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

531–540 of 544 posts

Re: Apple Sign In

#531

Post by fastball »

hesarenu wrote: post #526
fastball wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If Apple cared about privacy they would have left China instead of giving up it's iCloud key. 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.

If "business sense" causes them to make business decisions which increase my privacy when I use their products, I don't care what the rational is.

Re: Apple Sign In

#532

Post by gwright »

alanh wrote: post #440
ulfw wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will this work if I use non-Apple products (and GOD BEWARE !) move from say an iPhone to an Android or an overpriced Macbook to a PC? Once I chose to use Apple-Sign In will I be locked into the ecosystem? Will there be 'Apple-Sign In' for Android?

this is the same problem you get from any identity provider — what happens when you finally delete your facebook? — it's just more obvious with Apple. With a 97% satisfaction rate, most iPhone users don’t want to go anywhere else… but yes, if you want to stay free, you should always create credentials directly with any app or service you use, when possible. That said, the concept of "Apple Sign-In" for Android and ot…

I'm speculating here, but Apple Sign-In for Android would work just fine if the sign-in process was based on an OAuth flow where the credentials are entered into a web form. From the limited details I've seen that sounds like how Apple Sign In will work.

A service supporting alternate identity providers via OAuth (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Github) via a flow like this shouldn't have trouble with Apple Sign In from a web page, iOS app, or Android app.

Re: Apple Sign In

#533

Post by gwright »

sturgill wrote: post #527
swish_bob wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if they grandfather existing apps. We made the decision a long time ago to support FB login. That decision now requires us to either stop having an app in iOS, remove FB login (which a good portion of people use exclusively), or implement a new authentication provider _that won't work for people that already have an account with us_. Again, the tech is fine. The strong-arm is indefensible.

Why would someone already authenticating via an existing identity provider be affected by you adding an additional identity provider?

If you support FB login now and decided to add Google, for example, that doesn't require your existing FB users to do anything different. It should only affect new users who are creating an account and choosing to use the new provider. Wouldn't that be the same for Apple Sign In?

Note, I'm not taking a position on the strong arm tactics, just pushing back on your claim regarding existing users being affected by a new identity provider. That doesn't sound right to me.

Re: Apple Sign In

#534

Post by eropple »

notlukesky wrote: post #342
Pym wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying for some time to explain to my friends and family how a unique email/password + 2FA strategy is the best thing to do and how it would allow them to cut one in case it gets leaked. I guess I will just tell everybody about "Sign in with Apple" now, it will be easier.

Take a look at SAASPASS Authenticator & Password Manager. It might meet your criteria of usability and security.

It's only polite to disclose that it's your company when you flog it like that.

Re: Apple Sign In

#535

Post by tinus_hn »

sturgill wrote: post #524
tinus_hn wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then you ask them for their email address and password once and link the accounts together?

And Apple Sign In helps this user, how?...

Apparently they want to use it, otherwise they wouldn’t, right? This way they can have the easy login using Face ID and you can use the account they already have.

Re: Apple Sign In

#536

Post by danielskogly »

sturgill wrote: post #489
danielskogly wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who also run a service where the only login option is using Facebook, I'm curious about how you regard the negative press regarding Facebook, the recommendations to leave Facebook, and the many users who is sceptic to or has already left Facebook. Do you have any plans to adopt any other login provider? I would really like to, but other than email/password, I'm not really sure what would be a good alternat…

We let people create a username/password but can also use FB if they prefer. Turns out having their email is nice; we need to send them notices and reminders from time-to-time. I’m not a FB fan. I post on social media maybe twice a year. As an advertiser I don’t trust the numbers they report. None of my criticisms of Apple in this decision should be interpreted as pro-FB. I just have a very strong distaste for Apple…

Thank you for the reply! I think I've landed on implementing a local login strategy as well.

Re: Apple Sign In

#537

Post by tekknik »

hutattedonmyarm wrote: post #448
tekknik wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called subaddress extension: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 Can confirm what parent poster is saying, we remove them on signup.

> we remove them on signup. But why?

to avoid duplicate user signup. allowing the + would not allow me to use a unique constraint for email address on the user table and be sure an email is only used once.

Re: Apple Sign In

#538

Post by tekknik »

nprateem wrote: post #446
tekknik wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called subaddress extension: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 Can confirm what parent poster is saying, we remove them on signup.

I wonder whether that's GDPR compliant. If I give you permission to contact me on me+alias@example.com and you strip off +alias and then contact me on me@example.com, you've inferred data about me I haven't explicitly given you. One could argue that's in a similar ballpark to running a geoIP lookup and then sending me mail through the post.

we’re a B2B app, it’s unlikely a random user will sign up for our service as it’s quite expensive and contract negotiations happen before the account is activated. we also never send marketing blasts or sell (or even collect) any information about our users. we also don’t operate in any country requiring compliance with the GDPR.

Re: Apple Sign In

#539

Post by notSupplied »

mindgam3 wrote: post #369
polutropos wrote: post #308

According to the App Store review guidelines update posted today, Sign In with Apple will be required for any iOS app that implements a single-sign in button. "Sign In with Apple will be available for beta testing this summer. It will be required as an option for users in apps that support third-party sign-in when it is commercially available later this year." https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=06032019j

This is Apple sensing weakness and dropping a bomb right on facebook’s doorstep. And they sidestep the anticompetitive angle by arguing that instant anonymous sign on is simply a better UX, which it is. Someone at Apple deserves a raise.

It is an incredibly bold move. Just as tech monopoly power comes under scrutiny--in Apple's case the AppStore--they wield said monopoly power...but for a seemingly good cause.

Quite the gambit.

Post reply on HN