[ponker]

That’s a little misleading though because the percentage of people who install the country’s contact tracing app is driven much more by the quality of the people than the quality of the app. So this app might be garbage, I don’t think this statistic says much one way or the other.

[rsynnott]

I think it's more about public trust in the app than anything else. Nearform, and the government, were quite effective in establishing public trust; I think it helped that it was open source.

[ruiseal]

There's still a fair amount of people that are suspect that the published binary doesn't match the source and the app could be doing nefarious things. It will be interesting to see how this sentiment progresses. Reproducible builds would help in this regard.

[roomey]

Really, I work in the industry (it) and haven't known one person to raise this.

I would say the majority of people in Ireland know the various social network apps are a bajillion times more intrusive than the covid checker. Im fairly sure most people "trust" the government not to be "spying" on us

[justinclift]

> the percentage of people who install the country’s contact tracing app is driven much more by the quality of the people

That sounds strange. Explain more?

[albatross]

You could write the cleanest, most bug-free and user-friendly app, release it in the US, and likely never see this level of adoption (I believe is the point that is being made here).

[adrianmonk]

So far it seems like a given country/jurisdiction standardizes on one app for everyone to use. (In theory, apps could be interoperable, but I don't know of this having happened.)

So, the citizens' choice isn't between one app and another app. It is only whether or not to use the app that has been chosen for them.

Therefore, their choice doesn't tell you much about the quality of the app. The primary driver of the decision is whether or not they're willing to take steps to fight the disease.

It's similar to being served dinner on an airplane with only one meal option. They bring you the food, and you either eat it or you don't. The choice doesn't tell you much about whether the food was good. It's more of a reflection of whether you were hungry. The only thing it tells you about food quality is that it (if you eat it) it was somewhere between barely acceptable and excellent.

[justinclift]

> The primary driver of the decision is whether or not they're willing to take steps to fight the disease.

Here in Australia, our gov is extremely incompetent at delivering successful IT projects. They also have a terrible track record with securing data, scaling services (eg national-level IT outages), don't admit to mistakes, etc. :(

> It's more of a reflection of whether you were hungry.

No. To go with your example, if you know the people preparing the meal are incompetent, don't follow anything like reasonable hygiene standards, have previously caused significant outbreaks of disease themselves, and each time they're caught they promise to do better (but actually don't do so)... would you eat something they've prepared for you? Especially prepared at short notice where corner-cutting is expected? ;)

Trying to say that only idiots (etc) wouldn't install such an application is seriously wrong. ;)

[kolbe]

It's an unjustified claim and a little demeaning, but not obviously wrong. But citizens choosing to believe in the effectiveness of digital contact tracing is a far larger variable in the success of these apps than the quality of the app itself.

[drcross]

It says more about the PR campaign than the people.