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

51–60 of 870 posts

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

#51

Post by dmos62 »

stavros wrote: post #46
renegade-otter wrote: post #14

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…

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.

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

#52

Post by nooneisanon »

kpmcc wrote: post #34

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…

Typos and editing bugs are pretty common on The Guardian

[source: grumpy Guardian Weekly subscriber]

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

#53

Post by nkrisc »

everdrive wrote: post #33
sumuyuda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

And that’s where the government needs to step in order in order to advocate for the minority.

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

#54

Post by deadlydose »

xandrius wrote: post #49
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.

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.

It's still an additional 'tax' on individuals.

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

#55

Post by ecef9-8c0f-4374 »

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.

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

#56

Post by yallpendantools »

renegade-otter wrote: post #14

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…

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.

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

#57

Post by wccrawford »

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.

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.

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

#58

Post by jasdi »

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…

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.

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

#59

Post by wccrawford »

xandrius wrote: post #49
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.

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.

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.

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

#60

Post by mr_mitm »

Kwpolska wrote: post #48
sumuyuda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN