Deliveries App Loses Functionality as Shipping Companies Refuse to Participate

[duervo]

I never used this app. However, my question is this:

If it now only works with USPS and UPS, why is the developer continuing to say it supports FedEx, DHL, Amazon, etc on their App Store page? They should update that information to reflect the shipping product, or else they might eventually find themselves in some hot water.

 

[GigabitEthernet]

Sounds like they use an API rather than a web scraper which I assume Parcel does.

As long as websites exist, you’ll be able to use a web scraper.

 

[Nugget]

You think this product batches API calls from disparate users before calling the shippers’ servers? Rather than each user’s app making its own calls on open or refresh? I guess that‘s possible, but it seems pretty unlikely, all the more so since the load on the shippers and the issue of management would be on the developer.

The deliveries app changed the behavior for DHL specifically late last year exactly as you describe. API rate limits are a concern (and could explain why Deliveries is the first to suffer publicly and other apps with smaller user counts might not yet be feeling the same amount of pain from the shippers). From their blog:

In the past, Deliveries has always worked by contacting each shipping service directly to check the status of your packages. While this has worked well overall, and helped us keep our own costs down, we’ve started to see the limitations of this approach.

We recently started exceeding our limits for DHL’s tracking system, or API. There are a limited number of times per day that our app can check the status of your packages. If you’re tracking two DHL packages, and you have Deliveries installed on three difference devices, then refreshing the status once on each device would use a total of six API calls.

In Deliveries 9.2, DHL shipments are updated by contacting our own server, which gets the latest information from DHL, keeps a copy of that information on our own server, and then sends it to the Deliveries app. If your other devices check the status shortly after that, we can send back the information we have stored. In the above scenario, that means we only have to make two DHL API calls instead of six, significantly increasing the number of shipments we can check in a day.

 

[Deguello]

The deliveries app changed the behavior for DHL specifically late last year exactly as you describe. API rate limits are a concern (and could explain why Deliveries is the first to suffer publicly and other apps with smaller user counts might not yet be feeling the same amount of pain from the shippers). From their blog:

I specifically said “disparate users.”

And that’s caching, not batching.

 

[Nugget]

I specifically said “disparate users.”

And that’s caching, not batching.

Yes, and you also said "rather than each user’s app making its own calls" so I mistakenly thought you might appreciate some context and more detail added to the conversation. I can see now I misjudged.

 

[Greatniss]

Deliveries was first. Parcel came long after. And then there's this.

Guess which app has no data linked to you?

Which app is which?

 

[Zulithe]

I dumped Deliveries for Shop more than a year ago. It integrates a lot better with various services, and many online stores use the Shop backend so all the order and package tracking is integrated very well. But even it is not perfect: you can link it to your gmail and amazon, but it loses amazon connection every so often and you have to manually go in and reconnect it, for example.

These logistics companies just don't want to get with the times and provide real time tracking the way Amazon does, and now they don't even want third party tracking apps to help you track items easier. They need to remember their job is to get you your stuff and in a fast, efficent manner, not to put up all these hurdles... they should provide open APIs so people can track their items in whatever manner they feel is best for them.

I kind of got fed up with how Deliveries wants you to hand feed it all your order links. They need to work on more automation.

 

[torontomax]

Shopify's Shop does the same job as this app. I don't see the charm using other 3rd party apps (parcels, deliveries etc)

I'm more than okay to change my mind - so feel free to educate me if you want to.

 

[Deguello]

Yes, and you also said "rather than each user’s app making its own calls" so I mistakenly thought you might appreciate some context and more detail added to the conversation. I can see now I misjudged.

They do make their own calls, but the results may be cached.

You wrote, “…exactly as you describe.” I didn’t describe caching. Caching isn’t batching. Caching is fairly standard. Aggregating calls — batching — is different. It’s not “more detail,” it’s a different subject. You didn’t misjudge, you simply mistakenly equated two different approaches.

 

[Nugget]

They do make their own calls, but the results may be cached.

You wrote, “…exactly as you describe.” I didn’t describe caching. Caching isn’t batching. Caching is fairly standard. Aggregating calls — batching — is different. It’s not “more detail,” it’s a different subject. You didn’t misjudge, you simply mistakenly equated two different approaches.

I was just trying to have a conversation. You seem to be here to find an argument. Best of luck, but that's not my vibe.

 

[PandaPunch]

Alright, so now that I have an item coming through FedEx, I see what is going on. It seemed like only a short while ago I was able to get detailed tracking on the Deliveries app. Now I have to view online, it's still useful to have all of my orders in one app though.

 

[suns93]

Oh, it is. Enabling greed is no better than the greed itself. Arresting junkies doesn't take dealers off the street. The real problem is that developers have a system stacked in their favor.

What we really need is ownership of software, shorter software patent durations, a doctrine of first sale for digital items, and a way to ensure that code for servers and DLC are easily accessible and freely distributed after say - 2 years. Developers should be competing against used versions of their own software. If their software is good and people want to keep it, then they don't have to worry that the people will sell it for less than them. But subscriptions have no place in this.

Let’s tone down the rhetoric - there’s no way these app subscriptions are anywhere close to being as addictive as illegal drugs.

The level of regulations/restrictions you’re proposing would kill innovation. The only software ever released would have to be extremely well funded and be a boring, safe bet as to ensure the high cost of development was recouped.

Why do you feel such drastic intervention is necessary? How has the free market failed? Because it “enabled greed”? I mean, that just sounds like you don’t agree with capitalism as an economic system. Which you’re totally entitled to have as an opinion - I just don’t see the logic of going after app developers specifically when they’re just operating under the same rules as everyone else.

 

[TiggrToo]

As long as websites exist, you’ll be able to use a web scraper.

Then you put it behind something like Cloudflare. We did that and protected it with a Captcha which makes automated scraping significantly harder to do. Doesn’t stop it, but it’s now a much harder proposition.

If Deliveries was doing web-scraping then blocking this would make such functionality much harder to do, and also end up potentially blacklisting the source if it happens enough times.

 

[suns93]

Worst thing about this thread is how many people who think paying $5/year, that's A YEAR, for an app that you find useful is beyond the pale. People suck.

They’re anchored to the previous way of doing things. That’s a hard psychological effect to break. But they’re a shrinking minority and future generations won’t have such obstacles.

 

[TiggrToo]

Oh, it is. Enabling greed is no better than the greed itself. Arresting junkies doesn't take dealers off the street. The real problem is that developers have a system stacked in their favor.

What we really need is ownership of software, shorter software patent durations, a doctrine of first sale for digital items, and a way to ensure that code for servers and DLC are easily accessible and freely distributed after say - 2 years. Developers should be competing against used versions of their own software. If their software is good and people want to keep it, then they don't have to worry that the people will sell it for less than them. But subscriptions have no place in this.

“And I want peace and love and pixies n fairies n rainbow farting unicorns and…”

Good grief. Your comments are so way off first base it’s unreal. Talk about dreaming!

Most of your ideas is 100% unworkable. “Ownership of software”? That will never ever ever happen. Flat out, guaranteed. You do that and you’ve just 100% legalized piracy.

You really have never done any serious professional coding, have you?

 

[4jasontv]

Let’s tone down the rhetoric - there’s no way these app subscriptions are anywhere close to being as addictive as illegal drugs.

The level of regulations/restrictions you’re proposing would kill innovation. The only software ever released would have to be extremely well funded and be a boring, safe bet as to ensure the high cost of development was recouped.

Why do you feel such drastic intervention is necessary? How has the free market failed? Because it “enabled greed”? I mean, that just sounds like you don’t agree with capitalism as an economic system. Which you’re totally entitled to have as an opinion - I just don’t see the logic of going after app developers specifically when they’re just operating under the same rules as everyone else.

It's like drugs in the sense that they use low upfront prices to hook you in and then charge you more and more indefinitely. Consumer prices for software should drop monthly until it has to be given away for free to get people to use it. Subscriptions have only shown prices increases, and those that haven't changed their pricing structure are insufficient to account for the value relative to inflation.

Six months after the software is released its value is less than 50% of what it was at launch. Subscriptions don't allow for depreciation intrinsic to a free market. It's called consumer protection. It's ok if they don't make money, and innovation won't die. The problem is that they shifted all risk to the customer and removed the benefits free markets provide.

Imagine going to a movie that claims to have your favorite actor/actress and when they never show up the studio says they plan to add them in a future release of the film. You have to keep paying indefinitely until they decide to hire that actor and add them to the film. Right now the status quo is fraud. Everyone seems to be fine turning a blind eye, but with subscriptions, consumers are asked to pay forever.

“And I want peace and love and pixies n fairies n rainbow farting unicorns and…”

Good grief. Your comments are so way off first base it’s unreal. Talk about dreaming!

Most of your ideas is 100% unworkable. “Ownership of software”? That will never ever ever happen. Flat out, guaranteed. You do that and you’ve just 100% legalized piracy.

You really have never done any serious professional coding, have you?

No developer should have a say in this discussion because they don't have the consumer's best interest in mind. The value of software depreciates faster than a cut avocado in the sun. Any payment structure that doesn't demonstrate recognition for an apps decreasing value is delusional. Nothing I said would lead to piracy, and there is no such thing as legalized piracy. Developers need to be competing against a used market to prevent the abuse of a monopoly on their code.

 

[4jasontv]

Then you put it behind something like Cloudflare. We did that and protected it with a Captcha which makes automated scraping significantly harder to do. Doesn’t stop it, but it’s now a much harder proposition.

If Deliveries was doing web-scraping then blocking this would make such functionality much harder to do, and also end up potentially blacklisting the source if it happens enough times.

This says a lot about you. This isn't the carrier's data. It's information loaned to them on behalf of the shipper who obtained rights provided by the recipient.

 

[CarlJ]

Check out the Tracking app, it has been working well for me and doesn’t require any account

Thanks, but at this point, I'm happy enough just having the Amazon, UPS, and FedEx apps on my phone, and they all know when packages are coming to me, so there's no setup step at all for me (no copying and pasting tracking numbers), and I get push notifications when packages are arriving.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Consumer prices for software should drop monthly until it has to be given away for free to get people to use it.

Free? Sheesh. You really DO want developers to fail. Over and over again you have floated ideas that aren’t realistic, reasonable, or viable at all. What other products do you think should be given away free to you over time?

 

[4jasontv]

Free? Sheesh. You really DO want developers to fail. Over and over again you have floated ideas that aren’t realistic, reasonable, or viable at all. What other products do you think should be given away free to you over time?

I didn’t say I want them to fail. Reread the thread.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I didn’t say I want them to fail. Reread the thread.

You most assuredly do with the comments you have written in this thread. Go back and read your own post on the matter. Your policies wouldn’t be financially viable and they would fail. But again, you think most developers should fail anyway. Which would leave only huge software companies to produce apps.

No thanks. That’s not the world anyone wants to live in.

 

[4jasontv]

You most assuredly do with the comments you have written in this thread. Go back and read your own post on the matter. Your policies wouldn’t be financially viable and they would fail. But again, you think most developers should fail anyway. Which would leave only huge software companies to produce apps.

No thanks. That’s not the world anyone wants to live in.

I said most should fail because most businesses fail. I never said I want them to fail. I want them to own the risk because they want to reap rewards. My posts are consistent and fair. Building an app that fails should have consequences, and right now the app store is littered with garbage that isn't priced relative to its value. The system is stacked such that apps can sit indefinitely on the store and charge the same amount five years after it was released.

Not just apps, all digital content operates outside of a free market. This past week physical copy of a steam code for Doom Eternal, with a steelbook cost $5.... but directly on Steam the game cost $40. The cheapest a steam code has been through a third-party store has been $13. That's insane, people should be able to resell their copy when they are done with it, and since digital items don't wear out it should drive the cost down to near zero. That's how a free market works.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I said most should fail because most businesses fail. I never said I want them to fail. I want them to own the risk because they want to reap rewards. My posts are consistent and fair.

You want them to give their product away for free after a certain amount of time. That's not reasonable nor fair.

You also never answered my question. What other products do you expect to be made free to you after a certain amount of time? Let’s see how consistent you really are.

 

[4jasontv]

You want them to give their product away for free after a certain amount of time. That's not reasonable nor fair.

You also never answered my question. What other products do you expect to be made free to you after a certain amount of time? Let’s see how consistent you really are.

I expect secondary markets to control prices. I expect them to give the game away for free because the secondary market should drive prices to near zero. Why would a developer sell their app for $5 when people who paid the $5 no longer want their copy? Those people should be able to recoup the loss they suffered buying the app. Let them resell it and force the developer to lower their price to compete not only with the other apps that do the same thing but also with copies of their app that they failed to provide compelling value for. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. If you want to make money make something people don't want to resell.

 

[dvkid]

When you pay a lifetime fee it means lifetime, not until they make version 2.

To be clear, you think you should be able to pay a one time fee and the software should work forever?

That's... absurd.