Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface_74 | Hacker News Reader

Why are people using banks only accessible via apps?

In my case, it is because there aren't any left that don't do this. Two banks still provide web interfaces that work through normal browsers, but only for their business clients.

This trend started in China, spread to countries like mine, and (as recent history shows) the relatively free democracies have been more than happy to copy some pretty nasty ideas from autocracies like ours — we went through your current news cycle 10-15 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if removing the last few vestiges of having control over your computing also came to you in another five to ten years.

What country?

I'm not aware of a bank that is /only/ accessible with an App (maybe that is your point?), but obviously wanting to obtain the best financial offers, interest rates, etc., trumps software freedom for most people.

Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.

Monzo in the UK is basically app-only. They have an "emergency" web interface but it only allows read-only access (apart from un-freezing your card) and can only be used if you've used the app in the past 90 days.

Then don’t use Monzo? Isn’t it a lot easier to choose one of a dozen banks that aren’t app only.

Chase Bank in the UK has no web interface at all. Same for Virgin credit cards.

What banks only offer the best interest rates an offers through apps?

I’m very much a credit card point churner and I have an HYSA. The same rates and offers are on the websites and the apps.

And how would a bank know if you’re using a website on a rooted phone?

People are complaining about the app stores when they are choosing banks which are app only - which I would never do - you should be complaining about your bank.

I'm not aware of such specific cases myself, but an obvious example of new banking functionality requiring OS attestation is tap-to-pay.

Why would anyone expect Google to attest to the safety of a rooted phone for financial transactions where it is directly in the payment chain? No one in the payment chain would allow that.

They wouldn't, that is exactly what I am saying. A phone isn't merely a standalone "computing tool" but represents an ongoing relationship between many corporate parties. Reasoning about the phone that way, as something like a PC from the 80s being encroached on, is an error. It is derived from entwined corporate interest from the beginning. The only similarity is the payment structure, lump sum or finance to "own".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com