At this point the barrier for me to install an app is pretty high. If you're going to needlessly gate certain functions behind an app that work on a desktop browser (or could work in-browser), then I just won't use those functions. If by extension that degrades the value I get from your site, then I just won't use the site, and I won't be contributing to ADU stats you promote to advertisers.
Every single company has turned this into a situation where I cannot trust your apps with privacy or security, and the risk and hassle isn't worth the install.
If your app is just a webpage that forces me to use an app just so you can spy on me I just won't use your product. I've switched brokers over it, I swapped banks, I stopped shopping at certain stores.
I'm done. The only say I have is in how I spend my money. Those companies won't get any of mine if I can help it.
Twitter is the worst. You go to a page and scroll down and it banners a beater in the app thing and you can’t dismiss it. You either get the app or close the tab. Close the tab.
In the last couple months if you go to their site in a mobile browser (e.g. from search results), after a short scroll down they have this popup demanding you install their app and it completely takes over the screen. I take it as a reminder never to install their app.
I thought I'd be clever and use iOS's "Hide Distracting Items" to get rid of elements like that. But reddit kills the scroll, too, so even after the dickover[0] is gone the page is still non-functional. Nothing says, "we don't want your business" like a non-functional web page, which seems like a bad move unless you're selling food or potable water. 'cuz I get along just fine w/o reddit.
I've been trying to figure out for years how to keep specific bits of Javascript like that from triggering. But so many modern webpages are procedurally generated messes born from frameworks that I can't reliably track down a way to do it. On Reddit for example there's reddit.com, redd.it, redditstatic.com, and cdn-apple.com that are all subdomains that load on the page, and each pull Javascript from dozens of different sources. If you disable Javascript entirely the page won't load and instead nags you to enable it. I don't want to go digging through the page inspector in my dev console just to track down which .js file is causing that, and then figure out how to only stop it from killing the scrollbar. If you can even do that. Some pages are so labyrinthine that you can't.
I'm sure there must be something on https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/wiki/Resources-Library but I've still not really been able to make sense/use of these rules much. At this point blocking certain things in js universally seems kind of impossible now that everything is webpack-chunked with random names or hidden in react context that seems inaccessible.
But I think this css rule covers many simple cases
html[style*="overflow:hidden"], html[style*="overflow: hidden"]
{
overflow: auto !important;
}
Many websites might be broken, but I’d like a toggle to disable listening for scroll events. And no overflow overrides on major and screen-wide elements.
I use various bookmarklets to address this issue. The javascript is easy enough that you can modify it even if you're not a programmer. For example see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43488943
It's the worst on iPhone, because it won't even let me scroll back up to show the button to open the tabs view, I have to switch out of the browser and re-open it to be able to scroll to show.
I think you can just tap the tab bar to bring the controls back. Works for me on whatever iOS this is before “Lucas would be proud with this numbering” 26.
This sounds cool at first but I think I really want vetted, up-to-date, edge-case-covered community extensions. You know, like we already have without arTiFicIAl ‘inteligence’.
LinkedIn too. The first time they show a bottom sheet dialog thing on the website, and if you dismiss it, it scrolls you all the way to the top. The second time it appears, it messes with the page and sometimes automatically closes the tab.
It's a real face palm how LinkedIn squandered the opportunity to be a relatively benign social media product. School kids would have zero interest in it except for that guy who wears a bowtie to high school. And yet they have made it such a swamp full of dark patterns. What's the marginal gain on that? They're the only game in town for the kinds of people who advertise on LinkedIn.
I think the only answer is that all dating sites are full of dark-patterns, and promise to promote your profile if you pay more money.
Linkedin isn't a dating site? Sure it is. I've seen the messages friends receive, and the way people try to sell themselves in the fakest possible ways - it's the only way to judge it these days.
I love it how a normal social network makes a "ding" sound when somebody likes your post but LinkedIn gives you a "ding" for just posting anything at all! Overall it is a place that sends the message that "standards are low here"; don't know how to write? Microsoft Copilot will do it for you, etc.
Idk Google Maps is pretty bad. Clicking on the search bar force opens the App Store, and trying to load photos does the same and straight up lies to you saying it’s only available in the app. But if you scroll down to the second carousel of images it loads fine in web.
Google Maps has a better excuse for wanting to be an app than most since a primary use case on mobile is turn-by-turn navigation. That's possible to do in a web page now, but several features that improve the experience are not available in browsers.
I’m not sure how that’s a justification. If you want to app-wall the turn by turn directions, that would be one thing. The fact that turn-by-turn directions is better on mobile doesn’t rationalize lying about being unable to show photos, and auto opening the App Store three times every time you want to search for an address somewhere
I'm annoyed by a different thing ... It used to be when you searched for something, maps would always be a tab for results. Now it doesn't seem to be anymore...
What you need to do, in the modern Web, is to flip that around.
Anytime I need to search an entity with physical presence, I use Google Maps first. Maps is very good about getting the first result as intended and not showing superfluous non-matches. Maps will not chirp up with AI-generated responses. Maps will take me right to the place I want, and I can see a lot of profile info at-a-glance, and if I wanted their website, then Maps will give me their main website, and nothing else.
Whether it's a corporate HQ, a clinic, a local restaurant, or a geographic area, Maps can come up with a lot of relevant info and I don't waste my time in an enshittified Search. So I'm thankful for the Maps app and its mobile integrations.
The web browser experience in the browser is dramatically superior to that in the app, which doesn't even let you copy and paste media, for instance to text to others. X wants to force you to do that through a link back to them. Nope.
Most Apps are just emasculated and spyware-infested WebApps version of the website, anyway. Why not just use the Browser and get the real experience?
>The web browser experience in the browser is dramatically superior to that in the app, which doesn't even let you copy and paste media, for instance to text to others. X wants to force you to do that through a link back to them. Nope.
An eye-opener like this is the reddit /s/ share links, which I assume come from copying in the app. They're everywhere, and they never open correctly for me unless maybe ironically I open them up in tor to get the actual thread
It's worse than that. 90% of the time I click on a tweet I just get the fucking login page. It seems to happen unless the tweet is from a very popular twitter account, ie one with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers.
Sorry to go off-topic, but you started it...
Disagreeing with Musk politically is OK, but it might be advisable to not let your hatred warp the reality...Easily searchable _facts_:
X remains a large, influential real-time news and conversation platform (~half a billion combined MAUs)
- About 550 million monthly active users across X + Grok combined as of March 2026
- Up from about 520 million in December 2025
- ~ 350 million daily posts; 1.3 billion accounts active in the prior 12 months
He was complaining a lot about bots when he tried to back out of the sale. He's now built a bot into it. I find myself unable to trust his statistics, not only because of his history, but also due to what I hear from people who run advertising campaigns.
Are there any 3rd party estimates of twitter's user base/MAUs?
Considering the number of users, even official government departments, it still has, you would have to be very myopic and have very few interests for this to be true. The fact you're posting on Hacker News at all invalidates it; a huge portion of the type of people who hit the front page here are on Twitter.
The overwhelming majority of folks on twitter (>99.9999999%) are non-nazis. Oh, I don't use Twitter myself but that's because its also overwhelmingly social media spam on steroids.
A small assortment of people that I found interesting/insightful/amusing at some point, plus a few local orgs occasionally announcing things. Why does anything need to be "so important"?
Without wishing to sound trite, what interesting/insightful/amusing people are still on that platform?
Ditto local organisations announcing things: are there any respectable originations (such as local government and sports groups) that still wish to be associated with the cesspool Xitter has become?
I know a guy (not quite close enough to call him a friend, but I know him from non-tech activities) who's member of the w3c, tech researcher, great and interesting speaker, and has tons of interesting insights to share. He talks a lot about open standards and what's wrong with all sorts of tech hypes, and yet the only way to follow him is on Facebook and LinkedIn. Why aren't you on the Fediverse!? Can't I just RSS your blog? Aren't you undermining your message by the way you share it?
> are there any respectable originations that still wish to be associated with the cesspool Xitter has become?
Yes, that was the biggest topic under discussion in the threads about the Nitter C&D. And most of sports is apparently still on there, to the point I hear people talking about how they only use it for sports news.
Honestly, the belief that Twitter has suddenly become a cesspool and everyone left is a (vocal) minority view, and it's only the liberal tech/terminally online left echo chamber chamber that thinks that.
People saying that "The MechaHitler App" is a cesspool are the out of touch ones?
The vast majority of users rely on the algorithm that suppressed posts that Musk doesn't like and promotes insane white supremacist propaganda.
You say that you can avoid that, and I agree. You can use other apps. There are other ways to get the information you're interested in, there are other ways to disseminate information. You don't need to participate in that insanity while pretending not to.
> People saying that "The MechaHitler App" is a cesspool are the out of touch ones?
No, I chose my words carefully. Thinking it suddenly became a cesspool makes you out of touch. Twitter, like all big social media, was a cesspool before Musk bought it, and that hasn't meaningfully changed since. And also like all big social media, it's basically fine and not a cesspool if you put a little effort into curating it. Twitter is actually better than some of the others, even, in my experience (though maybe I've just been more diligent in my curation of it).
There was a minor inflection point where a lot of very politically vocal people left, but for the majority, especially institutions, not much changed.
(And yeah, I'm not denying that Elon puts his hand on the scales of the algorithm. Some of what it pushes is disgusting and obnoxious. But I see disgusting/obnoxious stuff on other platforms too -- and that includes bluesky/mastodon)
Aside from the stupid rename, I haven't noticed it become any more of a cesspool than it was before the takeover, and in some ways it's arguably healthier (less echo-chamber-ey, and community notes can be useful). Again, this is purely talking about desktop web and avoiding the algorithmic feed.
I think you're taking a very particular partisan US view and projecting it onto the rest of the world.
The problem now is everything you see if paid for ad. Even the people you follow if they have paid (blue checkmark) to have their posts raise higher in the feed (which is the same as an ad). It is all ads.
I feel like suing every blue checkmark person for deceptive advertising.
Lots of local LLM people with cool setups and ideas, conspiracy stuff, politics beyond Politico/Atlantic/etc. So mostly stuff that gets one banned on Bluesky and Mastodon that's not on nostr.
There's plenty of funny people on Twitter, folks like Mr. Chau, Brooks Otterlake, Will Sennet to name a few. For news, Joe Weisenthal and David Weigel are two guys that are pretty hip to current goings-on in economics and politics respectively.
For whatever reason, I can't reply to your comment further down. I'd be perfectly happy to follow them on another platform if their tweets were piped elsewhere.
> For whatever reason, I can't reply to your comment further down.
In case you happen to read this, that is (presumably) due to an anti-flamewar feature on HN, which hides the reply button for the first few minutes of posts in deep comment threads. You can either wait to comment, or comment by clicking the "X minutes ago" text next to the commenter's username.
Worse, to sell a tesla, you are the person saying "ok, install the app, then I can transfer ownership to you, conveniently!"
and this is getting normalized with other car manufacturers.
(and it ALL goes back to apple... who started the whole app nonsense, and promoted a look-and-feel that gave tesla a terrible tap and swipe iphone/ipad type ui in a moving car)
You can absolutely buy a Tesla and operate it for the life of the vehicle without an app or even a smartphone. They have key fobs and keycards for this purpose. Go into the store or order online. Everything can be handled by the Tesla store if you are selling the car and need to transfer it to another person.
Of course, having to go to the original store to sell a product second-hand ain't exactly the best user experience either.
(It's fine by me, if that's their design and I don't think they are hiding it or tricking anyone. People should be allowed to buy products that I don't like.)
> that gave tesla a terrible tap and swipe iphone/ipad type ui in a moving car
Not sure why you’re blaming Apple for Tesla’s mistake of thinking a phone UI is appropriate for a car system UI.
Besides, you can “trace it back” to anyone you want really. The problem is not Apple. The problem is people accepting this nonsense from bullshit companies and apps in the first place.
This. I get Frame.work and install Fedora. Use Firefox for everything possible. Once my current phone dies, I'll get a Fair phone, Motorola, or whatever gives me control.
Can't complain if I keep choosing hostile products for some convenience
Especially if they're actively engaged in making it more and more difficult to escape their platforms: Google force-doxxing developers soon, banks & other charlatans not working on GrapheneOS because sEcUrItY, the list goes on.
Most people using this sort of rhetoric probably don't like black kids working in mines and yet they still use devices or cars built off of that produce.
Well said. Are there any mainstream apps "website as app" that do not come with the spying/telemetry/doxing (given on a plate by our two choices, ios/android) that almost always comes with them?
That’s an illusion that died a long time ago, unfortunately.
Just because you’re using their service on a browser doesn’t stop them from harvesting data from your usage, especially if you’re logging in (and if you’re using their services, chances are that you are).
Using browser over app can help, but it doesn’t eliminate it.
Like it or not, we’re the product, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
They're not able to spy on all the other websites I visit or apps I use via the browsers in the way they are by forcing me to install spyware on the spyware machines from Apple and Google.
I’m pretty sure they actually can actually. On an iPhone with a “ask for no tracking” configuration (no IDFA), I’d wager it’s probably even easier on the web than it is in an app.
100% same. So many apps are just a WebView vessel for Crashlytics and Sentry and Dog knows how much more tracking. (My phone is always VPNed into my home network which has DNS-level ad and tracker blocking. This doesn't cover all the bases though.)
Some, like Home Depot, have websites that are terrible and battery-draining enough to make the app nominally useful by comparison.
>Some, like Home Depot, have websites that are terrible and battery-draining enough to make the app nominally useful by comparison.
I don't take this as a signal to install the app. It is a signal to avoid the store. They clearly don't feel like they need to work to gain your business, and instead take it for granted. You can see this indicated by their actions - they clearly feel that it is more profitable to inconvenience you for a token amount of tracking data than to serve your needs. Why continue to use them?
There are a lot of businesses that have a semi-captive hold on a market. Like a recent example was I drove my daughter and I to a stage play, and to pay for street parking I had to install an app, make an account, and add a credit card. A thing that should have been scan the QR code and click one button to mobile pay became a five minute ordeal.
In theory we could have gotten back in the car and looked for parking elsewhere but the curtain was in 30 minutes and who's to say they didn't have a contract with the city that covered all the parking?
Overall a very hostile experience and I was annoyed about how little I felt I had a choice in it.
Just don’t pay. I stopped paying for street parking a long time ago (around the time they started insisting on apps). You get a ticket once and awhile but it all works out.
Mail in a check a few times a year and park whenever you want.
Valid, though I expect this being down the block from the festival theatre, it probably was being actively patrolled. I was a bit shaken by a prominent sign threatening a $400 fine for illegal parking, though having just checked the website for the City of Stratford, it looks like the standard municipal parking ticket is $40 if paid promptly, so the $400 fine was probably specific to parking in the theatre's dropoff zone or fire access or something.
All that say, I think you're probably right... next time instead of using my phone to install and sign up for a parking app, I'll just use it to check what the fine is and wipe hands on pants.
It's definitely a case where I see the value of the Asia-style super apps, where you just attach transactions like this to LINE or Grab or whatever, and everyone knows what to do with it.
The only thing remotely comparable in Toronto might be if Presto (payment app for multiple transit agencies in GTHA) took on parking payment, but the Presto network now supports just tapping a credit card so I don't know how many people would be getting cards or using the app for that either.
Yes, just a plain tap-to-pay on the meter itself (or a nearby kiosk) is the obvious solution. I think doing it on the meter is awkward because then they all need to be online, so you're either dealing with individual M2M cards or some kind of local mesh network, not to mention powering them all. The kiosk is another thing to have to install and maintain and power. And doing a plain tap would have no way of inputting how long you wanted to pay for.
All that to say, I can fully understand how we ended up with "here's a sticker with a number on it, pay on your phone"; it's just, the pay on your phone option should be a one step apple/google pay webpage where you at most have to enter your license plate, and it certainly should not be collecting credit card details within the app.
Ehh maybe. I mean, it was a three hour show and I don't carry coins any more. So that would have been ATM -> go to a store and break a twenty -> put in a few bucks -> remember to go out at intermission and put in more money.
Paying by phone is a step up from that old world; I just want it to be one tap, not a whole sequence that tries to upsell me on a monthly pass or establishing an in-app "parking wallet" or whatever.
Where I live the city commissioned its own mobile app for parking, and all numbered parking spots in the city use that app.
There are private lots that use Honk or Robbins or whatever, but the municipal lots and all parallel parking spaces downtown all use the same single app and the revenue goes to the city.
The city parking app works reasonably well, no ads, it just does one thing. If you leave early you open the app and hit "stop parking" and it only charges you the 37 cents or whatever that you actually consumed. It sends you a push notification when your parking is about to expire. And if you don't like the app for whatever reason, you can still pay with a card at the pay machines on every block. It's unglamorous, but it's fantastic technology.
That seems reasonable. The kiosk is still there to pay with cards or cash directly, but the app/website lets you skip that, avoid printing a slip, maybe buy a pass or something.
The risk is mainly that down the road someone looks at the usage numbers and goes hmm, well the kiosk is only getting used 5% of the time, let's just discontinue supporting it.
The other risk is that they make it cheaper via the app/website, maybe by offering a pass or something. Then that's effectively discrimination against people who don't have a big tech phone.
You not having coins is one half of the problem. We can't pretend we don't tolerate the abuses of the digital money system, while not carrying analog money - it's completely hypocritical.
Avoiding HD is basically impossible here in the US if you own a home. It's either them, Lowe's or, if you're lucky, some third party mom and pop that will have an even shittier website and probably not what youre looking for.
Not OP, but with DNS ad blocking like pi-hole you need to be aware that any "normies" living with you will hate it. DNS blockers silently break any kind of "sponsored links" in search results and a lot of the links in email marketing, and most people use those frequently. They don't take kindly to being told they're doing it wrong and have to change their browsing habits for benefits they don't perceive.
Pi-hole let's you define different groups with different ad blocking policies. Then you can define which dhcp ips go in each group. Works very well. The "normies" won't even notice
I have a Firewalla. They run a WireGuard proxy (sort of like a DERP in Tailscale), so I use that. It actually works more often than Tailscale somehow, and since it's just WG, it works perfectly with my GL.iNet travel hotspots. Firewalla also has ad blocking baked in with less restrictive blacklists, so that's what I use.
Before I got the FW, I used Tailscale and AdGuard Home.
RethinkDNS does everything for me. You're tied to their DNS server if you want to use the in-app interface to make changes to the blocklists in use, but that's not a hard requirement. As a bonus, it also supports actual VPNs (wireguard, http connect, and socks proxy). If you don't care to micro-manage it, trackercontrol is also pretty good. There's other apps as well, like personalDNSfilter.
In this setup you're explaining, the phone is doing all the work though right? Filtering DNS and sending traffic to a wireguard VPN, is all done on the phone.
But it's not tunnelling traffic to a desktop station which then processes that traffic like its own (filters DNS as set up on the desktop, and forwards traffic through the same VPN that is set up on the desktop). Am I getting this right?
My setup is similar: A server at home runs Unbound for recursive DNS, filtered by Hagezi's blacklists. The phone (running GrapheneOS) consumes the DNS service through a Wireguard tunnel. This is 100% self-hosted and does not rely on Tailscale or a third-party DNS service. All the mobile carrier or WiFi hotspot used sees is a single encrypted connection to the server.
I absolutely love this. I thought Tailscale was necessary to establish that kind of wireguard tunnel. Would you have a link to a tutorial or write-up on how you got this set up?
I'm also interested. I use tailscale and there is supposed to be a way to configure it to use my pihole DNS, but there is something in Android that prevents that. I think I have to set a custom DNS on the phone.
What really grinds my gears is when the app is a _broken_ version of the website. I find the app really expects you to be on the happy path in a way the website does not.
Uhaul is a great example of this. The app looks a little better on mobile, but if you don’t make an account and search by reservation ID, all features related to things like extending a reservation time are nonfunctional. I have to go to the mobile site which looks bad and has poor navigation, trying to hijack my session and redirect me to the app, but at least it works.
UHaul is the only app I've ever encountered that is less efficient than talking to a human being behind a counter. I have tried multiple times to pick up a reservation via the app and it has taken so long or failed at some point that I had to walk into the store anyway.
And it wants a photo of my license EVERY GODDAMN TIME. And no I can't store a photo of my license on my phone and just upload it - it has to take a photo directly. And boy does it not like to take photos in bright sunlight. You know, when I'm outside in a parking lot beside a white truck.
That's funny, I've NEVER, not even once, encountered ANY app from any company, in any business, that is easier or more efficient than talking to a human being behind a counter. (So long as the human behind the counter is not also hamstrung by dreadful Indian crapware...)
Seriously, like most people, I have dozens of apps on my phone, forced on me by various needs. The ONLY one that makes anything easier or better is my password manager, which I have to have to safely keep and lookup the logins and passwords for all the damn apps...
I dunno. It's so hard to get a plain ordinary brewed coffee at Dunkin these days, the kind of coffee I used to get there back in the 1980s. On the app I could actually pick one out, in person I'm likely to have a teenager give me something else and then have a nervous breakdown when I point out the one thing I care about on their digital signs: "If we get your order wrong we'll re-do it"
I pretty much exclusively drink black coffee or plain espresso and I’ve yet to encounter any issues getting it.
I have seen lots of complaints and memes to this effect, but never has it been my lived experience. I’ve also never had an issue with politely saying “excuse me, I actually ordered X and I got Y by mistake.” No nervous breakdown at all
I grew up in New Hampshire where it is almost as much as a religion as it in Massachusetts. We had one in Ithaca for a short time when I was in grad school which didn't last very long, I remember sitting there while a schizophrenic woman told me that the mob ran absolutely everything in New York, it was closed a long time, then a Thai restaurant moved in and then, decades later, a Dunkin moved in next door.
Early on I learned that the P&C supermarket made better donuts so when a dunkin opened across the street I wasn't so interested. And of course Dunkin used to be known for good coffee but now you can find good coffee anyhwhere except for a Starbucks and Collegetown Bagels.
The car rental desk at airports is one of the worst customer experiences I've ever seen. It's sometimes worse than what seems possible. It's sometimes bad in ways that don't even make sense.
Their scheduling software is also blatantly broken. I understand the difficulty in monitoring a large distributed fleet, but their software loves to say trucks are unavailable where a quick phone call reveals they can accommodate the exact request.
> What really grinds my gears is when the app is a _broken_ version of the website. I find the app really expects you to be on the happy path in a way the website does not.
I think the average user doesn't know the app is there to circumvent tracking protections in browsers and doesn't realise the app is most likely just a web page in a wrapper.
I was at a car park in UK and you didn't have to install an app, just scan the QR to go to the web page, simple payment. Sadly they then messed it all up by not offering payment through normal services.
The actual reality is that it's impossible to have people go to a web site from a physical ad/offer/thing without using a QR (or paying Google). Google (and friends) managed to hide the URL almost totally, people don't even know that you can go somewhere without searching on google. So the options are: paying google to have your name point to you (an expensive choice depending on the actual name) or use a QR. Weirdly enough people uses QRs this way. I think the restaurants/bars menus after the pandemic only digital via QR opened this way (again, it was trendy also many years ago).
Did domain names stop functioning all of the sudden? Going to somedipshitsbar.com/menu is about as complicated as entering a wifi password at a coffee shop.
You type in and trust random URLs? You just click on random URLs?
No, I don't just go around and scan every random QR code sticker on every single lamp post without any kind of context. But a QR code on the back of a business card with their contact information already nicely digitally formatted? Sure. A friend's QR code of their WiFi credentials on a little plaque in the den? Sure. A QR code at the bar showing the live tap list menu? Sure. A presenter giving the presentation slides by QR code? Sure.
And I pay attention to the URL that QR code is sending me to before I actually decide to go there. The QR code is just so I don't have to type in reallylongannoyingurl.ninja/some-horrific%20path/and?with=junkinit. It shows me the URL and asks "Do you want to go to obviousgoatse.com?" after it scans the code. That's the tap 2 of the two taps.
Consumers don't care. QR is easier for them and owners get analytics plus built in table identified ordering. I brought up the attack vector to a table full of developers back when this was taking off, just shrugs.
They'll get analytics from digital menus regardless of if a QR code is scanned or not. The QR code isn't really making a difference here, other than maybe adding in a specific table ID.
> built in table identified ordering...attack vector
Oh no, they're going to know table 36 ordered the appetizer sampler and a few beers. The horror. They couldn't have possibly known that before.
They're going to get a lot more verifiable information about me when they run my payment card than what they'll glean from a fresh browser tab.
The analytics are very different when you have locality built in. You know exactly how many times your menu was scanned in house.. how long they spent on the page etc has much more meaning. An open website mixes traffic.
I'm not promoting QR codes here. When I can avoid them I do. It's just that the incentives for owners and consumers are better with them and that's the challenge.
> Oh no, they're going to know table 36 ordered the appetizer sampler and a few beers. The horror. They couldn't have possibly known that before
I have no idea what you're on about here. I'm clearly referring to quishing to collect payment info. It's very easy to copy a website and plop a QR code onto a picnic table over the old one.
Do people actually pay through a QR code through a sticker on the table though? I've never seen that nor would I ever do such a thing, because yeah that's obvious.
I will scan a QR code on a check the waiter printed for me and pay through that.
> You know exactly how many times your menu was scanned in house
The vast majority of the time I've seen a QR code stuck to a table its just goosejuicerestaurant.com/menu or https://taplist.io/demo-brewery on the QR code. About the only real time I've seen otherwise has been McDonalds, but they have raised metallic emblems glued to the table, it would be pretty obvious if it was messed with. And I'm not sure if they're even useful outside of the app.
> Do people actually pay through a QR code through a sticker on the table though? I've never seen that nor would I ever do such a thing, because yeah that's obvious.
My company requires everyone in the company to meet our customers in person once a year. Everyone from the CEO on down to tech nerd button pushers like myself.
Our method of telemetry is called "talking to people."
I wouldn't find it productive to talk to 200,000 users in person to determine if it's worth building a native app. I suspect most startups talk to some of their customers in person but I don't know anyone making sweeping product decisions based on that.
Unfortunately consumer preference surveys are all over the place. Most I've seen show they do prefer an app but data isn't exactly open. If you have this data feel free to share.
I'm sure every industry is different. For my current work, our users overwhelmingly want a native app. The majority of traffic is mobile and iOS. Everytime I tell someone about what I do they open up the app store and I have to tell them it's not on there and they ask why.
Anyway, apps have higher monetary conversion. The desire to push users to the app needs no other reason.
Data from your own users is the most useful, but here's some published data. There's plenty more to be found and of course methodology, quality and intention varies.
Indeed, I've no interest in native apps to do something that can be done in a web app and if you don't let me do it in a web app I'll bounce and either find someone who can or do without unless there is a seriously compelling use case (I'm not that dogmatic).
As a result the only native apps I use on my phone are Kindle, Authy and Firefox because I trust Firefox to prevent apps doing a lot of the sketchy shit locally a lot more than I trust an app/the host OS to do so.
A real native app practically always has better performance than web apps. And your data is on your machine. And it can integrate with the operating system. And you can do work offline. And performance saves battery.
True for genuine native apps, but most apps these days are just wrappers around web apps so you get none of the benefits of a true native app while also losing some of the benefits of a web app.
Do they require it though? I've used a few, but it's always been a convenience thing to use the NFC-scanning app; the alternative is just typing in the details manually.
Yes. It offers cryptographic proof that you physically have the passport with you. It also gets a digital copy of the photo and other biometrics held on the NFC chip. From a user point of view it reduces the number of typos entered.
Kazakhstan has an app (QazETA) for its electronic travel authorization, which is required for many passport holders who want to enter under the visa-free regime. (Perhaps it is not strictly required as one could apply for a visa instead.)
Somewhat confusingly, the iOS App Store description [0] of the app says that it is not a government app, while the rest of the internet and Kazakh government sites say that it is the official government app for the purpose of applying for the ETA.
Right. Of course there is some overhead for using WebGL vs native OpenGL calls, but I think that's only noticeable for AAA games. Web audio's extra latency does make it undesirable only for things that require quick response, like realtime synths and maybe DAWs.
Regarding libraries, I wonder if maybe there could be a cacheable package manager system for distributing wasm libraries to webapps.
- anything privacy sensitive
- anything processing intense (using optimized binaries)
- widgets
- camera and audio based features *can* work, but are more finicky (or outright broken on ios)
- local storage (exists in web app, short lifetimes on web site)
- performance/latency sensitive work
- (I'm less familiar, but probably local sensors, like gps and acceleration)
It's a shrinking area: You can get GPS, accelerometer, etc inputs from a web app nowadays. From my own experience the main areas that are tricky are related to automatically finding and connecting to devices: you can do bluetooth at least, but there's things an app can do with wifi and local connection protocols you can't easily do with a web app.
I sign in to video calls using my browser every day. Saying video/audio requires an app beggars belief.
Privacy is the opposite of what you get with an app. Privacy? Really?
Local storage is available to browsers. Office 365 literally functions in a browser with full access to local storage.
Anything processor intensive can be compiled to WASM. This isn't 2005 anymore.
So... widgets?
I can see an argument for games, where you want to pre-install a large amount of resources, and maybe have a better i/o story. Even that is a function of convenience over necessity.
I'd actually prefer that stuff stay in a browser and far away from my local storage on a device I take everywhere. Seems far riskier having it locally.
> anything processing intense
I can play Half-Life 2 in a browser window these days. I can do photo editing and CAD in the browser. I can have entire IDEs in the browser, compilers, non-linear video editors, and more. We're also kind of scoping this to phone apps, they're usually not very processing intense as you quickly hit heat and battery limits.
> camera and audio based features can work, but are more finicky (or outright broken on ios)
Sounds more like an overly restricted OS than anything else.
> local storage (exists in web app, short lifetimes on web site)
Once again, sounds like an overly restricted OS than a browser issue.
> (I'm less familiar, but probably local sensors, like gps and acceleration)
Nope... What you're talking about is not privacy sensitivity, but trust.
For you, you don't trust the provider of the software, so you mean being able to put a barrier around your life, and the delivered software... you think that by running in a browser, you're preventing that code from being connected to anything else... However, anything that happens in that code is directly connected to the provider, whom you don't trust.
I'm referring to the opposite... having something connected to your life, but having a barrier disconnecting it from the outside world... It involves trusting the provider of the software (maybe it's open source), but even if you don't, you can install an app, cut the network, use it locally, then delete it before restoring the network, and you have a guarantee that what you did with it was private... It's possible to build that into a web app, but most websites don't work offline, where most apps (though not all), do work offline... even if it requires an initial network session to establish authorization
My credit card doesn't need me to lock/unlock it, doesn't require I have a phone with me, and certainly doesn't require an app. The last thing I ever would want is for the people in charge of "apps" to have access to my finances. All you are doing is creating another layer where something is allowed to tell you "No". Why would you choose this?
> “Just log into your bank account on the mobile web browser” is a pretty clunky way to see why your card declined.
But that's because the user experience as designed is more hostile or not otherwise accounting for mobile use--right? Or are you saying there is a limit to the web platform's ability to reduce friction?
No one wants to troubleshoot a card decline by having to download and install a 700MB bank app in checkout at the grocery store either. Personally I'll take the browser login every time in that situation!
You mean some kind of perceived personal convenience through the uneven-handed profit of others and at the expense of everyone else.
Trying to check why your card was declined at a checkout—while still standing at said checkout? Troubleshooting "PIN issues" (meaning your bad)? Is everyone still standing behind you at this point? LOL. Exactly.
Theres a gym I work out at, and that I have been going to for nearly a year now, and they have an app you can use to check in, schedule classes, whatever. I don't actually know because I never downloaded the app, I just use my phone number to check in every time I go. I don't want more apps on my phone, not for the gym, not for fast food, maybe my bank and the apps I need to communicate with friends and family, but the majority of it is pointless bloat they push on you for no good reason.
I’m living in peak appification at my gym. It’s one of those 24x7 places and an app is required to unlock the door. I find it amusing that part of the installation process requires me to deny always-on location sharing - why would I need the app to know my location when I’m not at the door?
You should find it insulting that they are likely selling that location data, not even to the highest bidder, but to a data broker that resells that data to anyone that will buy it for any price they'll pay.
Yes, this is standard practice in the app industry. I guarantee every app outside of f-droid that has location access is tracking you 24/7 and selling the log.
If you're going to needlessly gate certain functions behind an app that work on a desktop browser (or could work in-browser), then I just won't use those functions.
Amusingly, I know of a very large hospital chain that has it the other way around.
The app version is the most limited. Mobile web has some more options. But if you want everything, that's desktop only.
Except for scheduled ordering from the coffee shops or placing in-patient meal orders. Those require an app. Except with the meal app, you get more menu choices from the web version.
A particularly worrying trend that keeps spreading is the one of restricting significant amounts of (often non-financial) functionality to the apps only, gated behind your phone passing device integrity checks, in what seems to be a poorly thought out attempt at blocking all forms of scraping and automation (AI or not). The worst offender right now is probably Twitter, which alongside the recent Nitter cease-and-desist now appears to require client integrity on all logged out access.
The flip side is: I have an Audioguide app with reams of fancy of AI features. Even a basic non-AI one is we use GPS in the background to auto-trigger when you approach certain checkpoints on your tour, and we don't want you staring or constantly manually fiddling with the phone when you're on a tour in a neighborhood. This is all stuff just not possible with the web app
I get it, "I'm just traveling, why do I need to download an app which will be useless when I'm done traveling". Just delete it then, takes two steps!
Our reviews between our Web App and iOS app are like 2 sigma apart. Un-intuitively, our web app users are out fiddling with the app 2-3x more than our iOS app.
The issue is that people often forget to uninstall these apps almost all the time. Apps like Delta, Southwest etc. are the perfect candidate for this.
We require something similar to ephemeral apps that exist only for a limited period and automatically get deleted later. If the OS could provide such a feature by default, it would be a blessing.
However, this again contradicts the commercial interests of many companies and services, so Android and iOS
will likely never implement it.
Appclips in iOS are a decent shot at that. But require it to be under 15MB, which is really hard to hit, especially if you use RN, but we'll be dumping RN to make this happen as a next step.
>>The issue is that people often forget to uninstall these apps almost all the time
Fundamentally though, iOS will auto-offload the unused apps for you (you won't get any notifications). For all intents and purposes, it is an ephemeral app already.
When it comes to airline tickets I've been able to check in to a flight through a web page and then add the boarding pass to my Google Wallet without having to install that airline's app before. I'm pretty sure Apple has had some similar kind of a workflow but I wouldn't know for sure.
My android phone will put apps into "deep sleep" and remove all their permissions if I haven't opened it in a month or so. I just toss travel apps into a folder in my launcher and they are there if I need them but become just a consumer of drive space on their own.
Deep sleep is a great option. Archive is a couple steps beyond that, it essentially makes it equal to the app being uninstalled, at the cost of a bit of a disk space.
I am the same way but sadly I think average people seem to be the opposite. I’ve seen people asked to do something on some site and their instinct is to go straight to the App Store and search the site there vs using their web browser.
I also have the assumption that apps are shoddily coded. Whenever I go to the App Store I am looking for a specific app because my assumption is that a random app I find is going to be useless and this goes 10x if the app is promoted with paid advertisement. Personally I wish the app store was like the way Google's home page was in 1999 -- the search functionality is the only thing I care about and they hide it in the middle of a lot of not-so-distracting fluff because I don't have the slightest interest in it.
I used to feel similarly but recently i started defaulting to installing apps more, and it's been way better for my quality of life lol. They just tend to work way better. There are some exceptions though, usually for apps that have ads that make them too annoying to use or that require you to have an account that I don't want to create / don't want to sign in with. E.g. youtube, reddit
Interesting. I limit myself to apps from zapstore.dev and I enjoy playing with new apps. The issue with most commercial / mainstream apps for me is that they're riddled with ads, engagement nonsense, lack quality, often use ugly per default frameworks, force sign-up before use, request all sorts of permissions or come bundled with SDKs I don't trust.
Many HN users probably share this distaste for apps that should be websites, but I don't think this is true for the general population.
In addition to choosing not to use needless apps, some HN users here might have the opportunity for a stronger vote: refuse to (or at very least push back on) develop an app that could be a website.
Spotify comes to mind immediately. Of all things, they wall off your saved music - premium doesn't matter. There is literally no reason to prevent web app users from accessing what is essentially just another playlist, other than to coerce the native app adoption.
Yeah, so many sites bug me to install their app just to read their web page. I'm not going to install every app, so just make the website usable. LinkedIn, Instagram, too many others to list them all. I'd rather not use them at all than install their app.
> At this point the barrier for me to install an app is pretty high.
For me, the bar hasn't moved: I will not install any app that isn't a general purpose, open source utility. If something cannot be done in the browser, I will do without it.
I am the same, the sad reality is that companies don't (really) aim to change our (old folk tech peoples) behavior, they are aiming to make a new normal for the next generation of consumers.
If you intend to have a broad userbase, you must prioritize mobile apps. The general public prefers them. I don't like it, but that's the current landscape.
The problem is that my bank is starting to do this, and for things I actually use. I am considering changing banks because of this, but it's a big step.
If you use Android, honestly try Fdroid. It's great. I mean there are obviously huge gaps, you're not going to find banking apps, and there's going to be less polish in a lot of cases. BUT NONE OF THE APPS ARE EVIL.
Fdroid harbors the paradise we imagined in the early days where we just had these little computers in our pockets and didn't have to worry that everything on them was drowning in ads, scams and surveillance.
So if I do think I might want or need an app I immediately go and check on Fdroid. I can install apps from there without fear. If Fdroid doesn't have what I need, most likely I'm just tapping out. I won't use my phone. I barely use it these days when I'm not on the go anyway.
On Android, especially the most recent versions, the archive functionality for apps has been a lifesaver. It basically packs apps into a specific format, keeps their entire state, and stores it on the disk. This also completely stops the app from running in the background and any other functionality that we don't need.
When we need to access the app again, we just have to restore it, which actually downloads the app and puts the app data back into it. It brings us back to exactly where we were before.
I do this to a lot of my apps these days, and it works very well. When we look at it, apps are nothing but a logged-in state for services that makes it easy to access them. On a typical web browser, you would have to keep logging in every now and then. Apps have a more persistent logged-in session that sometimes lasts forever as well.
Get rid of the what if hyperbole and focus on the core reason why it’s bad. These contracts do not allow commercial use. Could they in the future but so what, focus on the here and now. We should continue to focus on what is true today. Flock has never enforced strict security around their platform and it’s proven consistently that people in power abuse it.
The what if conspiracy serves no purpose in dethroning Flock.
Given Flock's behavior to date, I really don't consider the assumption that they could move to selling collected data to be a conspiracy theory.
We have already seen that data is a highly valuable currency. And investor-backed companies with unicorn valuations are pressured to extract as much value as they can. All things considered, I would say that Flock continuing to monetize access to their collected data in new ways is a foregone conclusion unless it is specifically stopped or prohibited in some way. On top of that, I would wager that it may be already happening in some low-volume ways.
I don't really think "enshittification" is a conspiracy theory. I think everyone can relate to engaging in a relationship with a company, thinking they had a reasonable understanding of how the relationship worked, and then having the terms changed out from under them.
Maybe Flock gets bought by another company and "oops, the terms changed". Maybe all contract renewals will have commercial use in the language.
Once the cameras are there, the heavy lifting (from Flock's side) has been done.
Sure but the premise was a conspiracy that they are padding financial numbers by selling the data commercially. They don’t so why perpetuate the conspiracy? Focus on the real problem with the business.
(Not disagreeing with your point, pointing something else out) What happens when flock sells the company + data? That collected data doesn’t get deleted and could be used for whatever purpose at that time, as the company could be dissolved along with the contracts.
That’s not how data agreements work. The city/entity would need to agree to the revised contract. Is it possible? Sure. Is it something I am concerned about? No, I would rather focus on the facts.
In California, it's thought that only 9% of data brokers are compliant with state laws requiring transparency and deletion of personal data.[0] It only goes down from there; most states do not have strong consumer privacy laws.
Furthermore, most municipal entities are not in a position to litigate a case over these changes for an extended period of time, and Flock is changing their terms to make it harder to terminate contracts. They can also now keep the data as long as they'd like. [1]
This, along with general corporate conduct these days, makes it very likely that they're actively planning to sell the data and might be doing so already in.
Technically, most people came at it with no strong perspective. The pushback developed when it became undeniably clear the the devices were being abused, and there was no accountability. In particular, Flocks CEO has handled this extremely poorly.
I’m all for the positive use cases, and have been involved with several similar products, but in this case Flock has completely mishandled the situation and created the situation they now find themselves in.
For a relatively small battery like that, it's not going to last for days. In the typical outage where that battery would carry you, you can typically just leave the fridge closed and it will stay cold enough to prevent 99% of your stuff from spoiling. For most people (at least the US), it's not super easy to get at the plug in the back of the fridge anyway.
Running HVAC is usually more of a concern, especially in winter or peak of summer, and those aren't device that you can hot-plug, and a small battery wouldn't help there anyway.
I like the idea of whole-house batteries, but to really make it practical you're talking about thousands of dollars to the battery, install, etc. And you still don't have extensive run time, which is why I think you see most people still leaning towards permanent or portable generators way more than batteries.
People need to make decisions about how much resiliency they want. A medium-sized battery greatly enhances your options in an outage. A "solar generator" expands them yet farther. A whole-house generator somewhat farther. It's a lot easier and cheaper if you don't insist that your "resiliency" be "I live my life with no compromises whatsoever".
But I would advocate that "zero resiliency" needs to be seen as being socially irresponsible. It is socially irresponsible that as soon as a service goes out that you are immediately in an emergency. You should not offload basic resiliency on to emergency services. Yes, if you take a direct hit from a tornado you're going to be leaning on emergency services, but the house a quarter mile from touchdown that may be out for three or four days needs to be able to deal with that. If nothing else, emergency supplies are a lot cheaper when it's not an emergency.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and especially so when perfect is so much more expensive and so much less relevant than the good.
> It is socially irresponsible that as soon as a service goes out that you are immediately in an emergency. You should not offload basic resiliency on to emergency services.
Sure, but that's not a remotely accurate description of a house without a backup battery or generator.
I grew up in hurricane country and weathered many bad storms. Losing power does not put you immediately in an emergency. If you don't open the fridge much, your perishables will last a couple of days. Non-perishables will last much longer. Having a battery is the difference between "we can hang out and grill dinner for 5 days before we need to hit the road" and "we can hang out and grill dinner for 6 days before we need to hit the road". That distinction does not significantly change your strategy.
Losing water is a much bigger emergency but is thankfully rarer and a backup battery won't help.
Climate change will change this story somewhat in the South. If you are in a very hot climate, elderly, or have other health issues, then losing electricity and air conditioning in the summer can be an immediate emergency. Again, though, A/Cs consume so much electricity that a backup battery won't help you much.
I think you're significantly overestimating the emergency value of a battery backup. Loss of electricity is rarely a rapid emergency. In cases where it is, a generator will at least give you as much power as you care to store fuel.
> > It is socially irresponsible that as soon as a service goes out that you are immediately in an emergency. You should not offload basic resiliency on to emergency services.
> Sure, but that's not a remotely accurate description of a house without a backup battery or generator.
I don't mean it as one. Resiliency is my end goal, and "a reasonable amount" at that, not "I can reboot civilization from the zombie hordes with just what is in my shed". If you are already resilient with just a house and what it will naturally do without power, hey, great. A battery opens up options, but if it is not worth it, it isn't worth it.
It should be a social expectation that you can survive a reasonable 2-3 days without power and whatever other service outage you have without having to immediately hit the stores or drawing on emergency services. I do not care exactly how you achieve that. I don't care if you're carrying on like nothing happened in a well-lit house with AC on full blast or if you're eating beans out of a can and drinking bottled water. I just care that people should be expected to be at least a little resilient, for all sorts of pro-social reasons, that if you have your additional needs like an oxygen machine or necessary medicine that you have the buffer in place, and so on. (Which does imply certain perscription practices keeping you on a short leash are in violation of this, but that's another discussion.)
I mean, it's also a selfish expectation to be able to survive a couple of days without services. As a general rule, people prefer not to die.
My point is just that a cheap battery backup does not have a significant effect in the resiliency strategy for most people.
I am certainly not a prepper, but even viewing that scene from the outside, it is absolutely rife with what I would call "preparedness theater". Things you can buy (it's always about buying stuff) that would save you in some imagined horrific scenario but where the odds of the scenario happening in just the right arrangement where that object helped are infintesimal.
Like, yes, if your car drives into a freezing cold deep lake and you are somehow too incapacitated to open your seatbelt but not too incapacitated to use a knife, then keeping a dive knife in your glove box next to the ceramic "break windshield" thingy might be worth it, but you're more likely to win the lottery than have that happen.
There is a set of people whose brains are wired such that they are easily nerd sniped into obsessing about these sorts of things. When they do, they are also compelled to share it and spread it like some kind of mind virus. It takes a certain amount of mental discipline to not fall down every one of those rabbitholes. I believe the author telling the world to arrange joint battery buying parties for friends is well along that path of crazy.
Don't waste time and money organizing a joint battery purchase for your friends. Keep some non-perishables and a few gallons of water in your house. Fill your gas tank before it gets all the way to empty. Learn how to cook and some basic first aid.
Generators don’t work that well. They need regular use and maintenance. Fuel storage is complicated (you will need 30+ gallons a day, or about 2 sedan tank’s worth. Connecting to your panel is expensive at least $2k+. They are smelly and noisy. And if it’s a real emergency, everyone will know you have one , and eventually come knocking.
For $2k you can buy 3 Ankers and distribute around the house. With a propane camp stove you can cook. So the only utility failing during a power outage is your air conn. If it’s winter you can run a gas fireplace to keep warm.
In my area we have power outages in the fall and winter wind storms due to trees falling. We need electricity for the fridge, fireplace, lighting , internet & devices. Lithium batteries work great. We get a few outages every season, usually for 2-6 hours .
My neighbors have a generator for “emergencies” and don’t end up using it because it’s such a PITA. He has it for SHTF, but then he will have to consume the gas from his cars (and siphon it), which means making the decision between home comfort and evac.
My point is that every solution covers a range of scenarios based on convenience, cost, resilience, versatility and more. There is no one size fits all .
And now these lithium battery backups provide a broad amount of coverage that is safe and convenient for novices to run.
People here buy natural gas generators[1] and just connect them into the existing gas lines. (I realize natural gas is not part of the utility mix everywhere.) Gas still flows when power is out, and common generators are big enough to power even A/C.
What are you running that uses 30+ gallons of gasoline per day? Personal AI datacenter? I barely use that much in my car per month.
You should be able to expect at least 4-6kwh per gallon at the generator output. So $25 worth of gas in a 5 gallon can stores 5x the energy of a $2000 battery. The only maintenance I've done on my generator is to drain the fuel lines after use. Maybe change the engine oil once or twice per decade. Apart from that, it runs just as well as 30 years ago when it was new.
True, the gasoline doesn't last that long in storage, but I just use it to fill my car every now and then, and get new gas.
What’s your point? How long are you getting on 5 gallons? Maybe 10 hours if you’re lucky. And I hope you’re not using your 30 year old generator on anything with an IC – the power is too dirty to use with electronics.
deferring the maintenance is your choice, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Winter is a better use case, because losing power during deep sub-zero temps can lead to plumbing damage and even be dangerous, but doesn't require too much power if heat uses natural gas as the main power source.
sure we can quibble over convenience, but it's an outage, and you have to make it work. Look at the testing for the Anker Solix S2000 they are getting 2+ days of regular refrigerator use , which is what people care about primarily .
What other option is easier or more affordable? A generator has to remain outside, so it needs panel connection ($$) , lots of extensions ( $, hassle), needs a generous fuel supply, and regular maintenance.
And plug-in solar is becoming legal in the usa. within 3 years everyone will be running these little things, and you'll come around.
Exactly zero plug in solutions should be outputing power during an outage, if designed correctly, because they will be backfeed out of the house and into a grid. Most legislation directly addresses this.
So you're back to getting a tranfer switch installed or lots of cords anyways.
It had my boat name, which so far I haven't seen duplicated, and isn't particularly specific to anything that would preclude someone else from using it.
I think it is like CGI in movies, in the beginning it was often obvious and jarring. Over time as it gets better the obviousness of AI images will be much harder to spot and they will be common without being noteworthy.
It's the complete opposite of that. I prefer human things, human interaction, with human beings involved, which in some way reflect the human experience.
No. This anti-AI attitude is getting old and tired.
I'm getting sick of people insulting the work that I do, calling it lazy (it's not), and saying I should do things in the manner they prefer. I'm also sick of the childish death threats.
If you don't want to interact with me because of AI, good riddance.
This is kind of like saying in the 2000s "If you won't listen to auto-tuned music, you're in for a lonely life." There's entire subcultures where you can avoid that, for example, fans of the Grateful Dead (who include many successful people, such as Jerome Powell, but that's another story). Anyway, they don't tend to be lonely people.
FWIW, I was with you until the "Tax the rich" bit.
Considering how many people the average "rich" person employs, they are generating plenty of tax revenue.
Not quite sure how you got that out of my comment, but no.
In the US at least, those classified as poor have a very low tax burden, in many cases they pay $0, or close to $0 in federal taxes after standard deductions.
US taxes are wildly regressive. Last time Elon's taxes came up, I calculated that he pays taxes at about 1% the rate that I do (and most of us here do). Crazy!
I think "Tax the rich" is the wrong slogan. What we need is to incentivize sharing the progress we are making in terms of productivity widely instead of all the benefits going to a few. For example some people are talking about giving company shares to all workers. This would align the incentives for all workers in the company to do better and then benefiting instead of just the top few percent.
I wonder if this could be achieved by changing the tax code.
The moment tax policy goes into a wonky side alley it can be bought and paid for. Frontal assault is the only strategy that can possibly work for this one.
Geez, the rich already take credit for the things their employees do...and now you want to give them credit for the taxes their employees paid too! Wild!
Yep, and you see a similar thing with government spending and presumption of waste.
Sure, government spending can be wasteful. But it's also generally going into the economy. It's buying stuff from companies who use the revenue to pay their employees and supply chains. It's paying government employees who spend their pay on places to live, food to eat, entertainment, etc. Some folks act like that money disappears. Waste or not, governments aren't generally hoarding cash, they're spending it.
On top of that, when GoPro first launched mobile phones generally did not have cameras capable of producing production-quality images, and especially video. 20 years later, the game is much different.
Remember the Flip video camera that was all the rage for like 2 years and then just disappeared when cellphones could shoot video? GoPro is like a rugged Flip, so it took a little longer for the world to catch up to them, but now there are lots of options, and a "cheap" sports camera that is 1/4 the price of a GoPro is good enough, even if it only lasts 1/2 as long.
reply