Additionally, anything sent to you@privaterelay.appleid.com flows through an Apple server.
You can trust Apple with this now, but it's not so easy to revoke that trust later. Still, it's useful for throwaway signups and garbage I suppose.
351–360 of 544 posts
Additionally, anything sent to you@privaterelay.appleid.com flows through an Apple server.
You can trust Apple with this now, but it's not so easy to revoke that trust later. Still, it's useful for throwaway signups and garbage I suppose.
On the downside if I use Apple Sign In on apps I probably won't be able to sign in to that application on my Android devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feature parity for most people, not userbase parity.
The ability to run on my phone seems like an important feature.
Can’t services just disallow/block this address? Fun thing is, Apple themselves block name+addon@gmail.com addresses when using their dev console. You can bet that some companies will disallow Apple’s signature private passwords similarly if they can, in the name of ‘security’ or what have you. Or am I being too cynical? Feel free to CMV. EDIT: best response addressing this seems to be ‘The addresses are only generat…
Presumably such services won't implement Sign In With Apple in the first place. People will accept it because they want the sheer quantity of users Apple provides. The useful thing about Apple is that they can force people to do things they don't particularly want to do, like accept anonymous e-mail addresses or stop using Flash. (unfortunately this is also the bad thing about Apple)
There really isn’t much choice here for us. Leave Apple / iOS? Abandon FB login and piss off thousands of people? Implement Apple Sign In regardless of its tech stack / requirements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you trust more _not_ to do sketchy stuff with your data, Apple or Google? For me it's unequivocally Apple.
Problem is, today I agree, 10 years ago it would've been a tossup, and 5 years from now, who knows? These "trusted central broker" privacy models are nicer than giving your info to dozens of individual actors (when you trust that central broker more than anyone else), but they also become a single point of attack/failure.
Can’t services just disallow/block this address? Fun thing is, Apple themselves block name+addon@gmail.com addresses when using their dev console. You can bet that some companies will disallow Apple’s signature private passwords similarly if they can, in the name of ‘security’ or what have you. Or am I being too cynical? Feel free to CMV. EDIT: best response addressing this seems to be ‘The addresses are only generat…
Is that block a recent thing? It might be different as for my on GSuite account I can add the name+addon@mydomain.com - it might just be a difference between the "public" Gmail system vs the Gsuite Gmail system. In which case, my question is completely invalid and feel free to ignore ;) Note: This comes from my own developer account having 3 name+addon@ accounts live, and working with things like ApplePay etc for tes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a coincidence, Google works for those people, too!
But Google cannot get away with screwing both customers and developers. Apple doesn't seem to provide competition in the tech space that is pro consumer or pro developer. Apple is pushing profit more than anyone else in tech.
But with google we're the product and not the customers. They are a spyware company and don't deserve any trust whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS allows you to set your default password manager...
I thought that was just default AutoFill? It allows saving passwords to your password manager too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Competition is not anti-competitive. Excluding other third party sign on options would be problematic if Apple were abusing a dominant position among smartphone makers, which is not the case by any objective measure.
Is it problematic if Apple says "you must include us if you include anyone else?" That seems anti-competitive to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple swindles and manipulates the user to buying a new device whenever there is any fault at all because everything is glued and soldered together so fixing anything requires buying half of the device.
I don’t think that is a fair comparison. Aside from hardware va software I personally have never had an issue with apple products last 3 or more years. Get apple care and they just fix or replace it when anything goes wrong. Better experience then my friends seem to have with other manufactures.