Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 870 posts

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#101

Post by echoangle »

doctor_radium wrote: post #72

> 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…

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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#102

Post by captainbland »

JeanMarcS wrote: post #10

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 acc…

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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#103

Post by jtbayly »

Yeul wrote: post #61
JeanMarcS wrote: post #10

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 acc…

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?

> "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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#104

Post by ctrlp »

hilbert42 wrote: post #86
Yeul wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Utilitarian models of ethics are fraught with peril themselves. Not the own you think it is.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#105

Post by robocat »

pimlottc wrote: post #100

> 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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#106

Post by derac »

agumonkey wrote: post #93
everdrive wrote: post #28

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 if you really want to.

edit: You can even get a free phone from your community. Possibly a better one than the a53. Most people have a phone or several in a drawer.

https://swappa.com/listings/samsung-galaxy-a53-5g?carrier=un...

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#107

Post by jebarker »

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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#108

Post by jfengel »

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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#109

Post by mistrial9 »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #65

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…

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.

Re: 'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

#110

Post by Spivak »

jtbayly wrote: post #103
Yeul wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> "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…

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.

Post reply on HN