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.
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.
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
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 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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
> "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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 of you really want to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 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.
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 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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
> 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?
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.
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 are approaching the level of Atlas Shrugged Dystopia.
Has anyone though about how people that don't want to own a computer or learn how to read are unfairly penalized? What about people that don't want to learn how to drive, will nobody thing about the poor people that don't want to learn how to drive? Shouldn't we, as a society, pay, so those people have their own private chauffeur?
Just imagine, for a second, a society where everyone had to own up to their choices in life. What a blissful society it would be.
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.
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.
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.
> Michael is in his late 50s and is among the millions of people in the UK who cannot or do not want to use mobile apps, and feels he is being penalised for his choice.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.”
You know, I can think of a lot of reasons why someone would want to do this, many of them quite valid in my opinion. In fact, I sometimes avoid apps where the mobile site will do. But, could the writer have chosen a worse example for the opening than 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 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.
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.
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!"
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.
At what point does this constitute a hostile action against the user and what degree of retaliation is appropriate? Open question for everyone.
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.
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'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?
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.
[delayed]
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
what if your phone runs out of battery?
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
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 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.
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
> 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.
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.
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 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.
Cue HN's anti-PWA brigade.
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.
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.
I back my photos up using adb backup, but I don't keep them in cloud services.
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.
> 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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Then you will need to use an app.
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?
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.
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.
the solution is to let the market do its work and move to another bank?
in many places there is no bank that offers an alternative
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.
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?
"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.
Utilitarian models of ethics are fraught with peril themselves. Not the own you think it is.
> "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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 of you really want to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's still an additional 'tax' on individuals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 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.
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 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).
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.
As someone who prioritizes the web version of everything, I'm not sure I agree.
In fact, 90% of all apps just seem to be a packaged version of the website.
That's why I'm building a Web map app. The Web is universal. It's already very capable.
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.
Hi Ted.
I was channeling Burke’s show Connections, actually, but sure, that too.
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.
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.
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?
Typos and editing bugs are pretty common on The Guardian
[source: grumpy Guardian Weekly subscriber]
The Guardian is also known as the Grauniad for their lack of detail to grammar, spelling etc .
I doubt the guardian and npr use Wordpress
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
The parking lots mentioned are municipal not private.
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.
[dead]
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.
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 are approaching the level of Atlas Shrugged Dystopia.
Has anyone though about how people that don't want to own a computer or learn how to read are unfairly penalized? What about people that don't want to learn how to drive, will nobody thing about the poor people that don't want to learn how to drive? Shouldn't we, as a society, pay, so those people have their own private chauffeur?
Just imagine, for a second, a society where everyone had to own up to their choices in life. What a blissful society it would be.
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.
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.
The title seems a bit click-baity. I'd call it a tyranny if I couldn't participate in major areas of life without apps.
In reality, I'm mostly excluded from loyalty programs, special discounts and the like.
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.
> Michael is in his late 50s and is among the millions of people in the UK who cannot or do not want to use mobile apps, and feels he is being penalised for his choice.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.”
You know, I can think of a lot of reasons why someone would want to do this, many of them quite valid in my opinion. In fact, I sometimes avoid apps where the mobile site will do. But, could the writer have chosen a worse example for the opening than some moron with vague paranoia?
> 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.
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.
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.