In response, I was given an eye-roll and told "because that's how most people get their information, grandpa!"⁰

Last week, I saw this job advert and I got an involuntary shudder.

But I am wrong. Time moves on. Some of us find that difficult to cope with. The world is different and that difference is to be embraced.

Let's take a look at what people were saying about mobile apps in government a decade ago:

government’s position is that native and hybrid apps are rarely justified - make sure your service meets the Digital by Default Service Standard and it will work well on mobile devices (responsive HTML5)

"We're not ‘appy. Not ‘appy at all." (2013)

It wasn't a ban on apps, it was merely saying "if you can't build a decent website, then you're probably not competent enough to build a decent app."¹

I came to GDS directly from a decade working in the mobile industry. I'd gone from dumbphones, to BlackBerrys, to the explosion of smartphones. Back in 2013, it wasn't immediately obvious who would win the smartphone wars². The iPhone app store was only 5 years old. Windows Phone 7 was being heavily pushed by Microsoft. BlackBerry 10 was launching to great fanfare. Symbian was probably dead, but LiMo and Maemo might have had a comeback. Android was a huge fragmented mess. HP was determined to relaunch its fortunes with WebOS while Mozilla were going after the lower-end handsets with Firefox OS.

Government services have to be accessible to everyone. Would departments really have produced apps for half-a-dozen different operating systems? Would they have had the skill and budget to keep them all updated?

Government services shouldn't disturb the market. If the UK had said "Right! You can only submit a tax return using a BlackBerry!" would that have unfairly caused a spike in their market share?

Even still, smartphone penetration was only at about 60% in the UK. Did it make sense to spend huge amounts of money for something which wasn't universally accessible?

Back then, a de-facto ban on apps was a sensible precaution.

But today?

I was involved in the UK's COVID-19 App. By that time, there were really only two smartphone OSes in the game; Android and iOS³. The APIs had stabilised such that developing a single app per platform was feasible⁴.

There are also things which the Web just can't do. Apps are needed to read the NFC chips in passports, to use BLE for contact tracing, and to enforce biometric security on accounts.

That contact tracing app, for better or worse, helped show that it was possible for Government to develop national-level apps and that people would install and use them.

Does the world need a "GOV.UK App"? I don't think so. But I'm old and wrong⁵. Research shows that people trust apps more than the web. Lower-income households are more likely to have a shared smartphone than a PC - and an app with multiple accounts is more secure. The web still isn't great at caching data for offline use - so being able to look stuff up when you're out of signal is a must. Apps usually use less data than websites - which is great for people with limited data allowances, or on slow speeds.

Some techies think that we are Keepers of The Sacred Flame. If we rant hard enough, progress will stop and we'll be comfortable that our knowledge isn't obsolete. I think I'm rather happy to be freed of that notion.

Tempus fugit, tu senex fossilium. Esne laetus?

Update! 3 months after I published this post, Google updated their app

For two-and-a-half years, Google hasn't touched their 2FA app's code. Perhaps it is perfect? Perhaps there are no more UI improvements or security enhancements that can be done? Or, more likely, it joins a long graveyard of Android apps - launched optimistically and then abandoned.

I get it, not every product you release is a winner. And some have to be shuttered gracefully. But Google Authenticator is special. It is trusted to protect users' accounts. Not just Google accounts - thousands of providers specifically recommend it.

Kathryn Corrick

@kcorrick

.@Xero Thoughts please, as I think the only 2FA offered is Google Authenticator for your service? Should customers be concerned? What do you suggest to ensure customer and account security until this is fixed?

Charlie Osborne

@SecurityCharlie

Android malware can steal Google Authenticator 2FA codes dlvr.it/RQr43X pic.x.com/8fdqpwsdic

---

---

Sure, you and I know that any OTP app will work. But Google spend a lot of money on branding - and organisations use that to signal trust to their users.

Frankly, Android Authenticator is too important to be neglected like this.

Open Source

The Authenticator app is open source. But comes with this delightful disclaimer:

While this fork is open source, the official version of the app still remains proprietary. There is no guarantee that the open source repository will receive any changes made upstream (or vice versa).

Despite multiple bugs being filed, no one is fixing them. Occasionally users are told that an internal Google ticket has been raised - and then silence.

As I mentioned last year, I've switched to andOTP. It's open source, and actively being developed and improved.

Final thoughts

It's OK to stop developing software. It's OK to decide that your limited resources are best spent elsewhere.

It's not OK to heavily promote an open security standard, convince people to rely on your proprietary app, and then abandon it.

Bonus Content For Patreon Subscribers!!!!!

Here's a quick look through all of Google LLC's currently published Android Apps. I've highlighted any which haven't been updated in over 12 months. That seems like an appropriate cut off for abandonment.

I'm sure there are some I've missed - and there are loads more which are coming up for their one-year anniversary.

We spend far too much time staring at our screens. We obsessively tend to our digital gardens and rarely spend the time to enjoy them. Our smart watches constantly buzz with news from the social media service du jour. Where are the apps that respect our time?

Tado° is the most boring app on the planet. I used it once to set up what temperature we wanted the house to be. Then I told it what to do when my partner or I are out of the house. I haven't touched it since.

The app sits in the background. If I'm away from the home, it lets the temperature drop. If I start getting closer to home, it begins to warm things up. That's it! No nagging notifications, no microtransactions, no constant exhortations to recommend it to my friends, no begging to share my temperature on Twitter. Nothing! Beautiful simplicity.

This is what app designers and service designers should be aiming for. When we measure how long a person spends on our website or app, we should be aiming for the lowest possible number! Engagement is a vanity metric. If someone can visit our site and complete their task in under a minute, or buy our products in seconds flat, we should be celebrating.

We have to stop stealing our users' time.

Is he serious? It sounds like an insane and bureaucratic solution to BlackBerry's woes - but I'm not so sure that it's necessarily a bad idea.

Yesterday, I was quoted in The Guardian saying:

But web developer Terence Eden argues that Chen is “right, but for the wrong reasons”.

“The web works everywhere,” he says. “Even the worst BlackBerry from years ago can display HTML, CSS, and run JavaScript. The more recent browsers do it just as well as iOS, Android, and Windows.

“We’re fast entering a situation where just about any app can be run as a website. Yet we see large services like WhatsApp balkanising the ecosystem by only blessing certain phones and browsers.

“I believe in network neutrality - and think that governments should mandate it. I don’t think they should mandate open standards for private companies - but I would hope that the economics of a diverse portfolio of devices would encourage companies to develop open standards to let their products flourish.”

Let me clarify my position.

Regular readers will know that I hate the current trend of companies strong-arming their customers into inflexible solutions designed to restrict market choice and promote "ecosystems". See I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosystem and the imaginatively titled follow-up I Still Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosystem!

NetFlix is under no legal or moral obligation to provide its service to any platform. If it wants to only support Symbian handsets in rural Australia, it can do so as it pleases. But that's not very customer friendly - and it certainly wouldn't be good for their business.

At the moment, I can't watch Amazon Instant Video on my Panasonic Smart TV because.... well, I don't know why. Amazon won't support the platform. Even though Panasonic TVs can play NetFlix, iPlayer, and all other manner of VOD content.

Panasonic can't build an unofficial app to help their customers because Amazon's video service is built on proprietary technology.

If VOD providers used common (web) standards - none of this would be a problem. Any Internet connected device would be able to point at a their servers, enter a username and password, retrieve a page of listings, and then watch streaming video.

Instead, business choose which devices to bless and, when a new device reaches the market, have to spend a fortune developing yet another proprietary app for that platform.

You want to talk crazy? That is crazy!

I accept that not every service can be run in the browser. I also accept that companies may want to "preserve the brand experience" or some-such nonsense. But customers don't care about that. Every TV channel works on every TV - why don't apps work in the same way?

Am I saying that the law should mandate that every developer - from software giant to bedroom hobbyist - should release software on all available platforms? No!

Should companies realise that developing to open standards means more customers? Yes!

Would a stronger BlackBerry and Windows Phone (and Jolla, and Tizen, and ...) push Apple and Android into developing better and cheaper devices and operating systems? Well, that's what the capitalists say, and who am I to argue with them?

Anyone can burn a movie to a DVD. That disc will run on any DVD player. DVD players can talk to any TV using the standard HDMI cable. It's not a perfect analogy, but I truly believe that's where we need to get to with apps and smartphones.

That's what a real ecosystem is.

I've just received this email from Nate Tyler at Google.

Hope you're enjoying the weekend. I work on the Google Maps team and just saw your post on Google Maps navigation. Thank you very much for the concern. Wanted to be sure you and your readers are aware that we have pushed an update to the latest release of Maps for Mobile to fix this issue. If there's any chance to update your story with this information we would very much appreciate that. And if you have any questions please feel free to email me back.

A quick drive around my neighbourhood confirms that the update (7.0.1) has fixed the roundabout issue. Well done Google for a swift resolution.

Round and Round and Round We Go

A lot of ink has been spilled over the sudden and unwelcome removal of useful features from the new Google Maps. The lack of easy offline support, and the brutal removal of Latitude are deeply annoying. Worryingly, I think there has been a substantial change which is potentially very dangerous for drivers relying on Google Maps for navigation.

One of the core principles of usability is that in high stress situations, information should be available at a glance. When the user only has a fraction of a second to glance at the display - the most relevant information must be displayed in a simple, predictable, and accurate manner.

Now, take a look at this screenshot of the driving directions Google Maps gave me.

The top bar is designed for glancing at. A quick flick of my eyes tells me to turn left on to Oriental Road.

If I spend longer looking at the screen - and take my eyes away from the road for more time - I'll see that I need to turn right.

Which is it? I now have two conflicting pieces of information. It is probably correct to follow the blue line. This interface is now ambiguous, which means I have to spend more time figuring out which aspect of the UI to trust, and less time concentrating on the road.

We've all driven in stressful situations - how much more stressful would it be if you suddenly found out your map was lying to you?

This isn't an isolated incident. Yesterday, I noticed the discrepancy on both major and minor roads.

I've trusted Google Maps to get me to job interviews on time, to drive through unfamiliar cities in foreign countries, and stop me driving the wrong way late at night.

It is irresponsible to have your user interface contradict itself - worse than that, in the case of apps designed to be used a 70MPH it's potentially very dangerous.

As it happens, after a bit of gentle poking, some of the terms were clarified.

The event itself went rather well, but I'd like to point out a few points where it didn't quite live up to the Hack Day Manifesto.

• Registration - due to some confusion with the registration form, some entrants were turned away.
• Checking for clashes - sadly NHS Hack Day was also on. It's hard to avoid clashes, but both seemed well attended.
• WiFi - a bit patchy and no security.
• Power sockets - far too few, requiring the staff to go out and buy more.
• Dietary requirements - lack vegetarian food. The catering staff seemed somewhat taken aback that veggie friendly fare was asked for. After a few polite comments, food was provided.
• APIs - there were none on offer. We did get a bunch of nice Cadbury's assets to play with though.
• Prizes - a contentious one this. The prizes were, if anything, too generous. £500 and new phone is quite an incentive. The top prize was £10,000! This lead to a number of professional teams entering, and some people bringing along pre-built apps to polish. Naturally, I'm just bitter because I didn't win anything.

That said, the event was very good - especially as a first effort from the team.

A specially mention on the "Accessibility" front - this was the first event I've been to where a sign language interpreter was provided.

Oh, and while some hackdays give away stickers, memory sticks, and even phones - Cadbury's provided basically unlimited chocolate! Including a 1KG bar of Dairy Milk for everyone!

My Hack

My hack allowed a user to scan a Cadbury's barcode, see nutrional information about their treat, as well as "checking in" to the chocolate on Twitter. I then added some gubbins about finding your local sports centre & tweeters near you. It looked a bit like this:

So, anyway, here's my 3 minute demo video:

Android

The Android aspect is pretty simple, it just calls ZXing and then throws the result to an HTML5 site. Which, should make it easy to port to any other system.

Cadbury's API

As I've discussed before, Xpath is a wonderful thing. I've turned Cadbury's Nutrition Information site into an ersatz API.

I used Yahoo's YQL Console to construct a JSON feed of the dietary info.

Which means we can display data like this for any of Cadbury's products:

What's Next

A number of people commented on how useful the dietary aspect was. As a vegetarian, I'm often a bit unsure as to which sweets are veggie friendly. I know coeliacs face similar issues.

Translating all of Cadbury's barcodes into their relevant ID numbers may prove a bit of a challenge - but it would be a good excuse to try every single one of Cadbury's products....

Last night, InMobi attended cdi’s Apps For Good in London. What a wonderful event!

Teams of school-children presenting their ideas for apps that could change their world.

But this wasn’t just kids showing off drawings of theoretical apps, the Apps For Good course that runs in these schools get participants thinking about problem definition, market research, business cases, and – crucially – building apps. Using Google’s Android App Inventor, the students were able to create working prototypes of their applications.

It’s great to see young people building amazing apps which have the power to influence the world around them. We were particularly impressed with how professionally the apps were presented and how confidently they answered questions from the “Dragons’ Den”. There’s a podcast of the event available.

Too often apps are seen as frivolous distractions from the real world. The pupils had developed apps which tackled bullying in schools, a fun way to look at personal finance, and a translation app to help Bengali speaking parents understand what’s going on at their child’s school.

Huge thanks to the pupils from Central Foundation Girls’ School and http://www.high-trees.org/ for being so committed and developing such wonderful apps. You can also read more about the event at Tom Curtis’s blog.

We’ve decided to join the Apps For Good “Expert Community” to see what help and support InMobi can offer these young developers. If you’re interested in helping, you can

• Fill in the expert signup form
• Join the LinkedIn group
• Follow AppsForGood on twitter

So, what apps are you developing that are going to change the world?

Terence Eden is on Mastodon

@edent

Here at @nesta_uk for What's App a look at the emerging app economy.

---

It was an excellent panel - despite being a bit stale, pale and male.

But I can't help feeling that the central premise of the event was flawed.

We were meant to be discussing the "emerging economy" of mobile applications.

Emerging

Emerging? Mobile apps are beyond that. They have emerged. They are mainstream and they have been for a while. Vodafone* has been selling apps for nearly 6 year. Other mobile operators have been selling games, application, tools, utilities, ebooks, and other apps for just as long.

And it has been profitable.

Economy

Ah, that word, "profitable". I'm not an economist, but I would have thought that an economy requires the exchange of money somewhere along the lines.

The vast majority of downloads from app stores are free. Now, undoubtedly a few of those free apps lead on to purchases - but not many. (See Tomi T Ahonen's amazing dissection of the hype).

Then there's the pricing of the applications themselves.

A game like Angry Birds (which seems to be a favourite) costs around 59p. A few years ago it would have sold for £4.99 via an operator store. 15 years ago the same quality game on the MegaDrive would probably have cost around £35.

Cheaper prices are good for customers - but are they good for the economy when the price continually trends downwards?

So we have a range of apps with an average price of £0.00. Of those that cost, the monetary sums are very low. Making money from apps is a fool errand.

So, who is making money?

The developers aren't - not in any significant way.

The payment gateways aren't - 30% of 0 is still 0.

Advertisers are - lots of adverts on apps which are given away.

The device manufacturers are - they can sell more hardware on the basis of freely developed 3rd party content.

The operators are - they're selling more phones and more data bundles.

So what (if anything) has changed?

Open

What the app space hasn't been is open. True, anyone could develop a J2ME or S60 app - and many did. But getting them distributed was always hard unless you could do a deal with a major publisher.

Now, the middle-man is (nearly) gone. The developer can submit their work to a central app store and have it in front of potential customers. Almost instantly.

Quality

Because there are many more highly-spec'd phones and SDKs have improved immeasurably, there's been an outpouring of new developers.

But are they any good?

In the bad old days - when people actually made money from apps - there was a quality threshold.  If an app was buggy or crap, customers would ring up a call-centre and demand a refund.  That's costly to a company, so naturally the bar for apps was set fairly high.

It also encouraged conservatism - releasing a beta app with experimental functionality was a risk.  Few people would buy it and the cost of refunds could be horrendous.

Now, we have everyone and her sister developing iFart apps.  Reading the reviews of paid-for apps can be quite depressing - constant tales of broken or missing functionality.

So, we have a decrease in price and a decrease in quality - but a rapid increase in supply.  Rapid to the point where developers struggle to even give away their product.  Is this a healthy economy?

What's Next

Despite my grousing, I enjoy living in a world where anyone - even me - can develop an app.  The financial rewards are more like a lottery than a business, it's true.  The rewards to society where a company can take a punt on a product like AudioBoo are immense.

But can it last? I've no doubt that this current boom will mirror the home-computer boom of the early 1980s.

The fragmentation that bedevilled that market will weaken the mobile marketplace - even with initiatives like JIL and WAC.

We'll probably see another Codemasters emerge from Britain's bedrooms - and the rest either get bought out or fail.

But I bet they have fun doing it.

Disclaimer.

*I work for them but this blog is a personal comment. Please set your bias filters accordingly.

Terence Eden is on Mastodon

@edent

Well, that didn't take long! To crash BlackBerry AppWorld, select an app, while it's loading, hit the BB key then "Read Review" Crash occurs

---

While a loading screen is running, hit the BB button, then select "Read Reviews".
The crash is nothing too serious, but it does point to a little lack of testing.

Very impressive RIM, let's see how it evolves.