6 ms·

I'll try and play devil's advocate for you. Apple recently rolled out "Sign-In With Apple", which creates burner e-mail address that you can seamlessly use wit

by bhupy 6y ago

I'll try and play devil's advocate for you. Apple recently rolled out "Sign-In With Apple", which creates burner e-mail address that you can seamlessly use with 3rd party services. As a privacy-conscious consumer, this was great! On top of that, Apple forced all of its developers to support "Sign-In With Apple". This is one of the many reasons I continue to use Apple's phone and OS, because it gives me some peace of mind. Apple Payments, similarly, gives me some financial peace of mind by providing me with one centralized place where I can view and cancel my subscriptions/purchases. I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten to unsubscribe from a service that I don't use. With Apple's in-app payments system, I can keep tabs on everything. It's like a user-friendly financial reconciliation layer. Both of these Apple services place some amount of burden on the developer, and I'd even argue that the first example was pretty broadly celebrated by privacy-minded HN readers. The strongest devil's advocate argument is that the second example provides the same value to Apple customers, and that's a distinguishing feature of its platform that it ought to be able to maintain. There's a strong argument to be made that one ought to be able to side-load apps and install competing app stores on their iPhones (I tend to agree), but that's somewhat orthogonal to this particular issue, especially considering the Google Play Store action.

echelon 6y ago
> Apple recently rolled out "Sign-In With Apple", which creates burner e-mail address that you can seamlessly use with 3rd party services. As a privacy-conscious consumer, this was great! Apple spins this as privacy, but it's really a salvo they fired against other companies. Notably Google and Facebook. Apple seeks to weaponize its userbase in the war over attention. Apple wins by inserting themselves as middleman into every transaction they can. A "Sign in With Apple" user isn't your customer anymore. If you think they value privacy, you should consider the telemetry they collect on you and the conversations they record.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > A "Sign in With Apple" user isn't your customer anymore. Apple inserted themselves as middleman yet again. Yes, as a customer, I don't wish to provide my email / identity with every service I use. If it takes Apple being the "middleman" to have the power to control how a business interacts with me as a customer, then so be it. > If you think they value privacy, you should consider the telemetry they collect on you and the conversations they record. I used to work at Apple on their services team, and I can tell you right now that Apple has virtually no useful telemetry information that can be tied to an individual user. iOS telemetry data is tied to a periodically recycling identifier that's un-correlated with your iCloud identity.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    > If it takes Apple being the "middleman" to have the power ...that works right up until Apple bans you, or one of your favorite services, or just demands you pony up 30% of all the money you spend online. You think that's unlikely? In the 80s, Microsoft was the hero and IBM was the villain. In the late 90s and early 2000s, Google was everyone's favorite. During the Arab Spring, Facebook was a popular tool for liberation. Every corporation will become evil if it becomes successful enough. Give Apple centralized control over web authentication and they'll be just as ruthless as they are with the app store. We're watching a shift in public perception happen right now. The only long-term defense we have is decentralizataion, and you're fighting that. Why? So you won't get spam that you never see?
    - echelon 6y ago
      > Why? So you won't get spam that you never see? They worked at Apple and probably have a different perception than someone who works uphill against Apple.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Dude, maybe cool down a little. I understand you feel really strongly about this, but there's no need for personal attacks. We're all dealing with the implications of this, and there are pros and cons on both sides. This is a nuanced issue. And if you'll excuse some unsolicited feedback, your arguments will bear way more weight if you do away with the histrionics.
        echelon 6y ago
        > but there's no need for personal attacks It wasn't a personal attack, unless "They worked at Apple and probably have a different perception" is a personal attack. I don't harbor any ill will against you. Characterizing my words that way is disingenuous. > This is a nuanced issue. From my perspective, it's black and white. Apple is clearly taking advantage of market forces and is hurting small players. > your arguments will bear way more weight if you do away with the histrionics. The arguments that are heard are the ones that engender empathy. We've been at the point of logical discussion for years, and that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Now the outrage has come to a boil, and I won't censor myself or pretend this is a friendly game of sports. Apple is a trillion dollar vampire. I'm letting my representatives know that.
MBCook 6y ago
I like Apple. I kind of prefer everyone being forced to use Apple payments for convenience and safety. But they shouldn’t get 30%. Something closer to CC processing fees like 3 or 5% seems fair. I’m not a fan of alternate app stores. But I’m happy to see someone force this issue. So we can stop dancing around it and settle things.
paulgb 6y ago
I think there are basically two ways to look at Apple's App Store policies: 1. Apple acts like a sort of consumer union, coordinating behavior of a massive and lucrative audience so that apps have to meet certain minimum standards to reach it. 2. Apple acts like a protection racket, extracting a piece of the consumer surplus because they can. It seems that you like the benefits of #1, and I agree with you. The problem is that in the Fortnite case, it appears to be a case of #2 posturing as #1. Does anyone truly believe that Fortnite players are better off paying 30% more to Apple?
- bhupy 6y ago
  I really like this framing. If Apple's payment processing fee was more in line with the industry e-commerce standard, this would look a lot more like #1 than #2.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  This is a good framework. One way to merge these views is with a graduated take rate. So Apple might take 30% of the first $10mm, 20% of the next $10mm and $10% thereafter.

by bhupy 6y ago

echelon 6y ago

> Apple recently rolled out "Sign-In With Apple", which creates burner e-mail address that you can seamlessly use with 3rd party services. As a privacy-conscious consumer, this was great! Apple spins this as privacy, but it's really a salvo they fired against other companies. Notably Google and Facebook. Apple seeks to weaponize its userbase in the war over attention. Apple wins by inserting themselves as middleman into every transaction they can. A "Sign in With Apple" user isn't your customer anymore. If you think they value privacy, you should consider the telemetry they collect on you and the conversations they record.

bhupy 6y ago
> A "Sign in With Apple" user isn't your customer anymore. Apple inserted themselves as middleman yet again. Yes, as a customer, I don't wish to provide my email / identity with every service I use. If it takes Apple being the "middleman" to have the power to control how a business interacts with me as a customer, then so be it. > If you think they value privacy, you should consider the telemetry they collect on you and the conversations they record. I used to work at Apple on their services team, and I can tell you right now that Apple has virtually no useful telemetry information that can be tied to an individual user. iOS telemetry data is tied to a periodically recycling identifier that's un-correlated with your iCloud identity.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  > If it takes Apple being the "middleman" to have the power ...that works right up until Apple bans you, or one of your favorite services, or just demands you pony up 30% of all the money you spend online. You think that's unlikely? In the 80s, Microsoft was the hero and IBM was the villain. In the late 90s and early 2000s, Google was everyone's favorite. During the Arab Spring, Facebook was a popular tool for liberation. Every corporation will become evil if it becomes successful enough. Give Apple centralized control over web authentication and they'll be just as ruthless as they are with the app store. We're watching a shift in public perception happen right now. The only long-term defense we have is decentralizataion, and you're fighting that. Why? So you won't get spam that you never see?
  - echelon 6y ago
    > Why? So you won't get spam that you never see? They worked at Apple and probably have a different perception than someone who works uphill against Apple.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Dude, maybe cool down a little. I understand you feel really strongly about this, but there's no need for personal attacks. We're all dealing with the implications of this, and there are pros and cons on both sides. This is a nuanced issue. And if you'll excuse some unsolicited feedback, your arguments will bear way more weight if you do away with the histrionics.
      - echelon 6y ago
        > but there's no need for personal attacks It wasn't a personal attack, unless "They worked at Apple and probably have a different perception" is a personal attack. I don't harbor any ill will against you. Characterizing my words that way is disingenuous. > This is a nuanced issue. From my perspective, it's black and white. Apple is clearly taking advantage of market forces and is hurting small players. > your arguments will bear way more weight if you do away with the histrionics. The arguments that are heard are the ones that engender empathy. We've been at the point of logical discussion for years, and that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Now the outrage has come to a boil, and I won't censor myself or pretend this is a friendly game of sports. Apple is a trillion dollar vampire. I'm letting my representatives know that.

MBCook 6y ago

I like Apple. I kind of prefer everyone being forced to use Apple payments for convenience and safety. But they shouldn’t get 30%. Something closer to CC processing fees like 3 or 5% seems fair. I’m not a fan of alternate app stores. But I’m happy to see someone force this issue. So we can stop dancing around it and settle things.

paulgb 6y ago

I think there are basically two ways to look at Apple's App Store policies: 1. Apple acts like a sort of consumer union, coordinating behavior of a massive and lucrative audience so that apps have to meet certain minimum standards to reach it. 2. Apple acts like a protection racket, extracting a piece of the consumer surplus because they can. It seems that you like the benefits of #1, and I agree with you. The problem is that in the Fortnite case, it appears to be a case of #2 posturing as #1. Does anyone truly believe that Fortnite players are better off paying 30% more to Apple?

bhupy 6y ago
I really like this framing. If Apple's payment processing fee was more in line with the industry e-commerce standard, this would look a lot more like #1 than #2.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
This is a good framework. One way to merge these views is with a graduated take rate. So Apple might take 30% of the first $10mm, 20% of the next $10mm and $10% thereafter.