> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone.
Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. Maybe he has dexterity issues that make using a smartphone difficult. Maybe he doesn't want to install their invasive app. Maybe he finds that paper tickets are easier to manage. Maybe he recognizes that the vendor made this change to benefit themselves at the expense of the fans, as it allows them greater control of the resale market.
I own a smartphone but prefer paper tickets. Luckily I can (and do) still get them at my team's stadium, although I have to pick them up in person.
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences.
In 50 years, everyone's going to have an advertisement-injecting brain implant, and stores are going to require you to have one in order to purchase anything, and they'll lock you out of commerce as a filthy Luddite if you don't get one. And, 50 years from now, commenters on HN will defend those businesses because the implant is "modern" and supporting those ancient smartphones and credit cards is hard to do.
In my country there is a large religious population that eschew the smartphone. This is great - no government or private service simply assumes that one has a smartphone. All services are available via traditional means - most in three to five languages as well.
I do worry how smart phones have become mandatory for a lot of services. Viscerally, I don't like it, because of the monthly payment aspect. I don't have an elaborate theology that is not self-contradictory, it just seems wrong to me.
I think it's a normal reaction to have a visceral negative response to this. You shouldn't have to buy a harmful product as a condition for buying the thing you actually want to buy, or even more broadly as a condition for participating in commerce in general. I don't think the theology needs to be more complex than that.
Do the Dodgers have the right to exclude non-smartphone owners from participating in commerce with them? I suppose they have the legal right to, but we have a visceral reaction to it because it is morally questionable, and even smartphone owners can easily come up with examples where they'd be harmed by similar discrimination: The Dodgers also have the right to exclude non-smokers. They could say tomorrow that you can only buy a season ticket if you're a smoker, and I think that would be considered equally unacceptable to most of us.
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences.
When I run into this (most recently at a hospital), I tell them "The court doesn't allow me to have a smart phone because I'm a hazard to national security.†"
When they argue (very rarely), I tell them "Take it up with judge Kelso in the 225th District Court. He's in the phone book." That's usually enough for them to break out the backup non-smartphone plan. In my experience, there's always another way, but they're just too lazy to do it.
† Absolutely a lie, but I really don't GAF.
My man, they just think you’re crazy
He can get a smartphone dedicated to the ticket app if it is such a huge piece of his life/hobby
"Cheap android phone" on Google Shopping shows options for $30. Didn't even know they get that cheap.
Is then logging into your Google account (if you have one) also without cost and tradeoffs?
what about the payment method?
I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law, but I really wish they would pass a law requiring supporting people without smartphone apps. Obviously there would be some exceptions where justified, even for things other than “the app is the whole point” and those need to be thought through, but in this case and plenty of others, there’s just no reason they can’t accommodate non app users. “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification.
The law that he can invoke in a weaponized way is the ADA.
It’s vague enough about what a disability is, that something like “my hand tremor and farsightedness preclude using a touchscreen, I request a reasonable accommodation” is a valid request. If they deny admission and accommodation to somebody incapable of using a smartphone, there is a whole army of lawyers that will gladly take the case on contingency.
As you note, the app is not inherent to seeing a game, or preventing resale. There’s no reason an id and confirmation number can’t be used to get him in.
There is a special ring of hell reserved for people who abuse the ADA.
Such abuse is an insult to everyone who needs it, everyone who engages with it in good faith, everyone who spends gobs of money to make events and services accessible to those with genuine need.
I don’t rule the world but if I did abusers of protective rules would be summarily executed. (Don’t vote for me. I’ve got a short but significant list of similar policies. Scammers those guys would have targets on their heads, kidnap for ransom criminals those guys too)
I don't agree that using the ADA in this way would be abuse.
The ADA was a rare "great" law, in that it is sweeping, applies broadly to many different forms of disability, and it provides companies very little leeway to weasel their way out of complying. It also provides us with a very, very good generic framework for consumer protections, should we ever get an administration who cared about consumer freedom over corporate interests. I'd love to see other (not disability related) ADA-like laws that compel companies to make other reasonable accommodations to be inclusive of reasonable consumers. All kinds of amazing "consumer bill of rights" regulation could be modeled after the ADA.
> “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification.
For sure. If that was true the answer would be "charge the non-app users a nominal fee to cover the cost".
Invasive tracking is the point, not the cost. It's anti-consumer.
> “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification.
Then why is 'I don't wanna' sufficient justification to force non-critical services to support your preferences forever?
> I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law
No policy or law shall be enacted that directly or indirectly requires a use of a computing device where any other alternative at all is possible. Where offering other alternatives presents a cost, that cost (and only that cost, with no markup) may be passed on to the consumer.
That could still get prohibitively expensive. Take the example from this article, where there's only one person still using the paper ticket option...
I could see someone arguing you need a specially trained staff member or supervisor to verify your ID for anti-scalping, which they don't need to do for other e-tickets. Say only one person uses this option all season, they could be asked to pay for an entire employee's salary/benefits.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but supporting non-standard workflows is organizationally expensive with many non-quantifable costs.
If the law had existed all along, it would not be a non-standard workflow.
And there is precedent on the pricing. For example, FAA is not allowed to charge any more for any service than it costs to deliver said service, which is why if i lose my pilot's license, a replacement is $3.
> Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone.
In my country right now there's a lot of hand-wringing about the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers' mental health and education. We've got schools banning phones, and the government wanting to introduce age checks for social media. Infinite doomscrolling in your pocket, endless brainrot short-form videos, it's not healthy and we need to get smartphones out of the hands of the young.
So there are good reasons people might choose not to get a smartphone.
Then exactly the same government also proposed people wouldn't be allowed to work without a 'Digital ID Card' - making smartphones (and google/apple accounts) mandatory.
No there isn’t a good reason for the nanny state and giving the government more power over your life
How are nanny corporations any better?
Nanny corporations don’t have a “monopoly on [legalized] violence” and can’t compel me to do anything with guns
1980 wants it's republican talking point back.
It's 2026, we've seen that free speech absoluters don't actually care about protecting all speech.
We've seen 'small government' and 'no government power over your life' supporters suddenly just fine with it when women's right to choose is taken away by the government. Or when the government wants to decide/legally enforce gender their gender definition.
We've seen the 'less government' people do nothing as the Feds trample local laws, illegally seize voter roles (voting is a states issue), attempts to inject federal requirements into elections and attach what is a large cost for some people to the right to vote.
So we're going to need more nuance than a disengenuous 1980 platitude on the topic.
So you just listed all of the things that corrupt capricious government can do abd you want to give that same government power?
>Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone.
Maybe he doesn't then get any of the benefits of having a smartphone.
I don't understand why we need to bend over backwards for folks who have chosen to ignore modernity. There was a woman in my neighborhood association at one point who would throw a fit about us using email for communication because "not everyone has a computer you know." This was in 2018. As a society, we've gone completely out of our way to make living on your own terms legal and doable. You don't even have to get you or your kids vaccinated if you don't want to! But then going even farther and expecting to get all the same benefits as folks who've decided to accept and use modern technology is ridiculous... the Dodgers don't owe this man physical season tickets, just like Google doesn't owe me the ability to physically mail in a search term and have the results physically mailed back to me.
If it's so important to modernity then it shouldn't be handled by private companies.
Your idealism is fine, and I think regulation of this is completely reasonable, but this isn't much different than private automobile or bicycle companies for transportation. The biggest issue here is an anti-trust concern about two app stores, which should not be allowed. That has nothing to do, however, with having a portable computer to help you with high-end exchanges of goods and services.
A business doesn't have to serve all customers. You can't walk into 99.99% of USA stores and pay in rupees or yen or yuan. This is no different. They can choose what they accept and what they don't. Just like not every store takes credit cards or doesn't take certain credit cards (discover, amex) or doesn't take bitcoin.