Apple Facing Antitrust Probe Over 'Sign in With Apple' and Other Developer Complaints

[Stephen.R]

I support this investigation - I think that requiring all devs to implement this is super anti-competitive and is a thorn in the side for many developers that have to support this in cases where it clearly messes up the flow of their registration process. Especially with how it was just shoehorned into agreements without a concept of grandfathering out of it.

Developers only have to support this if they already support other third party sign in options.

If you only support your own internal Auth system you are not required to support sign in with Apple.

Yet again the DOJ can’t see the forrest for the trees when it comes to Apple.

In what world is ensuring users have more choice, an antitrust violation?

 

[jdsingle]

I support this investigation - I think that requiring all devs to implement this is super anti-competitive and is a thorn in the side for many developers that have to support this in cases where it clearly messes up the flow of their registration process. Especially with how it was just shoehorned into agreements without a concept of grandfathering out of it.

This is laughable. You make your money from end customers. Apple makes its money from end customers. As a customer of this platform, I don't care. How is enhancing the end customers experience on the platform anti-competitive? Especially when it was expected of everyone.

 

[dontwalkhand]

I would like to love it too! Just read the linked article and few extra sub-links. I actually have already a few SIWA apps/web, however what’s not clear to me is how to do things like convert my Dropbox or any other regular account to SIWA and keep the history, subscription, comments (if it was a blog), etc. I would convert them in no time... the amount of times I have to change passwords because “this password has been found on a data security breach” is incredible, the amount of times I have been told about an Apple data security breach? zero.

Would be great also regarding these things if they could just ask consumers, ask us if we don’t want SIWA, ask us if we want a fully open platform with all the potential implications for the user, if we would love to have tons of fragmented devices with even different gpu architectures for the same models region dependent (heck, it’s already chaos if the modem differs slightly on this side), if we would like to skip neat amazing comfortable feature because it locks more to the ecosystem (hint, it’s welcomed, else there’s the Android option), etc


There’s something here.
All those things Switch Store and account, PSN store and accounts (only usable on Sony things and PlayStations for the most part), XBox (arguably the most reaching of the batch), m are mostly closed for their platforms only, yet somehow manage to escape all the antitrust and anticompetitive battles going on.

And yet the Switch can still support Sign In with Apple.

 

[bookofxero]

Doesn’t matter, it’s not for apple to decide. for some companies there is a ton of overhead around releases and quality testing and some simply may not have enough cycles/money to do this. Unless you’re telling me you happen to know for a fact that every single company out there can do this without any issues, without any testing, without any login flow modifications, without any additional screens for required data collection for account setup, etc etc. You can’t.

Thanks for the positive language champ always appreciated

It's an SSO option. Your credentials are tokenized and sent to a federated service which confirms that token and sends back an "OK" on your authentication. Just like with the other 3rd party login services, nothing "extra" is done client-side. Apple even provided the code and said just copy and paste this and the option will be available.
The problem is that many of the other providers will use that login for monetizing everything they possible can about you.

 

[bookofxero]

Im actually all for SIWA and use it when I can but on the surface it does seem like a clear class of tied selling. I mean something similar got MS in trouble in the 90s... forcing IE with Windows.

Im curious does anyone know if Google requires Sign-In with Google in Android Apps if you use Sign-in with Twitter or Facebook? Is Apple the only maker that forces developers to bundle its sign-in option if you use a competing option?

Is sign-in with apple offered on android at all. I think it is on websites - but maybe only via Safari...

It is completely different. To be clear MS got in trouble for "the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java." This is the exact opposite of that. Apple is allowing apps that exclusively use a 3rd party login option (eg, gmail using Google login) to continue to use the exclusive option. They are just saying that if you provide non-exclusive options then you need to include their option as well.

 

[matrix07]

I support this investigation - I think that requiring all devs to implement this is super anti-competitive and is a thorn in the side for many developers that have to support this in cases where it clearly messes up the flow of their registration process. Especially with how it was just shoehorned into agreements without a concept of grandfathering out of it.

It's not "all devs", It's only "those devs" who support similar sign in from Facebook and google etc.

Sigh..

 

[gavroche]

It is a bit of a lock-in to Apple's ecosystem using sign-in with Apple but I prefer that it's the only one that doesn't share my email address with everyone under the sun.

Its late so perhaps im not thinking too clearly... but im having a real hard time understanding how being given an option to sign in without providing my email versus having to provide it has anything at all to do with locking me in to apples ecosystem. Does my not providing my email somehow makes it harder to change ecosystems at a later date if i so decide?

 

[rjohnstone]

Its late so perhaps im not thinking too clearly... but im having a real hard time understanding how being given an option to sign in without providing my email versus having to provide it has anything at all to do with locking me in to apples ecosystem. Does my not providing my email somehow makes it harder to change ecosystems at a later date if i so decide?

Whatever app/service you use with Sign in with Apple credentials are locked to those credentials.
Your information is obfuscated on the other end. While that enhances privacy, it makes leaving Apple's ecosystem a bit harder as those services are tied to the ID Apple gave to the app/service via Sign in with Apple auth process.
You can always just create another account when you leave, but if it's an app/service that retains history, achievements, etc., those will be lost.
That said, Sign in with Apple works on Android devices IF the developer decides to add it to their Android version of their app. While it may be easy to add to an iOS app, it's a royal pain in the rear to setup for Android devices, but once done, maintaining it is easy enough.
The issue I have is making it mandatory for devs who use other third party auth agents.
Google does not require this for Android devs. If they just want to use Facebook auth, they're good to go. They're not forced to add sign in with Google.

 

[Tech198]

They don't like it because I can finally hide my real email address and not get spammed to oblivion.

yep, well that's what we get for wanting privacy.... Would make sense, i mean 90% of the internet is "open" "sharing" etc... so when you come up to a locked door, you question it.

 

[incoherent_1]

How is this anti-trust when they are requiring it when others (FB, Google, etc) are available? Aren’t they in fact forcing more choices, not fewer?

 

[thislsmadness]

Yeah so it boils down to whether people are comfortable with the fact that apple is trying to play the login police. It makes less sense when you consider that it’s not mandatory if the app hosts its own accounts, which is far more likely to be hacked versus Google and Facebook. This is why it’s more anti-competitive than it is Apple playing the login police and trying to keep people safe

Being the ____ police is Apple's job as the owner of a platform. Facebook, Google, MS, macrumors... everyone is policing their respective platforms and forcing policy. And it is a good thing that they do it. It's entirely their responsibility to regulate iOS and ensure that user safety and privacy are maintained. I would love if they forced this on everyone but I'll settle on an alternative to Facebook/Google login for now.

And when we talk about "anti-competitive" the most important consideration is the negative impact the action has on the public. Rather than "Apple shouldn't be able to force me to do this", I want to hear how I am being hurt by the Apple login option.

 

[willyx]

How is this anti-trust when they are requiring it when others (FB, Google, etc) are available? Aren’t they in fact forcing more choices, not fewer?

It is an anti-trust case because they are forcing their own option while making the switch to other devices harder, as the article states.

 

[bklement]

Exclusive apps like notability are a bigger barrier to switching than apple sign-in, just saying.

 

[Eorlas]

Wait, what? App store rules make it difficult to switch to another device makers. Does Windows make it easy to switch to Linux?

apple is just the easy one to pick on.

epic sues over fortnite, their entire marketing campaign to pull on their base's heartstrings is geared around mocking apple, with complete disregard over the fact that google did the exact same punishment. mocking android is just not nearly as profitable.

parler gets removed from every major tech platform on earth (side note: are they just incapable of making a mobile website???). ive heard from at least one direct connection who said they'd boycott apple products because "they got between me and parler", and i also know they're usually interested in yearly or every other year upgrades.

i didnt bother pointing out that google also blocked their application, so skipping out on the iphone in favor of samsung lg or google isn't going to result in a net positive here. but again, the media picked apple primarily as the iphone is the most popular smartphone.

apple's the only company diving in this hard on the privacy aspect. so much that fb wants to write their users a love letter trying to get them to permit access through apple's upcoming privacy protections. like lmao what do you people think is gonna happen, fb users are going feel sorry for the most invasive company on earth whose ceo has the emotional range of a toothpick and is a billionaire?

i think the general consensus is just about *everyone* hates fb, but we've come to somewhat accept the way it's integrated into our lives.

 

[Forti]

When you are using Sing with AppleID you can switch to android with your account in a few ways:
1. don't hide your email account. Thanks to that the options "reset my password" should works fine for most of the apps
2. write to app support that you have changed the phone and ask them to switch your login provider. It should be fine for most of the apps.
3. Sing in with AppleID can be (potentially) available on android. It's just a bit harder to implement.

~~ writing it as a mobile iOS and android dev.

 

[dumastudetto]

These people need to stay out of our ecosystem of trust. We use Apple because we trust them with all our data, and none of us feel locked in.

 

[SFjohn]

I support this investigation - I think that requiring all devs to implement this is super anti-competitive and is a thorn in the side for many developers that have to support this in cases where it clearly messes up the flow of their registration process. Especially with how it was just shoehorned into agreements without a concept of grandfathering out of it.

It’s not like saying that Apple can be the only one you sign in with. I was delighted to see it as an option for Pokémon Go, yet I can still log in with google if I’m leaving Apple’s garden. No data lost…

 

[ruka.snow]

Windows even comes with Linux onboard.

If you can't destroy it, assimilate it! ~ Microsoft

 

[Brian Y]

This is laughable. You make your money from end customers. Apple makes its money from end customers. As a customer of this platform, I don't care. How is enhancing the end customers experience on the platform anti-competitive? Especially when it was expected of everyone.

It's anti-competative because it forces developers to use a service they may otherwise not have wanted to use, and also encourages vendor lock-in - users are less likely to switch to a different platform if all of their crap is "signed in with Apple", making it much harder to migrate to android, for example.

Forcing devs to include it, then advertising it as the "better option", will naturally encourage uptake. Yes, it has its benefits on privacy, but it's more about locking people to the ecosystem in reality.

 

[cupcakes2000]

It is a requirement for developers to offer it as a login option for users.

No it isn’t.

It is an anti-trust case because they are forcing their own option while making the switch to other devices harder, as the article states.

They’re not forcing anything on anyone. They’re offering a different Apple centric choice for the users of Apple products. These users can still chose to sign in by any other means the dev offers.

If you’re referring to it being ‘forced’ on devs, then that’s a null point really. Any changes to Apple frameworks (or any other frameworks) are technically forced upon devs.
If you already offer sign in with Google and Facebook then it’s really a moot point to offer Sign In with Apple. Or else you can just offer email sign in and avoid it all.

Sign In with Apple is a welcome addition to many apps. Some apps ONLY offer sign in with Google or Facebook. No email options. In this case, for me, the app will immediately get deleted.

How anyone can possibly argue against this, from an Apple consumers point of view (which is what this is, right?) is beyond me.

 

[SFjohn]

Whatever app/service you use with Sign in with Apple credentials are locked to those credentials.
Your information is obfuscated on the other end. While that enhances privacy, it makes leaving Apple's ecosystem a bit harder as those services are tied to the ID Apple gave to the app/service via Sign in with Apple auth process.
You can always just create another account when you leave, but if it's an app/service that retains history, achievements, etc., those will be lost.
That said, Sign in with Apple works on Android devices IF the developer decides to add it to their Android version of their app. While it may be easy to add to an iOS app, it's a royal pain in the rear to setup for Android devices, but once done, maintaining it is easy enough.
The issue I have is making it mandatory for devs who use other third party auth agents.
Google does not require this for Android devs. If they just want to use Facebook auth, they're good to go. They're not forced to add sign in with Google.

You can use all the log ins to an app that you want to. You can login with Apple’s credentials, and google’s and facebook’s and choose any one you like when you restart your app. The only difference is logging in with Apple is it’s secure & private. Where Google and Facebook are not. Apple isn’t locking anyone into anything. Apple adds an option, a much better option. Your not locked into it at all. It’s simply there if you like.

 

[Brian Y]

These people need to stay out of our ecosystem of trust. We use Apple because we trust them with all our data, and none of us feel locked in.

As someone who recently switched from iOS to Android (after being an iPhone user since the first gen), the lock in is real.

It's quite clear that Apple make it as hard as possible to leave the ecosystem. I had a couple of things signed in with Apple - basically had to create new accounts for those. I had to physically call Apple as their system didn't remove my iMessage service properly, meaning any iPhone users couldn't send me text messages. I had to phone Apple again to fix an issue downloading all of my original iCloud photos.

They're doing this on other stuff, too, like iCloud Keychain. They make it basically next to impossible to migrate from iCloud Keychain to anbything else. The only way is to do it manually, or use third party scripts to generate a CSV - what average user is going to be able to do that?

 

[NotTooLate]

I know many users will be "Oh shut up, you just don't want to accept it", but there's a bit of a valid argument here. In a ways, it's kind of discriminatory where if you wanted to make things easier for your user by adding a single sign on kind of solution like FB/Twitter/Google, you must add Apple, or you're stuck with regular ol' username/password. Otherwise you're booted from the service. "Other services are optional, but we're mandatory". It's kind of like saying "If you want to use your Visa or MasterCard here, you're required to have a store credit card too, even though you might not use it. Otherwise, just accept cash."

It's stripping away the liberty of the developers to add services without adding a native service so that they're always there. I personally like SIWA and use it, but it kinda sucks that it's such a heavy requirement for a sign in feature. I know I'll get flack from users (heck, Apple users are already becoming a little skeptical of 3rd party developers), but to quote Marilyn Manson "something beautiful, or something free".

I agree that it hurts the developers as they used to get money from Google and Facebook for having those login prompts , but the question you should ask is "what is best for the CONSUMER" , or at least that's what should be the priority on Apple side , and when they put the Consumer wellbeing above the developer it creates an issue for the developer , as the end goal is not the same for both entities.

By forcing the developer to put SIWA they hurt the developer but they help the consumer.
Imaging a consumer suing an App developer not putting SIWA as an option , saying its anti competitive to only force him to login with Facebook for example , would you say he is right ? or that the developer can decide what he wants to do and the consumer can agree or go look for a different App ?

I find it crazy to let SW developers be prioritized above the consumers in those situations , but I understand the need of the App developers to make more money , as stated before , App developers and Consumers are not on the same side.

 

[Feyl]

It's not anti-competitive and it's not difficult to switch to another device makers at all. All you need is Apple ID account, which you already have, and you can login with Apple easily on Windows or Linux.. No problem at all on other platforms.

 

[I7guy]

It's anti-competative because it forces developers to use a service they may otherwise not have wanted to use, and also encourages vendor lock-in - users are less likely to switch to a different platform if all of their crap is "signed in with Apple", making it much harder to migrate to android, for example.

I don’t agree. MacRumors offers SIWA and it’s a website. The reason users are less likely to switch is because for them apple is a better platform, not due to SIWA.

Forcing devs to include it, then advertising it as the "better option", will naturally encourage uptake. Yes, it has its benefits on privacy, but it's more about locking people to the ecosystem in reality.

Apple is “forcing” devs to include SIWA only if they already offer SIWG or SIWFB. It seems to me if you are already signed in with Google you are locked in the google ecosystem. But that is conveniently ignored in these anti-apple diatribes.