Only if they offer other social login options like Facebook and Twitter for example. If the app doesn't support oAuth, then there's no requirement to have sign in with apple.
Seems strange to me that people don't get this. If you don't like these rules, you're welcome to just not use their hardware. All of the rules Apple is implementing like this are by and large, for the benefit of the users, so I don't see the problem whatsoever.
Opinions vary. The lack of browser extensibility is not always a benefit to the user, for example.
Apple not permitting apps that display certain types of legal content in the App Store is not a benefit to users that like to produce or consume those types of content. Censorship sucks, even if Apple is legally permitted to do it because it’s their store. It’s rude.
Hopefully the rumor that Apple is soon going to let you select a different default browser/mail/music/photos app is true, and this will be less of an issue.
It will still be an issue because of the many types of apps that Apple simply censors entirely from the store, from Tumblr to Tor to VPNs in China.
I worked for Spotify, and apple did all kind of hoopla to delay/deny the iOS updates....
My favorite one: If you did tap at one of the support/help tabs, it would open a webpage, which contained the support text, and the app got rejected, because after about THREE links, that would lead to the homepage, and there was a premium offer, and you can't have it.....
They kept denying updates for reasons like that....
"Coincidentally" they released their streaming service that month....
That's extremely anti-competitive..... and it wasn't done for the benefit of the user, but for the benefit of Apple only. When a user buys a phone, they have a reasonable expectations that other apps would work, and you will not be forced to use apple only services (directly or indirectly).
It seems like it would be a safer option for customers privacy wise Vs Facebook login. That said, uncomfortable questions have to be to asked if sign on with apple can be blocked to, by proxy, block/remove an app from the store.
The important highlight is that Sign in with Apple allows somewhat anonymous login. So Apple can argue it is requiring everyone to support a more privacy-friendly login option.
They could have said, if your app has social network log in, must support a more anonymous way as well.... and not must support Apple's login service..... which might/might not be good for users....
If you look at the rules, that is exactly what they are doing. If you provide a form of 3rd party login that isn’t the following things: (...list of sign ins that are all not the kind of “Sign in with Facebook / Google”, you are exempt.
So it seems pretty targeted:apps that provide FB or Google sign in must also provide Apple sign in, which has an anonymous option.
As a user I’m loving this. Worrysome use of AppStore power aside...
Don't develop for evil companies. I tried explaining this to my coworkers but they couldn't see beyond the $$$. Now I understand why Engineers take a 2 hour ethics class.
Spot on. SIWA is great for me because a whole class of apps I previously refused to use are now on the table.
It effectively forces apps to have an anonymized email login option, and even better, if said app starts abusing its access to my inbox, I can cut it off permanently even if the app offers no such option.
- Your app exclusively uses your company’s own account setup and sign-in systems.
- Your app is an education, enterprise, or business app that requires the user to sign in with an existing education or enterprise account.
- Your app uses a government or industry-backed citizen identification system or electronic ID to authenticate users.
- Your app is a client for a specific third-party service and users are required to sign in to their mail, social media, or other third-party account directly to access their content.
There's an additional point above that which is more important:
> Apps that use a third-party or social login service (such as Facebook Login, Google Sign-In, Sign in with Twitter, Sign In with LinkedIn, Login with Amazon, or WeChat Login) to set up or authenticate the user’s primary account with the app must also offer Sign in with Apple as an equivalent option.
You only have to offer "Sign in with Apple" if you already have third-party login options. It would be completely unreasonable to require adding a third-party login option if you don't already have one. But if you already have third-party login options, having uniformity seems reasonable.
> It would be completely unreasonable to require adding a third-party login option if you don't already have one. But if you already have third-party login options, having uniformity seems reasonable.
What if they required the same thing on websites by having their browser engine look for Facebook/Google sign ins and require an Apple one be present before displaying the page?
Not explicitly as you implied. But implicitly it is required. Let me explain.
You own a service that has social authentication with Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. You have web, desktop, and mobile apps for this service (or some combination thereof).
Your iOS app now requires you to offer "Sign in with Apple" as an auth provider, because you already offer Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. So you add "Sign in With Apple" to your iOS app because Apple requires because of their monopoly for distribution on iOS devices. So you now add Apple auth as an authentication option within the iOS app.
Now what happens if a user signs up in your iOS app with Apple's Auth? How are they going to log in on your website, desktop, Browser extension, or anything else? Well, I guess you now need to add "Sign in with Apple" on those devices too.
Once you offer an auth provider as an option on one device, it must now be offered throughout your platform on all devices or you risk locking users out.
Thus, if you offer social auth for authentication, and you want distribution on at least one iOS device, you are implicitly required to offer Apple Authentication across your entire platform.
And that is the power of Apple's distribution monopoly on iOS.
Oh, and before you think "well we will just boycott iOS" for my platform. Good luck. You won't get very far (in the US at least) without iOS support if you are just starting. Even an established company would struggle to succeed without iOS support. Imagine if Uber just said "Fuck it, no more iOS app". All their iOS users would say "Fuck it, no more Uber then, Lyft here I come".
> Once you offer an auth provider as an option on one device, it must now be offered throughout your platform on all devices or you risk locking users out.
Is it feasible to not do this, and instead tell users to add any one of the existing auth methods to their account in addition to Apple's, if they want to use the app on another OS?
What’s frustrating about this change is that Apple keeps changing the terms on it. Until last week the T&C’s included the phrase “exclusively”. This allowed you to provide the user with your own sign in system and avoid forcing the google/facebook lock-in, however removing this crucial word means for those of us with apps in the market with social logins, we have to add yet another one.
This is going to lock more users to iOS, and doesn’t allow users on popular apps to migrate to Android and maintain their login. (Note no Android SDK is provided)
It might technically not be antitrust, but as an app developer we’re now forced to include Apple sign-in.
Isn't it? It should be. You're forcing developers to add your sign-in method everywhere... they can't add it on Android. You're essentially forcing sub-par android support.
That’s great news. I never use apps that force me to login with either Google Facebook or twitter. There should always be an option to login with an email address and Apple’s login with disposable non personal email is really easy and useful.
Yes. Given the other article on the front page regarding the guy who got dragged in by the dystopian drag net, we need companies who don’t rely on keeping our information in PII form in order to make money or hold their stock value.
You have not read the guideline carefully or have misinterpreted it; nothing in it locks the end-user into Apple's ecosystem. The requirement is only that if the app uses a third-party authentication system (Facebook, Google, etc.), it must also offer Sign In with Apple alongside it.
You're free to roll your own sign-in system, in which case you are not required to offer Sign In with Apple.
sign in with apple locks you into apple's caprices, there is no way around that. Apple will know where you 're signing in , and you will lose access to your account if apple decides they no longer like the app, or they no longer like you.
FOSS person too. Don’t see the lock-in problem here other than indeed using Apple products. While you do, making sure you don't have to give identifying info or bother with generating disposable addresses yourself, is actually a good thing IMHO.
Does it apply to social games that optionally allow users to sign in with Facebook to compare their progress with that of their friends? Sign in with Apple would seem utterly useless for this very common use case.
In what way? SIWA isn't a product and the features it "competes" with (Google and Facebook OIDC) aren't really products either, and Apple is only requiring that SIWA be available alongside them as an option.
Do customers receive a benefit from these sign-in services, and then do Apple, Facebook, Google also receive some form of compensation in return for the costs/overhead of providing such services? That Apple/FB/Google compensation being some mix of: other product purchases, user behavioral data (including the valuable extra peek into their usage of these 1st-party apps), additional ad impressions of higher value with this deeper customer lock-in, etc.
A hyperliteralist could argue over what exactly the product/service is, in each case - sign-on itself? The whole stack of other customized media these companies serve to the same users? Synergistic old products or bulled services? The app store?
But the fact pattern, & effect of a ‘big guy’ using market power to force partners/customers/users/developers/competitors to unnaturally add a new, pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying.
I think the difference between forcing people to "buy" a product (or select a house product instead of "buying" a third party option) and forcing people to comply with a platform standard is in fact going to be material in an anti-trust case.
I'm not sure I see the "pro-Apple-profits" angle here. Generally, customers are better off with IdP-assisted login than with one-off password login, and if that feature needs to exist for UX and safety reasons, it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP.
I don't like the requirement. It actually makes work for my clients (and thus me), and it's not work that I would otherwise choose to prioritize. I'm just saying that it looks very unlikely to be an antitrust vector.
Your own testimony here seems to be that it's otherwise an unattractive bit of extra work for you, but Apple's dominance gives you no choice but to adopt what they've required as a bundle with their dominant hardware/app-store products. That could make strong evidence in a future 'tying' case by a Democratic President's antitrust appointments!
pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying.
No, it doesn't.
First, there’s been no ruling that Apple is a monopoly, which by the way, isn’t illegal. With their 20% global market share [1], they clearly aren't a monopoly.
Do they have a monopoly in the iOS app market? Absolutely, but that's to be expected. It’s their platform that developers have agreed to their terms of service. Nobody is being forced to develop on their platform, especially since they aren't the market leader.
This is nothing like the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day, after a federal decent decree forbidding Microsoft from using their 95% market share that was obviously a monopoly from tying Internet Explorer to Windows.
Of course, they went ahead anyway, declaring that Internet Explorer was so integrated into Windows that it could not be removed, which proved to be false.
Microsoft threatened to cancel the Windows licenses of various PC manufacturers if they continued to ship Netscape Navigator instead of IE, clearly abusing their monopoly power.
Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly; there hasn't been any ruling to the contrary. They are only requiring Sign in with Apple if a developer already provides social logins.
Apple gives developers 2FA, verification of the login being a real person and not a bot. Users get to be anonymous by using a proxy email address if they choose. And there's no tracking by companies who make the vast majority of their revenue by monetizing user information. And it works on macOS, iOS, watchOS, the web, and Android devices.
It would be hard to argue users don't benefit from this.
There's no requirement that there be a "ruling that Apple is a monopoly" before we observe, based on the facts, that they are doing things that run afoul of antitrust law, or what antitrust law "should" be to maximize welfare. Rulings are a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator.
Whether users benefit or not is not necessarily relevant for antitrust analysis; it is only since the Reagan era that direct consumer damage was considered a requirement for antitrust prosecutions. Most of the economics/antitrust experts favored by Democratic Party legislators or possible Presidents seek a return to the pre-Reagan enforcement standards, or new standards based on the unique economics of new tech-enabled platform business models.
Of course SSO is a product. There are companies where that's their whole business. The fact that the customer is the developer not the end user doesn't stop that.
Being paid for something isn't the defining characteristic of a product. Google doesn't get paid by most search, YouTube, Gmail or Maps users. Doesn't mean they're not products.
If an app supports the IndieAuth protocol [1] for the purposes of authenticating the user's primary account, would that be considered "a third-party or social login service" and be forced to also support "Sign in with Apple"?
It is third-party in the sense the user (who is a third party from the perspective of the app) is supplying the authentication service, but it's not a pre-existing social login.
It's likely that the IndieAuth protocol wasn't on their radar, and so they haven't considered it when coming up with this rule.
Maybe this is really done out of concern for the user but it's awfully convenient how many of Apple's "privacy" moves also bind their users more tightly into their ecosystem.
Personally I'm sincerely grateful there's at least one company that gives a shit about my privacy. And I will never understand why some people choose to attack them for it.
Because no matter how much you trust Apple's good intentions now you also have to trust them in perpetuity. When you relinquish your own power and agency to a third party it can be very hard to get it back. Maybe you trust Apple and Tim Cook today but do you trust their next CEO and the next?
It's the same reason I don't let Google keep any of my browsing and location history even though I might benefit from that as a user today. I don't trust what they might want to do with that data later.
If you think any billion dollar company is acting in any interests but its own you're being naive.
My concern with Apple isn't about collecting data it's about removing choices. I can't sideload apps on my iPhone, even if they might be essential to fighting a totalitarian government (HKMaps). I can't use any browser but Safari on what is supposedly my phone. I can't buy books through the Kindle app without paying Apple a 30% cut.
Honestly this stuff scares me more than the data collection that Google does, for example, because at least I have some control there. And Apple's privacy controls are kind of moot anyway if I use iCloud and all my data is just one subpoena away from anybody that wants it.
Well HKMaps is a bad example. You can get the same functionality from a web browser. If you don’t want to be locked into a vendors platform - create a web app.
Does Amazon allow third party book sellers on their Kindle devices? Again, the open web to the rescue. I can go to Amazon’s store from my browser and buy books.
In fact, I use the Kindle web reader on my iPad when reading books about AWS, because the Kindle app doesn’t allow embedded web links to Amazon (even AWS Informational links).
Because I do want relevant PNs, like a chat message for marketplaces or billing issues, whatever. I couldn't disable something like "offers", "news", "marketing BS".
When I have to turn off PNs completely for an app, there is no reason to have that app installed anymore, I might just use the website.
How is it a bad example when people are using it to fight and evade an oppressive government as we speak?
They did make a web version but it lacks the offline and privacy features of the native app. Apple removing the iOS app is a perfect example of why these big companies can't be trusted with ultimate control.
There are massive limits on local storage on Safari. It's nowhere near what you can do with an app. Also apps aren't limited to using HTTPS connections with unsecured DNS.
> I can't use any browser but Safari on what is supposedly my phone.
You can use one of a number of browsers on you phone. The browser developers are the ones who are constrained, having to use the WebKit rendering engine—but then, it’s not their phone.
Does the distinction actually matter though? By constraining what developers can provide, you're automatically constraining what users can use, so I don't see how it makes a difference.
Non-WebKit based iOS browsers are zero, and non-Chromium based Android browsers rounds to zero. So I don't think the distinction is very important, if it exists.
It's silly to cast the mobile browser wars in abstract terms, as if JoesOwnWebBrowser is going to be a thing tomorrow. It's Google and Apple, full stop. Google is leveraging their titanic web properties and mobile ecosystem control to push Chrome. Apple is using their control over the iOS ecosystem to retain Safari. The choice is whether the mobile web has two relevant players, or one.
There are other browsers with significant market share on Android, such as UC Browser. The reason they have chosen Chromium as the base is because it is easier for them to build on it, and not because Google enforced it as a policy on Android.
That's an important distinction. Apple's monopolistic practices prevent better software from succeeding on phones, and I'm disappointed that Apple's anti competitive behavior is excused.
Note: UC Browser is a huge privacy threat and please ask friends and family to uninstall it. But the point still stands.
I honestly can't tell if "Android enables better software like UC Browser which is terrible and please ask your friends and family to uninstall it" is satire or in earnest.
I think so, yeah. Or at least, the idea that the rendering engine is all that matters for a browser is not something I’d just accept without explanation.
Shutting down any conversation of "I'd like to be able to do this with my iPhone" with a condescending "don't buy it, duh" disregards any of the reasons why people might want to buy iPhones (some of which were mentioned in this very thread) and is, IMO, a lazy argument.
worst argument ever. Don't use Google, don't use Facebook, don't buy apple, and finally if you don't like NSA traking your calls leave America, this like it is, just leave if you don't like it... well, nop
Given the deal they signed with Radio Shack prohibiting resale of their customer list, I’m inclined to trust them in perpetuity. If they give cause otherwise then I might reconsider, but to date they haven’t.
That's FBI spin. Apple's reluctance to drop their own keys for backups is entirely based on the frequency with which they have to recover keys for nontechnical users who have lost their passwords, and you'll note that more and more features are being rolled out in such a way that Apple does not have access.
I understand and accept that the FBI and other third parties may be able to non-consensually acquire any traffic I send over a network and/or to a third party, using a great many methods including legal summons emplaced against the network and/or third party for the data that I share.
I'm comfortable with that, because I understand the working agreement that exists with my network and third-party services providers (such as Apple), and I understand that they are bound by legal summons in many respects for the data they receive.
Note I don't consider this ideal, and I don't think it's the best possible outcome for society, but I've spent 20 years consciously managing my choices on such matters, ever since DejaNews was founded, and I understand where I stand versus my choices today.
Your logic defeats your own argument. If we shouldn't trust billion dollar companies it stands to reason that the fewer few billion dollar companies we trust, the better. If you're already in the iPhone ecosystem, you're already placing a lot of trust in Apple. So using Sign In With Apple means trusting a company that you already trust.
I don't trust any of them. The point is Android gives me an escape hatch. If necessary I can use an Android phone and apps without ever logging into any Google service. This isn't possible on an iPhone
”If necessary I can use an Android phone and apps without ever logging into any Google service.”
I don’t think this is actually feasible in practice. I’ve never encountered a real person using a Google-free android device as their daily driver in the wild. I work in security, and actually ask android users I encounter if they are worried about GOOG data collection or whatever. Nobody ever responds with “I’m Google-free”.
We'd love everything to check every box (portable between hardware, federated, no lock-in, privacy respecting, etc) but I don't think that's possible.
In reality, this "sign in with apple" feature doesn't push Apple's ecosystem any farther than Apple Maps does. You can use sign in with apple via their web SDK on both desktop browsers and Android, and I wouldn't doubt putting "sign in with apple" in an Android app itself is trivial.
This is applicable if tou use Firebase Auth. 90% of apps will have to implement it on their own. It's not that hard, but it's usually not trivial as well. It also costs time and money they wouldn't have to spend if they didn't want to include Sign in with Apple option originally. Yet they're now forced to.
Using a login (on multiple apps/sites) that is linked to Apple very much locks me into having Apple in my life for the foreseeable future. It's, like, the definition of vendor lock-in. Apple is currently being magnanimous enough to let me use that same login outside of my phone on their competitors product, but Apple's history of interoperability is not great, so that's not a feature I care to trust them with.
So don’t use it. It’s offered alongside other third-party login options. If you trust Facebook more than Apple then by all means log in with Facebook, Apple isn’t stopping you or the people who develop the apps you choose to use.
Because they don't give a shit about your privacy, it's only marketing stuff.
The only reason they can argue that it's because their income is not based on exploiting your data.
Multiple time per year your can see articles on HN how Apple breached privacy of their users.
Apple sets an advertising ID by default that applications use to uniquely identify you. This allows mass surveillance. It is antithetical to all of Apple's claims to support privacy.
I can't speak for iOS 13, but it's been reset to "off" for me (as in "don't limit tracking") both times I factory reset my phone. I've never heard of it being set to on by default. If that's some new change then they only made a mockery of their claims to support privacy for the last decade or so. Hardly impressive since they never should have had it by default anyway.
Why am I receiving downvotes? I can't find any information supporting any claims that Apple is setting "limit ad tracking" by default on any versions. Here is some relevant information:
I would be very curious (and happy!) to receive any information indicating that I'm wrong in my belief that ad tracking is not being limited by default.
edit: I am not sure if this source is correct, but it does agree with me:
Apple's default search engine is Google - they sold it to the highest bidder, a company that absorbs your private info.
Chinese citizens do not receive the benefits of the rest of the world. Apple will remove apps from the store that could benefit its citizen's freedoms at the whim of that government to allow themselves to remain in that market.
Your iCloud backups are not encrypted on Apple servers.
What people don't seem to realize is that Apple was actually pushing the envelope on privacy before they realized they could lean into it as an advantage.
They released per-app access controls in iOS 6[1] (which was huge!) in 2012 and didn't bother to mention it in their marketing[2]. The reviews of the update don't mention it either[3]. The same feature landed in Android 6.0 three years later.
Apple is leaving a ton of money on the table, because they care about privacy. There's a reason the adtech industry howls so hard when Apple pulls moves like this.
There are porn apps I'd like to be able to create/run but Apple's disallows porn apps forcing me to use some other less private platform if I want to run sex positive porn apps which in effect makes my activity less private. Further, even if they did allow porn apps via the store Apple has a list of all apps I install so they know if I install "tooKinkyToBePublic.app".
They really do need to allow easy side loading and/or alternate stores. I shouldn't have to chose between Apple's nanny-state "no porn apps", "no political apps" allowed and "privacy"
Don't be obtuse. There are plenty of things an app can do that can't be accomplished by an website, including being listed in the Apple app store, for one.
Apple hides the ability to add a website to the home screen somewhere inside of Safari, instead of making it a first class feature and including a UI for it in the "App" "store". If they did that, a lot of apps could viably just be a website instead.
That didn’t answer the question. What can a porn app do that a website can’t do?
Adding a website to the home screen has been prominent in Safari since 2007. Go to the share sheet and scroll up.
How many websites have a prominent pointer on iOS devices showing you how to do it.
But the App Store is not known to be a place of discoverability.
On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
Oh, come on, you know very well why you'd want a native app: it's the exact same reason why you'd download a native app for anything else; they can be more polished, use platform APIs, download files…
> On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
> how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent
Less than 15 years ago, it used to be common in UK supermarkets for there to be a section at the entrance dedicated to newspapers and magazines. A good section of the top shelf would feature porn magazines. The printed covers of the magazines would generally be masked with some cardboard, so you couldn't see the explicit content by mistake, but could still see the title of the magazine.
Print media is generally in decline, so these sections no longer exist in quite the same form as they used to in supermarkets, but this is as prominent as it needs to be. In the past, this meant it was (literally) out of reach of children, but still readily available to adults, and only if they reach for it.
Well seeing that the iPhone is an integrated platform phone + marketplace just like a console + marketplace, when people buy an iPhone they know what tradeoffs their making.
Just like if you don’t like one console makers platform you have two more to choose from, if you don’t like Apple’s you have another one to choose from - the same one chosen by 85% of the market.
It’s better than the government intervening. I can change phone platforms a lot easier than I can change governments. Besides, neither Google nor Apple can take my liberty or property.....
That's a disingenuous argument. All major companies have created native apps for a reason, many after trying to just use a mobile web version. The features from privacy, offline abilities, data access, sensor access, and more are not available over the web. And users prefer apps over creating Safari shortcuts, if they even know how to do the latter.
Why is it good for a single company to determine what you can and can't do on your phone?
Well seeing that Apple only has a 15% market share in the phone market, it’s kind of obvious that it’s not a single company controlling the market. Why would anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s policies not just by an Android?
The question was about your phone, not the entire market. And saying "just buy something else" isn't a great argument when there are a few massive tech companies controlling everything and enforcing ever more control. Apple has already shown their problematic approach with the situation in Hong Kong.
But why complain about a phone that only controls 15% of the market, when 85% of phones out there run an operating system that does allow side loading.
And in the particular case of the HkMap app, what functionality did you not get on the website?
Because people want iOS (which has more and better apps) but with control. This is specifically about Apple controlling too much on their phones, and why that's acceptable.
HKMap needs strong offline support since it's an actual map showing dangerous/important areas and people. It also used mesh networking for updates from other devices. Neither is possible on Safari.
I would say that apps aren't as blocked as easily as a website either, but Apple proved that wrong which is the reason for the question on their control.
A generic hamburger menu would be fine. Repurposing a menu that claims to be for something entirely different is not, and reeks of deliberate obtuseness[0].
Apple never calls it the share sheet in the interface. It’s been a standard option for over 12 years and mobile web designers have been telling users how to do it from before there was an App Store.
There are five buttons at the bottom of an iPhone. Only one brings up a menu.
There are 1000s of porn apps on non-privacy oriented platforms that I'd prefer to be able to run on a privacy prioritized platform.
Examples include CG porn creation apps including Virt-A-Mate, TK17, Honey Select, etc... There are also real time 3D VR porn apps and even AR porn apps
Apple's platform currently limits freedom of expression. Sure you can watch any movie you want or read any website but the future will clearly include interactivity with real time VR, AR, 3D, etc...
Imagine if Apple invented the holodeck but their app store disallowed sex!??!? It's ridiculous that such a "progressive" company has just a poor position on sex positive apps. I get they don't want to sell them in their store which is why they arguably need to over alternatives.
Because the other services have to be good enough to earn a place on that login screen. Apple is using their control over the app store to insist they get that place for free.
If their service is as good as they claim and it's something that users really want then why do they have to make it mandatory?
The apps that have been the worst about sharing my private data or telemetry seem to be the same ones that are ad-supported. Apple’s App Store generally doesn’t make money if an app is paid for by ads.
Where Apple traditionally gets profit is in selling more devices, and they do that through controlling apps on the platform.
Alternative approaches could be just as successful. But their approach does differentiate them from other market leaders, while equally (as here) allowing them to play catch-up and advertise themselves alongside Google, Facebook, and other logins.
How? Protecting people from Facebook-only logins is not a bad thing. You can still use your own auth. You just can’t force someone to sign in with Google or Facebook as the only choice.
It sounds like if I offer Facebook google as an option I also have to allow Apple sign in right? We're not talking about requiring a social login, just offering one.
Right, we're talking about protecting people from "Facebook-only" logins. This is a terrible practice on the part of developers, in which the only authentication the application supports is Facebook authentication. I've seen online courses require this on the theory that "we don't want to waste time learning how to do authentication".
Having the rule "if you can log in with Facebook, you can also log in with Apple" is in fact a protection against Facebook-only login.
If I offer email signup, with Facebook as an option, that is not Facebook only. If this new rule applied only to apps/sites where social logins are the only option it would be a bit less fishy.
This isn’t a protection, it applied retroactively as well. Anyone who ever gave FB login AS AN OPTION is now required to create Sign In with Apple.
I do not buy their company line at all. This is simply Apple flexing its power in the App Space to require developers to implement an ecosystem very few would do of their own volition.
You can argue it’s a good thing. I disagree. But it is hopefully clear that Apple being able to wield this kind of power is indicative of monopolistic power in that marketplace.
> This isn’t a protection, it applied retroactively as well. Anyone who ever gave FB login AS AN OPTION is now required to create Sign In with Apple.
I don't think that's correct. Anyone who currently gives FB login as an option is required to support Sign On with Apple. If FB Login was previously an option, but was removed at some point, Sign On with Apple is not required.
They clearly aren’t saying FB login is bad (or they’d just disallow it). They are saying “we want in on the game and we can force it on you.”
I happen to have an app out there which we maintain security updates but aren’t adding new features. It was built with a FB login option. So now we either never update or have to implement features we don’t care about.
Yeah, same with Apple Card. Need to have a iPhone as they can’t make a website to view your statements and pay like 99.99% of credit cards have. So if you want to maintain that account and switch to another platform like Android that could be tricky. Or if you lose your iPhone however I think calling support might work but not sure how they’d handle payments without your iPhone.
Also if you sign with iPhone, and want to switch phones I’d hope the developer would have a way to set a username or email and password on your account or link another account. So you could have Facebook and Apple linked to the same account, unlink, etc.
Yeah signin with Apple works on the web if I recall form the keynote but I think a developer offering a way to switch linked accounts makes sense.
I think Apple offering a eco system is interesting though but seems to create lock-ins. Like if you have a Apple Watch, can’t switch to Android as easily either. Then texting or calling from your Mac using your iPhone is also cool but another hurtle if you ever wanted to switch if you really liked that feature.
Apple creating an ecosystem is fine. Apple forcing devs to use their ecosystem if they’ve previously implemented login via Facebook is a cowardly move. Even Apple knows that very few devs would implement this if it wasn’t a requirement.
I’m writing this from an iPhone (and just bought an iPad Pro yesterday). I don’t hate Apple. I don’t trust Facebook. But the only way Apple can do this at any scale is to leverage their control over the App Store.
For anyone who argues that Apple doesn’t have monopolistic power in the app space, I present this as a counter point.
Sure, and then you sink more into the locked in Apple ecosystem. What do you then do if Apple one day decides to start using all that data that they have?
How is that worse? Are you really saying that we should use a less private solution today, on the off chance that the more private solution becomes just as bad at some unknowable point in the future? How is that rational?
To me there is no doubt that this is a strategic move.
The business strategy 101 is to amplify your strengths, and create a “chain” of value that is difficult to imitate by copying only one link.
Apple’s focus on privacy is hard to imitate for Google: Apple business doesn’t depends on ads, they control the whole production chain of the iPhone and the software that goes in it. Google can put a lot of security enhancements in Android, but they don’t control what Samsung or other manufacturers do with it.
So the “we care about your privacy” message, is not because they are altruistic; and it’s ok by me :) (I’m writing this from an iPhone).
I am aware but nonetheless actively choosing this approach for myself.
I am rather bound to Apple's ecosystem, with no notable/relevant restrictions that I care about so far, than handing over all of my data to an ad company running and adtech OS on mobile phones with 500 sensors in them.
A fellow comment downthread encapsulates the benefit of this change perfectly:
“There was some app I downloaded last year which only had facebook or google sign on. You couldn't register with an email. I ended up deleting the app.”
I know this is meant to be a bad thing, but as a developer, and user I very much support this hierarchy. In Google land, perhaps it’s 1. Google 2. Developers 3. Users. Is that a better stance?
Good. There was some app I downloaded last year which only had facebook or google sign on. You couldn't register with an email. I ended up deleting the app.
It looks like Apple Sign On only works with iOS >=13. If someone creates an account on a new device, they won't be able to sign in using an old device on 12? Should I drop support for 12 in my app?
The way we manage this by allowing users to link multiple identity providers to their login. So if they drop back to iOS 12, they can use another social provider (or reset their password) to sign into their existing account so long as the e-mail matches.
This obviously doesn't work for anonymous sign in, but there's not much we can do about that.
I will complain if Apple forbid apps from offering "sign in with google/facebook/twitter/whatever", but as long as they only make apps offer an alternative, I don't have a huge problem.
This is a much smaller issue for me than "no alternative browsers" or "no sideloading".
My problem with “sign in with Google” is that the app will often times ask for additional permissions, such as access to contacts and even sometimes email! I have to be so careful with it.
It should just be a way to login and nothing else.
Lol, Apple's goal is the lock you into their ecosystem so that it is near impossible to ever switch away. Privacy comes with customer's controlling their data and Android has F-Droid.
Or they've run out of high growth low hanging fruit and are trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie now that the app ecosystem has fleshed out the tracking and mobile ads market.
The number of privacy conscious users is minuscule compared to the rest of the market (I'd love to be some evidence otherwise) and Apple is a corporation. Its way forward is clear.
It’s interesting that we would interpret exactly the same behavior as evil when done by one faceless corporation and good when done by another. It’s almost as though our interpretations are a Rorschach test where we just repeat PR and media narratives, rather than the product of independent thought.
Or we can read trends. Google earned its reputation for siphoning any data the can, while Apple has a precedent for making systems that are secure even against Apple.
It’s not that Apple is “good” and Google is “bad”. Apple’s “strategy credit” is that their business model is not predicated on collecting user information.
Even Facebook can say that they will not have data centers in non democratic countries. Something that Apple can’t say. Since FB isn’t allowed in most non democratic countries, even it can spin their business model to their advantage.
They aren’t exactly the same. Google’s sign in shares your email address and “basic profile info,” e.g., your name. You may then be asked for a number of additional permissions. Apple’s lets you choose what name to give to the developer, if they even ask, and gives you the option to use an Apple relay email if you don’t want to give your email. You won’t be asked for more permissions. Apple also says they don’t track the apps you use or your activity and their terms forbid the developer from associating your relay email with other email addresses; Google has very clear privacy policy requirements but does track.
Given that, I wouldn’t say this is a mere Rorschach test.
I don’t know if the ends should justify the means. Apple is the only pro privacy player in the space but they still run their developer programs with an iron fist.
I’m going through App certification right now and while it’s a pain sometimes, man, you really need to be in the box. It’s actually kind of amazing how much attention each app gets.
If we have a modest app and it’s thing much of a struggle to cross all the t’s and dot the i’s... I highly doubt there is a lot of malware getting through.
I’ve seen it said before that Apple is pro-privacy because it suits them from a marketing standpoint. They tried being an anti-privacy ad provider with iAds and failed at it, so this pivot helps them.
A cynical read on the situation but it’s as valid as any.
The timeline doesn't work for that read. They were pushing their privacy credentials before launching iAds, and iAds failed as many predicted precisely because they wouldn't compromise their privacy stance.
Yep, Apple had trouble selling spots on iAd because the program had only very coarse targeting and shared almost no viewer info with advertisers. Apple wanted iAds to function more like newspaper ads than web ads.
In my opinion, they are not so much pro privacy as anti user-rights. You can see that as pro-privacy yes, or you can also see that because they limit what users can do as much as possible. The privacy part just seems a side effect of the anti user-rights policies.
Indeed. However, many people trust Apple, so they don't have a problem with it. Personally I think this is a great thing and support the idea, but it's interesting to me that Apple rarely comes up in discussions about the coercive domination of large platforms and the merits of government intervention to reduce it.
Well of course people would react differently if a spyware company forced adoption of a new social login so that they could suck even more data from users.
It is indeed quite hard to imagine Google doing virtually anything to allow users to be more anonymous on their spyware OS.
Dealing with Apple and the App Store is such a pain. As a cross platform (React/React-Native) developer, I worry about supporting iOS users last because of all the hoops Apple makes you jump through to develop and publish an app. When I publish on the Google Play Store my app always gets approved within a few hours. The same approval process for the App Store takes days. Everything costs more too... I can develop for Android on a $400 computer targeting a $100 phone. In order to develop for iOS I use $4,000 computer and a $500 phone. So now I've adopted a new 3 platform strategy: web, android, iOS. If I can publish on all three, great! Two out of three? That works too. In the worst case scenario I'll still be able to target 1 of the three.
I also develop React Native for Android and iOS and my laptop is a 2015 base model MBP that I bought brand new for about $1200. One of my coworkers uses a $600 MacBook Air. You certainly don’t need a $4000 computer if what you’re doing also would run on a $400 Windows laptop.
This is really exaggerated. You can get a current-gen Mac mini for $800 if you don’t want to buy used or a previous gen, you don’t need a $4000 computer to run Xcode. Also approval times on Apple are a few hours these days, when was the last time you published an app on the App Store? It used to be 7-14 days but it’s not like that anymore.
I use a 2013 MacBook Pro to develop a cross platform app and have purchased multiple used phones to test and develop with for a lot less than $500. And if you're not making it all up, you're highly incompetent.
What you're saying just isn't true. You can develop for iOS without a phone (just use the simulator), and you'll find that older Macs run Xcode just fine and are totally usable.
A $4k computer and $500 phone are entirely unnecessary.
Also, App Store approval doesn't take days. It takes hours.
That was overturned upon appeal and then Microsoft settled to avoid any further legal troubles. I don't think you can claim that was a breach of antitrust law.
That would've been called an antitrust abuse by any other company but it seems Apple gets a pass by its fans.
Apple ecosystem is completely closed off. It does make it easier to ship software. For example they've hijacked SMS by creating their own iMessage, they tried to take full control of the mobile news publishing until Google came up with AMP and they have been dragging their feet when it comes to new web standards in Safari because they prefer native apps.
So the morale of the story is as long as you ship quality products you'll get a pass for tactics other companies don't usually get a pass for. None of openness, fairness, privacy, etc. matters really.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? especially ones that are personal attacks and/or name-calling. We're trying for a bit better than that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
When a comment says something false, better options are to respectfully provide correct information so the rest of us can learn something, or (if you don't want to or don't have time) to simply let it go as someone being wrong on the internet again.
This might be too much legalese and IANAL but they do have a majority market share in North America.
That said, I'm not suggesting this is an easy lawsuit but that it's obviously an abuse of power over the ecosystem. That is, when your product (Apple Sign in) does not take off by itself you simply force the market to adopt it.
I'm no lawyer; so that may well be antitrust. But forcing their way in to the party isn't that similar to locking other offerings out of the ecosystem. It isn't easy to see how this hurts anyone strategically.
It'd be much more worrying and abusinve if they blocked users from logging in to certain products with their Apple ID.
People seem to think antitrust violations means you have a monopoly, this is not the case. There are a whole host of antitrust rules beyond monopoly of the market.
It could be hurting you by opportunity (no way to ever know)
Imagine a single developer who has an idea to make a cool app. Because data linking is a core part of the app, they will either implement Sign in with Facebook or Google. They don't even have enough cycles to implement the other one, and they certainly don't have the time or energy to implement Sign in with Apple, so the app never gets created.
Well that app could have really benefited a niche audience potentially and we now you'll never have it.
This is a completely invalid scenario. You are only required to implement Sign In with Apple if you use some other third-party sign-in system. If you implement your own sign-in system, there is no requirement for you to implement Sign In with Apple.
That sounds like a very unrealistic scenario. This is using OAuth2 behind the scenes (same as Facebook and Google login), so you only need to integrate another provider, not integrate a completely different authentication system. That means you need a couple of URLs, a secret key, and a new button on your login screen.
I'm not a mobile developer, but I do run a SaaS that has Facebook and Google login, and adding Apple login would take me a couple of hours tops. I can't see how it would be magnitudes different on a mobile app.
I don't quite understand what you mean by data linking. Do you mean an app that request additional permissions beyond login to your FB/Google account in order to do FB/Google specific things?
Antitrust behavior != monopoly. This using it's lock on all iOS customers to force app creators to also use Apple's signin service. It doesn't have to have a monopoly, it's still an abuse of it's position. The app store itself is already under attack as anti competitive, this is just another extension of that behavior.
Technically the right repair movement is to fight a company's monopoly on repairing a product. If Apple or company X requires you to use them to repair a product they have a 100% market value of repairing the said product. Technically Apple also has a monopoly on Web-engines by requiring a 100% market share of the one they make with-in the iOS infrastructure. Monopolies can existing with-in smaller percentages in the change of categorizations and more finite defintion. I monoplize your time is different than I monoplize your time at work.
They have a 100% monopoly on iPhone users. If your customers device is an iPhone and your product or service doesn't comply with their rules then your customer needs to either use a different device or not be your customer.
By this definition nearly every company is a monopoly. Despite the fact that me, a user, can ditch Apple and switch to the actual monopoly OS, Android, at any time.
Arguing that Apple has a de facto monopoly (or oligopoly) on phone OS and related services is a defensible argument.
This, however, is almost the opposite. Apple isn't banning any other authentication mechanism. Authentication services can still compete and app developers can even listed their preferred auth methods preferentially. Apple is only saying that Apple's service has to be given a chance to compete as well. Apple is certainly using its market power to enforce policy, but if anything it's pro-competitive (even if it benefits Apple itself).
The argument for it being anticompetative is straightforward: apple is leveraging it's position in the mobile Phone space to push it's way into social login "markets", or equivalently hurt others in that space.
> apple is leveraging it's position in the mobile Phone space to push it's way into social login
but they aren't removing choice, they are only adding choice in their approval processes, and leaving it to the developers to decide to remove choice when they get social login fatigue but want high engagement and low friction. Looks like they dotted their I's and crossed their T's on this one.
They're adding requirements to create an app that hurt competitors of apple in non-appstore contexts. That's anticompetative behavior (at least in some places).
For a dev with little to no time, this does basically say you can't show other sign in options. You can have only Apple sign in, but not only $competitor sign in.
Let's say I have an old app that isn't bringing me much new revenue. I have currently have implemented two options: sign in with email + password, and "sign in with Google".
After this announcement, I would just remove "sign in with Google" as an option, and force all my users who previously used "sign in with Google" to set a password.
> After this announcement, I would just remove "sign in with Google" as an option, and force all my users who previously used "sign in with Google" to set a password.
Okay, you do that. That's not a punishment to Apple, you might bounce some of your own users and is a choice you made exclusively.
> You can have only Apple sign in, but not only $competitor sign in.
If that's the antitrust argument, they just need to reword it say "and include another signin method" or logged out functionality. I just don't think thats a strong enough argument, as they aren't removing choice in any way only adding it, except to people with existing apps - like you - who will risk decimating all their own users.
Good. It's 10x better than any other sign on system out there. The ease of use and privacy protections are incredible. This will force the other companies to up their game or get left behind as no user in their right mind would use something else if given the choice.
Tap the Sign on with Apple button. Native dialog pops up with two sections. First section shows your name with an edit button. You can change your first and last name to whatever you want. Second section has two radio buttons, provide your real email address or provide a proxy address. Click continue. Done.
This is great. iPhone might be the smaller platform, but your app ain’t shit until you have it Apple’s App Store. Definitely a plus for iPhone users, and doesn’t matter for the other platform.
As someone who switched from Android to iOS about eight years ago, I understand how people on both platforms might react to this negatively. However, I, for one, am very happy this is happening.
I hate signing in with social accounts, but sometimes it's so much easier than trying to sign up with an app's custom sign up form. I will happily pick Sign On with Apple 100% of the time to avoid linking to my Facebook or Google identity.
Good move, this will push a lot of developers away from the app store, and back into making websites instead of apps. Having your user base locked in by apple is much more precarious than other sign-in providers who are nonchalant about rejecting/censoring developers.
As for the users opting in to have their emails directly relayed and read by apple .... i don't know what to think of it.
278 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadAccording to the Wayback Machine, the same terms were present as early as October 1st 2019 (maybe earlier; didn't look):
https://web.archive.org/web/20191001161920/https://developer...
As per https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=09122019b
Seems no real justification other than Apple can use its power.
Apple not permitting apps that display certain types of legal content in the App Store is not a benefit to users that like to produce or consume those types of content. Censorship sucks, even if Apple is legally permitted to do it because it’s their store. It’s rude.
Hopefully the rumor that Apple is soon going to let you select a different default browser/mail/music/photos app is true, and this will be less of an issue.
It will still be an issue because of the many types of apps that Apple simply censors entirely from the store, from Tumblr to Tor to VPNs in China.
I worked for Spotify, and apple did all kind of hoopla to delay/deny the iOS updates....
My favorite one: If you did tap at one of the support/help tabs, it would open a webpage, which contained the support text, and the app got rejected, because after about THREE links, that would lead to the homepage, and there was a premium offer, and you can't have it.....
They kept denying updates for reasons like that....
"Coincidentally" they released their streaming service that month....
That's extremely anti-competitive..... and it wasn't done for the benefit of the user, but for the benefit of Apple only. When a user buys a phone, they have a reasonable expectations that other apps would work, and you will not be forced to use apple only services (directly or indirectly).
I.e. they are false advertising their phones.....
They could have said, if your app has social network log in, must support a more anonymous way as well.... and not must support Apple's login service..... which might/might not be good for users....
So it seems pretty targeted:apps that provide FB or Google sign in must also provide Apple sign in, which has an anonymous option.
As a user I’m loving this. Worrysome use of AppStore power aside...
Don't develop for evil companies. I tried explaining this to my coworkers but they couldn't see beyond the $$$. Now I understand why Engineers take a 2 hour ethics class.
It effectively forces apps to have an anonymized email login option, and even better, if said app starts abusing its access to my inbox, I can cut it off permanently even if the app offers no such option.
You aren't.
- Your app exclusively uses your company’s own account setup and sign-in systems.
- Your app is an education, enterprise, or business app that requires the user to sign in with an existing education or enterprise account.
- Your app uses a government or industry-backed citizen identification system or electronic ID to authenticate users.
- Your app is a client for a specific third-party service and users are required to sign in to their mail, social media, or other third-party account directly to access their content.
> Apps that use a third-party or social login service (such as Facebook Login, Google Sign-In, Sign in with Twitter, Sign In with LinkedIn, Login with Amazon, or WeChat Login) to set up or authenticate the user’s primary account with the app must also offer Sign in with Apple as an equivalent option.
You only have to offer "Sign in with Apple" if you already have third-party login options. It would be completely unreasonable to require adding a third-party login option if you don't already have one. But if you already have third-party login options, having uniformity seems reasonable.
- Your app exclusively uses your company’s own account setup and sign-in systems.
What if they required the same thing on websites by having their browser engine look for Facebook/Google sign ins and require an Apple one be present before displaying the page?
Not explicitly as you implied. But implicitly it is required. Let me explain.
You own a service that has social authentication with Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. You have web, desktop, and mobile apps for this service (or some combination thereof).
Your iOS app now requires you to offer "Sign in with Apple" as an auth provider, because you already offer Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. So you add "Sign in With Apple" to your iOS app because Apple requires because of their monopoly for distribution on iOS devices. So you now add Apple auth as an authentication option within the iOS app.
Now what happens if a user signs up in your iOS app with Apple's Auth? How are they going to log in on your website, desktop, Browser extension, or anything else? Well, I guess you now need to add "Sign in with Apple" on those devices too.
Once you offer an auth provider as an option on one device, it must now be offered throughout your platform on all devices or you risk locking users out.
Thus, if you offer social auth for authentication, and you want distribution on at least one iOS device, you are implicitly required to offer Apple Authentication across your entire platform.
And that is the power of Apple's distribution monopoly on iOS.
Oh, and before you think "well we will just boycott iOS" for my platform. Good luck. You won't get very far (in the US at least) without iOS support if you are just starting. Even an established company would struggle to succeed without iOS support. Imagine if Uber just said "Fuck it, no more iOS app". All their iOS users would say "Fuck it, no more Uber then, Lyft here I come".
Is it feasible to not do this, and instead tell users to add any one of the existing auth methods to their account in addition to Apple's, if they want to use the app on another OS?
This is going to lock more users to iOS, and doesn’t allow users on popular apps to migrate to Android and maintain their login. (Note no Android SDK is provided)
It might technically not be antitrust, but as an app developer we’re now forced to include Apple sign-in.
Isn't it? It should be. You're forcing developers to add your sign-in method everywhere... they can't add it on Android. You're essentially forcing sub-par android support.
Edit: I mean technically, it's gonna suck for users for sure.
This should be cheered by all.
This is a massive step back in progress. I weep for everyone stuck in a single company's ecosystem. You will be abused before it's over.
You're free to roll your own sign-in system, in which case you are not required to offer Sign In with Apple.
Not seeing a problem here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
A hyperliteralist could argue over what exactly the product/service is, in each case - sign-on itself? The whole stack of other customized media these companies serve to the same users? Synergistic old products or bulled services? The app store?
But the fact pattern, & effect of a ‘big guy’ using market power to force partners/customers/users/developers/competitors to unnaturally add a new, pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying.
I'm not sure I see the "pro-Apple-profits" angle here. Generally, customers are better off with IdP-assisted login than with one-off password login, and if that feature needs to exist for UX and safety reasons, it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP.
> it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP.
Doesn't make something not anticompetative. If apples offering is truly better, they should offer it and it will be naturally adopted.
No, it doesn't.
First, there’s been no ruling that Apple is a monopoly, which by the way, isn’t illegal. With their 20% global market share [1], they clearly aren't a monopoly.
Do they have a monopoly in the iOS app market? Absolutely, but that's to be expected. It’s their platform that developers have agreed to their terms of service. Nobody is being forced to develop on their platform, especially since they aren't the market leader.
This is nothing like the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day, after a federal decent decree forbidding Microsoft from using their 95% market share that was obviously a monopoly from tying Internet Explorer to Windows.
Of course, they went ahead anyway, declaring that Internet Explorer was so integrated into Windows that it could not be removed, which proved to be false.
Microsoft threatened to cancel the Windows licenses of various PC manufacturers if they continued to ship Netscape Navigator instead of IE, clearly abusing their monopoly power.
Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly; there hasn't been any ruling to the contrary. They are only requiring Sign in with Apple if a developer already provides social logins.
Apple gives developers 2FA, verification of the login being a real person and not a bot. Users get to be anonymous by using a proxy email address if they choose. And there's no tracking by companies who make the vast majority of their revenue by monetizing user information. And it works on macOS, iOS, watchOS, the web, and Android devices.
It would be hard to argue users don't benefit from this.
[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...
Whether users benefit or not is not necessarily relevant for antitrust analysis; it is only since the Reagan era that direct consumer damage was considered a requirement for antitrust prosecutions. Most of the economics/antitrust experts favored by Democratic Party legislators or possible Presidents seek a return to the pre-Reagan enforcement standards, or new standards based on the unique economics of new tech-enabled platform business models.
It is third-party in the sense the user (who is a third party from the perspective of the app) is supplying the authentication service, but it's not a pre-existing social login.
It's likely that the IndieAuth protocol wasn't on their radar, and so they haven't considered it when coming up with this rule.
[1]: https://indieauth.net/
It's the same reason I don't let Google keep any of my browsing and location history even though I might benefit from that as a user today. I don't trust what they might want to do with that data later.
If you think any billion dollar company is acting in any interests but its own you're being naive.
What data is Apple collecting?
Honestly this stuff scares me more than the data collection that Google does, for example, because at least I have some control there. And Apple's privacy controls are kind of moot anyway if I use iCloud and all my data is just one subpoena away from anybody that wants it.
Does Amazon allow third party book sellers on their Kindle devices? Again, the open web to the rescue. I can go to Amazon’s store from my browser and buy books.
In fact, I use the Kindle web reader on my iPad when reading books about AWS, because the Kindle app doesn’t allow embedded web links to Amazon (even AWS Informational links).
Again you can make the argument that this is to protect users but it also just happens to protect their native app ecosystem.
Push notifications only came in handy to keep the battery draining Slack “application” off of my computer.
I had to uninstall many apps because there was no option to deactivate marketing PNs.
When I have to turn off PNs completely for an app, there is no reason to have that app installed anymore, I might just use the website.
They did make a web version but it lacks the offline and privacy features of the native app. Apple removing the iOS app is a perfect example of why these big companies can't be trusted with ultimate control.
How much more privacy did they get by an app that gets information from the internet than a website?
https://love2dev.com/blog/what-is-the-service-worker-cache-s...
You can use one of a number of browsers on you phone. The browser developers are the ones who are constrained, having to use the WebKit rendering engine—but then, it’s not their phone.
It's silly to cast the mobile browser wars in abstract terms, as if JoesOwnWebBrowser is going to be a thing tomorrow. It's Google and Apple, full stop. Google is leveraging their titanic web properties and mobile ecosystem control to push Chrome. Apple is using their control over the iOS ecosystem to retain Safari. The choice is whether the mobile web has two relevant players, or one.
That's an important distinction. Apple's monopolistic practices prevent better software from succeeding on phones, and I'm disappointed that Apple's anti competitive behavior is excused.
Note: UC Browser is a huge privacy threat and please ask friends and family to uninstall it. But the point still stands.
I think so, yeah. Or at least, the idea that the rendering engine is all that matters for a browser is not something I’d just accept without explanation.
And apparently it's not your phone either.
Perpetually missing web features (PN) so that you are forced to make an app, for obvious reasons.
Then don’t buy one. Highly competitive market where you can buy others where this is possible.
I'm comfortable with that, because I understand the working agreement that exists with my network and third-party services providers (such as Apple), and I understand that they are bound by legal summons in many respects for the data they receive.
Note I don't consider this ideal, and I don't think it's the best possible outcome for society, but I've spent 20 years consciously managing my choices on such matters, ever since DejaNews was founded, and I understand where I stand versus my choices today.
I don’t think this is actually feasible in practice. I’ve never encountered a real person using a Google-free android device as their daily driver in the wild. I work in security, and actually ask android users I encounter if they are worried about GOOG data collection or whatever. Nobody ever responds with “I’m Google-free”.
In reality, this "sign in with apple" feature doesn't push Apple's ecosystem any farther than Apple Maps does. You can use sign in with apple via their web SDK on both desktop browsers and Android, and I wouldn't doubt putting "sign in with apple" in an Android app itself is trivial.
> - Be signed in to iCloud on an Apple device.
This doesn't help users no longer carry around an Apple device.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
I would be very curious (and happy!) to receive any information indicating that I'm wrong in my belief that ad tracking is not being limited by default.
edit: I am not sure if this source is correct, but it does agree with me:
https://threatpost.com/privacy-iphone-apples-targeted-ad-tra...
"A unique identifier is enabled by default on every iPhone that’s shipped, allowing advertisers to follow the phone’s activity across the web."
Chinese citizens do not receive the benefits of the rest of the world. Apple will remove apps from the store that could benefit its citizen's freedoms at the whim of that government to allow themselves to remain in that market.
Your iCloud backups are not encrypted on Apple servers.
And Safari stops Google and other 3rd-party ad providers from tracking you all over the web.
Apple not doing things your way doesn't constitute a breach.
>Chinese citizens do not receive the benefits of the rest of the world.
How is this Apple's fault? The Chinese government explicitly prevents their citizens from having those benefits.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15845400
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20590748
They released per-app access controls in iOS 6[1] (which was huge!) in 2012 and didn't bother to mention it in their marketing[2]. The reviews of the update don't mention it either[3]. The same feature landed in Android 6.0 three years later.
[1] https://www.cultofmac.com/173128/new-ios-6-privacy-settings-...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120615175407/http://www.apple....
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3363060/ios-6-review
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15845400
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20590748
They really do need to allow easy side loading and/or alternate stores. I shouldn't have to chose between Apple's nanny-state "no porn apps", "no political apps" allowed and "privacy"
Apple hides the ability to add a website to the home screen somewhere inside of Safari, instead of making it a first class feature and including a UI for it in the "App" "store". If they did that, a lot of apps could viably just be a website instead.
Adding a website to the home screen has been prominent in Safari since 2007. Go to the share sheet and scroll up.
How many websites have a prominent pointer on iOS devices showing you how to do it.
But the App Store is not known to be a place of discoverability.
On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
Oh, come on, you know very well why you'd want a native app: it's the exact same reason why you'd download a native app for anything else; they can be more polished, use platform APIs, download files…
> On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
Because the ad platform it uses doesn't like it?
You can upload and download files from Safari on iOS.
There's still a decent number that aren't.
> You can upload and download files from Safari on iOS.
The UX on this is significantly worse, even if you consider iOS 13's new downloads manager.
How well do AR/VR/3D applications run in Safari?
Less than 15 years ago, it used to be common in UK supermarkets for there to be a section at the entrance dedicated to newspapers and magazines. A good section of the top shelf would feature porn magazines. The printed covers of the magazines would generally be masked with some cardboard, so you couldn't see the explicit content by mistake, but could still see the title of the magazine.
Print media is generally in decline, so these sections no longer exist in quite the same form as they used to in supermarkets, but this is as prominent as it needs to be. In the past, this meant it was (literally) out of reach of children, but still readily available to adults, and only if they reach for it.
Why isn't that acceptable anymore?
Just like if you don’t like one console makers platform you have two more to choose from, if you don’t like Apple’s you have another one to choose from - the same one chosen by 85% of the market.
Why is it good for a single company to determine what you can and can't do on your phone?
And in the particular case of the HkMap app, what functionality did you not get on the website?
HKMap needs strong offline support since it's an actual map showing dangerous/important areas and people. It also used mesh networking for updates from other devices. Neither is possible on Safari.
I would say that apps aren't as blocked as easily as a website either, but Apple proved that wrong which is the reason for the question on their control.
Some form of the hamburger button has been a standard UI convention since real web browsers came to mobile.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on...
There are five buttons at the bottom of an iPhone. Only one brings up a menu.
Examples include CG porn creation apps including Virt-A-Mate, TK17, Honey Select, etc... There are also real time 3D VR porn apps and even AR porn apps
Apple's platform currently limits freedom of expression. Sure you can watch any movie you want or read any website but the future will clearly include interactivity with real time VR, AR, 3D, etc...
Imagine if Apple invented the holodeck but their app store disallowed sex!??!? It's ridiculous that such a "progressive" company has just a poor position on sex positive apps. I get they don't want to sell them in their store which is why they arguably need to over alternatives.
Because it's possibly anti-competitive.
If their service is as good as they claim and it's something that users really want then why do they have to make it mandatory?
Remember, that's the Uber that tracked people, identified by name, and showed their location to guests at a party on a map. Just for entertainment.
It's the same Uber that has had so many privacy and customer data scandals, I have lost count.
But sure, they "have our back".
It's just that Apple isn't collecting it, the apps on their appstore are, which Apple profits from directly and indirectly.
But, yes, they're doing a really good job marketing themselves as the "privacy" company.
Where Apple traditionally gets profit is in selling more devices, and they do that through controlling apps on the platform.
Alternative approaches could be just as successful. But their approach does differentiate them from other market leaders, while equally (as here) allowing them to play catch-up and advertise themselves alongside Google, Facebook, and other logins.
Apple does marketing, it’s true, but they also try to back up their security and privacy work with white papers: https://www.apple.com/privacy/features/
Having the rule "if you can log in with Facebook, you can also log in with Apple" is in fact a protection against Facebook-only login.
I do not buy their company line at all. This is simply Apple flexing its power in the App Space to require developers to implement an ecosystem very few would do of their own volition.
You can argue it’s a good thing. I disagree. But it is hopefully clear that Apple being able to wield this kind of power is indicative of monopolistic power in that marketplace.
I don't think that's correct. Anyone who currently gives FB login as an option is required to support Sign On with Apple. If FB Login was previously an option, but was removed at some point, Sign On with Apple is not required.
I happen to have an app out there which we maintain security updates but aren’t adding new features. It was built with a FB login option. So now we either never update or have to implement features we don’t care about.
Also if you sign with iPhone, and want to switch phones I’d hope the developer would have a way to set a username or email and password on your account or link another account. So you could have Facebook and Apple linked to the same account, unlink, etc.
I think Apple offering a eco system is interesting though but seems to create lock-ins. Like if you have a Apple Watch, can’t switch to Android as easily either. Then texting or calling from your Mac using your iPhone is also cool but another hurtle if you ever wanted to switch if you really liked that feature.
I’m writing this from an iPhone (and just bought an iPad Pro yesterday). I don’t hate Apple. I don’t trust Facebook. But the only way Apple can do this at any scale is to leverage their control over the App Store.
For anyone who argues that Apple doesn’t have monopolistic power in the app space, I present this as a counter point.
The business strategy 101 is to amplify your strengths, and create a “chain” of value that is difficult to imitate by copying only one link.
Apple’s focus on privacy is hard to imitate for Google: Apple business doesn’t depends on ads, they control the whole production chain of the iPhone and the software that goes in it. Google can put a lot of security enhancements in Android, but they don’t control what Samsung or other manufacturers do with it.
So the “we care about your privacy” message, is not because they are altruistic; and it’s ok by me :) (I’m writing this from an iPhone).
I am rather bound to Apple's ecosystem, with no notable/relevant restrictions that I care about so far, than handing over all of my data to an ad company running and adtech OS on mobile phones with 500 sensors in them.
A fellow comment downthread encapsulates the benefit of this change perfectly:
“There was some app I downloaded last year which only had facebook or google sign on. You couldn't register with an email. I ended up deleting the app.”
This obviously doesn't work for anonymous sign in, but there's not much we can do about that.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This is a much smaller issue for me than "no alternative browsers" or "no sideloading".
It should just be a way to login and nothing else.
The number of privacy conscious users is minuscule compared to the rest of the market (I'd love to be some evidence otherwise) and Apple is a corporation. Its way forward is clear.
Even Facebook can say that they will not have data centers in non democratic countries. Something that Apple can’t say. Since FB isn’t allowed in most non democratic countries, even it can spin their business model to their advantage.
A) Google could choose to start a business selling high margin hardware so it wouldn’t need to sell targeted ads?
B) Apple could choose not to sell in the world’s most populous country? How would the shareholders or board feel about that?
Given that, I wouldn’t say this is a mere Rorschach test.
It’s not exactly the same behavior at all.
If we have a modest app and it’s thing much of a struggle to cross all the t’s and dot the i’s... I highly doubt there is a lot of malware getting through.
A cynical read on the situation but it’s as valid as any.
It’s kind of a stretch to suggest they aren’t pro-privacy, given the intentional features they provide: https://www.apple.com/privacy/
I'm not an ios user but my understanding is that you can't install 3rd-party software on it (including your own!) without an apple account
phone home is always slimy
It is indeed quite hard to imagine Google doing virtually anything to allow users to be more anonymous on their spyware OS.
I use a 2013 MacBook Pro to develop a cross platform app and have purchased multiple used phones to test and develop with for a lot less than $500. And if you're not making it all up, you're highly incompetent.
A $4k computer and $500 phone are entirely unnecessary.
Also, App Store approval doesn't take days. It takes hours.
You can still sign in with one of those social providers. You can always put your money somewhere other than Apple.
Apple ecosystem is completely closed off. It does make it easier to ship software. For example they've hijacked SMS by creating their own iMessage, they tried to take full control of the mobile news publishing until Google came up with AMP and they have been dragging their feet when it comes to new web standards in Safari because they prefer native apps.
So the morale of the story is as long as you ship quality products you'll get a pass for tactics other companies don't usually get a pass for. None of openness, fairness, privacy, etc. matters really.
When a comment says something false, better options are to respectfully provide correct information so the rest of us can learn something, or (if you don't want to or don't have time) to simply let it go as someone being wrong on the internet again.
It'd be much more worrying and abusinve if they blocked users from logging in to certain products with their Apple ID.
Citation needed. They make the most profit, but do they make the most devices?
I dunno, I don't have an iPhone and don't plan on using Sign On with Apple, but I think it's still a good move that benefits consumers.
Who gets hurt? Companies that don't respect user privacy?
Imagine a single developer who has an idea to make a cool app. Because data linking is a core part of the app, they will either implement Sign in with Facebook or Google. They don't even have enough cycles to implement the other one, and they certainly don't have the time or energy to implement Sign in with Apple, so the app never gets created.
Well that app could have really benefited a niche audience potentially and we now you'll never have it.
I'm not a mobile developer, but I do run a SaaS that has Facebook and Google login, and adding Apple login would take me a couple of hours tops. I can't see how it would be magnitudes different on a mobile app.
Please explain.
And the comment was edited anyway. It originally did say monopoly.
This, however, is almost the opposite. Apple isn't banning any other authentication mechanism. Authentication services can still compete and app developers can even listed their preferred auth methods preferentially. Apple is only saying that Apple's service has to be given a chance to compete as well. Apple is certainly using its market power to enforce policy, but if anything it's pro-competitive (even if it benefits Apple itself).
This is cleverly done and is an option with a lot less friction that needs to leverage its potential network effects.
but they aren't removing choice, they are only adding choice in their approval processes, and leaving it to the developers to decide to remove choice when they get social login fatigue but want high engagement and low friction. Looks like they dotted their I's and crossed their T's on this one.
Let's say I have an old app that isn't bringing me much new revenue. I have currently have implemented two options: sign in with email + password, and "sign in with Google".
After this announcement, I would just remove "sign in with Google" as an option, and force all my users who previously used "sign in with Google" to set a password.
Okay, you do that. That's not a punishment to Apple, you might bounce some of your own users and is a choice you made exclusively.
> You can have only Apple sign in, but not only $competitor sign in.
If that's the antitrust argument, they just need to reword it say "and include another signin method" or logged out functionality. I just don't think thats a strong enough argument, as they aren't removing choice in any way only adding it, except to people with existing apps - like you - who will risk decimating all their own users.
I hate signing in with social accounts, but sometimes it's so much easier than trying to sign up with an app's custom sign up form. I will happily pick Sign On with Apple 100% of the time to avoid linking to my Facebook or Google identity.
As for the users opting in to have their emails directly relayed and read by apple .... i don't know what to think of it.