8 ms·

> By not providing 3rd parties access to email, Apple makes themselves not only the controllers of the physical devices and also over the full identity of their

> By not providing 3rd parties access to email, Apple makes themselves not only the controllers of the physical devices and also over the full identity of their users. No they're not. They're preventing third parties from accessing your data. You can communicate with your customers just fine; it's just that if you sell their data (or get hacked) the email you get is useless.

manigandham 7y ago
The commenter is saying that Apple controls the email address and forwarding too, so you cant actually communicate with your customer if they don't want you to.
- ddebernardy 7y ago
  Yes, and that's simply not true (if you want to be communicated with). You can communicate with the address just fine if you configure your email properly. The only "issue" is that there's a shortlist of valid from emails that you as a company need to configure before sending me an email. Dunno about you but insofar as I'm concerned: please f'ing sign me up for the same everywhere else! And just for clarity in case anyone reading thinks I'm some privacy concerned lunatic: I'm a marketer.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    This is not about configuration. Apple provides a proxied email and controls the forwarding. They can disable that and prevent the company from sending anything to a customer. What part of that is not true?
    - ddebernardy 7y ago
      I suspect that GP originally wrote "so you cant actually communicate with your customer", to which I answered in the next minute, and later added "if they don't want you to." (If not, my mistake for misreading.)
    - 8ytecoder 7y ago
      By that logic, Google controls Gmail and they can control access to your email.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        Yes, that's also a problem that people have brought up several times in other stories. Google/Gmail has outsized control, is a major source of spam, and changes or breaks email standards whenever they want. Centralization of communications is not a good thing and it's worth discussing whether we're going in the right direction.
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        As I understand the original commenter's position it is that: 1. when your business is on the app store it can be difficult not doing whatever Apple wants you to do because not doing what they want you to do can come close to destroying your business. This has often been compared to being a hostage of Apple. 2. If you suddenly decide to stop paying the Apple tax or if Apple decides to ban you - cutting you off from new business - it can certainly be problematic and can kill many businesses but you could theoretically keep going because you could have a customer base you inform of your decision and tell them to download your app from your homepage instead of the app store etc. In short - in the event of Apple not liking you anymore you can communicate with your customers. 3. In this new setup if Apple does not like you anymore you cannot tell your customers hey Apple doesn't like me anymore. Thus Apple increases its ability to hold your company hostage and thus I do not believe it is the same logic as Google controls Gmail unless when selling an Android app Google only allows you to do so if your customer has a Gmail account.
      - notyourday 7y ago
        Not the same: Google does not have a mapping between an application and email address the customer used in that application. Also Google is not really enticing a customer not to provide the service provider any email address other than the ones in the mapping.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      It’s not true in that this is not mandatory. Users are free to provide a non-private or even a non-Apple email. Apple only has as much control as your users give them. If you think that’s bad, maybe you should consider why those users don’t trust you.
      - gubbrora 7y ago
        As a user I value this debate because it highlights a pitfall I had not considered. I suspect many people will not not immediately think of the downside to going through apple
        briandear 7y ago
        Almost anything is better than getting spammed by whatever service of the week you signed up for.
    - briandear 7y ago
      FastMail, ProtonMail, or an AWS server upon which your run your own email can also be disabled by the owner of that service. Unless you run your own on-premise server, that risk always exists. And even then, your ISP could block your server. There comes a point when the paranoia gets unreasonable.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        You can switch your DNS and move your mailbox, but you have no control over Apple's proxying service.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      This version is deplatforming is going to be oh so much fun.
- thegayngler 7y ago
  If you trusted the company enough to give them your email address directly, I'm sure you would've done that. This is a great move. I get so much spam and I'd like to be able to not get it if I don't want it. Long after I've moved on from a service they are still sending me emails to get me back or to do some other transactions with them.
baddox 7y ago
> it's just that if you sell their data (or get hacked) the email you get is useless. The parent commenter is correctly pointing out that Apple would be able to disable the email for other reasons as well.
- m3kw9 7y ago
  By that logic Apple can disable your iPhone for other reasons etc etc
  - tolmasky 7y ago
    This would be a customer action — it affects one person. Unless you’re implying they’d disable the phone of every user of a certain app or something to that effect. With these emails they could trivially, and surgically, cut off a developer from every customer. It is a one-to-many action that also has no obvious other side effects (unlike bricking users phones). Not sure where I stand with this, but wanting to point out that the added powers this gives Apple are very real and different from the ones they had before (again, maybe this is a good thing, but it’s undeniable that it is a different thing).
  - baddox 7y ago
    I think the concern is that Apple could exert influence over third party apps/networks because they control access to all Apple users. That problem doesn’t really exist when it comes to Apple disabling entire iPhones of certain users.
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    They absolutely could technically. The more important questions are: - Is there a big enough reason to motivate them to do so? - If given a "legitimate" justification, would they? If either of those are "yes" then the question we need to know is: "Is there any appeal, oversight, etc?"
    - vinay_ys 7y ago
      This is how it starts.
saghm 7y ago
Is that true? If the only email address that a company has for a user is a forwarding address created through Sign In, wouldn't Apple banning the company from the App Store presumably also cause them to get rid of the email forward, meaning that nothing the company sends will actually reach the customer?
- olliej 7y ago
  If a company is abusing Apple's users I'm sure that they could? But you're right, it does give Apple power, just the same power that has already ceded to Facebook and Google through their logins. The reality is that companies need to understand that user's are sick and tired of being spammed, and are rightly annoyed by needing to provide every company with their email address for no good [to the user] reason.
  - saghm 7y ago
    I think the difference is that with a Facebook or Google login, companies could also easily just require that they get permission to see the user's email address (which isn't super uncommon to see with OAuth logins), so they wouldn't need continual access to OAuth after the first login (unless a user switched to a new email address and stopped checking the old one, which I think is somewhat rare). I totally agree with your point that this is arguably a good thing, though; although I don't personally own or use any Apple products, there are fairly few services I'd want to sign up for that I'd want to ensure that they had my real email, and I'd be happy to make sharing my email address an opt-in choice rather than the default.
Someone 7y ago
”it's just that if you sell their data (or get hacked) the email you get is useless.” It’s just that whenever Apple decides so, the email you got becomes useless. Apple is judge, jury and executioner, and it makes the laws. That is problematic.
- jen729w 7y ago
  I think the question is, is it more problematic than the current situation, whereby users wholly distrust companies with their data, because those companies have shown again and again that they can not be trusted with it? I’d say no.
  - Someone 7y ago
    That’s one possible question. Another is whether an even better remedy exists. For example, do we need the ability for Apple to delete the link between a company and all their users in one sweep, or is it sufficient to make it easy for individual users to cut such ties? If the latter, could we remove that giant master switch, or move control of it to a third party? (I haven’t watched the video, so, possibly, that giant switch doesn’t exist. Skimming https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/get-started/ https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/get-started/ didn’t tell me that, either)
    - gpickett00 7y ago
      If a better remedy exists someone else can build it. Nobody is forcing us to use Apple products/services.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      > That’s one possible question. Another is whether an even better remedy exists. There is, it's called IM2000 where email becomes a pull-based system instead of push-based (so users would have to consent to spam, and spammers have to store their spam to send it in bulk). Unfortunately, despite many attempts to switch over we're still stuck on the current incarnation of SMTP.
anbop 7y ago
Or, you host a video site like YouTube, you’re not aggressive enough in controlling “hate speech,” and Apple boots you from the platform. How, as a user of this app, am I supposed to re-establish control over my account?

manigandham 7y ago

The commenter is saying that Apple controls the email address and forwarding too, so you cant actually communicate with your customer if they don't want you to.

ddebernardy 7y ago
Yes, and that's simply not true (if you want to be communicated with). You can communicate with the address just fine if you configure your email properly. The only "issue" is that there's a shortlist of valid from emails that you as a company need to configure before sending me an email. Dunno about you but insofar as I'm concerned: please f'ing sign me up for the same everywhere else! And just for clarity in case anyone reading thinks I'm some privacy concerned lunatic: I'm a marketer.
- manigandham 7y ago
  This is not about configuration. Apple provides a proxied email and controls the forwarding. They can disable that and prevent the company from sending anything to a customer. What part of that is not true?
  - ddebernardy 7y ago
    I suspect that GP originally wrote "so you cant actually communicate with your customer", to which I answered in the next minute, and later added "if they don't want you to." (If not, my mistake for misreading.)
  - 8ytecoder 7y ago
    By that logic, Google controls Gmail and they can control access to your email.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Yes, that's also a problem that people have brought up several times in other stories. Google/Gmail has outsized control, is a major source of spam, and changes or breaks email standards whenever they want. Centralization of communications is not a good thing and it's worth discussing whether we're going in the right direction.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      As I understand the original commenter's position it is that: 1. when your business is on the app store it can be difficult not doing whatever Apple wants you to do because not doing what they want you to do can come close to destroying your business. This has often been compared to being a hostage of Apple. 2. If you suddenly decide to stop paying the Apple tax or if Apple decides to ban you - cutting you off from new business - it can certainly be problematic and can kill many businesses but you could theoretically keep going because you could have a customer base you inform of your decision and tell them to download your app from your homepage instead of the app store etc. In short - in the event of Apple not liking you anymore you can communicate with your customers. 3. In this new setup if Apple does not like you anymore you cannot tell your customers hey Apple doesn't like me anymore. Thus Apple increases its ability to hold your company hostage and thus I do not believe it is the same logic as Google controls Gmail unless when selling an Android app Google only allows you to do so if your customer has a Gmail account.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      Not the same: Google does not have a mapping between an application and email address the customer used in that application. Also Google is not really enticing a customer not to provide the service provider any email address other than the ones in the mapping.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    It’s not true in that this is not mandatory. Users are free to provide a non-private or even a non-Apple email. Apple only has as much control as your users give them. If you think that’s bad, maybe you should consider why those users don’t trust you.
    - gubbrora 7y ago
      As a user I value this debate because it highlights a pitfall I had not considered. I suspect many people will not not immediately think of the downside to going through apple
      - briandear 7y ago
        Almost anything is better than getting spammed by whatever service of the week you signed up for.
  - briandear 7y ago
    FastMail, ProtonMail, or an AWS server upon which your run your own email can also be disabled by the owner of that service. Unless you run your own on-premise server, that risk always exists. And even then, your ISP could block your server. There comes a point when the paranoia gets unreasonable.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      You can switch your DNS and move your mailbox, but you have no control over Apple's proxying service.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    This version is deplatforming is going to be oh so much fun.
thegayngler 7y ago
If you trusted the company enough to give them your email address directly, I'm sure you would've done that. This is a great move. I get so much spam and I'd like to be able to not get it if I don't want it. Long after I've moved on from a service they are still sending me emails to get me back or to do some other transactions with them.

baddox 7y ago

> it's just that if you sell their data (or get hacked) the email you get is useless. The parent commenter is correctly pointing out that Apple would be able to disable the email for other reasons as well.

m3kw9 7y ago
By that logic Apple can disable your iPhone for other reasons etc etc
- tolmasky 7y ago
  This would be a customer action — it affects one person. Unless you’re implying they’d disable the phone of every user of a certain app or something to that effect. With these emails they could trivially, and surgically, cut off a developer from every customer. It is a one-to-many action that also has no obvious other side effects (unlike bricking users phones). Not sure where I stand with this, but wanting to point out that the added powers this gives Apple are very real and different from the ones they had before (again, maybe this is a good thing, but it’s undeniable that it is a different thing).
- baddox 7y ago
  I think the concern is that Apple could exert influence over third party apps/networks because they control access to all Apple users. That problem doesn’t really exist when it comes to Apple disabling entire iPhones of certain users.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  They absolutely could technically. The more important questions are: - Is there a big enough reason to motivate them to do so? - If given a "legitimate" justification, would they? If either of those are "yes" then the question we need to know is: "Is there any appeal, oversight, etc?"
  - vinay_ys 7y ago
    This is how it starts.

saghm 7y ago

Is that true? If the only email address that a company has for a user is a forwarding address created through Sign In, wouldn't Apple banning the company from the App Store presumably also cause them to get rid of the email forward, meaning that nothing the company sends will actually reach the customer?

olliej 7y ago
If a company is abusing Apple's users I'm sure that they could? But you're right, it does give Apple power, just the same power that has already ceded to Facebook and Google through their logins. The reality is that companies need to understand that user's are sick and tired of being spammed, and are rightly annoyed by needing to provide every company with their email address for no good [to the user] reason.
- saghm 7y ago
  I think the difference is that with a Facebook or Google login, companies could also easily just require that they get permission to see the user's email address (which isn't super uncommon to see with OAuth logins), so they wouldn't need continual access to OAuth after the first login (unless a user switched to a new email address and stopped checking the old one, which I think is somewhat rare). I totally agree with your point that this is arguably a good thing, though; although I don't personally own or use any Apple products, there are fairly few services I'd want to sign up for that I'd want to ensure that they had my real email, and I'd be happy to make sharing my email address an opt-in choice rather than the default.

Someone 7y ago

”it's just that if you sell their data (or get hacked) the email you get is useless.” It’s just that whenever Apple decides so, the email you got becomes useless. Apple is judge, jury and executioner, and it makes the laws. That is problematic.

jen729w 7y ago
I think the question is, is it more problematic than the current situation, whereby users wholly distrust companies with their data, because those companies have shown again and again that they can not be trusted with it? I’d say no.
- Someone 7y ago
  That’s one possible question. Another is whether an even better remedy exists. For example, do we need the ability for Apple to delete the link between a company and all their users in one sweep, or is it sufficient to make it easy for individual users to cut such ties? If the latter, could we remove that giant master switch, or move control of it to a third party? (I haven’t watched the video, so, possibly, that giant switch doesn’t exist. Skimming https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/get-started/ https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/get-started/ didn’t tell me that, either)
  - gpickett00 7y ago
    If a better remedy exists someone else can build it. Nobody is forcing us to use Apple products/services.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    > That’s one possible question. Another is whether an even better remedy exists. There is, it's called IM2000 where email becomes a pull-based system instead of push-based (so users would have to consent to spam, and spammers have to store their spam to send it in bulk). Unfortunately, despite many attempts to switch over we're still stuck on the current incarnation of SMTP.

anbop 7y ago

Or, you host a video site like YouTube, you’re not aggressive enough in controlling “hate speech,” and Apple boots you from the platform. How, as a user of this app, am I supposed to re-establish control over my account?