Hacker News Reader

Comment by eddieroger | Hacker News Reader

I do have a smartphone, but I don't seem to feel the pain the author feels about being inundated by QR codes and apps. Maybe I have all the apps I need already? Maybe I just don't mind having an app on my phone because I know that I can set it to basically never bother me. Most of my apps have notifications silenced. My home screen is empty, save the handful of apps I do want. And for the little bit of effort I put forth to tweak the device to my liking, I get the world in my pocket - a full browser, every song I've ever liked, every picture I've ever taken, all my scanned documents, etc - not to mention all my loved ones available at a moment's notice. My battery lasts long enough, and when it doesn't, it's because I was using the device. I just don't understand the complaint I guess. Make the device work for you, not the other way around?

View on HN

I don't think he's complaining about having a lot of apps, or the ability to have a lot of apps. He's complaining about being required to use apps for hundreds of small interactions every day that don't, or shouldn't, require an app. And he's correct. Companies are doing this not because they think it's better, but because they believe that if they can worm their way onto your device, and insert their cloud service (even if it's initially free), that they can turn you into a more reliable and/or recurring revenue stream in the future, either because you feel locked into their ecosystem so you will buy other products from their lineup, or, even better, buy a subscription service.

> He's complaining about being required to use apps for hundreds of small interactions every day

This is the exaggeration that makes these claims fall flat for me.

How are you getting to hundreds of smartphone interactions per day that require apps?

Just because you don't need to interact with all of them today does not mean that interaction isn't required when needed.

Right, but “two or three out of potentially hundreds” doesn’t mean the same as “hundreds”.

That’s the hyperbole the parent was pointing out.

I don't think it's hyperbole as much as it is just regular ordinary everyday slang.

"I have a hundred things to do today" doesn't mean that a person has 100 things on their list for that day.

Outside of tech bubbles, people talk like that.

It's like how the Bible uses the number 40 as a shortcut for any very large number. 40 years in the desert, 40 days of rain, etc… It's not a calendar, it's an illustrative euphemism.

Whether it's regular ordinary everyday slang or not, it's exactly hyperbole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

We’ve had smartphones for a decade and I don’t think I have 100 apps on my phone even if you included the ones that came with my phone.

And daily I maybe use 4-6 apps at most.

When I moved to a new apartment in 2021, I did a tally and there was something like 17 new apps associated with it. Off the top of my head:

  - Rent payment/contracts app
  - Rent deposit app (for some reason a different app)
  - Maintenance app
  - Community notices/amenities app
  - Dry cleaning app
  - Package app
  - Pet concierge app (reserve the dog park, etc.)
  - Apartment building parking/valet app
  - App for the company that owns the building so you can use amenities at any of the other company buildings in town
  - Another company app so you can reserve a guest suite at another company-owned building in another city
  - App to unlock your apartment door if you lose your fob
  - App for the restaurant in the lobby
  - Internet company app (Man, that place had great internet.  I miss that the most.)
  - Satellite TV company app
  - City parking app

There were other apps, but I don't care enough now to go looking for the list I made back when I cared about it.

From a technical standpoint, almost all of those apps could be consolidated into one app, but that's not how the real world works. These days companies outsource each little function to a different provider, and each of those providers has its own app.

Maybe I'm in a tech desert, but I can't remember the last time I was required to use an app for anything. It's a convenient option for my grocery store loyalty card, certain restaurant menus, my HVAC system, etc., but not mandatory. I've heard of restaurants that have no physical menus but I haven't come across one myself.

Some banks. And requesting a French marriage certificate from abroad.

A few years ago I could have done it all on a Linux PC.

90% of the “coupons” at Safeway are “digital deals”. You have to use the app to scan the barcode in store just to get a regular price. Fast food is the same, don’t order through the app and you get ripped off. You’re not forced to use an app an unless you’re okay with getting ripped off.

Depending on where I park in the city, I have to install a different parking app. And create an account, and pay with a credit card via the app. There was a time, however brief, when some of the parking meters just accepted credit cards, or get this, coins.

This is what happens when a large number of people claim they "don't seem to feel the pain" and comply with the data broker's wishes. We all get stuck in the data brokers web, or we have to break the law to park on a public street.

100% this, and it is annoying. I pay for street parking (i'm ok with it, it's a tax base for the city I live in), but i'm not Ok with having to pay .50 per transaction. And i used to carry a stack of quarters in my car. And then you add all the vendors with their proprietary apps in this space, the tracking of the data of what car parked where, when, etc.

I'm suprised they were allowed to remove the coins from the meters, but they were. So people who don't have a premiere phone, because the apps don't work on your old crappy phone, or people who don't have a credit card to feed into the app on the phone, are SOL.

I think the problem is that things that once did not require and realistically shouldn't require apps (like the toilet example - which I can't tell if hyperbole or not) are now "app enabled" by default.

Sure, you have taken the time to curate your mobile experience and silence things but a majority of the people in the world don't do that as it takes more time and effort than they are willing or able to give (why silence things or uninstall apps when you can browse instagram or tiktok for 2 hours). These people are the most affected but don't often know how inundated they are.

The example could be hyperbole, but Home Depot and Lowes both offer a wide selection of "smart toilets" and if we think "oh this is just a weird niche thing that will never catch on" let's remember how difficult it is to not purchase a Smart TV when television shopping these days.

I cannot envision what a traditional, but smart toilet may do.

By traditional, not Japanese or anything of the sort. I'm sure it's also not taking medical samples.

So what on earth could it do?! Report the flushes!?! Why? Are you going to magically decide not to crap as much?

Just baffling.

The whole point of the label "smart" is to fill in vague positive thoughts for the customary "..." that comes right before "profit" in the standard /. business plan. And the real problem is that it works.

There are smart toilet devices that have cameras, so, it's about as bad as one could imagine.

Probably connected to your wi-fi and with a default password, as is customary for IoT.

It is kinda funny that “smart” is the branding we’ve converged on for these devices that have unnecessary computer features. Most engineers would, I guess, call it pretty stupid to add a computer to the BoM of your toilet.

Gastroenterologists generally categorize feces into ~7 categories. They can be indicators of a variety of dietary deficencies, including dehydration or insufficient fiber intake. Others can be indicators of a variety of medical issues, up to an including colon cancer. Ubiquitous smart toilets scanning and categorizing our feces would move the needle of overall public health and well-being.

Yes indeed they would, all the issues with sensor longevity aside.

But, that's not now. So why the app now?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call enshittification!

Auto-flush, seat warmer, scheduled seat warmer, cleaning cycle, scent dispenser, "you haven't been going as often" sensing, auto high/low flush depending on time on toilet...

Just off the top of my head, and I'm no toilet engineer. I'm sure there are lots of possibilities with just a sensor or two.

I could see someone trying to sell a toilet that reduces the water amount depending on your business as an eco feature.

Or one that automatically ads cleaning products and notifies you on your phone when you need to refill them.

> I cannot envision what a traditional, but smart toilet may do

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't flush that".

Most appliances have "smart" features now, it's getting hard to avoid. But I've never enabled them. My dishwasher and my clothes washer have both bluetooth and wifi features but I never set them up. I just use the controls on the device. I have no interest in getting information about my appliances when I am not physcially in front of them.

Yes, but the controls on the device cost the manufacturer a couple of cents that they will be happy to not pay as soon as they can get away with it. First it'll be (in some cases already is) the advanced or rarely used functionality. Eventually you'll be expected to connect the damned thing before it can be used at all.

I recently visited both and could not find a single smart toilet... strange.

> I think the problem is that things that once did not require and realistically shouldn't require apps (like the toilet example - which I can't tell if hyperbole or not) are now "app enabled" by default.

It's ridiculous how often & where tech is required these days where it really shouldn't.

One example: recently I discovered that on the (main) train station in the province capital near me, going to the toilet requires a bank (ATM/debit) card. What?!? FYI: we're talking a city with ~100k inhabitants.

Decades ago, you could just use a toilet. Done.

But ofcourse it needs cleaning, and personnel costs money. So, they'd put up a bowl where people could drop a few coins.

That didn't last long lol. Next: some small mechanism attached to door handle. Insert coin, open door.

Of course, some acts of vandalism & theft later: do away with the cash. And because 'everybody' around here pays with card+PIN 'everywhere' anyway, let's stick that onto the access-to-toilet.

On the surface, this whole progression seems 'logical'. But it's not! You've replaced something that shouldn't require tech at all, or at most a simple mechanical thingie, with something that requires electricity, internet connection, an electronic payments system backend, and may have the ability to track who used what toilet, where, when & bank account involved.

Insane! Issues like 'how to pay for toilet use' play worldwide, and this is the best you could come up with?

> Maybe I just don't mind having an app on my phone because I know that I can set it to basically never bother me.

Apps are a problem in more ways than just the nuisance of notifications and having an icon on your home screen.

As long as an app is installed it can run in the background whenever it feels like it collecting and sending data. If you have a physical product that requires an app to use, it may not bother you until you go to use it and it fails because a server shut down or it refuses to run because it silently updated at some point and has now decided that your phone is no longer supported and suddenly the product you paid for is useless.

If you are very careful about which apps you install/refuse to install you'll probably be fine, but most companies that push apps are doing it because they want your device to work for their benefit at your expense.

Same, I never use apps because they're the simplest way for vendors to violate your privacy.

The real reason why vendors want users to use their apps is that an app maximizes the information they can steal from users with the minimum disruption (unfortunately users aren't aware of the fact).

I've never understood why this isn't obvious to everyone.

For years, I've avoided giving my phone number out to organisations by saying I don't have a phone. It's blistful, I almost never receive an unwanted call.

It's pretty annoying when traveling to new countries, which I do often.

Always figure out all the apps I need to use local transport, to park, to charge the car, etc. In plenty of regions you also need special (often confusing) wallet apps to be able to pay for stuff without local bank accounts.

I would appreciate it if more of this ran on the web as well.

> Always figure out all the apps I need to use local transport, to park, to charge the car, etc. In plenty of regions you also need special (often confusing) wallet apps to be able to pay for stuff without local bank accounts.

And everybody's favourite, apps that have been region-locked to local-inhabitants-only, because foreign visitors don't exist, right?

Oh, yeah. That happens frequently as well.

You're missing the point entirely. You're opting in and enjoying it, great! Do you really believe you chose to opt in? The author is saying that opting out is extremely painful and that THAT is wrong. We should all get to choose if we want to walk around with a smart phone or not. It's now basically required to invest in a privacy destroying device that makes huge corporations that much richer to function in society.

You don't understand why someone would complain about that?

> Do you really believe you chose to opt in?

Yes, in that I am of free enough will to choose not to use something or do my homework before making purchases. I'm also not saying that you shouldn't be able to walk around without a smartphone, but choices, like speech, aren't without consequence. If you want to pay for something at a location that only takes cash, but you won't carry cash because it's easily stolen or lost, that doesn't mean they have to accommodate you, it means you're not eating their food. Should they take card? Sure, and you should be able to walk around cashless, but the same choice you get to make, they do as well.

You missed out the parts about "extremely painful" and "basically required", as well as "privacy destroying" and "makes huge corporations that much richer".

So, for the analogy, let's say lots and lots of businesses and public utilities are cash only, and carrying the cash exploits you for Google's profit somehow. Or we could stick to the idea that carrying cash is a theft risk, but let's say the businesses are indirectly in cahoots with the pickpockets through a chain of corruption and that's why everybody requires you to carry cash and be vulnerable.

You can choose not to do it, and your choice is not without consequences that are morally wrong, and you'd be right to complain about that. Otherwise if "not without consequence" implies that you shouldn't complain, then you're offering a viewpoint of it being a dog-eat-dog world, and that's just the way it is, if you resist you'll suffer and you're a fool, so take the easy path and don't worry about the morality. Resignation.

My smart phone is essentially bricked, allowing only text and voice. I have not in the least found it "extremely painful" or "basically required" to have phone connectivity as I only use my laptop for connected activity.

I realize, however, that having both a phone and a home computer may be a privilege that others may not share. That's the rub. Users with only phones for connectivity are made more vulnerable by an exploitative digital system. In that, the author is correct. It's a terrible ecosystem and it begs legislative intervention but I haven't a clue how that is to be accomplished.

Turning this around a bit: Businesses should be required to accept cash. We shouldn't need to have a relationship with a bank just to buy food or gas or what have you.

My daughter took a 4 hour train home. She brought money for food. But apparently you can no longer buy food without a bank card on Canadian trains.

I've run into bizarre situations where smartphones were required. Went to Royale in Boston, and it's bad enough I have to use an app to pay for tickets, but at least I knew that ahead of time and accepted it. But then they wanted me to install another app to use the coat check when I got inside. How would one anticipate the latter ahead of time? Complete lunacy.

Ultimately I declined to use the app and hid my coat under a chair lol and I will not return to the venue.

>Maybe I have all the apps I need already?

>Maybe I just don't mind having an app on my phone because I know that I can set it to basically never bother me.

Maybe when the government decides you're a dissident, they can purchase the location information from all your convenient apps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com