Hacker News Reader

> They do it so they don't have to stand up their own push servers

I don't agree with this dependency on being in good standing with Google either.

But there is a technical reason that isn't wanting to avoid using their push servers. It is about battery usage and radio bandwidth.

Keeping open an idle connection over WebSocket, long-poll HTTP or TCP/IP needs regular pings (typically 30 seconds are used), one ping per connection. Otherwise your app can't be sure to receive messages from the server in real time, as the connection can disappear into CGNAT or similar hole where it doesn't receive messages sent by the server. To an app not using pings to check, such a blackholed connection is indisinguishable from an idle connection with no pending messages.

Waking the radio every 30 seconds, times 2 (back and forth), times the number of registered applications, would be quite battery draining. It drains battery both for background CPU usage and radio processing. Those pings in aggregate can even amount to a significant amount of data usage for users on smaller plans.

So there is a battery and radio advantage in using a shared push service, which only need a single idle connection to be kept live with 30 second pings.

There's another level to this, not available to regular developers using TCP/IP, HTTP or WebSockets.

The mobile network itself has to maintain handset connection liveness to the nearest tower, at a lower level than IP pings, and this is obviously optimised for battery and radio performance, and always running.

With arrangements in place with the mobile networks (which Google and Apple have), the mobile OS can leverage that for more reliable, lower power push notifications, by either guaranteeing the network will send something technically similar to a low-level SMS when there's an outstanding message, or by guaranteeing their special push IP connection will stay live by itself (no CGNAT blackhole) or be notified if something happens to it.

This allows the mobile OS to offer a shared push service that's fairly reliable at real-time notifications, with zero continuous CPU and radio power overhead for the idle connection.

Why does a banking app that I'm not currently using need to ping a server occasionally?

When I want to do banking I'll open the app, do my business, then close the app. A banking application does not need push notifications.

Unfortunately it needs push notifications to authorize online payments.

So open the app when performing an online payment.

My comment was about push service sharing generally, not banks, from a technical point of view that many people aren't aware of but may find interesting.

Clearly, real-time notifications are useful with many apps, notably real-time messaging, even if you don't think they have a place with bank apps.

For bank and credit card apps, I find their push notifications to be very useful. They are among the most useful notifications I get, because they tell me about things I find important, which I wouldn't notice otherwise.

They tell me things about transactions that have gone through, sometimes after a long delay, transactions that need confirmation right now or they will be blocked, balance being too low, or too high (credit cards), payments that are required today, refunds that came through after a product was returned, transfers that completed on the receiving said, payment received from a client, direct debits that are going out tomorrow so I will need to make sure there's enough in the account, customer service messages that require a response from me or they will eventually close the account, and so forth.

"Just open the app" doesn't work: All of those, except transaction confirmations, are things where I wouldn't know to open the app if I didn't get a message of some kind to tell me.

These days, in some juristictions it's also required to send real-time notification to confirm some purchases, because the phone's security is considered better than card details alone. Depending on how the purchase is made (e.g. in-person vs online, different payment terminals), you might not know the reason a transaction is blocked or held is because it's waiting for you to confirm in the app, so the notification is useful for this.

All these used to be done by SMS, and that was useful too. But SMSs are just push notificatons with a worse UI and worse visual cues.

  > But SMSs are just push notificatons with a worse UI and worse visual cues.

... and no dependence on Google or Apple.

> ...worse visual cues

I'm on Android, and SMS notifications look exactly like every other notification (with one caveat I'll mention below), so I don't know what this guy is on about.

> ...SMSs are just push notificatons with a worse UI...

By this, does OP mean that shit where programs can put buttons and bigass images into their notifications? If yes, I don't want that shit. That's just more opportunity to accidentally trigger unwanted behavior with one's fat fingers, and more screen space gobbled up by overly-self-important software.

The thing that's shitty about SMS is that it's "worst^Wbest effort" delivery... which means that messages can (and will) get delivered late, out of order, or never. Don't use SMS; use email. Email is also best-effort, but -based on my personal experience- far more email server operators give a shit about delivering your messages than SMS relay operators.

That is clearly not the opinon of the product owners and business people. They believe that they own your device, data, and location of when you use it and how you use it. If they want to tell you about their new terrible financial product they will try to force it on you.

I thought this was what Larry meant when he said surveillance will keep citizens on their best behavior. If one’s reputation score is low, sorry no money. Also, if anyone in one’s network has bad behavior, no money and no friends. Maybe the kids will learn to accept it, but being of the last analog generation, to me it seems like a painful future.

As far as I remember, last time I needed to use Google play on a shared phone I could just create a random Google address (I mean, completely invented name, etc.) and it allowed me to do anything, just as my normal Android.

I am too lazy to test, but did this change? Can't you just make a "fake" account and continue with your life? The phone company knows where you are, the bank knows what you purchase. Compared to that Google will know far less (ofc, if you don't activate everything)

I find it much more insane that it was possible for so long to do banking WITHOUT strong authentication (however implemented) by just providing those 3 numbers on the back of the card (strong security!)

No, they will either immediately or shortly thereafter require you to link a phone number, etc

The original comment was saying:

> If you are not in good standing with Google, you cannot bank!!

> I cannot stress how inane it is, to have Google or Apple as the gatekeeping to identify verification. How not having an active, in good standing account with one of these two, means you cannot bank.

Having to register some phone number (does not need to be your main number, a sim card is quite cheap) to a "fake/unused" email address (even if as you say you are required yo) does not require you to "be in good standing with Google" and they are not gatekeepers of identity.

At this point in time I feel the banks and the mobile phone operators are much worse managers of identity, because, for example they even accept stolen identifiers to make an account in "your name" - for me that's more ridiculous, not that they require some multiple factor of authentication.

You can create a Google account without adding a phone number, that's still possible currently. To do this you need to make it within an app, for example Google Play Store or YouTube, not on the websites. You also need to use a trusted IP, so you shouldn't use a VPN. To avoid handing out your home WiFi IP, you can use a public WiFi point or use cellular which cycles IPs more quickly.

Prepare for a subsequent login to result in a 'security check' that asks for more personal details to confirm your account, or you'll be locked out.

In my experience, this can come as soon as the first login after creating the account, or a few logins later.

In Germany for some banks you can buy a TAN generator and then you do not need a smartphone app anymore. Is this an option in your area as well?

At my "traditional" bank I even need the TAN generator for my phone. While at my "neo" bank I even need the phone app to access the website. :-) (That is how the neo bank tricked me. I read "website access" in their ad and thought I could still access the bank account if I lose my phone. But no, you can't login without the app.)

It seems like the right time to advocate for open standards in things like banking.

Why? Technofeudalism is not going to impose itself

Especially with how things are currently, I whole heartedly agree - you cannot operate as a human being in Europe without having a good standing with either Alphabet or Apple.

Absolute madness.

Absolute madness or complete nonsense - I have neither an Apple account or device, nor a Google account or mandated device (e/os on Fairphone 3+) and operate perfectly successfully in the UK with (almost [1.]) zero friction.

1. Revolut app stopped working so I emptied my account and opened a Wise account which is fully administer-able from their website. Revolut has subsequently started working again after a couple of app/OS updates.

> Revolut app stopped working so I emptied my account and opened a Wise account

Same, though I’ve never returned to Revolut.

Wise does have some quirks (e.g. they’ve blocked me from unfreezing or reissuing my cards recently for no apparent reason), but still they’re way way closer to zero-bullshit than any other neobanks I’ve tried.