381–390 of 500 posts
My concern here is not that a simple transaction like purchasing a ticket to a baseball game requires a smartphone, but that the purchase now binds the customer to a personal and irreversible relationship to multiple entities (MLB, the Dodgers, the ticket agency, etc.) that (1) is not necessary, and (2) adds no benefit to the customer.
My wife and I had an appointment last week to apply for a line of credit. We talked it all through with the clerk and decided to go for it, so he started the whole process on his computer. His jaw dropped half-way through when he asked for my wife's and my phone number, and I had to tell him that I don't own a smart phone. Turns out you must have a smart phone because the system sends you some kind of code to verify…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. In 50 years, everyone's going to have an advertisement-injecting brain implant, and stores are going to require you to have one in order to purchase anything, and they'll lock you out of commerce as a filthy Luddite if you don't get one. And, 50 years from…
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. When I run into this (most recently at a hospital), I tell them "The court doesn't allow me to have a smart phone because I'm a hazard to national security.†" When they argue (very rarely), I tell them "Take it up with judge Kelso in the 225th District Cour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are their reasons? I can imagine a few and I use Firefox myself, but I'd be interested in anything non-obvious.
There's no extension support for Chrome on Android. There's no way to stop Chrome on Android from hiding the address bar when scrolling. Those were mine, not sure if they still apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smart phones have had plenty of affordances for blind people. But they didn’t say he was blind or unable to use a smart phone
> he’s barely able to navigate a computer & phone.
From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification. You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anym…
Maybe I'm just out of touch, but it feels like every day I look at hackernews, there's another articulate response patiently explaining why it's ok for companies to sell you things you don't own, and dictate how to use the things you think you own.
I just fundamentally don't accept it, and find it exhausting to engage in the constant overton window shifting.
My concern here is not that a simple transaction like purchasing a ticket to a baseball game requires a smartphone, but that the purchase now binds the customer to a personal and irreversible relationship to multiple entities (MLB, the Dodgers, the ticket agency, etc.) that (1) is not necessary, and (2) adds no benefit to the customer.
From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification. You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anym…
I ended up installing Big Launcher[1] as an alternative android launcher and configured it so it has buttons to ring three people. That's it. Even then, then confirmation yes/no dialogue when she presses "End Call" gave her a lot of anxiety initially.
I recently had to setup access to a local streaming service on my step-dad's TV recently. The amount of hoops necessary, including installing their stupid app on a phone, and entering passwords for several different accounts, several times, was absolutely ridiculous. Being technologically adept I found it an absolute PITA. It was a complete non-starter for him.
My point is that your, "If he can afford a season pass, he can afford a smartphone," comment comes across almost as callow as the attitude of the Dodger Stadium management towards the very real issues of getting old in a world that is moving faster and faster technologically.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=name.kunes.and...
From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification. You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anym…
Better? In what way? And for whom? Certainly not for this man.
What happens when the Google or Apple system hiccups and locks you out? Now what? What happens when your battery dies? What happens when you drop your phone and bust it? What happens if someone hijacks your number? etc.
And, I don't for one second believe this is anti-scalping. They can identify scalpers from a million miles away at this point. If they wanted to shut them down, they'd be gone tomorrow.
This is about tracking and upselling. These people are "whales" and they want to badger them to spend more money.