Slashdot Mirror


No iPhone Apps, Please — We're British

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.'"

22 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe something everybody can use? by SigNuZX728 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    iPhone apps are great and all, but they're not much use to people who don't have iPhones. Why not work on regular old websites? Also you run the risk of Apple pulling your app from the store. Then there's thousands of taxpayer pounds down the drain.

    1. Re:Maybe something everybody can use? by JustinRLynn · · Score: 5, Funny

      iPhone is best (NSFW language)

    2. Re:Maybe something everybody can use? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, 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.

      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.

    3. Re:Maybe something everybody can use? by BagOBones · · Score: 4, Funny

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac the other side also NSFW language

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    4. Re:Maybe something everybody can use? by SquarePixel · · 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.

    5. Re:Maybe something everybody can use? by qc_dk · · 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.

    6. Re:Maybe something everybody can use? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      Er, no! Symbian only has a 2% market share and falling.

      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

  2. iphone by Frenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, but maybe the taxpayer dollars should be spent on services that everyone can make use of, not just iPhone users.

    1. Re:iphone by zwei2stein · · Score: 4, 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.).

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    2. Re:iphone by williamhb · · Score: 4, 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)

    3. Re:iphone by Xest · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. no by Threni · · 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.

  4. hmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

  5. £10000 for a flashing light? by bool2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...and was shocked that people would believe it to be unseemly and even objectionable that a government was using modern technology to help its citizens in noble tasks like avoiding becoming roadkill when their motorocycles break down or keep track of potential jobs without being stuck at home all day -- the very things you'd want government to do with your tax dollars" I can't imagine why anyone would object to spending £10000 on an app to make a flashing light. And I have to wonder how many unemployed people who own an expensive iPhone will be using government jobs websites... Lets face facts here. The iPhone is a heavily locked down platform run by control freaks in California and owned by a very small percentage of the population. Tell me again why should my tax go towards supporting that platform?

  6. Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform by Dinjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is the BBC story if anyone is interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10514367.stm

    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.

    --
    You break all the laws of physics and you seriously think there wouldn't be a price?
    1. Re:Supporting citizens vs supporting a platform by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck whether the platform is closed or not - the biggest problem is that public money should be spent on public benefit. Not everyone has an iPhone, so an iPhone-only app is stupid. At least make it a normal website, which anyone with a browser can access.

  7. It's the upcoming cuts, not the recession by Christianson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue here isn't that there's iPhone apps being developed during a recession, it's that money is being invested in a duplication of services when the government is looking to slash spending by up to 40% across the board. When we're looking at a devastation of public services, it's hard to condone spending intended to benefit a minority of Britons with access to a luxury device.

    1. Re:It's the upcoming cuts, not the recession by tnok85 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Listen. The coolness of Britannia is at risk here. I can't imagine any course of action except to accelerate these iPhone app plans, unless Britannia wants to take over for France as the uncool kid on the block.

  8. Square Wheels by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the apps was for the Job Centre which tend to concentrate on lower paid jobs to help people on the dole find employment. So the target audience for the app are those least likely to be able to afford an iPhone to use it! If, instead of being distracted by a shiny new toy, even a minimal level of thought had been put into the planning stage this would have been obvious.

    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.

  9. Re:Proprietary formats by Spad · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. I think it's a bad idea by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, 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...)

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  11. Re:The BBC should be broken up by fremsley471 · · Score: 4, 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.