Understood, thanks for the clarification! I haven’t been an opt-in developer for a few years now, so the situation is a bit foreign to me!
Cheers!
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 Facing Antitrust Probe Over 'Sign in With Apple' and Other Developer Complaints
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cheers!
It’s literally an EXTRA option….by very definition that increases competition. I swear some people like to shout “anticompetitive“ and “monopoly” whenever they get their precious little feelings hurt. I can feel the outrage from here.
Depends on what you mean by "Forcing"
Microsoft did not get in trouble for having IE by default. They got in trouble by trying to bully Netscape from having their own browser. Intentionally made it difficult to use APIs and even approached them to try to get them to stop development. Also approaching OEMs to NOT install Netscape browser. And it wasn't just one thing, it was Sun Java that was included in the case where they intentionally made Java code more difficult to be ported from Windows.
I can kinda see both sides on this one.
For consumers, yes, it's an extra option, which fosters competitiveness between third-party sign-in services.
For developers who already provide third-party sign-on services, though, it's a take-it-or-leave-it - "Do what Apple says or have your app delisted from the store."
I guess developers could remove ALL third party sign-in services if they wanted to and force everyone to give up an email and password to EVERY app maker, but not sure if that's the better alternative.
I do not think your understanding the requirements. Developers only have to support Sign in with Apple when they use other sign on services like Google, Facebook, Twitter ect. ect. Which means they are already using someone else's sign on service so it DOES NOT mess up the flow of their registration process in anyway and only takes a few lines of code to add. You get the same basic info about a user as you would if someone choose to sign in with Google or Facebook just the user has the option to provide you with not there real name or real email address.
Most devs choose to use these so they don't have to spend hours and hours creating there own account register, login and recovery process so adding another one that takes 5 minutes is not that big of a deal.
Nice thanks for the positive reply I always appreciate it
it’s anti competitive because it’s mandatory. I love Sign In with Apple and you’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands but I’m arguing against it being mandatory. Hopefully that made more sense
Should they get shoehorned into supporting new screen sizes? UI elements? How about Metal? What if a dev wants to use OpenGL or Flash? What exact features should Apple be able to enforce on devs? Apple have guidelines for everything and, as is the usual reply to you from a large number of forum regulars, they know this going in and AGREE to it by choosing to develop for iOS.
iPhones cannot compete with each other, but sign in services can
It’s almost like the government only considers cases that might have validity or something 😂
It would be equally anti-competitive if suddenly Facebook, Twitter and Google decide to enforce the exclusion of SIWA, if devs wants to use their services. It must be in the hands of the developer to decide what kind of sign-in method he wants to offer in his Apps.
I thought its if they offer social logins. Is it a requirement if I throw up a username and password box that is tested against my SQL Server database too?
No, it doesn’t make more sense. It’s Apple’s platform and people have a choice to develop for it or not. Much the same way as users have a choice to purchase Apple hardware or not.
It would be classed as Anti competitive if Apple was enforcing this on EVERY app. They only require it from any app that uses any other social login. You saying it is anti competitive or a monopoly doesn’t make it so.
Yawn, really? Disagree, but Courts around the globe will decide, and it’s not looking very bright for Apple. We can’t even count the anti-competitive lawsuits anymore.
The higher they rise, the harder they fall.
Last edited:
THANK YOU! How is this anti-competitive?
When a person makes a serious claim, it has to be investigated…surely you see that? Investigating a complaint doesn’t mean that there’s any case to answer however.
No they have to see good enough chances of success before it gets formally picked up. They do not investigate every claim they get.
Privacy *cough, cough* full iCloud backups access *sneeze*
Then silently find out what people like to build up on this gathered information.
Old Microsoft tactics "embrace, extend, and exterminate", they learned the hard way, Apple will learn it, too.
Last edited:
Making it mandatory that if you use a competitors sign-in option that they MUST include Apple's as well.
Devs should able to choose what 3rd party auth methods to implement. Apple forcing it's way into the relationship is anticompetitive.
It is enforcing competition not preventing it....
Thank you that was phrased much better than anything I said so far. It would only be competition if sign in with Apple was only introduced to apps optionally by the app developers choice, because there is no competition if it’s forced.
If people are upset someone is doing something right
That’s not enforcing competition, it’s a silent and carefully planed takeover based on platform domination and by interlocking business types aka. anti-competitive behavior.
Not even close to a man-in-the-middle attack. If an end-user chooses to “sign in with Apple” then Apple will already have the email address in question (as it will be the Apple ID). If they choose anything else then Apple has absolutely no knowledge of the email address in question.
Before: Log in with Facebook ONLY
After: Log in with Facebook and Log in with Apple
It enforces competition. You still get a choice, how is it a "takeover" if I simply decide to use the Facebook option instead? Choice and competition.