6 ms·

No one is forcing users to use Google or FB. They can do traditional email signup

nyuszika7h 5y ago
That is definitely not true for every app. There was never any clause in the App Store guidelines that you must provide traditional email signup. At least this way, the social-only apps will be forced to provide you a more privacy-preserving alternative, and for ones that don't use social logins anyway, nothing changes.
- collaborative 5y ago
  Of course, my comment was related to the app of the post Groups specifically Which used to offer both social sign-up (FB and Google) and a traditional email sign-up option You probably don't know that in this case, Groups was also forced to include AppleID or risk being removed from the App Store Removing all social logins from this point to ensure compliance would have definitely affected all users who had originally signed in with FB/Google, way before AppleID ever existed
  - Twisell 5y ago
    >Removing all social logins from this point to ensure compliance would have definitely affected all users who had originally signed in with FB/Google, way before AppleID ever existed Yet it would have been more consistent! What is the point of going to war against Apple while embracing the private-data-broker model at the same time? Just send a warning e-mail requiring password change because you decided to remove all social login as a protest. And provide a password reset mechanism for formerly social-login users that haven't defined a password in time. That would have been a true act of resistance.
    - collaborative 5y ago
      Amen
user-the-name 5y ago
No one is forcing users to use Sign in with Apple either.
- collaborative 5y ago
  But Apple is forcing devs to include Apple ID and that's what's wrong here. They could have made it optional. Given how Apple users can be it likely would have ended up being in demand and devs would have included it out of their free will
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    There is basically no benefit to app developer in including it. It is more work, and you may get only an anonymised address. However, there is massive benefit to actual users. Apple decided to prioritise users over developers here.
    - collaborative 5y ago
      Trust me, I say this as a developer, if there is any indication that I am losing out on users because I don't have Apple ID, I will make sure to add it asap. That is pretty much the reason why I first included FB and Google. I first only had Google, then some people aksed for FB. The natural course would have been that then some other guys ask for Apple and I add it. But Apple decided to abuse its position and force it on us developers
      - thiagocsf 5y ago
        Going by this rationale, are you going to add Apple ID to your website when users request it?
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Doesn't really matter what you would have done. It matters what the entire ecosystem would have. As a user, I am very satisfied that Apple made this a requirement. As a developer, I just implemented it without throwing a tantrum.

That is definitely not true for every app. There was never any clause in the App Store guidelines that you must provide traditional email signup. At least this way, the social-only apps will be forced to provide you a more privacy-preserving alternative, and for ones that don't use social logins anyway, nothing changes.

collaborative 5y ago
Of course, my comment was related to the app of the post Groups specifically Which used to offer both social sign-up (FB and Google) and a traditional email sign-up option You probably don't know that in this case, Groups was also forced to include AppleID or risk being removed from the App Store Removing all social logins from this point to ensure compliance would have definitely affected all users who had originally signed in with FB/Google, way before AppleID ever existed
- Twisell 5y ago
  >Removing all social logins from this point to ensure compliance would have definitely affected all users who had originally signed in with FB/Google, way before AppleID ever existed Yet it would have been more consistent! What is the point of going to war against Apple while embracing the private-data-broker model at the same time? Just send a warning e-mail requiring password change because you decided to remove all social login as a protest. And provide a password reset mechanism for formerly social-login users that haven't defined a password in time. That would have been a true act of resistance.
  - collaborative 5y ago
    Amen

user-the-name 5y ago

No one is forcing users to use Sign in with Apple either.

collaborative 5y ago
But Apple is forcing devs to include Apple ID and that's what's wrong here. They could have made it optional. Given how Apple users can be it likely would have ended up being in demand and devs would have included it out of their free will
- user-the-name 5y ago
  There is basically no benefit to app developer in including it. It is more work, and you may get only an anonymised address. However, there is massive benefit to actual users. Apple decided to prioritise users over developers here.
  - collaborative 5y ago
    Trust me, I say this as a developer, if there is any indication that I am losing out on users because I don't have Apple ID, I will make sure to add it asap. That is pretty much the reason why I first included FB and Google. I first only had Google, then some people aksed for FB. The natural course would have been that then some other guys ask for Apple and I add it. But Apple decided to abuse its position and force it on us developers
    - thiagocsf 5y ago
      Going by this rationale, are you going to add Apple ID to your website when users request it?
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Doesn't really matter what you would have done. It matters what the entire ecosystem would have. As a user, I am very satisfied that Apple made this a requirement. As a developer, I just implemented it without throwing a tantrum.