They also punish you by charging wildly higher prices without the app. You have to use the app just to get prices around what they "should" be, compared with the pre-app era and adjusting for the broader inflation rate.

Like clearly they're OK with forcing a choice between "use the app" and "never eat McDonalds again", because that's effectively what they're doing, and they have to know it.

There's also the price discrimination angle of it. McDonald's has at least two sizeable groups of customers: people who frequently eat there, and are thus a change in the McDonald's pricing is significant in their total budget, and people who will occasionally eat there.

Presumably, some analyst at McDonald's found that the latter group wasn't particularly price sensitive, so they found a way to divide the two groups, and charge them different prices. The occasional McDonald's customer isn't going to jump through hoops, they just want to roll up, get their burger, and leave. The frequent customer is more likely to respond to changes in pricing in both directions. Having a system to actively prompt the frequent consumers to go more often, and then charge them a price that they are willing to pay, while still getting the full benefit of the people who don't really care how much food costs is a win-win from their perspective.

The surveillance is just a sweetener.

I fall squarely in the second camp, but what ended up happening was that I went from going occasionally, to not going at all.

McDonald's app-free pricing is now butting against actual sit-down restaurants, or a good local shop. I'm not price sensitive per se, but I don't want a raw deal, so I'll pick the better option. McD's used to be cheap and fast, now it's neither really.

Their sales are falling, and they're doing $5 deals now, so I'm definitely not the only one picking other options.

Yeah, they definitely got greedy with it. My go-to example is to point out the fact that In-N-Out used to be the fast food option for when you were willing to pay a few extra bucks to be served a better burger by someone who didn't look like they wanted to kill themselves. Now they're the cheapest option, by a substantial margin, and they didn't change a damn thing.

In my city we have a McDonalds and a Shake Shack on the opposite of the same block, and given they cost about the same, guess which one does volume? Ridiculous.

I always hear this but I've never found this. The couple of times a year I eat McDonald's I check and it's the same. There are specific deals they'll have in the app like "2 filet of fish for $7 instead of $4 each" or something but by and large the prices are the same.

I don't know for sure but it may be regional. In my area, they always have a $5 off $20 deal that makes things slightly more palatable but even still, it's just bringing the prices back to what they really should be as others have said. I've uninstalled the app and completely stop going there entirely, the quality (not that it was ever great to be clear) is pretty terrible and there are so many better local places with way better value.

If you are in the 'couple of times a year' consumer type bucket you might not be valuable enough to do the deep discounting to. They offer the better deals to the 'couple of times a month' or more frequent users to keep them hooked.

I'm more okay with never eating from what are, by my use anyway, public restrooms than installing some app.

...which is why I don't eat McDonald's. Also, don't forget, the app limits your legal rights as well. No lawsuit or class action for you, bub.

>They also punish you by charging wildly higher prices without the app.

I don't think we have this problem in Australia, so I haven't noticed...however the converse way of looking at this is they DISCOUNT your meal using the revenue from selling data on you! Win win, right?

...right?

>Finally I understand why when the McDonalds app was introduced it asked for permission to access my contacts

Maybe it did at some point but it's not in the list of permissions on Android

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mcdonalds....

"Financial information " is on the list...

...I am thinking that does not include payslips....

Where do you see "financial information"? It's not on the permissions list

Its under data shared: https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.mcdonal...

In that case it's obviously payment info since you can order through the app.

Interesting. But emails is still there. Wonder what that means.

One good response to that question is "I don't and I never will, sorry", some people think you can only vote with your wallet but that's not true, they really don't like the hostile atmosphere such kind of answers give, so if it became a common answer I bet they would stop asking so directly.

This is such a weird mindset. How much interaction do you think the person hearing your response has with the person in corporate that made them all ask that question?

Being rude or hostile to service people, even just mildly, because of corporate decisions is not only ineffective, but it's also cruel.

We shouldn't be rude or hostile to people, but expressing your disapproval or displeasure definitely can (and in my experience, has) caused a chain reaction enough over time the corp makes changes.

disney just reinstated kimmel due to a shitstorm of angry twitter fans + cancelled memberships.

vote with your mouth and wallet

Fair enough, but where do you draw the line? What if they ask you for ID for a burger? What if they ask to see your browsing history? Or your medical history? At what point is "I will never give that to you" or "Ha ha, no" justified?

At some point you just buy your burger elsewhere. "Can I see ID!" is absolutely across that "go elsewhere" line. No need to be rude, just stopping giving your money to them.

These questions are missing the point. The person you're talking to has no control over the policy so any response directly to them is not going to impact that policy which means the objectionable nature of the policy and your desire to change it are irrelevant. If you're so deeply offended by the question, either stop patronizing the business or voice your criticism in a more constructive manner like trying to reach out to corporate or organizing some consumer action. Don't go the easy and lazy route of attacking the messenger.

No, I see the point, I just don't buy the argument that people working retail have been stripped of all agency, and so therefore your reaction to them must always be a calculated indifference. At some point, you've got to stick up for your dignity. Maybe it's not this case, but it's not far off.

Rudeness in hostility is in how you state your position. Having a position (that you dislike and won't participate in a corporate sales funnel is always OK, and it's always OK to politely express that to representatives of the corporation. Even if they happen to be employees of the franchise owner, they're wearing the uniform and promoting the brand, rather than representing 'local burger restaurant.' Of course, you can just not eat there at all (I don't) but in that case no communication is taking place. Many people are OK with McDonalds' food offerings but not with their invasive app marketing.

Trust me, no communication is happening in either situation. Your complaint is not being run up the corporate ladder. All you're doing is making someone's day a bit worse in order to get some fleeting feeling of self-satisfaction for voicing your opinion. You're of course free to be that person, but the rest of us are free to judge you for it.

In the modern corporate world that leadership has entirely insulated itself from customer feedback - if it was plausible to voice your opinion through more appropriate channels I'd advocate for that but many companies have purposefully shut those channels down.

What is the better option to pass along that message than modestly increasing retraining costs for that position?

I treat service workers with respect, personally, but I am struggling to see what other venues of communication are still available.

1) Stop using the service.

2) Directly email them anyone who might have some say in the matter.

3) Make public posts on social media about your position.

You still may not get heard, but all of these have better odds than complaining to the front-line service workers.

Like I said in my other comment, this is missing the point. This approach won’t be effective. Nothing is actually being communicated to the people making decisions. The difficulty in finding another more effective approach doesn’t change that fact. If you feel passionate about this issue, you should try some of the suggestions by the other commenter.

> but the rest of us are free to judge you for it.

FALSE.

In today's economy and politics of normalized and systemic dark pattern enshittification, fomenting discord toward the turtles all the way down is a responsible civic duty of a disgruntled public captured and corralled by corporate monopolies with no exits.

I do not trust you, because I have been a food service worker and actually know what I'm talking about. A customer expressing a preference has never bothered me if they weren't rude about it. If it happens often enough it does get passed on, even though the individual impact of any counter conversation is low. You are trying to turn normal amicable commercial interactions into some kind of moral purity test.

> I have been a food service worker and actually know what I'm talking about.

Same here.

> A customer expressing a preference has never bothered me if they weren't rude about it.

A lot of people are seemingly skipping over OP describing their behavior as creating a “hostile atmosphere”. That is inherently rude.

> If it happens often enough it does get passed on

But we aren’t talking about just telling your manager. There are so many layers of management and bureaucracy with larger corporations, especially ones with a structure like McDonalds’ franchise model, that these complaints will not make it to the decision makers.

This read to me like a poorly-chosen phrase from a non-native speaker. I had no impression OP intended to communicate hostility, just rejection of the corporate practice.

But we aren’t talking about just telling your manager. There are so many layers of management and bureaucracy with larger corporations, especially ones with a structure like McDonalds’ franchise model, that these complaints will not make it to the decision makers.

They will eventually. Years ago Starbucks used to insist that customers specify 'tall, grande, or venti' for their medium, large, and x-large cups, to the point of arguing with the customer if they just asked for the large. They abandoned the practice some years ago, presumably due to feedback from their counter staff.

>This read to me like a poorly-chosen phrase from a non-native speaker. I had no impression OP intended to communicate hostility, just rejection of the corporate practice.

This is also incredibly weird to me. There is nothing in that post that shows any indication of them not being a native speaker. You just agree with their underlying point so you're giving yourself leeway to ignore the parts of what they said with which you disagree. However, you can't actually admit that bias to yourself or to me, so now you're completely fabricating stories about them being a non-native speaker. It doesn't matter to you that this justification is entirely circular, they didn't mean "hostile" because they're a non-native speaker and they're a non-native speaker because they said "hostile" when they didn't mean it.

Wrong on all accounts: I am indeed a non-native speaker, and reading it again I do see a few indications myself, and my definition "hostility" (and I'm sure I am not alone on this) is a spectrum so you are also giving yourself leeway to interpret things in your preferred way, for example furrowing your brow for a couple of seconds and then looking away is a hostile behavior, if you get on the train and look a stranger like that they would likely describe you as "a bit hostile", maybe I am using it too much as a synonym of "aggressive", which according to the dictionary it is, if instead I were talking about war or politics it would be crystal clear we are talking about the "hard" flavor of hostility but here we are talking about a simple client-customer interaction to get some food.

Well way back in the day, I worked at Radio Shack in college. We were suppose to ask for a phone number and address as part of the payment flow. People complained, I said it was corporate policy. I really didn’t give a shit about their complaints. I got my little minimum wage, sold useless warranties and got a $5 spiff and went on with my day.

Whether it bothered you, it was useless for the customer to complain

No. I call bullshit on your oddly protective stance in favor of how corporations do things.

The pushback has to start somewhere and if it means being mildly rude to some poor cashier for a second, well, that's part of their job and you're not some kind of asshole for making your dislike obvious. You came in there to buy something specific and simple after all, and being pushed on something else is rude too.

You can't be expected to write a strongly worded letter to corporate every one of the many times in an average day that you'll encounter some new, blandly packaged parasitic data harvesting or price gouging practice from some corporation.

On the other hand, if you and enough others create a pattern of responding with a bit of hostility at the customer service end of things, you're nearly guaranteed to fuck up some KPIs somewhere, and raise enough eyebrows to make the executives at X corporation reconsider a few things.

Do you think the cashier even care or will remember at the end of the day

The problem is that your response is precisely what the corporate decision-makers rely on to insulate themselves from criticism.

That doesn't mean that you are wrong: there is no point protesting to a cashier. My point is that there is no realistic or effective way for us to actually communicate to the corporate decision makers that rule our world. This becomes even more true as corporations consolidate power, which is precisely the "enshittification" that Cory Doctorow has been writing about.

No one said to be rude, let alone cruel, to service people. Talk about a weird mindset.

No one said anything that evenr remotely implied the cashier has the ear of the ceo. Talk about a weird mindset.

It's entirely valid, in fact it's positive, being helpful by being informative, to tell a business what you want or why you are not going to buy their product, instead of simply not buying their product.

It's for damned sure valid to tell them what you would preferr if for some reason you are forced by circumstances or priorities to buy their product under duress.

This whole comment is only 2 sentences yet manages to have like a dozen different facets of weird mindset if you unpack it all.

The original comment talked about intentionally creating a “hostile atmosphere”. Doing that for no other reason than making yourself feel better is rude and cruel to the people who have to deal with your hostility.

> Being rude or hostile

I think that answer is neither inherently rude nor hostile.

Some of these responses really confuse me. “Hostile” was OP’s own word not mine.

I just say 'Im allergic to apps.'

It's really evil that corporations closed all ways of giving feedback, and the ones that remained are considered bad manners because "think of poor employees".

when you go through the drive-thru the question is asked by an automated voice with the same weird inflection every time you drive up, not a human service person.

The person mandating the question doesn't care if you sound hostile to the person at the window, they just care how many start using the app.

There are definitely some people who think that directing anger and unpleasantness at the person they talk to (who has no control over the situation other than choosing not to do their job) is a valid approach to providing "feedback".

Some sort of "trickle up" mechanism where if enough people are sufficiently nasty to frontline workers, it'll get back to decision makers who will then change course.

I think that's fantasy and/or rationalization for taking things out on others.

I was a customer facing employee for a company whose underhanded policies caused me to face a lot of (legitimate) hostility. I eventually quit for this reason, and I know at least one other employee who did. That company lost two otherwise good employees. It works, it's just a question of how much collateral damage you're ok with. If management want to use front facing employees to shelter them from customer grievance, what other target to people have?

Yes. But...

It is a bit off to attack the drones of a corporate, albethey the only available target?

Do you really need that burger? Better to boycot them entirety

(Easy for me to say, I dispise MacDonalds food)

The particular problem here is there's no feedback as to why you boycott them.

You see, the following headline has more effect on CEO's and decision makers

"McD's sales drop 10% after customers refuse the app and other forms of spying" --Forbes

If it's a silent boycott then you see stupid headlines like

"Are millennials killing McD?"

Remember the entire purpose isn't so that one company doesn't track you with an app, is so every company figures out tracking you with an app is a bad idea.

So write to the news. The problem is not lack of publicity avenue, it's too few people seem to care enough about apps selling their data to make the headlines in the first place. They'd rather just get the burger and not care.

Did things change after you left?

Many people here seem to think a customer clearly stating their preference is inherently angry and unpleasant to front line workers. It isn't.

I think that reaction stems more from the comment outright seeking to create a hostile atmosphere about it, not from being clear on preferences in itself.

It's the same thing with customers who make a big scene about a missing fries or something. 99% of the time it's not a problem and nobody cares - here's your fries, have a nice day. 1% of the time the person cares less about the fries and more about being hostile about it on principle/for fun/for respect/because they are in a bad mood/whatever, and those are the ones that suck to deal with when you're there but not in charge.

Indeed. I think anything short of tossing your drink at McDonalds workers probably doesn't phase them. They deal with much worse shit from the public than somebody snarking at the premise of having an app.

The context of the comment I was replying was "The person mandating the question doesn't care if you sound hostile to the person at the window".

So the premise is "the customer is hostile".

The teenager on the other end of the headset isn't the person you should be fighting this battle against.

“Well, I’ll tell you what, pal. I am not mad at you, okay? I am mad at the system. Okay, but unfortunately the system isn’t here for me to direct my frustrations at it—“ Dennis

You can simply reply no, and be polite about it.

You’ll be asked the next time you visit, guaranteed. No matter your attitude so why be mean?

It's usually asked by AI, at least at Taco Bell. There is no human that will feel the hostility.

Are you saying AI takes your order at Taco Bell drive through? If so, good thing to avoid.

No, just to ask you if you're using the app. After you say no a human comes on the intercom. The human doesn't have to suffer the abuse of asking about the app, wouldn't surprise me if part of that is because it's set lots of people in a rage so they let them just vent to a computer.

I have no idea what happens if you order through the app, maybe in that case it's 100% AI.

On the contrary, some Taco Bell locations are using an LLM for the entire order conversation. It's still a human that takes your card/cash, but they only state the price to be charged, and ask about hot sauce packets. I was so unsettled by the experience that I ended up not noticing the extra drink they handed me until I made it all the way home.

if ones tirade is of sufficient duration, [or volume] the human will hear at least part of it.

like a glance at the menu wasn't enough ...

btw, i just now did glance at the menu online, i had no idea that this crap i wouldn't dare to call food (unless i were starving) is currently selling in spain. this is a tiny bit depressing but was actually to be expected, and i stand by my statement :-)

It did but I think they're rolling that back now.

It's a good thing that decision-making executives are the ones who hear what you say into the squawk-box. And that the local employees get to decide how to answer, and aren't on a mandatory script.

>> I wonder if selling personal information makes them more money than selling hamburgers.

Historically it's been a real estate company due to the vast portfoloio and usually prime locations. Not sure if this is still the case.

It can be interesting to look at all the servers these apps try to reach after being installed

Unless one is using something like GrapheneOS, Android/iOS "app permissions" do not meaningfully impede data collection

As long as apps can connect to the internet, data can be collected. By design Android/iOS does not enable users to deny internet access to specific apps. That design is not a coincidence

> By design Android/iOS does not enable users to deny internet access to specific apps.

It does seem like the number one permission you might wish to choose not to grant, doesn't it?

In a privacy-first design there could also be an API for an encrypted channel that the user has access to, rather than allowing the device to send mysterious black-box data from your device on your behalf in the background whenever it wants. Though I suppose it would just turn into base64 "plaintext" payloads quickly and become normalised rather than a neon sign of fuckery afoot.

On iOS you can deny an app cellular data access which accomplishes this, as long as you don't launch it on Wifi. But yes I too wish I could deny apps internet access completely.

"... as long as you don't launch it on WiFi."

Unfortunately, apps can still connect even when they are not "launched"

There are ways to deny apps internet access completely. But this is not something that is provided by Apple or Google

It would be cool to have some form of filtering vpn to do just that and easy to deploy on a personal vm provider.

Maybe I should ask Claude Code to kludge together something.

To me, the differences between iOS and Android are insignificant. Both corporate OS suck, and there are other corporate OS that suck, too

The fundamental similarity is that Apple does not protect the Apple computer owner^1 from Apple anymore than Google protects Android users from Google

Like Google, Apple collects data and profits from ad services. The Apple hardware buyer becomes the product after purchase. Apple profits from selling access to the hardware owner to myriad third parties. It's always making deals

Like the one with Google we learned about in the government's antitrust case. But I digress

There was a meme something like, "Unless you're paying, you are the product". But it's also possible to pay and be the product. For example, when someone purchases an individual Windows license from Microsoft, after purchase the company is still going to _require_ them to create an "account", connect to the internet and be subjected to data collection

Both iOS and Android have "app stores" (MS copies this, too), both expect and intend these "app stores" to earn them revenue from advertising, e.g., allowing apps to do surveillance, data collections and show ads

1. who is forced to use iOS. No "unlocked" bootloaders. No custom ROMs

This is a disingenuous take that punishes companies with better data collection practices. iOS has many toggles for disabling data collection, ad personalisation, limit apps from tracking you with more persistent techniques, and so on.

I'd never defend Apple willy-nilly: they're a megacorp that defrauds the European consumer and is hostile to much I care about. But there is a world of difference between Android and iOS in terms of the protections afforded to the user. Of course most people just don't know where the toggles and settings are that protect them on iOS.

There are no "toggles" that protect iOS users from data collection and surveillance by Apple

Today's Apple computers try to ping Apple servers the moment they are powered on for the first time. The devices incessantly try to "phone home". Apple's definition of "privacy" does not include privacy from Apple. That is not a coincidence

There is no "toggle" to enable this "convenience", i.e., usage of Apple servers, because it is, by design, on by default

This is not an opinion or a perspective (a "take"). It is a fact, verifiable with tcpdump or the like

One can focus on differences or one can focus on similarities. Many online commentators choose the former. But if focusing on similarities, then it is indisputably clear that Android and iOS are both designed to allow Google and Apple, respectively,^1 to conduct surveillance, data collection and provide ad services

1. Apple also allows Google to collect data from iOS users via default web search in exchange for recurring payement of several billion dollars

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/apples-eddy-cue-defends-defa...

One of the other facts that the court learned from the expert tetimony in this case is that defaults matter. If generally no one uses the "toggles", then Apple and Google operate as if they have "consent" to collect data, as if the computer owner voluntarily toggled "Allow surveillance, data collection and ads" to "ON"

"In-app advertising" is a growing business for Apple

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/global-app-store-help...

By design, in order to serve ads to iOS users, an app needs internet connectivity. Even when the app has no need for internet connectivity otherwise

careful !

https://survivalfreedom.com/how-much-does-it-cost-mcdonalds-... [2023]

https://hpshplaidline.org/2024/02/08/breaking-down-the-cost-... [2024]

It sure seems like whenever a corporation grows old, large or expansive enough, it will inevitably morph into an spy agency. Even what is obstensibly a burger flipping business wants to spy on people.

Earlier this week I was in a regional gas station getting lunch, they've got maybe 30 or so locations scattered around this part of the state, and watched them tell an old man that he couldn't get a loyalty card from them anymore because they only do apps now. "But I don't have a cellphone" - "Uhhh... You can also do it online?"

> Even what is obstensibly a burger flipping business

Technically, McDonald's is a real estate company[1] who wants to spy on people, but that doesn't make it any less egregious.

[1] https://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/mcdonalds-beyond-the-burg...

Isn't that technically true for all franchises?

If every restaurant is its own small/medium business and the corporate franchisor only ever interacts with the franchisees and never with the end customers, then all the direct revenue for the franchisor will be from services or licenses provided to the franchisees, not from directly selling burgers. But the franchisees are still much more dependent on the franchisor than they would be in a normal B2B relationship. And many of those "service costs" can be freely set by the franchisor and have the purpose of channeling revenue back from the restaurants - revenue that would not exist if no burgers were sold.

No.

The specific point here is that the McDonald's Corporation is often the landlord of its franchisees. Of course most franchisees of any franchisor are required to buy supplies etc from the franchisor, but McDonald's is famous for also charging them rent.

McDonalds is a real estate business. I recommend you check out the 2016 movie "The Founder" which is the story of Ray Kroc. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Founder

> McDonalds is a real estate business.

In the same way that American Airlines is a credit card company. How much rent will they receive if they stopped selling burgers?

> The Founder"

Good movie but McDonalds is a long long way away from scrappy, morally-bankrupt Ray Kroc's time. I imagine using pink slime to make the nuggets he sold to kids would be right in his wheelhouse though.

> In the same way that American Airlines is a credit card company.

I thought the "they're not what you think" deal with airlines is that they're actually futures trading companies that happen to own and operate some aircraft?

American Airlines is more a credit card company than McDonalds is a real estate company. If McDonald's stopped collecting rent from its franchisees, there would probably be layoffs at corporate but the general public would still be able to buy Big Macs.

If American Airlines' credit card revenues dried up they wouldn't be able to pay their fuel bills and the company would be gone the next day.

While very interesting and a great movie, maybe can you explain how it's pertinent to this conversation?

>> "Even what is obstensibly a burger flipping business"

> ostensibly

probably implied they knew.

Ostensibly ;)

But yes, good movie too.

> a burger flipping business wants to spy on people

"It started at a Burger-G restaurant in Cary, NC on May 17."

  For example, the Manna software in each store knew about employee performance 
  in microscopic detail — how often the employee was on time or early, how 
  quickly the employee did tasks, how quickly the employee answered the phone 
  and responded to email, how the customers rated the employee and so on. When 
  an employee left a store and tried to get a new job somewhere else, any other 
  Manna system could request the employee’s performance record. If an employee 
  had “issues” — late, slow, disorganized, unkempt — it became nearly 
  impossible for that employee to get another job. 

https://marshallbrain.com/manna2

At my local spot, they just shout "MOBILE APP?!" When you pull up. No other greeting. It's a truly lovely experience