly an hour why the number of people sitting on the plane wasn't equal to the number of people who they registered as boarding.
I've had airline machines fail to scan the barcode on my poorly printed paper boarding passes (e.g. faded ink or unfortunate located gaps etc in the barcode area). The solution is simple, just type in the details off the BP into the terminal to look up my PNR and type the command to confirm I've boarded. I've seen this done for both paper and mobile boarding pass issues. Not a mobile issue but obviously poor staff training and problem solving which occurs with or without mobiles.
I’m gonna say something stupid — the chances of my phone running out of battery and me not being able to charge it is lower than me losing the paper ticket.
Not stupid at all. I think that's the case for most people.
It's easy to lose a random piece of paper. Whereas people are generally extremely aware of where their phone is at all times.
It's not that hard to maintain a random piece of paper, you do it with your ID, which presumably you do not keep on your phone. It is much harder to ensure an iPhone won't randomly be miscalibrated and shut off at 30%.
I do it with my ID because I've conditioned myself to check for it everytime I'm going to move places, or rather, check for my wallet, which usually has my ID inside it, but has burned me on a couple of ocassions
Also, some people do keep their ID on their phones, either directly on the back of the case (I've seen it more on young women, maybe because lack of pockets) or with something like a magnetic wallet
Louisiana has digital ID, I don't use it but my wife does and it seems to work OK. I think you can have your phone locked with the ID up, which is the only way I'd consider using it, anyhow.
Its been a while since I've heard any issues with it. I prefer the physical card still.
Not it's not hard, but it is significantly harder, and why introduce unnecessary additional complexity into my life?
My ID is in my wallet. A sheet of paper doesn't fit in my wallet. So I have to put the folded paper in a pocket, where it might fall out when I take out my gloves, or I forget if I put it in my backpack, and in which pocket, etc.
A sheet of paper is extra. My phone isn't. And I sure as heck don't bring a phone with low charge to the airport... when I know I'm probably going to be using it for hours... and I've got my charger with me anyways in case I somehow did.
Word. I think I'll actually shut down if I'm further than 25 metres from my phone...
I don’t know why you keep calling it a “random” piece of paper? It’s really not hard to keep track of your physical boarding pass for a few hours.
You could lose your phone, or even have it stolen.
I think of it as multitasking. A paper ticket means I can focus on reading etc on device, while the ticket can serve its purpose. I keep all pertinent materials in a pouch in front of me however so not hard to find.
At the airport? That’s fine. I’ll just talk to the agent and get a ticket if needed. I think these are just extreme cases that applies to extremely tiny percentage of people.
[dead]
Apple Express Mode lets you use certain Wallet cards when the phone is very low battery and turned off.
> you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
...or show the document they sent you rather than printing it?
As someone who never installed these wallets (maybe I'm missing out), what's the problem they solve?
> > 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
> I certainly don't agree with that one. I really don't miss having to pay for a fixed number of hours and then having to figure out what to do if I'm running late (or wasting money if I get back early).
Yeah... nothing more I love than having to scan a QR code to get an app from someone I don't know, then go through the signup process, then input a buncha personal information into an app... instead of just dropping 10 quarters into a metal stick and walking away for the next two hours.
> > 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
> Unless the app is exceptionally horrible you can just export it to Apple/Android wallet which is much more convenient than having to find a printer.
Looking to the left or right of your desk is how you should be finding your printer. They're not gold bars. They're not expensive.
> Looking to the left or right of your desk is how you should be finding your printer.
The desk at my AirBnB doesn't seem to have one.
> They're not gold bars. They're not expensive.
If someone has an alternate solution to owning a printer that works for them, whats it to you? Owning a printer so you can print half of the boarding passes you need every time you fly seems excessive to me
> Yeah... nothing more I love than having to scan a QR code to get an app from someone I don't know, then go through the signup process, then input a buncha personal information into an app... instead of just dropping 10 quarters into a metal stick and walking away for the next two hours.
Quality of execution obviously matters. I find EasyPark (Swedish company, used all over the place) a lot better than the usual parking meters. Plus I can use it in several cities with different currencies (in my case Euros and Czech Koruna), saving me from carrying more change.
The point is all these things should be options, not single points of failure. We should be able to pay by coin/tap, or app when at a place we frequent. Apps should use a single system per region, props for being an open standard.
We have the technology.
> Yeah... nothing more I love than having to scan a QR code to get an app from someone
True. I does suck when travelling. Locally I find it much more convenient though.
> dropping 10 quarters
You're always carrying a bag full of coins wherever you go? And even if I did I'd end up overpaying/underpaying half of the time.
> Looking to the left or right of your desk is how you should be finding your printer.
So I should waste space with a huge device that I use <10 times per year?
I mean I could bring it over from the other room or the attic or wherever it's lying around but why would I waste time and mental energy each time I'm travelling having to keep track of some piece of paper that I mustn't lose? Seems rather pointless...
Cheap Android phones aren't expensive either and can provide a lot more than a printer for most people these days.
A few months ago, I had to use street parking in Long Beach, California. They no longer had individual meters along this particular street, but rather one parking sticker machine. The parking sticker machine was broken, so I had to download the advertised parking payment app which was not one of the parking apps I already had on my phone. Finally, I had to pay an additional “convenience” fee on top to use this app that I wouldn’t have needed to pay using physical payment infrastructure.
So everyone wins here, except us: the app company gets to make a killing on compulsory payment processing, and City of Long Beach gets to continue to pull in parking revenue without worrying about whether their payment machines still work—a broken machine is not an excuse because you can still pay with the app because everyone has a smartphone with an up-to-date OS and functioning cell service with appropriate bandwidth, right? I’m sure I could have complained to the city and gotten my +/-dollar back, but I didn’t have time just to do so for the principle of the thing.
I don't think I could disagree more with your number 4. Adding a boarding pass to Apple Wallet and having it update itself with gate changes, delays, etc, notifying you and even scribbling skeuomorphically what changed on the pass [0] has been one of the strongest delighters I've experienced in recent times.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/OkthcOi.png
Are you not also paying attention to the gate itself and to departure boards? Why do you need your phone to tell you what's posted on numerous displays that you walk past?
> Are you not also paying attention to the […] departure boards?
I’m not, not anymore.
> Why do you need your phone to tell you what's posted on numerous displays that you walk past?
Convenience.
So you disregard what's in front of your face, in preference to your device.
Other folks here were talking about how their devices did not update in a timely fashion. They had to force refresh several times to get a response. Meanwhile the gate screens have a single job and update within seconds.
Like following the GPS instructions onto a logging road, or into a lake.
no I dont waste my time with the screens anymore.
What all 10 seconds?
You can do that with a boarding pass downloaded from the airline website or emailed to you by the airline. But some airlines like to hide this option in order to force you to download their app.
did you simply ignore what the parent poster wrote about it updating itself with gate numbers etc.?
How can you remotely update a PDF file after someone downloaded it?
Why would you need to do that? The boarding pass has a QR code on it; the QR code links to your ticket. If you need to change your booking, they can email you a new one.
They are referring to gate and time changes
And? These are available on google, on the airline's website, and on screens throughout the terminal. Many airlines will send them to you via SMS. There's no need to have a whole app just to check your gate assignment.
I can't remember the last time I received a gate change notification via SMS. App push notifications are more common in my experience.
Or I could just use an app and get a push notification.
If you have a half gig spare for such an app these days maybe
Some airlines email you a hyperlink that put passes in your Apple wallet from a website. This seems like the ideal case to me.
My apple wallet boarding passes never update on time. At LAX they sometimes put you as a placeholder at the international terminal for your gate on boarding pass. So then you show up, slog through the international terminal to this gate, and see that no you are actually in terminal 7. Enjoy the resulting 2.5 mile walk I hope you baked in extra time.
Now I don’t trust it. Googling the flight number brings in the updated gate. Not the apple wallet boarding pass though.
> Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
I had a frustrating experience with this. We were staying in a small town and the casino had a ferry to cross the river, which would save 20 minutes driving and be kind of neat. I'm guessing they had issues with the staff collecting payments, so they had switched to a parking app to pay for it. You pay for the ferry as a "parking lot" and it should all work fine.
Signs at the road to it say to pay before proceeding, so I do. After driving all the way up, it turns out the ferry wasn't running (they neglected to close the gate at the start of the road). The parking app was tied into a pair of license plate readers on the boat, but since I couldn't drive past the "exit", they never considered my "parking" to end and it racked up a charge over two days. Of course, the "parking" starts without my car being detected going on to the boat.
Fortunately, I got a refund, but it required jumping through a bunch of hoops. If we paid the way it used to be done this wouldn't be possible at all!
>Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
Delta's app is pretty good. I really like the peace of mind from being able to see where my bags are, including when they get put on the conveyor.
You know what all these stories kind of sound like me? When some new technology comes out and you see somebody and they're like, one of the first people to buy it and they're like, oh, check this out. And then they try to show you something, but it doesn't work?
So if the parking thing is broken and I don't have my phone with me I can't go to the doctor today?
Cool. If a meter was broken I could just go to another spot with a working meter.
In Laguna beach they had $1 coin machines to get around the "ten quarters" thing, and this was 20 years ago!
> Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
Ehhhhh. In the case where it's a one-off, yes, because I'm not going to install an app and give it my payment details if I only expect to rarely park in a particular place.
But, for example, in downtown Truckee, California, I always use the parking app, especially in the winter, so I don't have to futz with a machine out in the cold while my fingers are freezing. I pay from inside the warmth of my car, or inside the building I'm going to. Even in the summer, it's nice to be able to pay while I'm walking to my destination, rather than stand there staring at a machine, waiting for it to charge my credit card.
It's also great to be able to "feed the meter" from my table at the restaurant if end up there longer than I expected, and the time has run out.
> Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
To each their own, I guess. In general I prefer not to waste paper for one-time use things, and when I'm traveling I already have my phone, and not having to keep track of more things is a plus. I do worry about situations where I could lose or break my phone (though I could lose a printed boarding pass too) or its battery runs out, but if that happens I can still go to the check-in counter or a kiosk and get a boarding pass printed, so I'm really no worse off than if I didn't have the mobile app in the first place.
> Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
Case in point - Toronto Parking Authority (Green P)'s app forces you to keep a balance and refill in multiples of $20 CAD, whereas street parking meters can charge your credit card in any increment as necessary (e.g. $1.25).
Also, the app forces you to disclose your phone number as an account identifier; you have no option to sign up by email or username. https://mobilepay.greenp.com/faq/i-have-a-new-phone-number-w...
The culture of designing user-hostile apps is wild.
Having taken both academic classes in Spanish, and using Duolingo for multiple years, I feel like Duolingo is a faster, more cost effective option for establishing a foundation. Obviously if you want to approach fluency, submersion is necessary.
Not to mention that it's hard to take a language class while commuting in a bus.
I would dispute your points 2 and 4. But yes, the trend towards apps is not very good. I am not sure if the apps are cheaper or just makes people think they are doing something modern and better. One thing is for sure, most apps based devices won't age well.
> Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
I generally agree, but I’ve had a great experience with one of those. I just wish they all did the same streamlined thing this one particular app I used did.
The QR code I had to scan actually ran an App Clip instead of taking me to a website. Everything was done in one screen: enter plate, parking stall number, hours. My physical interaction with it was just scrolling a little and hitting a button. Done. Wonderful.
Most parking solitions are a shitshow though. Multiple screens (seriously, why?!), having to create an account, not handling payment via Apple Pay so I have to enter my credit card manually. Having to enter the parking location manually (how come it’s not a parameter in the QR code URL?). I’d really like to know what happens at the companies that develop those. It’s borderline criminal how bad they are.
Printing a boarding pass for the return trip when you can only check in 36 hours before departure is a lot trickier than printing at home. I'd prefer to print but this is one of the things that is simpler.
The only annoying part is when the app gets battery killed with terrible reception in the airport and then takes 2 minutes to show you the boarding pass it already downloaded.
Time was you could check in online and get the ticket counter agent to print your boarding pass for you
That’s why you put your boarding pass in your phone’s wallet
I don't use my phone wallet, but I suppose that is the purpose of it.
> 1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
Generally, yes, (it may have improved since I left but the Chicago one was a nightmare a few years back) however the best experience I've ever had was in Nashville (don't recall the company name).
I signed up via the web (no app) and then the parking lot has cameras/sensors that detect my plate. Any parking lot owned by that company is now accessible to me in the city. I can just pull in, it detects me (notifying me my "session" has started), and then charges my card on file when I pull out (either in an hour, or even the next day).
As with a lot of things, there are often examples of well-executed solutions at the fringes, they're just not deployed at a large enough scale to cancel out the other negative examples. Software can improve a lot, but it's down to the team/individuals involved to care enough to do it right (and not be distracted by other incentives).
Sounds fantastic. Literally not an app. Bring back websites.
> 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
Whenever I fly business class for an international trip, I always check in at the counter. It's just as fast, but getting that boarding pass printing on cardstock and tucked into the photo page of my passport feels so quaint and charming.
In general, I agree with your observation, but in terms of Duolingo it does not matter whether language classes would have been better, because I was never going to sign up for them. Letting myself get hooked on another daily word game was a commitment I could actually make, and after plugging away at it with steadily increasing enthusiasm for a little over a year now, I've gained a significant degree of fluency I would not otherwise have. Thus I think that Duolingo offers a genuinely valuable service, not directly comparable to language classes.
I've seen good airline apps and bad airline apps. The good ones allow you to do things like checking your own bags and dropping off bags without talking to anyone. The bad ones simply are slow and have missing features: you may be able to buy a ticket but changing it requires calling a number. (Of course if you are the type to prefer human customer service, these won't appeal to you.)
Even if you do they might? Good service in app can lead to shorter wait times for people that need to talk to humans
And don't forget an increasing number of consumer electronics now need to be "activated" via an app.
>2. Tinder is worse than IRL speed dating.
women, and a small pool of men, use Tinder to efficiently find hookups. IRL speed dating is actually a much bigger pain in the ass for that purpose. it's "uber for nookie"
Re no. 1, what are you supposed to do in those cities if you don't have a smartphone? Just get a ticket? Seems heavily discriminatory against the poor.
>1. Parking apps are worse than parking meters.
The customers for these apps are the parking lot operators and they love the apps.
> 2. Tinder is worse than IRL speed dating.
It is now, it definitely wasn't when it first came out. Prime example of enshittification, but not an example of what you're conveying.
> 3. Duolingo is worse than language classes.
This one I feel has the most merit, but still not a lot. What % of Duolingo users would've actually taken classes were it not for these apps? Also, some people don't learn well from classes (I'm one of them). Not that that makes Duolingo any better, but despite its pretenses it's squarely aimed at extremely shallow, casual, surface-level learning that might be useful on a holiday. And people don't take classes for that.
> 4. Airline apps that are worse than just printing a boarding pass.
In what way? Admittedly I've only used the apps of 2 airlines, but they worked fine.
I recently had to buy a printer because some shitty company didn't accept my smartphone screen.
It was a lot less convenient let me tell you.
You have hit the nail right on the head.
I had come to this conclusion long ago i.e. computers/software are now majorly being oriented towards purely money-making (for certain vested interests) rather than doing any good for people/society or the world in general. The original idealism is long gone.
I believe they alwasy want and do change or revolution, or the most notorius ones disrupt life.
No improvement - displacement vector towards the positive half space of life quality - is implied, except for those selling it.
But all of those situations require human labor or oversight which is extremely expensive in the developed world. So in the sense that they allow people to access these things for cheaper they are better. And Tinder, Duolingo, etc. are at least cheaper. The other two the cost savings is gained by the government or the airline
Yes, in the digital world these folks feel like they can strongarm you, in a way they would never have the gall to do in person. By demanding full information and customer-hostile rules. Sorry, we don't "support" anything else at this time!
When visiting the UK last summer we tried to go to a train museum. There were three public parking lots around with different app based parking systems. We were unsuccessful in using any of them due to various issues relating to poor cell service, lack of UK phone number etc. In the end we had to leave without visiting the museum. It was farcical.
As a North London resident, the parking app situation is just as farcical for me.
There are at least three different apps for parking around me: RingGo, PayByPhone and JustPark.
I went to East London recently to visit the Velodrome, and discovered yet another one: Evology.
It's always great fun, standing around in the car park trying to wrangle your cards whilst creating yet another account to pay for 30 minutes of parking.
Then, of course, there's the 50/50 chance that my iPhone has decided to offload the parking app you need because you haven't used it in the last month or so.
And occasionally RingGo will decide to log me out, and when I go to log back in for some reason the last password I have in my password manager doesn't work, so now I also have to reset my password.
Agreed, paying for parking has turned into a total farce.
If people just stopped paying for parking en masse, things might change. I'm in the US, so maybe my attitude is different, but if I parked in a parking lot that didn't let me pay without installing some weirdo app, I would just park without paying and let them come after me if they can find me. If they send me a bill, I can refuse to pay. If they send it to collections, collections will probably not pursue over such a small amount. And if the debt collector does pursue, I can send them a dispute letter, forcing them to prove I have a debt obligation, which 99 times out of 100 will make them go away.
This is like the people who think “admiralty court” is a magic phrase to get out of paying taxes. What actually happens is that your car gets towed if you ever park anywhere affiliated with the same company (hope you never need to go to the same place twice), or you get tired of dodging collectors and having that mounting debt affect your credit and employability. Not liking how a business runs doesn’t give you a right to use their services without paying, your choice is still to pay or not use them.
Okay, but if everyone or a plurality of people did that because they disagreed with the business practices?
An individual may not be able to do much in all circumstances, but a lot of people might.
Yeah yeah yeah.
They sell the debt at lower price to companies specialized in debt collection, the longer you wait then to pay them the more they are allowed to collect from you.
If you try not to pay at all, they put you in court against lawyer working for the company whose only job is to collect debt, so he knows his job pretty well and the bonus is that you end up having to pay the lawyer fee.
Of course you could still refuse to pay that, get cops to show up at your house and then you have to shoot to get them to leave.
At some point of course you would think it's a bit much for a parking ticket.
If you don't like it, just don't use it, like everyone else does.
Is this like US fanfiction?
Nobody takes you to court to collect small amounts. They only do that if the amount is sufficiently large and they have good documentation and they believe they will be able to collect a judgement against you (ie either you have assets or you have stable employment so they can garnish wages).
Mostly nothing will happen except daily phone calls for years plus the hit to credit score.
And cops aren't showing up unless aforementioned judgment happened, you ignored it, and the court eventually authorized physical seizure of your property to recover funds.
Thanks to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), those phone calls should be able to be stopped with a simple Debt Validation Letter. No need to even get an attorney involved. Demand that the collector provide proof that you owe the money. Debt collectors will frequently just give up at that point if it's a tiny amount of money like a parking ticket.
The thing is they can tow your car away potentially. At which point your little protest is over as you are now being extorted for hundreds for something you can’t ignore.
Even those having phone and app have trouble in the form of hefty penalties when cell service does not allow them paying in the hard 5 minute mandated. There was a little 'scandal' (more like the usual random weekly media article pick for traffic increasing annoyment from among the thousands of similar f ups not getting any traction) recently provoking thunderous and colorful statements from officials. Regualation change may come in some form sometime perhaps that solves something possibly, but change something for certain, perhaps.
I think this article is city-centric. I am in a rural area in the US and I have only had a smart phone for 2 years and have never installed any apps beyond Mumla that I use for my own self hosted uMurmur server. I have never browsed the web from the phone. My life today is just as it was in the 1970's in that regard. All the businesses here have printed coupons. There are local printed newspapers. I have zero dependency on any "smart" features of phones unless one considers texting to be a smart feature given that was not a thing in the 70's. I do not expect any of that to change. The people here like keeping things simple. With exception of Amazon to get things small shops here do not carry I could even kill my internet connection and life would go on just fine. I would probably even get healthier. All the local businesses know me by name so I guess that makes up for a lack of cookie tracking.
> I think this article is city-centric.
It's an article about the situation in the UK. If your "rural area" is in the US, it is not surprising that it's a bit different than anything in the article.
That makes sense. I think the US tries to mimic big city behavior in the EU so it's probably just a matter of time for big cities in the US to have the same problems. Maybe that means I have a few more decades for any of that to find it's way to me. Curious how prevalent this behavior is in the rural parts of the UK.
I realize this might not be a kosher comment for HN, and i aphid for that. But you seem to have imagined some inherent divide between the mechanics of urban and rural (and apparently foreign and domestic) lives or at least governance. With this imagined division, you are free to ascribe whatever outcome that affects cities to whatever cause, since you live in a different state of existence.
I'm not saying that as an insult, but rather because I don't think there's an inherent difference, I just think rural communities are harder for companies to monetize, for multiple reasons - think density and average income.
But like Amazon, they will get there, and unlike cities, rural communities have less ability to resist and less ability to support a diversity of options. Think about the takeover of Walmart and Dollar General/Tree.
I don't think there's anything special inherent to your rural community that protects you from all this "progress". You're just living through the time before it catches up to your community. And i bet if you think about the effects of the arrival of changes like Walmart's rural expansion, you might find that they upset rural life as well, reducing wages, extracting money from the local economy instead of allowing it to continue to circulate locally, and then investing driving distances, and the associated costs in fuel and time among others.
My guess is that you will go from blaming cities for their problems to blaming cities for your communities problems once they reach you.
But maybe if you reevaluate your perspective, you could help your community prepare to resist those changes while you still have time.
In the US large companies in rural areas also often use apps in the same way as they do in the city (at least they did the last time I visited) and at least all the people I know in rural areas have had smartphones for a long time and use apps a lot (though maybe the fact that the area I know well is near a major university has made it a bit techier). The smaller local stores don't use apps so even in Chicago most places I actually went to didn't. I just went through my phone and the only app like that I have is for Taco Bell
People here do have smart phones and I'm sure some have apps installed. What I am saying is none of that is required today. Nobody here is penalized for not installing some app.
Unless it's McDonalds. Then you pay more for not having the app.
I would have to pay more regardless. The closest McDonalds is a 2 hour drive each way and going up steep mountains on the way back. The burgers at the local restaurant are much better and healthier ... well ... as healthy as a burger gets.
Practically every store now significantly subsidizes their products through their apps. Especially all the fast food chains. But even my local rural gas station does. Need that juicy, juicy data and those notifications.
I had never heard of Mumla and just looked it up -- looks like it needs some help. [1]
Curious, why do you use it?
[1] https://github.com/quite/mumla
Amazing audio quality. Text chat. No censorious behavior. The server is ultra light weight in terms of memory and CPU.
Don't worry... The 21st century should reach you too, eventually.
No worries. This troglodyte will bury his head in the sand. There will be a documentary about us and even the Amish will be shaking their heads. People in the 25th century will look back in envy after the machines take over and they had to reset civilization with EMP's back to agrarian or hunter gatherers. All of that pales in comparison to what happens from the years 201 BG to 108 BG during the Butlerian Jihad.
I live in very rural America. The only thing within 25 miles is a gas station. If I didn't have the gas station's app I would pay a lot more for a lot of the items I buy as they are discounted/on offer/free only on the app.
Well, not so much city-centric as it is population-centric. Cities are population centers, so there is correlation.
The scale you are thinking in is comparable to a small web forum being sustainably moderated by the owner of the site, while the majority of the world exists in a place like reddit that has more moderator users than even large web forums have in total. Reddit would not be sustainable if they had to pay a moderation staff, and similarly rural living cannot be scaled up to support cities without becoming city-like.
So assuming you accept all that, why even read this article or post a reply in the discussion?
I'm not trying to gatekeep here, I'm just saying I don't see why you find this topic interesting? It's like replying to a thread about how life in Afghanistan is really difficult, and you're saying "I think this article is not about America because of all the American things I experience."
I'm not trying to gatekeep here, I'm just saying I don't see why you find this topic interesting?
My ulterior motive and secret agenda is to let people know they can escape that nonsense. Many rural areas are getting faster internet but are much more chill. There are pros and cons people can research themselves. For me most of the cons are pros.
If I can save even one person per year from the social, government and store apps that have massive teams of marketing psychological warfare experts manipulating them then I have done my hero's doodie.
I for one very much appreciated your response. I am pleasantly surprised to hear life like that still exists in the US
I have never had any of the apps people are talking about on my cellphone since I moved to Louisiana. I just rarely eat fast food anymore, once I realized that I was paying nearly double for my app-free lifestyle. I didn't notice because of inflation at first.
The nearest fast food place to my house is 25 minutes away. Same with Walmart, Kroger, my bank, and nearly everything except dollar general and gas stations.
No ubet, Lyft. There is the food delivery, but only "in town". So far I have never been able to convince anyone to deliver food to my house.
I could use digital ID/license but I don't.
"Reward cards" are just phone numbers, at least the two I use (Kroger and horror fright). Oh and 1 gas station rewards.
I grew up in Los Angeles and spent 33 years there.
I don't think it's a natural urban/rural division. I suspect that that division is more an artifice of capitalism. These new services want to grow, so they target places with the most potential customers. If the pitch to the municipality is that they can take the cost of coin collection and meter maintenance out of the budget entirely, and switch the enforcement from a human walking around, checking meters and wiring tickets to a car that drives past with license plate readers and a sass subscription, then it will come for anywhere with meters, and may eventually come for everywhere, because the original pitch for meters required justifying the expense with projected revenue. And now, if the expense of a few signs and a subscription are low enough, and the license readers are already on police cars, then that evaluation changes.
Of course, as with all of it, local jobs disappear from the local budget, and that money gets shipped off to Wall Street.
My city has parking meters that I can't use because the website has a broken credit card form and the app "isn't available on your version of Android." And of course they don't accept cash.
It's a farce.
You’re in Vancouver, too?
City of Vancouver parking meters have to accept cash still.
If you try putting a quarter in and it doesn't work (as is often the case because of tampering with the coin slots), I believe you don't have to pay for parking.
going back to pre-smartphone but still true, in the US at least, it is generally illegal to park at a broken meter and you can get a ticket -- because otherwise there would be incentive to break the meter so you could park there for free.
> because otherwise there would be incentive to break the meter so you could park there for free
Never in my life would I have thought of that.
You must not be a security researcher or QA tester :)
This is only an issue because the US somehow became allergic to enforcing vandalism and property crime laws aggressively
Unfortunately, people have bought into the idea that enforcing laws which are disproportionately broken by the socially disadvantaged is tantamount to oppression. Vandalism and property crime tends to be committed by the poor underclass, often by racial minorities to boot. So people don't want to enforce laws against those people, whose lives are already kinda crap, because they think it's just oppressing them further. Unfortunately, while this thinking is well-intentioned it has really cost society in general dearly.
Are you extrapolating experiences from a small area or at of municipalities, because I've never been ticketed for parking at a broken meter in the US.
You can park at a broken meter in SF:
https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/parking-mete...
> If you try putting a quarter in and it doesn't work (as is often the case because of tampering with the coin slots), I believe you don't have to pay for parking.
Huh? That's the exact opposite of most municipalities I know of.
Normally it is "If the meter is broken, you cannot park there. It's an automatic ticket."
Otherwise, everybody just jams something in the slot and all your meters wind up broken.
I avoid apps too if I can. So rare that the app does anything a website can't. Indeed most apps are implemented with embedded browsers.
It's about tracking, and push notifications. Full stop.
If I'm forced into using an app when a website would have done just fine, I give it a one-star review.
> It's about tracking
That's exactly what it is. That is the only real reason. More tracking, more data harvesting, more control for the publisher at the expense of user agency.
Embedded browser with a 450mb app size of course. I wish you can sort by size on app store. It is a signal for quality when you find a 4mb app that does the same thing as a 450mb app.
Cue HN's anti-PWA brigade.
I wanted to make one but I wanted it to work without networking but be able to trigger notifications on a timer. I don't know anything about cellphone development or JavaScript so I gave up and made a discord bot instead.
My brother doesn't have à smartphone (by choice).
For example, he cannot access his bank account via his desktop anymore. He have to go to his agency in person.
Well we all did that for years so it's just annoying, because he still have the possibility to do it and it's his choice.
But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ? When will it be mandatory to get a smartphone for his bank app, just to have access to his money ?
And it's just an example...
While I have a smartphone, I choose to not have a Google account.
One of the banks that I am using has terminated its on-line banking service, which I had been using for almost 20 years, replacing it with an app.
That would not have been a problem if they would have provided the app themselves on their Web site, but they refuse to do this and they provide the app only in the Google on-line store, which I cannot use because I do not have a Google account, despite the fact that the app is free.
Therefore I have reduced a lot the number of operations that I do through that bank, redirecting them to another bank, which still has on-line banking on their Web site. Fortunately, for now the bank that has closed their on-line banking Web site still keeps an SMS service, which allows me e.g. to check the balance of my account from my phone and which notifies me about the transactions on my credit card.
Many years ago, I have closed all my accounts at a bank that has annoyed me by updating their on-line banking Web site so that it no longer accepted any browsers except Microsoft Internet Explorer. At that time I have hoped that it will be the last time when I leave a bank because they believe that they can force their customers to also be customers of unrelated third parties, but now this problem with Google has appeared.
I am not a US citizen and the bank is not from USA. I doubt that it can be legal for a bank here in Europe to condition their services by their customer becoming the customer of a foreign entity that is Google. However I cannot afford to waste time and money to determine the legality of their actions.
Can you use Aurora store? https://auroraoss.com/ (That's what I use when I don't want to put a Google account on an Android phone)
Thanks for pointing to that.
I was not aware of it, so when I will have time I will experiment with it, to see if it works for downloading the app I need when logging in anonymously.
> But what will happen if all the brick and mortar close ?
Hello, it's me from the future, reporting live from Germany. My bank is online only and to talk to a person, I need to call the hotline and wait (I shit you not) 20~25 minutes for the PIN input prompt to repeat itself once too many times and time out, handing me off to a very confused human who is wondering how I'm speaking to them unauthenticated (they're very suspicious and will not answer most questions; it's a pretty useless party trick). Alternatively, you can have the answering machine send you an authentication code by snail mail which you can then use once in the next few days to call them one time
I put up with it because the other bank account I applied for rejected me for not being creditworthy (never had a debt in my life, but also no loan, so there is no credit data and apparently that's suspicious; on the other hand, students get accounts there with no problem, so maybe it's a combination of no credit data and age? Or not having citizenship? They're not saying of course, I can only assume it's an illegal reason because why else not say it). The other bank card I own from a neighboring country isn't accepted in most supermarkets, I'd need to bring cash into the country or pay extra for using an ATM abroad. Single European Market is really lovely, you should try it
I really felt that when I was waiting for a replacement display from china for about 3 months...
If you want to do stuff at a physical bank you pay fees for everything, if there's even a branch still open close to you.
Can't even buy bus tickets without an app (tracks your journey with GPS of course), without paying more, even at ticket machines in the busses.
> If you want to do stuff at a physical bank you pay fees for everything
This hasn't been my experience at all in the US. If you need something in-person, going to the bank is the best option since they don't charge fees like a random ATM does.
The solution is that banks should support any TOTP client for authentication and not just their proprietary app. So you can use open source software or a hardware key.
But they won't. HN is quite good at suggesting a lot of genuinely intelligent and valid potential technical solutions, but most banks won't even think about supporting TOTP broadly. They'll lean into smartphones and apps because this is where the bast majority of their customers are. In this case the 'tyranny' is the overwhelming preference of other people. The masses have spoken, and they want everything to be on their phones.
Also because ticking boxes. You just provide an app that fulfills all the silly security requirements for banking apps and then if something goes wrong, the customer has the burden of proving it's the banks fault.
I've had my banking app installed on an old Samsung phone running lineageos. I only powered it on when I had to do online banking. At some point I needed to update the app and they started checking for rooted devices, so it wouldn't work anymore. Now I've installed it on a much newer android device that I also use for a lot of other crap and sketchy stuff I don't want on my main phone. Also it's powered on all the time. Whether that's really more secure than what I did before is questionable.
Maybe not for you, but rooted phones are a legitimate risk for users that do sideload pirated games and malware etc. I still think the risks are arbitrary, but I can understand why banks want to avoid rooted phones
Then they should also avoid rooted Windows machines where malware is a legitimate risk and orders of magnitude more prevalent than on mobile. Doing one but not the other is arbitrary and just pushes people towards having a locked-down device that they don't fully control with them all the time (can't uninstall tracking software from the vendor, for example). A locked-down computer that just sits in your office all day would be less worrisome
And that’s where the government needs to step in order in order to advocate for the minority.
[dead]
The ING has a small Android based single-purpose authenticator device they offer to customers without smartphones. It can scan the QR code and do the auth.
Can your TOTP client show what operation you’re approving? Because my bank app can.
A chip TAN generator can. I'm glad my bank is still supporting those.
I had a couple of such TOTP clients from different banks. For approving an operation, both of them required me to sign the amount of money transferred by that operation (i.e. they generated a one-time code that depended on a hash of the amount of money), so no confusions were possible.
My bank used to provide you with a small TOTP device the size of a usb key. Sadly they eventually deprecated it and recently dismissed it entirely in favor of their increadibly slow app.
With a text sent to your phone for TFA. Which means you can't access your accou nt if you travel. You could always access it with the TOTP device.
In the UK loads of bank branches have closed. They've opened up "hubs" which are a joke, some are open only have weekend opening hours of Saturday morning and you usually have to travel to a different town to get to it.
I had some hilariously degenerate experiences with this recently. There are basic services that branches won't provide at all anymore like cashing cheques, which can be annoying in some circumstance. But the real dumb one was being blocked from taking a certain action in the online banking with a message like "present yourself with 2 forms of government ID at a local branch". OK. Fine. Drive there, wait in line, blah blah blah. The teller looks at me like I'm crazy when I say that online banking sent me there. They figure it out, do the KYC process, unblock me and I say great now can you do the thing I was trying to do before all this? "No, you must use online banking for that."
The advantage of having to go to the branch in person is that KYC is never an issue.
Related issue: how every website seems to migrate to some smartphone-optimized version that looks like a mobile app blown up to a bigger screen that works much worse on desktop. Hall of Shame: Twitter, Facebook, even Vanguard.
What's even more confusing/frustrating is that, despite being developed with very elaborate, mature frameworks, they still lack basic UI accommodations, like making clickable elements detectable by add-ons, or allowing you to open up a detail view in a new tab.
I get if Joe Shmoe's cobbled-together app forgets some things, but why wouldn't stuff like that be rolled in as a default, with all the development hours applied to it?
My bank is developing a new version of their online banking solution. They've decided to model in on their app, which I refuse to use because it's absolutely garbage. So now I have a online banking platform that can't do copy/paste on, hides much of the relevant information and is generally much harder to use than the old version.
I've provide feedback on multiple occasions, but I don't have high hopes for them to fix anything. If I where running a business and to use the site every day I'd be pissed and threatening to move my business else where.
Good news is we are already hitting upper limits of how many people we can reach via apps/smartphone/internet.
Limits that in the past 2 decades (of scaling) the people who built these Platforms didn't have to think about. Now they do. And they are coming under serious pressure because they have built out more Supply than there is Demand.
For example, we got the explosive growth of Netflix. Everyone sees that and piles into streaming. When growth slows in one country they immediately move into another and they keep growing until they run out of countries to expand into. So Netflix has been in India (a country advertised as having zillions of consumers) for nearly 10 years now but they haven't found more than 25 million paying subscribers. Learning takes time. And everyone is learning there are limits to growth based purely on the online model.
Where is this bank? Are there not other banks that do allow access via branches or online?
i can't access any of my online accounts without a phone. one at least still does simple sms, so it doesn't require a smartphone, but it requires a phone nonetheless. the other requires an app. the problem is that this is a trend. more and more banks switch to requiring apps. if we don't fight the trend, then all banks will do it. switching banks now does not work because the new bank does not know that this is the reason you switched, and the old bank is also unlikely to track this detail.
In the US: chase bank, us bank, do not require 2FA unless you don't have a cookie. I don't have to use an app for any of the banks we use.
You're getting downvoted, but here in a populated but not very interesting part of Pennsylvania there must be 15 different banks or credit unions with brick & mortar offices within 10 miles. I lament that not everyone has this degree of choice, but it's not a fantasy.
There may be an online-only bank somewhere in the USA that's app-only, but I wouldn't know. Every bank I've ever encountered has a very functional web site.
We have an app only bank in Canada called WealthSimple, but hardly the only choice.
The problem here seems to be that people want the free accounts and low fees of app only banks, but still want the costly things they got rid of that make those possible like branches.
the solution is to let the market do its work and move to another bank?
I rather get the impression that the market doesn't always work like economists would like it to work. But do we really need competing banks just for the basic stuff like processing payments? It seems plausible that it's a good idea to have multiple competing banks for the more complex services but perhaps the basic processing of payments could be handled by the government, which already has the monopoly of providing the currency in the first place. Just a thought. Free markets are a tool, not a religion, right?
Some people might insist that a government monopoly would be worse but here in the UK I've noticed that government web sites are usually less crap than web sites created by the private sector.
Or maybe the people who hate smartphones and technology are tiny inconsequential minority that doesn't outweigh the billions in savings?
We can't afford to have people doing bullshit jobs at bank branches anymore- unemployment is too low.
Voting with your feet only works if there’s somewhere else for you to walk to.
in many places there is no bank that offers an alternative
Not sure what you mean. There are numerous online banks that can operate country wide, and surely there is at least one of them that offer web banking without requiring an app?
I don't get why your parent was downvoted. If you live in the middle of nowhere without a cell phone, life is going to be tougher.
> If you live in the middle of nowhere without a cell phone, life is going to be tougher.
I think the issue is that it is becoming tougher than it was prior to the existence of smartphones for those without them.
Then you will need to use an app.
By choice. Society doesn't penalize anyone if they decide to go off the grid.
Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?
That's a huge jump from "no smartphone" to "off the grid."
I prefer using laptops and I prefer doing my banking on my laptop. I'm online a lot. I do have a smartphone, usually an older one, for calls, messaging, playing music and taking photos. I even have an old Samsung tablet, for reading ebooks.
It should be possible to do your banking from a laptop.
I just don't want apps on my phone, because they will track me, I don't like using apps on the phone in general, and banking apps in particular because the bank wants to control what I can and can't do with my own phone. Want a rooted phone? No banking for you.
"Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?"
To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles. This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.
I'm sorry I'm not losing sleep over the life choices of weirdos on HN but I will happily pay taxes for universal healthcare don't you worry!
Utilitarian models of ethics are fraught with peril themselves. Not the own you think it is.
So are many other political and philosophical ideas—essentially any field involving ethics is fraught with perils and consensus is never fully reached.
Just because unanimity is never achieved in respect of some philosophical idea doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration and or it's never put into practice. Utilitarianism has been the subject of much study and debate and it's been widely practiced over several hundred years.
I'm well aware of the debates over utilitarianism and its ethics, any why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do. That ought to have been obvious by my use of the word 'consensuses'.
BTW, I could have made the same argument from a different philosophical perspective but the previous commentator specifically invited a utilitarian-type response by the words he used. That said, no matter what philosophical argument I'd have used someone would have found fault with it.
My main point still stands, which is that obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones. Note, I've deliberately not used the word 'best' for the above reasons.
You could just as easily have cited Aristotle or Augustine or Aquinas or any other philosopher who wrote an ethics. The previous commentator didn't invite a utilitarian-type response. He implicitly posed a question about the justification for the ordering of goods in society. Nothing about that statement is definitively answered (or even satisfyingly questioned) by big-U Utilitarianism.
Since you appear to enjoy a little bit of philosophical discussion, let's break down what you ackshually said:
> To answer that question with any degree of rigor one has to go back to the beginning and study the works of Bentham, Mill and others—and the many issues that surround utility and utilitarian principles.
The "beginning" of ethics hardly begins with Bentham or Mill or even the Enlightenment. Utility is quite a modern concept in ethics. The question of what is "the good" is presupposed in any system of value. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is perhaps one of the more perverse interpretations of human good on record.
> This involves such issues as the greatest good for the greatest number, greed overpowering well established moral norms and the fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.
The majority of modern states and cities were most emphatically NOT "founded" on utilitarian models. Most states predate any notion of such post-hoc rationalizations. Cities were largely founded as commercial centers along trade routes or ports, or sometimes intentionally as colonies. States were largely the results of conquest by militarized groups that were certainly NOT utilitarian. Quite the contrary. In the bronze age, they would have simply been warrior bands centered around family/tribal bonds and vassal/suzerainty relationships founded on violence. By the time of the great early empires around the Mediterranean, formal structures of militarism and class privileges won through violence were the organizing forms of society, not "give-and-take" consensus gathering (unless you mean one group giving up the fight and the other either enslaving them or killing them outright).
Maybe you could have argued they are founded on something like Hobbesian social contract theory (certainly not Rousseau's version) but that, too, would suffer from being simply "not true in fact."
The main point that "obvious solutions aren't necessarily the optimal ones" suffers from being trivial, condescending, and a non sequitur. The commenter didn't offer a solution as such, but raised the obvious question of why they should have to pay for someone else's choices. Utilitarianism is the worst of all philosophical answers because it entails the most absurdities.
Point proven, your comment just confirms what I said earlier:
…an(d) why those for and against it take the (usually) entrenched stance that they do.
I'm aware of those issues and omissions for brevity's sake. Also, I would point out that what I said was a passing comment on HN and not meant for a paper in a learned philosophical journal.
BTW, in case you didn't notice, I never mentioned whether I was for or against utilitarianism specifically because discussion about it inevitability ends in arguments that usually remain unresolved. That it was just an example ought to have been obvious.
It would be informative to compare the syllabus content at your philosophy school versus that of mine.
My philosophy school was a library card. Am I presuming too much by your handle that you are a lover of the higher mathematics? Although I think it would be hard to derive a workable ethics from number theory, I believe it has been tried. Descartes and Spinoza metaphysics come to mind, but Plato's number magic is probably a more entertaining place to start.
As you say, not relevant to you, but do you think mathematicians generally have some kind of affinity for Utilitarian ethics?
"My philosophy school was a library card."
There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes it's one's best tutor.
I'm not a mathematician but I've studied mathematics in conjunction with my bread-and-butter subjects science and engineering. It's thus fair to say the analytical philosophers and their ilk have had a strong influence on my thinking—Frege, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, and G.E. Moore—I can even see my copy of Principia Ethica on the bookshelf on the other side of the room from where I'm sitting.
(BTW, In my world I cannot see any relevant connection between number theory (as mathematicians understand it) and ethics.)
The analytical strand of philosophy is particularly significant for me as formal logic has a direct bearing on some of my technical work (they're closely related). It also led to me electing to take HPS.
Philosophy is a remarkably broad church and its analytical strand is only one section, and in no way do I consider myself pigeonholed to just one or two of its strands; Being and Nothingness, The Social Contract, Leviathan, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (the) Republic are just a few titles from the large compulsory corpus from which I was trained.
I will not delve further into utilitarianism given what I've already said except to say I have neither the talent of Shakespeare nor am I an APL programmer, so it would be impossible for me to present my rather convoluted views on the matter in a short HN post without some part being misinterpreted. To do it linguistic justice and present a watertight case that precisely and accurately explains my view I'd likely require a dozen pages of typed text, and clearly that's not possible on HN.
That's not a copout, it's just fact. Moreover, philosophy taught me long ago that précising and brevity can easily lead to misunderstandings unless one's words are very carefully chosen. I was reminded of that again earlier today when you came on the attack.
In general (there are exceptions) most adhere to the broader set of consequentialism of which utilitarianism is one form of.
A number would say that ethics and morality are subjective and not objective and thus an attempt to apply a utilitarian metric or measure of "good" along with a (partial?) ordering such as "greatest good" is a doomed endeavour.
Few would deny that from this, that would follow (for some specific values of this 'n that).
I'd essentially agree with that summary.
Go on, then. Elaborate.
I have a smartphone. However I choose to use a mobile OS that is neither Android nor iOS, why should I get penalized that banks don't invest in applications for my OS too?
It’s business. Should a steakhouse be required to have vegan offerings? If that’s not what their customers want, then why would they invest hundreds of thousands on building and maintaining an app that maybe five people would use?
They do not have to build an app. They could build a mobile website that is accessible from almost any computing platform.
For something so core and critical to society (banking), I don’t think it’s reasonable to leave it up to the private sector and say “well, if some people get left behind—ho hum, thems the breaks”
If we’re talking about a florist, then sure. The market wants what it wants and if you’re not in the majority it kinda sucks. Not great, but probably not a place for government intervention. Banking, though? There should be accessibility guidelines and standards, absolutely.
When businesses provide essential services (like banking) I feel like they should be held to the same standards as government services. Not that some governments don't treat users without Android or iOS as third class citizens.
So, to clarify, there are banks that have their full business value accessible only through mobile, and as a person needing banking but doesn't have access to mobile, I can make an informed decision and not be their customer. But when I create a bank account in a physical office, and then the office gets closed in favour of an alegedly much more accessible mobile application, I feel like there should be some measure protecting me from that. Do you find that unreasonable?
> "should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?”
Yes! There are many things you cannot do without a physical bank location. It is worth paying[1] something to have them. I used to use an online-only bank, but I realized I wanted to be able to walk into a branch at times, so I switched to a new bank.
[1] “Paying” can mean a variety of things, including lower interest rates on savings accounts, for example.
What are those mythical actions that can't be done outside of a physical location? How many of them are things you do ~once in a lifetime, like getting a mortgage?
I need 100 rolls of quarters. I need 500 $2 bills. I need to change my pin on a debit card.
I need to change all these $2 bills and quarters into $20 bills.
Trivial examples that I have done at my bank. Maybe drbit cards now don't need to be put into a machine to change the pin anymore, idk.
I mean I've used an online only bank for years now and there's nothing I haven't been able to do. They send cashier's checks by mail.
I suppose if I wanted to deposit cash I couldn't but it's never come up.
At least for me, the problem is not the closing of the brick-and-mortar branches, though that has happened near me, because for the last 25 years I have used those only seldom, preferring on-line banking.
What annoys me now is the closing of the on-line banking Web sites, which could be used easily and without any problem from any computer or smartphone, and their replacement with apps, which may force you not only to have a smartphone but also to be a customer of Apple or Google, because some banks refuse to provide their Android apps otherwise than through the Google app store.
How is this different though. Infrastructure costs money. Apps are the new hotness. The same "well, I don't use it so whatever" you bring is what it seems like the online banking folks are saying to the brick and mortar people.
Has anyone looked at the world lately and thought "hey maybe all these apps aren't the greatest idea"? Amazon, Shein, Temu, AliExpress have all but made history just visiting a mall and browsing.
I know Walmart loved the pandemic, too, because all the mom and pop stores that survived the first 20 years of amazon couldn't survive the local and state and federal government interfering with their commerce.
JoAnns is closing hundreds of stores. This whole subject is on my mind a lot lately.
It’s a bad rebuttal because you’re paying for the phone, and the bank pays for their office with what they gain from credits, stock market stuff…
If the bank had no office it wouldn’t be cheaper.
At least in germany, there are both traditional banks with offices and online-only banks and one of the reasons given for the fact that traditional banks have worse conditions (less interest, sometimes monthly charges for even having an account etc.) is that they hvae to pay the offices somehow.
I had a tangential experience to this phenomenon lately. I moved continents a few years ago. Eventually I had to switch my Play Store country to where I moved. That restricted my access to certain versions of apps but my downloaded apps continued to function anyway.
Then, a few months ago, I finally bought a new phone. I quickly found out that there was no way I could get this one banking app from my home country on the new phone (other than switching my country setting again, which isn't worth the potential hassle right now). Fortunately, I could still do online banking with on my browser...right?
I try to login to my online banking. They say they will send me an OTP on my registered mobile number. Makes sense, and, thanks to the wonders of roaming, I will be able to receive it. Except...instead of just sending me the actual OTP like any sane platform would do, I had to first confirm that I was, indeed, trying to sign-in to online banking by replying "YES" to their SMS prompt. And due to the wonders of SMS roaming protocol, though I could receive their messages, I simply could not reply to them no matter which gods I invoke.
Security design by committee. I curse the manager who though this was a necessary and valuable addition to the whole OTP scheme.
It's not so much a "convenience tax" as in the article but, I guess, a penalty for moving countries. I have no choice now but simply to just settle this when I go on vacation to my home country. There is probably no convenient resolution to this even when I am in the correct geospace.
PS. I have two banks from home country and I was able to install the other bank's app in my new phone without a hitch. I try to avoid cynicism but this simply has the stink of Managerial Software Engineering Best Practices all over it.
One thing not mentioned yet is what happens when you've got a cheaper phone filled with photos and videos. At various times I've had to spend a few minutes deleting things just to download some stupid 100 meg app that I need to use for a total of 5 minutes to complete some basic task.
A lot of suggestions ask the poster to not store photos on their phone, but this takes away the functionality from their phone that they actually want in service using 1 app for 5 minutes.
Is your cheaper phone unable to interface with a computer? I'm no advocate of an app-based economy, but your phone shouldn't be the archive for your photos.
That doesn’t solve the problem of having to spend time deleting photos and later restoring them back from the archive.
plug in USB cable, drag and drop entire directory from one drive to another with file explorer, is the only reasonable way to manage photos. Get everything off the device at the end of each day. Why would you ever put things back on the phone?
Because I want to be able to search for and show or send photos to other people on the go.
A smartphone is like a little computer you can use on the go, in case you weren’t aware.
And then if I want to look at my photos while I'm out, or show them to someone, I don't have them on my phone anymore?
I hear you; in practice I can use my nextcloud server for this, or if I have tailscale turned on in the phone I can even use the synology photo app.
Being forced to upgrade phones... Ugh.
I don't have a solution if you're not me and you're not paying me, though.
If only phone vendors didn't try to break this functionality.
Yeah when was the last time image capture got an update? 2010?
Ah yes, let me just walk home for 20 hours instead of taking a train because I need to first transfer the pictures I took on a trip to my computer before I can install the local transport company's app to get home now that they removed ticket machines from platforms and are telling people to use their app to buy tickets...
I can think of various solutions (from companies not requiring an app in the first place to inserting an SD card) but suggesting that people simply not store user data on their phone is a new one
I back my photos up using adb backup, but I don't keep them in cloud services.
I feel your pain. I managed to use my first smart phone, an iPhone 6s, for almost 10 years. In that time the system data took up more and more of what little space I had on there (16GB I think? So unthinkably small to most people that they think I'm confusing it with RAM) to where I was basically dealing with a few mb of storage to use for photos and work-critical apps like Authenticator. I also refuse to use iCloud on principle (tried it once, and realized when I wanted to download all my photos onto my computer that it would only let me do 1 at a time, or low quality versions, or something scummy like that).
It got so bad I had to do things like delete my Internet history if I even wanted to copy and paste something! And I would do everything I could to not have to pick which photos and conversations I needed to delete forever just to download some fucking app I would only use one time to order food or park somewhere or do first-time router setup.
Finally I had to give in and get a new phone, because managing phone storage was making my life much more difficult than it needed to be. But I'm still so mad that I had to, because daily living seems to demand more and more storage space. And people accept it!! Ugh. The dang thing didn't even have a scratch on it either. Would've used it for 20 years if I could.
If you have a place to live, you shouldn't carry all your belongings with you in a backpack when you go outside.
Similarly, a phone should not be your archive of all your media.
Perhaps I can be patient and explain the underlying concepts here, since they seem to be unintuitive to a small minority of very condescending commenters:
1. I like to have access to my photos and videos while I'm on the go. You never know when the subject of some trip or experience from 2 years ago will come up in conversation, and I'll want to show a photo of it to someone I'm talking to. Since photos and videos don't weight anything inside my phone, it's no trouble to carry them.
2. I don't like to give cloud services all my photos and videos. Despite the extremely dark pattern in Google Photos where it tries multiple times a month to trick me into enabling cloud backup, I've kept it off. Some of my photos may be sensitive things like personal documents, I'd rather not have to think about what's in the cloud and what isn't, and what is deleted where. These services also often aren't free and I'd prefer not to pay for them.
3. I back up my phone regularly to my personal computer, so losing my phone doesn't mean I lose all the media on my phone.
4. And since I know someone will ask, I lock my phone. Not with a fingerprint; with a passcode. It's not perfect but I'm comfortable with the level of security.
> Since photos and videos don't weight anything inside my phone, it's no trouble to carry them.
But in your example they -do- weigh something, measured in megabytes. So there is an obvious tradeoff in terms of what you can fit on your phone with some spare empty margin, similar to physical goods that you need to fit into a backpack when you know you might pick something else up along the way.
No, they don't "weigh" anything.
Digital storage is so far removed from this concept. Let us not excuse poor business practices by trying to offload a piece of their business systems on to their customers' devices.
I shouldn't have to provide space on my property to conduct business with another organization.
To extend the already poor and tortured analogy, imagine if a paper train ticket were the size and weight of an 800 page textbook that you had to lug around, and 799 of the pages were filled with some boilerplate copied from a different company's train ticket book, that nobody ever needed to look at.
But if you have a problem with the train ticket textbook, people will come out of the woodwork to tell you that you're not managing or carrying your belongings properly. I should get a bigger bag, or I should carry fewer of the books I actually want to read. Why am I carrying around so many things anyway? It's irresponsible! Sure I've got room for a piece of paper, but that's not enough these days. Don't I know that I'll need space for the train ticket textbook?
If your phone's storage is at 99.994%, you can't blame that on pointless 100mb apps in 2025.
Have fun with that.
> If you have a place to live, you shouldn't carry all your belongings with you in a backpack when you go outside.
I really don't like this analogy. These are entirely different concepts. A backpack has weight, dimension in real space that impacts the real world. A phone full of videos has no extra weight or volume in the real world.
Clearly, they are facing very similar physical restrictions. Not in weight but in bytes. If they want to carry many TBs on a phone in 2025 but then complaining that they can't install a 100mb app, yeah, they are carrying too much in their backpack.
> If they want to carry many TBs on a phone in 2025
What are you talking about? Only the most expensive flagship phones have a terabyte of storage space. There are no phones that have "many TBs". Mine certainly doesn't.
Regardless, none of the following functionality needs an app. It all works great on a website, and doesn't take up any space permanently on my device:
- Buying a ticket - Checking transit times - Receiving notifications (not only does email exist, but websites can send notofications) - Joining a loyalty program
I don't have any problem with people who want to carry these apps around, but as an infrequent user of many businesses, it's death by a thousand cuts. I resent how what were once perfectly workable mobile websites are slowly being degraded in order to force me to download hundreds of megabytes of copy-paste support libraries for what half the time are just wrapped webviews anyway.
How other people choose to use their phones is not your business.
This is a public forum. If they don't want to talk about it then why are they talking about it?
People are writing this off, but it eventually becomes impossible not to own a smartphone; an expensive device, with an expensive monthly plan, and an absolutely terrible privacy record. Eventually more businesses will require smartphone usage just to use their services. There could even be a time when government services require it.
A landline phone is about the cost of a cheap smartphone, and the landline itself costs about as much as the cheapest cell plans.
But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
I still agree you shouldn't need it, especially if you already have a computer. But it's only "expensive" if you choose the higher tiers.
> You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet
So no security updates and any app can stop working any moment. And all your data are at Google, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
> But you actually don't need either of those. You just need the cheapest Android cellphone or tablet you get, and access to someone's wifi, which is freely available at many coffee shops, or from neighbors.
The cheapest device you can get will be unusably slow - good luck doing anything out and about without inconveniencing everyone else while you wait for your device to load and pray the app opens in a timely fashion. Oh, that is, if your outdated device can even download and run it.
Access to wifi isn't really as ubiquitous as you make it seem either - what if the business you're needing to use the app for doesn't have wifi? Run down the street to the coffee shop?
A landline phone doesn't spy on you, and has often better audio quality (unless you're in an area with great cell coverage). And you can also use the mobile network with a "feature phone", like those that were around until smartphones arrived, they're still around.
The UK is an incredibly competitive and well-regulated market. If you're in receipt of welfare benefits, you can get a tariff with unlimited 5G data for £12 ($15) per month. If you're a light user, you can get a tariff with a few gigabytes of data for as little as £5 ($6.50) per month.
https://smarty.co.uk/social-tariff
A cheap but perfectly useable phone costs less than £100 new from a brand like Xiaomi, Motorola or TCL; on any high street, you'll find a shop selling second-hand phones for as little as £30. I cannot think of any object in human history that provides so much utility for so little money.
Totally true that smartphones are useful. But people can decide they don't want one for many reasons, including not wanting to accept 20-pages-long T&C just to turn them on, and surrendering lots of personal data. If you're a lot into tech stuff, you might go around that by blocking most data collection, but most people don't have the competence for this, or have better things to do with their lives.
This is actually something the US does pretty well, actually. The Lifeline Assistance Program (colloquially known as "Obama Phones") gives low income people (basically anyone who qualifies for food stamps) a phone, with calling and internet, at no cost to the individual.
I wouldn't bet on that being around much longer, because for some reason it makes a lot of conservatives absolutely seethe. Many of them convinced themselves poor people were being given the latest luxury model iphone out of taxpayer funds.
Depending on where you live, a smartphone can be bought for 100 bucks and a basic line (voice, messages, 2GB of data) for less than 5 bucks. It's not ideal but it's not a sacrifice anymore.
If having a smartphone and a cellular plan will become an absolute requirement to partake in the society, carriers certainly are going to hike prices. Here in Finland, cellular plans used to be very cheap, but now the prices have been soaring after the society has become more and more reliant on the phones.
Hmm yeah, usual free market trickery. In France one telco operator forced a 2euro/month minimal plan so everybody can get minimum access.
You can also use wifi. Even free wifi. You can get a very nice used phone with many years of updates for 100 dollars. You can find a worse phone for much less if you really want to.
edit: You can even get a free phone from your community. Possibly a better one than the a53. Most people have a phone or several in a drawer.
https://swappa.com/listings/samsung-galaxy-a53-5g?carrier=un...
Quite true, to the point that my data plan is not used much (I'm way below the 2G threshold) because I'm mostly indoor when I fetch a lot.
Yeah, but you need to be lucky for free wifi to be available for apps that you need to use in specific locations, like the parking meter app.
A parking spot that requires an app is certainly onerous, even for a smartphone owner.
A good point, but also a parking spot like that which is also not in range of city wifi is pretty rare, I'd reckon.
Before that, government services required phone calls, or fixed addresses to receive mail, or a free public transit program to get people to government buildings. Comparatively, it's a lot easier and cheaper to just give the needy smartphones and data plans. Hence the Lifeline Assistance Program (Obama phones), which does just that.
This has always been the case though. Before the smartphone, it was computers and internet; before that it was landline phone service. Both of the latter were far more expensive than a modern smartphone, so we are actually making progress in reducing barriers to social participation.
Internet browsers exist for many OSes. To use a web-based service, you don’t need a mandatory account with a platform tech giant.
Almost all mobile apps today are Android/iOS only and require an App Store/Play Store account.
Landlines didn't spy on people. Computers and Internet, well, depends on which OS you are on, but there are options that don't. What about smartphones? IMHO that's the big issue, not what they cost.
Can't say they are expensive anymore, you can get an updated android phone for less than $50 new or less second hand.
Can't say about monthly plans, as that depends on the country.
Privacy is a different matter and always dependent on the technical literacy as opposed to hard costs.
I think that ends up pretty nuanced. A cheap $50 Android will receive security updates for one year if you're lucky. So now you have a choice between buying a new cheap phone yearly, forgoing security, or being technically savvy enough to put a 3rd party OS on your phone. With regard to privacy, smart phones really don't have options for privacy unless you go with a 3rd party OS. And, if you do so, you might not even be able to run the various apps which the various businesses require. I just don't see this as a valid alternative.
As I noted in my other comment, you don't even need a cell plan. You can just use wifi. Your own, your neighbor's, a nearby coffee shop, etc.
This isn't necessarily the case; many services will require a registered phone number.
It's still an additional 'tax' on individuals.
Anything can be a "tax", if we want it to be.
Is the requirement of wearing clothes in public a tax? Maybe.
But today definitely someone can still live without owning a phone, if they have access to a computer nearby (e.g. A library or friend).
The larger point is that to use the mainstream apps you would buy a smartphone for, you are forced into a contract (or at least to agree to terms of service) with one of two third parties, Apple or Google.
You can get a cheap 100$ smartphone with cheap prepaid plan.
Which phone costs $100 that isn't a POS? Honest question because even my discounted mid range motorolla is starting to struggle with some apps.
Not only do I need a smartphone for "everything" in my live.(managing my local gym membership for example) I also only have the choice between two us companies: Google or Apple. I had an ubuntu smartphone at some point but it's practically useless. If I want a appointment with my doctor in Germany living in the same street as I, the Californian Company Google has to be involved for some reason.
App store monopoly hurts us way more than it is talked about. Suddenly, not only we are not to chose which devices to use to access what could be a simple website. Now unrelated third party decides if we have access to it based in, for example, country of residence. Or at all. Apple routine forces censorship on our phones as if it was it's property.
I still believe it was a tragedy that Microsoft folded their attempt into mobile. To explain my level of desperation, I feel our next best hope here is China.
Our next best hope is GNU/Linux smartphones. Sent from my Librem 5.
They can’t handle the masses, unfortunately. That needs alot more money and infrastructure.
I'm glad to see people talking about this. I'd love to see a new right: The right to not have your phone on you.
For whatever reason. Maybe it was stolen. Maybe it's being fixed. Maybe the battery is dead.
(Maybe you don't want to get a Google or Apple account. But that's not the only use case.)
All public services and essential services (government services, banks, car parks, etc) should respect this right. It's bizarre that people think it's such an outlandish request.
Maybe the currently shitty transatlantic political climate will force politicians to think about the reliance on 2 US tech companies for every single piece of mobile software.
The UK tried to force Apple to Do Evil and failes. Who's to the say the US wouldn't be (or hasn't been) more successful?
If I were a politician relying on WhatsApp for secure communications (as many over here seem to be), I'd be very worried.
The increasing necessity of the Internet is also why giving companies the power to exile someone from the Internet is an extremely broad power that is increasingly like a prison sentence. E.g. the recent cases of publishers demanding ISPs cut off users who have pirated content.
It is not even about privacy and safety or freedom of choice really. Besides very soon - in this duopoly you really will not be owning phones or even access to apps would be limited/controlled to more draconian measures than it is today.
Anyways. I took an auto ride few weeks back and an old gentleman picked me up. He did have a tattered smartphone. But he didn't have the UPI app or a QR code (QR is the way here; UPI the instant payment thingie in India). He was not agitated but really looked embarrassed and helpless and told me in broken English he tried a few times but he forgets many kinds of PINs and messes up and his bank account gets blocked and then he has to run around with documents to get it unblocked and then again. I had some cash and I was able to pay him. But it's horrible. There are people for whom cash is the ONLY way. Even going to the bank (or ATM; which anyway is still a difficulty for me) means sometimes half to one day's work gone. Just like that. This has a lot to do with political climate changes. So many people get trampled over without any check and balances because they have the vote without a voice or any real power.
I think a lot of us, and for many of us who tap and pay at a Starbucks as if it's bill there lowest currency denomination in our consciousness, never stop to try and understand this and realise this. This is not merely inconvenience in huge part of this planet - it's a real life pain. I don't think even this article considered such a case/life struggles due to smartphones and everything getting tied to a SIM et cetera.
ok - but despite this well-meaning story.. the answer IMO is still cash; use it, support it, continue it. The alternatives are not stable over time -- not a joke.
I saw on Usenet about "Digitalzwang". Here is the quotation:
> The German movement "Digitalcourage" has coined the term "Digitalzwang" (compulsory digitalisation) for this feature. For instance, some public funding programmes cannot be used unless you have access to a PC (a smartphone is not sufficient) hooked up to the internet.
> Digitalcourage support responsible digitalisation by offering help in the usage of secure authorisation and encryption but strictly disapproves of any form of compulsory digitalisation. People who refuse using public data networks, whatever their motives, must have equal rights as everybody else.
What they describe is not quite what the linked article describes, but is similar and is related.
I would further say, that in addition to that (and the stuff mentioned in the linked article), you should not be required to use computers with specific complicated software (including web browsers), or to use computers (including smartphones) or credit cards at all, if that is applicable to whatever you are doing working with. There is also the issue of a smartphone running out of battery power or otherwise not working, even if you do have it.
(I have once been in a restaurant where a app is required, although customers who do not have a smartphone can borrow a iPad from them. This is not as bad, but still it is not as good as just not requiring it at all.)
The big group that keeps getting ignored are older people who actually do have smartphones, but find them increasingly difficult to use as they age, due to how fiddly touch interfaces can be and visuals designed by and for people in their 20s, not 70s and 80s.
Typing on a smartphone is impossible for my 70-something father, even on the larger models.
Touchscreens also frequently don't work with older people's skin which is often dry. They often literally cannot type because the screen doesn't pick up the electrical currents in the drier, more insulated fingers. Physical keyboards wouldn't have this problem.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what my dad’s problem boils down to. He worked in construction for half a century, specializing in concrete, so heaven knows what that did to the skin on his fingertips.
Same for my parents (ironically, my 90-something grandmother can use an iPhone with no problem). My dad has Raynaud's (poor fingertip circulation), so touch screens sometimes just won't work for him anyways. Making things app-only is practically discrimination.
It mentions parking which is a similar category of annoyance, but I think the multitude of mutually incompatible apps for EV charging pose a real barrier to adoption too. Maybe not in a way people are explicitly aware of, but it certainly makes up part of the stories about difficulty and inconvenience with public charging.
I can pay for petrol with any card or, if I'm feeling really old school, by going into a building and handing a person cash. Someone like my mum, who still likes to draw the cash she'll need for the week and spend that, wouldn't even entertain the idea of having to download and maintain a suite of apps for every brand of charger.
Apps are a good convenience option for those that want them, but they shouldn't be the only option, especially not for something as essential as fuelling your car. I would welcome regulation on these, even a baby step of "all chargers must accept contactless payment". I'd like to see manned charging stations and cash options too—and I say that as someone who pays for everything by card—but I fear in the short term that might hamper infrastructure rollout.
> And at the bakery chain Greggs, you can collect loyalty “stamps” for free food and drink and get “exclusive app-only gifts”. You currently get a free hot drink just for downloading the app.
> McDonald’s is running a high-profile promotion called Deal Drop, where it offers items at “bargain” prices, such as a classic Big Mac for £1.49 (normally £4.99) and a children’s Happy Meal for £1.99 (normally £3.59) – but all of the discounts are available exclusively with the company’s app.
The article paints a painstakingly detailed photo of the UK's app culture, but fails to explain exactly why app users are entitled to such discounts. What exactly is McDonald's doing with your data that is worth a whopping £3.50 Big Mac discount, and more?? Why is the app so important?? I have never found an article that does more than scratch the surface on this topic. Any suggestions?
I think such discounts are not as much because of the data, they're a way to tier your customers, similar to coupons.
That way you both get to take the full price from people whose time is expensive enough that they won't bother with the apps, and also those who wouldn't pay the full price but have enough time to use the apps.
I never eat McD's, but I see the pattern everywhere. If you make between the minimum and average wage in Slovenia and don't own property, you practically can't get by without dedicating 6h per week to grocery shopping in various different 'discount' chains (Lidl, Hofer AKA Aldi Sud, Euro Spin), keeping up with the weekly discount catalogs and using all the app discounts (more recently).
As a user of Greggs and McD (UK) I can maybe offer some insight.
Fairly obviously the discounts are to encourage customer loyalty so you keep going to McD rather than somewhere healthier. Also to get you to come back - if you haven't been for ages they may offer a 99p big mac to get you back in.
As to why apps rather than paper coupons, my closest McD has a typically had group of about 20 people waiting for the 50 items they ordered with new stuff ordered every 30 seconds or so. The last thing the low wage rushed staff need are customers going can you explain this coupon to me an is it valid for extra fries on Friday etc.
I've also seen it explained that it's part of their toolset in extracting maximum "value" from a customer.
Richer customers self-select to pay higher prices without the app as they can't be bothered faffing around to find the digital coupon/deal/whatever combination (you can, of course, only use one of the wide range of deals at a time). Poorer customers will invest the time in finding and using a deal.
They both get the same sandwich, but McD got them to pay different prices for it.
Yeah probably that too. I can't actually be bothered to use the McD app although the Leon one with free coffee for £25/mo is good.
Most forms of direct marketing require unambiguous consent in the UK (likewise for data collection used for direct marketing). Culturally, many Brits are relatively suspicious of authority and will not consent to the use of their data 'just because'. Loyalty apps are a great invention: they give advertisers a direct channel to the consumer, and the consumer a way to receive something of value in exchange for their deliberate engagement.
I think the idea is to get as many people as possible to install and set up the app, so they then have more incentive to become repeat customers. Theyre probably making some loss on new signups and hope to get it back later on.
Market segmentation through user profiling and individualized discounts based on the entire order, making it hard for people to tell if they are being treated "fairly."
Get more people to use McD's app. When they order, give them a personalized coupon giving you a discount. The discount is different for everyone. Use the response rate, plus information about your buying habit (always buys a family-sized order on Fridays) to optimize the discount.
Raise the non-app prices so the people using the app think they got a deal ... while the overall price is on average higher than if McD's had flat rates for everyone.
People tend to think flat rates are more fair when the services are identical, and get pissed off when they find it isn't.
A factor not mentioned in this article is people not being able to install apps because they've run out of space.
I've seen this a bunch with people who buy the less expensive phones with smaller amounts of storage: they take photos until their phone is full, and now if they need to install a new app they have to delete something else (including potentially their photos) to make space for it.
Yes! I've often said "software engineers should be doomed to use what they create. Or at least watch others try to use it." One example is our local Costco parking garage. They replaced the old push-button ticketing kiosk (which had nothing wrong with it) with one that had a touchscreen. Many times the line is backed up and one day I saw why. The guy was pushing the touchscreen button as if it were physical, and it wasn't registering the tap. He was using multiple fingers and mashing instead of using one finger and doing a clean tap inside the digital button.
Times where SWEs decided about these things are long gone. It's all in hands of product managers, designers and other business oriented people.
They should be forced to use it from scratch on a cheap Android phone using spotty signal.
Perhaps while wearing gloves, because it's really cold outside?
I have a big issue with this, and the truth is that the majority of people simply do not care and/or do not understand the implications.
By tying your service to a smartphone your are basically refusing to provide service if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS. If the app doesn't complain about emulation or something different than Android or IOS you are in luck, but that's not the case with most banking apps. And that's only talking about people who don't have it by choice and have money to buy one.
For me, once, it went beyond: I took my first dose of the Covid vaccine, and the second dose's date would still be announced. I asked where it would be available to the nurse, "On the Instagram page of the <local health body>". "But i don't have Instagram" i said, and the nurse shrugged. It requires both a phone and a social media account with your real info, but since absolute nobody complains about it they just do because it's easier.
This will continue as long people are complacent with it. In some places the government is required to provide you services, by law, by any means available and not depending on 3rd party service, but they do require apps anyway and people stay quiet. Phones as an alternative is fine, it's a tool, but should not be an obligatory device for you to be considered an human being.
Yes. This.
Sure, I own a smartphone, it runs just plain android but without any google accounts or services because I do not agree to Googles terms of services. I never did, and as an European citizen especially with recent developments I feel that has been the right choice.
The thing is, without google account there is no play store, and without play store I am not able to install the majority of apps - no banking, no parking, and all the other services people complain about in these threads.
This is my choice, and I stick to it. I'm also pretty vocal about it and complain when needed. Doctors office informs me I only can get medicine with the app? Apparently they can make exceptions when you complain, because I'm allowed to get medicine with a simple phone call. My bank tried to force me to use their app, but apparently they still do have an alternative login method when you complain. Sure, I know it's a fight I will lose in the long run, but I enjoy it while it lasts.
> if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS.
Or if Apple or Google arbitrarily decide that they don't like that customer. You don't have to have done something wrong, they can decide that you're likely associated with someone who did.
When people ask for examples, I point to a NYT report of a man in San Francisco whose young son had redness on his penis and complained about it feeling sore. The pediatrician asked for some photos to make a diagnosis online. Google flagged it as child porn and notified the police. The police said it wasn't, but Google declined to restore service.
"A Dad Took Photos of His Naked Toddler for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a Criminal.", https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...
In India, Google locked an engineer from Gujarat out of his Google account because it contained explicit content potentially involving child abuse or exploitation. The engineer believes it's because the account contain images of him as a child being bathed by his grandmother.
"HC notice to Google India after engineer loses access Gmail, Google Drive, and more over childhood photo labelled 'porn'" https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/hc-...
I use these examples specifically because many in my government want "Chat Control", where snitchware scans messages for child porn and the like, and notifies the police. It will be full of false positives like these, especially if the scanning software continues to be built by puritanical American companies.
Another class is people who the US deems to be a security threat. How long will it be until the US extends its sanctions against the ICC by ordering Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Oracle, and Google to shut down the accounts for the ICC and anyone involved in their genocide investigation, work and personal?
Did it occur to you that a nurse is a nurse because they are good at nursing sick people and not because they are good at customer support?
I want my nurse to take care of my health, not to know where I can find stuff. You are misplacing your anger...
Although I have a smartphone, I understand the problem. It amazes me how many businesses create so many unnecessary obstacles between the user and the purchase these days. It doesn't make sense to me.
> The consumer group is among those to have highlighted Lidl’s loyalty scheme, Lidl Plus, as one that is only accessible via an app, with an email address also required.
At least here in Finland Lidl Plus is one of the few which can be used by just entering a phone number.
That said, all "loyalty programs" should be outright banned. They stifle competition, make pricing less transparent and discriminate against the less well off.
> loyalty programs" discriminate against the less well off.
The opposite: supermarket loyalty cards are often designed so that the well off pay more: i.e. it is the well off that are being discriminated against. The barriers are designed to allow poorer people to pay less. The topic is called price discrimination.
All the poorer people I know use loyalty cards because they judge them to be valuable (despite the extra hassle).
The less well off often get lower prices (plus valuable rewards) because of the loyalty programs in New Zealand.
I often use my friend's loyalty accounts: so I get the item discounts but they collect the loyalty rewards/cash. Also I like to screw the data surveillance up - I don't get tracked so much and my friend's account is spammed with higher cost items.
Coupons are designed for the same purpose. Allowing poorer people to choose to trade their time/hassle for savings (according to their values).
In loyalty programs the benefit percentage often increases as a function of money spent, disproportionally benefiting the more well off who spend more. I've yet to encounter a loyalty program that would do the inverse (probably there are some that cap the benefits, which could be interpreted to be to this direction). Neither have I seen a loyalty program that would only accept poor people.
Price discrimination is anything where the same product is sold at different price for different buyers. All loyalty programs are price discrimination.
Those without smartphones _and_ those who do not wish to install trash on their smartphones, _and_ those who do not wish to use Android (or an Android build blessed by the corporations) or iOS.
Some even want to unleash the tyranny of apps upon our children at school. Can you imagine? Brainrot is a thing.
I use my phone primarily for messaging. In fact, I often forget and have the Anti-Distraction mode turned on, so I only get important comms but no app notifications.
SIDENOTE
People need to chill out with the word "tyranny". It's like saying that you are being "assaulted" by a different opinion, or claiming that ordinary platform moderation is "censorship". You are not being terrorized, assaulted, or censored.
There are people in the world who are truly subjected to those things, and you have NO idea what that's actually like.
I agree on two points in your sidenote. The first is that online moderation is rarely, if ever, "censorship". The second thing is that the majority of us have no idea what it's actually like being terrorized or assaulted.
That said, words can take on different meanings depending on context. We can only imagine the tyranny of being a prisoner of war but we can also complain about the tyranny of noise pollution in modern cities; that doesn't mean I think they're equal. I know some people suffer assault domestically but I can also label some perfumes as an assault to the senses; it doesn't lessen the gravity of the former. And yes, Calvin, you are allowed to think your household is a den of censorship and oppression (https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....).
My problem with gatekeeping words is that it is performative. We can indeed chill out on using these words save for their most extreme interpretations but it doesn't really help anyone suffering from these things and just makes language less colorful for the rest of us. And, once more, nor does their usage dismiss the extent of any of these situations because you don't need to be a genius to know that words can have subtle changes in meaning depending on context.
I think you're in a very small minority if you think that someone using the phrase "tyranny of notifications" is implying they live under a dictatorial regime. Most people just understand the hyperbole.
You say it's just a hyperbole as if the comparison being made (dictatorship or violence or whatever) has no meaning for the speaker or the listener.
Scary things make people pay attention and click the links. I loathe the casual use of the term “lynching” by people in the public eye but same rules apply, using exaggerated, scary words to sell your weak point. Not saying I agree with it, but it’s marketing and journalism.
Sure, I understand why people use comparisons. It's just that I'd like to encourage conscious use of language.
Forcing apps on people keeps the Apple/Google duopoly in place. Every alternative mobile OS fails unless it has an Android compatibility layer. And even then it will fail because Google's anti-competitive Play Integrity API won't work, and many users will be unable to use bank/payment apps.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, you started to see more and more interactive phone systems appear due to touch-tone phones being common place. However, I grew up poor, and for quite some time we still had rotary phones (when we could afford to have a phone that is), making those systems inaccessible to us.
I chose to use a flip phone over a previous Android phone around 10 years ago when ISPs/Phone providers showed that security lapse issues for them was just a cost of doing business. I used to store private client info in Exchange and sync it, but I could not, in good conscience, continue to do so with the knowledge of that information's exposure.
I recently worked with NetGear support to have a new router replaced after we determined the firmware was known to be problematic, and the only way the level 2 support person had of correcting it required their app.
So fortunately, there may still be ways around working with IT without a "smart" phone, and I will continue to blaze that trail as needed.
United Airlines used to accept credit cards to pay for meals during the flight. It worked great. At some point they dropped that and replaced it with something that involves their slow bloated buggy app that crashes on my phone. So I stopped buying their meals.
I'm 50% sure you can set this credit card through their website.
Yeah, I remember reading something like that, but isn't the United app required to pay for the meal on the flight, so that they know which credit card to charge? To be honest, I have never been able to understand their payment process, and since the United app doesn't run on my phone, I just gave up on the in-flight meals.
The discoverability is horrible, but in this case there actually is a somewhat accessible way to pay: if you visit https://united.com/inflightpayment, you can add your card details for a specific flight before the flight (possibly also during the flight using in-flight WiFi, but don't quote me on that).
I actually find it more convenient than presenting a card in person, because my country uses chip-and-pin cards and many American (soft-)POS terminals break when presented with one. There's also less of a chance of my bank arbitrarily flagging the transaction as suspicious.
Xfinity sent me a new cable modem this week.
Came with zero instructions for set up, just a QR code. Scanned the QR code and it took me to install an app. I begrudgingly installed it.
The app had me hit next a few times before scanning a different QR code on the bottom of the modem. That was the entire process.
I guess you just have to pay for installation if you don't have a smart phone? It offered for $150+ when I agreed to the new modem.
Do your best to make these decisions cost them, even if it's only a few pennies. Call their customer support up and tie up one of their representatives as long as possible. Who knows, if enough people do that, and they log the reason, then maybe, just maybe these SuperUltraMegaCorps have a chance of changing their mind.
You also have to pay them monthly to not use their equipment. It definitely isn't a racket.
there will be more of this.. This has to be regulated IMHO
I know people who love having specific apps for everything, but I generally find them a much worse user experience than the browser. Can't select/copy text. Sometimes if it's a terrible developer you can't paste. Can't arbitrarily zoom in.
I know Android now lets me copy from the screen but it still flows incorrectly sometimes, like copying from a PDF.
> Can't select/copy text… can't paste. Can't arbitrarily zoom in.
Don’t forget “Can’t block advertisements and tracking”
"""Many tech experts also argue that apps are generally more secure than websites..."""
"Many", like, maybe the ones who are trying to sell you on an app development contract? But not many others!
The entire history of technology is our becoming dependent on one invention after another, such that anyone with any interest in the area(s) that invention touches no longer has a realistic choice not to use it. They may technically be able to, but only through outsize sacrifice that leaves them worse off than they would have been before the thing was invented.
[flagged]
I was channeling Burke’s show Connections, actually, but sure, that too.
I guess I’m just lucky (or don’t live in UK). Nothing in my daily life requires a smartphone. Banking is either with a local branch or on the web. Making an appointment with a doctor or dentist is a voice phone call to the office. All my routine bills can be paid by check or over the postal mail. All my usual restaurant spots have paper menus. Sometimes I go a week or so and forget that I have an old iphone7 in a drawer with a now drained battery. I don’t think I regularly use a single app on it besides the browser.
Here’s hoping this doesn’t change!
My greatest aspiration in life (yes, hyperbole) is to retire and get rid of my smartphone, and I can imagine it’s just going to be harder and harder as time goes on. I went into a restaurant recently and asked for a menu and they looked at me like I was from another planet.
I went on a trip without any tech. No smartphone.
I made it five days but could have gone for longer. It was interesting to see how the system worked from without, and how people reacted to requests that would have been banal in the nineties. For the most part, it went well. Very few things were unavailable. I only remember hotel phones being missing or broken. However it was impossible to handle things back home and my life would have started falling apart after a few weeks of ignoring emails.
Agreed. After 27 years of working in IT and having to carry a mobile device (first a pager, then a flip phone, & now a smartphone) for on-call duties, carrying a mobile device has always felt like a punishment to me. The days when I can walk around device-free are the happiest, most stress-free times of my life. But the tech companies are making it harder and harder to do.
Resist! If a bank forces you to use a surveillance device (smartphone) to do Internet banking or forces you to install invasive apps on your PC, don't.
TAN apps were still reasonable. TAN generators too, though the hardware sucked and used an insane amount of batteries. Then banks forced apps and smartphones and that is the point where to say no thanks.
They are still required to perform transactions by filling out forms with a pen. It sounds like a lot of work but it really isn't. Use cash or credit cards and cut down the number of manual transactions.
Somewhat unrelated to the piece, but this is the second website I’ve seen in two days that appears to not have properly merged an edit?
“ The RAC’s head of policy, Simon Williams, says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking. It has been trialled by a number of councils, but a big question mark hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn.
The RAC’s head of policy Simon Williams says many people are overwhelmed by the multitude of apps they have to use, “when in reality you want one that you like and you’re happy using and that you can use everywhere”.
Six years ago the Department for Transport started developing a “national parking platform” (NPP) designed to enable drivers to use one app of their choice to pay for all their parking, and it has been trialled by a number of councils. However, a big question mark now hangs over its future as public funding for the project looks likely to be withdrawn imminently.”
I think the other one was an npr piece posted on HN yesterday? Is there a bug with wordpress or are people just getting sloppy?
The Guardian is also known as the Grauniad for their lack of detail to grammar, spelling etc .
Typos and editing bugs are pretty common on The Guardian
[source: grumpy Guardian Weekly subscriber]
I doubt the guardian and npr use Wordpress
It's unfortunate the article accepts the questionable argument about apps being more secure - companies say that to soften people up to handing out personal data access that apps enable.
My anecdote for the pile is that my apartment complex uses one of those apps to pay for laundry services, but is slightly less expensive than the coin based counterparts on the same machine.
What's even worse is that the app is incredibly poorly made such that occasionally some payments just fall into the void and either start the machine for free or require a double charge. Anytime I have reached out to complain about these I just get told to bring my phone closer to the machine.
I bought tickets for a concert, had to download an app
Had to give my phone number to reserve a table today
Tickets on your phone for airline, it's not all bad saw some elder couple with flip phones (they're able to get by without a smart phone)
I see that this thread is full of a lot of very valid complaints about the hellish world we've created. But my reaction when these things come up is to point out that we effectively demanded this with our revealed preferences. We're at the triangulation of people preferring to use their phones for most things, while also demanding the lowest price possible. At a certain point, it's natural for companies to realize they can make more money—which is their reason for existing—by discontinuing products and lines of services that can be replaced by cheaper alternatives. I think everyone (over a certain age at least) has had the thought that brick and mortar stores all seem to be gone, and the realization that it's because everyone shops online, and then, if they are self-aware, the realization that they're part of that process. This is that at a somewhat zoomed-out scale.
Government services are a different case. I suppose they feel cost pressure as well, but it's right to expect them to accommodate more people than private businesses.
I don't think that's the case. Just because companies have successful business models doing things this way doesn't mean this is what people want or that it's the only way. It could just as easily be this is the most profitable way (which does not equate with delivered value) and these decisions are made by a subset of people who profit off of the fallout.
If my revealed preference is that you should pay extra to subsidize my shopping, does that really make you any more complicit in the redistribution scheme?
And in the good old day. Apple will force its hands on these sort of issues. But 10 years after Apple Pay and the Claims to replace your wallet. They are still millions miles away from doing it.
In many ways Apple without Steve Jobs feels more Google and Microsoft but with better taste of software and hardware.
>"So the people who make the company more successful are the sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the ‘product people’ get run out of the decision-making forums. The companies forget how to make great products. The product sensibility and product genius that brought them to this monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product vs. a bad product. They have no conception of the craftsmanship that’s required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product.
>"And they really have no feeling in their hearts about wanting to help the costumers.” *
> 10 years after Apple Pay and the Claims to replace your wallet. They are still millions miles away from doing it.
Clearly we have very different experiences here, because Apple Pay has effectively replaced my wallet. I don’t carry any cash and carry one or two cards for the rare times when tap to pay is unavailable.
My grandfather does not have a cellphone, however he seems pretty creative about getting around situations where he would need an app. For example, my sister had some sporting event where the only way to get a ticket was to use an app, so he snuck into the hand stamping line, and entered the event.
I've left gyms and restaurants because of this crap.
Where I live in the US, only fairly recently have I started encountering parking where you cannot pay without doing it over the internet on a device. I haven't seen any where you need an app specifically, but you do need a smartphone or internet capable device. I am very annoyed by this.
I refuse to use service specific apps (on personal devices) and let the chips fall where they may. So far the vast majority of stuff continues to work ...
I write small utility apps that are often used by friends, families, the teams my kids are on, etc. None of them are overly complicated or aiming for award-winning polish. While I personally like installed apps, many people seem to prefer a link they can click. To accommodate that, I've been leaning towards Flutter as an acceptable compromise. The installed app has some better characteristics regarding device integration and storage, but I've been pleasantly surprised at how well the web versions work. When run on phone it’s hard to tell (visually) that it’s not the app. (UX is laggier though.)
In my country the same reason is used to make things more expensive and give contracts via nepotism to allow for "alternative use without apps" to companies to make the whole thing through SMS or physical office while making the whole thing expensive for everyone and inefficient.
Just saying, 99% of the app could be replaced by a browser bookmark.
Of course some companies don't want it so they make their website unusable to smartphone.
There isn't really much that technically would prevent people from using their web browser to pay the parking or to pay McDonald.
You can have geolocation on browser too, save your account, take picture and so on.
It's just better for these companies if we have their app because we can't use ad blocker and just close the browser. The app, it can send data 24/24.
For instance, I have yet to find an llm or ai chatbot app that doesn't force me to have the Google play store enabled on my phone and to be logged in with my Google account.
What the FCK they care if I have a Google account on my phone to be able to use chatgpt, deepseek, Mistral, lama and others ? More and more do that, recently the app I used to use to track food quality (Yuka) did that too.
The more thing goes, the less app I use and the more I rely on web browser. And those who refuse to work in browser, i just ditch them.
I feel like we reached a plateau years ago and now things are going downhill with android and iPhone.
Not the point of the article but for most apps, there is no technical reason for them to be installed apps rather than web apps.
It is even worse: people with smartphones not running software from either Google or Apple are penalized. I have huge problems right now because the only second factor from one of my banks (that also has the inbox for my insurances) is a Android app that requires play protect.
I was in a full service restaurant a few months ago, and they were steering everybody to scan a QR code for their menus. Had eaten there several times before and this was new. I demanded a physical menu, even though the waiter said it might be outdated. Wanted a beer, but the drink menus were no more. I stared the waiter down and snapped, "WATER!" You must push back or else they'll think their lazy changes are fine. Maybe next time they'll expect me to bus the table?
Another thing that irritated me is app designers assuming I have email on my phone. I don't, I use it for work and will use my laptop when I want to check email. Too many apps send you a "magic link" in your email to login with no alternative.
I do have email on my phone and it still doesn't work: the app that triggered the email doesn't have a URL bar so I can't paste the link into there. The link is often also not a real link but the epitome of phishing. After resolving the tracking link to the real link, I need to somehow trick an app into sending a system broadcast event for the OS to notice that there is an app that wants to overwrite valid HTTP(S) URLs and handle them inside this app instead of in a browser
What ever happened to the protocol part of the URL to direct the data to the right software handler, I will probably never understand
In Germany you would mostly be forced to fill forms on paper and send it back and forth by mail, do payments in cash or use support hotlines on the phone, which take a long waiting time to get to somebody... Apps would be fine :-)
I hate this trend with a passion. Digital can make a lot things easier, but frankly speaking for a majority of those use cases a mobile website will do just fine as well.
My bank is digital only and doesn't have any local branches. That works for me and is fine. It's not like I'm switching banks every few weeks. They still have an all phone line access as well though. You can call people round the clock to do transfers, get your balance, etc. Even my analog grandmother has her bank account with them.
On the other hand, you have restaurants and other businesses that just over do it. There is a restaurant around my work place that I went to once or twice a month. Nothing special but fair prices and good lunch menus. Then they went all digital. Want a menu? Scan this barcode. Want to order? Create an account and place you order with your table number. Want to pay? You can click pay on your phone and enter your details. Don't have a phone? Totally sorry, we don't have any printed back-ups and our servers don't have any card terminals anymore anyway.
Democratize it and of you require an app on the phone that same app needs to be available on all major pc OSes. Problem solved.
This is why I wished all apps were backed by webapps of similar capabilities. I know that I personally see how it goes with the website first before I install an app. I prefer the browser sandbox by far to the phone OS
I never install apps, and I don't have any problem with private companies offering discounts or whatever via apps. The market will do its thing.
But where I have a big problem is when my local government requires me to install apps to do basic things like parking. It would almost be okay if the apps were developed in house and were open source. But of course they're not. And anyway there's no reason they can't just be web based.
So now I just don't pay for parking and I pay the ticket if I get a ticket...
> The market will do its thing.
Markets' "thing" is concentration of capital and the whittling of service/product providers until just a few major ones, or a single one, is left, and then they collude on pricing, bypassing/preventing regulation, psychological manipulation of customers etc.
Yup, it will certainly do its thing.
That's why I'm building a Web map app. The Web is universal. It's already very capable.
Maps seem like a distinct failure mode of web apps. How do you load the map data on the website to navigate or orient yourself if you got lost outside the network coverage area?
Yeah, that's how that works. The world moves on and progress happens. You don't have to necessarily like it, or embrace it. But if the entire world is moving a certain direction and you decide to not move with it, that fine. But it's a choice you're making. You may not like that the entire world is going from horses to automobiles, but if you refuse to embrace them you can't be surprised when the grocery store is now a 3 hour walk away.
I was just whini- er, talking about this, this morning.
The main issue is that end-users not only accept crappy software, they pay for it (sometimes, quite a bit). They also recommend it to others, give it good reviews, and subcultures of "tech-macho" workarounds to bugs cause people to actually prefer crap. It's infuriating (to me, but not, perhaps, to many tech companies).
As long as that keeps happening, the quality of software is going to remain in the shitter. It doesn't make economic sense to write good software. Writing high-Quality software is a lot more expensive than writing crap.
My software tends to be pretty high-Quality, but that's mainly because it is free software, and I tend to work alone, so its scope is quite limited. I would not expect a commercial company to develop software the way that I do. It would just cost too much.
I hate the app-ification of everything. 95% of apps could just be a web page, and should be.
Not a single word about covid related apps?
lmao i think its those with smartphones are unfairly penalized
...following some excerpts from an article in the NZZ (swiss newspaper): "Right to an offline life and much more: French-speaking Switzerland is becoming a global pioneer of a new digital fundamental right". Source: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/die-romandie-mausert-sich-zur-wel...
Neuchâtel is including "digital integrity" in its constitution, and other cantons could follow. The National Council had criticized a proposal as purely symbolic. But the consequences are visible in Geneva.
The first time it could be dismissed as an accident, the second time not: that's what Alexis Roussel, the driving force behind a fundamental right to digital integrity, says. Roussel, a member of the Pirate Party and former president, is in good spirits. After Geneva in 2023, his home canton of Neuchâtel also enshrined the new fundamental right in the constitution on November 24. Both times the people voted yes by a very clear margin: 94 percent in Geneva and almost 92 percent in Neuchâtel.
From the new legislative period in 2025, the Neuchâtel constitution will therefore guarantee not only the right to physical, mental and psychological integrity, but also the right to digital integrity. The new right only applies in relation to the state. It includes, for example, the right to security in digital space, the right "not to be monitored, measured and analyzed", the right to an "offline life" and the right to be forgotten.
[...]
In Geneva, Alexis Roussel is already seeing the first consequences of the right to digital integrity. Secondary school students there no longer use the office software Microsoft Office, but the non-commercial alternative Libre Office. The education department explained the change to the newspaper "Le Temps" by saying that Microsoft has been receiving personal data such as names and email addresses since an update to its licensing terms. However, the canton is only allowed to process data at foreign companies if they are "adequately" protected there.
[...]
In the canton of Neuchâtel, too, the new fundamental right is already being mentioned in concrete terms in political debates. The liberal municipal councillor Catherine Zeter said on RTS television about the planned closure of the post office in Boudry that the company would probably prefer to offer its services only digitally. But, said Zeter, this "completely" violates the right to an offline life that the people of Neuchâtel have just decided on with their new fundamental right.
I didn't own a smartphone until 2022. Now, after three years of carrying this dopamine-slothed brick, I’m ditching it—but first, let’s autopsy the “security” demands forcing ownership.
Peak security theater: banks (at least in Europe) mandate smartphones as “safe,” yet the device itself is the ultimate attack vector.
- 2FA apps? Single point of failure (SIM-jacking, zero-days, bricked phone = locked out of life).
- Mandatory apps? Swapped phishing for supply-chain attacks + 24/7 location leaks.
- Biometrics? Your face now lives in a corp database that will get breached.
The irony? A YubiKey was objectively safer: no GPS, mic, or app permissions. But we’ve normalized “security” as surrender to surveillance capitalism. Banks want your data, not hardware tokens.
Smartphones manufacture threats:
- AirTag stalking requires… a smartphone to detect.
- Signal/encrypted chat? Tied to a phone number (→ ID → surveillance graph).
- “Find My Phone” = backdoor with a UX polish.
The system isn’t securing you, it’s securing access to you. Every forced 2FA method is another node to map, monetize, and manipulate.
btw. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41310150 - old ASK NH of mine, i still welcome ideas.
Toronto, Canada. Tried to pay for street parking using their machine and with credit card. It spat out some gibberish on display that flashed too fast to read. Parking ticket guy was hanging around so I asked him WTF is going on. He said I must use the app or he will give a ticket. I tried to argue with him that they must still accept the other form of payment and I do not want to pollute phone with the app. He said that he does not give a shit and will issue ticket regardless of what fucking Toronto's parking website pages say.
I for one will never ever do any kind of banking or monetary transaction on a Smart Phone.
As for other apps, I just have a couple of simple games and Firefox, which I only use when in waiting an office for am appointment. So far where I am, it is not an impediment.
I hate having to use a metro app or bank app or app for conferences or whatever. Who knows what the privacy and security of all these are. I am sure it’s a matter of time before they all get breached.
I don't mind having a phone, but the only way I'll put personal information on it is if I have root access and can run a firewall. anything else and it's not my phone.
more and more apps are starting to reject rooted phones. I'm dropping them for now, but I worry that at some point I'll have to carry a decoy phone for essential apps. or maybe I'll learn to just not put anything more personal than the stuff required to use the essential ones like health care and transport.
Solution: restore noscript/basic (x)html interop, where it can do a good enough job (like most online services where doing a few years ago...).
I don't have a permanent address nor a permanent (mobile) phone number. It's impossible to do so many things without these. I have to use my mother's address and my mother is currently suing me in court, so go figure how much mail reaches me. Without a permanent address, you can't open a bank account, you can't use many government services,... It's a "required" field on many online forms. It's such a pain because they don't need those info to give me the services they offer...
This is mostly overblown, but the really annoying cases are the UK government themselves! Both the NHS app and HMRC app provide access to things you can't get to just from the web, even though they are just webview apps!! It's so dumb.
But generally... just buy a phone and download the apps. I imagine in the 1800s someone wrote an article "those without telephones are unfairly penalised". This is just a modern version.
It is not "unfair". We choose to resist technofascism.
It is unfair. A close friend of mine has brain damage, is low income, and he can't really use a smart phone. He just has a simple flip phone and it's all he has. It has been isolating for him with working and managing his life.
Tell your friend what good company he is in, as one of many, many of us, who do not fit a fleeting mythical stereotype. There are hundreds of reasons why people can not or will not use smartphones. Eyesight. Dexterity. Poverty. Location tracking by hostiles. Privacy. Poor memory. Security needs. Environmental concerns...
We should not play the victims. Being without one of those cursed things is a blessing. We get good mental health. We get focus and calm. We get a profound sense of freedom, time to think, to create, to talk to real people, to see the world go by. We learn to enjoy being bored. We interact with other real people. We willingly pay more for freedom and privacy.
What we lose is being tied up in pointless abusive machinations of an already dying "online" culture, one that is over-extended, fragile, dysfunctional, and we dodge much of the abusive enshitified corporate hell that every living being now hates.
Please, big-up your friend instead of painting him as a victim.
This entire article is fodder for techbros to circle jerk about how impactful they are despite any productivity gains being marginal or nonexistent.
It's goes further into nonsensical territory when a progressive shows up and starts complaining about how the people who don't want to participate in society are being unfairly punished. That being poor is somehow not only a problem, but also YOUR problem.
Some of these website-in-apps drive me fucking nuts. They will switch you to the app, ask for validation through email, and then when you go to check the email, it loses your place in its internal browser, sending it back to the login screen, and so the number you've retrieved is worthless unless you know how to specifically minimize the app on the screen, which it will not tell you beforehand how to do. The bouncing back and forth is annoying and idiotic.
That's like saying the tyranny of credit cards prevents me from enjoying discounts in some venues. Or that the tyranny of educational system prevents me from working as a doctor.
No, I don't like installing apps for every stupid parking lot or restaurant. But calling it "tyranny" is clickbait and bad journalism. I pay more for my sons bus pass because I don't want him to have a smartphone.
That's a choice I made. My solution isn't to make everyone else pay more because the same discount can't be given without a smartphone. I see why businesses would want to reward me when I let them send me push notifications. Again, not even remotely tyranny. If anything this is tyranny of bad writing.
If the app is required - which has happened already (eg. bank apps, car charging) or could happen in the future - then I think it's reasonable to call this bad. Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
Why?
It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?
We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites to provide phone service with exactly the same pricing. Guess what the effect will be? Higher prices.
The same is true with apps, some things make no financial sense without them.
If the pen collected location information continuously and sent it to a insecure cloud endpoint, and sent me spammy notifications every day, then probably I would.
If the pen was somehow of financial benefit to the bank, and I didn't benefit, and they won't let me use a different pen, I'd still resent it. No, I don't want to jump through a hoop to make your business some extra money.
If it does you aren't forced to use it. You can ignore the service or use a different service. That's the point.
Apps give discounts and there is a tradeoff. We can't demand similar benefits without paying the same price.
Do apps give discounts, or are prices raised while refuseniks are punished? It's all relative.
Sure, but that's a different debate. You can see why it would be in the interest of the business for you to install that app and why it would be worth enough for a discount.
We're giving them something that provides value and saves on costs.
It's not always your choice. In my country, you're basically cut off from banking services if you don't own a smartphone. I lived without one for years and had to give in a couple of years ago (second hand but perfectly usable — thanks to LineageOS).
The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
Any banking or a specific bank?
If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
I guess you're right ultimately, if there's choice. But the alternatives get more expensive. Basically all kinds of businesses have figured out they can get us to sell our privacy in return for a relatively cheaper product - and as this becomes the norm, it no longer even seems to be cheaper, it's just that resisting selling your privacy gets more expensive.
> It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?
Every single time my bank requires me to sign something with a pen, they also provide the pen.
I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen as there are disability reasons for why someone is unable to sign with a pen.
Eg, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/250d63/was_u... has "We used prints as my partner was dying and lost motor control."
Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen?
The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .
Accessibility is a great point. In that regard apps often exceed pens in their accessibility support and laws such as the ADA require organizations like banks to comply with accessibility regulation.
Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case.
Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
> Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them
You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers.
Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those.
My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems.
So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
You're right, accessibility and disability are large and complex subjects with a huge gradient of issues/conditions/situations.
One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank?
Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc?
No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist?
Yes.
I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that:
* Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly.
* Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
[dead]
Ticketmaster is the worst of these for me. They have a near monopoly, and started forcing this shit on everyone a few years ago with covid as the excuse. Now going to one of their concerts is like taking an international flight.
Forget privacy, forget having a paper stub as a souvenir (not even an option), forget paying with cash. As I avoid ticketmaster, I've avoided most concerts the last few years... only going to small local venues, which provide the options above.
Even for those who is OK with Ticketmaster - there is little "surprise" - hostile location/IP-based blockings. Do you want to buy some tickets for concert in Germany while being on trip in non-EU country? No way - we are just blocking you! They even learned to detect whether a client use VPN so latter could not circumvent this ridiculous obstacle.
I'm all-in on this. If the only way for me to attend an event is to deal with an app on my phone, I automatically assume there are a few dozen other activities or events I'd enjoy doing more during that time and choose to go do one of those instead.
Ticketmaster is the one of the shittiest apps I've ever used in my life. Constantly have to reactivate because it forgets your info, it fails to display tickets, it shows ads, etc.
But I recently discovered you can just view the tickets in your mobile browser instead and it will work fine for whatever scanners the venues use.
[dead]
So, what's this story getting unfairly penalized for? It's been bumping around between page and 2 and 3 after it had more than 80 upvotes and not even half the comments; meanwhile there's a story with not even half the votes, that is also older, which is firmly near the top.
[flagged]
I remember the European young folk who had RFID chips implanted in their arms so they could fast track the lines in dance clubs. I wonder how many of those chips are still in arms, today.
I'm not denying smartphone adoption. I'm just giving it 20 years to mature. During which time I can observe it from the outside, and better track dystopian policies that may result from it and slow their progress... by using a desktop computer and advocating for arms-length 'security' solutions, instead of installing apps and losing all control. The opaque app sandbox is just as menacing to the user as to the hypothetical hacker. Currently I'm thinking, why should I EVER decide to use a device for which I cannot easily attain God-Mode? That includes defeating end to end encryption so I can see the plaintext the device uses to communicate. If that itself carries another layer of encryption, I will suspect it to be devious by default, and isn't that rational?
It just seems like Darwin In Action, and my quick adoption would make me the brunt of some cosmic joke. I will never buy a cellphone without an easily removable battery, either. On general principle. Some things are not features, they are curses disguised as features.
[flagged]
All of the council car parks in my local town now expect you to use a parking app to pay. They removed cash devices and the recent BT switch-off of 3G clobbered the credit card devices
Paying for parking that way was never very successful. Machines often failed to work even before apps. Apart from the inherent discrimination more people probably pay successfully now.
Agree, the article's prime example is also that ppl cannot get LIDL loyalty discounts, which to me seems a bit tame too commonplace for the "tyranny" word choice.
Do you consider “going to your GP” a minor area of life, on par with rewards programs? Because if you can only pay for parking or buy bus tickets with an app, I’m not sure how most people get to their GP.
Very weird logic. As the article points out, this is an intentional choice for many people. So you shoulder the consequences, that seems fair to me?
I don't currently drive a car, and to be honest, I have anxiety about driving. I could bitch about how US is hostile to people who don't drive, to the point that it's difficult to go to places/get things done, but that's useless. I can 1) move to NYC and never leave the city 2) get a car, work on my anxiety, and start enjoying life or 3) talk to Guardian and complain all day long. 1) is not actually a bad choice, and literally millions of people choose that, but I am working on 2) because that's the sensible thing to do. If I intentionally choose not to drive, not because of a physical disability or not being to afford a car, I bear the consequences.
We all shoulder the consequences of slowly sliding into a society of lock-in and surveillance, which is what unnecessarily requiring smartphones advances. That there are choices along the way doesn't make it fair - if I let you choose which of your fingers I cut off, am I being fair? Wait a few years, and the "choice" will be between living in the woods, and carrying an always-on telescreen with you at all times.
> if I let you choose which of your fingers I cut off, am I being fair?
That's not what we are discussing here.
You can't use whatever irrelevant analogy you like to prove a point that doesn't exist.
It is not an analogy, it is a proof by example that 'choice' alone does not make something fair, contrary to your assertion.
I do drive and the having do download a bunch of parking apps is a pain the arse. And for each one you have to spend five minutes entering your address card number etc.
[flagged]
> some moron with vague paranoia
We really got to get away from this vibe that other people's underbelly feelings aren't valid unless they can back them up with seventy scientific articles. It doesn't matter whether this "moron" has a good or a bad reason to not want apps. Apps make him feel insecure, so he doesn't want them. Why can't that be enough?
The general attitude of companies that make apps doesn't help. No wonder he feels insecure, even if he can't articulate the specific reason in every case.
It's totally enough. He just has to deal with the consequences of his own choices.
I know that seems like a novel or even totally alien concept nowadays, but that was what people used to do not long ago: own up to their own choices.
It could have been explained better, but there are lots of reasons to prefer paper over digital and websites over apps. Apps can collect very invasive information, often unnecessarily (my Fuji camera app requires that I enable fine-grained location information in order to open the app at all).
"Security reasons" might be standing in for an inexpressible distaste about being tracked, even if nothing specifically bad is likely to result from it.
Yes, only paranoid morons would doubt the security of random apps, when they, and smartphones in general, have such a stellar security and privacy record.
Given the number of older people who are scammed via their phones, this sounds like a reasonable solution to reducing one’s risk surface.
> He does own a smartphone – an Apple iPhone he bought secondhand about three years ago – but says: “I don’t use apps at all. I don’t download them for security reasons.”
Yes and?
He makes a choice and he is being penalized for it. Presumably the benefits for him outweigh the costs. For Richard Stallman they do.
There is no innate human right to grocery store coupons or private parking lots.
The parking lots mentioned are municipal not private.
Privacy is very much a human right and it's being violated all the time.
I have to install an app to communicate with my child's state-sponsored daycare. I'll have to install an app to communicate with the teachers at his future school. Is this still fine?
It'd be one thing, if it were just apps. But all of these apps are essentially just containers for some web application.
Do you get access to the web application without the app? No.
So what's the point of the apps? So they can send you notifications and annoy you with irrelevant updates concerning other groups at the same daycare all day long, because they don't care to filter?
Once they get into school you’ll need to use separate apps to communicate with their teachers, pay for fee/lunches, etc.
The communication apps are out of control since the teachers seem to have choice in what is required and so changes every year.
My middle schooler needs 3 different apps (and a Chromebook) to check/hand in homework and parents need 2 to receive communication from the teachers.
Here in Sweden, it took me about 5 months but I was able to get the school to send me info by email. They switched to an app-only system, and I have no smartphone.
Setting aside any issues related to privacy or US corporate control over my life, I'm one of the people who doesn't use a smartphone because the temptation to be online, at the drop of the hat, is too much to resist.
I compare it to being like someone who needs to lose weight, so keeps all chocolate out of the house, while everyone seems to expect me to have a luscious bar of high quality chocolate with me all the time, just sitting there, begging me to eat it.
There is an ongoing debate about smartphones at school, and the addiction and distraction they can be for kids. I think my strongest argument is that the addiction and distraction don't simply disappear for adults, and there was no way they were going to force me to get a smartphone.
I don't think that would work for those with a smartphone, but it's a crack keeping an alternative open.
Thank you for pointing this out. However, it seems that HN crowd really doesn't like this kind of viewpoint. "If you cannot do everything without a smart phone, that's the society's fault, not yours.", as echoed by comments under my (also downvoted) comment.
Many people here seem to have trouble understanding how the world works. If all you do is complain (which will change nothing) instead of adapt, good luck with your miserable life.
Because it's dismissive, sophomoric, and can be applied to literally anything you might complain about - eg "If you don't like how the 'HN crowd' votes, then stop coming here". In reality, Exit is not the only option.
To play somewhat of a devils advocate, 30 years ago this article could have been titled the tyranny of the internet. Is this much different from that.
You'd be right if, 30 years ago, people were required to download proprietary software and run that on a locked-down computer (you don't get to have administrator-level access to it) in order to do simple things like pay a parking meter
Internet is (increasingly: was) an open system that you can connect to on your own terms. Browsers do your bidding, for the most part anyway and you can switch if you don't like one of them. However, you can't simply install an open source version of Google Play Services on your phone and if the Deutsche Bahn app doesn't work for you, there is no alternative that you can install to talk to their server and buy that train ticket (no equivalent to installing a different browser aka 'user agent')
30 years ago, the internet was a novelty, nothing more, and it remained so easily for another ten years after that. It wasn't until the widespread adoption of smartphones that permanent connectivity came to be taken for granted.
It was actually very easy to get by without any of it until quite recently, when legacy options for all kinds of things began being phased out.
Eh? 30 years ago would be 1994. Most people did not have internet in 1994.
But let's use 10 years: you absolutely could get by without internet 10 years ago. It would have been a bit of a hassle for a few things, but internet access wasn't needed for lots of every-day basic activities like parking a car, ordering in a restaurant, using tickets at a concert, etc.
Also: it was easy to use internet at a library, often at zero to no costs. You didn't need to have a personal device only used by you.
Absolutely. The internet stopped being something you accessed and became something you were connected to 24/7, and that you have a persistent, high-speed connection. That was a huge shift.
It feels on a par with illiteracy. The motives and circumstances are different, but it's got a similar level of assumption. It's kinda rare and requires significant adaptation, so it's just way easier to assume it doesn't happen.
I don't think that a law to help people get smartphones is the answer, the way we made literacy education mandatory. But it's rapidly going to be seen as a handicap.
I don't think a skill is the same as a leased possession
Literacy is something the state funds for you to acquire and that can't simply be taken away
A smartphone is something you need to acquire and manage yourself, and it furthermore needs to comply with the rules set by an overseas corporation: you can choose between Apple or Google services but neither of them needs to take you as a customer while they're gatekeeping access to certain government and most transportation services
Literacy skills increase monotonically though. If you learn to read adult novels while in grade school, you can still continue reading grade school books as well. Whereas if you learn tech to the proficiency of understanding how corporate apps are attacking you, or if you simply take administrative control of that computer you carry everywhere, then you can then find yourself unable to engage despite having higher than the basic skill level.
> Some of the best savings rates are offered by app-only providers – made up of banks and “electronic money institutions” (EMIs), which do not have their own banking licence, but put your money in a bank that does.
Okay, this wins for euphemism of the week. "We're not a bank, we're a money institution!"
"Bank" is a highly regulated word.
The US government hands out smartphones with service for free. Elsewhere you can get used phones for practically nothing. Most places have wifi these days so you don't even need to pay for service just to use an app at a store.
Not having a smartphone is a choice. Nobody is obligated to support you in that choice. It's not "unfair". Not everything you dislike is "unfair".
What's actually unfair is the app store monopolies that dictate what you can and can't do with the phone you "own". But I don't really expect The Guardian to understand the true issue.