Walled Gardens Can Kill
aneesiqbal.ai146 points by steelbrain a day ago
146 points by steelbrain a day ago
I think it’s worth amending this to just “apps can kill”. I volunteer with search and rescue sometimes and have seen several people get into bad trouble due to reliance on phones for maps. Sometimes it’s dead batteries or just breakage without a backup plan, but no doubt other times it’s changing behavior in the app itself, OS decided to wipe cache, app has bad info, whatever.
You can say that people should know better but sometimes dead tree maps are not available, and anyway there’s no doubt that they are on the way out. The “safe/reliable” way might even seem to be up for debate, since phones can be more waterproof than paper, less likely to blow away when you’re on top of a mountain, serve as a backup flashlight/emergency comms, etc. But all it takes is a company that decides to force auto update and a PM that decides feature churn increases engagement and creates job security, and who knows what will break?
It is kind of like packaging that’s a choking or asphyxiation hazard.. if you’re doing anything that affects millions of people, it’s almost ALWAYS a safety issue even if you don’t usually think of it that way. No big audience or big user base without big responsibilities. Sure you’ll probably not be held liable in law suits, but on the other hand you should probably feel bad if you’re killing people due to indifference /negligence when thinking through edge cases.
> but no doubt other times it’s changing behavior in the app itself, OS decided to wipe cache, app has bad info, whatever
GaiaGPS, which advertises is offline capability, after an update (but not immediately after the update) recently required users to login to continue using the app. Which was impossible if you happened to be out of cell phone range 10 miles from a trailhead when this login popup happened. Incredibly bone-headed move, and dangerous for hikers that aren't smart enough to carry backup map sources. But Gaia has been trending this way for several years.
I wish there was a way to write a poison pill clause into a company's founding charter, such as "We will not be evil, and should the day arrive when we become evil, the company shall be liquidated and all its IP shall become open source under the MIT license. 'Evil' is described below..." and one of the many ways to be evil would of course be to require users to be online and/or to log into an account before using the service. Or to suddenly decide to make a profit after starting as a nonprofit, like OpenAI. Such a clause would have to be completely understood by VCs and investors prior to investing. If no investors wanted to invest under these circumstances, so be it. This is the only kind of company I'd ever want to be a founder of.
That’s what Benefit Corps exist for - but it’s a very rarely used vehicle. Anthropic is a well known example of a B Corp.
The structure provides a way for leadership to refuse to act in ways that counter the company’s charter.
More here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
TIL that Anthropic is a Benefit Corp. Thank you!
Their end-user privacy policy says "We will not use your Inputs or Outputs to train our models" (followed by carve-outs, which seem reasonable).
Very minor life hack, but when hiking with a phone map I always take a screenshot of the map to ensure I have at least that. Also a good habit to photo the map whenever starting a known trail with the big map at the start - I do that as a habit now.
One time, I dropped my phone in a parking lot and it landed face down on a pebble rendering my screen completely unusable. That's never happened with a paper map in a ziploc bag.
Funny thing. I was in search and rescue as a teen, and I went though the courses with a friend. A decade or so later, we were hiking on a bright sunny day* and weren't properly prepared. We went off trail, and found ourselves in an unknown position. Our predominant emotion was shame, with the understanding that if we got S&R called on us we would be completely honest about our training (not that our spouses wouldn't be honest for us). We had a paper map but no compass, and were able to navigate to a marked trail with some educated guesswork. In the end, it was a fun adventure, but the shame stuck with us the whole way home.
* note: "bright and sunny day" is the condition that search and rescue teaches one to be the most mindful of. It's where you and everybody else get the most confident, and prepare the least.
I'm surprised you haven't encountered paper maps that are wrong. I had one with a trail that (unbeknownst to me) hadn't been maintained in decades. I followed it to an unmarked cliff and injured myself going around rather instead of backtracking several miles like I should have. Digital maps tend to be much better about information freshness unless you're printing the latest maps from different sources before every trip.
I didn't say I've never encountered an incorrect map, I said they aren't rendered useless by dropping on an ill-positioned rock. You can send digital maps to the printer, and insert them into a ziploc, before leaving your house. I emphasize the ziploc because I have seen paper maps ruined by rain and rivers. And the added heft keeps them from blowing away in a weak gust of wind.
And if you like belts & suspenders and have a laser printer, splurge a little[1]. But still keep your map, compass and pencil in the ziploc.
[1] https://www.riteintherain.com/printer-paper-20-pound#8511-50
I don't know anyone who has a printer capable of printing 7.5 min maps on-demand. That's a job for a print shop. Most SAR happens from day hikes and other light recreation, not multi-day expeditions where you can reasonably justify extensive setup like that.
My recommendation is to take an old phone, make sure it's charged, and throw it in a Ziploc in a back pocket. Then stay on-trail, which you should almost always be doing anyway.
Capable of printing to-scale? No. But I've printed a fair number of USGS 7.5min quads on a standard Brother laser printer. I print them double-sided, with the top half of the map on one side and the bottom half on the other[1]. They fit that way at about 1/2 scale, which is still eminently usable. Perfect for day hikes and other light recreation. And guaranteed not to break when you sit on it in a Ziploc in a back pocket.
Sure, use your phone with offline maps as your primary, but a printed backup map doesn't require anything special or expensive.
[1] With an overlap strip that is printed on both sides, thanks to plakativ[2].
I've had the exact same thing with an OSM map. Organic Maps showed a trail down, but if it was meant to be a trail, it hadn't been used or maintained in at least a century. It was completely irresponsible to go down it, but we did so anyway because otherwise we'd have to backtrack our entire hike. We got home, but it was quite an adventure.
At least in the US, all of the topographic maps are available for free download from the USGS and can be printed at home or at a copy center.
You can also purchase printed copies.
A gallon ziplock bag makes for cheap lamination. So does clear packing tape.
Very practical advice, but there's a few reasons things like this can't make the issue disappear. For example, a topo map could kill an amateur because they don't know how to use it and they might even know this about themselves, and assume that an interactive display with "you are here" is a safer choice. For someone that can read a map, what if it doesn't show trails but an app does? Even people who are reaching for a smart choice and bring their app-map and paper-map can still have the rug pulled out from under them at any time just because they didn't compare the two often enough, then the app somehow fails them and it's too late.
Not everyone is an engineer, and they may simply not be aware that things like reliability / stability / user-control / user-consent for phones/apps/SaaS is a complete joke compared to any other kind of technology. Someone out there probably has a "life alert" app that used to work but has been recently broken because the API to pre-load the "one trick all seniors should know" advertisements recently changed. Someone can't see to dial emergency services because their huge-font-app was removed from the app store/marked as malware, or maybe their flashlight-app doesn't work because a server or cell connectivity went down and it can't phone home telemetry.
All the following things are true at the same time. Backup plans, knowledge, and tactics are good. Victim-blaming is often very tempting/easy. Apps have no doubt saved lives as well. We can still acknowledge issues and try to do better. "Death by GPS" as a recognizable figure of speech should not be a thing. It's no longer a solid bet that "works today" means "unless I change something, it's working tomorrow".. this is bad and is mostly unnecessary. As time goes on advice to avoid technology to avoid associated problems always becomes impractical (good luck throwing away your phone/email to avoid spam) so at some point we have to actually admit and address the problems.
Generally best to have some redundancy there.
My ass has been saved more times by an iPhone compass and offline OrganicMaps than the other way round. Quote the situation a couple of years back where the state issued paper maps were completely wrong and my Suunto compass turned out to likely be a fake one and froze and cracked open overnight. 30km from humans on a mountain range in central asia.
I have never had an iPhone crap out on me I will add. Has completely replaced my dedicated GPS.
The worst thing I've ever seen though is a compass app on Android that won't work if it can't contact the ad server.
This is really the fault of the insurance company (they geo-locked the app, Apple is just respecting that).
But really the idea of in-network hospitals for emergency services is nuts. Like, checkups, chronic issues—fine, your instance provider might have some preferences. But if it is an emergency (a situation in which you might die) and you have to figure out which hospital to go to first: Apple can not fix your malfunctioning society.
> This is really the fault of the insurance company (they geo-locked the app, Apple is just respecting that).
This sounds like a verbose way of saying "this is really the fault of Apple".
Why? Companies need to geo restrict apps for various legal reasons so Apple gave them a method to do so.
That's exactly the criticism of Apple. Apple is giving them a method to do so, when that should not be provided because it causes this kind of problem and is otherwise a betrayal of the user.
That's not how things should work.
Apple should not be the arbiter of whether a business model you want to engage in is legal or not. That's what courts of law are for. I would strongly oppose Apple unilaterally deciding which apps can-, and which cannot-, use the geofencing feature.
Go to the government, and have the government compel Apple to restrict certain apps if that is your desire, but for them to do that on their own is completely out of line.
> Go to the government, and have the government compel Apple to restrict certain apps if that is your desire, but for them to do that on their own is completely out of line.
This is exactly the argument against what Apple is doing. They're compelling the user's device to enforce geo-restrictions against the user's wishes. They're acting as a government when there is no law requiring the user to respect arbitrary -- and inaccurate -- geofencing restrictions.
No.
The DEVELOPERS are compelling the user. Which is what should happen. The user should be given options by the developers, not Apple.
What should happen is the user gets to do whatever they want with their device and the developers get to suck it up if they don't like it. Developers should have zero power over users.
Our computers are meant to empower us, not to enforce idiotic developer policies that nobody cares about.
> Apple should not be the arbiter...I would strongly oppose Apple unilaterally deciding which apps can-, and which cannot-, use the geofencing feature... Apple to restrict certain apps...but for them to do that on their own is completely out of line.
As opposed to all the other Apple decisions?
By the way, which law requires Apple to provide geofencing to a health insurance app such it can't even be installed outside a particular country, and ties its hands completely on the matter?
Article: I didn't care about a corporation restricting people's freedom until it hurt me.
Comments: Its not the corporation, its the government. Its not the corporation, its just the way things are. Its ok the corporation restricts freedom, everything is a tradeoff and everyone does this. Gollygee I hope this gets better.
real elevating curious conversation here /s that never self reflects, is our culture of software making the world worse? will one day our intentional naivety around power fail to protect us from that truth?
> Gollygee I hope this gets better
It's not. I'm not a history buff so I won't speak for the past. But right now there is a huge accountability problem.
Government literally can't exist without ignoring accountability.
Corporations are incentivised to ignore accountability.
Individuals want to ignore accountability.
You only have control over yourself. If you want your life to go better then you have to take the accountability.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket, have backups, understand how the things you participate in work. Ask questions like "why would this be free".
It's a long road for everyone but if you want to be safe and happy you gotta take the solutions into your own hands.
There are real positive tradeoffs made by locking down an os. a phone existing that can’t get bona-fide spyware on it (when kept updated) has saved countless people from the stress and grief of eg being blackmailed or having their private browsing habits made public.
People should be able to buy the phone that fits their needs.
Ah yes people should be able to enter into unequal contracts whenever they want. Because that has traditionally gone well.
Software when done right is magical. What about the times that the software helped people?
No thats not what we're talking about.
Please elaborate on the times when a large institution restricted peoples freedom for their "own good." The history of this is extremely clear. Software being involved is just an obscuring detail.
Most corporate stuff is a mixed bad. They usually have to do some good things or they wouldn't exist. Apple for example.
A lot can be said about Apple and walled gardens for sure, but is it fair to mostly blame Apple for the region locked insurance app, rather than the app developer? That was the developer’s choice to do, not Apple’s. Hopefully Anees’ insurance also has an website and contact numbers for emergencies. Android supports region locking and has some region locked apps too, it appears, according to Google. Is the Android version of the app in question not region locked on Android? We don’t know since he used an emulator. Maybe region locking is easy to get around if you’re technical, but in an emergency for most non-technical people, the outcome will be the same on Android as it is on Apple, no?
I agree that this is might not be the most-likely-to-kill-you aspect of using walled gardens, but since it's what the article is about... No, the vendor of your hardware should not be participating in schemes like region locking. You paid them for the device, they're supposed to be working for you, not against you.
The fact that google does it also doesn't make it ok.
For apps, you pay the developer and Apple takes a cut, right? The developers are the ones demanding region locking functionality, and either way they are also paying Apple. Apple’s not working against you so much as serving multiple customers, and developers get more say in how apps work. I agree that Google also doing it doesn’t justify the practice, my main point was that moving to Android doesn’t actually fix the problem like the article implied.
> The developers are the ones demanding region locking functionality
For paid apps, maybe. For the free app that is the companion to a meat-space service you are already paying for (insurance, banking, etc), region locking is a liability all-round.
I've spent countless hours working around this while travelling, and in some cases just haven't been able to use services I've paid for.
Oh I don’t doubt it’s a hassle. But you are paying the bank/insurance company, outside of Apple’s payment system, and they’re the ones refusing you international service, right? Have you tried calling them up to get support while traveling and ask why they’re blocking other countries, or ask if they offer other ways to authenticate and get in?
It might be nice for you if Apple refused to let devs build region locked apps, but that might cause other bigger problems for other people, right? For banking, hacking attempts from other countries in general is a big and serious issue. My banking app offers a region locking option for my own security, and I’m sure many banks can safely assume that login attempts from other countries are illegitimate.
> Have you tried calling them up to get support while traveling and ask why they’re blocking other countries, or ask if they offer other ways to authenticate and get in?
The trouble with that is you might need to buy a region-compatible sim card to call the bank, and you might need to call the bank in order to buy the sim card. (I was lucky I could find wifi and had a VPN set up so I could make myself appear in the US).
> My banking app offers a region locking option for my own security
This is a different thing, though - a region lock on logins might be useful.
What these companies are doing is only region locking installation. If you already have the app installed, you can use it from overseas just fine
(and you can generally setup an arbitrary-region Google/Apple account over a VPN, so the scammers just work around it that way).
> developers get more say in how apps work.
They do, but they shouldn't. This is one of the worst things about modern technology. My device, my rules, end of story. I should be able to change the inputs to the application such that it thinks it's in whatever region I decide, because I physically control and operate the device.
> For apps, you pay the developer and Apple takes a cut, right?
Yes, and it's very wrong that the device seller gets to take part on that deal too.
> Apple’s not working against you so much as serving multiple customers
Apple is explicitly working against you here. Yes, it was hired by somebody else to do it, but no, this doesn't make it ok.
And you were certainly right about that. I just couldn't resist the opportunity for a little rabble rousing. We shouldn't let them treat us like this (neither app nor platform).
> Maybe region locking is easy to get around if you’re technical, but in an emergency for most non-technical people, the outcome will be the same on Android as it is on Apple, no?
Unless something has change in the past few years since I needed to do this, you can get around it on iPhone by creating a new Apple ID for the new region and logging your phone into that account.
[added] probably not the first thing one thinks about if they are in a heighten anxiety/panic state though
Nowadays you might need a payment method with billing address in that region.
It depends on how you get into the signup flow - if you just try to sign up for the App Store it requires a payment method, but if you try to install a free app, it will have the option for not entering a payment method.
Shitty, anti-consumer dark pattern from Apple.
Apple Music was the app that prevented them from changing regions, is there a Google app that would prevent the same?
It was the Apple Music Subscription tied to their account that was locking the region of the account, not the app.
> Is the Android version of the app in question not region locked on Android?
It probably is, I didn't check. I was able to grab the APK and install it directly
> Android supports region locking and has some region locked apps too, it appears, according to Google.
No, Android does not support region locking. Neither does iOS. (Technically, you can make your app look at the SIM country and exit if it's not what you want, but nobody does this.) App stores on those platforms support region locking. The problem the author is highlighting is that you can't just get the ipk and install it directly to get around the app store's restrictions like you can on most Android phones.
I went to a foreign country in 2019 and got a local SIM card, I couldn't install the ISP's app (I don't remember why I needed it, to make sure I got the quota that the seller promised?) because the app was region-locked.. huh, should I change my Google account's region just for the period I'm that country?
FWIW when sth like this happens, you can try to go to a place like APKPure and actually download the damn thing without anyone telling you that you can't.
Also works for pinning versions of apps that ship some malware (like safetynet detection) with a new update. Apps installed from there are not linked to play store by default and so updates are not checked.
I was unopinionated about Apple's walled garden until the events of last week. Now I'm pro side-loading. If you've been on the fence, hope this changes your mind.
Thanks for sharing this. I agree with others that this issue is primarily caused by the insurer (why does this need an app?) and dysfunctional healthcare governed by money and greed.
Still it's a good reminder of what you're getting into with walled gardens.
More broadly, it is a real shame how corporations have turned mobile internet into the complete opposite of what it could achieve.
Ideally, the only thing tied to a specific hardware or software provider should be your identity.
And imho, said provider should be controlled by state government, and be accessible from any device, given the proof of identity.
"side-loading"? you surely mean "installing software that you want on a device that you own". don't use abusive corporate language.
"You can't get it from the app store? Have you tried installing software that you want on a device that you own it? Sometimes that works better"
I must have missed this one among... you know, everything. What happened with Apple?
Geofencing is not exclusive to Apple. Not even to native mobile apps. As you likely already known :)
While the submission does make an important point, it seems a bit obfuscated by accusing Apple exclusively.
Seems like main benefit of the side-loading was bypassing the geofence.
And while native apps provide heavier geo-attribution (thus, probably harder to fake), I'm not sure if this is solely an Android vs Apple thing.
If I am understanding, you were in United Arab Emirates (UAE), but your phone was logged into an account set to a different region?
If that is the case I am surprised that is the first time you ran into a geo locked app and didn't already have another Apple account for that region that you could log into. This was one of the first things I quickly learned to do if I wanted my iPhone to be useful at all when I spent many months living in a (non-Western) country. (using apps for their services)
Isn't this more an issue with your insurance company not having a phone number or web site you could have used instead of the app?
I've been trying to sign up for Apple TV for the past several days, as we wanted to catch up on some of the Apple shows.
There is an Android app, and that installs smoothly enough, but trying to start a subscription initially errored out on both my & my wife's phones.
I then tried to create a new user through the Apple website, and got stuck on this screen, which was throwing 500s every time I clicked on the continue button: https://www.reddit.com/r/applehelp/comments/17zawel/continue....
After a couple of days that screen cleared, but then I found that their website won't take payment from me (I'm based outside of the US, but have a US billing address, so that's likely the cause of that.) I did find that their app at this point allowed me to subscribe through Google Play subscriptions (once I had gotten this account fully setup), so that almost got me to the finish line (except for some reason I got blocked and decided to start again with a new account, so back to square 1).
I'll also note that (of course) they don't support chromecast (as I think all or most other streaming apps available on Android do); the workaround is apparently to open the Apple TV site in chrome and cast from there.
Kind of a shitshow, overall.
Why do you need an app for that? In what word does an insurer not provide such information on their mobile website?
The same where a bank doesn't provide the same data and services on their website than on their phone application. And that application in addition to being region-locked requires a non-rooted phone with GApps installed.
> The same where a bank doesn't provide the same data and services on their website than on their phone application.
I'm sure this exists (and clearly so does the insurance company practice), but I've never run into it — bank websites always have the same or more functionality than the phone app. Except maybe something like mobile deposit.
On one of my account, you can't add a recipient without waiting 72h, unless you have the mobile phone app. You need two 2FA, unless you have the mobile phone push. Graphs and payment categorization are only available on the application.
One of my credit cards has no web functionality at all, you can only interact with it through an app. This impacts me since it means my accounting software can't log into it and fetch data.
I do wonder if there's something like RDP but for phones.. Like if you could keep a burner phone on somewhere at home maybe and RDP into it to use these crappy malware apps so that they don't complain.
Would require transparent file and copy buffers I guess. In addition to remote desktop functions.
It would be nice to have a more polished version, but haven't played around with it for 5 minutes I can tell you that just gluing together scrcpy and your choice of Xephyr+x11vnc / headless Wayland compositor + wayvnc works surprisingly well. I haven't tried yet since I just wanted to know if it would work at all, but I can't see any reason why you couldn't do the same thing with RDP or even noVNC or Apache Guacamole.
I hope one day we realize that the internet (and probably humanity) wants to be global and our region-based governance doesn't really make sense.
Maybe one can hope.
Some things indeed make sense on a global scale. But if I would have a local problem, I would not like to have to deal with a obscure world government agency (partly or largely run by AI) somewhere far away.
I agree. I don't think everything should be global, but that we should at least have an option for global. Just as here in the US, I don't think the federal (national) government should make all the decisions for my local town, but I'm glad to have them when it comes to interstate commerce and other national problems that need to be resolved.
Shouldn't an insurance company have a (mobile) web interface? Strange that they don't
Indeed. Avoid any critical service if it requires having an app (or even a cell phone for 2FA, although sadly it's becoming the norm).
I got locked out of Google because my second number was not a cell phone. Back then, they had the option to call and read the code. Suddenly they took that option away and only allowed texting.
My bank only supports Zelle in the app, not on the web interface, and ever since an update a few months ago the Zelle part of the app suddenly won't load at all on GrapheneOS. There is no fix. So now I can't directly send and receive money through a bank without waiting days or paying a wire transfer fee, because in the United States this ability is monopolized by a private corporation's proprietary service, which can only be interfaced with through one's closed-source banking mobile app.
I think you should be able to load whatever software you want on your phone (though technical speed bumps are good, imo).
But this is far from the biggest problem in this story.
e.g, if it’s important to be able to access the information available through the app, why is it locked?
Why isn’t that important information available on a regular web site?
Why do you need to install an app before getting emergency medical attention, anyway?
While sideloading might let you work around a broken bureaucracy from time-to-time, that’s not a very effective way to improve the system.
No, what "can kill" is being in a country where the health services do not treat seriously ill people without question.
Sympathy will be limited when that country is also a repressive dictatorship, if you have gone there of your own accord.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/united-arab-emirates-uae-free-spe...
Mobility decisions are often dictated by visa-policies for people with weak passports (which is a big chunk of the world population). UAE, with all its flaws, is a lot more accessible than other countries may be
Yes.
But if you chose to move to a horrible, evil country, then you cannot blame its awfulness on your phone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Ara...
Your points here are quite shocking. You've no idea how or why the author of the blog post ended up in the country they were in in the position they were in; it's not stated in the blog post or here in the author's comments in this discussion.
This apparent need to push the discussion away from the issue being presented and instead engage in some moral grandstanding on an irrelevant point comes across as suspect.
If you were presented with an example of a walled garden causing distress to someone in a nice, white Western country, you'd presumably rush forward with your sympathy, would you?
> "a country where the health services do not treat seriously ill people without question."
Your point here and below have the whiff of committed insincerity off them, but nonetheless, if we take you at face value, a quick search reveals this astonishing quote from https://u.ae/en/information-and-services/justice-safety-and-...
> "UAE's hospitals can handle any medical emergency. During medical emergencies, a hospital will accept you for initial treatment and may transfer you to a hospital better equipped to deal with your problem.
The UAE provides standard medical care and visitors can easily obtain medical treatment from either private or government hospitals. In case of emergency, treatment to stabilise the case is free. Other treatment must be paid for by cash, credit card or insurance."
I've always been conflicted on Apple. On the one hand, the attention to detail in the hardware and software is generally unmatched, and everything in the ecosystem works seamlessly.
On the other hand, I think my personal values make me ideologically opposed to locked-down hardware/software that you don't get full control over (with associated freedom/repairability implications) and Apple products are some of the most restricted in that regard.
The current compromise? I'll buy all Apple devices for convenience... once I have enough money to not care.
Seems like the real problem in this case is being required to go to a specific hospital because of insurance.
Very weird 'article'. Apple has to provide the ability for app developers to lock their applications away from certain regions and countries where it may not be legal to provide the app or service. Whether the insurance company is using that functionality properly is not up to Apple.
• The insurance company decided their information can only be accessed via an app, not Apple.
• The insurance company decided their app should be region locked to UAE, not Apple.
It seems like HN bait to turn this into an opportunity for an anti-Apple rant. Anyone who from the US travels abroad frequently will discover quickly that their banking apps are region locked, via the network, and you often have to use a VPN that looks like you are back home in the US to be able to access their apps or services. Apple has nothing to do with any of this. It doesn't matter if you're on iPhone or Android, it's network level.
It's fine to be against this practice, but turning it into something directed to a single company as if it is their responsibility entirely is just... well, at worst, it doesn't seem honest, at best, it seems naive or ignorant.
Why not calling a phone number to ask the insurance directly? Apps should NEVER be relied upon for life-critical stuff, there are just too many risks. Phone is widely accessible, mobile or not.
This headline reminded me to do my weekly log into Facebook to see if anyone on Marketplace has responded to me.
I hate that it's functionally become the only way to sell things online.
it's not just apple - with google once you change countries you've to wait a year to change again.
With Google, as another posted has pointed out, you can use services like apkpure and grab the apk and install it directly, thereby bypassing such restrictions
I guess, anything can kill? Is it unimaginable that a non-walled garden may kill? In some way?
Yes, walled gardens are bad, but in this case it was the combination of walled garden, region restrictions for vital health info, conflicting region restrictions, health info not being available outside the app, and a healthcare system that itself is completely broken. Each of these is stupid and dangerous, and if even one of them hadn't been the case, the author wouldn't have had this problem.
It's a whole ecosystem of enshittification.
I'm sure horde of Apple fanatics and useful idiots will gladly throw your wife under the bus, because:
* Just buy an Android if you don't like it
* This is not the Apple way
* My grandma has much better experience this way, because I don't have to some made up reason why this is impossible on Android
* Green bubble
* Much more secure this way
* I don't like when someone has different use case than I do
* It would be even worse on Android
* Think of the kids
Did I forget something?
The author wants us to believe that their insurance provider reduces their customer service success to the single factor of whether or not someone has an Android phone?
Unmitigated bs.
Use your web browser and find an in-network hospital via the website. Like a person.
This article stretches the limits of credibility.
Garbage premise and clickbait title.
I could continue on to talk about the "walled garden" issue, but I don't think that step is even warranted given the facts.
Not sure what the proposal is exactly, that all there should be no international restrictions on commumications?
It feels like how a minor problem (in the sense that the app is poorly planned) is escalated into a device/os and then a country + international problem
If your goal were to fix this issue for other people on your situation, you would push for your insurance to disable geolocation instead of complaining about the existence of geolocation which is opening a can of worms you have no bearing in and don't understand.
Fix your garden before you fix the world.
Why wouldn't the insurance company have a web app with this information?
The web solves nearly all of the problems Apple and Google have created with their ecosystems.
Is it just me, or is this blog's text a bit too low contrast and hard to read?
Hello! Are you reading this on a phone/tablet? I tweaked it around a bit to make it soft/comfortable to read but may have gone too far.
Edit: Made it a bit darker, hopefully its easier to read now.
Imagine not trying to use their website… apps are cancer
Imagine if police and fire emergency services operated like this - you had to get private fire and police insurance, and if your home was on fire you would need to have an app on your phone telling you which fire departments were 'in-network' in order to ensure you weren't accidentally bankrupted (if the out-of-network service would even respond, once they checked your economic credit score).
The real takeaway here should be that life-or-death outcomes should never depend on some buggy app installed on your phone and maintained by a for-profit company that's more interested in protecting shareholder profits and executive salaries than in providing the critical service in question.
I find it hard to believe that the insurance provider didn’t have a website.
Here's the company (that manages the "frontend") for ours and a bunch of other insurance companies: https://www.nextcarehealth.com/
I couldn't find their Lumi / web based login. Maybe you can help me find it!
No idea how you're supposed to get there (I only found it with Google) but: https://www.nextcarehealth.com/healthcare-network
Hamburger menu -> Login
The login button redirects you to a page with a QR code for the application: https://www.nextcarehealth.com/download-lumi/
Or maybe I'm missing something, did you actually find a Login form there?
My bad. I have never seen anything so user hostile in my life. It looks like the only way that it doesn’t force you to use the app is if you go to the website from a computer. Requesting desktop site doesn’t do it and even using a third party browser that lets you change the user agent will still force you to use the app on mobile.
plenty of mobile-only banks here in (former?) europe. losing access to a bank account might be as critical as to an insurance one.
You mean with the way that the EU loves to regulate everything, they don’t regulate this?
There isn’t a bank that I’m aware of that is app only in the US. The one thing you can’t do from some bank websites is deposit a check. Which makes no sense either since you have been able to capture photos from web pages in iOS forever.
The author never names the insurance company. I can't help but wonder if it's because they later realized there was a web app the whole time, and the ios/android apps were entirely optional.
Possibly. But people, in an emergency, do what they know best. You can prepare for some emergencies, but not all.
I know about someone having a heart attack, and people around him panicking and not knowing the emergency phone number 112