Monzo app upgrade

Rob5342

Chief_of_Staffy said:

booneruk said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Time to move banks to one with slightly less contempt for their customers.

Why does having security requirements show contempt for customers? 

If you're trying to make out that enforced app usage has any benefit whatsoever to the responsible customer's financial security then trust me, you're talking to the wrong person.

Why? Because you don't (or refuse to) grasp the reality where banking software requires continual development to keep security tight and that doing this across every device that ever existed would be pretty much impossible. 

Support has to be dropped for old devices occasionally or development would stall (cost, resources to cover every device out there), and security would be compromised. 

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

I would say that closing down physical branches, forcing customers to abandon cash, withdrawing basic services such as online web access and channelling people into user experiences that are hugely expensive and for many simply untenable, primarily due to "cost and resources" (your words), then lying about their motives whilst making tens of billions profit, counts as winning.

Things always move on, often for mutual reasons. You can't expect banks to keep branches that nobody uses any more than you would expect boots to keep selling 126 film.

It's not hugely expensive, you can get a smartphone for £8 a month which is probably less then you'd pay on bus fares if you had to travel to a branch.

I don't know anyone that had been forced to use a smartphone or abandon cash, they all chose to because it was so much more convenient. 

Shakin_Steve

I don't think the OP was/is actually interested in a solution. Just a gripe about the fact that his mother will have to spend money to use Monzo's app. He disappeared after lighting the blue touch paper.
My tuppence worth: Banks are businesses, not social enterprises, and their business is making money and paying shareholders. In the present climate, they are on the hook for almost every person who has money scammed from them. Some of these people shouldn't be allowed outside, never mind allowed to use a banking app.
So.....they do their best to protect their own interests, while saying they're doing it to protect customers' interests. And they give these customers a choice. Stick to our T&C's or bank elsewhere. Simple really.

Uriziel

Does it really need to be an iPhone..?
This sounds a little silly... Android is not exactly rocket science even if she is older.
I bought a XIAOMI POCO F8 Ultra this Black Friday for £450 and the screen size is 6.9".

Uriziel

I also find it quite hilarious that everyone here is bashing on Monzo when in reality all of you should be aiming your disdain at phone manufacturers who have artificially created this problem. They could very easily simply push the security updates on older phones if they wanted to. They make more than enough money to do this but they'd like you to buy new phones to keep their cashflow going. Monzo and all other banks are required to refund you when you get scammed and hacked and this is why they have this criteria. Banks have to pay up all the time despite most scams being due to the customer being plain stupid. Monzo now have started to track your call activity and if you open the app while you have an ongoing call they will let you know that they are not currently on the phone with you and to hang up but people would still rather blame the evil bank.

Chief_of_Staffy

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

friolento said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Tens of millions of people in the UK use apps on a wide range of hardware and firmware, and have done for many years. That's usage into the multiple trillions of occasions. Find me one instance of a customer, in the absence of negligence or complicity, having their account compromised because they were running the app on 'outdated' technology. Just one.

That would be hard to do because the providers of the apps will ensure that the supported versions of their apps only run on currently supported version(s) of the platform. This to protect their customers from inadvertently (or advertently) exposing themselves to security vulnerabilities.

Claimed vulnerabilities exist practically from OS release day. Yet there is essentially zero evidence that these vulnerabilities translate to real world risk. Even the security researchers, whose livelihoods depend on inflating the risk, have nothing to offer in this department. It's basically the same story as we're told with MS Windows. You must install all security patches because otherwise a hacker will take over your PC! It simply doesn't happen.

What do you suggest they do instead? Keep quiet when they find a security flaw, never fix anything they find and trust that nobody else will ever find the same flaw? 

I refer you back to my point about 'security flaws'. If someone demonstrates that they are a relevant risk then I might change my mind.

Chief_of_Staffy

Desmond_Hume said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

booneruk said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Time to move banks to one with slightly less contempt for their customers.

Why does having security requirements show contempt for customers? 

If you're trying to make out that enforced app usage has any benefit whatsoever to the responsible customer's financial security then trust me, you're talking to the wrong person.

Why? Because you don't (or refuse to) grasp the reality where banking software requires continual development to keep security tight and that doing this across every device that ever existed would be pretty much impossible. 

Support has to be dropped for old devices occasionally or development would stall (cost, resources to cover every device out there), and security would be compromised. 

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

I would say that closing down physical branches, forcing customers to abandon cash, withdrawing basic services such as online web access and channelling people into user experiences that are hugely expensive and for many simply untenable, primarily due to "cost and resources" (your words), then lying about their motives whilst making tens of billions profit, counts as winning.

How many branches have Monzo closed? 

I suggest you follow the conversation.

booneruk said:

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

Desmond_Hume

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Desmond_Hume said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

booneruk said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Time to move banks to one with slightly less contempt for their customers.

Why does having security requirements show contempt for customers? 

If you're trying to make out that enforced app usage has any benefit whatsoever to the responsible customer's financial security then trust me, you're talking to the wrong person.

Why? Because you don't (or refuse to) grasp the reality where banking software requires continual development to keep security tight and that doing this across every device that ever existed would be pretty much impossible. 

Support has to be dropped for old devices occasionally or development would stall (cost, resources to cover every device out there), and security would be compromised. 

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

I would say that closing down physical branches, forcing customers to abandon cash, withdrawing basic services such as online web access and channelling people into user experiences that are hugely expensive and for many simply untenable, primarily due to "cost and resources" (your words), then lying about their motives whilst making tens of billions profit, counts as winning.

How many branches have Monzo closed? 

I suggest you follow the conversation.

booneruk said:

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

The conversation started with the OP discussing not being able to use the Monzo app on an old phone. 

You started rambling on about branches being closed, forcing the end of cash and web based banking.  

I asked how many branches Monzo had closed. 

You’ve suggested I follow the conversation. 

We’re now here 🤷🏻‍♂️

Chief_of_Staffy

Desmond_Hume said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Desmond_Hume said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

booneruk said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Time to move banks to one with slightly less contempt for their customers.

Why does having security requirements show contempt for customers? 

If you're trying to make out that enforced app usage has any benefit whatsoever to the responsible customer's financial security then trust me, you're talking to the wrong person.

Why? Because you don't (or refuse to) grasp the reality where banking software requires continual development to keep security tight and that doing this across every device that ever existed would be pretty much impossible. 

Support has to be dropped for old devices occasionally or development would stall (cost, resources to cover every device out there), and security would be compromised. 

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

I would say that closing down physical branches, forcing customers to abandon cash, withdrawing basic services such as online web access and channelling people into user experiences that are hugely expensive and for many simply untenable, primarily due to "cost and resources" (your words), then lying about their motives whilst making tens of billions profit, counts as winning.

How many branches have Monzo closed? 

I suggest you follow the conversation.

booneruk said:

The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really.

The conversation started with the OP discussing not being able to use the Monzo app on an old phone. 

You started rambling on about branches being closed, forcing the end of cash and web based banking.  

I asked how many branches Monzo had closed. 

You’ve suggested I follow the conversation. 

We’re now here 🤷🏻‍♂️

I replied to a specific post that said, "The Banks / Apple / Android et al can't win really." So I addressed that post. It's not rambling, it's called actually reading the posts you reply to.

Rob5342

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

friolento said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Tens of millions of people in the UK use apps on a wide range of hardware and firmware, and have done for many years. That's usage into the multiple trillions of occasions. Find me one instance of a customer, in the absence of negligence or complicity, having their account compromised because they were running the app on 'outdated' technology. Just one.

That would be hard to do because the providers of the apps will ensure that the supported versions of their apps only run on currently supported version(s) of the platform. This to protect their customers from inadvertently (or advertently) exposing themselves to security vulnerabilities.

Claimed vulnerabilities exist practically from OS release day. Yet there is essentially zero evidence that these vulnerabilities translate to real world risk. Even the security researchers, whose livelihoods depend on inflating the risk, have nothing to offer in this department. It's basically the same story as we're told with MS Windows. You must install all security patches because otherwise a hacker will take over your PC! It simply doesn't happen.

What do you suggest they do instead? Keep quiet when they find a security flaw, never fix anything they find and trust that nobody else will ever find the same flaw? 

I refer you back to my point about 'security flaws'. If someone demonstrates that they are a relevant risk then I might change my mind.

You didn't answer my question, what approach would you be happy with them taking?

If they never fixed anything and someone became a victim as a result you'd be saying that they show contempt for customers by not taking security seriously and putting profit first by not spending money on fixing things. 

Chief_of_Staffy

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Rob5342 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

friolento said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Tens of millions of people in the UK use apps on a wide range of hardware and firmware, and have done for many years. That's usage into the multiple trillions of occasions. Find me one instance of a customer, in the absence of negligence or complicity, having their account compromised because they were running the app on 'outdated' technology. Just one.

That would be hard to do because the providers of the apps will ensure that the supported versions of their apps only run on currently supported version(s) of the platform. This to protect their customers from inadvertently (or advertently) exposing themselves to security vulnerabilities.

Claimed vulnerabilities exist practically from OS release day. Yet there is essentially zero evidence that these vulnerabilities translate to real world risk. Even the security researchers, whose livelihoods depend on inflating the risk, have nothing to offer in this department. It's basically the same story as we're told with MS Windows. You must install all security patches because otherwise a hacker will take over your PC! It simply doesn't happen.

What do you suggest they do instead? Keep quiet when they find a security flaw, never fix anything they find and trust that nobody else will ever find the same flaw? 

I refer you back to my point about 'security flaws'. If someone demonstrates that they are a relevant risk then I might change my mind.

You didn't answer my question, what approach would you be happy with them taking?

If they never fixed anything and someone became a victim as a result you'd be saying that they show contempt for customers by not taking security seriously and putting profit first by not spending money on fixing things. 

I did answer the question, because I said twice now that I know of not one single case where a person 'became a victim as a result' of running apps on allegedly outdated OS. Given that there is no evidence of a security risk, why should I recommend they take any steps to mitigate it, let alone steps that making banking very expensive, very complicated and, for some people, impossible.