Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

81–90 of 870 posts

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

#81
App store monopoly hurts us way more than it is talked about. Suddenly, not only we are not to chose which devices to use to access what could be a simple website. Now unrelated third party decides if we have access to it based in, for example, country of residence. Or at all. Apple routine forces censorship on our phones as if it was it's property.

I still believe it was a tragedy that Microsoft folded their attempt into mobile. To explain my level of desperation, I feel our next best hope here is China.

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

#82

> 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 such discounts are not as much because of the data, they're a way to tier your customers, similar to coupons.

That way you both get to take the full price from people whose time is expensive enough that they won't bother with the apps, and also those who wouldn't pay the full price but have enough time to use the apps.

I never eat McD's, but I see the pattern everywhere. If you make between the minimum and average wage in Slovenia and don't own property, you practically can't get by without dedicating 6h per week to grocery shopping in various different 'discount' chains (Lidl, Hofer AKA Aldi Sud, Euro Spin), keeping up with the weekly discount catalogs and using all the app discounts (more recently).

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

#83
I for one will never ever do any kind of banking or monetary transaction on a Smart Phone.

As for other apps, I just have a couple of simple games and Firefox, which I only use when in waiting an office for am appointment. So far where I am, it is not an impediment.

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

#84
I have a big issue with this, and the truth is that the majority of people simply do not care and/or do not understand the implications.

By tying your service to a smartphone your are basically refusing to provide service if the costumer doesn't agree to Apple's or Google's TOS. If the app doesn't complain about emulation or something different than Android or IOS you are in luck, but that's not the case with most banking apps. And that's only talking about people who don't have it by choice and have money to buy one.

For me, once, it went beyond: I took my first dose of the Covid vaccine, and the second dose's date would still be announced. I asked where it would be available to the nurse, "On the Instagram page of the ". "But i don't have Instagram" i said, and the nurse shrugged. It requires both a phone and a social media account with your real info, but since absolute nobody complains about it they just do because it's easier.

This will continue as long people are complacent with it. In some places the government is required to provide you services, by law, by any means available and not depending on 3rd party service, but they do require apps anyway and people stay quiet. Phones as an alternative is fine, it's a tool, but should not be an obligatory device for you to be considered an human being.

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

#85

> 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…

As a user of Greggs and McD (UK) I can maybe offer some insight.

Fairly obviously the discounts are to encourage customer loyalty so you keep going to McD rather than somewhere healthier. Also to get you to come back - if you haven't been for ages they may offer a 99p big mac to get you back in.

As to why apps rather than paper coupons, my closest McD has a typically had group of about 20 people waiting for the 50 items they ordered with new stuff ordered every 30 seconds or so. The last thing the low wage rushed staff need are customers going can you explain this coupon to me an is it valid for extra fries on Friday etc.

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

#86
post #61

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?

"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 fact that the majority of modern states and cities were founded on utilitarian models where a lot of give-and-take was involved before workable consensuses were achieved.

Think twice, the obvious solution doesn't always turn out to be the most optimal one.

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

#87

> 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…

Most forms of direct marketing require unambiguous consent in the UK (likewise for data collection used for direct marketing). Culturally, many Brits are relatively suspicious of authority and will not consent to the use of their data 'just because'. Loyalty apps are a great invention: they give advertisers a direct channel to the consumer, and the consumer a way to receive something of value in exchange for their deliberate engagement.

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

#88
post #36

Very weird logic. As the article points out, this is an intentional choice for many people. So you shoulder the consequences, that seems fair to me? I don't currently drive a car, and to be honest, I have anxiety about driving. I could bitch about how US is hostile to people who don't drive, to the point that it's difficult to go to places/get things done, but that's useless. I can 1) move to NYC and never leave the…

I do drive and the having do download a bunch of parking apps is a pain the arse. And for each one you have to spend five minutes entering your address card number etc.

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

#89
post #51
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Scary things make people pay attention and click the links. I loathe the casual use of the term “lynching” by people in the public eye but same rules apply, using exaggerated, scary words to sell your weak point. Not saying I agree with it, but it’s marketing and journalism.

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

#90
The entire history of technology is our becoming dependent on one invention after another, such that anyone with any interest in the area(s) that invention touches no longer has a realistic choice not to use it. They may technically be able to, but only through outsize sacrifice that leaves them worse off than they would have been before the thing was invented.
Post reply on HN