If the app is required - which has happened already (eg. bank apps, car charging) or could happen in the future - then I think it's reasonable to call this bad. Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
It's a tool. Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?
We require computers today for many things. Why not force websites to provide phone service with exactly the same pricing. Guess what the effect will be? Higher prices.
The same is true with apps, some things make no financial sense without them.
If the pen collected location information continuously and sent it to a insecure cloud endpoint, and sent me spammy notifications every day, then probably I would.
If the pen was somehow of financial benefit to the bank, and I didn't benefit, and they won't let me use a different pen, I'd still resent it. No, I don't want to jump through a hoop to make your business some extra money.
Sure, but that's a different debate. You can see why it would be in the interest of the business for you to install that app and why it would be worth enough for a discount.
We're giving them something that provides value and saves on costs.
It's not always your choice. In my country, you're basically cut off from banking services if you don't own a smartphone. I lived without one for years and had to give in a couple of years ago (second hand but perfectly usable — thanks to LineageOS).
The pain was self-inflicted in my case, but some people simply don't have money for one (as there are lots of people living on 200-250 USD per month or even less — they have nothing left at the end of the month).
If any banking whatsoever then sure, this is a problem like cashless society. But if it's from a set of specific banks that makes sense. I use a smartphone only bank and pay lower costs as a result. That makes sense.
I guess you're right ultimately, if there's choice. But the alternatives get more expensive. Basically all kinds of businesses have figured out they can get us to sell our privacy in return for a relatively cheaper product - and as this becomes the norm, it no longer even seems to be cheaper, it's just that resisting selling your privacy gets more expensive.
Or, think of Stephen Hawking, able to communicate but unable to operate a pen in the later part of his life. Wouldn't you complain if he had been unable to control his bank account because he couldn't use a pen?
The relevant Uniform Commercial Code has a wider definition of what counts as a signature than using a pen, § 3-401, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-401 .
Accessibility is a great point. In that regard apps often exceed pens in their accessibility support and laws such as the ADA require organizations like banks to comply with accessibility regulation.
Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them, such a caretaker could use the app for them in such a case.
Better yet. A person who is bedridden or incapacitated could use an app from the convenience of their own home instead of physically going to a bank. A blind person could avoid the walk to a distant location. It's a mixed bag in terms of accessibility.
> Just as a disabled person would have a caretaker sign as a proxy for them
You should likely be more careful about how your use of "disabled person" as I'm sure you know most disabled people do not have caretakers.
Also, the link I gave says 'agent or representative' - a caretaker is not necessarily either of those.
My point is that, yes, I would complain if the bank requires everyone to sign with a pen - and so would you, it seems.
So why is it okay to complain about forcing everyone to use a pen, but not okay to complain about forcing everyone to use an app, especially when we know there are people who will not use a smartphone including, for example, religious reasons. There is a market for "kosher phones" which don't let you install apps, or even have no internet support at all.
You're right, accessibility and disability are large and complex subjects with a huge gradient of issues/conditions/situations.
One of the banks I use requires an app since it's an online only bank. I pay lower rates as a result. Does this bar some people from using that bank?
Yes. But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem. Would it make sense to require that bank to offer branches, phone access etc?
No. Because then it won't be as cheap. Should the regulator make sure banks that provide "full service" exist?
Yes.
I didn't say it's not OK to complain. In fact I gave a personal example in which I chose not to use an app for my sons public transport and as a result am consciously paying more. I did say that:
* Calling it tyranny is nonsense and bad journalism. The entire article is hyperbole and just silly.
* Cheaper pricing and app specific features make sense and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
* I think it's reasonable to requiring an app bad.
* Maybe not a "tyranny", we'd probably want to reserve that for the government doing it, but not good news.
You replied "Why?"
Since you and rwmj agree that calling is tyranny is too much, it comes across like the "Why?" refers to the objection to requiring an app.
When you follow that up with "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?", it sure sounds like a statement that you don't think people would complain for an app-only requirement. Otherwise I can't make it make sense.
> But as long as other banks exist that shouldn't be a problem.
So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US? Somewhere in a 100 mile radius? When is it a problem, and what could be used to prevent it from getting there? Is 1 mile to the nearest non-app parking space a problem?
Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.
The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?
> and are not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille.
More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
When I said "Do you complain when the bank requires you to sign something with a pen?" I didn't have a problem with complaining. I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN. People always complain about everything which is what we do. I'd expect more from something on the front page here. This was a you at HN audience in general.
> So, as long as one bank exists somewhere in the US?
Not an American but that's generally a tradeoff yes. My main bank closed the branch next to me. They are not app only, that's what they do. That's why we have regulators (sorry Americans) to make sure a level of service exists.
But regulators shouldn't "break the market". I use two banks. One does have branches and I use it for my business accounts. Another is app only and far cheaper. A regulators job is to make sure both have room to exist and compete on a level playing field.
Will that mean branches closing? Maybe. The alternative is more cost to the shareholders/customers.
> Would you say that so long as one bank has handicap access, the other banks should save money and provide lower interest rates by not being handicap accessible? I hope not.
That's a straw man argument. Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.
I live in a small country. We have 5 banks. If all are forced to have branches everywhere a 6th bank will never form since the cost/time to build up a bank becomes prohibitive. Thus no competition. Indeed we hadn't had a new bank for 50 years or so. Until we allowed an app only bank which gives much better rates.
This isn't different in the states, competition is difficult when the big banks can crash you and the public is afraid to step into a smaller bank. That means you need to build accessible branches to service a community that will never set foot there. You're effectively saying: "make the barrier of entry so high that no competition can happen".
> The cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel in Switzerland voted for the fundamental right to live offline. What's wrong with having that everywhere?
That's fair. You 100% have the "right" to live offline. I agree with that and I'm very much against a cashless society.
But this isn't that. What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age. That's a very different thing from "able". Progress always meant some things went away or became harder to do as a result, this is no different.
> We have Braille on elevator buttons even though not having Braille on elevator buttons is not discriminatory in the vast majority of cases.
Because having Braille on the elevator or having the elevator say the floor we're on doesn't impact the rest of the population. E.g. when I go to the hospital the elevator waits forever in every floor. That makes sense, disabled and elderly need time to reach the open door.
In my building it is much faster, don't the disabled and elderly deserve this in my building too?
Well, they do. But the tenants in my building don't want to wait every time the elevator stops and have a cascading effect on all the floors due to that delay. We can provide localized solutions by holding the door and helping. It's a tradeoff.
> Because the vast majority of people don't need Braille.
> More people don't have smartphones than need Braille.
Sure. I'm 100% for the "right" to avoid smartphones and apps. I think every public service and infrastructure should be accessible without them.
However, demanding that it would be in the same price and with the same current level of convenience is problematic as it would impact everyone. I think the analogy you gave is great. Braille on elevators should stay forever when we can. They should also speak, accessibility here is free and doesn't impact people who don't need it. Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want.
> I had a problem with the hyperbole and the fact that this nonsense is on HN.
As someone without a smartphone, I caution you to be very wary about what specifically you mean by "nonsense". If you only mean "tyranny", that's one thing. If you mean it's not a problem until I live little better than a hermit in the woods is another, unable to have real banking, real health care, real education for any kids, unable to order taxi service, unable to pay for parking, unable to refuel, unable to get packages, and so on ... yeah, no, you need some empathy.
> Even the apps are required to have accessibility and handicap access is protected by law in practically every western country.
Here's my handicap, which I've had therapy about. I'm on the internet too much. When it's accessible, as now when I should be working, I find it almost impossible to avoid the urge to check.
My solution is to not have a smartphone with me, to limit when I can be online. I am about to head to the basement, where the wifi doesn't reach, in order to focus on work.
Would you force a teetotaler to drink? Would you recommend that someone trying to lose weight should carry a bag of peanut butter cups with them all the time?
Here is another handicap: there are people who are electrosenstive, that is, they get headaches or have other problems when they are too close to radio signals, so they do not even carry a cell phone.
Now, I happen to believe that is not based on the physical effects of radio signals, but forcing them to use a smartphone will cause them severe mental distress.
There are still others who suffer from anxiety knowing their every action is being surveilled. When I started with therapy, the doctor asked if I thought the phones were listening to me, to see if I had any signs of schizophrenia. He then realized how that connected to the conversation, so had to rephrase the question, because we both know nearly all apps listen to us, one way or other.
Apps cannot solve these issues because smartphone-based apps and the ecosystem supporting it are the issue.
> What you're asking is for people who are interested in living online to give up potential benefits of the modern age.
No, what you asked for was a bank that only supports people who decide to use a smartphone which can connect to the Apple and Google app stores, so that you could pay lower rates.
The benefit is that you profit by their ability to exclude people who are more expensive to maintain. Completely legal, of course, as the freedom to live offline is not (currently, in nearly all jurisdictions) a protected right.
That excludes people like me who are "living online" but who do not have a smartphone, that excludes people who use a PinePhone or other smartphone which doesn't run Android, that excludes people who use an Android phone but have not agreed to the Google Store terms of service, as zevv did at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140223 .
And don't forget that one of the reasons we are more expensive to maintain is that you are more profitable for them. Banks can send you ads directly, and know you've read them. McD's can use personalized ads based on your buying habits to induce you to buy more and overeat. And of course many apps have in-app advertising, which cannot be blocked. Uber made $1 billion last year from in-app ads.
Is surveillance capitalism required for the modern age?
> Slowing the elevators for the elderly (of which there are quite a lot) is problematic and probably not what most of us want.
The newer elevators around here, at least the one in government-owned buildings, solve that issue with a flip seat.
