No iPhone Apps, Please — We're British 393
GMGruman writes "The BBC has stirred up quite a row in Britain about a shocking use of taxpayer funds: creating iPhone apps to provide citizens services. As InfoWorld blogger Galen Gruman notes, it's apparently bad in Britain for the government to use modern technology during a recession, a mentality he likens as a shift from 'cool Britannia' to 'fool Britannia.'"
Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Insightful)
iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
no (Score:5, Insightful)
it's bad to waste money doing iphone apps when you could save money and do a website which people other then iphone users can use. Why no do android apps too? What about blackberry, symbian etc? max? linux? pc? Yes, it's a waste of money because most people haven't got an iphone, android phome, mac etc etc. Some people have a pc, and they probably have an internet connection, so a website will do. It's the BBC - they make/show tv shows.
hmmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it more that some people have suggested that making applications for unemployed people, that only run on phones costing 40 pounds (70$) a month is a bit poorly targeted. And that perhaps making websites for renewing car tax etc is more efficient than making apps that only run on a tiny minority of people's phones (any phone that can run an app can use the website.)
Why on earth does the government need to spend loads of money making things slightly more convenient for a tiny minority of nerds and rich tech hipsters, when these people are perfectly able to use the existing websites.
Sent from my phone, obviously!
Wasteful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:1, Insightful)
Websites are great and all, but they are apparently not the best way to motivate the people.
£10000 for a flashing light? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm all for the governments embracing modern tools and technology, developing an app for a selected brand of phones to help motorcyclists - that's just ridiculous.
TFA makes a point that "It's very likely that not all of the government's iPhone apps were well-conceived -- but neither are all of the private sector apps in the App Store". But the private ones are not funded with our tax money! It's alarming that the author does not see the difference. Let private parties make ridiculously absurd applications that only two people in the world have use for. Let them make apps that NO-ONE needs or wants. But the government does not have this liberty, the government does not have any of its own money or resources.
If there is demand for an app that acts as a warning light for motorists, let someone make and sell it, let people compete for whose is the best.
Dear government, you are (almost) always ineffective and always expensive. Please remember that and stick with doing your real job.
Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the BBC story if anyone is interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10514367.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Governments using modern technology to support/educate users should be encouraged - it will assist the UK IT industry employment, grow UK IT capabilities and give citizens the information they need when they need it. But at the same time, a government should be careful not strongly benefit one closed source platform over other platforms. Of course this doesn't mean that the UK government should build applications in all mobile platforms - just that they should build at lease some software application on another platform - preferably an open source one.
It's the upcoming cuts, not the recession (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, but maybe the taxpayer dollars should be spent on services that everyone can make use of, not just iPhone users.
It's more than just that. If the Government develops iPhone apps, but not apps for the other proprietary platforms, then that could be seen as a Government endorsement of Apple over their competitors. Why are taxpayers' pounds being spent endorsing and promoting a foreign company's products that few can afford? Of course it offends British sensibilities -- not only is it the poor subsidising the rich (all taxpayers pay, but only the wealthier who can afford iPhones benefit), and not only does it distort the market for smart-phones, but it also puts the companies that invest in the UK and EU at a disadvantage. (Many of the other mobile developers, such as Nokia and Google, invest and employ significantly in the UK)
just plain insulting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Insightful)
They might be cheaper and more open, but there definitely isn't more Android phones around. If we go by marketshare, best bet is Symbian.
However it doesn't really make any sense to make apps for such a divided market. Websites work just fine from a phone and they work for all.
Re:iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, the InfoWorld blogger is an idiot if he doesn't get this.
We can't justify spending thousands on something that not only an absolute minority can access, but likely only a minority of that minority will ever bother to use anyway.
They'd even have had an argument if they'd done it for Symbian, by far the UK's biggest mobile platform, but even that would be a push. The fact they focussed on a minority, but popular device simply demonstrates they just wanted to play around with the latest gadgets rather than focus on actually doing their job. The web is far and away the most sensible option.
But it's something that effects even pseudo-public sector- look at the BBC, their iPlayer app prioritised the iPhone well ahead of any platform, despite being completely against the BBCs requirement of providing equal access to content that license payers pay for.
If it was private sector then that's fine, what they do is upto them, they may still be criticised but it's their choice at the end of the day. Public sector doesn't have that choice, you can't expect people to pay the same taxes and one of them get all the benefits and the other get nothing simply because of their choice of mobile phone particularly if the phone they chose is actually the same as the majority of the rest of the population are using. In public sector it has to be all or nothing- either support iPhone, Android, Symbian, Blackberry, MeeGo or don't do it at all and again, as people have said here a few times, the web is far and away the best platform to do it for all.
I'm sure someone will point out some fringe platform and say "Well should they support that?", no, of course there are fringe cases and they can't be expected to necessarily support 100% of platforms, but they need to make sure they at least cover the majority of the population for this sort of thing- ideally a vast majority, such as around 95% or so.
The only thing I will say is that public sector has had problems with websites too so it's not just a case of switching to the web until they sort out their issues there, one website they created (nothing overly complex, just a standard CMS albeit with lots of content) cost £105 million- how can that even be justified? Most private sector developers are saying they'd have quoted around £50,000 for the same site, maybe up into the hundreds of thousands if they had to employ staff to enter all the content and such, but £105 million? How can you even spend that much money building a website?
So public sector in the UK has a major problem with IT, the iPhone apps are just one facet of it, but sensible web development seems to be the obvious solution in most cases.
Re:iphone (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, but maybe the taxpayer dollars should be spent on services that everyone can make use of, not just iPhone users.
Good point, so we should berate them for setting up all the Gov websites too, as not everyone has access to the internet, and obviously any new road building must be shelved until we can ensure everyone has a car!
I'd say it's just the BBC looking for news on a slow news day. See also the sh1tstorm they whipped up about some Gov Dept [bbc.co.uk] screwing up a list of which schools were going to lose their rebuilding funds - some apparently were told they were safe and weren't so the BBC went and interviewed headmasters of said schools and the (usually Left Wing) headmasters were all very upset about it when the reporters asked them the important questions like "How do you feel"!
And let's ask when these apps were all written? Was it since the election or perhaps before the election?
Anyway, so perhaps the BBC headline should read something like "Government spends money on things and we've nothing more interesting to report on whilst all our reporters are in Cumbria again!".
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iphone (Score:3, Insightful)
Next year, the BBC will air programs that you can only view on a Sony TV set.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I live in Scandinavia and changing tires(summer/winter) is most certainly relevant to safe driving?
Plus, Scandinavia is one of them ebul sociamolist places without poor people, so getting your tires changed is ~$100 (cost of labour only), and I'm paying 60% tax. It makes no sense for me to work two days more to afford something I could do myself in 30 minutes.
Re:The "government" (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone can access the web? No they can't.
What proportion of people have an I phone?
What propostion of people can access the web?
Not everyone and therefor by the logic that since not everyone has an iPhone no iPhone apps should be developed, the government should also develop no websites.
It would very much appear that you are in no position to be leturing the rest of slashdot about logic.
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:3, Insightful)
That is funded by the BBC Television License Fee, not by taxes.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear government, you are (almost) always ineffective and always expensive. Please remember that and stick with doing your real job.
This is true. I'm especially pleased with the improvement in service and reduction in costs I've enjoyed from British Telecom and the utilities post-privatisation. Oh, wait...
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:2, Insightful)
HD is a cross-company standard. The iPhone is owned by a single company. Big difference.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:1, Insightful)
Then there's Java (Micro Edition), which is multi-platform, except for iPhone which won't run it.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Referring to US statistics in a story about British application development is quite useless. Note that I'm not saying there are more Android phones in the UK or anything like that, I'm only saying the statistics you refer to are probably not useful because the American market is not representative of the rest of the world (it could be for UK, but I doubt it).
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't have a TV, you don't pay the TV tax.
If you don't have an iPhone, you've still had to pay to make an app for it.
I think it's a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
- iPhones are proprietary. Unless the Gov supports other platforms (Android, RIM, WinMob, Symbian), it is unfair to support just one.
- Could not the same results be achieved with a web-only (intrinsically multi-platform) app ?
- is the stuff that important that it MUST be available on a mobile (I should RTFA, maybe...)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, no! Symbian only has a 2% market share and falling. Personally, I don't even know anyone with a Symbian phone anymore - they've moved to Blackberrys or iPhones.
People with money have moved, the rest of us are still using older phones or none at all. (Being a geek doesn't always mean being rich.)
Government made apps for specific platforms are just an unfair waste of money - IF any were to be made, they should have been made in J2ME.
Although not everyone has personal access to the internet (I know many in such a position), everyone has access to libraries, and libraries provide access to computers and the internet, so information being supplied by websites would be FAR more appropriate.
If mobile access is required, why not make the websites standards compliant and terse and to the point enough such that they are accessible on mobiles; all modern mobiles can access the internet if need be.
I'm annoyed as heck that apps are being provided by the government exclusively to the elite and their Jesus phones. Totally inappropriate, especially during a recession. However, it seems to be an internal trend in the BBC too unfortunately, prioritising iPhone and iPad access over more open platforms; they seem to think everyone and their kitteh has one or the other. :(
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everyone has the internet so making websites at all is stupid.
Anyone can walk into a library and can access the Internet for free in the UK, including homeless people. In contrast, the iPhone is a tiny, proprietary platform. There are two important differences.
The first is ubiquity. Anyone who wants access to the Internet can get it for free via a library, or relatively cheaply at home. The government's own assessments of the cost of living for defining the poverty line now regard Internet access as an essential utility for adults (they have for families with children for a few years) and factor this cost into their computed cost of living.
The second is market distortion. Any make of computer can access the Internet. Any make of web browser can view a web site. Any ISP can access a web site. In contrast, only a phone from Apple can run an iPhone app. The availability of apps for a specific platform makes that platform more attractive, and if the government makes the app then it is implicitly providing market assistance to a specific (foreign) company. Even if they make an app for all existing SmartPhones, this makes life harder for new entrants into the market (and we've seen three of them in the last couple of years, so it's not a stretch to imagine more).
The last point is the more important one. This was the same objection that we had to the original iPlayer. It used Microsoft DRM, giving a huge boost to Microsoft's products in the UK. If they had retained this system, then the only mobile devices capable of watching taxpayer-funded programs would have been those running Microsoft software (now they use Flash, which is still far from ideal, but better than it was).
It is the government's job to provide services for its citizens, it is not the government's job to promote one company's products over its competitors'.
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:4, Insightful)
People have already pointed out that that's a US survey (where Nokia have virtually no presence), and anecdotal "evidence" is not a good argument.
The other problem is that you don't know how many people you know have Symbian phones. The thing to remember is that an Iphone user will advertise this fact. They get an Iphone, and post "I'm on my Iphone". And if they don't say it, their app will advertise it with every single post: "Posted using XXX for Iphone".
Everyone else refers to their "phone". Apple users talk about their "Iphone".
Everyone else just uses their phone. An Iphone user gets it out and says "I'm going to check the Internet On My Iphone" as if unaware that this stopped being impressive by about 2004. I've even had random strangers butt into my conversation to brag "Oh, we've got Iphones".
Thus, your brain spots all the Iphone users, even if it's just 5% of people, and thinks it's greater than all the users who never tell you what their phone is.
Am I wrong?
Re:Oh Noes, Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Heaven forbid a government finding new and innovative ways to deliver services to its people. Maybe the iPhone is not the best platform, but at least they are trying.
They're failing. Over three times as many people in the UK have smartphones that run Symbian than iPhones. Probably somewhere in the region of 50% more have Blackberries. Yet neither of these platforms were targetted, despite the obvious fact that an application for either of these would be much more useful. Why? I'd guess it's because it's not as headline catching. We don't want our government to be catching headlines, we want them to do things that are actually useful.
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:2, Insightful)
Got enough straw in that man?
"So, things that is only useful to a minority of people should not be done by the government, yes? Which means they should stop spending any money that helps the blind or disabled. Or the unemployed. Heck, I'm neither blind nor unemployed, so what the fuck is the government doing spending my money on this shit?"
iPhone users are not a protected class under US disability statutes, and I highly doubt that they are in the UK, either. Despite the strong evidence of mental retardation evident in actually owning an iPhone, there is probably no compelling reason to so classify and protect iPhone owners.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to install and run arbitrary (i.e. third party) native apps is the differentiator between smartphones and feature phones. The definition of native being: using the same APIs that the built in applications use.
By your definition, iPhone is not a smartphone, then, because built-in applications use APIs (e.g. full multithreading) that third-party ones are not allowed to use.