9 ms·

Personally I'm sincerely grateful there's at least one company that gives a shit about my privacy. And I will never understand why some people choose to attack

• cageface 7y ago
  Because no matter how much you trust Apple's good intentions now you also have to trust them in perpetuity. When you relinquish your own power and agency to a third party it can be very hard to get it back. Maybe you trust Apple and Tim Cook today but do you trust their next CEO and the next? It's the same reason I don't let Google keep any of my browsing and location history even though I might benefit from that as a user today. I don't trust what they might want to do with that data later. If you think any billion dollar company is acting in any interests but its own you're being naive.
  • hugi 7y ago
    What data are you talking about? They're explicitly doing this to prevent the ad companies (Google and Facebook) from collecting data. What data is Apple collecting?
    • cageface 7y ago
      My concern with Apple isn't about collecting data it's about removing choices. I can't sideload apps on my iPhone, even if they might be essential to fighting a totalitarian government (HKMaps). I can't use any browser but Safari on what is supposedly my phone. I can't buy books through the Kindle app without paying Apple a 30% cut. Honestly this stuff scares me more than the data collection that Google does, for example, because at least I have some control there. And Apple's privacy controls are kind of moot anyway if I use iCloud and all my data is just one subpoena away from anybody that wants it.
      • scarface74 7y ago
        Well HKMaps is a bad example. You can get the same functionality from a web browser. If you don’t want to be locked into a vendors platform - create a web app. Does Amazon allow third party book sellers on their Kindle devices? Again, the open web to the rescue. I can go to Amazon’s store from my browser and buy books. In fact, I use the Kindle web reader on my iPad when reading books about AWS, because the Kindle app doesn’t allow embedded web links to Amazon (even AWS Informational links).
        • cageface 7y ago
          You can't get the same functionality in a website because Apple has deliberately not supported some web standards like push notifications. Again you can make the argument that this is to protect users but it also just happens to protect their native app ecosystem.
          • floatingatoll 7y ago
            Thankfully they don’t support web push notifications. What a horrendous standard that’s turned out to be.
            • scarface74 7y ago
              I made a mistake and turned on for Tom’s Hardware - a site that’s I thought was credible. They started spamming me immediately with advertising. Push notifications only came in handy to keep the battery draining Slack “application” off of my computer.
            • the_gipsy 7y ago
              Why would it be any better with apps? I had to uninstall many apps because there was no option to deactivate marketing PNs.
              • floatingatoll 7y ago
                All major mobile platforms let you disable all notifications from apps, sane as website push. Why were you forced to uninstall them to do so?
      • mcphage 7y ago
        > I can't use any browser but Safari on what is supposedly my phone. You can use one of a number of browsers on you phone. The browser developers are the ones who are constrained, having to use the WebKit rendering engine—but then, it’s not their phone.
        • 43920 7y ago
          Does the distinction actually matter though? By constraining what developers can provide, you're automatically constraining what users can use, so I don't see how it makes a difference.
          • millstone 7y ago
            Non-WebKit based iOS browsers are zero, and non-Chromium based Android browsers rounds to zero. So I don't think the distinction is very important, if it exists. It's silly to cast the mobile browser wars in abstract terms, as if JoesOwnWebBrowser is going to be a thing tomorrow. It's Google and Apple, full stop. Google is leveraging their titanic web properties and mobile ecosystem control to push Chrome. Apple is using their control over the iOS ecosystem to retain Safari. The choice is whether the mobile web has two relevant players, or one.
            • jeswin 7y ago
              There are other browsers with significant market share on Android, such as UC Browser. The reason they have chosen Chromium as the base is because it is easier for them to build on it, and not because Google enforced it as a policy on Android. That's an important distinction. Apple's monopolistic practices prevent better software from succeeding on phones, and I'm disappointed that Apple's anti competitive behavior is excused. Note: UC Browser is a huge privacy threat and please ask friends and family to uninstall it. But the point still stands.
              • millstone 7y ago
                I honestly can't tell if "Android enables better software like UC Browser which is terrible and please ask your friends and family to uninstall it" is satire or in earnest.
      • neotek 7y ago
        There are multiple ways to sideload apps on iOS, with and without a paid developer account, and without having to jailbreak.
        • saagarjha 7y ago
          With a fairly annoying set of limitations if you don't have a paid account or won't use a jailbreak.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • i386 7y ago
        > I can't sideload apps on my iPhone Then don’t buy one. Highly competitive market where you can buy others where this is possible.
        • saagarjha 7y ago
          Shutting down any conversation of "I'd like to be able to do this with my iPhone" with a condescending "don't buy it, duh" disregards any of the reasons why people might want to buy iPhones (some of which were mentioned in this very thread) and is, IMO, a lazy argument.
        • kimsant 7y ago
          worst argument ever. Don't use Google, don't use Facebook, don't buy apple, and finally if you don't like NSA traking your calls leave America, this like it is, just leave if you don't like it... well, nop
        • m-p-3 7y ago
          So privacy or freedom, pick one.
      • Betelgeuse90 7y ago
        Just a sidetone about HKMaps - as far as I know it was always available on the mobile web.
  • swayvil 7y ago
    Srsly. For a corporation goodness is an investment in future badness. Like that Pink Floyd song, "Dogs".
  • floatingatoll 7y ago
    Given the deal they signed with Radio Shack prohibiting resale of their customer list, I’m inclined to trust them in perpetuity. If they give cause otherwise then I might reconsider, but to date they haven’t.
    • hellcow 7y ago
      What are your thoughts on this? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
      • kyralis 7y ago
        That's FBI spin. Apple's reluctance to drop their own keys for backups is entirely based on the frequency with which they have to recover keys for nontechnical users who have lost their passwords, and you'll note that more and more features are being rolled out in such a way that Apple does not have access.
      • floatingatoll 7y ago
        I understand and accept that the FBI and other third parties may be able to non-consensually acquire any traffic I send over a network and/or to a third party, using a great many methods including legal summons emplaced against the network and/or third party for the data that I share. I'm comfortable with that, because I understand the working agreement that exists with my network and third-party services providers (such as Apple), and I understand that they are bound by legal summons in many respects for the data they receive. Note I don't consider this ideal, and I don't think it's the best possible outcome for society, but I've spent 20 years consciously managing my choices on such matters, ever since DejaNews was founded, and I understand where I stand versus my choices today.
  • sjwright 7y ago
    Your logic defeats your own argument. If we shouldn't trust billion dollar companies it stands to reason that the fewer few billion dollar companies we trust, the better. If you're already in the iPhone ecosystem, you're already placing a lot of trust in Apple. So using Sign In With Apple means trusting a company that you already trust.
    • cageface 7y ago
      I don't trust any of them. The point is Android gives me an escape hatch. If necessary I can use an Android phone and apps without ever logging into any Google service. This isn't possible on an iPhone
      • tatersolid 7y ago
        ”If necessary I can use an Android phone and apps without ever logging into any Google service.” I don’t think this is actually feasible in practice. I’ve never encountered a real person using a Google-free android device as their daily driver in the wild. I work in security, and actually ask android users I encounter if they are worried about GOOG data collection or whatever. Nobody ever responds with “I’m Google-free”.
      • sjwright 7y ago
        You’re still placing a shitload of trust into Google if you’re relying on their binaries to keep your data private.
• judge2020 7y ago
  We'd love everything to check every box (portable between hardware, federated, no lock-in, privacy respecting, etc) but I don't think that's possible. In reality, this "sign in with apple" feature doesn't push Apple's ecosystem any farther than Apple Maps does. You can use sign in with apple via their web SDK on both desktop browsers and Android, and I wouldn't doubt putting "sign in with apple" in an Android app itself is trivial.
  • st3fan 7y ago
    Pretty trivial https://firebase.google.com/docs/auth/android/apple https://firebase.google.com/docs/auth/android/apple
    • atraac 7y ago
      This is applicable if tou use Firebase Auth. 90% of apps will have to implement it on their own. It's not that hard, but it's usually not trivial as well. It also costs time and money they wouldn't have to spend if they didn't want to include Sign in with Apple option originally. Yet they're now forced to.
    • Nullabillity 7y ago
      > Requirements: > - Be signed in to iCloud on an Apple device. This doesn't help users no longer carry around an Apple device.
  • fragmede 7y ago
    Using a login (on multiple apps/sites) that is linked to Apple very much locks me into having Apple in my life for the foreseeable future. It's, like, the definition of vendor lock-in. Apple is currently being magnanimous enough to let me use that same login outside of my phone on their competitors product, but Apple's history of interoperability is not great, so that's not a feature I care to trust them with.
    • neotek 7y ago
      So don’t use it. It’s offered alongside other third-party login options. If you trust Facebook more than Apple then by all means log in with Facebook, Apple isn’t stopping you or the people who develop the apps you choose to use.
• Kuinox 7y ago
  Because they don't give a shit about your privacy, it's only marketing stuff. The only reason they can argue that it's because their income is not based on exploiting your data. Multiple time per year your can see articles on HN how Apple breached privacy of their users.
  • hugi 7y ago
    Really? I didn't know that. Please show me all the times Apple has breached my privacy.
    • CogitoCogito 7y ago
      Apple sets an advertising ID by default that applications use to uniquely identify you. This allows mass surveillance. It is antithetical to all of Apple's claims to support privacy.
      • jedieaston 7y ago
        Limit Ad Tracking was turned on by default after a fresh install of iOS 13 on my phone. I don’t think they give you one by default.
        • CogitoCogito 7y ago
          I can't speak for iOS 13, but it's been reset to "off" for me (as in "don't limit tracking") both times I factory reset my phone. I've never heard of it being set to on by default. If that's some new change then they only made a mockery of their claims to support privacy for the last decade or so. Hardly impressive since they never should have had it by default anyway.
          • CogitoCogito 7y ago
            Why am I receiving downvotes? I can't find any information supporting any claims that Apple is setting "limit ad tracking" by default on any versions. Here is some relevant information: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 I would be very curious (and happy!) to receive any information indicating that I'm wrong in my belief that ad tracking is not being limited by default. edit: I am not sure if this source is correct, but it does agree with me: https://threatpost.com/privacy-iphone-apples-targeted-ad-tracking/144025/ https://threatpost.com/privacy-iphone-apples-targeted-ad-tra... "A unique identifier is enabled by default on every iPhone that’s shipped, allowing advertisers to follow the phone’s activity across the web."
• sexpositiveuser 7y ago
  There are porn apps I'd like to be able to create/run but Apple's disallows porn apps forcing me to use some other less private platform if I want to run sex positive porn apps which in effect makes my activity less private. Further, even if they did allow porn apps via the store Apple has a list of all apps I install so they know if I install "tooKinkyToBePublic.app". They really do need to allow easy side loading and/or alternate stores. I shouldn't have to chose between Apple's nanny-state "no porn apps", "no political apps" allowed and "privacy"
  • scarface74 7y ago
    So why do you need a porn “app”? Do I even want to ask what you could do with an app that you can’t do with a website?
    • fragmede 7y ago
      Don't be obtuse. There are plenty of things an app can do that can't be accomplished by an website, including being listed in the Apple app store, for one. Apple hides the ability to add a website to the home screen somewhere inside of Safari, instead of making it a first class feature and including a UI for it in the "App" "store". If they did that, a lot of apps could viably just be a website instead.
      • scarface74 7y ago
        That didn’t answer the question. What can a porn app do that a website can’t do? Adding a website to the home screen has been prominent in Safari since 2007. Go to the share sheet and scroll up. How many websites have a prominent pointer on iOS devices showing you how to do it. But the App Store is not known to be a place of discoverability. On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
        • saagarjha 7y ago
          > What can a porn app do that a website can’t do? Oh, come on, you know very well why you'd want a native app: it's the exact same reason why you'd download a native app for anything else; they can be more polished, use platform APIs, download files… > On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn. Because the ad platform it uses doesn't like it?
• jariel 7y ago
  " And I will never understand why some people choose to attack them for it." Because it's possibly anti-competitive.
  • neotek 7y ago
    In what sense could it be considered anti-competitive to require an additional login method alongside existing ones?
    • cageface 7y ago
      Because the other services have to be good enough to earn a place on that login screen. Apple is using their control over the app store to insist they get that place for free. If their service is as good as they claim and it's something that users really want then why do they have to make it mandatory?
    • jariel 7y ago
      Controlling one part of the value chain to force behaviour in a different part of the value chain.
    • fierarul 7y ago
      When what you are requiring is your own additional method?
• aschatten 7y ago
  Apple is not the only company, that gives a shit about privacy. And if they are pnly marginally better: https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017 https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017
  • Tomte 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but a scorecard where Uber, of all companies, gets a perfect score, simply isn't credible to me. Remember, that's the Uber that tracked people, identified by name, and showed their location to guests at a party on a map. Just for entertainment. It's the same Uber that has had so many privacy and customer data scandals, I have lost count. But sure, they "have our back".
    • mosselman 7y ago
      That list is a total joke. The EFF should be ashamed of it.
• strictnein 7y ago
  The amount of tracking data that Apple devices collect is almost almost inconceivable. It's just that Apple isn't collecting it, the apps on their appstore are, which Apple profits from directly and indirectly. But, yes, they're doing a really good job marketing themselves as the "privacy" company.
  • lstamour 7y ago
    The apps that have been the worst about sharing my private data or telemetry seem to be the same ones that are ad-supported. Apple’s App Store generally doesn’t make money if an app is paid for by ads. Where Apple traditionally gets profit is in selling more devices, and they do that through controlling apps on the platform. Alternative approaches could be just as successful. But their approach does differentiate them from other market leaders, while equally (as here) allowing them to play catch-up and advertise themselves alongside Google, Facebook, and other logins. Apple does marketing, it’s true, but they also try to back up their security and privacy work with white papers: https://www.apple.com/privacy/features/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/features/