Highly passive-aggressive. I like it.
My small revenge on Apple
391–400 of 471 posts
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Apple cares about locking their users into their platform more than they care about their users. Users own their Apple devices, Apple does NOT own it's users.
From what I've seen and experienced that is not true. Apple support is great and help me always, Apple store is great and I always get treated nicely. So I guess they care about me and my experience which translates into the platform they have built for ME - the user. I doubt they built a platform for the sake of building something.
As for Apple owning the user - elaborate pls. I don't see how they try to even own me. I made an educated decision to use that software and hardware BECAUSE of things like ApplePay, SignIn, App Store, etc.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, the web app isn't published yet and I will take this into consideration
Take what you see here with a grain of salt; this forum is traditionally filled to the brim with Apple boot lickers. You're fighting the good fight and should be applauded, not chastised for the wording.
Do not mistake the sentiment here for Apple boot licking. It is possible to be both critical of Apple's policies while also recognizing the value they provide to users.
What exactly is "the good fight" here, and how is forcing this fight onto an app's user base something that should be applauded?
I'm no Apple fanboy, but I do think they've managed to implement features that are genuinely helpful to users. Whether that's benevolent or self-serving is not necessarily as relevant as the net benefit to end-users.
Personally, I find it refreshing when a policy like this actually results in better privacy for the user and not worse. If the developer truly has such philosophical issues with Apple, they should remove all social login options as the transgressions of the other two are arguably and demonstrably worse for users than Apple Sign In.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sign In with Apple allows you to share your email so you are incorrect. If I decide to hide my email and be locked out - my choice. Developers and companies are greedy for data. Why do we have the expectation that emails should be shared? I constantly say don’t send me marketing and some services send. On my part I report them as spam every time so that algos start blocking them as they are breaking our contract and…
> Also if they ever get locked out from their oauth account they can use the email to create a password and login via the normal way. This is exactly my point ! You can't recover your account if you don't know the mail used for registration. Even if you remembered it, no check could be made if Apple stopped to proxy the mails for one or another reason. With other providers, you could always recover an account because…
Is that not the same with if Google block my account? I won't be even able to login to my email for simple password reset or to verify I'm the actual owner of the email.
This is the problem with one click account vs email entering. It is a risk users should be made aware of but it is still their choice. And for some critical services I'll use my email, for other like the app in question, or most apps on the App Store I'll use one-click install, also most of the time there is no need for me to have an account. Most data can be stored on device without the need for user authentication.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who forced you to write an iOS app and release it on the App Store? This whole thread is bizarre.
The bizarre thing is the ignorance here that this whole thing is a matter of choice! I am glad that there are developers who recognize that they do not have to accept unfair, and even unethical, practices from corporates. And are willing to speak about it and fight it. Like minded developers are not just fighting Apple, but the whole attempt by "big tech" to move to the business model of exploiting developers by cont…
Yes. you don't have to accept anything that is unfair. You can just refuse to develop for the platform.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#396This is one of the reasons why I tend to avoid public-facing mobile app development, the developer ecosystem just feels so restrictive. The alternative here is that I forego publishing on the app store, drastically reducing the audience outreach.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#397The author is writing as if the two players in the game are developers and Apple; but there are three players in the game: developers, users, and Apple. Most of the readers of this piece are users, because developers are users just as much as they're developers. Privacy-preserving federated login options are a good thing. Knowing that the app, which may or may not have security or data protection, has less access to…
I agree with pretty much everything you said. My only concern is that by forcing devs to support Apple ID, Apple has effectively eliminated all incentive they have to make it a compelling experience for users and developers. Whatever Apple decides to do with Apple ID from here, everyone else just has to deal with it.
I really like the idea that an SSO can also server as the single point of trust for personal information like an email address. I just wish Apple let that feature speak for itself. I wish they put in the effort to make Apple ID a popular auth solution because both devs and users actually want it - not because they're forced to have it.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, what can I say, I am sorry. I am sorry for having to do this and wish things were different But it is the only way I can shed light on Apple's behavior. I promise to add a transition mechanism, happy? I will still make sure users get to read some "Apple bad" message to highlight the reason behind Apple ID not being straightforward on the web
> But it is the only way I can shed light on Apple's behavior. It still sounds like Apple's behavior is 100% good for users and your behavior is not. You wanting to circumvent things that are positive for users makes you as a developer look extremely bad (user-hostile). I don't know what else I can say if you don't want to hear it.
It's not 100% good though :)
I'm a user and I wouldn't touch "signin with Apple" with a 10 foot pole. That's waaaay too much lock-in.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking an honest question: if Apple didn’t force this, would you really add this voluntarily? Because this response tells me you’re willing to compromise your user’s experience because of your personal issues with Apple. As a user, this does not give me confidence in your decision making. It’s somewhat understandable to be annoyed, even angry at Apple. But the moment you decide to pass that on to your users is the mo…
Honest answer: yes I don't even hold a grudge against Apple. This is just me trying to make the world a better place. It's in everyone's interest that Apple doesn't gain authority to force us to do things (don't forget, devs also are Apple customers)
The thing is, Apple only 'force' you to add their option if you have an app on the store and offer another form of public federated identity provider. If you don't want to offer Apple as an option, then don't offer anyone else. Look at the context of why they have enforced it. Privacy is hard. The concern is that that the majority identity providers/brokers in use are Facebook and Google. I'll happy listen to the 'competition' argument as it does have a little merit. However, when weighed up against the notion that these two are the only real choice for a significant volume of apps, it is extremely worrisome from a privacy point of view. Neither have a reason to respect end users, or you as a developers privacy because that's how they make money.
Re: My small revenge on Apple
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it is the only way I can shed light on Apple's behavior. It still sounds like Apple's behavior is 100% good for users and your behavior is not. You wanting to circumvent things that are positive for users makes you as a developer look extremely bad (user-hostile). I don't know what else I can say if you don't want to hear it.
It's not 100% good though :) I'm a user and I wouldn't touch "signin with Apple" with a 10 foot pole. That's waaaay too much lock-in.
> I'm a user and I wouldn't touch "signin with Apple" with a 10 foot pole.
For Apple device owners there's significant upside and little-to-no downside. You not wanting to use it doesn't mean that it isn't 100% good for Apple device users.
> That's waaaay too much lock-in.
If the app developer cared, they'd give you a way to migrate your credentials.
Anyway, you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Apple just makes it so that you have the _option_ to. But you should at least recognize that it's the only given option that allows people to use the service without giving away their email address to random app developers. That's a huge privacy win for users.