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)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac [youtube.com] the other side also NSFW language
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
iPhone 5 is better [stashbox.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to TFA, a whopping 40,000 pounds was wasted on this. Compared to the many millions that are regularly wasted on websites, I don't see this as a terribly big deal. If the apps are useful at all, I'd rather have the government expand this project to other platforms than to stop it completely.
As for wasted tax money, most government websites (where I live at least) cost way more than they should. If you fix that, you can fund thousands of iPhone apps with the money you saved.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not the real problem here. What is is that using tax money to make iPhone apps is giving Apple an unfair advantage over its competitors at taxpayer's expense, making this yet another example of corporate welfare.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:4, Informative)
Given that you don't live in the UK, it's not your government, and it's not your tax money. So spare us the pleas.
The dumb article has it wrong. It's not an app for "motorcyclists", it's an app for "motorists". Motorcyclists don't "change their wheel" by the roadside, they don't carry a spare. A few might carry a spare innertube. But that's not what this app is about.
Reading between he lines the app appears to be one to encourage people to update their details with the DVLA - who are in charge of road tax and licensing. In order to encourage people to download it, it has some motoring utilities, such as the ones mentioned.
What we have here is a chain of misinformation that goes TPA -> BBC -> Galen Gruman -> "GM" Gruman -> Slashdot. The TPA is "The Tax Payers Alliance", which is a right wing lobby group against pretty much any government spending, that routinely twists the truth in press releases, and is responsible as a result for a lot of misinformation in UK news channels. So a rocky start, but at each step of the way, the message has become more twisted still.
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.
Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is funded by the BBC Television License Fee, not by taxes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
HD is a cross-company standard. The iPhone is owned by a single company. Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if a website doesn't give the user the power than a native app would? If it can be done cheaply (and this does sound extremely cheap for a government project), then I'm all for native apps for the various mobile platforms.
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:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the apps don't seem terribly useful. Have a look at the original BBC article - to quote, "The most expensive application was a proposed Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) app that provides "a masterclass for changing your wheel"." and then goes on to explain how it can act as a hazard warning light, calculate fuel consumption and track RAC patrols. So, right there you've got an app costing (apparently) £40,000 to develop, that only runs on a single, expensive platform and is only of use to RAC members who don't know how to change a wheel. Waitaminute. [bbc.co.uk]
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how - so if, for example, you're disabled you could ask someone to help and tell them what to do. Furthermore, if you don't know how to change a wheel, *and* you have RAC cover, then you could just phone the RAC and within half an hour or so a guy in a big orange van will be along and change it for you.
That forty grand could be spent on far more useful things.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you have to know how to change tires to pass the test? Why in God's name is that a test point? It's certainly not relevant to safe driving. I have had 1 flat tire in 35+ years. I certainly know how to change them (changed many a tire on race cars), but I would wager that most people would call the auto club.
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:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, but why would a DVLA test be relevant to you if you live in Scandinavia? Conversely, why should the DVLA test for things that might be useful in Scandinavia? I agree that it's useful to know how to change tires (and it ain't exactly rocket science anyways). But "the British DVLA should test it because it saves me money in Norway" is not a good argument.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, what? I, too, live in Scandinavia, and it takes about $20 to change your tires in a repair shop - less than that if you use one of those temporary changing places that pop up at spring and fall.
Not here.
Also, the only Scandinavian country where tax rate even goes to 60% is Denmark
You Sir, have won some herring.
and even there it tops at 62.28%, which would require you to be a top earner - according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], even the equivalent of $138,000 wouldn't hit even 50%, much less 60%. Which means there's no way in Hell you'd have to work for two days for a net gain of $100.
Care to explain?
I most certainly would care. You are confounding average tax and marginal tax. Once I have hit an income of 59000 dollars(I'm just about there) a year I pay 60% tax on everything earned beyond that. So if I have to have a net gain of 100$ I would have to earn 250$. I earn about 160$ a day. So I would have to work ~1.6 days more, not taking travel costs and extra expenses into account. Not so far from two days I would say.
Bonus info: about 1/3 of all working Danes are
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The UK has sensibly decided to include this, as well as questions about routine maintenance in the driving test. It means that fewer people will drive around in dangerous vehicles simply because t
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how
I passed my UK driving test in January 2008, and changing a tyre was not on either the theory or practical syllabuses, my instructor never mentioned it (and he supplied me with a 10 page list of the question-answer things that the tester will ask during the practical - changing a tyre is not on it, I just checked) and my tester never asked about it. None of the reading materials I used (and still have) mention it as a test requirement.
The UK test has part that are designed to ensure that you can keep a car
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how - so if, for example, you're disabled you could ask someone to help and tell them what to do.
No, you don't necessarily get asked. There's a randomly selected part that relates to that. You're expected to know where things are under the bonnet (so may be asked to show where things are), and there's a more practical test to walk through the steps to check your lights are working or to test if your power steering has failed. I can believe it's in the random list of things you're supposed to know, but you've probably only got a 25% chance of being asked about it. But having taken my test in the pas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Changing a tire is not part of the UK driving test as it stands. You do have to know how to check the tire for damage, check the oil, and water levels.
Also saying "change the wheel" doesn't mean what you think it means....
Not just websites, but data (Score:2)
On my iPhone I have TripView [grofsoft.com] which is a third party app that (I assume) uses such data and provides a far better interface than any web page (or paper based time table) could.
missing link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. In fact the best thing to do is to provide a good mobile website, not an app. I love the fact that National Rail provides a great one for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Java. Works on almost every fucking phone out there, including most 100euro+ non-smartphones made in the last couple of years.
Why not use that?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, assuming you are talking about the "old standard" J2ME, no it does not work on android or iphone - the two fastest-growing players in the mobile market.
IMHO a website should be the way to go
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: (Score:2)
> If we go by marketshare, best bet is Symbian.
Er, no! Symbian only has a 2% market share [cnet.com] and falling. Personally, I don't even know anyone with a Symbian phone anymore - they've moved to Blackberrys or iPhones.
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:5, Informative)
The link you give refers to some form of US only survey. They don't make it clear, other than using the word "National" rather than "International".
The article is talking about the UK, and last time I looked that is not one of the US states.
Worldwide, Symbian is still the market leader, with 44.3% of the market. The nearest competitor is RIM with 19.4%.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013 [gartner.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course its a US state:
Tony Blair
Re: (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 woul
Re:Maybe something everybody can use? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are two things wrong with that number. Firstly, it is for Smartphones only, not Feature Phones, which are regarded as a separate segment. Symbian owns over 70% of the (much larger) Feature Phone market. This includes phones that can install and run arbitrary apps, browse the web, send emails, and so on, but for some segmentation reason do not command a premium price.
The second problem is that it's a US number. The US mobile phone market sucks. You have competing standards, no interoperability, and a lot of carrier lock in. In the UK, it is very common (even among non-geeks) to buy a pre-pay SIM and pop it in your existing phone, to buy phones unlocked, and for the person on the fastest upgrade cycle to pass their phone on to one of their friends and have the whole thing trickle down.
In a completely unscientific study, I tried counting the types of phone I saw on the train when I last went to London. I saw two iPhones, no blackberries, and I lost count of Symbian phones some time over 70. I didn't see any Android phones until I got very close to my destination (Google London). I've not seen a N900 in the wild yet, though I'd be quite tempted by one in a year or so when you can pick them up cheaply.
For reference, my current phone is one I picked up for under £50 (including a bluetooth earpiece) when I lost my last one. It runs Symbian, supports UMTS and WiFi, can act as a bluetooth modem, and can make SIP calls (over WiFi or UMTS, although I only use it over UMTS). It has a built-in web browser and mail client, although I rarely use either. I can install my own apps on it - for example I installed an app that lets me carry around and view a local copy of the OpenStreetMap maps for my local area (I also installed the Google Maps app, but it requires a network connection, and most of the time I need a map it's when I am in the middle of the countryside). This phone is counted as a Feature Phone, not a Smartphone, so would not count in the statistic that you quoted.
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
Website would do. If an app is the way to go (not the case here), then first it should be certainly j2me one.
Re: (Score:2)
> should make an Android app instead. They're cheaper, open, and there are many more devices with it.
No, there are nothing like as many Android devices as there are iPhones. There are only a quarter or up to a third (depending on which website you read).
Android only has a 9% market share, compared with iPhone's 28% and RIM Blackberry at 35%. source [cnet.com]
Re: (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).
iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iphone (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but how else are brittish going to "donate" money to ipod developer nephew of director?
He has to make living, you know ... what better way to provide him that giving him project that no-one will really use (and thus noone will complain about if it goes horribly wrong.).
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next year, the BBC will air programs that you can only view on a Sony TV set.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's cute you're getting all wound up about this, but there's also an Android version of that app.
If your point is the accessibility of the apps, then maybe it's smarter to ask the government which other platforms they support, and demand that they port those apps to Symbian and MeeGo, instead of demanding that they stop all development completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's where the UK and the US differ. We recognise the existence of tax payers who aren't middle class...
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: (Score:2)
Whenever a new technology comes along some government functionary (often several at the same time) decide it will be a career-enhancing move to show how modern and cutting-edge they can be by splurging some of their departmental budget on it.
This is justified either as "pump priming" to help create new businesses specialising in the new technology or, if that won't wash, as a necessary step along the road to the "digital economy". The main goal is usually to ensure that a photograph results of said function
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The main goal is usually to ensure that a photograph results of said functionary or his patron standing next to something shiny."
This made me smile. I worked in public sector for a few years and reading through this sentence gave me flashbacks of countless halls across the different sites I worked at lined with pictures of smug looking folk being presented trophies for the most obscure awards, which they were often self-nominated for, or in some cases nominated for by a brown nosing underling or a boss who
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What the fuck? Governments regularly spend millions on various minorities. How can you possibly not justify spending mere thousands?
Re: (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 headmaste
Re: (Score:2)
a) The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds
b) If they *only* made a Linux media center application then yes, I would criticize them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a) The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds
Incorrect: the BBC is primarily funded by a tax on the use of television sets.
(Yes, you can avoid this tax by not owning a television, in much the same way as you can avoid income tax by not working or VAT by not shopping. It is not merely a subscription fee for watching BBC content, as it is payable regardless of which channels you watch. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but to claim that they are not funded by taxes is wrong for any reasonable definition of the word 'tax'.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a license fee. You can technically call it a tax but that will just confuse the discussion. The BBC does not receive taxpayer pounds (where "taxpayer pounds" means pounds paid in tax to the government).
Re: (Score:2)
a) The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds
I wonder where you got that idea.
b) If they *only* made a Linux media center application then yes, I would criticize them.
Then you've got no reason to criticize the UK government here, because they also made an Android app. Maybe other platforms too, or maybe those will come in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
anyone can use linux without paying anybody.
are you willing to provide a free iphone to everybody who would express interest in running the app ?
Re: (Score:2)
anyone can use linux without paying anybody.
Without a computer?
are you willing to provide a free iphone to everybody who would express interest in running the app ?
Or they can use Android. But they'll still need hardware to run it on.
Square Wheels (Score:5, Interesting)
What the article completely seems to miss is that the scandal is about stupid, ineffective use of technology not the use of technology itself. Innovation is certainly to be encouraged but if your new innovation is a square wheel you should expect to get shouted at for wasting money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BBC != British Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Get the money flowing to places it hasn't gone before.
What, a giant US company that does all its manufacturing in china? I think that's how we got into this mess to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
How long did Mac users have to wait to get a version of BBC iPlayer that even remotely came close to working?
BBC finally shows Apple some love after years of neglect, and they get pounded.
The iPlayer is a Flash app. Plenty of other computers & mobile devices can use the iPlayer without the BBC having to specifically "show them some love".
Lack of Flash is Apple's choice and iPhone users are lucky that the BBC went out of its way to accommodate them. Not hard-done-by that it took until 2008.
Finally, it's not the BBC being 'pounded' here: they were simply reporting on pointless iPhone app development by various government departments.
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify All the Iplayer content was still available streamed via Flash on the BBC IPlayer site. The thing that was missing was a client to download programs, which I used for a bit but then went back to using the website.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical cuts behaviour... (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By putting those developers to work you create something of value which would not have exist before.. The problem with government is that they are usually terrible at predicting the markets which makes them inefficient compared to a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
I know some people genuinely struggle on benefits but a great many do very nicely although I don't expect they're exactl
Wasteful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the web can replace a lot of apps, but it can't have completely pointless flashy bling widgets quite as easily as an iPhone. It also isn't quite as "teh coolz" to say "I wrote a web app" as "I designed an iPhone app - now there's an app for that!".
Obviously the UK government just want to be "down wid it" (whatever "it" it is that they're supposed to be "down wid") and waste our money on tailored apps for one specific proprietary (and expensive) platform rather than design something accessible to all f
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe the web can replace a lot of apps, but it can't have completely pointless flashy bling widgets quite as easily as an iPhone."
Nothing is more "completely pointless flashy bling" than Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If it doesn't use the camera, the GPS, the accelerometer or any other input peripheral, it's not an app.
£10000 for a flashing light? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the upcoming cuts, not the recession (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the upcoming cuts, not the recession (Score:5, Funny)
HTML5? (Score:3, Informative)
just plain insulting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Better" for some. The fact that you prefer one brand or piece of tech over another does not make you smarter - it's just your opinion.
All other considerations aside, there's a good reason why iPhone is the target platform for lots of applications: It was the first phone to pull off a mobile computing platform. Yes, Android phones, Blackberry phones (and more) are lovely too, but to be honest, I think developing for iPhone is the mobile equivalent of developing for Windows: It's the platform where there's t
Re: (Score:2)
1. windows has a LOT more marketshare than the iphone does, plus there is not yet a clear winner in the mobile market.
2. Even if you must say so, BBs are still the "windows of the smarpthone". At least in most countries in the world, I honestly don't know about the UK right now.
3. I do not agree with the idea of the goverment developing windows-only software (with my taxes), especially when there is a perfectly good multiplatform alternative. You should not be required to pay and use a propietary, vendor-sp
Oh Noes, Innovation (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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'
The "government" (Score:2)
For the uneducated masses to understand how government works, they first got to get it through their thick skulls that there is no such thing as the government.
It is not Number 10, or the White House and it is not the IRS. Instead you have a huge pile of loosely connected organisations and individuals who might in some part be funded with tax-payers money and get their instructions probably in some way from elected officials... but think about it. Just how often does the IRS need to talk to the president (
Re: (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.
BBC is not "the government" (Score:2)
Terrible article (Score:2)
Murdoch media (Score:2)
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:Proprietary formats (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is fucking awful. This isn't about the BBC *at all*, they're the ones reporting the story about the *Government* wasting money on largely worthless iPhone apps rather than focusing on useful, cross platform ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I didn't RTFA. As you say, nothing to do with the BBC, who are not developing iPhone apps.
Apologies to all for the wasted bytes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The summary is written by the same guy wrote the "blog" at InfoWorld, to which he links. InforWorld's astroturfing here has devolved from the shameless into the downright misleading and incomprehensible. But they've probably already paid Slashdot in advance for the space so they've got to fill it somehow...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"And they can easily charge and make the cost of development back."
Wait. We pay them (taxpayer money) to make the application, then pay them to get it?
Re: (Score:2)
As a taxpayer you pay for the availability and th
Re:The BBC should be broken up (Score:5, Interesting)
The BBC is probably the one thing that Britain is best at in the world. No other English-language country has anything as good as it (can't comment on others); it is quite wonderful. I think you underestimate how much it would cost to subscribe to ABC1-friendly 6Music, Radio 4, BBC2/4 if it were not cross-subsidised by the 90% of the population who never watch them- but can if they like. Cultural ghettoisation is bad for all of us. And, of course, who makes a huge % of the high-quality programmes you see on non-BBC tv?
I totally agree with you re: news reporting. However, allowing Sky/Fox to be the arbiter of news agendas sends a violent shiver down the spine.