Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Google Programming The Internet Apple

Apple Asks Developers To Place Its Login Button Above Google and Facebook (reuters.com) 124

Posted by msmash from the my-way-or-highway dept.
Apple will ask developers to position a new "Sign in with Apple" button in iPhone and iPad apps above rival buttons from Alphabet's Google and Facebook, according to design guidelines released this week. From a report: The move to give Apple prime placement is significant because users often select the default or top option on apps. And Apple will require apps to offer its button if they want to offer options to login with Facebook or Google. Apple unveiled its login button on Monday, emphasizing users' privacy and also introducing a feature that randomly generates an email address to avoid revealing the person's true email. Many consumers choose to sign in to independent apps using their accounts from Google or Facebook because it saves the trouble of having to create and remember separate user names and passwords for dozens of different apps. [...] In a press release about updates to its App Store review guidelines, Apple said its login button "will be required as an option for users in apps that support third-party sign-in when it is commercially available later this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Asks Developers To Place Its Login Button Above Google and Facebook More

Apple Asks Developers To Place Its Login Button Above Google and Facebook

Comments Filter:

  • ...Apple has to STAND over them all, nothing less will do.

  • Makes Sense From A UI/UX Perspective (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A comes before F and G, so from a UI/UX perspective it makes perfect sense to ordering them with Apple first, then Facebook, then Google.

    No, the fact that this would change the existing order is not sufficient reason to just add it to the bottom. Because then there would be no consistent ordering across multiple websites when one site incorporates Google first Facebook second and Apple third, and another does Facebook first Apple second and Google third.
    • Did they have a specific say or rule about what order to put facebook and google? If consistency was the requirement, than they need to enforce consistency. If app 1 has "Apple, Google Facebook" and app 2 has "Apple Facebook Google", the consistency isn't a factor, other than the fact that if you use apple login you don't have to think because you know where it is, while if you use the other 2, you have to look because you can't predict where they will be.

  • Amazon Has You All Beat (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Sign in with Amazon.
    Sign in with Apple.
    Sign in with Facebook.
    Sign in with Google.
    Sign in with Microsoft.
    Sign in with Slashdot.
    Sign in with Your Very Own Face.
    Sign in with Zuul.

  • Apple will never mine that email address, oh /no/ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:30PM (#58715444)

    Sarcasm very implied.

    To autogenerate an email address implies that apple will be hosting it, and thus will be able to inspect the email. I'm guessing they're going to read it and mine the sh*t out of that data, or metadata. Anonymously of course!

    Take a long walk. You're not solving a spam or privacy problem, you're simply exchanging one problem for another, and using clever marketing.

    Oh, and 6k for a machine with 250GB of storage? Get fucked - it's that shit that drove me to getting a surface book and ThinkPad P71.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Known Nutter ( 988758 )
      So you're going on about privacy and rocking a Surface and a ThinkPad? Oh, wait, you're gonna tell me you're running Linux on those fuckers. Right.

      • The problem is that buying a computer is an engineering issue. Where do you make your compromises? Privacy is a concern, but it's not the *only* concern, and if the *only* reason to buy a specific product is better privacy, and there are a whole slew of negatives going with that product, then the decision of what to buy is not even close to clear cut anymore.

        I used to be a massive Apple fan, when their hardware was top notch and their apple tax was very reasonable given what you got. But that was years a

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      99.99% of people don't host their own mail server, and instead trust some 3rd party with it. So it's basically a false premise that your email was private until evil Apple got access to it. Or is Gmail exempt from this criticism?

      Given that you have to trust *someone*, you can either trust each of the 4,194 websites that require you to give an email address, or you can trust a tech company that has the best privacy track record of the big players and whose economic incentives are primarily aligned around sel

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Apple makes most of their money selling hardware.

      Google and Facebook make most of their money selling advertising.

    • " I'm guessing they're going to read it and mine the sh*t out of that data, or metadata."

      Clearly, it is better to use a login that we are confident is being used for data mining and remove the guesswork.

    • at least not right away. Apple makes money hand over fist selling hardware. Now, if that line of business dries up then yeah, it's open season on your data.

  • FTC? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:32PM (#58715462)

    Seems like a perfect Anti Trust case. If MS tried to force IE as default browser on websites, FTC would be all over it. Just goes to show Apple as a 70s company is much better at bribes than MS as a 80s company

    • Seems like a perfect Anti Trust case. If MS tried to force IE as default browser on websites, FTC would be all over it.

      MS has an 88% share of the laptop/desktop OS market. Apple has a 10% share.

      It would be hard to sue Apple for abusing their monopoly when they don't have one.

      • Re:FTC? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @05:12PM (#58715782)
        Except, this is about the mobile market where Apple does have a much larger share.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rahvin112 ( 446269 )

        You don't actually need total market control to be accused of Sherman Anti-Trust violations. The key aspect of the legislation is using market position in one market (which they control 100% of the IOS market) to leverage themselves into other markets. For example, using their IOS market position as leverage to obtain market position in single login or other internet service. Or how they used the early ebook reader advantage to actually force ebook prices up almost 20% so they could take revenue on the tran

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Alrescha ( 50745 )

          > For example, using their IOS market position...

          iOS is Apples *product* (its software product at that). Any definition of a market made up of a single companys product is absurd. Samsung would have an actionable monopoly on Samsung devices, LG would have a monopoly on LG panels, ad infinitum.

          Apps in the App Store are not written from scratch, they are built on the back of Apple SDKs, and Apple has the final say in how their software is used.

          A.

          • > For example, using their IOS market position...

            iOS is Apples *product* (its software product at that). Any definition of a market made up of a single companys product is absurd.

            Windows is a Microsoft product. They were still brought up on antitrust charges for using their Windows Monopoly to promote Internet Explorer. Claiming that Apple is not a Monopoly just because they also don't allow third parties to use their hardware or software is absurd. If anything, the fact that they have a closed ecosystem should make them more of a monopoly.

            If you're still not convinced, think of it from the other side. If tomorrow, Apple decided to start allowing people to install IOS on third p

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Alrescha ( 50745 )

              > They were still brought up on antitrust charges for using their Windows Monopoly to promote Internet Explorer.

              Microsoft did not have a monopoly on Windows, they had a monopoly on PC operating systems. That was the market, and you practically could not buy a PC without paying for a copy of Windows whether you wanted it or not. That's not true with Apple; there are plenty of other phones to choose from and anyone is free to make a new platform from scratch - just like Apple did.

              > Claiming that Apple

            • Claiming that Apple is not a Monopoly just because they also don't allow third parties to use their hardware or software is absurd.

              Unless you are the EU in which case you claim Apple doesn't compete with Google in the mobile market because nobody else can use iOS [europa.eu] (and also because Apple devices are too expensive for Android users). Those crazy Europeans. Slice a market fine enough and everything can be labeled a monopoly.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Darth ( 29071 )

                Unless you are the EU in which case you claim Apple doesn't compete with Google in the mobile market because nobody else can use iOS

                that isn't what the article you linked says. it says that Apple doesn't compete with Google in the market of licensable operating systems for third party smart phones. the market is operating systems available for people like motorola or samsung to license for their hardware products. in that market, apple does not compete with google because apple doesn't license ios for third party hardware products.

                • that isn't what the article you linked says. it says that Apple doesn't compete with Google in the market of licensable operating systems for third party smart phones

                  Maybe a winking face would have helped, but...

                  It is a little shocking. Imagine a world where practically every FPGA manufacturer required you to use proprietary synthesis software. If a company came along with an open-source solution and offered a significant discount on their optimizer if you bought hardware from the company, would the EU sudd

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by aliquis ( 678370 )

        Why punish Microsoft for according to the market making a better desktop operating system than AppleÂs and Google for creating a better phone operating system than Apple? ;D

      • It would be hard to sue Apple for abusing their monopoly when they don't have one.

        You don't need a monopoly, you only need market power which Apple has plenty of. It's a self fulfilling prophecy as well. If they have enough power for their logo to actually appear above their competitors they have enough to get fined under anti-trust regulations for anti-competitive practices against competitors.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Alrescha ( 50745 )

          > If they have enough power for their logo to actually appear above their competitors they have enough to get fined under anti-trust regulations for anti-competitive practices against competitors.

          There's a difference between a market and one's own product, and iOS is a product. And like any other company, Apple has pretty much absolute power over it.

          The point is moot, as Apple isn't requiring placement, and the whole Login with Apple is a developer-request feature in the first place.

          A

      • Apple has 100% market share for distributing iPhone apps. You don't get more of a monopoly than that. They first ban anyone from competing with them in that market, and now they're using that monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in a different market (single sign on services). This is a textbook case of illegal, anticompetitive behavior.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Alrescha ( 50745 )

          You are taking one company's product, calling that a market, and then saying that they have a monopoly. That's like saying Costo has a monopoly on Kirkland products.

          Charles Arthur is the EU author of "Digital Wars: Apple, Google, Microsoft and the Battle for the Internet". When asked about Apple's 'monopoly', he said "a market defined as iOS App Stores is absurd on its face".

          A.

          • No, I'm talking about the many thousands of companies that write software to run on iPhones and iPads. None of those companies is allowed to distribute their own software. Apple locks down the platform and forces all of them to go through Apple's store, giving Apple a cut of the profits. No one is permitted to compete with them. That is a monopoly.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Alrescha ( 50745 )

              > Apple locks down the platform and forces all of them to go through Apple's store, giving Apple a cut of the profits.

              And this is perfectly legal, just like many other closed platforms that exist today. It's true some people have a problem with closed platforms and they are welcome to their opinion. Indeed, some of those people feel strongly about it and have been suing Apple (without success) over the store since it opened.

              The word monopoly has a specific meaning with regard to antitrust, and it relat

    • Re: FTC? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dixie_Flatline ( 5077 )

      Does it, though?

      Apple requires that if you use a third-party sign-in service, you add theirs. So, the user isn't forced to choose Apple, just see it in the list.

      Then, they ask that you put their option first, but don't require it.

      So I would think any case would have a hard time proving any harm. The application author is required to provide an option (or direct log-in and no SSO would be fine too) but it doesn't have to be the default or anything. Is that enough to build an anti-trust case on?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Apple requires that if you use a third-party sign-in service, you add theirs. So, the user isn't forced to choose Apple, just see it in the list.

        The developer is forced to add it. What if the developer didn't want to offer a Apple ID sign in, but offer Google & Facebook for their own reasons? Tough, you have to do what nanny Apple says!

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Immigration visas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:40PM (#58715526) Journal

    Remember the story from yesterday, where the US is requiring all email addresses used in the last 5 years for entry visa? They will love this!

    "Well, apple generated bunches of random ones for me to protect my privacy. You'll have to ask Apple for them, or subpoena them, or something, because I don't know them."

    It's funny to me the haters complaining about this already in comments, when this is just a huge slap in the face to Facebook and Google, who we KNOW are abusers of personal privacy. I don't know of anyone but Apple that could pull this off. No, Samsung / Android cannot, because they're in bed with Google.

    • Whatever Apple does, good or bad, will get criticized by anti-Apple zealots.
      Whatever Google does, good or bad, will get criticized by anti-Google zealots.
      Whatever Facebook does, good or bad, will get criticized by anti-Facebook zealots.
      Whatever Amazon does, good or bad, will get criticized by anti-Amazon zealots.

      On top of that, this is Slashdot in 2019. It's full of morans, don't expect much or you'll be disappointed.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Whatever Evilcorp does, there are fanboys that enjoy evil.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )
        Whatever Apple does will get cheered for by a bunch of sheep.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by theCoder ( 23772 )

        On top of that, this is Slashdot in 2019. It's full of morans, don't expect much or you'll be disappointed.

        Preach, brother!

        :)

      • I'm not an anti-Apple zealot. I'm writing this on my Mac. But my next computer will run Linux, because I'm totally fed up with Apple pulling evil stunts like this. You can't even distribute Mac software through your own website anymore unless you pay Apple for the privilege of doing it. Well, you can, but anyone who tries to run it will just get an error saying it isn't trusted and can't be run. Then if they know where to look inside the system preferences, they can find a button to say, "No, really, r

    • "It exists, but I don't know the answer" does not get you a visa. It gets you rejected.

      You won't love it. And trust me, they don't care. They reject visa applications all day.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The answer to that is simple — don’t travel to the US.

      A lot of people have avoided travelling to the states since the country went crazy after 9/11. This is just one more reason to continue keeping the US in people’s travel blacklist.

  • Didn't google get in trouble for putting their stuff 'on top?'

    • Didn't google get in trouble for putting their stuff 'on top?'

      Google has 90% of the market for search.

      Apple has 20% of the market for smartphones.

  • Jobs (Score:2)

    by lazarus ( 2879 )

    This is the only thing that Apple has done since Jobs died where I felt that Steve "I will take this thermonuclear" Jobs would be laughing or at least nodding his approval in his grave. It is also a brilliant strategic move by Apple because their rivals businesses have been built on the premise that data is currency.

    OAuth is an IETF open standard under RFC 5849 (1.0), RFC 6749 (2.0) and RFC 6750 (BTU), so people saying that this is some kind of evil monopolistic power grab by Apple don't know anything abou

  • I miss FirefoxOS (Score:3)

    by AcidPenguin9873 ( 911493 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @05:34PM (#58715916)
    Having "apps" just be cached mobile websites was such a great idea, and it would be a perfect way to get around this sort of platform-specific nonsense. Maybe one day we will be able to work that way and no one will care what "platform" you are using. Until then, ugh.

  • this will really help antitrust laws kill app store lockin.

  • In a press release about updates to its App Store review guidelines, Apple said its login button "will be required as an option for users in apps that support third-party sign-in when it is commercially available later this year.

    Boy, this seems like it's really going to run afoul of all sorts of anti-trust, anti-competitive practice laws. I can already smell the the lawsuits regarding forcing developers to put this button.

    Bad move, Apple. But like Facebook, I don't like you, so doing foolishness makes me smile. Carry on. Enjoy the lawsuits.

    BTW, the other guys? Facebook, Google, etc? As far as I know, they never forced anyone to use their buttons. They just offered it politely. But then, shoving things people might not want

  • With the UK leaving the EU we were worried about our financial contributions. Our lawyers will be in touch shortly to discuss if you want your anti-trust fine to be paid in monthly installments or a lump sum at the end of the financial year.

    As the meme went Google only copied Apple, but it looks like Google is the absolute trend setter now. First the dark theme, then with the device active hours control, but I didn't think Apple would go as far as to copy Google's anti-trust lawsuit.

  • Company does something they want to do with placement of their own service on their own platform to receive more users. SJW respond by WRITING AN ENTIRE ARTICLE ON IT.
  • It won't even be included in any of my projects, nevermind first.

  • Why show all the buttons instead of offering only the ones I'm actually logged in to? And maybe what I tend to use the most? Sort of a wrapper for all that junk. Yes it should probably default to showing all if I'm not logged in to any, and allow users to expand to show all options. But still...couldn't a lot of that be done in a JavaScript applet or widget or whatever (sorry, not a JavaScript dev, so not sure what they call their reusable components)?

    Also I don't see the crazy issue everyone is surpris

Slashdot Top Deals

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Close