7 ms·

It was even crazier when they tried to deactivate their Apple signin users. Apple has just a few months ago started mandating you allow Apple sign in if you al

by cma 6y ago

It was even crazier when they tried to deactivate their Apple signin users. Apple has just a few months ago started mandating you allow Apple sign in if you allow any other third party sign in. This gives Apple a huge hammer over your business, as it causes Apple sign in to leak into your web properties or properties on other platforms and Apple now has a hammer over some portion of your users who didn't even find your stuff through their store or even their devices or have moved on from using those devices.

paxys 6y ago
Yeah that was the worst one for me. They don't even have user email addresses in all cases, so those users are just permanently lost. People were hailing it as a great privacy move (which it still may be), but it gives Apple a massive lock-in advantage.
- katbyte 6y ago
  tbh i use it when i don't really care and whatever rando app required a login for some reason. For that purpose it's fantastic and no different then google/fb/ect except more private. for anything i care about i use a real email/password
- scarface74 6y ago
  Exactly. I get to choose who I want to have my email address. If it is a company I trust, I give them my real email address.
judge2020 6y ago
> When reached for comment about yesterday’s news, Apple told The Verge that it was not doing anything to stop “Sign In with Apple” accounts from working with Epic Games. Someone was lying. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-with-apple-will-keep-working-fortnite https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I believe the company saying they were threatened over one as large as Apple, where one group could have said "yes we're threatening you with this" and another disparate group could say "we would never do that" - Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened: - Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date - Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this - Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal. - Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply. Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access. Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying. The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I'd be interested to see if correspondence between Apple and Epic included threats to disable "sign in with Apple" though. This seems fairly possible to me, that someone made that threat without going through legal. Apple is pretty power drunk in this scenario, imo. So I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
- cma 6y ago
  Apple's wording is loose enough not to preclude it. "Not doing anything" is present tense, but they could still have said they were going to. No one has to be lying. When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment. When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
  - chrisbolt 6y ago
BoorishBears 6y ago
I don't know why this was downvoted, maybe people don't realize why this is so serious? Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses. So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead. Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.
- ptero 6y ago
  I do not know why you are being downvoted (I upvoted this not because I agree with your view, but because I see your point as the one that deserves to be argued). I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse. Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    You're inferring a request that isn't there though, I'm not saying Apple should send any emails without asking I'm saying Apple should not force anyone to implement it. Some apps just work even if users lose accounts easily. They tend to not push for logins immediately. Sign-in with Apple is a great match for them. But in others, if the user doesn't want to share their email, the dev wants that to be treated as "the user isn't logged in", "I haven't justified logging in". The dev wants to demonstrate enough value to justify you being logged in with an email. Sign-in with Apple is a terrible match for them creates a limbo state where users have accounts, but not full accounts. In those apps it's very awkward to handle in not just the app itself, but real world customer lifecycle events, like support - Not to mention other logins (and OAuth in general) already handle this, you ask permission to access email with an "email" scope and the user is clearly made aware they're sharing their email address And I mean it, the UX is not some shady misleading thing, it's in the best interests of Google and Facebook that your email doesn't become spam either.

by cma 6y ago

paxys 6y ago

Yeah that was the worst one for me. They don't even have user email addresses in all cases, so those users are just permanently lost. People were hailing it as a great privacy move (which it still may be), but it gives Apple a massive lock-in advantage.

katbyte 6y ago
tbh i use it when i don't really care and whatever rando app required a login for some reason. For that purpose it's fantastic and no different then google/fb/ect except more private. for anything i care about i use a real email/password
scarface74 6y ago
Exactly. I get to choose who I want to have my email address. If it is a company I trust, I give them my real email address.

judge2020 6y ago

> When reached for comment about yesterday’s news, Apple told The Verge that it was not doing anything to stop “Sign In with Apple” accounts from working with Epic Games. Someone was lying. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-with-apple-will-keep-working-fortnite https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...

BoorishBears 6y ago
I believe the company saying they were threatened over one as large as Apple, where one group could have said "yes we're threatening you with this" and another disparate group could say "we would never do that" - Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened: - Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date - Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this - Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal. - Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply. Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access. Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying. The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
partiallypro 6y ago
I'd be interested to see if correspondence between Apple and Epic included threats to disable "sign in with Apple" though. This seems fairly possible to me, that someone made that threat without going through legal. Apple is pretty power drunk in this scenario, imo. So I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
cma 6y ago
Apple's wording is loose enough not to preclude it. "Not doing anything" is present tense, but they could still have said they were going to. No one has to be lying. When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment. When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
- chrisbolt 6y ago

BoorishBears 6y ago

I don't know why this was downvoted, maybe people don't realize why this is so serious? Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses. So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead. Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.

ptero 6y ago
I do not know why you are being downvoted (I upvoted this not because I agree with your view, but because I see your point as the one that deserves to be argued). I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse. Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  You're inferring a request that isn't there though, I'm not saying Apple should send any emails without asking I'm saying Apple should not force anyone to implement it. Some apps just work even if users lose accounts easily. They tend to not push for logins immediately. Sign-in with Apple is a great match for them. But in others, if the user doesn't want to share their email, the dev wants that to be treated as "the user isn't logged in", "I haven't justified logging in". The dev wants to demonstrate enough value to justify you being logged in with an email. Sign-in with Apple is a terrible match for them creates a limbo state where users have accounts, but not full accounts. In those apps it's very awkward to handle in not just the app itself, but real world customer lifecycle events, like support - Not to mention other logins (and OAuth in general) already handle this, you ask permission to access email with an "email" scope and the user is clearly made aware they're sharing their email address And I mean it, the UX is not some shady misleading thing, it's in the best interests of Google and Facebook that your email doesn't become spam either.