Apple isn’t always the first company to introduce a particular product or service. But when it does finally decide to take a stab at something, it attempts to do it better than everyone else. That’s the message Apple tried to get across when it announced its new Sign In with Apple feature this month at WWDC.
It’s true that some developers had been looking to Apple for a more private authentication option for apps—particularly as an alternative to Facebook Login, which came under intense scrutiny last fall after a massive security breach involving Login compromised as many as 90 million Facebook accounts. One security expert who spoke to me for this story suggested that elements of Apple’s authentication feature, which hasn’t launched yet, may very well be more secure than other solutions.
But other app makers have mixed feelings on what Apple has proposed. I spoke to a variety of developers who make apps for iOS and Android, one of whom asked to remain anonymous because they aren’t authorized to speak on behalf of their employer. Some are skeptical that Sign In with Apple will offer a solution dramatically different from what’s already available through Facebook or Google.
MacDailyNews Take: These so-called “skeptics” will be proven wrong.
Smart developers already get it.
Apple’s Sign In with Apple is dramatically different from the crap polluting the Internet from the online advertiser-tracking firms, Google and Facebook. Apple will not track users’ activity in apps or websites. Sign In with Apple was built from the ground up to give users peace of mind about their privacy. Data collection is limited to the user’s name and email address, and Apple’s private email relay lets users receive email even if they prefer to keep their address private. Apple will not track users as they interact with apps.
Going through the long article to find out why some developers didn’t like Sign In with Apple I found out these reasons:
— those developers WANTED the info Facebook and Google provided like personal photos, email addresses etc.
article : “as a company we have to know who we’re transacting with and who we’re selling to. It’s definitely something we would like to assess more fully.””
— those developers are worried that their Android apps that don’t have Sign In With Apple would be considered inferior or that users will get out of Facebook etc and then won’t be able to sign in to an Android version of their app.
i.e all the reasons are for mainly for developers benefit not their consumers
“Whereas something like Facebook is a rich application that people use for lots of data sharing”
Food for thought. “Rich Data Sharing”.
Unfortunately some of these developers would probably go into the ‘Apple Monopoly Anti Trust’ case and complain that Apple is too powerful with it’s app store (article “And that gives Apple more control, which the third-party app makers don’t like.”) and the investigators will not understand the privacy issues etc.
Some times I think Apple is ta Lone Wolf trying to push forward issues like privacy, unwanted surveillance while everyone else including the other big companies are just out for No.1.
One reason to hope hardware remains Apple’s core business forever. The further they foray into software and content (“services”) the greater pressure there will be to harvest data for surveillance and advertising purposes.
“Unfortunately some of these developers would probably go into the ‘Apple Monopoly Anti Trust’ case and complain that Apple is too powerful with it’s App Store“
And they should!
I agree with you on rights of privacy, and selling of consumer information, but that should be the up to th Law, not Apple.
Anyway, Apple too is monetizing it’s user base by pimping it to Google.
Well that’s certainly the cynical view, not sure I like the idea that all businesses should only present a moral face to the outside world that any given country’s law insists on. Not sure I want Apple reflecting the ‘morality’ of the Sultan of Brunei or Iran in particular and I wonder how apoplectic Trump would get if Apple or others decided to operate in his most hated adversaries market places strictly to their laws and expectations without any considerations to his own stand expressed through national laws and expectations which after all are applied to non US companies wherever possible. Especially in so doing these companies gained advantages over other US based businesses.
If Apple wants to offer a better system to its customers the Law should stay out of it wherever possible especially when others already offer a similar service on the platform.
Surely you’re kidding. You already have Apple abiding by the morality of every country where it operates.
Then, of course, privacy and selling of consumer’s information is not only an Apple issue.
I want my elected officials accountable, not shareholder elected boards. But I forgive you. You are a Subject after all… 🙂
“should be up to the law not Apple”
so has the law been doing it?
Facebook etc has been around for ages and politicians have been totally incapable of dealing with them regarding privacy etc.
I don’t want the App store fragmented into third party stores. If apps I use regularly are moved outside Apple how can i trust them anymore, that they are not siphoning info or installing spyware etc?
Remember the Senator on the congressional tech council who asked Tim Cook why Apple kept sending software updates? he didn’t even understand what updates were for !
Right now tech clueless politicians are totally incapable of understanding the intricacies of Facebooks etc shenanigans.
“I don’t want the App store fragmented into third party stores.”
Then you too are a censor, and you have no right to impose that to anyone but yourself.
Anyway, we’re not going to re-justify having anti-trust laws.
Do you trust your same branded medicine more at Walgreen’s or CVS? It’s the same medicine. Either you’re really that paranoid, or it’s a lame excuse.
It’s the government’s job to protect the people, first and foremost. Tech clueless or not. How do you know the Senator wasn’t asking to see if they would say “to break jailbreaks”.
one more time
“Have the politicians been doing anything about privacy for years?”
answer: as Facebook blew up on us for example is a resounding NO
So as we see these horrible breaches including Apps that download your data or secretly record you believe that the tech field is as carefully supervised as medicines (your Walgreens example) REALLY ??%*!?
Have the politicians shown the vaguest understanding of tech privacy issues? from the statements they’ve made the answer again NO
So UNTIL the lawmakers show an understanding and UNTIL they enact or enforce privacy law etc (as the obviously haven’t from breaches I’ve mentioned) the necessary safeguard is a curated Apple ecosystem.
if people like yourself want choice they can help themselves to the toxic hellstew of Android. Nobody is stopping you.
Have a ‘different’ experience with Apple’s safe guarded store actually INCREASES choice instead of making Apple into another Android.
CHOICE: one safe others toxic instead of all toxic
You keep on complaining about Apple post after post , so why don’t you just go to android or Windows instead of wasting your time here?
Because BS must be countered.
Because Applecynic is a cynical moron and dumb, and dumb people do dumb things. AppleCynic is an excellent example
@Apple….ago
“’Cause when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you“ The Police
“Do you trust your same branded medicine more at Walgreen’s or CVS? It’s the same medicine.”
The problem is that same medicine in a third party store doesn’t undergo as strict a regulatory process and could easily contain something harmful as a result. You kinda destroyed your own argument with your analogy. Oops.
Totally false. You are FDA clueless, hence you’re fear.
…your fear
“Totally false. You are FDA clueless, hence you’re fear.”
Don’t blame me because your own analogy destroyed your argument. Apps in third party stores would not be subject to as strict a regulatory process. It is that simple. Using your own analogy the medicine (apps) could easily contain harmful elements in those third party stores. As I said, don’t get mad at me because you destroyed your own argument.
The FDA is the single gatekeeper (Apple’s App Store) which assures quality and safety and now you’re arguing for that model? Get your story straight.
FDA is a government agency dummy. As it should be. They approve the medicine period. The require testing an a priduct portfolio and this is regardless of where it’s sold.
Now let’s come to your stupid scenario. A developer is going to make two separate iOS apps, one for Apple’s store and one for everyone else? Fine! You are free to shop from Apple’s store exclusively.
The FDA is not a global gatekeeper. Major countries each have their own counterparts. So if we’re associating FDA with Apple why can’t other App stores have their own stringent approval process freed from the policies Apple enforces that are not associated with Security or Privacy. Just as Pfizer sell the exact same drugs in different countries, each with their own approval processes, developers could work in the same model for app stores.
“The require testing an a priduct portfolio and this is regardless of where it’s sold.”
So now you agree Apple should test and approve all apps sold in third party stores. That could work. Just like the FDA. Good idea. Then why the need for third party stores if you are advocating that apps are treated like medicine and are tested and approved by a single governing entity (FDA) regardless of where those apps are sold?
“Now let’s come to your stupid scenario.”
Now now, it was YOUR scenario not mine. Don’t be so hard on yourself.
“A developer is going to make two separate iOS apps, one for Apple’s store and one for everyone else?”
Developers already do this. Google for example is able to gather more data on users with Android versions of its apps and so those apps are different than iOS versions. It is naive to think Google wouldn’t take advantage of fewer restrictions in third party app stores. Are you naive or a cynic? It’s hard to tell from what you’re saying.
Oh but I forgot, you’re still arguing for a single governing entity enforcing one set of rules on all apps (FDA model).
Goodness you’re lame…
Yes, when it comes to medicine I expect the government to supervise and approve all medicines sold in all stores, not just one store, the store doesn’t decide efficacy, the FDA does. But the same thing is not sold in just one store. Walgreens sold Advil is the same as CVS Advil of the same version. But I would not force either to sell is, just as I would not prohibit either from selling it.
Regarding software, yes, we need laws describing illegal functions. That’s the government setting the laws. Yes the same software should have multiple stores to sell through, or even direct to consumer.
If you fear Google get their Apps from Apple’s store only and let me get it from wherever I want. BTW, I would also make it illegal for ANY company, including Apple, from monetizing their user base. I gave to approval to Apple to make money from my existence as a user.
“Regarding software, yes, we need laws describing illegal functions. That’s the government setting the laws. Yes the same software should have multiple stores to sell through, or even direct to consumer.”
Laws are not the same as a single entity created specifically to supervise and ensure the quality of a single category of product. Multiple app stores without a single approving entity enforcing a set of rules and regulations would not have the same software. They couldn’t because those stores would only be governed by laws and not a single enforcing agency set up especially for that purpose. What you are proposing is a system where medicine is sold to consumers without the FDA. If you do want an FDA for apps that is what you have now with Apple but not with Android. You seem confused about which model you are advocating for.
The single entity should be the law. It defines what is a legal product. Even the FDA is a law enforcement agency.
Are you suggesting that third parties should be able to dictate what can be sold and what cannot be sold? The only apps Apple has the right to censor are apps which it owns or maybe, just maybe, apps where it has a legal exclusive arrangement.
BMW has no right to tell me which gas stations to use, just the kind of gas it needs.
Actually, it is illegal to write a virus with the intent to cause harm. The single entity is the law itself, it doesn’t necessarily require an Agency other than the Department of Justice and State legal bodies.
The Law may also set quality standards as fitting, case in point the FDA, but quality the control problem can be on the retailer or the customer. If Apple doesn’t want to sell an app, for whatever reason, that’s their right. They shouldn’t be allowed to prevent others from selling the same app. Like I said, they don’t own the device, or the app.
“The single entity should be the law. It defines what is a legal product. Even the FDA is a law enforcement agency.”
The law and an enforcement agency set up specifically to regulate one category of product are two different things. One is less constrained (the law in general with wider scope of interpretation) and one delivers much more strict oversight (the FDA model). I still can’t figure out what you are advocating. You are saying simultaneously that you want more open third party involvement with less oversight AND you are saying you want the FDA model which is strict oversight by a single entity set up especially to govern and regulate a single category of product. You can’t have both. Please pick one.
I want the law, not corporations, defining what is permissible as a legal product.
The singular App store becomes a de facto censor deciding what third party software gets to exist at all. So I want, as with anything else, a choice of where to get iOS apps.
See Apple doesn’t own the devices (we do) and Apple doesn’t own the third party apps.
If Apple wants to keep the control it currently enjoys they should either a) Code all the apps themselves or b) Buy the apps from the developers outright. Then the developers are contractors to Apple. Otherwise it’s an unfair control over third parties, stifles innovation, and reduces competitiveness.
“I want the law, not corporations, defining what is permissible as a legal product.”
Then you’re advocating for getting rid of the FDA. Remember that was your analogy not mine. The law on its own without the addition of a specific enforcement agency isn’t good enough. That’s why we have agencies like the FDA regulating with a narrow focus. The lack of single agency regulation is why Android is a cesspool.
So you are arguing in favor of a single agency regulating apps, you just don’t want it to be a corporation. Remember we don’t only rely on the law when it comes to regulating medicine, we created a single agency dedicated to regulating medicine. Taking your argument to its only logical conclusion you want to create a government agency to regulate (and naturally censor using your definition of the word) all apps.
I could get on board with that. It would mean all apps would follow much more Apple’s model than Android’s model. You might be onto something with your idea of a government agency ruling over all apps. Rather than a walled garden it would be a regulated national park.
The single thing that matters is the law, whether through an agency, such as the FDA, or not.
I want Windows, Linux, Mac, Android model and absolutely not exclusively iOS’s model. You are free to shop at Apple’s App store exclusively if there were another choice. I get to NOT shop there or get thing they choose not to carry. That’s what I want, it’s the way the rest of the retail market works.
“That’s what I want, it’s the way the rest of the retail market works.”
You’re confused about what you want. You mentioned BMW and you said BMW has the right to tell you what kind of gas the vehicle needs. How dare BMW design and build an engine that is limited to a specific kind of gas in order to operate properly! My cars have no such limitation. Censorship! Exclusivity!
Do you see the hypocrisy? You’ll say there isn’t any, that the situation with BMW is different. You’re just fooling yourself.
You’ve also managed to convince yourself that there’s no difference between the law in general and an enforcement agency. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Well, have a good time living in your bubble.
BMW does not forbid any station from selling gas that is to their specification.
You are being willfully obtuse. My 4 legged jackass would have understood by now. Done with you.
“BMW does not forbid any station from selling gas that is to their specification.”
Apple does not forbid any developer from building apps that are to their specification. Bwah ha ha haaaa haaa haaa haaa!
“Done with you.”
Total BS. You’ll reply to this. You can’t let anyone have the last word.
That folks is how you OWN applecynic. Tell him he’s going to do something and he’ll do the opposite even when he’s DYING to have the last word. If he sees this comment he’ll invent some lame excuse that he was away from the site and that’s why he didn’t reply but that won’t fly because he has made other comments on this site since I OWNED him. Bwah haa haaaa!
Tell you what it can’t be worse than the wordpress in in on this site which regularly breaks for no apparent reason as it presently has on my iPad meaning I have to go search out my sign in details in my files again when I can get around to it.
Never login with Farcebook or Google
I always use my email address.