4 ms·

It's great for shopping. But in the US you have amazon prime. We don't.

by unixhero 2mo ago

fragmede 2mo ago
Where is "we"?
- ngl999 2mo ago
  Likely the place where people are "willing to trade privacy for convenience", according to Baidu's CEO.
  - stinos 2mo ago
    I always wonder if it's worth it. Like: is it actually convenient, or is it 'solving' inconveniences which actually do not exist or didn't exist before using the service? I have never used Prime or AliExpress but also don't consider our typical shopping very inconvenient. And the most inconvenient parts are actually the ones which seem necessary to to get the proper goods (from past weeks: vegetables/fruits/shoes - it's not really possible to order that online and get exactly what we want). And everything else is available from other webshops.
- rcruzeiro 2mo ago
  According to their profile: Norway
dogman1050 2mo ago
I have Prime, but I can't imagine installing the Amazon app either. The website works just fine.
- nntwozz 2mo ago
  This is the way. It's prudent to treat apps with skepticism, it's unfortunate it's come to this. I study Apple's Privacy Nutrition Labels religiously every time I consider installing an app. I like the ones with "Data Not Collected".
  - woadwarrior01 2mo ago
    I'm an app developer and all my apps have the "Data Not Collected" privacy nutrition label. I love the idea, but Apple's enforcement of it is very lackadaisical. I've reported dozens of apps that were blatantly lying on their privacy nutrition labels to Apple and I'm yet to see any such app's nutrition label change. Here's a good overview of the problem: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02658v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02658v3
    - voakbasda 2mo ago
      Why have rules (or laws) if they don’t enforce them? Or only enforce them selectively when they feel it necessary, such as when not doing so would threaten your stock price (or re-election campaign)? Maybe I just answered my own question? Reminds me of meat processing regulations. I can sell my animals whole to buyers through a custom processing exemption, but they must go pick up their meat from the butcher. The law says I cannot pick up and deliver it, but it is trivial to find people advertising that extra service. Reporting them does not result in any obvious action. In both of our cases, our honesty is a liability in the marketplace, because people are ignorant of such laws (or simply don’t care). Really, they simply want the product that they want, as conveniently as possible. We are then forced to compete in the marketplace with liars and cheats. I am sure our peers here can find countless examples in other areas where this flavor of dishonesty prevails. Hell, I would love to hear some counter examples, because I cannot help but view this state of affairs as intentional at this point. The purpose of system is what it does (or, in this case, does not do).
      - otherjason 2mo ago
        The cynical way to look at this is that the purpose of the system (the privacy nutrition label) is to support Apple's carefully-crafted and -marketed image as the most privacy-focused of the tech giants. Actually having enforcement of the contents of said labels would be a nice potential byproduct of that, but that's not strictly required to accomplish the system's purpose.
    - nntwozz 2mo ago
- manbash 2mo ago
  With Firefox, yes. I wouldn't fully trust other browsers to care about my privacy.
  - AstralSerenity 2mo ago
    Using web apps on Firefox really is the way given its support for uBlock Origin. Screen real estate is precious on phones, so being able to permanently block "Install our app!" and even entire navigation categories (shorts on LinkedIn) is quite valuable. Then you can "install" the site on your home screen or simply place it in collection folders so it's sitting ready on your "New Tab" page.
  - akimbostrawman 2mo ago
    Firefox the privacy browser that is directly selling all its users searches to Google for decades? Not to mention all its other build in telemetry and ads. If you want an actual private Firefox Browser use a fork like Mullvad Browser, LibreWolf and Tor Browser.
    - unixhero 2mo ago
      Mozilla with Firefox does not sell and does not have ads. You have downloaded a modified spyware version or have convonced yourself that this is true due to a bad dream. Take more care online is my advice yo you and don't spread false information either.
      - akimbostrawman 2mo ago
        >Mozilla with Firefox does not sell and does not have ads. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-and-google-sign-new-agreement-for-default-search-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-and-google-sign-... The only one trying to convince themselves is you...
- HPsquared 2mo ago
  I think you need the app to use the delivery lockers (which I prefer over home delivery)
- boobsbr 2mo ago
  AFAIK, the app is just the website in a webview.
- threecheese 2mo ago
  I uninstalled the app recently; despite having layers of ad tracking protection, I would see my Amazon searches appearing in my social media feed in near real time, and this irked me. I dropped their .com into a Home Screen icon, and this completely stopped (at least as far as I’ve observed). It’s definitely more janky from an experience perspective, but still easier than driving to the store.
- ianburrell 2mo ago
  Shopping works better on web sites because can open multiple tabs to browse multiple products. Especially important on big stores like Aliexpress and Amazon where need to compare lots of products. Desktop is better for that but mobile browsers are still better than apps.
embedding-shape 2mo ago
I don't have Amazon Prime (nor am I in the US) yet use Aliexpress perfectly fine on my mobile phone without using an app. Frankly, I don't understand how the two is related at all?
- coldtea 2mo ago
  Both are web stores. Both have websites AND apps. They are compared / contrasted. Nobody is saying one is concretely related to the other.
- doubled112 2mo ago
  AliExpress won't allow me to open most pages in the account section on my iPhone. Instead I get a page telling me to install the app. While browsing, there are also popups offering the app approximately every third link I click. Some of them are telling me to install the app. Unless the situation has changed recently, it's not perfectly fine, it is unusable on purpose.
  - emctech 2mo ago
    AE website on mobile is terrible, they basically force you to use the app. I exclusively use the website on my PC
    - whstl 2mo ago
      So they're pulling a Reddit, basically. "The app is great because the website is heavily degraded".
      - Ntrails 2mo ago
        I just request the desktop site, it's fine
      - deepsun 2mo ago
        Reddit is fine, just a small popup at the bottom. Facebook kn the other hand turned off most functions on mobile, e.g. chat. Good thing though if you don't use the chat long enough, friends start using other means of communication.

It's great for shopping. But in the US you have amazon prime. We don't.

fragmede 2mo ago

Where is "we"?

ngl999 2mo ago
Likely the place where people are "willing to trade privacy for convenience", according to Baidu's CEO.
- stinos 2mo ago
  I always wonder if it's worth it. Like: is it actually convenient, or is it 'solving' inconveniences which actually do not exist or didn't exist before using the service? I have never used Prime or AliExpress but also don't consider our typical shopping very inconvenient. And the most inconvenient parts are actually the ones which seem necessary to to get the proper goods (from past weeks: vegetables/fruits/shoes - it's not really possible to order that online and get exactly what we want). And everything else is available from other webshops.
rcruzeiro 2mo ago
According to their profile: Norway

dogman1050 2mo ago

I have Prime, but I can't imagine installing the Amazon app either. The website works just fine.

nntwozz 2mo ago
This is the way. It's prudent to treat apps with skepticism, it's unfortunate it's come to this. I study Apple's Privacy Nutrition Labels religiously every time I consider installing an app. I like the ones with "Data Not Collected".
- woadwarrior01 2mo ago
  I'm an app developer and all my apps have the "Data Not Collected" privacy nutrition label. I love the idea, but Apple's enforcement of it is very lackadaisical. I've reported dozens of apps that were blatantly lying on their privacy nutrition labels to Apple and I'm yet to see any such app's nutrition label change. Here's a good overview of the problem: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02658v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02658v3
  - voakbasda 2mo ago
    Why have rules (or laws) if they don’t enforce them? Or only enforce them selectively when they feel it necessary, such as when not doing so would threaten your stock price (or re-election campaign)? Maybe I just answered my own question? Reminds me of meat processing regulations. I can sell my animals whole to buyers through a custom processing exemption, but they must go pick up their meat from the butcher. The law says I cannot pick up and deliver it, but it is trivial to find people advertising that extra service. Reporting them does not result in any obvious action. In both of our cases, our honesty is a liability in the marketplace, because people are ignorant of such laws (or simply don’t care). Really, they simply want the product that they want, as conveniently as possible. We are then forced to compete in the marketplace with liars and cheats. I am sure our peers here can find countless examples in other areas where this flavor of dishonesty prevails. Hell, I would love to hear some counter examples, because I cannot help but view this state of affairs as intentional at this point. The purpose of system is what it does (or, in this case, does not do).
    - otherjason 2mo ago
      The cynical way to look at this is that the purpose of the system (the privacy nutrition label) is to support Apple's carefully-crafted and -marketed image as the most privacy-focused of the tech giants. Actually having enforcement of the contents of said labels would be a nice potential byproduct of that, but that's not strictly required to accomplish the system's purpose.
  - nntwozz 2mo ago
manbash 2mo ago
With Firefox, yes. I wouldn't fully trust other browsers to care about my privacy.
- AstralSerenity 2mo ago
  Using web apps on Firefox really is the way given its support for uBlock Origin. Screen real estate is precious on phones, so being able to permanently block "Install our app!" and even entire navigation categories (shorts on LinkedIn) is quite valuable. Then you can "install" the site on your home screen or simply place it in collection folders so it's sitting ready on your "New Tab" page.
- akimbostrawman 2mo ago
  Firefox the privacy browser that is directly selling all its users searches to Google for decades? Not to mention all its other build in telemetry and ads. If you want an actual private Firefox Browser use a fork like Mullvad Browser, LibreWolf and Tor Browser.
  - unixhero 2mo ago
    Mozilla with Firefox does not sell and does not have ads. You have downloaded a modified spyware version or have convonced yourself that this is true due to a bad dream. Take more care online is my advice yo you and don't spread false information either.
    - akimbostrawman 2mo ago
      >Mozilla with Firefox does not sell and does not have ads. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-and-google-sign-new-agreement-for-default-search-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-and-google-sign-... The only one trying to convince themselves is you...
HPsquared 2mo ago
I think you need the app to use the delivery lockers (which I prefer over home delivery)
boobsbr 2mo ago
AFAIK, the app is just the website in a webview.
threecheese 2mo ago
I uninstalled the app recently; despite having layers of ad tracking protection, I would see my Amazon searches appearing in my social media feed in near real time, and this irked me. I dropped their .com into a Home Screen icon, and this completely stopped (at least as far as I’ve observed). It’s definitely more janky from an experience perspective, but still easier than driving to the store.
ianburrell 2mo ago
Shopping works better on web sites because can open multiple tabs to browse multiple products. Especially important on big stores like Aliexpress and Amazon where need to compare lots of products. Desktop is better for that but mobile browsers are still better than apps.

embedding-shape 2mo ago

I don't have Amazon Prime (nor am I in the US) yet use Aliexpress perfectly fine on my mobile phone without using an app. Frankly, I don't understand how the two is related at all?

coldtea 2mo ago
Both are web stores. Both have websites AND apps. They are compared / contrasted. Nobody is saying one is concretely related to the other.
doubled112 2mo ago
AliExpress won't allow me to open most pages in the account section on my iPhone. Instead I get a page telling me to install the app. While browsing, there are also popups offering the app approximately every third link I click. Some of them are telling me to install the app. Unless the situation has changed recently, it's not perfectly fine, it is unusable on purpose.
- emctech 2mo ago
  AE website on mobile is terrible, they basically force you to use the app. I exclusively use the website on my PC
  - whstl 2mo ago
    So they're pulling a Reddit, basically. "The app is great because the website is heavily degraded".
    - Ntrails 2mo ago
      I just request the desktop site, it's fine
    - deepsun 2mo ago
      Reddit is fine, just a small popup at the bottom. Facebook kn the other hand turned off most functions on mobile, e.g. chat. Good thing though if you don't use the chat long enough, friends start using other means of communication.