I don't see how anything about this is sinister, how the email masking and SSO requirement are related in any way, or why the solution involves signing up for your company's service.
It could hardly be called anticompetitive for Apple to require SSO in apps that already provide third party SSO. This has been discussed on HN recently. App developers who use their own client authentication and no third party SSO are unaffected.
The solution is not signing up for my service. Apples solution is a good one - the intent of the article is to simply push the idea that it’s not as nice as it might seem that Apple have released this feature.
You make two attempts to sell your service in the article, while your entire premise is it’s “sinister” because Apple demands they be included as an sso option if there are other options. I think you don’t understand what sinister means. And you’re casting doubt on Apple, indicating they may do something nefarious, simply because they are offering this. Yeah, this article is a sales pitch full of baseless accusations.
I’m not defending Apple, I’m highlighting your fear-mongering to sell your service. If you have anything other than baseless accusations, please share.
3 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 14.8 ms ] threadIt could hardly be called anticompetitive for Apple to require SSO in apps that already provide third party SSO. This has been discussed on HN recently. App developers who use their own client authentication and no third party SSO are unaffected.
I’m not defending Apple, I’m highlighting your fear-mongering to sell your service. If you have anything other than baseless accusations, please share.