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

How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 340 posts

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#201

Post by ljm »

jonas21 wrote: post #181
ljm wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what company does care about the open web, no strings attached? Google and Facebook sure as hell don’t. I’m not going to apologise for Apple, but I thought this sign in feature was iOS specific. They’re offering to proxy your email on their own account and buying an iPhone pays for that. It’s a privacy feature so that you can protect your personal email, it’s not federated auth. A better example is that I think t…

If this feature were iOS only, how would you ever switch to a non-Apple device? Would you just have to leave all of your accounts behind?

I think this is meant for apps that ask for emails without really requiring them for the app to run. If you want to sync across devices, this is the wrong solution, because your random email isn’t random any more.

It’s not oAuth or SSO.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#202

Post by tinus_hn »

capableweb wrote: post #22
jrochkind1 wrote: post #4

> It’s utterly private, where signing in with Google or Facebook is not at all, yet far more convenient than signing up with your email address. What is different in the privacy design of 'sign in with apple'?

As a application owner, I won't see the users email, instead Apple generates a unique address for each signup. That email also redirects any emails to the users email. For someone who doesn't like a lot of what Apple does, this is a really nifty feature. We just started integrating "Sign in with Apple" last week and are about to deploy it. Discovering the shielding of email addresses was a happy discovery, which I ha…

Then again most application owners won’t be that happy they have one less data point to sell.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#203

Post by miloignis »

coldtea wrote: post #185
ehsankia wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple continues to not give any care whatsoever to anything outside their walled garden. For the longest time you couldn't even preview songs on iTunes store without having iTunes. Want to watch their biggest WWDC live? Had to use Safari until last year. Obviously iMessage and FaceTime are complete no-gos outside their walled garden too. This is how they keep people in. They have to close down their walls as tightly…

> This is how they keep people in. They have to close down their walls as tightly as possible, to force people in. And once you're in, they make it as hard as possible to leave. I call old wives tales. I'm a close-to-20-years Apple user. The walled garden has never been a problem, more of a strength (integration, cohesion, etc). Especially today where everything is a subscription, there has never been LESS of a walle…

I feel like reason you can move is because you haven't put all your eggs in their walled garden, not that they don't have one. I know people who either won't or have regretted switching from an iPhone because they have trouble talking to their friend who only use iMessage. I think Apple is only increasing their walled garden into more areas by expanding into music streaming, TV, etc. You can still use their hardware and OS without fully buying into their walled garden though and maintain more freedom, as you seem to do!

edit: I should mention that while I don't like their walled gardens in general, I don't mind them for other people except iMessage. iMessage makes me fairly angry because they're using & dividing people's social connections for profit.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#204

Post by gamblor956 »

pwinnski wrote: post #170
rootusrootus wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Apple Pay and Android Pay both use identical underlying technology, don't they? I.e. it's not possible to support one without the other, because they are the same.

By default, supporting one means supporting the other, but in practice, several large chain stores deliberately disabled ApplePay specifically at first, hoping to choke it off. That seems to have failed, and I can't remember the last time I saw a place that took contactless payment but not ApplePay, but it was a thing for a while.

in practice, several large chain stores deliberately disabled ApplePay specifically at first, hoping to choke it off.

This is FUD spread by Apple after poor uptake of Apple Pay. The reality is that many retail chains and restaurants either hadn't enabled the NFC chips in their payment terminals, or were using old terminals that didn't even have NFC functionality, and thus did not work with Apple Pay. Retailers that supported NFC payment prior to the launch of Apple Pay supported Apple Pay at launch.

Retailers are not about spending millions of dollars to upgrade working point-of-sale machines just to make Apple more money.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#205

Post by 1-more »

izacus wrote: post #101
favorited wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding over the past decade or so has been they've used "standards" to stream, but just the standards Safari had implemented. It's just HLS, which Chrome didn't support

HLS can be rather readily supported with a JavaScript library that works just fine on Chrome. Imagine if Google would just "forget" to keep supporting H.264 on YouTube and only served VP9 unsupported in Safari and iOS.

I did recently get a ticket where hls.js failed to render something that safari can play just fine, but it's the first time that's ever happened and the scale we're talking about it is massive. I kind of want to file a bug with hls.js

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#206

Post by capableweb »

tinus_hn wrote: post #202
capableweb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a application owner, I won't see the users email, instead Apple generates a unique address for each signup. That email also redirects any emails to the users email. For someone who doesn't like a lot of what Apple does, this is a really nifty feature. We just started integrating "Sign in with Apple" last week and are about to deploy it. Discovering the shielding of email addresses was a happy discovery, which I ha…

Then again most application owners won’t be that happy they have one less data point to sell.

I think if you look at most application owners (not the top 1%/10%), they don't care that much about selling the data to someone. Better to use it themselves to gain better understanding. And as long as you can reach the user, it's good enough.

But maybe I'm naive, or biased because of my location and personal wants.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#207

Post by gamblor956 »

parliament32 wrote: post #197
hadtodoit wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem confused. Apple Pay works using the exact same tech as contactless payment cards, a widely supported standard.

Doesn't matter, you can configure the terminal to block certain issuers, like when you try to tap your Amex and get the "no supported applications" message. ApplePay is considered an issuer like the others.

This is false...

The store chooses which credit cards to accept (at the birds-eye level, i.e., Amex, Discover, Mastercard, Visa), and the POS sends the transaction to the appropriate card processor based on the identifying digits in the card number (the first 4).

Apple Pay transactions are identified as Visa transactions, so Visa would handle the transaction...if the POS terminal is configured to accept NFC cards. Most older ones don't even have NFC functionality, and until 2 years ago even terminals with NFC functionality didn't have it enabled because they were shipped before NFC payments was a thing. Today, almost all POS terminals come with NFC payment built-in and enabled.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#208

Post by cptskippy »

adamlett wrote: post #94
cptskippy wrote: post #55

We have an on-going issue with Apple's protections going back almost a decade to when they started mucking about with 3rd Party Cookies. This isn't entirely their fault, blame also lies with the vendor we've chosen and our architecture for SSO. That being said, there are valid use cases for tracking users across websites. I work for a nonprofit that does fundraising using every imaginable PaaS or SaaS platform as wel…

That being said, there are valid use cases for tracking users across websites. Strong disagree. It works for the most part everywhere except Safari where a few of our integrations just cannot and will not work due to their use of 3rd Party Cookies. It sucks to have sunk so much time and effort into a solution only to have external factors render it unworkable, and I feel for you. But it is entirely possible to implem…

> But it is entirely possible to implement SSO across multiple domains without relying on 3rd party cookies.

Yes it is, especially when you green field or have full control over the products. However there are times you do not have a lot of options when integrating with a vendor. Of course you can say "well choose another vendor" but that's not always up to you. Especially when you're dealing with legacy integrations.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#209

Post by asveikau »

I feel like it isn't all that meaningful to compare Apple vs. Google vs. Facebook auth if the data is coming from a community that already has a favorable view of the Apple ecosystem, eg. the crowd that reads Daring Fireball. The majority of the global market at large is not using Apple devices and Apple sign-in is not going to resonate so strongly or even be a possibility.

If you are developing an iOS or Mac app, sure, that's a meaningful data point and feature suggestion. It won't be equally important for everyone.

Re: How Popular Is “Sign in with Apple”?

#210

Post by cpeterso »

saurik wrote: post #140
Uehreka wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve long wondered why Chrome doesn’t support HLS (HTTP Live Streaming for those who don’t know) given that it’s been standardized for a while. I get that we’ve got stuff like MPEG DASH and Web RTC now and so the use case for HLS is mostly fulfilled, but having a couple different options for streaming live video with low latency to massive audiences is nice and allows folks like me who have worked in this space to of…

Well, Chrome also "doesn't support" MPEG DASH: all of Chrome, Firefox, and IE11+ instead chose to support the Media Source Extensions API, which allows you to, with very little JavaScript glue, support any of these other standards you want, as well as new standards or custom streaming solutions. Apple, always the ecosystem's asshole, hardcoded HLS support into their browser and provided no way to implement any altern…

btw, Chrome on Android supports HLS (for compatibility with lots of mobile HLS video content targeting iOS users). Pre-Chromium Edge supports HLS on Windows desktop.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/ie/simplified...

Post reply on HN