[achow]

> these apps have found its users even among those who have never used a computer in their life

The only internet connected device these users have are the cheap smartphones and within the phone perhaps only complex apps that they are familiar with is messaging (apart from entertainment and 'selfie' related ones).

So any other authentication mechanism (email or others) would see the usage plummet.

[Abishek_Muthian]

>So any other authentication mechanism (email or others) would see the usage plummet.

True, but Security > Friction; especially when it comes to hard earned wealth in a poor country like ours, where even daily wage earners use UPI now, especially because of COVID-19 induced lockdowns(COVID-19 themed UPI frauds for OTP are also increasing at the alarming rate for the same reason).

More over email is Federated, not owned by any single entity, I can run my own email infrastructure with minimal expenditure if needed. But for phone number itself I have to depend upon a Monopoly, Duopoly or an Oligarchy at best who if needed can screw me up if they want at anytime.

[murukesh_s]

>cheap smartphones disagree. you get surprisingly powerful smartphones within 100-150$ range. Since you anyway have to shell out close to 100$ for a decent smartphone, many extend that to 130$ (10,000 Rs - a phycological barrier) to get a quite good smartphone - thanks to plenty of Chinese mobile manufacturers.

Few phones with more than decent specs:

https://www.flipkart.com/oppo-a5s-black-64-gb/p/itmffhgzsqac...

https://www.flipkart.com/redmi-8-emerald-green-64-gb/p/itme0...

https://www.flipkart.com/realme-narzo-10-that-blue-128-gb/p/...

[achow]

The argument was not that cheap smartphones cannot handle email apps (or such); but these phones can only have so many things and definitely no expectation to have hardware based security features.

[kevincox]

You probably don't need hardware security features. OS-based software U2F would probably be a step up (prevents sim-jacking, but physical access to the phone is possibly more vulnerable)