4 ms·

However it is _required_ that you add Sign in With Apple. I'm all for privacy but I disagree with this move because apple said "You must add Apple Sign In" rath

However it is _required_ that you add Sign in With Apple. I'm all for privacy but I disagree with this move because apple said "You must add Apple Sign In" rather than "You must allow one form of anonymous login" which means they are forcing developers to use their tools. Additionally, if the app only has FB or Google login and you don't use either, you can just not use the app

olliej 7y ago
The problem here is very basic: Why should an app be listed as free if using it requires sacrificing my privacy to use it? That's fundamentally not free. If the app cost me money then I've purchased an app I cannot use. This is very simple: they're saying that you cannot require Apple's (and by extension your) users to submit to abuse of their privacy in order to use your app.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  This "they're stealing my privacy!" outrage is tiresome. Someone built an app; it authenticates a certain way; if you don't like it, uninstall it. Both Google and Apple offer near immediate refunds. But really there's some due diligence required here - installing an app is not like visiting a web page, you should take a little care what you spend money on. You're complaining that someone else is building apps in a way you don't like. That's their right; they aren't building them for you.
  - olliej 7y ago
    Why should Google know what apps I'm installing? Why should Facebook? Why should I have to get accounts for those services just to use your app? Why should apple list apps that can't be used by users because of they require user's to create accounts with companies that are known to abuse user privacy? The last point I think is the most reasonable: why should I, a user, be required to use some arbitrary third party just to use your app? If you are solely using them for login support, and nothing else, then all you're doing is adding one more OAuth provider. What makes it so hard to require an Apple identity if you're already willing to accept google or facebook ones?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Besides that, I’m downloading an app from the Apple App Store. They already know which apps I’ve downloaded. They aren’t getting anymore information via “Sign in with Apple”.
    - stickfigure 7y ago
      Why should I build an app the way you want? You are entitled to not use my app. I am entitled to not care.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    They are complaining that these app developers are misrepresenting the cost of the "free" app. What it really costs is access to data about you as a Google/FB user. Sure, build an app like that all you want, but don't lie about it.
    - tdhoot 7y ago
      In the common usage of the word they are totally free. If you want to redefine the word as it's used, let's start also considering your bandwidth isn't "free" and so these apps aren't free in that sense either. How about the electricity you paid to charge your phone? The calories you ingested that help you operate the phone? The common and almost universally accepted understanding of "free" is "no exchange of money". Saying those who don't adopt an extreme viewpoint are lying is dishonest.
      - BinaryIdiot 7y ago
        The common usage of the word "free" is something like "without cost" (yours doesn't work and I actually couldn't find a definition that explicitly says "money"). Placing ads in an app has various costs, just not usually monetary. I don't think you need to redefine anything or go to this odd extreme you're trying to straw-man into the argument.
        dwaite 7y ago
        "There's no such thing as a free lunch" agrees with you - things described as free often have some cost, even if not monetary
    - thekyle 7y ago
      Does Apple have a feature in their app store that allows developers to mark their apps as "Monetarily free but you have to sign in with Google"? If not, how exactly do you expect developers to comply with your demands when Apple provides no way to do so?
  - hector_vasquez 7y ago
    Your "they're stealing my emails!" outrage is hard to sympathize with.
empath75 7y ago
Developers wouldn’t add it if it wasn’t required, full stop. They want access to your social media presence and personal information.
scarface74 7y ago
If they are developing for iOS, they are already “forced to use Apple’s tools”.
- nahtnam 7y ago
  Sure, but would you agree that open source tools and being able to choose the tools we want is better? We should have that same freedom when it comes to building authentication into our applications
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It’s standard OATH. There are libraries for every language that I’m aware of that let you integrate with OATH providers. You don’t have to use Apple’s tools to do it. You could use “sign in with Apple” from any platform. But what good would “open source tools” do overall if you still have to integrate with Apple’s services/APIs to do anything useful - the same is true with Android/Google Play Services.

olliej 7y ago

The problem here is very basic: Why should an app be listed as free if using it requires sacrificing my privacy to use it? That's fundamentally not free. If the app cost me money then I've purchased an app I cannot use. This is very simple: they're saying that you cannot require Apple's (and by extension your) users to submit to abuse of their privacy in order to use your app.

stickfigure 7y ago
This "they're stealing my privacy!" outrage is tiresome. Someone built an app; it authenticates a certain way; if you don't like it, uninstall it. Both Google and Apple offer near immediate refunds. But really there's some due diligence required here - installing an app is not like visiting a web page, you should take a little care what you spend money on. You're complaining that someone else is building apps in a way you don't like. That's their right; they aren't building them for you.
- olliej 7y ago
  Why should Google know what apps I'm installing? Why should Facebook? Why should I have to get accounts for those services just to use your app? Why should apple list apps that can't be used by users because of they require user's to create accounts with companies that are known to abuse user privacy? The last point I think is the most reasonable: why should I, a user, be required to use some arbitrary third party just to use your app? If you are solely using them for login support, and nothing else, then all you're doing is adding one more OAuth provider. What makes it so hard to require an Apple identity if you're already willing to accept google or facebook ones?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Besides that, I’m downloading an app from the Apple App Store. They already know which apps I’ve downloaded. They aren’t getting anymore information via “Sign in with Apple”.
  - stickfigure 7y ago
    Why should I build an app the way you want? You are entitled to not use my app. I am entitled to not care.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  They are complaining that these app developers are misrepresenting the cost of the "free" app. What it really costs is access to data about you as a Google/FB user. Sure, build an app like that all you want, but don't lie about it.
  - tdhoot 7y ago
    In the common usage of the word they are totally free. If you want to redefine the word as it's used, let's start also considering your bandwidth isn't "free" and so these apps aren't free in that sense either. How about the electricity you paid to charge your phone? The calories you ingested that help you operate the phone? The common and almost universally accepted understanding of "free" is "no exchange of money". Saying those who don't adopt an extreme viewpoint are lying is dishonest.
    - BinaryIdiot 7y ago
      The common usage of the word "free" is something like "without cost" (yours doesn't work and I actually couldn't find a definition that explicitly says "money"). Placing ads in an app has various costs, just not usually monetary. I don't think you need to redefine anything or go to this odd extreme you're trying to straw-man into the argument.
      - dwaite 7y ago
        "There's no such thing as a free lunch" agrees with you - things described as free often have some cost, even if not monetary
  - thekyle 7y ago
    Does Apple have a feature in their app store that allows developers to mark their apps as "Monetarily free but you have to sign in with Google"? If not, how exactly do you expect developers to comply with your demands when Apple provides no way to do so?
- hector_vasquez 7y ago
  Your "they're stealing my emails!" outrage is hard to sympathize with.

empath75 7y ago

Developers wouldn’t add it if it wasn’t required, full stop. They want access to your social media presence and personal information.

scarface74 7y ago

If they are developing for iOS, they are already “forced to use Apple’s tools”.

nahtnam 7y ago
Sure, but would you agree that open source tools and being able to choose the tools we want is better? We should have that same freedom when it comes to building authentication into our applications
- scarface74 7y ago
  It’s standard OATH. There are libraries for every language that I’m aware of that let you integrate with OATH providers. You don’t have to use Apple’s tools to do it. You could use “sign in with Apple” from any platform. But what good would “open source tools” do overall if you still have to integrate with Apple’s services/APIs to do anything useful - the same is true with Android/Google Play Services.