Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on iOS 13's Sign In with Apple: 'We're Not Really Taking a Shot at Anybody'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple sells access to its customer base. The usual content makers—apps, news, books, music—pay a toll to reach Apple's customers rather than wait for those customers to seek them out. It's not a unique business arrangement but that's the point...Apple is using its customers to the same effect as Google and Facebook.
What toll is that? The Netflix app I downloaded was free and I signed up for the service via the web so Apple gets no cut of the monthly fee I pay Netflix. Same thing when I buy books from Barnes & Noble. No cut goes to Apple.
You most likely can’t unless the developer creates a migration plan. For most devs, they don’t care about Apple SSO vs Facebook SSO etc. They use it to avoid having to create their own login mechanisms.
And you made those transactions without interference? No. Because in-app purchases are limited to Apple's payment system and commission requirements. Instead, you had to navigate to a website and perform the transaction there. A minor inconvenience for some. A notable annoyance for others.
Almost like the government which forbids the sale of snake oil, poisoned food and semiautomatic rifles. What a horrible gated community we live in! The people in Afghanistan are so much freer than us in the garden. /s
This is pretty ironic in light of Apple's keynote announcement that they're now using speech-to-text on every podcast to make them instantly searchable. While this is a great usability win, it is also the end of privacy for participants in those podcasts, many of whom have politically dissident views. There are hateful people who spend every day trying to dox and destroy people who have the "wrong" political views. Apple just made part of that hunt exponentially easier. Thanks, Tim.
Apple has to do this if they want it adopted, because the motives of developers are not inline with what both Apple and Users want. When Apple doesn't mandate something, developers ignore it, unless there is some clear and obvious "what's in it for me" attached.
[doublepost=1559659252][/doublepost]
If you've already implemented your own login system, and Facebook sign-in, then adding Apple's will be trivial. Clearly you can already create a login on your system via API, which is the time consuming part, and clearly its already in use.
As far as your timeframe, you're only going to be held to this rule if you submit a new App to the App Store. You should know that if you're an App developer. Apple is not going to prevent anyone from issuing updates compiled against the iOS 13 SDK that don't include Sign In with Apple. It will only apply to new apps, as is always the case with any mandate by Apple. You may see another 6-12 months before updates are also required to support it.
Last edited:
So you’re saying Apple uses customer information internally to promote its services. I’m way ok with that.
But I got people think it’s the same as google targeted adverts.
Not "abuse," but "use," absolutely. The social aspects and direct contact via email are 100% parts of the very transparent opt-in experience.
Again, it's about everything else that has to happen in certain user experiences. Agreed entirely that for many — even the majority — of apps, if it's just "another form of authentication," then this is a good thing.
See above. "The only way it's an issue." Indeed. We're far from the only company out there with this issue.
Which we were in the process of doing.
In my "corner," it's not a game changer. The way this works (email/FB) is quite necessary. For obvious reasons, I can't really say more than that.
Don’t understand how this could be a “hard no” just because when you are on other devices you don’t see it. You aren’t setting anything up. When it’s there, it will be easier to use (faceID and TouchID). When it’s not, login with something else. I don’t see many people ignoring it out of principle once it turns out to be so easy to log in.
Every public for-profit company, like Apple, rarely does anything if it isn't in their best interest. It may benefit the consumer too but it must benefit the company. In a lot of ways, Apple is seeding doubt about other companies hoping customers will try their products in search of the "privacy" nirvana Apple ( supposedly ) offers. It has looked like a marketing campaign ( again, there are some user benefits ) for a while now going back to when Apple "refused" to help the FBI access an iPhone.
It's quite a sales pitch to essentially tell the consumer: "Your data will be safe and private with Apple but if you want to trust your data with others who have a history of selling your data, it's your lookout".
A question worth asking ( which has been asked elsewhere ) is: how safe is your data on the internet with Apple or any other provider?
No it uses it to promote other people's services.
Data seller: "Here's the information on our users you paid for"
Apple: "We won't show you the information, but pay us 30% and tell us what type of person you want to target"
This really isn’t true at all, see Enron and Bernie Madoff for examples of companies that acted in their own self interest first.
The reason I mentioned them is because Apple has to be customer focused. That doesn’t mean they have to give their products away but have to identify their target market and provide a service to that target market. It also doesn’t mean they need to be as sleazy as Facebook and be underhanded about your data.
[doublepost=1559664520][/doublepost]
What peoples services? Give a specific example that can be verified where your name goes outside of Apple in an unauthorized fashion.
That is not my concern, nor should it be anyones other than those living in China. They have their own laws that you have to respect if you want to do business. There is no away around this unless you want to lose the ability to do business (sell product) in their country.
Let me try to torn the question around a bit: What kind of an account are you 100.00000% certain evry apple device user has ? ......... Right an Apple-ID. so why would you not want to include the option for your apps users? I understand it is yet another thing to implement on e tight deadline but isn't have that on click signup worth something?
In the light of recent privacy violations committed by Google and Facebook, I will chose "Sign in with Apple" over "Sign in with Facebook/Google" whenever I have the chance to do so. They never had my trust anyway.
I'm not sure what planet you are from, but Apple is the only company making a concerted effort to protect your privacy. No other company cares about your privacy and are only interested in monetizing your data. As a shareholder it would be to my advantage for them to sell their users out to the highest bidder, but thankfully they have chosen not to.
This isn't a new idea. If you've ever registered a domain name with option to privatize whois data that's where they got the idea from.
Also, security conscious users would never put all their eggs in one basket forwarding all their emails through Apple with lackluster security track record. Personally, I use different trusted email providers for different tiers of services such as an one email provider for banking/financial, a different email provider for utilities/insurance, throw away email for forums/social networks, etc. so if one is compromised they won't impact all.
Also, security conscious users would never put all their eggs in one basket forwarding all their emails through Apple with lackluster security track record. Personally, I use different trusted email providers for different tiers of services such as an one email provider for banking/financial, a different email provider for utilities/insurance, throw away email for forums/social networks, etc. so if one is compromised they won't impact all.
Do you realize your contradiction in philosophy? This new policy benefits users, by offering them an additional option for signing in. It's a complete win for the consumer. While I get that a developer might not want to have to implement it, you shoot your argument right out of the water when you make a dig at not having an alternative app store. You want more options in the latter case, but don't want the same consumers to have more options in the former. So options only matter when they benefit you...?