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

ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

davidoks.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 607 posts

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#61

Post by empyrrhicist »

forinti wrote: post #27
ahartmetz wrote: post #7

I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking. I've been doing online banking in the browser on a PC since before apps and I'm still doing it because dealing with data on a phone is painful compared to a PC. Is an app really that much easier to use?

One bank I work with seems to have all but given up on online banking and I just have to use their app because online banking will no longer work on Linux (although they don't openly admit it). I think Android and iOS are safer platforms than PCs and that's why banks want you to use your phone.

> online banking will no longer work on Linux

How? Across multiple browsers?

> I think Android and iOS are safer platforms than PCs and that's why banks want you to use your phone.

This statement fills me with revulsion and rage lol. The only real "safety" involved here is the removal of user agency. I have a lot more trust in a machine I can actually control, secure, and monitor than the black box walled-garden of phoneland.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#62

Post by everdrive »

ahartmetz wrote: post #7

I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking. I've been doing online banking in the browser on a PC since before apps and I'm still doing it because dealing with data on a phone is painful compared to a PC. Is an app really that much easier to use?

You just need to understand how things are now. Here are few modern smartphone conventions that render banking on an old-fashioned PC totally obsolete:

- Remembering that you need to do banking, but waiting to do it until you're at home in front of your computer. This is impossible now, and if I don't follow the impulse the moment it occurs, the impulse will forever escape into the ether.

- Even the mere mention of needing to observe a URL is often far too scary. Typing one in, or using a browser bookmark is of course, impossible.

- Using a keyboard and mouse. It's just too onerous to use tools that are efficient and accurate. Modern users would much rather try to build a mental map of the curvature of their thumb, so that when they touch their touchscreen and obscure the button they're hitting, they they can reference that 3D mental map to guess at what portion of the screen they've actually pressed. Getting this wrong 30% of the time does not detract from the allure of touch screens.

- Using a normal-sized screen that allows you to actually see a lot of data at once, or even use multiple tabs. Again, this is really unthinkable. Of course it be be completely unacceptable to need to wait to do your banking until you're in front of a computer. It's 2026, and I cannot be bothered to remember to do a task later. But, in needing to always follow every impulse immediately, it doesn't matter that my phone screen only displays a small amount of information at once, or that tabbed browsing is impossible in a banking app. Those inconveniences are acceptable, or even welcome!

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#63

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

derektank wrote: post #15
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #3

> an AI system is literally a machine that can think and do things itself why do so many writers claim this as a matter of fact? are we losing (or did we never have) a shared definition of the word "think"? can an LLM, at this time, function with zero human input whatsoever? edit to add: these are genuine questions, not meant to be rhetorical :) it's hard for me to gauge a broader understanding of AI/LLMs since most…

>are we losing (or did we never have) a shared definition of the word "think" People have been saying, “the computer is thinking,” while webpages are loading or software is running for as long as I’ve been consciously aware. I agree there’s something new about describing AI as, “literally a machine that can think,” but language has always had fuzzy borders

yeah, for sure. i really think some people are under the impression that LLMs are a form of general AI that actually processes thought rather than being an admittedly-impressive exponential autocomplete.

though i'm not by any means an AI booster, my question wasn't really meant to be taken as a gotcha - more a general taking stock of where we're at in terms of broader understanding of these technologies outside of the professional AI/hobbyist world.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#64

Post by rkuykendall-com »

dehrmann wrote: post #28
dylan604 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like someone forgetting that for a large number of people, their mobile device is their only computer.

I know this is true, but for serious tasks, I need the screen real estate. I'm amazed at what some people can do from a phone, but also wonder if they're missing things, of if it's actually inefficient.

I am going to guess you are 30 or older. Google image search "laptop tasks millennial" to see that this is a feeling shared among our cohort but not the younger cohort.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#65

Post by bob1029 »

freedomben wrote: post #39
ericmay wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you scan a check on your PC? Generally yes the apps tend to be easier to use for most things, especially with a high-speed internet connection. Customers prefer them, banks build them since customers prefer them.

My PC has had a scanner connected to it for over 20 years, and in the mid 00s I was scanning and depositing checks through my bank's website (USAA). Even with modern cameras and fancy smarphone software, the results you get from a PC scan are still much better than taking a picture with your phone. If you don't have a scanner, nearly all laptops have a webcam built in, and many people have one for their desktop as we…

> the results you get from a PC scan are still much better than taking a picture with your phone.

The quality of the check images is not as big of a deal as you might think. No one is actually inspecting these unless the amount of deposit is near a limit or the account is flagged for suspicious activity. You definitely do not want to throw away the physical copy until the bank confirms the deposit.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#66

Post by Poacher5 »

ahartmetz wrote: post #44
djoldman wrote: post #10

TFA reasonably reduces to: First, ATMs increased the demand for bank branches, which more than made up for the decrease in tellers per branch. Second, mobile banking decreased the demand for physical branches.

There are ATMs not attached to bank branches. They could have replaced the branches with ATMs before. (I do wonder what bank tellers are doing these days. I mean actual tellers, not investment advisors and jobs like that.)

They're basically bank receptionists for old people who will type details into the same system that the general public has access to. They also handle cash for small businesses (I worked in a cafe during university and we'd regularly have to do runs into town to deposit rolls of bills and get more change to float the till)

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#67

Post by paxys »

aurareturn wrote: post #51
paxys wrote: post #35

One key line about ATMs is buried deep in the article: > the number of tellers per branch fell by more than a third between 1988 and 2004, but the number of urban bank branches (also encouraged by a wave of bank deregulation allowing more branches) rose by more than 40 percent So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant. It's just that the decrease at individual b…

We're already seeing large software companies figure out that they don't need 5,000 developers. They probably only need 1,000 or maybe even fewer. However, the number of software companies being started is booming which should result in net neutral or net positive in software developer employment. Today: 100 software companies employ 1,000 developers each[0] Tomorrow: 10,000 software companies employ 10 developers ea…

Why will we need 1000 companies tomorrow to do the same thing that 100 companies are doing today? If they are really so efficient because of AI then won't 10 companies be able to solve the same problems?

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#68

Post by justonepost2 »

bluedino wrote: post #32
butILoveLife wrote: post #26

Arent these basically minimum wage jobs? I mean throw a few dollars an hour on top of that, but there are plenty of jobs like this. Any time I needed anything advanced, I get shuffled to someone else.

> Arent these basically minimum wage jobs? I mean throw a few dollars an hour on top of that, but there are plenty of jobs like this. Getting rid of them isn't a good thing. Entry-level jobs are important.

The labor zero hyper-efficiency maximalists aren’t going to like this one.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#69

Post by simonw »

ahartmetz wrote: post #7

I do not get what's special about banking apps as opposed to online banking. I've been doing online banking in the browser on a PC since before apps and I'm still doing it because dealing with data on a phone is painful compared to a PC. Is an app really that much easier to use?

Official banking apps are harder to phish than websites. They also tend to keep you signed in for longer, especially once you enable something like FaceID.

Re: ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did

#70

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

aurareturn wrote: post #51
paxys wrote: post #35

One key line about ATMs is buried deep in the article: > the number of tellers per branch fell by more than a third between 1988 and 2004, but the number of urban bank branches (also encouraged by a wave of bank deregulation allowing more branches) rose by more than 40 percent So, ATMs did impact bank teller jobs by a significant amount. A third of them were made redundant. It's just that the decrease at individual b…

We're already seeing large software companies figure out that they don't need 5,000 developers. They probably only need 1,000 or maybe even fewer. However, the number of software companies being started is booming which should result in net neutral or net positive in software developer employment. Today: 100 software companies employ 1,000 developers each[0] Tomorrow: 10,000 software companies employ 10 developers ea…

Only because VC companies are throwing money at them. How many of them are actually profitable and long term sustainable
Post reply on HN