More broadly, we need regulation where companies cannot make "ownership of the newest smartphone" a requirement to do business with them. I'm lucky to be in the USA where we still haven't smartphone-ized everything yet, but every year I see it creeping in. Every year, a new bank requires a smartphone to create a passkey or whatever. Every year, a restaurant I like moves over to QR code menus. Every year, a doctor decides to move over to smartphone-based payments only. And of course, all of the crappy app developers insist that 1. I use a very recent phone and 2. I run the latest OS, or I'm shut out.
I have no problem with enabling smartphone-based payments and passes for people who like them, but companies should not be allowed to block out (or charge extra to) others who prefer not to tether themselves to a phone.
Here in some European countries, like France, having a smartphone out in a restaurant is a sign of bad etiquette. It's not crucial, but from some people's perspective it might seem out of place. However, some restaurants tried QR code menus due to COVID-19, but most of them have since stopped using them.
I fully agree that having the latest version of a phone/OS should not be treated as a requirement for access to services, especially essential ones.
>. And of course, all of the crappy app developers insist that 1. I use a very recent phone and 2. I run the latest OS, or I'm shut out.
Signal did this when my wife's Macbook could no longer be updated to the latest Apple OS version. Signal just stopped working for her completely on her laptop. She couldn't install the latest version of Signal due to her not being on the latest OS, and Signal won't allow the old version to work once it's outdated. We had to buy her a whole new laptop (not Apple this time) to get her back on Signal (something she relies on).
Yes, I know about the hacky workarounds to get the latest OS working on a Macbook, but fuck that noise.
Third party developers dropping support for OS versions that are, frankly, not even very old, is a scourge in software today.
I can maybe understand sunsetting support if the OS made a huge backwards-incompatible step change, but macOS and iOS updates don't tend to be that kind. The differences (for developers) between Catalina and Mojave are minuscule. Retaining support for Mojave should be close to zero effort on the part of the developer. There should be no difference in maintenance burden between building an application that runs on Mojave and Catalina, and building an application that runs only on Catalina+.
>More broadly, we need regulation where companies cannot make "ownership of the newest smartphone" a requirement to do business with them.
I'm not keen on mobile apps in general, but I don't see a need for regulation here. Companies want customers. It's not in their interest to needlessly harass people with pointless technology requirements that drive people to competitors. No company has ever required "the newest smartphone" for everyday tasks.
I don't support a general right to refuse adoption of any and all new technologies. What I do support is a mandate to use open technologies wherever possible for infrastructure that no one can reasonably avoid. What we can't allow is that people who lose some oligopolist account can no longer live a normal life.
"Companies want customers" is often not enough of a market force to result in behavior that is inclusive of everyone, which is why, for example, we need things like the Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates that companies' services are accessible to all, and other laws which require full and equal accommodations. We could almost argue that making things "[new] smartphone only" might violate the ADA. I'd like to see such a lawsuit.
I agree that we sometimes need regulation to guarantee access for everyone.
But regulations need to be kept up-to-date and they need to be consistently enforced. That's a lot of work. Having too many of them only helps lawyers and people who can afford them.
Some random company requiring a smartphone for access to some service doesn't strike me as exclusionary enough to justify burdening the system with more regulation.
Indeed, and that's why perhaps some internal marketing analytics show that people with installed apps often buy tickets from the same airline company. Then, we discover how airline companies decide to push their mobile phone application adoption through mandatory tickets.
Such decisions are always about sales, and never about security or customer care.
You're probably right. I just think it's not worth piling the equivalent of technical debt on our legal system just to curb small annoyances. Budget airlines are an incredibly rich source of small annoyances.
> I have no problem with enabling smartphone-based payments and passes for people who like them, but companies should not be allowed to block out (or charge extra to) others who prefer not to tether themselves to a phone.
I agree with this. (The same would apply to restaurant menus.)
(In the case of restaurant menus, they could post a single copy near the entrance or somewhere that it can be seen by everyone in case they do not want to make multiple copies (and do not want to waste paper). E-paper displays might be used in case they sometimes change.)
I have no problem with enabling smartphone-based payments and passes for people who like them, but companies should not be allowed to block out (or charge extra to) others who prefer not to tether themselves to a phone.