5 ms·

As a user I would prefer no account in most cases. As a distant second, I would prefer the convenience, security, and privacy of Sign in with Apple over Google,

As a user I would prefer no account in most cases. As a distant second, I would prefer the convenience, security, and privacy of Sign in with Apple over Google, Facebook, or the headache of managing yet another web account. As a developer, I use my preferences as a user to steer my choices, but recognize that the world doesn't revolve around Apple so would allow other options. > Having saw Epic's developer account t... Since I have zero need to deliberately violate Apple's App Story policy, I don't worry about this overmuch.

qppo 6y ago
I've had an issue with sign-in with Apple where using an autogenerated emails ruins certain support interactions. One of them was cancelling a subscription service that was eventually resolved (they required me to email their customer support, which I couldn't figure out how to do using the autogenerated email address created by "sign-in with Apple").
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  While it’s frustrating and worth pointing out of course - what really happened there was a bug in the service provider’s support process!
  - qppo 6y ago
    It was actually a dark pattern, not a bug.
- tchalla 6y ago
  It would be helpful if you could let us know how you managed to send that e-mail.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    You can see the email that Apple generates: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210426 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210426
    - tchalla 6y ago
      Yes but the situation I asked for a solution is different. It is not about not seeing the e-mail, it is about sending from the private e-mail. Example You subscribe with `private-XXXX@apple-id.com` which relays to `foo@gmail.com`. Customer support asks you to chat with them from the same ID you signed up. Your e-mail client sends email from `foo@gmail.com`. How can you quickly respond to the customer support from `private-XXXX@apple-id.com`?
  - qppo 6y ago
    I didn't, I found an alternative that was specific to the service.
simonw 6y ago
> Since I have zero need to deliberately violate Apple's App Story policy, I don't worry about this overmuch. That may be true today, but their policies are a moving target. Who knows what they'll be like in a year's time?
- mushufasa 6y ago
  You could say that about anything -- nothing is completely static -- but it's worth mentioning that Apple vs. Epic is a counterexample; Epic wants apple to change their policies (lower than 30% cut) while Apple wants to maintain the same structure since the inception of their app store.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > You could say that about anything -- nothing is completely static 1. Contracts are a thing. You can draft a contract with your vendor that guarantees certain terms for a certain duration. 2. You should be wary of wandering into commitments (including de facto commitments e.g. "vendor lock-in")--there are plenty of good reasons to do so, but one should make sure to properly consider the cost. The problem is that doing business with Apple can make or break a company--companies can scarcely afford not to do business with Apple. I'm not an economist, but this seems pretty monopolistic (which isn't to say Apple should be broken up, but perhaps more tightly regulated).
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      It is more of an monopsony[1] than a monopoly. If you are looking to buy a smartphone there are still options. If you are looking to sell software for smart phones, Apple is by far the most lucrative platform and they have a lock on publishing software for iOS. It is very difficult in the US to survive as a software developer for Android only. The anti-trust frameworks in the US are based largely on monopolies and there is little in the way of legal precedence for protecting sellers in a monopsony market. If Epic wins their legal battle, it will likely set precedence for later cases. Google and Facebook are also largely in weird legal ground. They have more or less exclusive access to large networks of users which is hugely disruptive to the advertising market. [1] A monopoly is a market where there is only one provider. A monopsony is a market where there is only one buyer.
wtetzner 6y ago
> or the headache of managing yet another web account. Honestly, I find this to be the distant second behind no account. I treat my password manager as my SSO provider in some sense.
mszcz 6y ago
> convenience, security, and privacy of Sign in with Apple over Google, Facebook Unless of course they block you for whatever reason. Then the process of getting back access has nothing to do with convenience, security, and privacy...

qppo 6y ago

I've had an issue with sign-in with Apple where using an autogenerated emails ruins certain support interactions. One of them was cancelling a subscription service that was eventually resolved (they required me to email their customer support, which I couldn't figure out how to do using the autogenerated email address created by "sign-in with Apple").

matthewmacleod 6y ago
While it’s frustrating and worth pointing out of course - what really happened there was a bug in the service provider’s support process!
- qppo 6y ago
  It was actually a dark pattern, not a bug.
tchalla 6y ago
It would be helpful if you could let us know how you managed to send that e-mail.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  You can see the email that Apple generates: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210426 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210426
  - tchalla 6y ago
    Yes but the situation I asked for a solution is different. It is not about not seeing the e-mail, it is about sending from the private e-mail. Example You subscribe with `private-XXXX@apple-id.com` which relays to `foo@gmail.com`. Customer support asks you to chat with them from the same ID you signed up. Your e-mail client sends email from `foo@gmail.com`. How can you quickly respond to the customer support from `private-XXXX@apple-id.com`?
- qppo 6y ago
  I didn't, I found an alternative that was specific to the service.

simonw 6y ago

> Since I have zero need to deliberately violate Apple's App Story policy, I don't worry about this overmuch. That may be true today, but their policies are a moving target. Who knows what they'll be like in a year's time?

mushufasa 6y ago
You could say that about anything -- nothing is completely static -- but it's worth mentioning that Apple vs. Epic is a counterexample; Epic wants apple to change their policies (lower than 30% cut) while Apple wants to maintain the same structure since the inception of their app store.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > You could say that about anything -- nothing is completely static 1. Contracts are a thing. You can draft a contract with your vendor that guarantees certain terms for a certain duration. 2. You should be wary of wandering into commitments (including de facto commitments e.g. "vendor lock-in")--there are plenty of good reasons to do so, but one should make sure to properly consider the cost. The problem is that doing business with Apple can make or break a company--companies can scarcely afford not to do business with Apple. I'm not an economist, but this seems pretty monopolistic (which isn't to say Apple should be broken up, but perhaps more tightly regulated).
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    It is more of an monopsony[1] than a monopoly. If you are looking to buy a smartphone there are still options. If you are looking to sell software for smart phones, Apple is by far the most lucrative platform and they have a lock on publishing software for iOS. It is very difficult in the US to survive as a software developer for Android only. The anti-trust frameworks in the US are based largely on monopolies and there is little in the way of legal precedence for protecting sellers in a monopsony market. If Epic wins their legal battle, it will likely set precedence for later cases. Google and Facebook are also largely in weird legal ground. They have more or less exclusive access to large networks of users which is hugely disruptive to the advertising market. [1] A monopoly is a market where there is only one provider. A monopsony is a market where there is only one buyer.

wtetzner 6y ago

> or the headache of managing yet another web account. Honestly, I find this to be the distant second behind no account. I treat my password manager as my SSO provider in some sense.

mszcz 6y ago

> convenience, security, and privacy of Sign in with Apple over Google, Facebook Unless of course they block you for whatever reason. Then the process of getting back access has nothing to do with convenience, security, and privacy...