Surely your pocket computer isn't your only computer? Like, you do own a computer with a physical keyboard, right?
Pre-COVID, when I made plans to go out with folks, we arranged a time and place to meet, and, like, arrived at that place roughly around that time. It's pretty easy, really.
More and more people, particularly the younger generations, don't have anything besides their smartphone because what's the point? It's additional expense, additional maintenance, additional clutter, additional mess.
They can do everything they need on their phone.
This is the gulf UX design is supposed to cross, I guess. Designing for people who engage with tech in utterly different ways to me.
On the one hand, I rarely use my smartphone at home because I have computers.
On the other hand, I hear stories from parents at work whose kids don't want a computer because "Why would I need one? My phone works fine."
I’m 40 and if I wasn’t a software engineer I wouldn’t own a desktop / laptop computer. As you say, what’s the point? Everything except for software development can be done on a smartphone. Why even bother installing an instant messaging application on the computer when you can just take the phone out of the pocket instead of walking to the room where the computer happens to be? Even when I’m working at the computer I use the phone for music, messaging and news.
That sounds like a little too broad a generalization.
A typical office worker who creates or consumes documents, presentations, accesses corporate apps (half of them still 90s tech with lipstick), submit proposals to clients, review others' work, attending multiple hours long zoom calls with screenshare, etc ... are still using at least 13" laptop screens to do a lot of their day to day work.
Sure a sales executive or a senior manager might get away by just typing one liner commands to minions on their smartphone, hitting approve buttons on expense apps, and just listening into team calls, etc. -- but lower in the hierarchy where the real numbers and usage are ... we still have physical keyboards and mice, and decent sized screens (often multiple monitors) to help us stay productive.
Don't expect to be able to use modern services if you don't want to meet the providers where they operate. It's like refusing to use a card and demanding everyone to use cash, you're going to limit yourself and it's your choice if you think it's worth it.
I think limiting your goods and services to people with devices that have been available for more than two decades and are basically ubiquitous is a reasonable thing to do, considering the benefits that comes with it.
Personally i very rarely talk on the phone, that's never been why I've used mobile phones. I listen to music and use offline maps with GPS far more, but I also use it for payment, camera, text messages, etc.
I have gotten incoming phone calls, mostly from daycare when a kid has been sick.
what i personally want to be free from is the use of QR codes for maps in public places, like have a QR code to let people pull up a map and keep it on their phone sure, but I've been to shopping malls where they replaced the map directory with a blank poster and a QR code, presumably because the turnover on real estate is so high and they can't manage to keep anyone employed long enough to replace the map everytime a store closes...
I went back to candy bar phone more than a decade ago and I barely use it.
I imagine they would hate next time you need to organise a trip and you can't join their group chat for coordination.
Or are you one of these people who calls everyone for basically no reason when a message could suffice?
and IME cats don't self organize into a herd, it's usually one person figuring out a time and place that works for everyone, unless you're one of those insufferable people who sends out a "when are you free" survey of checkboxes ;P
That's increasingly rare. My elderly dad still uses voice calling pretty much exclusively and a friend who I'll exchange voice calls with. But I don't think there's a single other person who would call me out of the blue socially absent an emergency--and at least some of these are people I would have regularly called 25 years or so ago.
For that matter, no one at work would just call me on the phone either.
In any case, the goalposts for calling someone out of the blue have moved for a lot of people.
Now you can call them literally 24/7 no matter where they are in the world. There is no recluse.
Interrupting people in the middle of what they're doing whenever, wherever is quite rude and fixing that etiquette is a GOOD thing.
>> 30, elderly
I've had to shut down my accounts in two banks because of surprise app requirements (that weren't in the contract) for basic account functionality. Their apps are only available trough App Store and Google Play, no .apk alternative. And even if you install the apps using Aurora store, the app instantly crashes, I suppose because they implement Google's SafetyNet, or whatever it's called now.
So, unless I want to buy and carry around an extra phone for completely bullshit reasons, I'm limited to only using one bank, the only one in my country that still doesn't require an app for the type of account I want. I've thought of buying a phone just for the apps, but after that, who knows with what other bullshit they may come up with (your device is too old, it doesn't have a phone number associated, etc), so I just give up.
Owning a separate, dedicated piece of hardware for sensitive and critical activities (eg: banking) is a very good idea because it isolates them from all your other mundane, potentially risky activities.
Most people don't do this because of the various inconveniences and expenses involved, but if you can tolerate them it's about as safe as digital activities can get.
You might be fine having apps as closely tied to your real identity as your banking app on a device that's constantly collecting location and other data about you, but privacy is important to some other people.
The banking apps still won't work. They insist on some signal from a SIM card "for my security," and I'm not willing to put a SIM card in a device that won't ever leave my house.
The banks are creating their own requirements for how to access their app.
Just like some users are creating their own requirements.
Both parties seem to be content to be apart of the problem and blame the other.
Why not a computer?
I had multitudes of non-smartphone based security devices in my life, cheap and dedicated small secure things, but those are endangered species now regrettably.
Bank's goal is to prevent access by people other than account owner. When it comes to the VPN usage, there are a few risk factors:
- Concealment of connection. Malicious actor will likely use a measure to hide the request origin.
- Accessing from another country or region, human factor (a common use case of VPNs). Instant thousand miles away teleportation is usually a sign of access attempt with stolen information. While you may be smart, a lot of people aren't and will gladly tell all the info to "bank security agent calling to ask for some information to prevent your account from being suspended".
- Accessing from another country or region, legal factor. Banks in some countries may even legally require a notice in advance before using its cards or services abroad.
- Usage of known publicly available service. Multiple users using the same address makes it harder to tell genuine and malicious users apart, so it's better to not leave it to the chance.
if you remove your bank linked sim card from your phone, the app wont work. if you change your phone, the app has to be re-registered so its like that.
what i am saying is, the threat model of concealment and another region or another person is already dependent upon the owner owing their phone. if its stolen, the first thing to do is to disable access
In .cz, about third of banks require a smartphone app, about third allows SMS authorization at an extra fee and about third has SMS authorization free. However, this all happened in the last few years and every few months some bank announces it's moving towards the app group.
The spicy part is that most banks use the app as the only factor, not as a second factor (as it was with the SMS, where you had password for web banking + SMS authorization as a 2FA). You therefore cannot use a noname-brand Android with vendor-provided crapware, as your security depends on it. I don't know what I would do if I didn't have an employer-provided iPhone.
How do they do it? For example, there is no "authorization" app, only a full-blown mobile banking with full permissions that has the "authorization" as one of the features. Or there is no password for the web banking (wtf!), only a username which is your national identity number and therefore widely known.
The even spicier part is that many banks give you pre-approved loans which are impossible to reject, and therefore if someone hacks your account, not only they steal your balance, but even overdraw.
Well the answer is that in modern life it's literally impossible to access basic infrastructure of many places without a smartphone. It's an absolute necessity unless you want to be a nomad and live in the wilderness.
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-nation/fox-cites-ownership-...
I think it's a few things.
- Integration of stuff like GPS that can be done on a dedicated device but are easily done better on a phone through an app.
- Ready access to information on the go. (Much of which wan't really available on the go until the 2000s.) There's a lot you could do once the smartphone came out that you didn't have access to before. But there's a lot in general I can do today that I couldn't in the 1970s/80s.
- And yes, there are apps for things like parking, public transit, rideshare, airline notifications etc. that are more generally relevant if you're traveling and in cities.
What are you referring to? While it may be the most popular messaging app, it's not in any way, shape, or form essential. SMS is also universal, mostly unlimited, and much less weirder than it is in the US.
It hasn't been for like 15+ years since pretty much every subscription has either unlimited*/or more than you can reasonably use minutes/SMS.
>Not sure what's weird about SMS in the US?
Don't you get (or used to) charged for incoming SMS?
Examples?
Nb I have closed a bank account because I refuse[d] to install WhatsApp.
Some cities have been installing concrete filled pipes to close of what used to be access streets into parts of cities forcing them to be "foot traffic only". This started in the EU and became trendy. Now its spreading in the US in big cities. I am not complaining. In some places this actually works out. In some places it hurts business. I guess that is a matter of city planning. Even the really old town I grew up in is doing this now in the part of town that has a bunch of small businesses to encourage more foot traffic.
Another example is roundabouts. Some of the small cities are putting these in new developments. I think it's still somewhat experimental in the US as not every small city is doing this.
I believe the word you're looking for is 'bollard'.
In the 1990s, I remember payphones being conveniently available, but now I need to keep an eye on my battery if I'm going to phone home.
In 2010, I could log into any of my accounts with just WiFi and a password, now I need 2FA and often SMS is the only supported option. Sometimes a phone call. So in order to, say, check my bank account, I now need data and cell signal. That combination can be hard to get in a concrete building or while traveling abroad.
Although, to be honest, I find it pretty silly to avoid the use of a smartphone, or at least the use of a website. I guess some people like to waste time going to the local subsidiary and wait in line to solve even the most basic of problems, but that's not for me. Banking apps are spreading because they are more efficient.
In the future banking apps may be required. One thing that's happening in Europe are instant payments between banks. If you couple that with payments via apps (via phone number or scanning a QR code), the duopoly of Mastercard/Visa is under threat, as merchants would love to avoid their taxes.
The US is a little behind on this, maybe this is why Silicon Valley bros are constantly trying to disrupt finance.
Of course, they are also very wrong. Opportunities to escape poverty are lost when you are only trying to fulfill your immediate needs, then there are the psychological ramifications of being vulnerable and in constant need for aid from others.
There is a reason why we have built our technological societies. It goes well beyond the personal gratification we get from gadgets or fine foods. We do it because it offers security of being and the ability to make our world a better place.
"We" haven't built anything. A group of very powerful people planned this locked-down, dystopian world we currently live in and worked on achieving that plan.
You and I are simply living in the world they envisioned.
As far as smartphones being a necessity goes, I have never owned a smartphone myself, and do not carry any phone at all most of the time. I have just gone on living like I did before smartphones, though I am aware that I am locked out of more and more things. I am beginning to resent things like parking that requires a smartphone. I don't understand the lack of back up options.
Rather than insisting on 'smartphones as a human right', I'd rather see 'opting out' as a human right.
My government has to respect free speech but it doesn't mean I have to speak up. Just because something is a human right doesn't mean I have to execute it.
I very much appreciate those people who live without smartphones. As a society, we need these people. It's not only about people with disabilities and other marginalized groups. It's about everyone.
Last year, the smartphone of a friend of mine was stolen. Luckily, it was well protected. But still it was gone with all the 2F apps. This friend had to learn by example that those apps actually second factors. Also luckily, this person didn't enable 2F for Gmail. Otherwise it would have been much more trouble.
Apple is making it harder and harder to use an Apple ID (required for the App Store) without using iCloud. iCloud is a privacy nightmare.
We shouldn't have to give up our rights to privacy to participate in society.
Betrays fundamental misunderstanding of both.
Society so could step in via elected governments and stop this behaviour through laws. Not that I am holding my breath on this.
Apple can and does read most of the data in iCloud (due to it lacking e2ee by default) including all your iMessages, all your iMessage attachments/photos, all your iCloud photos, all your call logs, all your iCloud files, all your contacts, calendars, etc. iMessage's e2ee is effectively backdoored by all the iMessage sync keys being backed up in the non-e2ee iCloud Backup.
Apple turns over user data (including all of the aforementioned) for 17,000+ user accounts to the US government without a search warrant under the FISA (aka PRISM) system. They turn over even more user data on top of that each year when provided with actual search warrants - the 17k users figure is just the ones without search warrants!
They don't protect most of the data in iCloud from themselves, and Apple is forced to spy for their national government thanks to Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA702), which allows the US to read anything in iCloud without probable cause or a search warrant - point and click access.
This works out as "You are required to carry your surveillance device at all times"
Thanks to everyone who didn't care forcing the rest of us into being part of your turnkey facist dystopia. Who do you think will be turning that key? How long? 3 years? 5? 10?