3 ms·

This is honestly one of the shittiest moves that I've seen Apple make, but these are the same people who blatantly steal developers work and incorporate it into

This is honestly one of the shittiest moves that I've seen Apple make, but these are the same people who blatantly steal developers work and incorporate it into iOS, so I guess I really shouldn't be surprised at how big their balls are. I hope it causes more developers to opt for first-party sign-in (because fuck 'em).

mcphage 7y ago
> This is honestly one of the shittiest moves that I've seen Apple make Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions. Releasing a privacy focused login is irrelevant if nobody supports it, this is Apple telling people that, if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy.
- wayneftw 7y ago
  > ...if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy. It's not strictly required. Devs can use first party logins, newsletter signups and so forth. It's not protecting me from any of the big players that deal in my information. Nefarious actors will work around it if they really want your actual email address. It's a minor speed-bump for the organizations that we're allegedly being protected against, but one which amounts to a huge excuse for Apple to get their hooks more into your life, getting between you and whomever else you're trying to deal with, all while locking you in more and charging a premium for it without giving you much choice about anything. But the larger issue IMO, is that depending on your industry, you can't NOT have an iOS app if you're going to have an app at all. Does it really matter what percentage of the market they have at this point? Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly. That's why you don't need a majority market share to be prosecuted as one. > Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions. Perhaps the ends justify the means for you. Maybe you haven't thought about the larger issue or you don't care about it. I don't know, but to be completely honest Apple runs their platform like a bunch of tyrannical assholes and I just can't support that. I value technical freedom higher than comfort. I like a good balance at least. So, I'm going to continue hoping that global anti-trust laws will make this kind of thing harder for them to do. There's already one antitrust suit pending against them. They also got caught price fixing. The higher ups at Apple certainly don't work just to "protect the users". They do it to get control of you themselves.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly. That’s not at all what a monopoly is.
    - wayneftw 7y ago
      When you have the same kind of control over an entire industry, you might as well be a monopoly. There are other related terms that also certainly apply to Apple in a stricter technical sense that you can read about here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly And there also is certainly an antitrust case pending against Apple right now is there not?

mcphage 7y ago

> This is honestly one of the shittiest moves that I've seen Apple make Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions. Releasing a privacy focused login is irrelevant if nobody supports it, this is Apple telling people that, if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy.

wayneftw 7y ago
> ...if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy. It's not strictly required. Devs can use first party logins, newsletter signups and so forth. It's not protecting me from any of the big players that deal in my information. Nefarious actors will work around it if they really want your actual email address. It's a minor speed-bump for the organizations that we're allegedly being protected against, but one which amounts to a huge excuse for Apple to get their hooks more into your life, getting between you and whomever else you're trying to deal with, all while locking you in more and charging a premium for it without giving you much choice about anything. But the larger issue IMO, is that depending on your industry, you can't NOT have an iOS app if you're going to have an app at all. Does it really matter what percentage of the market they have at this point? Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly. That's why you don't need a majority market share to be prosecuted as one. > Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions. Perhaps the ends justify the means for you. Maybe you haven't thought about the larger issue or you don't care about it. I don't know, but to be completely honest Apple runs their platform like a bunch of tyrannical assholes and I just can't support that. I value technical freedom higher than comfort. I like a good balance at least. So, I'm going to continue hoping that global anti-trust laws will make this kind of thing harder for them to do. There's already one antitrust suit pending against them. They also got caught price fixing. The higher ups at Apple certainly don't work just to "protect the users". They do it to get control of you themselves.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly. That’s not at all what a monopoly is.
  - wayneftw 7y ago
    When you have the same kind of control over an entire industry, you might as well be a monopoly. There are other related terms that also certainly apply to Apple in a stricter technical sense that you can read about here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly And there also is certainly an antitrust case pending against Apple right now is there not?