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

61–70 of 870 posts

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

#61

Post by Yeul »

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?

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

#63

Post by JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B »

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?

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.

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

#64

Post by wtcactus »

skrebbel wrote: post #11
karlgkk wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> some moron with vague paranoia We really got to get away from this vibe that other people's underbelly feelings aren't valid unless they can back them up with seventy scientific articles. It doesn't matter whether this "moron" has a good or a bad reason to not want apps. Apps make him feel insecure, so he doesn't want them. Why can't that be enough?

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.

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

#65

Post by crossroadsguy »

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.

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

#66

Post by froglets »

hkwerf wrote: post #12
unsupp0rted wrote: post #3

> 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…

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.

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

#67

Post by elpocko »

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?

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.

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

#69

Post by yallpendantools »

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.

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

#70

Post by everdrive »

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.

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.
Post reply on HN