▲ 192 points
back
172 comments
"Sign In with Apple" - the likely effects of this policy change is frankly great as far as I'm concerned, but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself. I think the net effect of Apple's decision is likely positive, but they've effectively been forced to almost abuse their dominant market position to do it.
In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry, rather than relying on the good intentions of Apple and the success of the App Store to push the change.
> I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry
Recently I watched the movie "The Captain", where a private in the military finds an officer's uniform and uses it to fraudulently assert authority. (It's a true story)
He meets all kinds of people, and all kinds of thing happen that shouldn't happen. It's obvious that some of the people he meets doubt his authenticity but "go with it" because his actions are aligned with their self-interests.
I took away from this one thing: it's easier for people to just "go with it" than stand up and say no. And moreso when you profit from it.
That's what I think is behind the whole privacy thing.
That said, I hope a privacy market opportunity attracts the attention of some unconflicted players.
>but its another example of the industry trying to police privacy itself.
"Industry" policing itself would be Google and Facebook changing their business model of their own accord to the detriment of their current business.
Apple is not the "industry" in this case, Apple is their regulator.
> I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation across the entire industry
I imagine you’ve noticed, but in the real world, Congress is not capable of writing sensible tech legislation. So we may get legislation, but if we do, it won’t be sensible.
So as much as I would also appreciate some sensible tech regulations (the endless adhesion contracts on websites and apps really need to be reigned in), I’m hoping congress stays away from this.
These are the guys behind DMCA, CFAA, and other great hits. If anyone could screw this up, it would be them.
> In a better functioning world, I'd have hoped this kind of thing would have been driven by sensible legislation
One of the mainstays of capitalism is that competition should generate better, fairer options given sufficient competition and time. Part of the allure of letting the market solve these problems is that they can do so without the need for legislation (which could be compromised, incomplete, or unjustly preferential).
Now whether or not we prefer the capitalist or socialist method of solving this issue is a big question, but I don’t think you can argue that the system isn’t “functioning” as intended right now.
Legislation is typically a very suboptimal solution. Even something like GDPR, which is well-intentioned significantly increases barrier-to-entry for small competitors.
It never ceases to amaze me the trust that the tech industry has in both the competence and the benevolence of the government.
Why are we satisfied with Sign In with <Big Company>? Shouldn't this be an open standard? I mean, I know open/federated identity systems have failed several times, but there's no reason why we can have a spec where your device or browser generates per-site credentials and stores them in some encrypted replicated storage. And for email-relay, that's been going on since penet.fi in the 90s. Email is already federated, and there's no reason why you can't use third party email anonymizing services.
Apple had an opportunity to produce something that might be adoptable by everyone, but instead they went walled-garden again.
And then you have to trust the third party.
> Apple is going to leverage its monopoly position as app provider on the iPhone to force developers...to use Sign In With Apple.
So, is Ben making the argument that the above is illegal? I don't see any difference to Apple "requiring" developers to use a new framework.
He later says that even Android developers will be required to offer Sign In with Apple... but I don't see how that is possibly the case.
I haven't read the mechanics of this fully yet, but the first obvious scenario I can foresee:
1. Customer signs up for service on iPhone with "Sign in With Apple".
2. Customer sells iPhone.
3. Customer buys Android phone.
How does customer sign in and keep their same account on the new phone? For sure there might be other mitigation strategies (a web UI that allows account migration etc), but this decision absolutely has ramifications beyond just iOS users of apps using third party signin.
Same is true of customers with devices in both ecosystems - Android phone and an iPad tablet, for example. If customer signs up on the iPad with "Sign in With Apple", how do they log in on the Android phone that only has the other third party login integrations?
People are going to have to think this through, and Apple forcing it on all Apps using third party signin means they are going to have to think it through soon.
I think you may be misunderstanding what he's saying about Android. Here's what he wrote:
> Apple is going to leverage its monopoly position as app provider on the iPhone to force developers (who use 3rd party solutions) to use Sign In With Apple. Keep in mind, that also means building Sign In With Apple into related websites, and even Android apps, at least if you want users to be able to login anywhere other than their iPhones.
The developer will be required to support "Sign in with Apple" on the iPhone - otherwise Apple will reject your app.
Once a user creates an account with "Sign in with Apple", the developer has a choice. They can either:
1. Exclusively support iOS, or
2. Add "Sign in with Apple" across all platforms they support.
Both of these advantage Apple.
The author heard Cook’s comments as advocating for privacy, but that’s wrong. He’s advocating for privacy legislation.
The utility of privacy legislation for a company like Apple is to protect itself from completion by firms too small to afford the armies of lawyers and compliance experts that Apple can. The tech industry it seems has finally caught on to the age old racket of regulatory capture. Every big tech chief can be heard begging governments to “stop us before we sin.”
With their business models well proven and scale achieved, they will lobby for more regulations and of course volunteer to bring their distinctive expertise to the drafting table.
These iPhone price graphs would be better if they accounted for inflation - which still shows a large increase in price, especially if you look at the flagship phones.
> These iPhone price graphs would be better if they accounted for inflation
I started normalizing the prices to 2018 prices after reading your comment, up until I realized the title points out that the values are inflation adjusted.
Also followed the links to find the original posting if anyone was curious.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/9v45n9/the_cost_of_...
I would love for Apple to create an App Store populated only with apps that did things their way, guaranteeing a certain level of security and privacy.
They could easily allow other app stores that did things the other way, surviving off capturing user details and selling it off wholesale or whatever.
Let consumers make their own choice.
It would enable Apple to get rid of a shedload of insecure , spammy apps that provide minimal benefits to users in a crowded app market.
Apple could, if managed properly, turn it into a major selling point.
> It would enable Apple to get rid of a shedload of insecure , spammy apps that provide minimal benefits to users in a crowded app market.
But those apps would still be Apple's problem, because they run on Apple's operating system. If Apple lets other "stores" on the platform, you can bet one of them is going to be the cesspool of every bad app there ever was; and when those apps do damage, Apple will be blamed.
Think of it this way: At the moment, there are two layers of protection for iOS users. The first layer is the app approval layer; the vast majority of malicious apps just don't get approved at all. Then, for those that slip past that defense, there are the normal OS defenses. And if an app is caught violating the rules, they can be kicked out.
If they let other app stores onto their platform, suddenly that first layer is gone: every malicious app in existence will find its way onto a chunk of their users' phones, at which point the OS protection are a single point of failure.
This is what I’d like to see; Require all Apps distributed via their AppStore to conform to their requirements regarding privacy and whatever else they want like they are doing right now.
Apps can and should get kicked out of their store if they repeatedly sell user data or otherwise don’t follow Apple’s rules.
Then let App devs, if they want to do that, apply for additional manual checks. They could probably get away with charging for that check. If Apple is satisfied that the App only does what it’s supposed to and doesn’t abuse its privileges or send data to third parties, approve it and mark it as such.
Some kind of badge prominently displayed on the App Store marking that App as “checked by Apple” or something.
Give App Store users an option to hide Apps not checked by Apple.
Sure it gives Apple even greater power as a gatekeeper but I think the benefit to consumers caring about privacy outweighs that.
>”Let consumers make their own choice.”
Consumer choice is predicated on information symmetry that does not exist in this market. Consumers make the wrong choice all the time and it’s the company that allowed it to happen that pays for it in the form of bad PR.
See: YouTube and the weird kids content. There wasn’t anyone stepping up to defend Google with the argument that “Google was just letting consumers (parents) make the choice.”
Ben doesn't explicitly draw this line, but it seems Apple is betting that courts reward orientation towards privacy in the face of monopolistic actions.
It's not just the courts. There's tremendous consumer frustration with the invasiveness of Facebook and Google tracking. Since Apple doesn't really make that much on being a service provider, relative to FB/Google, it gives them more room to make a strong play for the privacy market.
Being "the big tech company that doesn't stalk you like a creepy ex" is a potentially huge market.
Or it's just providing value through differentiation that can't be achieved by competitors without cannibalizing their revenue model. Seems like smartphones offer almost the same feature set, everything is easily copied/improved/iterated.
Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter.
(IE it's illegal regardless of reason).
If it got to SCOTUS, it would probably end up under rule of reason as with anything else, but i'd also suspect Apple would lose in that circumstance.
Their goal for consumers could be achieved without the tying - issue guidelines as to what you will require in terms of privacy for any third party identity service used in IOS apps.
Offer Apple sign-in as just one thing that meets those requirements.`
Either facebook and google change to meet your requirements, which achieves your consumer goal.
or people move to Apple sign-in, which also achieves your consumer goal.
Tada, no direct tying.
This is just one example, but it's hard to see a path for them to win on that one in court. Their best hope is really a good definition of their market and finding of no market power. If a court finds otherwise, their odds of winning here seem ... low.
Is pro-film and audio production the target market for the new MacPro?
At first I thought they might be going for the ML demographic, which has the budget and demand for beefy workstations, but they're using AMD GPUs, not nvidia.
Mostly yes.
Apple has traditionally been the computer for creatives. In recent years, they've let their pro hardware and software lines languish and I think they've lost quite a bit of ground since you can buy a windows computer that runs the same editing software for quite a bit cheaper.
Pro film and audio production people also have huge budgets, as evidenced by the $43000 reference monitor they compared the new display to in the keynote.
Apple seems to be somewhat unhappy with nvidia. I think AMD might have ML stuff in their roadmap and Apple is making a bet they will make it before they fix their relationship with nvidia.
Just a thought: from purely brand perspective, do you want consumers to associate your name with film/audio production or with ”nerd stuff”.
The real profits come from consumers. Pro-market is moneywise small (on Apple scale).
Maybe one (or main?) purpose of the pro-lineup is to just make consumer products more attractive. Bit like with cars - some people read and dream about highend models and buy the $30-40k model.
The audacity of the monitor stand?
More like the audacity of using its monopoly position on app distribution to push for their new SSO solution, Sign In With Apple.
Peasants around Apple's newly launched $1000 monitor stand (c. 2019):
:)
Isn’t Single Sign On monopolistic by definition? Do we want 400 SSO providers? Wouldn’t that not be “Single” Sign On? Before we ring the alarm of anti-trust and monopolies, do we really understand what the alternative means?
This is interesting...Apple and Google are going in totally different directions, based on their market strengths. Not a shocker but I'm interested to see how it plays out.
I've not read any of the apple docs so I'm not sure but I suspect Sign In with Apple is going to be required as an option, not required to be used. In other words a given app may have Facebook, Google, Apple sign in.
I don't think it's required today but what if Google takes the same stance as Apple and mandates that all Play Store apps must have Google sign in available.
So not 400 but at least two and likely three since Facebook is popular too.
If Apple mandates the use of Sign In then I think there may be some monopolistic issues. I'm not familiar with the actual law, grossly generalizing some comments below the theme is Apple cannot be monopolistic since there is an alternative in Android and Android has a larger world wide market share. I don't understand that line of reasoning but admit I do not know what the law says. Seems to me if you have complete control and it's harmful than that is monopolistic...
In my opinion, yes, we do want 400 SSO providers – providing the same, standardized mechanism to sign in. Maybe something along the lines of ID4me [1].
In the long run, there will probably be government-provided digital identities for everyone.
But right now, Apple is probably one of very few institutions that are both willing and able to provide a SSO system with great usability, privacy and market penetration.
I think the general U.S. population is okay with monopolies that make their lives better. Apple will continue to push the envelope. Developers can fight back (does anyone remember the Apple vs Spotify thing?) but if Apple keeps putting out a consistent quality experience, the vast maturity of the population won't be sympathetic.
How is Apple a monopoly? They don't even have a majority of the US market.
I do agree they have incredible market strength. But that comes from a large base of loyal customers with deep pockets, not from monopolizing the market.
I dont think most people give a second thought to decentralized protocols and standards vs institutional monopolies. (Not necessarily in those technical terms, but just the concepts in general.)
It's second nature to expect an ATT phone to call a Verizon phone. It's an automatic assumption that outlook and gmail email are cross compatible, along with any other correctly configured email server. But it doesnt even cross peoples minds that they cant order an Uber from Lyft and vice versa. Needing to be on the same closed platform is part of how the internet evolved. Its faster for large companies to release proprietary products than to push industry standardization.
I think it's true as long as they're not pricing as a monopolist would. One could argue that Standard Oil and AT&T (pre-1980s Bell System, that is) made people's lives better, but the prices they exacted from their customers were too high.
On the other hand, the increasing importance of intellectual property to the American economy (vs. the manufacturing economy) -- and the Constitutionally-sanctioned monopolies that come with it -- suggest that perhaps even monopolistic pricing is no longer the concern it once was.
What happens if sites start blocking Apple's anonymized login just like they block disposable emails?
Ya know, I know everyone hates the big guys, but I’m pretty impressed with the new releases, including the Apple Sign On. I personally have never liked the way Facebook Connect or Google have implemented their frameworks. To add random email and optionality (not sure if others allow optionality with sign on or if they are still all or nothing based on requested permissions) is a win in my eyes. Yes, the requirement is a little strict but that’s why their ecosystem yields consistent experiences across apps. And yes, they aren’t a non-profit, but most of us have signed up for capitalism and if this enhances our privacy long-term then I don’t think this is the worst outcome.
With everybody now having an iPhone and Macbook, they don't feel that exclusive anymore. So they need to up the game, to show they are still a luxury product.
A $50k computer is certainly a good start from this point of view, Apple needs to reassert itself as a status symbol. They need to get the word out far and wide that they are selling a computer with the price of a good car.
This sort of articles always show up after Apple announcement.
I see the same cycle over and over again: laughter, rage, acceptance, repeat.
Does this mean we can't have our own login system anymore? If so how will you authenticate with APIs? You need to login to get tokens.
Could it be that the new price tag of $6000 of the mac pro is a correction for the inflation Apple witnesses after 10 years of quantitative easing?
https://editorial.azureedge.net/miscelaneous/chart1-63651777...
️I'd buy it, why's everyone always get so upset about price. If you get so upset by price you probably arent the target market for a 32-core computer.......... go build your own PC