zlacker

>>sschue+(OP)
> At present the project is focused on mobile platforms, specifically Android and iOS, as they cover the vast majority of users and real-world use cases. (..) Desktop support is not currently within the project's scope.

This is the equivalent of a "Do you guys not have phones??"[1] but on a way larger scale.

At least where i live i am able to use the bare minimum of phones, even working with tech. The friction is increasing though, which worries me a lot, and day after day there is a new attempt to shove it down your throat if you want to be considered a member of society. Seeing that a lot of countries (including mine) are pushing for age verification, and the whole thing about Android blocking 'sideload', by the end of 2026 you won't be considered a human being without a government certified smartphone.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly10r6m_-n8

>>harris+1U
Another recent news about mandated app use: Ryanair now (from November) requires using their app for the boarding pass, no more printouts from the desktop. Also, they refuse to show the QR code for the boarding pass in a mobile browser via the website, you must use their app.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/travel/news/ryanair-s-new-check-in...

>>bonobo+Ni1
A BIG reason these companies like Ryanair want you to use their app its that it's much easier to collect data about you than through a website :(

>>wkat42+yM1
No, it's a cost cutting measure. App-only reduces support and development costs with whoever they're outsourcing this too.

There's a line item which basically said "mobile web" and they wanted it gone to save some number of dollars per year.

>>XorNot+OP1
Ther's a line between "we don't support this platform" and actively making it hostile to try and use a platform. It may have even taken extra development time to make sure they can reject showing the QR code on a webpage, if their app is just serving that same web page.

>>johnny+AW1
If corporate no longer wants to support mobile web, then it means I don't have budget to host it. It means developers can't put time against fixing it, QA aren't tasked to test it before releases, and support staff are not being trained in supporting it. The last one is pretty key because it's a huge metric for cost center: how many support calls is a thing generating? And if the thing is not supposed to exist anymore, then I would have to answer questions like "why is it still accessible?"

Internal job tracking metrics would have to answer why any time is going to running this thing, and god help us if there's a security breach via this endpoint we were supposed to have eliminated N time ago.

An unsupported internal API is one thing - and they're generally a huge timesink anyway. An unsupported external user interface is a cost center which I can't justify, and impacts numerous other parts of the business.