12 ms·

Apple's Audacity

192 points by denzil_correa 7y ago

timtas 7y ago
The author heard Cook’s comments as advocating for privacy, but that’s wrong. He’s advocating for privacy legislation. The utility of privacy legislation for a company like Apple is to protect itself from completion by firms too small to afford the armies of lawyers and compliance experts that Apple can. The tech industry it seems has finally caught on to the age old racket of regulatory capture. Every big tech chief can be heard begging governments to “stop us before we sin.” With their business models well proven and scale achieved, they will lobby for more regulations and of course volunteer to bring their distinctive expertise to the drafting table.
Exuma 7y ago
️I'd buy it, why's everyone always get so upset about price. If you get so upset by price you probably arent the target market for a 32-core computer.......... go build your own PC
- Hamuko 7y ago
  What if I'm in the market for a solid Mac workstation? The lowest spec option for a Mac Pro is 6000 dollars. That is a lot of money for a computer. Barring the Mac Pro, what are my options? There's the Mac Mini. Reasonably priced perhaps, but pretty low on specs and upgradability. I also have my concerns over the cooling. Then there's the iMac. Again, concerns with the upgradability and cooling. At least the pricing is decent for a Mac. That is unless you go for the iMac Pro, which is almost the same level as the entry-level Mac Pro. At least the iMac Pro comes with a monitor stand.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    I guess you can be upset at the price, but people have been asking Apple for a mini-tower for decades and they're obviously not interested in offering one. I'm not sure why anyone would think the Mac Pro redesign would be it.
    - linguae 7y ago
      It's because for the past two decades Apple has always provided a Power Mac or Mac Pro at the inflation-adjusted $2500-3000 price point. As of now there is no user-serviceable Mac at that price point. The people who are upset are not necessary those Mac users who have been clamoring for the mystical "xMac" for the past 15 or so years. We know that the chances of Apple ever releasing a sub-$2,000 tower (which is what the "xMac" was) is very slim. No, the people who are upset are people who want user-serviceable, upgradeable, and expandable Macs who were able to buy them at the traditional $2,500-$3,000 price points who now feel abandoned by Apple because Apple's remaining desktop offerings are the Mac Mini, iMac, and iMac Pro, none of which satisfy the expandability requirement of the 2012 and previous Mac Pro nor the user-serviceability requirement of the 2013 Mac Pro. I have a 2013 Mac Pro and I'm upset with Apple because I don't want to buy a Mac Mini or an iMac yet there is nothing comparable to the Mac Pro at the $3,000 price point. Of course my Mac Pro is still working and I can still get a few more years of solid use from it for my needs (although I was really looking forward to this Mac Pro announcement after years of waiting), but when it's time to upgrade, unless Apple reverses direction (which I think is slim given that Tim Cook has been wildly successful from a financial standpoint), I'll have nothing satisfactory to upgrade to; I'll either have to pick a compromised Mac that is difficult or expensive to upgrade, somehow pony up $6,000 for an upgradeable computer, or leave the Mac entirely. That's why I'm upset, as well as many other Mac users who have waited for years for a Mac Pro upgrade only to be told by Apple that we have been abandoned.
      - timc3 7y ago
        and they are just not going to listen and instead declare the Mac Pro a success for the next few years.
      - pfranz 7y ago
        Most people in these threads have been complaining about wanting a mini-tower from Apple at a rock-bottom price. Personally, I'd love one, too, and the Mac Pro has never been a consideration to me because of the price. Unfortunately, cost-creep has been happening more every year. Apple seems pretty proud that the average cost of an iPhone has jumped up since the iPhoneX. For almost a decade I would buy a Macbook Pro, then aftermarket upgrade the ram and hard drive. Now that it is no longer an option that has greatly increased the cost of a new laptop for me. (to be fair to Apple, the PC laptops I was looking at also had soldered RAM and while the SSDs weren't soldered on, they had worse performance and were close in cost after upgrading). I'm still hoping PC makers catchup. The iMac Pro seems to have filled the price-point of the old entry level Mac Pro. It sucks there's not a Mac that fits your needs at a reasonable price...I feel similarly about their laptops. It's like pros have gone from ignored to priced out of the market.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    What type of upgradeability do you need from the Mac Mini? Storage and GPUs can be added externally and the RAM is upgradable.
  - Exuma 7y ago
    I guess if a fully loaded iMac or MBP are not suitable to your needs, then you are in a particular niche where I would expect a person not to balk at $6000. There's not much either my MBP or iMac can't do and I heavily abuse them. The only thing I can think of would be very very intensive video editing, and in that case, $6000 is a drop in the bucket compared to most professional editing tools and software.
    - timc3 7y ago
      Except it’s not a drop in the bucket anymore. All of the costs have come way down. To be honest I don’t think they are targeting the everyday video producer. They are targeting the high end as like you say a lot of people could use the other products. So why wouldn’t we use the other products - they are not upgradable and rely on lots of cables and external boxes hanging off them. And for me personally the thermal design is poor. My MacBook Pro gets too hot, the fans kick in and then it’s throttled.
  - neetdeth 7y ago
    They could take a Mac Pro and just chop it in half to create the product so many people want. 1 MPX module. 6 DIMM slots. 700 watt power supply. One 10Gb Ethernet port. Supports up to 12 cores. Shrink the case somewhat in two dimensions and call it the Mac Pro Mini. How hard can this possibly be you have all the parts right there...
jolesf 7y ago
Ben doesn't explicitly draw this line, but it seems Apple is betting that courts reward orientation towards privacy in the face of monopolistic actions.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter. (IE it's illegal regardless of reason). If it got to SCOTUS, it would probably end up under rule of reason as with anything else, but i'd also suspect Apple would lose in that circumstance. Their goal for consumers could be achieved without the tying - issue guidelines as to what you will require in terms of privacy for any third party identity service used in IOS apps. Offer Apple sign-in as just one thing that meets those requirements.` Either facebook and google change to meet your requirements, which achieves your consumer goal. or people move to Apple sign-in, which also achieves your consumer goal. Tada, no direct tying. This is just one example, but it's hard to see a path for them to win on that one in court. Their best hope is really a good definition of their market and finding of no market power. If a court finds otherwise, their odds of winning here seem ... low.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    >Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter. Nope. Courts have been subjecting tying to rule of reason analyses for a while now. Illinois Tool Works: >Over the years, however, this Court’s strong disapproval of tying arrangements has substantially diminished. Rather than relying on assumptions, in its more recent opinions the Court has required a showing of market power in the tying product. Our early opinions consistently assumed that “[t]ying arrangements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition.” Standard Oil Co., 337 U. S., at 305–306. In 1962, in Loew’s, 371 U. S., at 47–48, the Court relied on this assumption despite evidence of significant competition in the market for the tying product. And as recently as 1969, Justice Black, writing for the majority, relied on the assumption as support for the proposition “that, at least when certain prerequisites are met, arrangements of this kind are illegal in and of themselves, and no specific showing of unreasonable competitive effect is required.” Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 498–499 (Fortner I). Explaining the Court’s decision to allow the suit to proceed to trial, he stated that “decisions rejecting the need for proof of truly dominant power over the tying product have all been based on a recognition that because tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose that cannot be achieved in some less restrictive way, the presence of any appreciable restraint on competition provides a sufficient reason for invalidating the tie.” Id., at 503. >Reflecting a changing view of tying arrangements, four Justices dissented in Fortner I, arguing that the challenged “tie”—the extension of a $2 million line of credit on condition that the borrower purchase prefabricated houses from the defendant—might well have served a legitimate purpose. Id., at 510 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 520 (opinion of Fortas, J.). In his opinion, Justice White noted that promotional tie-ins may provide “uniquely advantageous deals” to purchasers. Id., at 519. And Justice Fortas concluded that the arrangement was best characterized as “a sale of a single product with the incidental provision of financing.” Id., at 522. >The dissenters’ view that tying arrangements may well be procompetitive ultimately prevailed; indeed, it did so in the very same lawsuit. After the Court remanded the suit in Fortner I, a bench trial resulted in judgment for the plaintiff, and the case eventually made its way back to this Court. Upon return, we unanimously held that the plaintiff’s failure of proof on the issue of market power was fatal to its case—the plaintiff had proved “nothing more than a willingness to provide cheap financing in order to sell expensive houses.” United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., 429 U. S. 610, 622 (1977) (Fortner II). And overturning the per se rule for patents: >After considering the congressional judgment reflected in the 1988 amendment, we conclude that tying arrangements involving patented products should be evaluated under the standards applied in cases like Fortner II and Jefferson Parish rather than under the per se rule applied in Morton Salt and Loew’s. While some such arrangements are still unlawful, such as those that are the product of a true monopoly or a marketwide conspiracy, see, e.g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 145–146 (1948), that conclusion must be supported by proof of power in the relevant market rather than by a mere presumption thereof.[Footnote 4] >Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/28/#tab-opinion-1962053 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/28/#tab-opin... Apple should have no fears about flexing on Facebook and Google.
781 7y ago
With everybody now having an iPhone and Macbook, they don't feel that exclusive anymore. So they need to up the game, to show they are still a luxury product. A $50k computer is certainly a good start from this point of view, Apple needs to reassert itself as a status symbol. They need to get the word out far and wide that they are selling a computer with the price of a good car.
- whitepoplar 7y ago
  I think the best way to do this is to sell a $2-3k iPhone.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  don't worry, green texts keeps people snobby even if they don't know what it means.
  - whitepoplar 7y ago
    green texts are such a thing! gross.
  - anchpop 7y ago
    There's definitely snob, but SMS is a really bad protocol by today's standards. (Most of my family is on RCS (aka Google Chat) now, and it's a huge improvement while still being worse than iMessage.)
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So unencrypted RCS is better than unencrypted SMS?
      - anchpop 7y ago
        The vast majority of people don't care about E2E encryption, and those that do still probably prefer RCS to SMS (typing indicators, messages send faster, images aren't compressed as all hell, group chats work, read receipts)
temptemptemp111 7y ago
What do you mean, "it was fun seeing what Apple came up with in its attempt to build the most powerful Mac ever..."? Giving them way too much credit. Intel and AMD and a bunch of other creators came up with this Mac Pro. And Apple reduced the value of those inventions. Any hobbyist can put together an equally powerful computer for way cheaper that runs OSX. Even a rich studio with money to blow would save money, increase performance, and create jobs if they just employed a hobbyist to build them Hackintosh computers. Put those contractors under NDA - simple. If you're going to let Apple strong arm you into paying obscene amounts of money for things worth less, then you're entering an abusive relationship of which you are a part.
oflannabhra 7y ago
> Apple is going to leverage its monopoly position as app provider on the iPhone to force developers...to use Sign In With Apple. So, is Ben making the argument that the above is illegal? I don't see any difference to Apple "requiring" developers to use a new framework. He later says that even Android developers will be required to offer Sign In with Apple... but I don't see how that is possibly the case.
- giobox 7y ago
  I haven't read the mechanics of this fully yet, but the first obvious scenario I can foresee: 1. Customer signs up for service on iPhone with "Sign in With Apple". 2. Customer sells iPhone. 3. Customer buys Android phone. How does customer sign in and keep their same account on the new phone? For sure there might be other mitigation strategies (a web UI that allows account migration etc), but this decision absolutely has ramifications beyond just iOS users of apps using third party signin. Same is true of customers with devices in both ecosystems - Android phone and an iPad tablet, for example. If customer signs up on the iPad with "Sign in With Apple", how do they log in on the Android phone that only has the other third party login integrations? People are going to have to think this through, and Apple forcing it on all Apps using third party signin means they are going to have to think it through soon.
  - Someone 7y ago
    ”How does customer sign in and keep their same account on the new phone?” I would guess by keeping their Apple ID. AFAIK, you don’t have to buy anything from Apple to get one. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316: ”An Apple ID is the account you use to access Apple services like iCloud, the App Store, the iTunes Store, Apple Music, and more. It includes the email address and password that you use to sign in” https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316#web https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316#web: ”Use a web browser If you need to create an Apple ID on your device — including your Android device or Apple TV — you can usually follow the steps provided when you set up your device or Apple service for the first time”
    - 7y ago
lowdose 7y ago
Could it be that the new price tag of $6000 of the mac pro is a correction for the inflation Apple witnesses after 10 years of quantitative easing? https://editorial.azureedge.net/miscelaneous/chart1-636517773869379779.jpg https://editorial.azureedge.net/miscelaneous/chart1-63651777...
wutman 7y ago
I think the general U.S. population is okay with monopolies that make their lives better. Apple will continue to push the envelope. Developers can fight back (does anyone remember the Apple vs Spotify thing?) but if Apple keeps putting out a consistent quality experience, the vast maturity of the population won't be sympathetic.
- otterley 7y ago
  I think it's true as long as they're not pricing as a monopolist would. One could argue that Standard Oil and AT&T (pre-1980s Bell System, that is) made people's lives better, but the prices they exacted from their customers were too high. On the other hand, the increasing importance of intellectual property to the American economy (vs. the manufacturing economy) -- and the Constitutionally-sanctioned monopolies that come with it -- suggest that perhaps even monopolistic pricing is no longer the concern it once was.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    Is it a monopoly if all other options are ad-infested and privacy lacking? If Apple is considered to have a monopoly on privacy-first devices and ecosystem, then let's first judge the system that allows the other (clearly undesirable) options to even exist. Monopoly as a definitive term has criteria, and Apple doesn't meet those. By your same argument, any luxury brand "prices like a monopolist" and should be shunned.
    - otterley 7y ago
      I don't contend that Apple is a monopolist. We're discussing a hypothetical that assumes that they are, and whether it would be tolerated by law and society in today's climate as opposed to how monopolies were treated in previous generations.
      - r00fus 7y ago
        So you're comparing a hypothetical assertion to previous actual monopolies? Sounds unproductive other than to lend credence to the (false) assertion.
giobox 7y ago
"Sign In with Apple" - the likely effects of this policy change is frankly great as far as I'm concerned, but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. I think the net effect of Apple's decision is likely positive, but they've effectively been forced to almost abuse their dominant market position to do it. In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry, rather than relying on the good intentions of Apple and the success of the App Store to push the change.
- scarface74 7y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me the trust that the tech industry has in both the competence and the benevolence of the government.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    I don't think that the government is generally competent or benevolent, but I am 100% sure that the tech industry is not benevolent, and that bothers me in direct proportion to their competence.
    - enraged_camel 7y ago
      Furthermore, with government, there is at least some notion of accountability. Imperfect as it may be, generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences. Furthermore, there are mechanisms such as FOIA that any citizen or organization can utilize to find out if and when those fuck ups happen, as well. Big Tech though is basically a closed black box that has immense power and is almost totally unregulated. This leaves an incredible amount of room for abuse. Therefore, I am totally okay with a semi-competent, sometimes-benevolent entity that is accountable to the public (government) to much more tightly regulate this industry.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        People don't vote based on monopolies and privacy. Politicians can get away with all matter of things if they appeal to the electorate's baser instincts and prejudices. EDIT: "Prejudices" don't necessarily mean race, religion, etc. It also could be "evil capitalist" vs "evil socialist" or "baby killing war monger" vs "peace loving hippy". And giving more power to the government couldn't possibly lead to abuse.....
GoodJokes 7y ago
I can’t believe people actually write this many words about a really expensive computer. Yikes
fludlight 7y ago
Is pro-film and audio production the target market for the new MacPro? At first I thought they might be going for the ML demographic, which has the budget and demand for beefy workstations, but they're using AMD GPUs, not nvidia.
- theodorton 7y ago
  Apple seems to be somewhat unhappy with nvidia. I think AMD might have ML stuff in their roadmap and Apple is making a bet they will make it before they fix their relationship with nvidia.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    From what I hear, Nvidia won't allow Apple to write "bare metal" drivers for their cards. I don't know enough about GPU programming to know exactly what Nvidia is allowing and what they aren't.
    - pfranz 7y ago
      I wish we knew the truth behind this. In my opinion Apple is losing more than Nvidia and Nvidia seems to be trying harder to make this work than Apple. From my understanding, Apple has been writing/maintaining GPU drivers. They've been pretty bad at optimizing them (they also are dropping OpenGL support) so Nvidia wants to maintain drivers themselves. As Apple has been locking down more and more of the OS, it's pushing out Nvidia from creating and distributing drivers. If Apple ceded to Nvidia, I imagine it would be harder for Apple to push things like Metal. The details of the fight are probably a lot more detailed since they would be negotiating about hardware supply and long term contracts.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        If Apple secedes control of the video drivers to Nvidia then they are beholden to Nvidia’s schedule and priorities. Something similar happen with Google. They couldn’t update some of their Nexus phones because they were dependent on drivers they didn’t control.
toddh 7y ago
Does this mean we can't have our own login system anymore? If so how will you authenticate with APIs? You need to login to get tokens.
- rakoo 7y ago
  Unless I misunderstood, Sign in with Apple is a required option, not the only required way to login. Of course it remains to be seen how long other options are allowed to coexist.
  - toddh 7y ago
    That can't possibly work. How do you handle tokens, 2FA, etc?
  - MBCook 7y ago
    Required if you have other THIRD PARTY logins. If you are your own (and only) account provider you should be fine.
    - basch 7y ago
      is active directory (a product not a service) a third party?
  - jmelloy 7y ago
    And I believe it's only required if you offer. "sign in with facebook" or "sign in with google" link. If everything's self-contained (ie Netflix), no issues.
drivingmenuts 7y ago
I would love for Apple to create an App Store populated only with apps that did things their way, guaranteeing a certain level of security and privacy. They could easily allow other app stores that did things the other way, surviving off capturing user details and selling it off wholesale or whatever. Let consumers make their own choice. It would enable Apple to get rid of a shedload of insecure , spammy apps that provide minimal benefits to users in a crowded app market. Apple could, if managed properly, turn it into a major selling point.
- intopieces 7y ago
  >”Let consumers make their own choice.” Consumer choice is predicated on information symmetry that does not exist in this market. Consumers make the wrong choice all the time and it’s the company that allowed it to happen that pays for it in the form of bad PR. See: YouTube and the weird kids content. There wasn’t anyone stepping up to defend Google with the argument that “Google was just letting consumers (parents) make the choice.”
  - pfranz 7y ago
    Thank you for bringing up "information symmetry." I feel like this is always missing in discussions of free markets and capitalism. To me, information asymmetry is what most regulations are trying to address (package labeling, testing, process standards). In areas where consumer/producer already have the same information regulations aren't needed and cause unnecessary problems.
- kevingrahl 7y ago
  This is what I’d like to see; Require all Apps distributed via their AppStore to conform to their requirements regarding privacy and whatever else they want like they are doing right now. Apps can and should get kicked out of their store if they repeatedly sell user data or otherwise don’t follow Apple’s rules. Then let App devs, if they want to do that, apply for additional manual checks. They could probably get away with charging for that check. If Apple is satisfied that the App only does what it’s supposed to and doesn’t abuse its privileges or send data to third parties, approve it and mark it as such. Some kind of badge prominently displayed on the App Store marking that App as “checked by Apple” or something. Give App Store users an option to hide Apps not checked by Apple. Sure it gives Apple even greater power as a gatekeeper but I think the benefit to consumers caring about privacy outweighs that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
panpanna 7y ago
This sort of articles always show up after Apple announcement. I see the same cycle over and over again: laughter, rage, acceptance, repeat.
- simonrobb 7y ago
  The sentiment of the article leaned more toward praise than any of those you enumerated.
  - panpanna 7y ago
    You are correct. I saw the 6000 figure at the top and thought oh not again. Serves me right for not reading the rest before commenting :(
just_myles 7y ago
The audacity of the monitor stand?
- kccqzy 7y ago
  More like the audacity of using its monopoly position on app distribution to push for their new SSO solution, Sign In With Apple.
- zepearl 7y ago
  Peasants around Apple's newly launched $1000 monitor stand (c. 2019): https://9gag.com/gag/an9wYQo https://9gag.com/gag/an9wYQo :)
eoinmurray92 7y ago
These iPhone price graphs would be better if they accounted for inflation - which still shows a large increase in price, especially if you look at the flagship phones. https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices
- Robelius 7y ago
  > These iPhone price graphs would be better if they accounted for inflation I started normalizing the prices to 2018 prices after reading your comment, up until I realized the title points out that the values are inflation adjusted. Also followed the links to find the original posting if anyone was curious. https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/9v45n9/the_cost_of_each_iphone_at_launch_adjusted_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/9v45n9/the_cost_of_...
ryeguy_24 7y ago
Ya know, I know everyone hates the big guys, but I’m pretty impressed with the new releases, including the Apple Sign On. I personally have never liked the way Facebook Connect or Google have implemented their frameworks. To add random email and optionality (not sure if others allow optionality with sign on or if they are still all or nothing based on requested permissions) is a win in my eyes. Yes, the requirement is a little strict but that’s why their ecosystem yields consistent experiences across apps. And yes, they aren’t a non-profit, but most of us have signed up for capitalism and if this enhances our privacy long-term then I don’t think this is the worst outcome.
ryeguy_24 7y ago
Isn’t Single Sign On monopolistic by definition? Do we want 400 SSO providers? Wouldn’t that not be “Single” Sign On? Before we ring the alarm of anti-trust and monopolies, do we really understand what the alternative means?
- andreasley 7y ago
  In my opinion, yes, we do want 400 SSO providers – providing the same, standardized mechanism to sign in. Maybe something along the lines of ID4me [1]. In the long run, there will probably be government-provided digital identities for everyone. But right now, Apple is probably one of very few institutions that are both willing and able to provide a SSO system with great usability, privacy and market penetration. [1] https://id4me.org https://id4me.org
- saveferris 7y ago
  This is interesting...Apple and Google are going in totally different directions, based on their market strengths. Not a shocker but I'm interested to see how it plays out. I've not read any of the apple docs so I'm not sure but I suspect Sign In with Apple is going to be required as an option, not required to be used. In other words a given app may have Facebook, Google, Apple sign in. I don't think it's required today but what if Google takes the same stance as Apple and mandates that all Play Store apps must have Google sign in available. So not 400 but at least two and likely three since Facebook is popular too. If Apple mandates the use of Sign In then I think there may be some monopolistic issues. I'm not familiar with the actual law, grossly generalizing some comments below the theme is Apple cannot be monopolistic since there is an alternative in Android and Android has a larger world wide market share. I don't understand that line of reasoning but admit I do not know what the law says. Seems to me if you have complete control and it's harmful than that is monopolistic...
cromwellian 7y ago
Why are we satisfied with Sign In with <Big Company>? Shouldn't this be an open standard? I mean, I know open/federated identity systems have failed several times, but there's no reason why we can have a spec where your device or browser generates per-site credentials and stores them in some encrypted replicated storage. And for email-relay, that's been going on since penet.fi in the 90s. Email is already federated, and there's no reason why you can't use third party email anonymizing services. Apple had an opportunity to produce something that might be adoptable by everyone, but instead they went walled-garden again.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And then you have to trust the third party.
  - cromwellian 7y ago
    You only have to trust a third party with a throw-away email forwarding system. But we know how to do anonymous remailing/forwarding already, and Apple could have adopted a spec that forces developers to use a forwarding system that is end-to-end encrypted if they want to email your throwaway.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And part of that “email forwarding” is access to all of your mail including your password resets.
      - cromwellian 7y ago
        You missed the point. There's no access because you can require end-to-end encryption for mails that use the forwarding system, just like the PGP remailer/forwarding systems, so the remailer node isn't subject to MITM. Moreover, if you're using "Sign in with X" in the first place, there's no password and no password reset. Key Exchange is the big MITM vulnerability. There's decades of experience now around building distributed identity. Bitcoin wallets are a large scale example of that. If we're going to finally flip the switch on not using verifiable, public email addresses as part of credentials, we should rip the bandaid off and get rid of the centrality all together.
taauji 7y ago
What happens if sites start blocking Apple's anonymized login just like they block disposable emails?

192 points by denzil_correa 7y ago

The author heard Cook’s comments as advocating for privacy, but that’s wrong. He’s advocating for privacy legislation. The utility of privacy legislation for a company like Apple is to protect itself from completion by firms too small to afford the armies of lawyers and compliance experts that Apple can. The tech industry it seems has finally caught on to the age old racket of regulatory capture. Every big tech chief can be heard begging governments to “stop us before we sin.” With their business models well proven and scale achieved, they will lobby for more regulations and of course volunteer to bring their distinctive expertise to the drafting table.

Exuma 7y ago

️I'd buy it, why's everyone always get so upset about price. If you get so upset by price you probably arent the target market for a 32-core computer.......... go build your own PC

Hamuko 7y ago
What if I'm in the market for a solid Mac workstation? The lowest spec option for a Mac Pro is 6000 dollars. That is a lot of money for a computer. Barring the Mac Pro, what are my options? There's the Mac Mini. Reasonably priced perhaps, but pretty low on specs and upgradability. I also have my concerns over the cooling. Then there's the iMac. Again, concerns with the upgradability and cooling. At least the pricing is decent for a Mac. That is unless you go for the iMac Pro, which is almost the same level as the entry-level Mac Pro. At least the iMac Pro comes with a monitor stand.
- pfranz 7y ago
  I guess you can be upset at the price, but people have been asking Apple for a mini-tower for decades and they're obviously not interested in offering one. I'm not sure why anyone would think the Mac Pro redesign would be it.
  - linguae 7y ago
    It's because for the past two decades Apple has always provided a Power Mac or Mac Pro at the inflation-adjusted $2500-3000 price point. As of now there is no user-serviceable Mac at that price point. The people who are upset are not necessary those Mac users who have been clamoring for the mystical "xMac" for the past 15 or so years. We know that the chances of Apple ever releasing a sub-$2,000 tower (which is what the "xMac" was) is very slim. No, the people who are upset are people who want user-serviceable, upgradeable, and expandable Macs who were able to buy them at the traditional $2,500-$3,000 price points who now feel abandoned by Apple because Apple's remaining desktop offerings are the Mac Mini, iMac, and iMac Pro, none of which satisfy the expandability requirement of the 2012 and previous Mac Pro nor the user-serviceability requirement of the 2013 Mac Pro. I have a 2013 Mac Pro and I'm upset with Apple because I don't want to buy a Mac Mini or an iMac yet there is nothing comparable to the Mac Pro at the $3,000 price point. Of course my Mac Pro is still working and I can still get a few more years of solid use from it for my needs (although I was really looking forward to this Mac Pro announcement after years of waiting), but when it's time to upgrade, unless Apple reverses direction (which I think is slim given that Tim Cook has been wildly successful from a financial standpoint), I'll have nothing satisfactory to upgrade to; I'll either have to pick a compromised Mac that is difficult or expensive to upgrade, somehow pony up $6,000 for an upgradeable computer, or leave the Mac entirely. That's why I'm upset, as well as many other Mac users who have waited for years for a Mac Pro upgrade only to be told by Apple that we have been abandoned.
    - timc3 7y ago
      and they are just not going to listen and instead declare the Mac Pro a success for the next few years.
    - pfranz 7y ago
      Most people in these threads have been complaining about wanting a mini-tower from Apple at a rock-bottom price. Personally, I'd love one, too, and the Mac Pro has never been a consideration to me because of the price. Unfortunately, cost-creep has been happening more every year. Apple seems pretty proud that the average cost of an iPhone has jumped up since the iPhoneX. For almost a decade I would buy a Macbook Pro, then aftermarket upgrade the ram and hard drive. Now that it is no longer an option that has greatly increased the cost of a new laptop for me. (to be fair to Apple, the PC laptops I was looking at also had soldered RAM and while the SSDs weren't soldered on, they had worse performance and were close in cost after upgrading). I'm still hoping PC makers catchup. The iMac Pro seems to have filled the price-point of the old entry level Mac Pro. It sucks there's not a Mac that fits your needs at a reasonable price...I feel similarly about their laptops. It's like pros have gone from ignored to priced out of the market.
- scarface74 7y ago
  What type of upgradeability do you need from the Mac Mini? Storage and GPUs can be added externally and the RAM is upgradable.
- Exuma 7y ago
  I guess if a fully loaded iMac or MBP are not suitable to your needs, then you are in a particular niche where I would expect a person not to balk at $6000. There's not much either my MBP or iMac can't do and I heavily abuse them. The only thing I can think of would be very very intensive video editing, and in that case, $6000 is a drop in the bucket compared to most professional editing tools and software.
  - timc3 7y ago
    Except it’s not a drop in the bucket anymore. All of the costs have come way down. To be honest I don’t think they are targeting the everyday video producer. They are targeting the high end as like you say a lot of people could use the other products. So why wouldn’t we use the other products - they are not upgradable and rely on lots of cables and external boxes hanging off them. And for me personally the thermal design is poor. My MacBook Pro gets too hot, the fans kick in and then it’s throttled.
- neetdeth 7y ago
  They could take a Mac Pro and just chop it in half to create the product so many people want. 1 MPX module. 6 DIMM slots. 700 watt power supply. One 10Gb Ethernet port. Supports up to 12 cores. Shrink the case somewhat in two dimensions and call it the Mac Pro Mini. How hard can this possibly be you have all the parts right there...

jolesf 7y ago

Ben doesn't explicitly draw this line, but it seems Apple is betting that courts reward orientation towards privacy in the face of monopolistic actions.

DannyBee 7y ago
Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter. (IE it's illegal regardless of reason). If it got to SCOTUS, it would probably end up under rule of reason as with anything else, but i'd also suspect Apple would lose in that circumstance. Their goal for consumers could be achieved without the tying - issue guidelines as to what you will require in terms of privacy for any third party identity service used in IOS apps. Offer Apple sign-in as just one thing that meets those requirements.` Either facebook and google change to meet your requirements, which achieves your consumer goal. or people move to Apple sign-in, which also achieves your consumer goal. Tada, no direct tying. This is just one example, but it's hard to see a path for them to win on that one in court. Their best hope is really a good definition of their market and finding of no market power. If a court finds otherwise, their odds of winning here seem ... low.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter. Nope. Courts have been subjecting tying to rule of reason analyses for a while now. Illinois Tool Works: >Over the years, however, this Court’s strong disapproval of tying arrangements has substantially diminished. Rather than relying on assumptions, in its more recent opinions the Court has required a showing of market power in the tying product. Our early opinions consistently assumed that “[t]ying arrangements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition.” Standard Oil Co., 337 U. S., at 305–306. In 1962, in Loew’s, 371 U. S., at 47–48, the Court relied on this assumption despite evidence of significant competition in the market for the tying product. And as recently as 1969, Justice Black, writing for the majority, relied on the assumption as support for the proposition “that, at least when certain prerequisites are met, arrangements of this kind are illegal in and of themselves, and no specific showing of unreasonable competitive effect is required.” Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 498–499 (Fortner I). Explaining the Court’s decision to allow the suit to proceed to trial, he stated that “decisions rejecting the need for proof of truly dominant power over the tying product have all been based on a recognition that because tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose that cannot be achieved in some less restrictive way, the presence of any appreciable restraint on competition provides a sufficient reason for invalidating the tie.” Id., at 503. >Reflecting a changing view of tying arrangements, four Justices dissented in Fortner I, arguing that the challenged “tie”—the extension of a $2 million line of credit on condition that the borrower purchase prefabricated houses from the defendant—might well have served a legitimate purpose. Id., at 510 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 520 (opinion of Fortas, J.). In his opinion, Justice White noted that promotional tie-ins may provide “uniquely advantageous deals” to purchasers. Id., at 519. And Justice Fortas concluded that the arrangement was best characterized as “a sale of a single product with the incidental provision of financing.” Id., at 522. >The dissenters’ view that tying arrangements may well be procompetitive ultimately prevailed; indeed, it did so in the very same lawsuit. After the Court remanded the suit in Fortner I, a bench trial resulted in judgment for the plaintiff, and the case eventually made its way back to this Court. Upon return, we unanimously held that the plaintiff’s failure of proof on the issue of market power was fatal to its case—the plaintiff had proved “nothing more than a willingness to provide cheap financing in order to sell expensive houses.” United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., 429 U. S. 610, 622 (1977) (Fortner II). And overturning the per se rule for patents: >After considering the congressional judgment reflected in the 1988 amendment, we conclude that tying arrangements involving patented products should be evaluated under the standards applied in cases like Fortner II and Jefferson Parish rather than under the per se rule applied in Morton Salt and Loew’s. While some such arrangements are still unlawful, such as those that are the product of a true monopoly or a marketwide conspiracy, see, e.g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 145–146 (1948), that conclusion must be supported by proof of power in the relevant market rather than by a mere presumption thereof.[Footnote 4] >Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/28/#tab-opinion-1962053 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/28/#tab-opin... Apple should have no fears about flexing on Facebook and Google.

781 7y ago

With everybody now having an iPhone and Macbook, they don't feel that exclusive anymore. So they need to up the game, to show they are still a luxury product. A $50k computer is certainly a good start from this point of view, Apple needs to reassert itself as a status symbol. They need to get the word out far and wide that they are selling a computer with the price of a good car.

whitepoplar 7y ago
I think the best way to do this is to sell a $2-3k iPhone.
jethro_tell 7y ago
don't worry, green texts keeps people snobby even if they don't know what it means.
- whitepoplar 7y ago
  green texts are such a thing! gross.
- anchpop 7y ago
  There's definitely snob, but SMS is a really bad protocol by today's standards. (Most of my family is on RCS (aka Google Chat) now, and it's a huge improvement while still being worse than iMessage.)
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So unencrypted RCS is better than unencrypted SMS?
    - anchpop 7y ago
      The vast majority of people don't care about E2E encryption, and those that do still probably prefer RCS to SMS (typing indicators, messages send faster, images aren't compressed as all hell, group chats work, read receipts)

temptemptemp111 7y ago

What do you mean, "it was fun seeing what Apple came up with in its attempt to build the most powerful Mac ever..."? Giving them way too much credit. Intel and AMD and a bunch of other creators came up with this Mac Pro. And Apple reduced the value of those inventions. Any hobbyist can put together an equally powerful computer for way cheaper that runs OSX. Even a rich studio with money to blow would save money, increase performance, and create jobs if they just employed a hobbyist to build them Hackintosh computers. Put those contractors under NDA - simple. If you're going to let Apple strong arm you into paying obscene amounts of money for things worth less, then you're entering an abusive relationship of which you are a part.

oflannabhra 7y ago

> Apple is going to leverage its monopoly position as app provider on the iPhone to force developers...to use Sign In With Apple. So, is Ben making the argument that the above is illegal? I don't see any difference to Apple "requiring" developers to use a new framework. He later says that even Android developers will be required to offer Sign In with Apple... but I don't see how that is possibly the case.

giobox 7y ago
I haven't read the mechanics of this fully yet, but the first obvious scenario I can foresee: 1. Customer signs up for service on iPhone with "Sign in With Apple". 2. Customer sells iPhone. 3. Customer buys Android phone. How does customer sign in and keep their same account on the new phone? For sure there might be other mitigation strategies (a web UI that allows account migration etc), but this decision absolutely has ramifications beyond just iOS users of apps using third party signin. Same is true of customers with devices in both ecosystems - Android phone and an iPad tablet, for example. If customer signs up on the iPad with "Sign in With Apple", how do they log in on the Android phone that only has the other third party login integrations? People are going to have to think this through, and Apple forcing it on all Apps using third party signin means they are going to have to think it through soon.
- Someone 7y ago
  ”How does customer sign in and keep their same account on the new phone?” I would guess by keeping their Apple ID. AFAIK, you don’t have to buy anything from Apple to get one. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316: ”An Apple ID is the account you use to access Apple services like iCloud, the App Store, the iTunes Store, Apple Music, and more. It includes the email address and password that you use to sign in” https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316#web https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204316#web: ”Use a web browser If you need to create an Apple ID on your device — including your Android device or Apple TV — you can usually follow the steps provided when you set up your device or Apple service for the first time”
  - 7y ago

lowdose 7y ago

Could it be that the new price tag of $6000 of the mac pro is a correction for the inflation Apple witnesses after 10 years of quantitative easing? https://editorial.azureedge.net/miscelaneous/chart1-636517773869379779.jpg https://editorial.azureedge.net/miscelaneous/chart1-63651777...

wutman 7y ago

I think the general U.S. population is okay with monopolies that make their lives better. Apple will continue to push the envelope. Developers can fight back (does anyone remember the Apple vs Spotify thing?) but if Apple keeps putting out a consistent quality experience, the vast maturity of the population won't be sympathetic.

otterley 7y ago
I think it's true as long as they're not pricing as a monopolist would. One could argue that Standard Oil and AT&T (pre-1980s Bell System, that is) made people's lives better, but the prices they exacted from their customers were too high. On the other hand, the increasing importance of intellectual property to the American economy (vs. the manufacturing economy) -- and the Constitutionally-sanctioned monopolies that come with it -- suggest that perhaps even monopolistic pricing is no longer the concern it once was.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Is it a monopoly if all other options are ad-infested and privacy lacking? If Apple is considered to have a monopoly on privacy-first devices and ecosystem, then let's first judge the system that allows the other (clearly undesirable) options to even exist. Monopoly as a definitive term has criteria, and Apple doesn't meet those. By your same argument, any luxury brand "prices like a monopolist" and should be shunned.
  - otterley 7y ago
    I don't contend that Apple is a monopolist. We're discussing a hypothetical that assumes that they are, and whether it would be tolerated by law and society in today's climate as opposed to how monopolies were treated in previous generations.
    - r00fus 7y ago
      So you're comparing a hypothetical assertion to previous actual monopolies? Sounds unproductive other than to lend credence to the (false) assertion.

giobox 7y ago

"Sign In with Apple" - the likely effects of this policy change is frankly great as far as I'm concerned, but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. I think the net effect of Apple's decision is likely positive, but they've effectively been forced to almost abuse their dominant market position to do it. In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry, rather than relying on the good intentions of Apple and the success of the App Store to push the change.

scarface74 7y ago
It never ceases to amaze me the trust that the tech industry has in both the competence and the benevolence of the government.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  I don't think that the government is generally competent or benevolent, but I am 100% sure that the tech industry is not benevolent, and that bothers me in direct proportion to their competence.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    Furthermore, with government, there is at least some notion of accountability. Imperfect as it may be, generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences. Furthermore, there are mechanisms such as FOIA that any citizen or organization can utilize to find out if and when those fuck ups happen, as well. Big Tech though is basically a closed black box that has immense power and is almost totally unregulated. This leaves an incredible amount of room for abuse. Therefore, I am totally okay with a semi-competent, sometimes-benevolent entity that is accountable to the public (government) to much more tightly regulate this industry.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      People don't vote based on monopolies and privacy. Politicians can get away with all matter of things if they appeal to the electorate's baser instincts and prejudices. EDIT: "Prejudices" don't necessarily mean race, religion, etc. It also could be "evil capitalist" vs "evil socialist" or "baby killing war monger" vs "peace loving hippy". And giving more power to the government couldn't possibly lead to abuse.....

GoodJokes 7y ago

I can’t believe people actually write this many words about a really expensive computer. Yikes

fludlight 7y ago

Is pro-film and audio production the target market for the new MacPro? At first I thought they might be going for the ML demographic, which has the budget and demand for beefy workstations, but they're using AMD GPUs, not nvidia.

theodorton 7y ago
Apple seems to be somewhat unhappy with nvidia. I think AMD might have ML stuff in their roadmap and Apple is making a bet they will make it before they fix their relationship with nvidia.
- scarface74 7y ago
  From what I hear, Nvidia won't allow Apple to write "bare metal" drivers for their cards. I don't know enough about GPU programming to know exactly what Nvidia is allowing and what they aren't.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    I wish we knew the truth behind this. In my opinion Apple is losing more than Nvidia and Nvidia seems to be trying harder to make this work than Apple. From my understanding, Apple has been writing/maintaining GPU drivers. They've been pretty bad at optimizing them (they also are dropping OpenGL support) so Nvidia wants to maintain drivers themselves. As Apple has been locking down more and more of the OS, it's pushing out Nvidia from creating and distributing drivers. If Apple ceded to Nvidia, I imagine it would be harder for Apple to push things like Metal. The details of the fight are probably a lot more detailed since they would be negotiating about hardware supply and long term contracts.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      If Apple secedes control of the video drivers to Nvidia then they are beholden to Nvidia’s schedule and priorities. Something similar happen with Google. They couldn’t update some of their Nexus phones because they were dependent on drivers they didn’t control.

toddh 7y ago

Does this mean we can't have our own login system anymore? If so how will you authenticate with APIs? You need to login to get tokens.

rakoo 7y ago
Unless I misunderstood, Sign in with Apple is a required option, not the only required way to login. Of course it remains to be seen how long other options are allowed to coexist.
- toddh 7y ago
  That can't possibly work. How do you handle tokens, 2FA, etc?
- MBCook 7y ago
  Required if you have other THIRD PARTY logins. If you are your own (and only) account provider you should be fine.
  - basch 7y ago
    is active directory (a product not a service) a third party?
- jmelloy 7y ago
  And I believe it's only required if you offer. "sign in with facebook" or "sign in with google" link. If everything's self-contained (ie Netflix), no issues.

drivingmenuts 7y ago

I would love for Apple to create an App Store populated only with apps that did things their way, guaranteeing a certain level of security and privacy. They could easily allow other app stores that did things the other way, surviving off capturing user details and selling it off wholesale or whatever. Let consumers make their own choice. It would enable Apple to get rid of a shedload of insecure , spammy apps that provide minimal benefits to users in a crowded app market. Apple could, if managed properly, turn it into a major selling point.

intopieces 7y ago
>”Let consumers make their own choice.” Consumer choice is predicated on information symmetry that does not exist in this market. Consumers make the wrong choice all the time and it’s the company that allowed it to happen that pays for it in the form of bad PR. See: YouTube and the weird kids content. There wasn’t anyone stepping up to defend Google with the argument that “Google was just letting consumers (parents) make the choice.”
- pfranz 7y ago
  Thank you for bringing up "information symmetry." I feel like this is always missing in discussions of free markets and capitalism. To me, information asymmetry is what most regulations are trying to address (package labeling, testing, process standards). In areas where consumer/producer already have the same information regulations aren't needed and cause unnecessary problems.
kevingrahl 7y ago
This is what I’d like to see; Require all Apps distributed via their AppStore to conform to their requirements regarding privacy and whatever else they want like they are doing right now. Apps can and should get kicked out of their store if they repeatedly sell user data or otherwise don’t follow Apple’s rules. Then let App devs, if they want to do that, apply for additional manual checks. They could probably get away with charging for that check. If Apple is satisfied that the App only does what it’s supposed to and doesn’t abuse its privileges or send data to third parties, approve it and mark it as such. Some kind of badge prominently displayed on the App Store marking that App as “checked by Apple” or something. Give App Store users an option to hide Apps not checked by Apple. Sure it gives Apple even greater power as a gatekeeper but I think the benefit to consumers caring about privacy outweighs that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

panpanna 7y ago

This sort of articles always show up after Apple announcement. I see the same cycle over and over again: laughter, rage, acceptance, repeat.

simonrobb 7y ago
The sentiment of the article leaned more toward praise than any of those you enumerated.
- panpanna 7y ago
  You are correct. I saw the 6000 figure at the top and thought oh not again. Serves me right for not reading the rest before commenting :(

just_myles 7y ago

The audacity of the monitor stand?

kccqzy 7y ago
More like the audacity of using its monopoly position on app distribution to push for their new SSO solution, Sign In With Apple.
zepearl 7y ago
Peasants around Apple's newly launched $1000 monitor stand (c. 2019): https://9gag.com/gag/an9wYQo https://9gag.com/gag/an9wYQo :)

eoinmurray92 7y ago

These iPhone price graphs would be better if they accounted for inflation - which still shows a large increase in price, especially if you look at the flagship phones. https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices

Robelius 7y ago
> These iPhone price graphs would be better if they accounted for inflation I started normalizing the prices to 2018 prices after reading your comment, up until I realized the title points out that the values are inflation adjusted. Also followed the links to find the original posting if anyone was curious. https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/9v45n9/the_cost_of_each_iphone_at_launch_adjusted_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/9v45n9/the_cost_of_...

ryeguy_24 7y ago

Ya know, I know everyone hates the big guys, but I’m pretty impressed with the new releases, including the Apple Sign On. I personally have never liked the way Facebook Connect or Google have implemented their frameworks. To add random email and optionality (not sure if others allow optionality with sign on or if they are still all or nothing based on requested permissions) is a win in my eyes. Yes, the requirement is a little strict but that’s why their ecosystem yields consistent experiences across apps. And yes, they aren’t a non-profit, but most of us have signed up for capitalism and if this enhances our privacy long-term then I don’t think this is the worst outcome.

ryeguy_24 7y ago

Isn’t Single Sign On monopolistic by definition? Do we want 400 SSO providers? Wouldn’t that not be “Single” Sign On? Before we ring the alarm of anti-trust and monopolies, do we really understand what the alternative means?

andreasley 7y ago
In my opinion, yes, we do want 400 SSO providers – providing the same, standardized mechanism to sign in. Maybe something along the lines of ID4me [1]. In the long run, there will probably be government-provided digital identities for everyone. But right now, Apple is probably one of very few institutions that are both willing and able to provide a SSO system with great usability, privacy and market penetration. [1] https://id4me.org https://id4me.org
saveferris 7y ago
This is interesting...Apple and Google are going in totally different directions, based on their market strengths. Not a shocker but I'm interested to see how it plays out. I've not read any of the apple docs so I'm not sure but I suspect Sign In with Apple is going to be required as an option, not required to be used. In other words a given app may have Facebook, Google, Apple sign in. I don't think it's required today but what if Google takes the same stance as Apple and mandates that all Play Store apps must have Google sign in available. So not 400 but at least two and likely three since Facebook is popular too. If Apple mandates the use of Sign In then I think there may be some monopolistic issues. I'm not familiar with the actual law, grossly generalizing some comments below the theme is Apple cannot be monopolistic since there is an alternative in Android and Android has a larger world wide market share. I don't understand that line of reasoning but admit I do not know what the law says. Seems to me if you have complete control and it's harmful than that is monopolistic...

cromwellian 7y ago

Why are we satisfied with Sign In with <Big Company>? Shouldn't this be an open standard? I mean, I know open/federated identity systems have failed several times, but there's no reason why we can have a spec where your device or browser generates per-site credentials and stores them in some encrypted replicated storage. And for email-relay, that's been going on since penet.fi in the 90s. Email is already federated, and there's no reason why you can't use third party email anonymizing services. Apple had an opportunity to produce something that might be adoptable by everyone, but instead they went walled-garden again.

scarface74 7y ago
And then you have to trust the third party.
- cromwellian 7y ago
  You only have to trust a third party with a throw-away email forwarding system. But we know how to do anonymous remailing/forwarding already, and Apple could have adopted a spec that forces developers to use a forwarding system that is end-to-end encrypted if they want to email your throwaway.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And part of that “email forwarding” is access to all of your mail including your password resets.
    - cromwellian 7y ago
      You missed the point. There's no access because you can require end-to-end encryption for mails that use the forwarding system, just like the PGP remailer/forwarding systems, so the remailer node isn't subject to MITM. Moreover, if you're using "Sign in with X" in the first place, there's no password and no password reset. Key Exchange is the big MITM vulnerability. There's decades of experience now around building distributed identity. Bitcoin wallets are a large scale example of that. If we're going to finally flip the switch on not using verifiable, public email addresses as part of credentials, we should rip the bandaid off and get rid of the centrality all together.

taauji 7y ago

What happens if sites start blocking Apple's anonymized login just like they block disposable emails?