3 ms·

> Apple is extremely restrictive to developers Restrictive is not the appropriate word. For example, this whole forcing devs to use "sign in with Apple" is no

by pier25 5y ago

> Apple is extremely restrictive to developers Restrictive is not the appropriate word. For example, this whole forcing devs to use "sign in with Apple" is not about imposing restrictions as you can decide to not use a third party sign in (on a new app). Apple is saying "hey if your users can sign in with Facebook they should be able to sign in with Apple, we want a piece of the pie". Some iOS users are happy about the privacy aspect of this but fundamentally (IMO) this is not about privacy or restrictions, it's about making users and devs more dependent on the Apple ecosystem.

HWR_14 5y ago
What's the "pie"? FB makes money off their data. Apple seems to be providing me the service I paid for. If they made it optional, a large percentage of apps would force you to use Google/FB to login. That's not acceptable to me. One of the major reasons I give Apple money is to because they can stand up against the privacy invading FB/Google and I, as an individual, cannot. So they are very much doing what I want in this instance.
- pier25 5y ago
  > What's the "pie"? It's explained in my previous comment.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > It's explained in my previous comment. Not well enough for me to understand, because I asked what you meant.
    - pier25 5y ago
      If a dev uses a Facebook login on an app then it will never be able to remove it again as users won't be able to log in. Similarly, if it uses Facebook comments, these cannot be removed from a website as the content would be lost. Apple does the same thing. As a dev once you open the door to using Apple you're forever stuck with that. As a user, it entrenches you further into the Apple ecosystem which is ultimately the whole Apple product strategy.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        I don't really think lock in is Apple's primary goal. I think they are opposed to Google/FB spying on us, and therefore there has to be an alternative. You don't have to implement Apple SSO, you just cannot use any other SSO without adding it as an alternative. I like this result as a user.
      - sbuk 5y ago
        Again, the point that you as a developer are missing is that your behavior is atleast as, if not more abusive towards your end user than Apple are being. Why should your user have to use an anti-privacy 3rd party like Facebook to use your app or service? Where is the users choice other than to not use your product? I have to be honest here and say that I amazed, but sadly not surprised by the level of entitlement on display from a very small but extremely vocal set of developers.
        pier25 5y ago
        > your behavior is atleast as, if not more abusive towards your end user than Apple are being My behavior? You have no idea what I do. I don't even develop for Apple platforms. > Why should your user have to use an anti-privacy 3rd party like Facebook to use your app or service? I would never use anything by Facebook. Not sure where you got that from. > Where is the users choice other than to not use your product? That is choice. > I amazed, but sadly not surprised by the level of entitlement on display from a very small but extremely vocal set of developers As a dev shouldn't I be able to have control over my application?

by pier25 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

What's the "pie"? FB makes money off their data. Apple seems to be providing me the service I paid for. If they made it optional, a large percentage of apps would force you to use Google/FB to login. That's not acceptable to me. One of the major reasons I give Apple money is to because they can stand up against the privacy invading FB/Google and I, as an individual, cannot. So they are very much doing what I want in this instance.

pier25 5y ago
> What's the "pie"? It's explained in my previous comment.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > It's explained in my previous comment. Not well enough for me to understand, because I asked what you meant.
  - pier25 5y ago
    If a dev uses a Facebook login on an app then it will never be able to remove it again as users won't be able to log in. Similarly, if it uses Facebook comments, these cannot be removed from a website as the content would be lost. Apple does the same thing. As a dev once you open the door to using Apple you're forever stuck with that. As a user, it entrenches you further into the Apple ecosystem which is ultimately the whole Apple product strategy.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I don't really think lock in is Apple's primary goal. I think they are opposed to Google/FB spying on us, and therefore there has to be an alternative. You don't have to implement Apple SSO, you just cannot use any other SSO without adding it as an alternative. I like this result as a user.
    - sbuk 5y ago
      Again, the point that you as a developer are missing is that your behavior is atleast as, if not more abusive towards your end user than Apple are being. Why should your user have to use an anti-privacy 3rd party like Facebook to use your app or service? Where is the users choice other than to not use your product? I have to be honest here and say that I amazed, but sadly not surprised by the level of entitlement on display from a very small but extremely vocal set of developers.
      - pier25 5y ago
        > your behavior is atleast as, if not more abusive towards your end user than Apple are being My behavior? You have no idea what I do. I don't even develop for Apple platforms. > Why should your user have to use an anti-privacy 3rd party like Facebook to use your app or service? I would never use anything by Facebook. Not sure where you got that from. > Where is the users choice other than to not use your product? That is choice. > I amazed, but sadly not surprised by the level of entitlement on display from a very small but extremely vocal set of developers As a dev shouldn't I be able to have control over my application?