If I understand this right Apple just needs to make Sign In with Apple available on Android and all will be good. Developers will still be unhappy as they won’t be able to harvest and sell user data.
Years long, “Sign with Google......Facebook.........Twitter........”, was the most normal way in the world to sign in .
But when Apple recently started to use “Sign with Apple”, it became immediately a wake up call for the antitrust investigators........
Apple requires you to add the "Sign in with Apple" button if you use other single sign-on', like Google Sign in, even if you don't want to add the Apple one, otherwise have your app rejected. This is an issue.
Nope - their platform, their rules. You want to develop apps for the platform, you follow the platform rules.
Ridiculous! And where’s the antitrust investigation for sign-in with Google, Facebook, etc.?
What you posted makes zero sense. The investigation is concerned with Sign In With Apple not working on non-Apple devices, and those login providers work on any device.
To clarify, this doesn't mean that there is an antitrust violation here, only that your post is devoid of any coherent thought.
Agreed, but I think the biggest issue is Apple's requirement that developers must use Sign in with Apple, if they allow sign-ins with Google, FB etc. They don't like being forced to include it.
Developers have to offer the user a choice of using Sign in with Apple, if they offer other "Sign in with...". No one is forced to actually use it.
A completely optional sign-in based on privacy and non-disclosure of your email address to third-parties is anti-competitive? It’s. Optional.
It's not optional for developers to add it into their app if they have other signal sign-on.
But that isn’t the complaint. The anti-competitive complaint is that users will be locked in, despite it being optional for them to use.
It appears it is at least part of the complaint.
Here is a snippet from the The Information article which this AI article links to:
"But how Apple is implementing this option—requiring it on all apps that offer sign-in options from other firms like Google or Facebook—has upset some developers. And that has prompted complaints that the U.S. Department of Justice is now investigating, said two people with direct knowledge of the situation."
Apple has a long list of requirements for apps, true, but so do other companies, like Facebook, which places numerous and varied conditions on people who want to work with their services. So if Apple loses this case, it may have an impact on other companies including Facebook and Google. Facebook has lots of rules that it imposes on apps that want to access Facebook's platforms including its web APIs. Notice in the opening few lines of the agreement, cited below, that Facebook defines app developers very broadly, to include both website developers and app developers, not just apps that appear on facebook's web pages.
a. Our Platform is the set of APIs, SDKs, tools, plugins, code, technology, content, and services that enables others, including app developers and website operators, to develop functionality, retrieve data from Facebook and any other Facebook Products, or provide data to us. b. To use Platform (including to Process any Platform Data), you agree to these Platform Terms (“Terms”), ...text cut out here... Any code, APIs, SDKs, tools, plugins, bots, websites, applications, specifications, and other technology made available by you or on your behalf in connection with Platform is considered part of your App.
Most of Facebook's requirements are decent, but there are a few that stick out like a sore thumb, like:
You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use your name, trademarks, and logos for distribution, marketing, and promotional purposes
(at least it's non-exclusive, but obviously an exclusive requirement would kill Facebook.)
You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to: host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your App for any business purpose in connection with operating, providing, or improving Platform. This license remains in effect even if you stop using Platform. Without limitation, the foregoing license includes the right to frame or link to your App, to place content (including ads) around your App,
This gives Facebook the right to copy your app and use it and post ads around it. And don't forget the broad definition in the first clause which includes things like websites run on other servers, not just on Facebook's server. How is this not illegal? Did Facebook intentionally mean to include apps that run on other servers, or was this not really what they meant?
My guess is that we haven't heard from Facebook, Google or Epic on this issue because they are even worse offenders than Apple here. If I were a reporter I would go ask those companies what their view on this case is.
A completely optional sign-in based on privacy and non-disclosure of your email address to third-parties is anti-competitive? It’s. Optional.
It's not optional for developers to add it into their app if they have other signal sign-on.
But it’s not compulsory that I press it.
So what the developers are really saying is that they want to take away my choice to keep my data private.
Er … no.
It's compulsory that I, as a developer, add it to my app if I also have Twitter sign-on, or else the app will be rejected; that's the point of the antitrust.
That's a yes and no. As a developer, you are only required to have a "sign in with Apple" option, if you have any other 'sign in with .." options with Google, FB and Twitter, but only in iOS. Apple is not requiring you to have a "sign in with Apple" option with your Android app in the Google Play Store or on any other platform where your app is available. So how is that related to anti-trust, unless iDevices running iOS is a monopoly?
Or you can get rid of the "sign in with twitter" option on your iOS app and you're good to go in the Apple App Store.
A completely optional sign-in based on privacy and non-disclosure of your email address to third-parties is anti-competitive? It’s. Optional.
It's not optional for developers to add it into their app if they have other signal sign-on.
But it’s not compulsory that I press it.
So what the developers are really saying is that they want to take away my choice to keep my data private.
Er … no.
It's compulsory that I, as a developer, add it to my app if I also have Twitter sign-on, or else the app will be rejected; that's the point of the antitrust.
That's a yes and no. As a developer, you are only required to have a "sign in with Apple" option, if you have any other 'sign in with .." options with Google, FB and Twitter, but only in iOS. Apple is not requiring you to have a "sign in with Apple" option with your Android app in the Google Play Store or on any other platform where your app is available. So how is that related to anti-trust, unless iDevices running iOS is a monopoly?
Or you can get rid of the "sign in with twitter" option on your iOS app and you're good to go in the Apple App Store.
"How is that related to anti-trust"?
That's part of the reason for the investigation. The answer as to if it is or isn't will be one of the fruits of the process.
Apple is treading a fine line. Note how they not only insist on having 'Sign in with Apple' if the developer chooses to go with 'Sign in with Google' etc but, for a time they insisted on the Apple link being top placed, only to later change tack.
These actions don't do Apple many favours.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
That's part of the reason for the investigation. The answer as to if it is or isn't will be one of the fruits of the process.
Apple is treading a fine line. Note how they not only insist on having 'Sign in with Apple' if the developer chooses to go with 'Sign in with Google' etc but, for a time they insisted on the Apple link being top placed, only to later change tack.
These actions don't do Apple many favours.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
You are skipping over many facts. Fact is Facebook and Google are developers. Facts are these advertisement companies are developers. For that matter, so is Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Facts are there are tons and tons of clones or crappy apps are on the App Store. Fact is Facebook in particular doesn't want to have privacy labels or ask for your permission to track you. Since Facebook is a developer and doesn't want to do these things, are you saying they shouldn't be forced to do them? What about the rest of these developers? Fact is a group of developers whined about the privacy labels and asking for permission to track. Hey I guess they shouldn't be forced to do that right? This is silly that only the developer gets to decide.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
The question is not what you feel is best. The question is whether Apple has the right to choose what is required for iOS apps.
Obviously many of Apple's existing rules go against what developers want. For example, no excessive violence is permitted in apps. Some developers would like to have violence in apps. And I don't see you complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining about that? Why do you get to choose which requirements Apple is permitted to implement, and which rules Apple is not permitted to implement?
That's part of the reason for the investigation. The answer as to if it is or isn't will be one of the fruits of the process.
Apple is treading a fine line. Note how they not only insist on having 'Sign in with Apple' if the developer chooses to go with 'Sign in with Google' etc but, for a time they insisted on the Apple link being top placed, only to later change tack.
These actions don't do Apple many favours.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
You are skipping over many facts. Fact is Facebook and Google are developers. Facts are these advertisement companies are developers. For that matter, so is Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Facts are there are tons and tons of clones or crappy apps are on the App Store. Fact is Facebook in particular doesn't want to have privacy labels or ask for your permission to track you. Since Facebook is a developer and doesn't want to do these things, are you saying they shouldn't be forced to do them? What about the rest of these developers? Fact is a group of developers whined about the privacy labels and asking for permission to track. Hey I guess they shouldn't be forced to do that right? This is silly that only the developer gets to decide.
The facts will be examined as part of any investigation.
That said, there is nothing in what you wrote that tackles the issue of Apple forcing something onto the developer within an app under certain circumstances.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
The question is not what you feel is best. The question is whether Apple has the right to choose what is required for iOS apps.
Obviously many of Apple's existing rules go against what developers want. For example, no excessive violence is permitted in apps. Some developers would like to have violence in apps. And I don't see you complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining about that? Why do you get to choose which requirements Apple is permitted to implement, and which rules Apple is not permitted to implement?
Because the article is about a particular aspect of Apple's rules, not a general piece on what Apple does or doesn't allow.
That's part of the reason for the investigation. The answer as to if it is or isn't will be one of the fruits of the process.
Apple is treading a fine line. Note how they not only insist on having 'Sign in with Apple' if the developer chooses to go with 'Sign in with Google' etc but, for a time they insisted on the Apple link being top placed, only to later change tack.
These actions don't do Apple many favours.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
You are skipping over many facts. Fact is Facebook and Google are developers. Facts are these advertisement companies are developers. For that matter, so is Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Facts are there are tons and tons of clones or crappy apps are on the App Store. Fact is Facebook in particular doesn't want to have privacy labels or ask for your permission to track you. Since Facebook is a developer and doesn't want to do these things, are you saying they shouldn't be forced to do them? What about the rest of these developers? Fact is a group of developers whined about the privacy labels and asking for permission to track. Hey I guess they shouldn't be forced to do that right? This is silly that only the developer gets to decide.
The facts will be examined as part of any investigation.
That said, there is nothing in what you wrote that tackles the issue of Apple forcing something onto the developer within an app under certain circumstances.
Let me make it plain, I think Apps are better since developers are forced to do the privacy labels, ask to track users, and have to offer sign on with Apple. I also think the idea that should be able to do anything is over rated. I think all apps, including should be required by law to offer privacy labels, and have clear statements when asking for permission. I think most of what Apple has done, should be forced upon other computers and phones, including Windows, Linux, Android and whatever else. I'm not saying all, nor am I saying that Apple is perfect.
That's part of the reason for the investigation. The answer as to if it is or isn't will be one of the fruits of the process.
Apple is treading a fine line. Note how they not only insist on having 'Sign in with Apple' if the developer chooses to go with 'Sign in with Google' etc but, for a time they insisted on the Apple link being top placed, only to later change tack.
These actions don't do Apple many favours.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
You are skipping over many facts. Fact is Facebook and Google are developers. Facts are these advertisement companies are developers. For that matter, so is Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Facts are there are tons and tons of clones or crappy apps are on the App Store. Fact is Facebook in particular doesn't want to have privacy labels or ask for your permission to track you. Since Facebook is a developer and doesn't want to do these things, are you saying they shouldn't be forced to do them? What about the rest of these developers? Fact is a group of developers whined about the privacy labels and asking for permission to track. Hey I guess they shouldn't be forced to do that right? This is silly that only the developer gets to decide.
The facts will be examined as part of any investigation.
That said, there is nothing in what you wrote that tackles the issue of Apple forcing something onto the developer within an app under certain circumstances.
Let me make it plain, I think Apps are better since developers are forced to do the privacy labels, ask to track users, and have to offer sign on with Apple. I also think the idea that should be able to do anything is over rated. I think all apps, including should be required by law to offer privacy labels, and have clear statements when asking for permission. I think most of what Apple has done, should be forced upon other computers and phones, including Windows, Linux, Android and whatever else. I'm not saying all, nor am I saying that Apple is perfect.
When you say 'by law' I take it to mean something akin to what might theoretically arise from this investigation.
There are some consumer protections that form part of our statutory rights. Depending on where you live, those rights may be 'better' or 'worse'.
The question here, or at least part of it, is whether Apple should be able to impose something on developers and within their apps simply because it is 'Apple's' platform and then reject the app if the developer doesn't implement the requirement.
The question is basically going to be if the requirement is anticompetitive and/or and abuse of a monopolistic position.
The only way to know for sure is to wait for the outcome of the investigation and any posterior legal changes.
One thing is for sure. The outcome will not satisfy everyone.
Apple should be able to impose requirements on developers. Just because people think it is anticompetitive, does not mean it is or even meets any legal defination of anticompetitive.
Let me make it plain, I think Apps are better since developers are forced to do the privacy labels, ask to track users, and have to offer sign on with Apple. I also think the idea that should be able to do anything is over rated. I think all apps, including should be required by law to offer privacy labels, and have clear statements when asking for permission. I think most of what Apple has done, should be forced upon other computers and phones, including Windows, Linux, Android and whatever else. I'm not saying all, nor am I saying that Apple is perfect.
For the exact same reason that I defend Apple's right not to have to add third party app stores, I also defend other companies from being forced to offer privacy labels. I can't think of a good reason for other companies to refuse privacy labels, but that's not the point. If privacy labels are a good idea people will be attracted to products that require them. Let the market decide. I'm not even certain that these labels will bring more business to Apple.
On the other hand, governments (whether they are elected or are dictatorships) have the right to create laws that manufacturers must follow, but such laws can never force a manufacturer to do business in that country. If the people of America want to create a law that requires privacy labels, sobeit. I just don't see America as a country which imposes a lot of regulation on businesses in general. I haven't even seen any US state or federal government impose the mandatory use of virus-checkers, and now we're talking about mandatory use of self-produced privacy labels?
P.S. How is your privacy labelling idea going to work with apps that are streamed and not downloaded permanently? There's a big push towards streaming apps.
Comments
They already do:
How to use Sign in with Apple
"You can also use Sign in with Apple on participating apps and websites on the web and on other platforms like Android or Windows."
Nope - their platform, their rules. You want to develop apps for the platform, you follow the platform rules.
Developers have to offer the user a choice of using Sign in with Apple, if they offer other "Sign in with...". No one is forced to actually use it.
Here is a snippet from the The Information article which this AI article links to:
"But how Apple is implementing this option—requiring it on all apps that offer sign-in options from other firms like Google or Facebook—has upset some developers. And that has prompted complaints that the U.S. Department of Justice is now investigating, said two people with direct knowledge of the situation."
https://developers.facebook.com/terms/ <--
Most of Facebook's requirements are decent, but there are a few that stick out like a sore thumb, like:
(at least it's non-exclusive, but obviously an exclusive requirement would kill Facebook.)
This gives Facebook the right to copy your app and use it and post ads around it. And don't forget the broad definition in the first clause which includes things like websites run on other servers, not just on Facebook's server. How is this not illegal? Did Facebook intentionally mean to include apps that run on other servers, or was this not really what they meant?
My guess is that we haven't heard from Facebook, Google or Epic on this issue because they are even worse offenders than Apple here. If I were a reporter I would go ask those companies what their view on this case is.
Or you can get rid of the "sign in with twitter" option on your iOS app and you're good to go in the Apple App Store.
That's part of the reason for the investigation. The answer as to if it is or isn't will be one of the fruits of the process.
Apple is treading a fine line. Note how they not only insist on having 'Sign in with Apple' if the developer chooses to go with 'Sign in with Google' etc but, for a time they insisted on the Apple link being top placed, only to later change tack.
These actions don't do Apple many favours.
IMO it is up to the developer, and only the developer to decide (and decide without external influence) which options to make available to users.
Obviously many of Apple's existing rules go against what developers want. For example, no excessive violence is permitted in apps. Some developers would like to have violence in apps. And I don't see you complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining about that? Why do you get to choose which requirements Apple is permitted to implement, and which rules Apple is not permitted to implement?
That said, there is nothing in what you wrote that tackles the issue of Apple forcing something onto the developer within an app under certain circumstances.
There are some consumer protections that form part of our statutory rights. Depending on where you live, those rights may be 'better' or 'worse'.
The question here, or at least part of it, is whether Apple should be able to impose something on developers and within their apps simply because it is 'Apple's' platform and then reject the app if the developer doesn't implement the requirement.
The question is basically going to be if the requirement is anticompetitive and/or and abuse of a monopolistic position.
The only way to know for sure is to wait for the outcome of the investigation and any posterior legal changes.
One thing is for sure. The outcome will not satisfy everyone.
On the other hand, governments (whether they are elected or are dictatorships) have the right to create laws that manufacturers must follow, but such laws can never force a manufacturer to do business in that country. If the people of America want to create a law that requires privacy labels, sobeit. I just don't see America as a country which imposes a lot of regulation on businesses in general. I haven't even seen any US state or federal government impose the mandatory use of virus-checkers, and now we're talking about mandatory use of self-produced privacy labels?
P.S. How is your privacy labelling idea going to work with apps that are streamed and not downloaded permanently? There's a big push towards streaming apps.