521–530 of 544 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a session on WebAuthN on Thursday.
if you are attending, could you share your learnings and how can we, outside the conference, can have access to the information displayed?
This may host it live, but all presentations are recorded and will be here soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an android and iphone but realistically how many people have one of each phone?
People don't use Windows and iPhone at the same time? Or Mac and Android? or Android and iPad?
Either you have an iPhone or you dont. Sure they might have an ipad and imac and an android phone. I suppose thats possible. But at that point, you are the exact kind of customer this business model is designed to get to switch over to the full ecosystem.
Are we really arguing if the "Sign in with apple" button will work on websites from chrome on windows? If apple wants to be an identity provider, their web sso will work everywhere. Or are we talking about iMessage, the flagship iPhone app, not working on android phones? Apple will lose more customers to Android, who only want an iPhone for iMessage, than they will gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't use Windows and iPhone at the same time? Or Mac and Android? or Android and iPad?
The conversation was "The ability to run on my phone seems like an important feature." Either you have an iPhone or you dont. Sure they might have an ipad and imac and an android phone. I suppose thats possible. But at that point, you are the exact kind of customer this business model is designed to get to switch over to the full ecosystem. Are we really arguing if the "Sign in with apple" button will work on website…
(I really doubt the sign in with Apple button is going to be available in Android apps. If you create an account with the button, it becomes ever so harder to switch to Android. How convenient for Apple.)
I don't think continuing this discussion is helpful. Have a nice day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because thousands of people already have an account tied to a specific email and are going to click the Apple button and get really mad when we can’t log them in.
So then you ask them for their email address and password once and link the accounts together?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conversation was "The ability to run on my phone seems like an important feature." Either you have an iPhone or you dont. Sure they might have an ipad and imac and an android phone. I suppose thats possible. But at that point, you are the exact kind of customer this business model is designed to get to switch over to the full ecosystem. Are we really arguing if the "Sign in with apple" button will work on website…
We're talking at different levels. You keep repeating obvious facts everyone already knows as if they're novel, and I keep pointing about that all those facts clearly imply that Apple wants to make money off of you through abusive lock-in practices. (I really doubt the sign in with Apple button is going to be available in Android apps. If you create an account with the button, it becomes ever so harder to switch to A…
The create account button might not be available on android apps, but hopefully the sign in sso buttons works. Maybe identity portability will become law someday, like cell number portability and being able to change your address at the post office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
op mentioned apple core is privacy. i implies that they care it only for their high end customers. They could anytime do a low end mobile if privacy was their core. Their core is like any other business get maximum profits.
Apple's premium price is exactly what allows them to focus on privacy. Google/Facebook/etc. are able to offer you cheap products and services because they're selling your privacy to the highest bidder. Apple is not doing this (because they care about privacy), so they need to charge a much higher price for similar products. This is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem (did Apple care about privacy and charge a premi…
They are focusing on it because of business sense. To upsell people who are able to buy those expensive devices otherwise all devices are now more or less can do the work.
Apple can easily lower their price to match android. They do have insane profits. But I don't see they care about lower class people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are mandating that if you offer any other authentication provider (e.g. Facebook, Google, etc), that you have to offer Apple sign-in as an option as well. The option is mandatory. End users using it is optional.
If the policy is "if you offer one or more authentication providers, you must include Apple sign-in", while it's still a little harsh, I think it's much more defendable and reasonable.
Again, the tech is fine. The strong-arm is indefensible.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit rose tinted outlook. GDPR does not increase competition, the amount of regulation in EU and worker protections in place raise barriers for new competitors. France has laws that prohibit new movies from being put on Netflix in order to support local distributors etc. Not saying what the EU does is goos or bad, but painting it as pro free market competition seems unfounded.
GDPR isn’t about addressing monopolies. It’s about addressing privacy and data ownership. Every tech related legislation doesn’t and shouldn’t need to so,be every tech related problem. The EU has other, non GDPR related, mechanisms to handle monopoly issues.
So to me it seems unfounded to say EU cares about market health and is not, in fact, just picking on FB and Google.
I am honestly curious what you think are examples of EU mechanisms fostering healthy markets. Maybe the MS case but that is the same “EU picks on US tech giant” genre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My rule, and it is a semi-idiotic one, is "i don't impulse buy from independent merchant websites that don't support apple pay at checkout". I usually email them after, too. "I actually clicked through your instagram ad, looked at some clothes that looked nice, and didn't buy anything because I was on my phone and didn't want to make a new account and add credentials to my password manager. Have you considered adding…
I think it's not an idiotic idea, it's just that your idea of what counts as third-party payment support is a single smaller payment provider located mainly in the United States. I follow a similar policy, but in my case the third-party payment services are Paypal, Stripe, and Coinbase, all of which are reliable and don't require me to give financial data to the seller. Paypal seems to be near-universally supported o…
i don’t care who processes the payment, i just like being able to buy physical goods without making a new account, and ideally without any more friction than faceID while impulse-buying nonsense while i’m on the toilet :)