Maybe this is really done out of concern for the user but it's awfully convenient how many of Apple's "privacy" moves also bind their users more tightly into their ecosystem.
It's the same reason I don't let Google keep any of my browsing and location history even though I might benefit from that as a user today. I don't trust what they might want to do with that data later.
If you think any billion dollar company is acting in any interests but its own you're being naive.
What data is Apple collecting?
Honestly this stuff scares me more than the data collection that Google does, for example, because at least I have some control there. And Apple's privacy controls are kind of moot anyway if I use iCloud and all my data is just one subpoena away from anybody that wants it.
Does Amazon allow third party book sellers on their Kindle devices? Again, the open web to the rescue. I can go to Amazon’s store from my browser and buy books.
In fact, I use the Kindle web reader on my iPad when reading books about AWS, because the Kindle app doesn’t allow embedded web links to Amazon (even AWS Informational links).
Again you can make the argument that this is to protect users but it also just happens to protect their native app ecosystem.
Push notifications only came in handy to keep the battery draining Slack “application” off of my computer.
I had to uninstall many apps because there was no option to deactivate marketing PNs.
When I have to turn off PNs completely for an app, there is no reason to have that app installed anymore, I might just use the website.
They did make a web version but it lacks the offline and privacy features of the native app. Apple removing the iOS app is a perfect example of why these big companies can't be trusted with ultimate control.
How much more privacy did they get by an app that gets information from the internet than a website?
https://love2dev.com/blog/what-is-the-service-worker-cache-s...
You can use one of a number of browsers on you phone. The browser developers are the ones who are constrained, having to use the WebKit rendering engine—but then, it’s not their phone.
It's silly to cast the mobile browser wars in abstract terms, as if JoesOwnWebBrowser is going to be a thing tomorrow. It's Google and Apple, full stop. Google is leveraging their titanic web properties and mobile ecosystem control to push Chrome. Apple is using their control over the iOS ecosystem to retain Safari. The choice is whether the mobile web has two relevant players, or one.
That's an important distinction. Apple's monopolistic practices prevent better software from succeeding on phones, and I'm disappointed that Apple's anti competitive behavior is excused.
Note: UC Browser is a huge privacy threat and please ask friends and family to uninstall it. But the point still stands.
And here's a real world example: even if v8 was a better runtime for React Native it still wouldn't be allowed into iOS.
I think so, yeah. Or at least, the idea that the rendering engine is all that matters for a browser is not something I’d just accept without explanation.
And apparently it's not your phone either.
Perpetually missing web features (PN) so that you are forced to make an app, for obvious reasons.
Then don’t buy one. Highly competitive market where you can buy others where this is possible.
I'm comfortable with that, because I understand the working agreement that exists with my network and third-party services providers (such as Apple), and I understand that they are bound by legal summons in many respects for the data they receive.
Note I don't consider this ideal, and I don't think it's the best possible outcome for society, but I've spent 20 years consciously managing my choices on such matters, ever since DejaNews was founded, and I understand where I stand versus my choices today.
I don’t think this is actually feasible in practice. I’ve never encountered a real person using a Google-free android device as their daily driver in the wild. I work in security, and actually ask android users I encounter if they are worried about GOOG data collection or whatever. Nobody ever responds with “I’m Google-free”.
In reality, this "sign in with apple" feature doesn't push Apple's ecosystem any farther than Apple Maps does. You can use sign in with apple via their web SDK on both desktop browsers and Android, and I wouldn't doubt putting "sign in with apple" in an Android app itself is trivial.
> - Be signed in to iCloud on an Apple device.
This doesn't help users no longer carry around an Apple device.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
I would be very curious (and happy!) to receive any information indicating that I'm wrong in my belief that ad tracking is not being limited by default.
edit: I am not sure if this source is correct, but it does agree with me:
https://threatpost.com/privacy-iphone-apples-targeted-ad-tra...
"A unique identifier is enabled by default on every iPhone that’s shipped, allowing advertisers to follow the phone’s activity across the web."
Chinese citizens do not receive the benefits of the rest of the world. Apple will remove apps from the store that could benefit its citizen's freedoms at the whim of that government to allow themselves to remain in that market.
Your iCloud backups are not encrypted on Apple servers.
And Safari stops Google and other 3rd-party ad providers from tracking you all over the web.
Apple not doing things your way doesn't constitute a breach.
>Chinese citizens do not receive the benefits of the rest of the world.
How is this Apple's fault? The Chinese government explicitly prevents their citizens from having those benefits.
They released per-app access controls in iOS 6[1] (which was huge!) in 2012 and didn't bother to mention it in their marketing[2]. The reviews of the update don't mention it either[3]. The same feature landed in Android 6.0 three years later.
[1] https://www.cultofmac.com/173128/new-ios-6-privacy-settings-...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120615175407/http://www.apple....
They really do need to allow easy side loading and/or alternate stores. I shouldn't have to chose between Apple's nanny-state "no porn apps", "no political apps" allowed and "privacy"
Apple hides the ability to add a website to the home screen somewhere inside of Safari, instead of making it a first class feature and including a UI for it in the "App" "store". If they did that, a lot of apps could viably just be a website instead.
Adding a website to the home screen has been prominent in Safari since 2007. Go to the share sheet and scroll up.
How many websites have a prominent pointer on iOS devices showing you how to do it.
But the App Store is not known to be a place of discoverability.
On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
Oh, come on, you know very well why you'd want a native app: it's the exact same reason why you'd download a native app for anything else; they can be more polished, use platform APIs, download files…
> On top of that, how many mainstream platforms and physical stores allow porn to be prominent? The most popular video site - Youtube - doesn’t allow porn.
Because the ad platform it uses doesn't like it?
You can upload and download files from Safari on iOS.
There's still a decent number that aren't.
> You can upload and download files from Safari on iOS.
The UX on this is significantly worse, even if you consider iOS 13's new downloads manager.
How well do AR/VR/3D applications run in Safari?
Less than 15 years ago, it used to be common in UK supermarkets for there to be a section at the entrance dedicated to newspapers and magazines. A good section of the top shelf would feature porn magazines. The printed covers of the magazines would generally be masked with some cardboard, so you couldn't see the explicit content by mistake, but could still see the title of the magazine.
Print media is generally in decline, so these sections no longer exist in quite the same form as they used to in supermarkets, but this is as prominent as it needs to be. In the past, this meant it was (literally) out of reach of children, but still readily available to adults, and only if they reach for it.
Why isn't that acceptable anymore?
Just like if you don’t like one console makers platform you have two more to choose from, if you don’t like Apple’s you have another one to choose from - the same one chosen by 85% of the market.
Why is it good for a single company to determine what you can and can't do on your phone?
And in the particular case of the HkMap app, what functionality did you not get on the website?
HKMap needs strong offline support since it's an actual map showing dangerous/important areas and people. It also used mesh networking for updates from other devices. Neither is possible on Safari.
I would say that apps aren't as blocked as easily as a website either, but Apple proved that wrong which is the reason for the question on their control.
Some form of the hamburger button has been a standard UI convention since real web browsers came to mobile.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on...
There are five buttons at the bottom of an iPhone. Only one brings up a menu.
Examples include CG porn creation apps including Virt-A-Mate, TK17, Honey Select, etc... There are also real time 3D VR porn apps and even AR porn apps
Apple's platform currently limits freedom of expression. Sure you can watch any movie you want or read any website but the future will clearly include interactivity with real time VR, AR, 3D, etc...
Imagine if Apple invented the holodeck but their app store disallowed sex!??!? It's ridiculous that such a "progressive" company has just a poor position on sex positive apps. I get they don't want to sell them in their store which is why they arguably need to over alternatives.
Because it's possibly anti-competitive.
If their service is as good as they claim and it's something that users really want then why do they have to make it mandatory?
Remember, that's the Uber that tracked people, identified by name, and showed their location to guests at a party on a map. Just for entertainment.
It's the same Uber that has had so many privacy and customer data scandals, I have lost count.
But sure, they "have our back".
It's just that Apple isn't collecting it, the apps on their appstore are, which Apple profits from directly and indirectly.
But, yes, they're doing a really good job marketing themselves as the "privacy" company.
Where Apple traditionally gets profit is in selling more devices, and they do that through controlling apps on the platform.
Alternative approaches could be just as successful. But their approach does differentiate them from other market leaders, while equally (as here) allowing them to play catch-up and advertise themselves alongside Google, Facebook, and other logins.
Apple does marketing, it’s true, but they also try to back up their security and privacy work with white papers: https://www.apple.com/privacy/features/
Also if you sign with iPhone, and want to switch phones I’d hope the developer would have a way to set a username or email and password on your account or link another account. So you could have Facebook and Apple linked to the same account, unlink, etc.
I think Apple offering a eco system is interesting though but seems to create lock-ins. Like if you have a Apple Watch, can’t switch to Android as easily either. Then texting or calling from your Mac using your iPhone is also cool but another hurtle if you ever wanted to switch if you really liked that feature.
I’m writing this from an iPhone (and just bought an iPad Pro yesterday). I don’t hate Apple. I don’t trust Facebook. But the only way Apple can do this at any scale is to leverage their control over the App Store.
For anyone who argues that Apple doesn’t have monopolistic power in the app space, I present this as a counter point.
A fellow comment downthread encapsulates the benefit of this change perfectly:
“There was some app I downloaded last year which only had facebook or google sign on. You couldn't register with an email. I ended up deleting the app.”
The business strategy 101 is to amplify your strengths, and create a “chain” of value that is difficult to imitate by copying only one link.
Apple’s focus on privacy is hard to imitate for Google: Apple business doesn’t depends on ads, they control the whole production chain of the iPhone and the software that goes in it. Google can put a lot of security enhancements in Android, but they don’t control what Samsung or other manufacturers do with it.
So the “we care about your privacy” message, is not because they are altruistic; and it’s ok by me :) (I’m writing this from an iPhone).
I am rather bound to Apple's ecosystem, with no notable/relevant restrictions that I care about so far, than handing over all of my data to an ad company running and adtech OS on mobile phones with 500 sensors in them.
Having the rule "if you can log in with Facebook, you can also log in with Apple" is in fact a protection against Facebook-only login.
I do not buy their company line at all. This is simply Apple flexing its power in the App Space to require developers to implement an ecosystem very few would do of their own volition.
You can argue it’s a good thing. I disagree. But it is hopefully clear that Apple being able to wield this kind of power is indicative of monopolistic power in that marketplace.
I don't think that's correct. Anyone who currently gives FB login as an option is required to support Sign On with Apple. If FB Login was previously an option, but was removed at some point, Sign On with Apple is not required.
I happen to have an app out there which we maintain security updates but aren’t adding new features. It was built with a FB login option. So now we either never update or have to implement features we don’t care about.