211–220 of 471 posts
This is a perfect example of why Sign in with Apple is so great: it hides my e-mail and real name from people like the author who are clearly intent on using this information to sell me stuff I don't want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I send 0 emails and privacy and security are top priorities. I am passionate about E2E encryption so I have integrated loads of that in the app too - "privacy and security are top priorities". and then - Wants to force users to only use the least private log ins: via Facebook and Google - Is pissed when privacy-conscious users hide their emails via Sign-in with Apple > I am a bit tired of people trusting big tech s…
I am going to assume you haven't read/understood everything I wrote I don't force users to use Google/FB. They can use traditional email signup just fine Emails could be masked before Apple ID came along. Namely, gmail addresses let you do this. So it's not anything new or revolutionary. Users could use that to sign up for Groups before I would have probably ended up implementing Apple ID, but the fact that they forc…
How? I've used gmail for over a decade now, and I have no idea how to do that with my address.
> I don't trust FB or Google either
And yet you have no qualms providing a login through either of them both in the app and on the web.
So much for "I care about security and privacy".
There appear to be multiple threads to the backstory explaining some of the bitterness that the developer is clearly feeling, and I can understand the frustration at the ever-changing table stakes required to get a seat at the mobile app table, but this is an appalling attitude to what is an entirely valid and useful privacy feature.
But it isn't a privacy feature. A privacy feature would be to create an account with a password without mail validation. I you use Apple ID, Apple gets the info which services you are using. The service might request additional infos about your person. Most people will always confirm that in reality. This way many services will end up with more user information. Many people will just share everything but might think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple forced Groups to choose between having AppleID, or losing Sign in with Google/FB. That would have been equally bad for existing users who had chosen Google/FB before Apple ID was even a thing. Perhaps Groups would have happily adopted Apple ID if it hadn't been forced on it At the end of the day Groups is a passion project. So it can be used to contribute to a world where developers aren't taken for granted App…
From your post I get that you don’t particularly care about the users who use you it app as you are not offering any way to transition users. I think apple cares about their users and platform, they just care about your passion project and I can understand how that triggers you. But the users belong to the apple ecosystem. You are essentially a guest there and more importantly the user has a choice to privacy. Most o…
Users own their Apple devices, Apple does NOT own it's users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protest is an important form of participation in a democracy, it's not petty at all. Forcing developers to add Apple ID as a sign-in method is the petty thing. The developers have no power unless they unionize in some form which seems absolutely impossible. So it seems to me that it's all a developer can really do to make a statement and I think it's brave.
Nobody is forced to add Apple ID login if they don't have any other social logins. Personally I stick to direct signup but if I were forced to do social login, Sign in with Apple would be my first preference as it's the most privacy-preserving compared to Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wonder what it would take to "force" me into doing a social login? It would have to be something drastic, like a website that provides me with needed oxygen.
This is a perfect example of why Sign in with Apple is so great: it hides my e-mail and real name from people like the author who are clearly intent on using this information to sell me stuff I don't want.
Exactly, they are totally cool with a Facebook login, but decry an Apple login. Incredible. Literally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equally, developers need to respect their users. I don't want to have to have a Facebook or Google account to use your product. Why should I be interested in your app if you force me you use either of those options? They were also involved in PRISM and both have far worse track records with privacy than Apple. More importantly, why should I trust you with PII?
Yes, developers need to respect users too. But that should be between the developers and the user. If a user asks me to add Apple Id as an option in an app I make, that is something that I would seriously consider as I care about my users. Why should a developer care about something no user has requested but Apple is forcing them to use? Apple could be considered a genuine neutral arbitrator if it didn't take money f…
And even if they do, too many developers couldn't give two shits. Great example is how users overwhelmingly opt-out of tracking when the OS warns them about it (because "developers thinking about users" never even considered not tracking)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Google can also cancel your account at any time for any reason whatsoever, and good luck getting it back unless you're a celebrity with connections or manage to make a big enough fuss about it on social media. Using the same logic, you should not use Gmail then.
> Google can also cancel your account at any time for any reason whatsoever [...] Using the same logic, you should not use Gmail then. Actually, under that logic it's only that you shouldn't use the @gmail.com domain; it should be fine to use Gmail with your own domain, since that allows you to recover if your Google account is canceled (just change the MX to another email provider). Another thing you can do is to ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have an Apple ID, you’re already implicitly trusting Apple to use that data appropriately. Apple doesn’t sell its user data. So anybody who is using Sign In with Apple trusts Apple to do the right thing. Besides, what monopoly? Apple is perfectly happy with other single sign ons — provided you also offer Sign In With Apple.
> provided you also offer Sign In With Apple. They are using their app store monopoly to gain a foothold in the single sign-on business. You could try to claim that there's no business there but look at how Microsoft got spanked for giving away a free browser. Now the Apple has over half the phones in the United States, I'm looking forward to them getting spanked very soon hopefully.
Yeah, it's practically the same thing if you just ignore the basic facts of the case.