What next? PART 5/5

In conclusion, it is clear we have an egregious problem. The production and manufacture of smartphones not only destroys the Earth, poisons workers and creates a mass of e-waste but companies such as Apple are driven by profits and are dishonest in their approaches to the improvement of the environment. As Gary Cook from Greenpeace says “If you’re wanting to buy a[n ethical] phone right now, your choices are limited,” (Cooper, 2018).

Furthermore, although there are an abundance of articles based on the negatives of smartphones and phone companies regarding the environment, there are little theoretical writings bar Anna Readings Seeing Red, in which even she comments on the absence of works “[there are] virtually no work as yet that seeks to conceptualize digital memory in terms of commodity chains of environmental impact, human labour, and material processes involved in the various aspects of production and consumption.” (Reading, 2014). There is also little research on what could be done in the future and the next steps for smartphone companies that are feasible and not just Apple stating something in order to bode well in environmental rankings. I feel until researchers and the media focus on this issue, like they did with plastic in Blue Planet 2, society will never fully understand and will continue to ‘invisibly’ use phones whilst companies will go on promoting their targets for environmental improvements that have no end date.

 

In total excluding quotes – 1899 words

 

 

References (for all posts)

Apple apologises for iPhone slowdowns. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42508300

Banks, R. (2014). Mobiles and the environment – can we be greener? – Mobile Industry Review. Retrieved from http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2014/12/mobile-environment-impact.html

BBC. (2017). Secrets of Silicon Valley: The Disruptors [TV programme]. BBC Two.

BBC announces major initiative ‘Plastics Watch’ following the global impact of Blue Planet II – Media Centre. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/plastics-watch

Beres, D. (2017). Apple’s greed is killing the planet (and screwing you, too). Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2017/08/03/apple-greed-environmental-report-killing-planet/?europe=true#FPdC935Q8Sq4

Bridle, J. (2018). New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future (pp. 7-8). London: Verso.

Cooper, D. (2018). You can’t buy an ethical smartphone today. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/06/ethical-smartphone-conscious-consumption/

Domanski, H. (2018). Apple’s environmental initiatives: just how green is the big fruit of tech?. Retrieved from https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/apples-environmental-initiatives-just-how-green-is-the-big-fruit-of-tech

Environment. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/uk/environment/

Flood, R. (2017). End of smartphones? Fears of global shortage as Earth runs out of materials. Retrieved from https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/845098/smartphone-laptop-global-shortage-mineral-earth-materials-technology

Freedman, A. (2016). Apple brags about its environmental progress, but the truth is it still has work to do. Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2016/03/21/apple-environment-goals-consumerism/?europe=true#Bu9ndUO7y8qw

Grothaus, M. (2013). Apple’s ‘destroying tropical forests, wrecking lives,’ according to Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2013/07/08/apples-destroying-tropical-forests-wrecking-lives-according/?guccounter=1

Guide to Greener Electronics 2017. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/greener-electronics-2017/

Harris, J. (2018). Our phones and gadgets are now endangering the planet. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/17/internet-climate-carbon-footprint-data-centres

Hope, K. (2016). UK is ‘addicted to smartphones’. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37468560

iPhone Upgrade Programme. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program

Johnston, C. (2018). Apple’s market value hits $1 trillion. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45050213

McMahon, J. (2017). Apple Had Way Better Options Than Slowing Down Your iPhone. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/apple-iphone-battery-slow-down/

Merchant, B. (2017). Life and death in Apple’s forbidden city. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

Mitchell, A. (2017). The Social and Environmental Impact of Mobile Phones | Green Living. Retrieved from https://en.reset.org/knowledge/ecological-impact-mobile-phones

Reading, A. (2014). Seeing red: a political economy of digital memory. Media, Culture & Society36(6), 748-760. doi: 10.1177/0163443714532980

Ruiz, I. (2017). Smartphones – not so smart for the planet. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/smartphones-not-so-smart-for-the-planet/a-37824142.

Sheesley, J. (2008). Destroying the planet one iPhone at a time. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/decision-central/destroying-the-planet-one-iphone-at-a-time/

Supplier Responsibility. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/uk/supplier-responsibility/

Tobien, J. (2017). Smartphone pollution: How sustainable is the mobile phone industry?. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2017/03/27/smartphone-pollution-how-sustainable-is-the-mobile-phone-industry/#iKSC2S4wgvoFVJur.99

Veksler, D. (2019). Apple Is Not as Green as It Seems. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/apples-environmental-claims-are-misleading/

Watts, J. (2011). Apple secretive about ‘polluting and poisoning’ supply chain, says report. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/20/apple-pollution-supply-chain

Zeng, X., Song, Q., Li, J., Yuan, W., Duan, H., & Liu, L. (2015). Solving e-waste problem using an integrated mobile recycling plant. Journal Of Cleaner Production90, 55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.026

 

Advertisements

Lies, lies and more lies, can Apple ever tell the truth? – PART 4/5

Writings also heavily focus on the negatives of Apple regarding all discussed environmental problems, not just their inability to repair easily. The company itself states that they hold themselves

“and our suppliers to the highest standard when it comes to human rights, environmental protections and responsible business practices in our supply chain. Together with our partners, we go above and beyond accepted industry practices to improve the lives of our suppliers’ employees while conserving the earth’s resources for generations to come. And we share our vision, processes and results openly — because we believe transparency keeps us accountable to ourselves and the world, while allowing others to learn and benefit from our experience.” (“Supplier Responsibility”, 2019)

Yet, many articles and reports I found suggest the opposite. An article from David Veksler declares that “Apple’s environmentalist messaging is nevertheless dishonest both in regard to Apple’s overall priorities and many of their specific claims.” (Veksler, 2019). Also, according to Greenpeace after the first iPhone was full of hazardous chemicals, Apple promised to make the iPhone 3G more environmentally friendly. But when techrepublic disassembled them both, they found minor differences (Sheesley, 2008). One ‘dishonest’ claim that was repeatedly mentioned within articles was that of Apples data-centres being powered by 100% green energy. In a Carolina Journal, Don Carrington writes, “California-based Apple promotes its 500,000-square-foot data center in Maiden, N.C., by saying it runs “100 percent” on renewable energy even though the facility continues to get all of its electricity from Duke Energy, a public utility that primarily generates electricity using coal, nuclear power, and natural gas.” (Veksler, 2019). In 2014 Duke Energy, used 51% nuclear power, 38% coal power and less than 1% renewable sources (Veksler, 2019). Although slightly outdated, this clearly proposes the dishonesty of Apple concerning their environmental impact, as how could a 500,000 square-foot data centre use less than 1% of its electricity providers power. But as this article goes on to say; because Apple ‘claim’ this 1%, even though they may be using coal or nuclear power “This kind of twisted accounting is… acceptable in environmental impact statements and government budgets.” (Veksler, 2019). Ma Jun from the Institute for Public and Environmental Affairs claims “Apple can say it is completely ‘green’ because it is a brand with no factory, but if it doesn’t manage its supply chain, these are just empty words,” and suggests “Apple should be a leader. If it can move on this, it can change the whole industry.” (Watts, 2011). Which, in recent years, seems to have been achieved. In 2016 Apple announced its sustainable forestry agenda to protect 1 million acres in China and 35,000 acres in eastern US (Freedman, 2016). Apple has also initiated a ‘Supplier Clean Energy’ program leading twenty-three of their manufacturers to commit to a 100% renewable energy target which (in majority) had a goal for the end of last year (Domanski, 2018). Other initiatives include work towards a closed-loop supply chain which means using materials that have been recycled from old products or from renewable sources. Apple also intend to increase efficiency of production, reduce waste and design products that last longer (Domanski, 2018). Leading on from these commitments, Apple was ranked second by Greenpeace in the 2017 list of most sustainable companies, only behind Fairphone which is a company whose sole mission is sustainable phone manufacture (Domanski, 2018). But in spite of this, as tech radar imply “While a closed-loop supply chain sounds ideal on paper, it’s certainly too early to see just how ambitious and, indeed, attainable this goal truly is until more concrete timelines and results are unveiled” (Domanski, 2018).

 

READ THE FINAL PART AT https://emeraln.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/what-next-part-5-5/

Throwaway phones – PART 3/5

The other clear environmental problem articles focus on regarding mobiles is the disposability of smartphones. The majority of people will keep a phone for two years and then upgrade to the newest model, or in the case of Apple, every year thanks to their upgrade plan; (“iPhone Upgrade Programme”, 2019) leaving their old one in a drawer collecting dust or exposed of in the incorrect way. “around 50 million tons of electronic waste is produced each year. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that around 80 per cent is dumped, crushed and buried back in the earth as polluting landfill” (Reading, 2014). This not only takes up space but allows for harmful chemicals to leak into groundwater and affect both humans and plant life (Mitchell, 2017). As stated in a Journal of Cleaner Production (2015) integrated mobile recycling plants could offer an effective approach to solving the e-waste problem (Zeng et al., 2015) and as some articles mention, Apple do have a recycling scheme set up, Apple GiveBack (“Environment”, 2019). Albeit, many say this is not well advertised and most customers don’t know about the scheme (Beres, 2017), which I can support after it taking me fifteen minutes to find the scheme on their website. Another problem with phone recycling that the “electronics industry is facing as a whole is products are getting lighter and lighter. This is great for consumers but a nightmare for recyclers. Obviously smaller, lighter and more complex devices are much more difficult to dismantle.” says Kyle Wiens. (Banks, 2014)

Nonetheless, electronic waste is a clear problem. An article on The Star states that “Experts believe that if the life of a phone were increased to five years, then the impact on global warming could be reduced by 30% thanks to the carbon dioxide saved” (Tobien, 2017). Despite this, smartphones are made to have short life’s which further drives production of new models and this extreme amount of waste whether you wanted to keep your old phone or not. For example, Apple bring out a new model every year which in previous years may not have been sold at its full potential thanks to Apple admitting, at the end of 2017, to having deliberately slowed down some ageing iPhone models (“Apple apologises for iPhone slowdowns”, 2019). Not only is this “betraying customer trust” (McMahon, 2017) and detrimental to the environment but suggests Apple are profit driven not social missionaries. However, even after this scandal going public, Apple still remains one of the biggest phone companies with incredibly loyal customers. Julie Conroy a senior analyst and fraud expert at Aite Group describes Apple as a “fairly resilient brand” explaining that even after all the negative publicity – including the battery scandal and when customers learned tracking capabilities on the iPhone could reveal your location even when phones were switched off – customers stayed loyal. She also mentioned that Apple is a beloved consumer brand and scandals like those tend to fade fairly quickly (Veksler, 2019).

Also due to the invisible technology hidden within smartphones, replacing a phone is often more viable for a consumer than paying the extortionate price for a professional to repair it or to attempt to replace their phone battery themselves. Furthermore, adhesive is used extensively within the production of smartphones – glue ensures batteries stay in place and special types of bespoke screws, plastics and glass all present difficulties with special techniques and tools required to remove them safely. This presents a nearly impossible task of phone recycling or repair, hence the steep expense. Research also suggest that Apple are the worst for this which is why Apple phones need to be taken to the Apple store itself or specific Apple repair shops (Banks, 2014).

 

READ ON AT https://emeraln.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/lies-lies-and-more-lies-can-apple-ever-tell-the-truth-part-4-5/

Mining till they reach the other side of the world – PART 2/5

There are multiple reports and articles all focusing on how smart phones are ‘killing the planet’. These focus on two main topics – the mining of raw materials needed to create smartphones and electronic waste due to the disposability of them. Silicon Valley in North Carolina is mentioned a fair few times as it is home to the top technological companies across the world. This includes the likes of Apple, Google and Facebook. A two-part documentary which was featured on the BBC, Secrets of Silicon Valley (2017) highlights how companies based there are said to have one focus – disruption. They want to make the world a better place by doing things in a new way. To get rid of the old system and replace it with a better one by using technology that will radically improve the world. (“Secrets of Silicon Valley: The Disruptors”, 2017). However, with venture capitalism saturating Silicon Valley by providing funding for most tech start-ups, it puts a lot of pressure on technology companies to perform. Venture capitalists look at potential for profit which means the need for an increase in numbers as quickly as possible. This highlights the issue that the utopian ideals of Silicon Valley companies, such as Apple, could just be profit making ideas with no thought for the environment or improvement in the world rather than social missions. (“Secrets of Silicon Valley: The Disruptors”, 2017)

Silicon Valley’s naming was no coincidence and the mining of silicon in the area caused huge environmental destruction; as well as destroying sacred memorial sites of ancient historical and spiritual significance to the Ohlone tribe of Native American Indians (Reading, 2014). But, the destruction and mining for raw materials is not uncommon. Anna Reading concentrates on this global mining in her journal Seeing Red: a political economy of digital memory (2014) and states “320 tons of gold are used annually according to the World Gold Council for the connectors, contacts and wire bonding that ensure rapid memory connections and recollections via our iPads, laptops and mobile phones” (Reading, 2014). She also mentions how other raw materials are used in the production of mobiles including: Tantalum, Aluminium, Cobalt and Europium are being rapidly mined. However, as other articles I found state, not only are we running out of these raw materials (Flood, 2017) and destroying the earth when mining for them but “Mining for such materials has led to violent conflicts and hazardous working conditions in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo – and kids are among the main victims.” (Ruiz, 2017). Campaigners such as Greenpeace have tried to raise consumer awareness of links between these ‘conflict materials’ – which are causing problems within contexts of human rights abuses, genocide and the environment – and mobile phones; but as Anna Reading states “There is little work even within the environmental movement itself on the frictions involved in the commodity chains necessary for the production of electronics” (Reading, 2014). This extraction, production and processing of rare materials is now essential for state-of-the-art microchip production, the production of hard drives and even seeing the colour red in digital displays (Reading, 2014). However, people are dying to make this possible.

“Friends of the Earth claims that due to the dangerous and unregulated tin mining on Bangka, in 2011 an average of one miner a week died in an accident. The activists also claim coral and sea life is threatened due to silt from tin mining, which they claim is killing coral reefs and seagrass eaten by turtles, driving away fish and ruining fishermen’s livelihoods.” (Grothaus, 2013).

And it’s not just the mining for smartphone materials that are dangerous and harming the environment. Supply chains and manufacturing processes still rely on 19th century sources of energy, hazardous chemicals and poorly designed products that drive consumption of the Earth’s resources (“Guide to Greener Electronics 2017”, 2017). In 2010 Apple also came under fire when it came to light that the Foxconn Longhua assembly-line workers were committing suicide by throwing themselves off the towering dorm buildings, sometimes in broad daylight in protest of the working conditions and in displays of desperation. There were 18 reported suicide attempts and 14 confirmed deaths within a year. (Merchant, 2017)  Foxconn were also “accused of illegally employing 17-to-19-year-old students to work overtime to help build the iPhone X. The interns said they were made to work an 11-hour day assembling the flagship device, in violation of Chinese law.” (Cooper, 2018).

 

READ ON AT https://emeraln.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/throwaway-phones-part-3-5/

The first trillion-dollar company but is it killing the world? Apple Inc. and the effect the manufacture of mobile phones has on the environment. – PART 1/5

Towards the end of 2018 new initiatives to tackle plastic pollution, like the ban on plastic straws, were put in place in the UK following the huge global impact of Blue Planet 2 (2017). “Following the final episode, 62 percent of those surveyed wanted to make changes to their daily lives to reduce impact on our oceans.” (BBC, 2018) But plastic is not the only thing polluting our environment. Nowadays, four out of five adults own a smartphone. That’s equivalent to around 37 million people, and that’s just in the UK (Hope, 2016). An American report from 2013 stated that “using either a tablet or smartphone to wirelessly watch an hour of video a week used roughly the same amount of electricity (largely consumed at the data-centre end of the process) as two new domestic fridges”

(Harris, 2018). With the average person upgrading their mobile every two years, they’re not just burning a whole in our pocket but the environment too. Plus, the biggest danger is that smart phones are invisible technology, meaning thanks to user friendly interfaces, mobiles are purposefully designed to conceal the machinery inside and keep consumers out; “learning to plumb a sink is not enough to understand the complex interactions… A simply functional understanding of systems is insufficient” (Bridle, 2018). Therefore, I intend to look at the available research on the manufacture and production of mobile phones and how this is affecting our environment. Focusing on Apple and their ongoing strive to produce the newest and best phone on the market and how this could be damaging our world. Not only does Apple produce top of the range devices from tablets to laptops to smartphones but in 2018 they became the first public company to reach a worth of one trillion dollars beating rival Silicon Valley companies such as Amazon and Microsoft (Johnston, 2018). Being such a leading company, you would expect them to be leading in other areas as well, although with multiple scandals reaching the news over the years it is unclear whether Apple are leading and innovative or if they are just a company looking for profit gains, which is why I have chosen to focus my research on them.

 

READ ON AT https://emeraln.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/mining-till-they-reach-the-other-side-of-the-world-part-2-5/

Team work makes the dream work

It’s the nitty gritty blog; reflecting on our process of development, invention, struggles & difficulties, so lets get straight into it.

From the start Corina, Ed and myself worked as a team creating a Facebook group chat for long distance contact and met up for weekly meetings. We started out brainstorming ideas and decided an app was the ‘media’ we wanted to create.brainstorming.jpg

With Corina having a severe allergy & the news being heavily saturated with allergy related incidents, we decided it to be the best and most relevant idea and ran with it from there.

We designated jobs; myself being head designer, Ed head coder & leader of app production and Corina as head researcher & pitch coordinator, but each insured to get involved with all aspects of the project.

Starting off we all came up with initial design iArtboard 18deas which I transferred to digital using Adobe Illustrator. Although I liked the initial designs it felt like the designs lacked a professional finish. With some help from a graphic designer I took the first designs and gave our app a brand, focusing on a simplistic but modern design with an easy to use user interface at the heart of ideas. Once we had our brand it was time to start actually producing a working prototype. After researching barcode scanners and how to implement this into an app through coding we began to struggle. Understanding the code needed and writing the code needed to grant camera permissions was a lot harder than we originally thought. We knew we had to incorporate zebra crossing/ ZXing (which is a barcode image processing library implemented in Java) somehow and downloaded multiple software’s such as android studio in order to follow YouTube tutorials but nothing seemed to work. In the end, Ed managed to get in touch with a friend who helped us code a working prototype.

Screenshot_20181129-203735accept-1.pngaccept-des2.png

MAIN PAGES CODING & APP LOOK

main-1.png

Screenshot_20181129-204156Main des2

ACCEPT PAGES & APP LOOK

 

Screenshot_20181129-204112reject-1.pngreject-des2.png

REJECT PAGES & APP LOOK

Having taken an 8 week course in coding through university I did attempt to make some understanding of the coding and managed to change the background colours and add in different images to include our logo and the tick & cross designs. However, not having used as complex code before it was difficult to understand.

We now had a brand and a working prototype but needed to think about the data we would be collecting as a company and how investors would use this. We thought about the privacy of our users and decided to allocate everyone with an APP ID so that contact details would not be shared with third party organisations. Corina also looked into how much it might cost us to make Allergo through an online source in order to further our understanding of the investments and funding we would need.

With all projects comes learning and outcomes. This module and assignment has possibly been the most testing personally but I have learnt so much without even realising through researching, creating and producing a WORKING APP which has a meaning and a solid backgrounding with ideas for funding and progression. Something I never thought possible. I now understand not only the user interface of technology but the invisible technology behind the screen and the workings of data collection for means of investment and outcomes.

So thank you Media Technologies.

 

REFERENCES

Dourish and Bell (2018). The Myth and Mess of Ubiquitous Computing. Divining the Future, [online] 1, pp.1-6. Available at: https://shuspace.shu.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-7943515-dt-content-rid-26153710_2/courses/55-602684-AF-20189/Myth%20and%20Mess%20of%20Ubiquitous%20Computing.pdf [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].

Ling, X. (2013). How to implement a simple barcode scan application on Android. [online] Code Pool. Available at: https://www.codepool.biz/how-to-implement-a-simple-barcode-scan-application-on-android.html [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].

Mindfire Solutions (2018). 7 Important Mobile App Branding Strategies – Mindfire Solutions – Medium. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@mindfiresolutions.usa/7-important-mobile-app-branding-strategies-8146ae42d995 [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].

YouTube. (2015). How to Create Barcode Scanner Application in Android:part1 | ShoutCafe.com. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGLHarfvffs [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].

ALLERGO – the revolutionary app

Here are some quick facts for you…

  • Recently two takeaway workers were jailed after 15 year old Megan Lee died in 2017 because she ate a takeaway curry that contained peanuts after they ignored her allergy specifications in her order.
  • There are an estimated 20 deaths from an anaphylaxis reaction each year.
  • In the UK, an estimated 2 million people have a food allergy.
  • Food writer and journalist Bee Wilson proposed current methods of identifying allergens in products are out of date and that, for those suffering from allergies, each meal is “an exercise in vigilance”.

Well.. our media technology app idea is here to save the day. Allergo, is a FREE barcode scanning app that flags up when products you want to buy are a risk depending on your allergies.

Artboard 4Artboard 8Artboard 10Artboard 11

When you first start the app, you’re greeted by a landing page that prompts you to create a profile. Users then enter their profile information, as seen above.

Artboard 5Artboard 6Artboard 7

When the user presses ‘Start Shopping’, the barcode scanner will scan items and say whether the item is safe or unsafe in relation to their allergies.

Artboard 14Artboard 15Artboard 12Artboard 13

Each item will be added to a list on the Previous Shops page, so users have a saved list of safe and unsafe items scanned for future reference. There’s also a Group Shop feature which is particularly aimed at parents and their kids OR groups of friends. Based on a colouring system the app not only scans for your allergies but the allergies of the other people while you shop.

arctitecture

The diagram above explains the architecture of the app.

data.pngAbove is the data our app would collect, both excel sheets would then communicate with each other in order to determine an ‘outcome’, it is also data that potential investors would be interested in, as it would allow them to see what type of people want to, but can’t, buy their products & also hopefully provide them with enough data so they can start to produce alternative allergen free products.

Despite having a solid foundation, Allergo has room for progressions.

  • A ‘smart shopping list’ feature – an automatic shopping list based on frequent scans.
  • QR codes for profiles – for quick adding to group shops.
  • Group chats – you could see/chat to your friends about what they’re buying and recommend products. Once the app gets a large enough userbase, you can be matched up/join public groups e.g mums with nut allergies in the house and chat about problems and good products to buy.

Progressions for investors:

  • Advertising – recommending alternative ‘safe’ products.
  • Location – investors would know whereabouts of scanned items for more precise investments locally.

AND progressions for Allergo:

  • Vegetarianism and veganism – as it becomes more popular we could implement vegan & vegetarian options for scans rather than just allergies.
  • Verified stickers – not only advertising allergo but allowing app users to know what products are tried and tested and free of allergies without using their phones.

Now for the theory… Each strand of McLuhan’s Tetrad Theory can be applied to the Allergo app.

  • Enhancement: Allergo improves the shopping experience for allergy sufferers and makes checking products more efficient.
  • Obsolescence: the traditional labelling system will be improved upon and therefore made irrelevant somewhat.
  • Retrieval: We will be implementing the zxing barcode scanner and utilising it in a new context.
  • Reversal: The traditional labelling system may be ignored, meaning people may rely on the app too much, which could create a new risk.

Funding wise, we came to the conclusion we’d need around £25,000 to create a fully functioning allergo app, as we’d need help to code the app in full, as well as server space for data storage.

I honestly love this idea and I think it’s a crucial step forward in dealing with a common and often overlooked issue! 

Who knows, in a years time you might see Allergo on your app store, so go on and give it a download.

 

REFERENCES

AllergyUK (2018). Allergy Statistics & Facts | Allergy Information | Allergy UK. [online] Allergyuk.org. Available at: https://www.allergyuk.org/information-and-advice/statistics [Accessed 24 Nov. 2018].

BBC News (2018). Girl with allergy dies after Pret baguette. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45617845 [Accessed 23 Nov. 2018].

Mills, J. (2018). Takeaway owners charged after teen had allergic reaction and died | Metro News. [online] Metro.co.uk. Available at: https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/05/takeaway-owners-charged-teen-allergic-reaction-died-7135558/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].