'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the problem (beyond the article)

  • Commenters report increasing “app-only” requirements for: parking, public transport, banking auth, school/daycare communication, medical portals, gyms, laundry, restaurant menus/ordering, airline boarding passes, and ticketing.
  • Many note that almost all of these are just web apps wrapped in native shells, but access is locked behind app stores and phone OSes.
  • People who split lives across countries run into geofenced app stores (banking, transit, McDonald’s, NHS, etc.), sometimes needing multiple phones/accounts.

Choice vs discrimination / is it “tyranny”?

  • One camp: not having a smartphone is a personal choice; others shouldn’t bear higher costs to support “obsolete” options. Analogies: cars, credit cards, education credentials.
  • Opposing view: this is effectively coercion, especially when applied to essential services (banking, health, schooling, parking where tickets are mandatory). “Choice” isn’t real if the alternative is exclusion.
  • Several argue the rhetoric (“tyranny”) is hyperbolic but the underlying trend is genuinely harmful.

Banking and essential services

  • Multiple reports of banks dropping web access or SMS in favor of app‑only 2FA, sometimes requiring Google/Apple stores, non‑rooted phones, or specific OSes.
  • Some people can no longer manage accounts remotely (e.g., abroad, no smartphone, or alternative OS), or must travel to a branch that is itself disappearing or fee‑ridden.
  • Suggestions: mandate TOTP/hardware tokens; require at least one non‑app channel for core banking. Skeptics doubt banks will do this without regulation.

Schools, healthcare, and families

  • Parents describe needing multiple incompatible apps per child for communication, homework, lunch payments, attendance, etc. Apps change every year.
  • A few successfully forced email/web alternatives, but only via persistent negotiation with principals and teachers.
  • Health systems increasingly replace decent web portals with buggy, app‑only frontends; elderly patients and those with limited tech skills struggle, sometimes losing practical access to care.

Accessibility, disability, addiction

  • Examples: people with brain damage, low income, vision/dexterity issues, cognitive overload, or religious objections to smartphones.
  • Some avoid smartphones deliberately due to internet addiction; app‑only systems effectively punish this coping strategy.
  • Commenters note that accessibility law covers disability but not “right to live offline” or “right to use a generic computer instead of a smartphone.”

Privacy, surveillance and pricing

  • Many see app‑only discounts (fast food, supermarkets, transport) less as rewards and more as penalties for privacy‑conscious people; prices rise for everyone, then are “discounted” only to trackable users.
  • Apps enable persistent location, behavioral tracking, and personalized pricing; some argue this is the real business goal, not “security” or UX.
  • App‑store lock‑in (Apple/Google) is a separate but related concern: essential services increasingly require accepting their terms and surveillance.

Rural, poverty, and cost

  • Some rural commenters report still being able to live mostly “pre‑smartphone,” others describe the opposite: app‑only bus tickets, parking, bank fees for in‑person service.
  • While cheap phones and social tariffs exist in some countries, people point out hidden costs: rapid end of security updates, forced upgrades, data plans, and the extra cognitive load of managing many apps.

Role of government and regulation

  • Strong support for requiring non‑app access for public and quasi‑public services: government portals, healthcare, schools, banking, core transport, parking.
  • Cited examples: Swiss cantons voting a “right to live offline” / “digital integrity” into their constitutions, leading to choices like switching schools from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice.
  • Others warn that mandating full offline equivalence (same price and convenience) could kill low‑cost, app‑only competitors and raise system‑wide costs; they favor baseline offline access, but accept some price differences.

Technical alternatives and workarounds

  • Proposed compromises:
    • Proper mobile web apps + email/SMS;
    • Open standards (TOTP, FIDO keys) instead of proprietary authenticators;
    • Dedicated hardware tokens or QR‑scanning devices for people without smartphones.
  • Some users resist by: refusing app‑only services, demanding paper or phone alternatives, using flip phones or de‑Googled Android, or simply walking away from restaurants, banks, or parking they can’t use without an app.