Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

I still trust Apple over a rando site or SaaS app. No system is flawless.

I think I trust Apple over a random website too, but was adding an additional kind of sign in and forcing everyone to use it even needed in the first place?

Almost like apple and google have dangerously monopolistic positions in the mobile sphere and we need meaningful anti-trust action to claw back user freedom and choice?

I'm very willing to believe that this move was driven by actual user research. As a user, the last thing I want to do is create a user name and password for your app, click a link to validate my email, then enter my password again into some sort of cross platform widget that doesn't support keychain autofill. Unless it's an essential service like a bank or an airline, I'll probably opt out of using it.

I'm also very lazy when it comes to payment methods. Trying to order food and the app doesn't support Apple Pay? Delete it and do something else.

Clearly there are issues with the entrenchment of Apple at the center of all this, and these problems would be better solved with open standards, but the consistency and convenience makes an actual measurable benefit in the end user's daily life.

Fortunately some rando site or SaaS app doesn't have the leverage to force me to implement additional garbage! Apple does, and did. I'm still surprised that this didn't trigger an antitrust investigation like when Microsoft abused their monopoly to push internet explorer. This is exactly the same thing, if not worse.

I agree that the requirement from Apple here is kind of dumb, but I don’t see how it would not be in the best interest of a user of an app on an iOS device to have the option to sign in with an Apple ID. It also seems silly to consider it “garbage” when you already using a Google Account solution that is essentially the same thing.

It's garbage because it was forced into already functioning apps with the threat of removal, and because it evidently has gaping security holes.

I'm still surprised that this didn't trigger an antitrust investigation like when Microsoft abused their monopoly to push internet explorer. This is exactly the same thing, if not worse.

Um… no.

Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away for free when Netscape was selling their browser to businesses, an obvious attempt to undermine Netscape.

They also threatened to cancel the Windows 95 licenses for companies like HP that shipped Netscape with their computers instead of Internet Explorer. That would have essentially put them out of business.

Because Microsoft had 95% of the operating system market share, it had signed a decent decree with the federal government that they wouldn’t use their monopoly in operating systems to their advantage in web browsers, which were a new software category then.

So of course, they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows 95 and claim they couldn't be separated, an obvious lie, claiming Internet Explorer was a critical part of the operating system.

All of this orchestrated by future humanitarian Bill Gates, who was quoted as saying then Microsoft needed to “cut off Netscape’s air supply.”

Even in the United States, Apple isn’t a monopoly with about 40% market share. Everything Apple mandates is with companies who've contractually agreed to be part of Apple's developer program and abide by its rules.

Nobody agreed to not ship a competing web browser back in the day.

> Even in the United States, Apple isn’t a monopoly with about 40% market share.

This is a non argument. A Duopoly is no reason to not being able to behave like a monopoly. If you don't play by Apple's or Google's rules you essentially lose 50% of the market.

Monopolies aren’t illegal; it’s the use of monopoly power in corrupt ways that’s illegal.

I suspect if you don’t want to deal with Apple or Google directly, you can create web apps.

By the same logic, if you didn't want to use Internet Explorer you could use Fax or Mail?

> Monopolies aren’t illegal; it’s the use of monopoly power in corrupt ways that’s illegal.

That is exactly my point. You don't technically a monopoly to abuse your power in corrupt ways. A duopoly is good enough to abuse your dominant position towards the deteriment of users and the market.

Yeah but I don't trust them over Google or Facebook when it comes to server side security, and this proves it.

I will still take an Apple security incident over the corporate surveillance apparatus that is Facebook and Google.

Eh. I’ll take a found and fixed security issue in a feature aimed at keeping my email address private over Google and Facebook’s invasive behaviors.

OTOH, rando SaaS flaws don't compromise the security of billions

haveibeenpwned would say otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com