My small revenge on Apple(javierantonsblog.blogspot.com)
javierantonsblog.blogspot.com
My small revenge on Apple
https://javierantonsblog.blogspot.com/2021/08/my-small-revenge-on-apple.html
454 comments
Seems a bit petty to me. As a developer I empathize with the possible lack of documentation (I don’t know, I never tried to integrate Sign In with Apple) but as a user I actually am super happy with it. Nowadays any iOS app that doesn’t support logging in with Apple makes me think twice about whether I really need the app.
I like the angle of "Sorry, Apple ID only works on Apple devices." The rest of the popup seems unprofessional and would make me reconsider using the software, out of fear for what other unprofessional things may end up happening.
But the bit I highlight is a nice jab at Apple and something I think you can get away with professionally in a web app. It mars their login brand a bit by showing that it isn't useful everywhere.
But the bit I highlight is a nice jab at Apple and something I think you can get away with professionally in a web app. It mars their login brand a bit by showing that it isn't useful everywhere.
The author's revenge seems to be against his users who opted to used Sign In with Apple. Since they will be the one suffering because they trusted to use the particular app.
I can find merit in complaining about apple's restriction in accessing payments. But SignIn with Apple, as a user I will always opt for that given my email won't be available with a third party forever for them to spam or sell.
I have integrated SignIn with Apple both in an app and backend. I never felt it was particularly difficult or under-documented.
> The best way to convince Apple prisoners is to tell them what they need. Trust must only belong to Apple. Give them your money, your will, your worship, your everything. Apple will keep you safe
> Perhaps Apple customers deserve the luxury of "choice" (between different Apple devices, of course)
I don't understand the tone. Do these people actually not understand that different people have different preferences and priorities? Or is it a pose of some kind? I mean, it's 2021, Apple has been on fire pretty much continuously since 2007, they're making a killing everywhere they go and they're, as we speak, pulling off the biggest and smoothest on-the-fly architecture transition ever.
Is it still not clear to some people that Apple users genuinely enjoy using Apple devices and that the company clearly does something right?
> Perhaps Apple customers deserve the luxury of "choice" (between different Apple devices, of course)
I don't understand the tone. Do these people actually not understand that different people have different preferences and priorities? Or is it a pose of some kind? I mean, it's 2021, Apple has been on fire pretty much continuously since 2007, they're making a killing everywhere they go and they're, as we speak, pulling off the biggest and smoothest on-the-fly architecture transition ever.
Is it still not clear to some people that Apple users genuinely enjoy using Apple devices and that the company clearly does something right?
So the creator/developer of "The King of Organigrams and Family Trees" (that's the title of the app's website (https://www.groupsapp.online)) is complaining that Apple is giving its users the ability to hide their email information, am I right? So isn't this a good thing? For me, it is. I don't want to give away my actual email address. I get too much spam already. So I thank Apple for this feature.
And of course, it's terrible Apple doesn't allow their login button image to be altered so that an average user could quickly identify it as "oh yes, this is Apple". However, I don't see why this could be not good. Also, as an end-user, I don't care if the Apple button is black, the Facebook button is blue, etc.
It seems it's always the others who are wrong (see this: https://javierantonsblog.blogspot.com/2021/07/my-app-just-go...).
I'm not so sure about the app. From these two posts alone, I wouldn't trust this app.
And of course, it's terrible Apple doesn't allow their login button image to be altered so that an average user could quickly identify it as "oh yes, this is Apple". However, I don't see why this could be not good. Also, as an end-user, I don't care if the Apple button is black, the Facebook button is blue, etc.
It seems it's always the others who are wrong (see this: https://javierantonsblog.blogspot.com/2021/07/my-app-just-go...).
I'm not so sure about the app. From these two posts alone, I wouldn't trust this app.
The author is writing as if the two players in the game are developers and Apple; but there are three players in the game: developers, users, and Apple. Most of the readers of this piece are users, because developers are users just as much as they're developers.
Privacy-preserving federated login options are a good thing. Knowing that the app, which may or may not have security or data protection, has less access to my information is good. I don't necessarily like Facebook, Google, or Apple having access to my information, but if they're the only ones, it's still better than having the app developer have it. Moreover, Apple's login is presented to the user as a user-positive feature: I can obfuscate my personal information conveniently. I like that.
If an app didn't have federated login, I'd make a judgment call about whether or not I want to create an account. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. But if it does have a federated login option, I'd like them to support a variety of options, including Apple.
I'm not sure Apple should mandate it in the way they do, I can appreciate that the developer feels strongarmed... in the same way that I'm sure credit card processors engage in shady strongarming behavior of retailers. But I'd still rather go to stores that take credit in addition to (or instead of) cash, and I don't find it noble that the developer is writing that being forced to do something that his users would benefit from is bad for him.
I then read the second post the author wrote about getting his app removed from the Play store for not including a link to the privacy policy and it kinda comes off the same way. I don't necessarily like Google arbitrarily removing stuff with no notice, but I do like that Google has decided that a privacy policy should be a requirement of an app, and I sort of resent the guy complaining that he shouldn't have to follow that rule, which benefits me. He characterizes this as a "bad experience for users". I don't really agree.
Privacy-preserving federated login options are a good thing. Knowing that the app, which may or may not have security or data protection, has less access to my information is good. I don't necessarily like Facebook, Google, or Apple having access to my information, but if they're the only ones, it's still better than having the app developer have it. Moreover, Apple's login is presented to the user as a user-positive feature: I can obfuscate my personal information conveniently. I like that.
If an app didn't have federated login, I'd make a judgment call about whether or not I want to create an account. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. But if it does have a federated login option, I'd like them to support a variety of options, including Apple.
I'm not sure Apple should mandate it in the way they do, I can appreciate that the developer feels strongarmed... in the same way that I'm sure credit card processors engage in shady strongarming behavior of retailers. But I'd still rather go to stores that take credit in addition to (or instead of) cash, and I don't find it noble that the developer is writing that being forced to do something that his users would benefit from is bad for him.
I then read the second post the author wrote about getting his app removed from the Play store for not including a link to the privacy policy and it kinda comes off the same way. I don't necessarily like Google arbitrarily removing stuff with no notice, but I do like that Google has decided that a privacy policy should be a requirement of an app, and I sort of resent the guy complaining that he shouldn't have to follow that rule, which benefits me. He characterizes this as a "bad experience for users". I don't really agree.
Similar to how in-app purchase/subscription fees of 30% just _does not work_ for certain kinds of business with certain kinds of margin, Sign in with Apple has limitations far beyond other social sign-in systems that mean it is a complete non-starter for certain businesses.
Like us. We have Facebook sign in (appropriate for our market), but couldn't integrate Sign in with Apple because the email private relay limits how you can send email to it so much, and we use the email address as a fraud signal for some payment providers.
It comes down to the fact that we share email addresses and Apple have stopped that from working. They see it as stopping advertising and spam, but in our case they're preventing certain payment options, delivery notifications, refund notifications, all the sorts of emails that users tell us again and again are very important to them. We're not sharing emails without consent, we're doing it where users know what's being shared and why, and want these features.
Edit: I wrote up a bunch of these issues at the time it was launched: https://danpalmer.me/2019-07-02-on-signing-in-with-apple/
Like us. We have Facebook sign in (appropriate for our market), but couldn't integrate Sign in with Apple because the email private relay limits how you can send email to it so much, and we use the email address as a fraud signal for some payment providers.
It comes down to the fact that we share email addresses and Apple have stopped that from working. They see it as stopping advertising and spam, but in our case they're preventing certain payment options, delivery notifications, refund notifications, all the sorts of emails that users tell us again and again are very important to them. We're not sharing emails without consent, we're doing it where users know what's being shared and why, and want these features.
Edit: I wrote up a bunch of these issues at the time it was launched: https://danpalmer.me/2019-07-02-on-signing-in-with-apple/
> So here is my small revenge: I am refusing to port Apple ID to the web version. Apple users who logged into Groups via the app with Apple ID will need to create a second account. Am I hurting myself? Am I shooting myself in the foot? Probably. But this is war
So in the headline you call it "revenge on Apple". Apple is hurting, supposedly.
In the content you say the above thing. You're hurting supposedly.
The only option that's missing is the correct one. You're not hurting Apple, and you're not hurting yourself. You're hurting your users.
As an iPhone/Mac user, we don't need developers who lead these confusing, petty ideological battles with Apple at our expense.
Wanna win your tiny, tiny "war"? Good, remove your app from the AppStore, we need less garbage in there, and if Apple did their job right they'd have done this for you already.
So in the headline you call it "revenge on Apple". Apple is hurting, supposedly.
In the content you say the above thing. You're hurting supposedly.
The only option that's missing is the correct one. You're not hurting Apple, and you're not hurting yourself. You're hurting your users.
As an iPhone/Mac user, we don't need developers who lead these confusing, petty ideological battles with Apple at our expense.
Wanna win your tiny, tiny "war"? Good, remove your app from the AppStore, we need less garbage in there, and if Apple did their job right they'd have done this for you already.
> So here is my small revenge: I am refusing to port Apple ID to the web version. Apple users who logged into Groups via the app with Apple ID will need to create a second account. Am I hurting myself? Am I shooting myself in the foot? Probably. But this is war
So, help me understand here -- the revenge is punishing their users that signed up with Apple ID? In what way is this revenge against Apple?
So, help me understand here -- the revenge is punishing their users that signed up with Apple ID? In what way is this revenge against Apple?
> The best way to convince Apple prisoners is to tell them what they need. Trust must only belong to Apple. Give them your money, your will, your worship, your everything. Apple will keep you safe
While I firmly believe anyone's data can be breached, and Apple ain't no exception, it's more likely for a Joe Random Developer to make his unauthenticated document-based database listen on a public IP address than Apple. I say that even taking into account my firm opinion that Apple is very inept at clouds among their peers, evidenced by the atrocious quality of practically all their network-based offerings.
> But Apple developers must be told, threatened, shut down if necessary.
All developers, not only Apple's! At least Apple has some leverage over its paying developers. I wish it started harassing them over unreasonable memory/CPU usage too, but it's hard to do if your own platform is guilty as charged.
> Am I hurting myself? Am I shooting myself in the foot? Probably. But this is war
Petty and reminds me of scaring a hedgehog with a naked butt.
While I firmly believe anyone's data can be breached, and Apple ain't no exception, it's more likely for a Joe Random Developer to make his unauthenticated document-based database listen on a public IP address than Apple. I say that even taking into account my firm opinion that Apple is very inept at clouds among their peers, evidenced by the atrocious quality of practically all their network-based offerings.
> But Apple developers must be told, threatened, shut down if necessary.
All developers, not only Apple's! At least Apple has some leverage over its paying developers. I wish it started harassing them over unreasonable memory/CPU usage too, but it's hard to do if your own platform is guilty as charged.
> Am I hurting myself? Am I shooting myself in the foot? Probably. But this is war
Petty and reminds me of scaring a hedgehog with a naked butt.
Apple really has locked down its ecosystem.
It’s kinda depressing that there isn’t more choice and competition in the mobile space. Your choices are Android and apple.
It’s kinda depressing that there isn’t more choice and competition in the mobile space. Your choices are Android and apple.
This is a perfect example of why Sign in with Apple is so great: it hides my e-mail and real name from people like the author who are clearly intent on using this information to sell me stuff I don't want.
This seems a bit trashy and tone deaf. Apple does have plenty of problems, and shouldn't be as rich as it is, but that doesn't justify ignoring the legitimate complaints that lead to apple's work to hide email addresses and personal information from vendors.
I might want to use app Foo, I might even want to have an account on app Foo for syncing purposes, but that doesn't mean I want marketing emails, and spam, and all sorts of other crap from the makers of app Foo.
I might want to use app Foo, I might even want to have an account on app Foo for syncing purposes, but that doesn't mean I want marketing emails, and spam, and all sorts of other crap from the makers of app Foo.
This seems extremely petty, does the author actually think that this reflects well on them? It really doesn't.
While other comments see this as petty. I see it as justified, big tech knows no limit. Independent app developers are making less and less
This is the pettiness I'd feel embarrassed about if I'd ever let it come to fruition.
Restricting Apple ID to the mobile app seems more than enough, the snarky popup goes too far. As a user, I don't care about your personal beef with Apple. Simply explaining that the button was added because of Apple's restrictions in the first place and that you never wished to support it in the first place should suffice.
I appreciate your willingness to lose customers to make a point against Apple. A little more... nuance would probably make it a lot easier to gather support from others.
Restricting Apple ID to the mobile app seems more than enough, the snarky popup goes too far. As a user, I don't care about your personal beef with Apple. Simply explaining that the button was added because of Apple's restrictions in the first place and that you never wished to support it in the first place should suffice.
I appreciate your willingness to lose customers to make a point against Apple. A little more... nuance would probably make it a lot easier to gather support from others.
>3 Weeks ago Google temporarily removed Groups from their Google Play store with no warning. This has led me to start working on a "web" version that will withstand the whims of big tech. So here is my small revenge: I am refusing to port Apple ID to the web version. Apple users who logged into Groups via the app with Apple ID will need to create a second account.
I think he took his revenge from the wrong company...
I think he took his revenge from the wrong company...
Yeah I don't care about your personal beef with Apple.
If you make me go through hoops or hamper my enjoyment/use of your app because I am an Apple user, I am going to stop using your app.
I'm not going to stop using an iPhone or the excellent "sign in with Apple" service just so I can run your app, I will find an alternative.
If you make me go through hoops or hamper my enjoyment/use of your app because I am an Apple user, I am going to stop using your app.
I'm not going to stop using an iPhone or the excellent "sign in with Apple" service just so I can run your app, I will find an alternative.
Time to admit, tech giants don't want any further important players in the field than those large ones existing today. Probably will never see a Netflix or Facebook banned from different ecosystems/app stores but if you are a medium/smaller or even a larger one you are seen as a threat.
This is also something what happens to Apple Music. My friend recently got family and he had extra logins so I join his group with my iphone but my wife has android. Lo and behold they actually have an Apple music app on android. Try as I may i cannot get her logged into it. What i had to do is use another iPhone, sign in and accept the Apple music sub on the iPhone before it would work on the Android. Luckily I still have a collection of iPhones or no Apple music for android ppl.
I had to integrate apple sign-in and it was pretty straightforward implementation. I don’t know what’s so difficult and why the author has opted to create a sub par experience for the users of his product…
Does "sign in with X" not lock you into X's ecosystem? That is, if I lose my Apple account or my Google account due to their judgement of my actions, have I lost access to the services I authed via those accounts? That is, if I change my email, most services allow that data to migrate to the new username. Do the "sign in with X" allow the same capabilities? (I ask from ignorance, not from sarcasm, I really don't know.)
Anyone who puts privacy in quotes has totally lost the plot.
Is it really so inconceivable to some two-bit developer that I absolutely do trust Apple more than I trust them?
Hell, I trust Apple more than I trust Facebook and Google. Apple ID is my go to SSO these days. Is Apple perfect? No. But this is a game of lesser of evils.
Is it really so inconceivable to some two-bit developer that I absolutely do trust Apple more than I trust them?
Hell, I trust Apple more than I trust Facebook and Google. Apple ID is my go to SSO these days. Is Apple perfect? No. But this is a game of lesser of evils.
Wow. Artificially creating a limitation, specifically to get revenge against users that chose Sign In With Apple, is a really, really @ick move.
For those who don’t know, SIWA is fully supported for web logins, and it’s implementation is pretty easy.
As the author seems to be active here, let me add my voice to those who are saying I will never choose to use an app written by someone with this level of disdain for me.
For those who don’t know, SIWA is fully supported for web logins, and it’s implementation is pretty easy.
As the author seems to be active here, let me add my voice to those who are saying I will never choose to use an app written by someone with this level of disdain for me.
I'm happy that this person is amusing themself.
I liked the part where the author says Google and Facebook are good, but Apple is bad, and then two paragraphs later says Google betrayed him, but still prefers to make war on Apple.
I don't think Apple will notice or care. No one is going to drop their iPhone for "Groups".
I liked the part where the author says Google and Facebook are good, but Apple is bad, and then two paragraphs later says Google betrayed him, but still prefers to make war on Apple.
I don't think Apple will notice or care. No one is going to drop their iPhone for "Groups".
Revenge against Apple users, not Apple. Apple users who are also users of his product.
If he actually wants to help users, he can let users click through via Apple login on his site, then ask those users to also authenticate via one of the other methods (e-mail, Google or Facebook) and link the two. That way, he would be able to let his users still log in to their accounts via e-mail if Apple tries to shut him down (like Google did temporarily).
I think his focus should be on limiting potential damage to his users, not exacting revenge against large companies.
If he actually wants to help users, he can let users click through via Apple login on his site, then ask those users to also authenticate via one of the other methods (e-mail, Google or Facebook) and link the two. That way, he would be able to let his users still log in to their accounts via e-mail if Apple tries to shut him down (like Google did temporarily).
I think his focus should be on limiting potential damage to his users, not exacting revenge against large companies.
I wouldn't obsess over the design of Apple's "Sign up with Apple" button, if the default darkmode just applies an inverted filter (inverting Google's and Facebook's logo in addition to the UI), and paddings and margins are all over the place.
off-topic:- We use only SMS. Our family owns a grocery chain in NorthEast India, Last I built a ecommerce app where only login method is through SMS (OTP). Initially we thought this will be very bad. But now we have a significant amount of revenue coming from the app (Native and Web). In india most of the Govt and Private apps use only SMS as login method.
I find this ridiculous.
If you force me to use email login, I’m going to feed you a burner email (thank you fastmail!) and call it a day.
The difference with AppleID is that I get a much better experience, my device automatically does what I would do anyway.
You don’t want to support a feature? It’s you app, do what you want. But the post reads like some lame justification (and a petty one at that).
If you force me to use email login, I’m going to feed you a burner email (thank you fastmail!) and call it a day.
The difference with AppleID is that I get a much better experience, my device automatically does what I would do anyway.
You don’t want to support a feature? It’s you app, do what you want. But the post reads like some lame justification (and a petty one at that).
I just wish we'd move on, skip the next 10 years of this and end up where this will likely go, an "open" standards of sort where you have a unified ID system that allows you to connect your different accounts with different providers.
Working in academia where OAuth2 is now (finally) being pushed heavily by certain converts who look upto "big tech" as having all the answers. It's annoying obvious to the people having to work this however that big-tech in this case is way behind where they could be in this regard.
It's not "simple" there's always money and power which the article alludes to, but as a user, I just want my account of "me" where I can use secure tokens issued from each authority once they've accepted that I'm probably me.
Until this is all resolved and unified a lot of this song and dance just reminds me I'm more and more the paying product for most systems.
Working in academia where OAuth2 is now (finally) being pushed heavily by certain converts who look upto "big tech" as having all the answers. It's annoying obvious to the people having to work this however that big-tech in this case is way behind where they could be in this regard.
It's not "simple" there's always money and power which the article alludes to, but as a user, I just want my account of "me" where I can use secure tokens issued from each authority once they've accepted that I'm probably me.
Until this is all resolved and unified a lot of this song and dance just reminds me I'm more and more the paying product for most systems.