Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Sign In

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 544 posts

Re: Apple Sign In

#371

Post by tty2300 »

dragonsky67 wrote: post #345
baroffoos wrote: post #311

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.

Personal experience. Battery change on iphone SE, cost $75. They couldn't safely do the replacement (broken tabs on battery) and they simply replaced the phone. I'm not sure how this is manipulating to get me to purchase a new phone.

That's not much better. Another phone goes to landfill because not even apple was able to repair it due to their horrendous practicices. It took me half an hour to remove a battery from an iPhone and I had to get the hair dryer out to melt the glue. With other devices I just unscrew a bracket holding the battery down and it takes me 5 minutes.

Re: Apple Sign In

#372

Post by ryandvm »

sturgill wrote: post #367
EGreg wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably it’s always the same address every time they sign in. It is used for single sign on after all! However, I wish email and sms would go away as a way to authenticate. Until it does I will be using foo+aliashere@gmail.com so that my account can’t get transferred to someone else through socially engineering a tired rep.

But someone who has already signed up via FB is going to click that button and then get angry when we can’t log them into their account. I personally don’t use FB login. And I use `+merchant` to keep track of bad actors. But from a merchant perspective this will likely be a chore. And Apple has decided that we don’t get to decide if it’s worth it. We can’t disable FB login because we’ve supported it for a long time a…

"+merchant" doesn't do squat to prevent bad actors from selling your email address. Anyone so inclined to sell your address would just strip off the postfix since they know it's unnecessary per the spec.

Re: Apple Sign In

#373

Post by damnyou »

basch wrote: post #294
damnyou wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook IDs work on Android, Windows and Linux.

Apple doesn't care. (despite me thinking they should, their biggest growth was right after iTunes for windows.) They care about offering services to their paying customers, not anyone else. If you don't buy their stuff, they don't care about you. Compared to fb/Google who care about you to make you pay attention to ads, it's a refreshing twist.

Facebook/Google care about offering services to everyone on the planet, not just the richest that have more disposable income than most people have in lifetime savings. Compared to Apple that cares about you only to make you pay ever-increasing amounts of money to maintain membership in its closed ecosystems, and blocks off any sort of mixed-ecosystem use, it's a refreshing twist.

Re: Apple Sign In

#374

Post by cbsks »

ryandvm wrote: post #372
sturgill wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But someone who has already signed up via FB is going to click that button and then get angry when we can’t log them into their account. I personally don’t use FB login. And I use `+merchant` to keep track of bad actors. But from a merchant perspective this will likely be a chore. And Apple has decided that we don’t get to decide if it’s worth it. We can’t disable FB login because we’ve supported it for a long time a…

"+merchant" doesn't do squat to prevent bad actors from selling your email address. Anyone so inclined to sell your address would just strip off the postfix since they know it's unnecessary per the spec.

Per what spec? Having “a+b” deliver to address “a” is Gmail specific, as far as I know.

Re: Apple Sign In

#375

Post by pluffycat »

damnyou wrote: post #373
basch wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't care. (despite me thinking they should, their biggest growth was right after iTunes for windows.) They care about offering services to their paying customers, not anyone else. If you don't buy their stuff, they don't care about you. Compared to fb/Google who care about you to make you pay attention to ads, it's a refreshing twist.

Facebook/Google care about offering services to everyone on the planet, not just the richest that have more disposable income than most people have in lifetime savings. Compared to Apple that cares about you only to make you pay ever-increasing amounts of money to maintain membership in its closed ecosystems, and blocks off any sort of mixed-ecosystem use, it's a refreshing twist.

Tell that to your shadow profile

Re: Apple Sign In

#376

Post by cachvico »

cbsks wrote: post #374
ryandvm wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"+merchant" doesn't do squat to prevent bad actors from selling your email address. Anyone so inclined to sell your address would just strip off the postfix since they know it's unnecessary per the spec.

Per what spec? Having “a+b” deliver to address “a” is Gmail specific, as far as I know.

RFC 5233: Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233

Not Gmail-specific. Labels however are ;)

Re: Apple Sign In

#377

Post by tekknik »

cbsks wrote: post #374
ryandvm wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"+merchant" doesn't do squat to prevent bad actors from selling your email address. Anyone so inclined to sell your address would just strip off the postfix since they know it's unnecessary per the spec.

Per what spec? Having “a+b” deliver to address “a” is Gmail specific, as far as I know.

It’s called subaddress extension: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233

Can confirm what parent poster is saying, we remove them on signup.

Re: Apple Sign In

#378

Post by NightlyDev »

"without turning over any of their personal data to a third-party company"

Uhm.. If a user sign up on my site with apple sign in then they definetly will share personal data with a third-party: Apple.

If user A wants to use product B and signs in using solution from C then C is the third-party.

Re: Apple Sign In

#379

Post by bscphil »

ryandvm wrote: post #372
sturgill wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But someone who has already signed up via FB is going to click that button and then get angry when we can’t log them into their account. I personally don’t use FB login. And I use `+merchant` to keep track of bad actors. But from a merchant perspective this will likely be a chore. And Apple has decided that we don’t get to decide if it’s worth it. We can’t disable FB login because we’ve supported it for a long time a…

"+merchant" doesn't do squat to prevent bad actors from selling your email address. Anyone so inclined to sell your address would just strip off the postfix since they know it's unnecessary per the spec.

One of the many advantages of using a hosted solution with your own domain is that you can receive email from arbitrary addresses in the same inbox. For example merchant1@inboxname.mydomain.com gets sent to my inbox at Fastmail. inboxname@mydomain.com doesn't exist, so there's no way to get my "real" email address from what I give out to merchants. If I start getting spam on an address, whoops, you and everyone you sold my email to get sent to a black hole in the cloud.

Re: Apple Sign In

#380

Post by EGreg »

nihonde wrote: post #365
EGreg wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is anticompetitive. It is using Apple’s monopoly as gatekeeper of their app store. Apple would have long ago been cited for Antitrust if Android hadn’t had most of the market. I personally think that the definition of a trust is too narrow — one member of an oligopoly abusing its position as a platform provider and strongarming people is also pretty bad. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/18650861/…

That’s not how antitrust law works. It’s not a test of whether a company exerts too much control over its own customers. It’s a test of whether customers have some alternatives and a real opportunity to vote with their dollars.

Yep, that’s what meant when I said that the definition was too narrow
Post reply on HN