I mean, I know its not practical for everyone or every application - that being said I have made it my highest priority to go out of my way to not use services or products that require apps to be installed. Obviously I make exceptions for stuff I deem "required" but for coffee chains, fast food restaurants, grocery stores and other services if they need an "app" for me to use it. I just won't use it. Or I will go out of my way to use another service that does not require it. Or, if I need to use it, I will just install the app, use it, then remove it. Is it a hassle? Sure. Will the company still be able to access my data? Some of it. But it won't be a persistent install so I'm fine with it. I don't have many other choices.
That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.
>That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.
AFAIK the concept of legal tender doesn't mean that you can use the law to force a business to accept dollar bills. If you want to trade your black lotus for my foil charizard, I can't refuse to trade and then sue you to pay you in cash instead. Rather, AIUI, the "debt" referred to there refers to legal debts, so e.g. if my dog gets into your chicken coop and you sue me for damages, you can only ask for an amount in dollars rather than forcing me to provide you with replacement chickens.
IANAL, and I don't think the GP's argument is valid, but his goal is valid: retail businesses should not discriminate against people without phones or credit cards. There are lots of them, and it could be you at some point. There are lots of good articles about accessibility and how we all get old, etc. That same argument applies here: you may be well off, consider having a smartphone and several credit cards "normal", but you may fall, financially, and you will lose those things. I would call this "financial accessibility". The argument is NOT for the business to address more market (there is that though) but rather to avoid making life even harder for people who's lives are already quite hard.
Retail businesses that don't accept cash are also reducing their risk of being robbed. Prominently placed signs informing customers and criminals to the lack of cash on site means most criminals will go to the next place. It also helps keep the employees' sticky fingers from skimming the till.
Yeah, I have been on both sides of this issue. I really want cash to work anywhere, but I have also worked retail and seen that cash is a giant pain in the ass for businesses. It has to be secured, transported, the employees steal it, and it means more accounting headaches. Whereas if all your payments are done through Square, this all goes away. It's not surprising to me an increasing number of businesses— especially really small ones like food trucks— are just doing away with it. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Also, making change for cash transactions is also not trivial. I've been on both sides as a vendor and a buyer where this has been an issue. As a vendor, i've tried rounding down to be advantageous for the buyer for the inconvenience, but it's annoying. as a seller, if it's a craft fair or some sort of thing with small artisans, i've rounded up for a tip. either way, it's a painful part of a business that going cashless avoids altogether.
Not many retail places are building their own locations any more. Normally, they are just renting space. The things you mention are the landlord's problem
Edit: also, landlords are not doing these things because they are "right", they are doing them because they are regulated to do so
The only reason things are legal or illegal, allowed or disallowed, is because the majority of the voting public deems it to be so. There is no possible set of rules that can reflect every individuals sense of right and wrong, since we disagree strongly and in good faith about those matters.
Building codes exist because people died in fires. Limits on working age exists because there would be child labor without it. Limits on working agreements exist because there would be indentured servitude without it. Limits on government power, exemplified by the first 10 amendments to the US constitution, exist because without them the government would do anything to you that it wanted. And even then there are those who find those regulations limited, who want government with unlimited power over them, thinking that would make them safer, or that it's coercive to government workers to abide by them. Society is not a game of absolutes - it's a game of compromises that can only function if people are generally acting in good faith.
I think you've strayed from the herd a bit too far here. We're talking about a retail establishment accepting cash payments or not.
You're trying to make moral comments on labor laws or something. I'm not really sure the point. Regulations to run a business can be deemed as protecting what's "right". While we can commonly agree that it's "right" to provide accessibility access to your establishment, we can hopefully also agree that if it wasn't legislated to be, then more than a few retailers would not provide them.
However, none of this has anything to do with a retailer's decision to accept cash and all of the risks associated with that.
Landlords don’t provide parking ‘because it’s right’. A more accurate statement would be ‘because it is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and you won’t receive a building occupancy permit unless you provide handicap parking’.
The issue is that there is no debt if you haven't yet transacted. And you can't steal the item and then claim to be in debt and force the person to take your money.
I've run into several parking places recently where you had to pay using the app, but where there was no mobile signal on any of the networks. Cue a lot of annoyed motorists.
On the other hand we (from London) were visiting Santa Barbara and had to use an app to park, and I was amazed that the app (ISTR it was PayByPhone) let me use the rental car with my UK login and billed me the right amount with no hassle.
Eventually, when the app reaches a certain amount of downloads, do you believe they will eventually regulate the prices as the one you have to pay for physically?
Supermarkets used to have coupons that you had to cut out of the paper to get discounts on certain items. That was already bullshit -- if you can sell it at that price, please sell it at that price! Why the extra hoop of cutting up a magazine first?
Then supermarkets discovered bar codes. If you can convince people to carry around a barcode, suddenly you can track their usage patterns in exchange for a small discount.
Okay fine, but at least it's anonymous, right?
Then supermarkets realized they could get you to "activate" your barcode by going to a website. Hey, this way not only do we get their usage patterns, but we get data about them too! Demographics, etc. And people do it! Because of discounts.
Sure, some of us give fake info, but plenty of people just give their real names, addresses, and emails. Fantastic.
Well, lately I accidentally broke my barcode keychain thingy while locking up my bike (don't ask) and so next time I was in the supermarket I picked up a new one. Tried to activate it on my phone at the automatic cash but couldn't figure out how to log in to the site. Saw a link to the app but figured I'd look more into it later.
So later, I did that.. and discovered you can't log in to the site, because you can only activate the barcode by installing the app!
So, anyway, that's the story about when I gave up getting discounts at the supermarket.
Consider asking a cashier for a new membership card and take the membership form home but never fill it out. Why give a fake name when you can give no name at all? The loyalty card still works, and a usage pattern is tracked, even if not necessarilly tied to an identity.
One of my favorite “hacks” is to use the phone number option and put in your local area code + 867-5309 (a number from a famous 80s pop song). You lose out on “savings points” or whatever, but if discounts are offered to card holders you get that discount.
huh? at least in my supermarket it doesn't work, unless you activate it, the new thing being that you can't do that anymore without installing the app. Not sure if that was unclear in my story.
> Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.
I’m surprised this is legal for a municipality. There are people with cars but no smartphone (elderly folks). It seems ageist.
You write "town", so I'll suggest that if indeed there's an elected city council, and you're willing to be a bit militant, you can put pressure on the situation.
Put together an oral argument and rehearse it to fit whatever is the time limit for speakers from the public, and sign up to speak at the next meeting. Angles to consider: ageism, economic justice, equal protection under the law, identity theft, vetting of software vendors.
For added force, get in touch with neighbors, try to stir up a bit of indignation from them as well, and channel it into showing up at the meeting with you for visible support. Better yet, urge them to take a speaking slot themselves. Coordinate content of your respective presentations, and help tune each others, at least at the level of reviewing speaking notes, ideally with a standup practice run-through.
If there's a local paper that covers council meetings, write a "letter to the editor". And try to get their attention onto your talk with a heads-up to them just before the meeting at which you will speak.
The store where we buy groceries (A Kroger owned company) has begun to offer “digital” coupons that are available through its app with a login. They are substantial savings and in many cases something I’d take advantage of. I’m bothered by it and we’re fortunately able to afford not to buy with those coupons. But there are undoubtedly a lot of people who don’t realistically have that choice.
I've been this way since the first murmurings about Angry Birds. That was the first time the concept of apps doing things other than the obvious was brought to my mind. After that, some researching shows that this behavior was the norm and not the exception. So, my phone is pretty much boring, and also helps justify why I'm not a continual device upgrader.
You and I seem to be in a very small minority though
That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.