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

My small revenge on Apple

javierantonsblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 471 posts

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#411

Post by GeekyBear »

collaborative wrote: post #184
shellac wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Petty and hysterical. The part where the developer puts the word 'privacy' in scare quotes is a bit of a red flag for me. Suggesting that "accept[ing] two "social logins": Google and Facebook. All was well." does not fill me with confidence that the developer respects privacy concerns.

The reason "privacy" is in quotes is that some of us have started seeing through what Apple really means every time they use the word. As the EU's Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager has recently said regarding their Apple probe, privacy can't be an excuse to stifle competition. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/07/02/eu-antitrust-head... All was well because nobody was forcing me (the developer) to includ…

>privacy can't be an excuse to stifle competition

Offering Apple as a choice does not remove the customer's ability to use the two biggest names in surveillance capitalism as the "protector" of their privacy.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#412

Post by pier25 »

HWR_14 wrote: post #402
pier25 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is extremely hostile to developers. After a couple of bad experiences with the app store I simply refused to do any development for iOS.

Apple is extremely restrictive to developers. As a developer, I hate it. As a consumer, I love it. Apple has never shown me hostility. On the contrary, I found Apple to offer reasons why they do things and how to work around them. Have they sometimes forced me to do things I don't want (and felt were worse)? Yes. But it was obvious what I needed to do to comply.

> Apple is extremely restrictive to developers

Restrictive is not the appropriate word.

For example, this whole forcing devs to use "sign in with Apple" is not about imposing restrictions as you can decide to not use a third party sign in (on a new app).

Apple is saying "hey if your users can sign in with Facebook they should be able to sign in with Apple, we want a piece of the pie". Some iOS users are happy about the privacy aspect of this but fundamentally (IMO) this is not about privacy or restrictions, it's about making users and devs more dependent on the Apple ecosystem.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#413

Post by HWR_14 »

collaborative wrote: post #291
spacedcowboy wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it is. And I would choose to trust Apple over some nobody on the internet with a seeming chip on their shoulder (seriously, that post is just cringe ) over anyone who promoted Facebook and (to a lesser extent, obviously) Google as sign-in methods. In. A. Heartbeat. You claim (elsewhere) that you only send responsible-sounding emails, but the level of invective in your screed leads me to disbelieve you. Persona…

I challenge you to sign up (with Apple ID if you wish) and see for yourself how many emails you get. Otherwise you're accusing without evidence I don't challenge that Apple ID is a good thing. I protest Apple's method of implementation

> I challenge you to sign up (with Apple ID if you wish) and see for yourself how many emails you get. Otherwise you're accusing without evidence

Maybe you're a good developer. And? How many sites on the internet do you think I'll have to trust before it backfires?

> I protest Apple's method of implementation

How else could it have been implemented that would have led to any reasonable adoption rate?

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#414

Post by cwizou »

haswell wrote: post #389
cwizou wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep but that should be made clear and not just implied, because at the end of the day, their users who signup with Apple will be unable to use their web app because of the developer choice not to implement it (which is definitely their right not to do so, they can handle the support), and not Apple not giving them the APIs.

Yeah, this is the part that makes the developer not just petty, but actually quite disingenuous and actively hostile to their own users. It's one thing to argue against the policy and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's unacceptable and close to outright lying to imply that the policy decision makes the user's account only usable with Apple devices. The really puzzling thing about all of this is that the develo…

> Apple took away his choice, so he's taking away his users' choice to use the feature as they desire.

And it doesn't hurt Apple in the slightest, couldn't agree more.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#415

Post by HWR_14 »

pier25 wrote: post #412
HWR_14 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is extremely restrictive to developers. As a developer, I hate it. As a consumer, I love it. Apple has never shown me hostility. On the contrary, I found Apple to offer reasons why they do things and how to work around them. Have they sometimes forced me to do things I don't want (and felt were worse)? Yes. But it was obvious what I needed to do to comply.

> Apple is extremely restrictive to developers Restrictive is not the appropriate word. For example, this whole forcing devs to use "sign in with Apple" is not about imposing restrictions as you can decide to not use a third party sign in (on a new app). Apple is saying "hey if your users can sign in with Facebook they should be able to sign in with Apple, we want a piece of the pie". Some iOS users are happy about t…

What's the "pie"? FB makes money off their data. Apple seems to be providing me the service I paid for.

If they made it optional, a large percentage of apps would force you to use Google/FB to login. That's not acceptable to me.

One of the major reasons I give Apple money is to because they can stand up against the privacy invading FB/Google and I, as an individual, cannot. So they are very much doing what I want in this instance.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#416

Post by Dylan16807 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #102
Dylan16807 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rejection reason was that the option did not exist . It was the very first option. Calling that Kafkaesque is fine, and there is no reason for you to act so smug.

> there is no reason for you to act so smug. I'm not smug. I'm battle-scarred. I'll lay odds that I've had a lot more rejections than you have, and probably gotten a lot more pissed off at Apple. Being an experienced Apple developer (since 1986), means that I have been incandescent with rage at Apple -many times. All of us have. Apple can be a real pain to work with. I still develop for Apple, but I am not a "fanboi.…

> In a couple of cases, I have been able to get people on the horn (PROTIP: Don't be calling them "smug," and be polite, even though you want to throttle them), where they have explained the issue.

> That "smugness" is actually a deliberate part of their brand.

I wasn't calling Apple smug, though?

I was calling your comment smug, because of 1. implying it's unreasonable to say "kafkaesque" despite Apple setting up a system where you need to "read tea leaves" instead of believing what they tell you, and 2. phrasing it as that they "couldn't understand" the problem.

Your advice, as far as saying they use canned messages that merely resemble the actual problem, is very useful. But don't be mean to someone that doesn't know that. It's a major failing on Apple's part.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#417

Post by randyrand »

avnigo wrote: post #53

> So here is my small revenge: I am refusing to port Apple ID to the web version. Apple users who logged into Groups via the app with Apple ID will need to create a second account. Am I hurting myself? Am I shooting myself in the foot? Probably. But this is war So, help me understand here -- the revenge is punishing their users that signed up with Apple ID? In what way is this revenge against Apple?

Because websites that do this will associate Sign In with Apple as being inferior / worse for interop.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#418

Post by greatgib »

martimarkov wrote: post #73
collaborative wrote: post #65

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…

Crazy Stockholm syndrome in my opinion:

>

You have to clear your mind, the don't care about you, they care about your money only. This is why they want you to be captive but they pretend that it is for your own good. And you buy it...

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#419

Post by zapzupnz »

wayneftw wrote: post #242
meepmorp wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could try to claim that there's no business there but look at how Microsoft got spanked for giving away a free browser. Yeah, it's practically the same thing if you just ignore the basic facts of the case.

Oh? Microsoft got in trouble for using the Windows monopoly to 1.) gain market share for their free browser and 2.) forcing OEMs to not sell alternative operating systems so they could keep their Windows monopoly. You can read all about that here [0] That's exactly the kind of behavior that Apple is exhibiting here. It's pretty easy to come along and say that I'm "ignoring the basic facts of the case" though without…

They got in trouble for lock in. Their integration of Internet Explorer practically made out the de facto implementation and made Windows the de facto operating system on machines.

But again, Sign In with Apple sits in addition to the other offerings, it doesn’t replace them, and in no case are developers expected to be unable to offer regular sign in with email.

To my mind, you’re not wrong, but making a rather different argument.

Re: My small revenge on Apple

#420

Post by ksec »

vasachi wrote: post #363
ksec wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is until you have Keyboard problem and Display problem from MacBook Pro 2016 where it was clearly a design defect.

Apple will fix those for free, you know?

Keyboard is only up to three times inclusive of all your previous keyboard fix. Display is only available to 13" MacBook Pro and not 15".
Post reply on HN