British banks chuck smartphone apps out of Windows The UK's largest retail bank, Lloyds, has withdrawn its app from the Windows Store, and the bank's web page now redirects to a 404. TSB's Windows mobile app has also disappeared. Although the Windows Store has mobile apps for Barclays and RBS's NatWest – both have around 18 per cent market share – Lloyds is far and away the …
HTML5 based websites do mean that 'apps' are less important since the sites are device agnostic. But apps are expected if not needed and an absence of them is noted. A banking app is possibly more secure than a website or potentially more secure?
Hard to see anyone bothering to develop for WinPho or even testing compatibility of mobile sites. I know HP has brought out their business workstation phone but that's the only one. I'm not aware of any others. Businesses saw the potential of WinPho tying in with their existing Windows systems but for whatever reason MS bottled it and developed for other mobile platforms more than their own.
I like my Win phone, and the previous one too. Cheap, fast, reliable, good phone software. Also when I've showed it to people, they've liked it too.
But it's shit for apps, and there's been little improvement. I had an iPhone 5 in between my two work Lumia 7xx phones. Our company's batch of 7 iPhones all went wrong within 2 years, 2 failed within 6 months - and one of the replacements for those only just lasted a year.
Came back to Win Phone 8, there were still almost no apps - despite reading that the app store had hit over 100k.
I searched for a torch app, as they'd still failed to build such a standard function into the OS. There were loads of them, but all but 2 or 3 of the 10 I looked at demanded access to the address book in permissions. Hmmm... I admit I didn't try the paid for ones, but I'm sorry a torch app isn't something I'm willing to hand cash over for. I'd grudgingly happily pay 50p, if I'd set up a card with MS's app store, but that wasn't going to happen, due to the lack of apps.
Now there's no development and no future. So I guess I'll be off to Android. Which is a shame.
Personally I don't care too much about apps, I do that on my tablet. The phone is a communications tool for me. With a minor side order of mapping. Which MS have also bollocksed up by dropping support for Nokia's sat nav, while not updating their own mapping tool to cover it. So the phone has lost turn-by-turn instructions.
I don't dispute your general point, but specifically Windows 10 Mobile has a flashlight built in to quick actions. There are plenty of distraction apps in the app store, but if you need a specific utility you're less likely to find it than on other platforms. In hindsight, perhaps Project Astoria would have made the task of supporting Windows Phone apps easier and resulted in fewer apps quitting the Windows apps store?
I don't know if I could have deliberately devised a strategy to sell a phone platform in such comprehensively self-destructive manner.
I support iPhones for work, so I have to use something else day-to-day just to prevent a logic tumour from developing inside my brain but I've used WP for a while. The sad thing is, I more or less actually like it (even WP10).
I am continually amazed by MS's sheer infacility at, even after buying out a real manufacturer (the only one at that point) and doing what I can only describe as calculatedly worse than nothing for 2, going 3 years. In this marketplace.
I barely care about apps - doing things that require something that specific is what I have real computers for, and the very last kind of thing I want on a tiny screen. I have an iphone, and miss very close to nothing in between switching, but even if so many apps on either monopoly shop are meaningless, I can't deny utility is missing on WP side as a result.
A banking app is kind of one I do want, which so far my own bank still provides at least this week (when it can keep its own systems online, that is).
An account management app is also kinda useful, which vodafone for windows phone /doesn't/.
I'm prepared to accept the carrier's judgement on WP's importance to the market.
MS, end the charade. waste billions on just giving it to me instead. it'll be tax free, just like eviscerating nokia.
I remember arguing with them about paying off a mortgage. They couldn't give us a settlement figure for weeks on end - and then started to threaten us because we had missed a payment ! So despite wanting to pay the entire mortgage off they were obsessed with continually chasing a couple of hundred quid off us even though I was trying to pay them tens of thousands. Then when we did pay off the balance they tried to charge us a £300 admin fee! This wasn't in the original contract so we told them to stuff it. After several more angry letters to us they gave up. Absolute waste of time of a bank.
I still think WP8 pisses all over android - I've liked WP since the 6.5 incarnation. But the lack of apps finally drove me to Android, which had admittedly got much less sucky since KitKat.
If MS were serious about WP (and that's a bit if - they never acted as if they were) they should have noted how being the best (Betamax) isn't the be all and end all when competing with platforms (e.g VHS - who sewed up the rentals market, and froze Betamax to a slow death).
BB10 is by far the best mobile device OS I have used (Work phone is WP8 btw and now android person phone). Only Phone I haven't required additional apps for what I consider should be core functions and was a solid little handset with a decent keyboard.
However its deader than Windows Phone where the apps just stopped working even though they were mostly HTML5 sites in an app :(
Unless you have a Nexus or Pixel phone, your opinion of what you THINK Android is, is fundamentally flawed. You are confusing what your OEM has done to Android, with Android.
A Nexus or Pixel running Android 7.1 is worlds away from a Samsung running something based loosely on marshmallow.
Yep, the Motorola G and X are pretty close to vanilla Android. My last change was from a Nexus to a Moto G (2nd gen), and I felt right at home on the G (which I bought unlocked from Best Buy -- not from a carrier). OTOH, when friends ask me questions about the "Android" phones they buy from carriers, I usually am unable to help them because it's all broken bloatware, and none of it works the way my "real Android" phones work.
Microsoft themselves have made Windows Phone what it isn't today.
The Windows Phone moonshot was rising, and then stalled and sunk as Microsoft control showed failure to show confidence in the mission.
Can't really blame a Bank for abandoning a sinking phone, if this is an intentional move and not an error.
Prolly less though because you're assuming that people with a Lloyds account *and* a Windows phone all choose to bank online with their phone. I have an Android but I don't use that for online banking; I prefer something with a keyboard for that kind of thing.
So I'm going to go with FOUR people... tops!
Depends, de-fenestrate is an open window. If it is closed it would be trans-fenestrate.
Or maybe exfenestrate. defenestrate ought to mean to remove windows from -- I should use that to describe what I do to PCs encumbered with Microsoft OSes, but some people might get the wrong idea.
As much as I like my Windows Phone, I long since accepted that Microsoft blew it. My next one can't be Windows. They needed some way to overcome the cheap universal appeal of the Google advertising OS Android or the costly Apple iBling OS. And they needed something that ordinary Windows users would feel comfortable with. So they seem to have opted for the worst of all worlds, in what seems to be a regular bit of MS behaviour. Ending up with something that Windows users hated (Win 8.x), that slurped data and served ads like Android, but didn't have the style of Apple.
You know you can buy an Android phone, and DECLINE the Google stuff when you switch it on? Decline, skip sign in, and that's it. if you do this, none of the Google stuff works, and nothing is sent to Google, you have Android and you can do what you want with it.
If your tin foil hat is still letting in brain radiation, you can even disable the Google stuff (app properties, disable app), which removes it's executable permission, and removes it from the launcher, making it a VERY stock Android device.
I'm really happy with my Lumia 950 XL. Few apps I need are there (Barclays, Audible, Tado, Plex, SfB etc).
But I'm a business focused user, I have no desire for SnapChat or Tinder so wouldn't advocate it for the under 30's / blue collar guys.
If MS got their shit together with SfB and their enterprise clients on it they could revive it via marketing alongside O365. Would be marketed as a business focused device as the best client for O355 users perhaps...
Plus was a bonus that after losing mine a day before a holiday, I nipped into a EE shop and after parting with £90 and signing in I had everything back on a 650. Try doing that with an iPhone for the same money with a days notice!
Bought my kid a 650, bargain phone.
Loaded the backup of his previous WP8.1 1020 and was up and running in no time. Took a while to download all the apps funnily enough.
I use the RBS app because it uses a PIN to access the accounts quickly once set up. I don't do much with it but it is handy for checking the balance to see if I have been paid.
I do think it is a shame WP10 doesn't get the love, as ISPs and Mobile operators clearly show, two choices are definitely not enough.
Even if MS simply produce one or two devices, I will stick with it I think, since, like a previous poster, I don't care about apps-du-jour and being incessantly harangued by ads.
I prefer clean, downloaded maps and clean(er) search results, with noticeably less fake news.
@AMBxx
where is your vpn terminating to?
who owns the end point?
can you trust them?
a vpn to an unknown untrustworthy intermediary intercepting and relaying all your traffic is far worse than just using a raw uk retail BB connection.
Some people have no real comprehension of what a vpn does for you or how it works. Depending on your usecase it may not be beneficial for you.
Few occasions? you mean everyday if you are me. I hardly ever A) Go in branch B) Use internet banking in a web browser or C) use a Cash machine.
Almost all my bankings is via my iPhone App. You may not, but the majority do and its the trend we are moving towards. Want to know why the PC market is shrinking every year? because people do what they would have done on a laptop 10 years ago on their smartphone today, its also why Phablets are so popular.
Last time i shopped on Amazon? App on my iPhone
Last time i went on Facebook? App on my iPhone
Thats not to see i don't ever use my Macbook, but my primary Internet device is my Smartphone and thats the norm now, so if you don't have the Apps, you are irrelevant.
Wow you need to check your banking everyday? Fair enough then I guess. When I use a cash-point it's for nothing else other than withdrawing cash. If I need to transfer money I'll login via a browser, job done.
I'm not saying there's not a need for them or that everyone is in my position, I am saying I do not see why these things have to be on my phone all of the time. Same as the Facebook and Amazon app. Never on my phone, I'm surprised their on yours unless you've never looked at the permissions and the trackers or simply don't mind.
Each to their own.
I don't use it on my Android and the same goes for the various credit card apps that are available too. I also don't seem to be missing out on anything by NOT using it.
Tin foil hat? Maybe, but in general I try and keep apps to minimum because of the resource hogging, data motioning, battery draining nature of the sodding things!
Perhaps someone who does use banking apps can explain why they need one. Maybe it is a generational thing or that I have a reasonable balance in my account so am not forever in fear of going into the red, but I find I rarely interact with my bank or account and it was the same before I had a smart phone.
I understand one can use them to check balances, set up direct debits, cancel them, make transfers but they just aren't things I do day to day, often not year to year.
Perhaps I am missing a 'killer feature' or just don't need that.
This post has been deleted by its author
Not sure I entirely count for your requested group as I'm an old(ish) git and I only use one banking app, occasionally, to make intermittent payments to a pre-arranged recipient for occasional classes. It 'improves' on the website by allowing me to make the payment using only memorable data and not having to use the little card calculator doodad. Being able to pay once you are sure the class is happening is helpful. It doesn't let me set up new recipients etc. though.
All other bank accounts stuff (for this and several other banks) happens through web pages from a proper machine.
I've never seen the point of apps that are just wrappers to website pages - I have an app for that - it's called a browser.
I love that it used to be considered a sign of potential criminal behaviour to operate multiple bank accounts but they've been pushing for the last howevermany years to get people to chop and change banks for the new customer bonuses and then make it a pain in the proverbial to actually close the old accounts.
It 'improves' on the website by allowing me to make the payment using only memorable data and not having to use the little card calculator doodad.
So, you're saying it's better because it's less secure?
I would suggest that there is a difference between "better" and "more convenient".
which was why it was 'improves' within quotes - claims to be better but isn't necessarily so.
certainly a bit more convenient though and probably good enough for me (and 90+% of the population) with how I use it, until somebody actually steals money from the attached account - then I'll probably have a rethink...
An on the spot check or transfer in case your card doesn't go through? Website may not be mobile-optimized or you don't trust the browser. And I don't feel like going home to check the balance then go back, get in line again, and probably finch out the stuff I wanted earlier is now out of stock with no restock anytime soon.
Here's why I use it. I don't know about the generational thing; I'm in my late 30s, but I'm also an Android developer.
First, I can check my balance instantly on the login screen without having to log into the app (I also use the fingerprint reader on the phone so if I lose it, no one can access that information unless they have my finger, or, if they reboot the phone, the phone's pin). I use my cards a lot, far more than cash, so knowing how much is in there before I go to the checkout is really important.
Second, if I do want to make an impulse purchase, then I can transfer between accounts right there and then. In addition, if I want to send someone money I can do it right there and then. I could even - although I don't do this - bump phones for the NFC high five.
Third, the UX is far better than the website. They put a lot of work into the UX, and when it's in an app it's not browser dependent (so Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc. which could all render in different ways are replaced by a uniform app).
Fourth, my sixteen character website password doesn't have to be typed in, because the device has a pin (up to six digits), and I don't need to enter my username/customer number. All I need to know and type in is my pin.
Fifth part one, it's far more secure than the browser - any browser. There's extra layers of security you can't have in the browser, even on the computer. The app doesn't depend on the security of other applications (like the browser, or plugins for the browser). It's sandboxed (and all others should be too) so no other applications can open it, and it can only connect to one site. It's never completely secure because you could still bypass it with (serious) user intervention, but it's far more secure than the browser.
Fifth part two, it's linked to my phone. So only that device can use it, and all devices have to be registered with online banking in the first place. My bank gives us a maximum of three devices, and if anything changes substantially in the device then the app needs to re-register. So you can only use it on that phone; you can only use new devices after you've done a couple of 2FA routines, so people can't just register new devices without having access to your online banking, your email and your phone.
tl;dr it's really fast, convenient, makes managing my money so much easier, looks pretty and more secure.
So how do you respond to the fact fingerprints can be lifted (gummy fingers), and any security measure presented in Android seems to get bypassed routinely, even fingerprints and passwords/PINs? And that true paranoids run their banking runs on virtual machines?
"So how do you respond to the fact fingerprints can be lifted (gummy fingers), and any security measure presented in Android seems to get bypassed routinely, even fingerprints and passwords/PINs? And that true paranoids run their banking runs on virtual machines?"
I'm not a true paranoid. I don't know of any open exploits with the fingerprint reader on Android or the phones I use. But it's still true that if you're targeted you can't do anything about it. Like locking your doors in your car and home, those measures can prevent casual or opportunistic crime, but you can't do shit if someone really wants to get that information. I do enough to prevent theft without everything becoming inconvenient and unworkable.
Most of your points refer to the ease of use over the website, as opposed to a case use for the app although I do take your points well.
But impulse purchase? Really? Either buy it on your debit card or use a credit card and sort it out later. Or do you really log on, transfer cash and then use your debit card? I struggle to find that easier to be honest, regardless of the app.
A few banks offer 2FA anyway with a text code buzzed to your mobile should you want it.
The problem is when the card(s) come(s) back DECLINED? NOW what do you do? If you leave, you have to get back in line and there's a good chance, thanks to Murphy, that the item you want will be out of stock. If you can do an on-the-spot check and transfer, you can save the transaction. I speak from experience.
"But impulse purchase? Really? Either buy it on your debit card or use a credit card and sort it out later. Or do you really log on, transfer cash and then use your debit card? I struggle to find that easier to be honest, regardless of the app.
A few banks offer 2FA anyway with a text code buzzed to your mobile should you want it."
I actually don't take my personal credit card out with me regularly. That's one reason. But also I manage money better spending "real" cash. I also don't, for security reasons, because my cards are PayWave enabled, routinely keep more cash in my current account than I really need.
I mean, we can generally agree that using something so fundamentally insecure as the internet for financial transactions is insane in the first place, so once you get over that hurdle and accept that you do use it, and it is insane, the better way is to do it with the app. Provided it's a good app, and provided you actually have a use case - like managing your money on the move. Of course, I'm lucky in that respect and I also know a couple of the iOS developers by chance, so I'm confident that it does a better job in general front and back end than the web.
Although the more you get into the arguments the more having that sandboxed app for your bank transactions makes sense over using a computer, without going to extremes like VMs or containers just for that.
@ckdizz
Fifth part one, it's far more secure than the browser - any browser. There's extra layers of security you can't have in the browser, even on the computer. The app doesn't depend on the security of other applications (like the browser, or plugins for the browser). It's sandboxed (and all others should be too) so no other applications can open it, and it can only connect to one site. It's never completely secure because you could still bypass it with (serious) user intervention, but it's far more secure than the browser.
Can you be sure of that? You say that you are an Android developer, so I assume you know something about it, but have you seen the code used by your bank's app? How confident are you that your bank has taken as much care to secure its app as (say) Google have done to secure the Android browser?
Remember that -- although it isn't actually running in the browser -- the app is using the same network stack as the browser, and may be using Android components like WebView that have a lot of code in common with the browser. That means that the app may also be susceptible to attacks that exploit the browser or networking code.
There are a lot of exploits in the code running on most Android phones because most phones don't have the latest Android versions and patches available to them. Unless you have a Nexus or Pixel phone I would be hesitant to recommend banking with a mobile however convenient it may be, and even with fully up-to-date Android you have to trust the quality of the app.
As you say, pay bills, transfer funds, setup/cancel direct debits, check balances, make sure no one is taking up to $3000 a day from your account, ensure that the gas station, coffe shop and such like doesn't double bill you, make sure a payment has been made or not (and you can demonstrate this to the auto insurance rep on the phone without revealing any other information) and so on.
Do it all from a dedicated very secure app without having to worry or think too much about it.
But I'm well I'm to my fifties now, so the use of technology to make one's life much easier is a bit baffling.
First impressions count. The crap full screen calculator Universal App was just one big fcuk up. Unloved, unuseable, it acts as a big red Flag for Universal Apps, what they stood/stand for.
As for Window Phone, I remember spending (what felt like) hours trying to book a UK Travelodge hotel using it, and never suceeded via IE. A colleague bailed me, gave me his iPhone, booked in 5 minutes. Embarassing moment I won't forget in a hurry.
(If Microsoft wanted Business users to use WinPhone devices, these are the things they needed to make sure worked out of the box). The point is, they didn't check and MS paid the price.
Both - Big, big fundamental marketing mistakes.
I wouldn't touch WP even if I had a bargepole, but then I choose not to use my phone for banking anyway. That is preferably done on the home machine which is unlikely to be dropped out of my pocket or otherwise lost or stolen. There's always a tradeoff between security and convenience and for me the line in this case favours security.
When we found out they wanted Micro$oft in ATM we all giggled out loud.
This was in the 90's.
When i worked for G&D testing EMV cards the management said the insurance is cheaper than the RISK of SDA in EMV cloning. They did not care the EMV Chip & PIN could be cloned, even when evidence was presented to them.
So it's not about SECURITY.
It's all about the ACCOUNTANT and RISK insurance.
Shoot the accountant's they have made this world INSECURE for everyone.
"When we found out they wanted Micro$oft in ATM we all giggled out loud."
Yeah, and you got Java instead. How's Oracl€ working out?
Two things. As a former auditor, I know that most accountants know way more about security and risk assessment than your average dev (who at the end of the day usually isn't a security specialist). It's a pillar of the CA qualification worldwide. I don't want to get fussy about this, but risk assessment is based on balancing risk, the fact that risk cannot ever be completely eliminated, and the cost of taking one route compared to another (cost measured in money, but also time, and social costs).
The other thing is that like your lawyer, accountants don't make technical policy decisions. They make decisions about their own department, but they don't make decisions for other departments. They present financial information and other people make decisions based on that.
But let's be honest here. Chip and pin has dramatically reduced fraud and is far more secure than the magnetic strip and signature. I don't know what went on during the development, but if it's like any other large interorganisational project I bet it was a mishmash of tradeoffs and bargaining between a whole bunch of different agents. That's never going to produce a perfect result, but it's certainly produced a result that's achieved a measurable drop in stolen card fraud.
"I have assumed that this is to allow the banks to track what you do beyond what can be done in a browser."
Because access to all your financial information, your address, phone number, ability to crush your credit score, holding all your money, your mortgage, knowing your location via your purchase history, knowing your purchase history - all that is fine, but tracking you on your phone? That's the line!
Not tinfoil hat enough mate. You need to be stuffing your gold reserves under your bed.
(As in only one platform.)
Seriously, MS is great at giving the world lots of things that don't meed developer needs or that we don't want. (C#, Silverlight, .NET to name a few.) I'm STILL waiting for a proper MS standards-adhering C++ compiler, thanks.
It's a shame that they also happen to give us the few basic necessities that a lot of people do need. (Windows and Office, mostly.) So they're never really going to learn the lesson that they should actually listen to their customers. Oh well.
What I don't get is what is so hard about porting 100 lines of code to various languages/app stores that companies drop their support of X, Y, or Z? Because interns are so hard to find?
OS/2 partially implemented the Windows API, but they stopped short to encourage native apps. We know how that one worked out.
Microsoft started developing an Android app layer, that according to the reports worked nicely. They cancelled it to encourage native apps.
(But of course BlackBerry were more stupid, they got their one working rather well, then pulled the plugs anyway.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
