Equally, developers need to respect their users. I don't want to have to have a Facebook or Google account to use your product. Why should I be interested in your app if you force me you use either of those options? They were also involved in PRISM and both have far worse track records with privacy than Apple. More importantly, why should I trust you with PII?
Having your email address boils down to password recovery. For instance, I only ever send 3 types of emails:
1 - Activation email with activation code to ensure the person actually owns the email address (non-OAUTH sign-up)
2 - Password recovery for when they have forgotten their password. Yes, a user doesn't need this with OAUTH but sometimes they will have forgotten that they used OAUTH to start with and need to sign in with email & pss
3 - When push is turned off and someone has messaged you
I don't think this is beyond reasonable but I'm willing to take criticism
> Having your email address boils down to password recovery. For instance, I only ever send 3 types of emails
I don't care. I don't trust you. I don't trust any of modern devs, I see every other new shiny crap on the internet only as an attempt to extort me of data and/or money (subscription) now. Before Apple introduced that feature I was using email aliases in my Fastmail. Need to register in new service - go to Fastmail, generate an alias for some weird domain they've got, setup filter for it to go to "dodgy" folder and then register.
Now I don't need to do that anymore, Apple automated that for me.
And thank's Apple it also forced guys like you to allow me to use that automation. At least on their platform.
For same reason the only way I buy a subscription is through an in-app-purchase - because I can just to go App Store and cancel it and don't need to deal with people like you. I remember like an year ago I was waiting for a refund for a cancelled subscription and my emails were ignored and the only way to get the attention was to open a dispute in PayPal. Yet another supplier-hostile but consumer-friendly company. Thanks god they exist.
I think some smaller-time devs don't appreciate that if they "win" against Apple and make them significantly loosen restrictions, users' wallets will tighten, especially for small developers and companies that no-one's heard of. Keeping the App Store low-friction, low-risk, and UX consistent, is a huge benefit for those kinds of devs (the ones selling software or subscriptions, anyway).
The messages sent to the "anonymous" Apple id mail are just forwarded to the user's inbox, aren't they? How is that any different from any other email address.
There is an email origin restriction- that's how they keep devs from selling them, emails can only come from the right domain. That still shouldn't be a problem though.
It isn't. My problem with AppleID is nothing more than that they forced AppleID on me. I would have voluntarily added it otherwise. But now because of this, I really really dislike it to the point that I will refuse to implement it in other platforms where it is not mandatory
And I think Apple's behavior should change so I am making this public
Asking an honest question: if Apple didn’t force this, would you really add this voluntarily?
Because this response tells me you’re willing to compromise your user’s experience because of your personal issues with Apple.
As a user, this does not give me confidence in your decision making.
It’s somewhat understandable to be annoyed, even angry at Apple. But the moment you decide to pass that on to your users is the moment you’ve forgotten the most important humans in this story.
Of course, it’s your right to do what you want, and if that means taking a stance against Apple ranks higher than your user base, I suppose that’s your prerogative.
But that definitely would make me hesitate to use the app.
I don't even hold a grudge against Apple. This is just me trying to make the world a better place. It's in everyone's interest that Apple doesn't gain authority to force us to do things (don't forget, devs also are Apple customers)
On the other hand, I absolutely trust Apple - my relationship with them spans over a decade and countless products/experiences.
I’m happy that they’re forcing devs to offer Apple Sign On as an option when other social logins are also offered. As a user, I trust Apple far more than any 3rd party dev.
I pay a premium to Apple because of their platform and the types of things they enforce.
I want you to understand that as a user, this is exactly what I want Apple to do and I pay extra for it.
But what you're telling me is that your opinion about Apple here supersedes my own wishes/wants/goals as an end-user.
This reads like "I know what's best, despite what Apple users say they want, and I'm going to make the world a better place by ignoring my users and telling them what they want is actually bad for them", despite the fact that this is actually a beneficial feature to users, even if it could be construed as a benefit to Apple as well (arguments can certainly be made).
> It's in everyone's interest that Apple doesn't gain authority to force us to do things
The rulebook to participate in this ecosystem is a mile thick. Why is this the issue that you choose to make a fuss over? There are a a myriad of other rules that are even more heavy handed, that actually are to the detriment of end users to protect Apple's walled-garden.
Picking a feature that arguably makes user's lives better seems tone deaf at best, and actively harmful to a broader message about openness at worst.
The thing is, Apple only 'force' you to add their option if you have an app on the store and offer another form of public federated identity provider. If you don't want to offer Apple as an option, then don't offer anyone else. Look at the context of why they have enforced it. Privacy is hard. The concern is that that the majority identity providers/brokers in use are Facebook and Google. I'll happy listen to the 'competition' argument as it does have a little merit. However, when weighed up against the notion that these two are the only real choice for a significant volume of apps, it is extremely worrisome from a privacy point of view. Neither have a reason to respect end users, or you as a developers privacy because that's how they make money.
Petulance does not become a developer. The last time I saw a tantrum thrown this much was when my kid was 5 and had a major meltdown over a lack of chocolate ice-cream.
He didn't get any ice-cream for a week, a response that taught him meltdowns don't work.
You can judge my post as a tantrum, and I won't even take offense, friend
Now I ask you this: how far are you willing to go to further a good cause? Watching from the sides feels more comfortable, but we are being decimated and doing nothing won't change a thing. We need to act now, or watch our profession/hobby/passion be used to fatten the already morbidly overweight big tech companies
> how far are you willing to go to further a good cause?
But what, exactly is the "good cause" here? Is the good cause to force Apple to stop delivering an experience that we've already established throughout this thread is an experience Apple users want?
There are so many problems and battles to be fought in tech, so much abusive behavior, so many dark patterns. This is not that. If this is the cause you're fighting, I fear you've missed the forest through the trees.
Unless you had something else in mind, in which case I'm genuinely curious.
What is the “good cause” here? You’re just being user hostile and fighting a feature that is highly beneficial for users! If anything, it is Apple that’s fighting a good cause here.
Does something being beneficial for users justify anything?
Enslaving the entire Uber driver or deliveroo poor sod population is arguably beneficial for users. But, is it right? Plenty of jurisdictions have already spoken that these workers have rights. Nobody has made a ruling regarding developers yet
The "iMentality" can't possibly extend to wishing that Apple treats other human beings like **. Can it? If so, we may have gone back in time to even before the 1860s
You're underestimating email. People reuse their email address, so it's not as benign as you think.
Just googling someone's email is a start. But worse actors can find your email on a combolist or figure out what other services you use. Just knowing someone's email is the first step to social engineering a customer service backdoor, for example.
AppleID specifically helps users avoid all this with trivial per-app email address generation, and that's something our tools should have given us a decade ago.
Yes, developers need to respect users too. But that should be between the developers and the user. If a user asks me to add Apple Id as an option in an app I make, that is something that I would seriously consider as I care about my users. Why should a developer care about something no user has requested but Apple is forcing them to use?
Apple could be considered a genuine neutral arbitrator if it didn't take money from both the developers and its users. What it has done instead is to force itself between the user and the developer, and exploiting both in the name of the users (developers lose money to Apple's extortion, and the money it extorts from the developers is ultimately passed to the user, and thus they end up exploited too).
The bizarre thing is the ignorance here that this whole thing is a matter of choice! I am glad that there are developers who recognize that they do not have to accept unfair, and even unethical, practices from corporates. And are willing to speak about it and fight it.
Like minded developers are not just fighting Apple, but the whole attempt by "big tech" to move to the business model of exploiting developers by controlling distribution of softwares, and dictating terms that favour them. This ends up harming both developers, as they earn less, and users, as ultimately it the user who ends up paying the share of profits that Apple (and others) extort from the developers.
It doesn't work like that. Users can't ask about options they don't know about.
And even if they do, too many developers couldn't give two shits. Great example is how users overwhelmingly opt-out of tracking when the OS warns them about it (because "developers thinking about users" never even considered not tracking)
