All I want for Christmas is to sign in with Apple(viorel.me)
viorel.me
All I want for Christmas is to sign in with Apple
https://viorel.me/2019/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-sign-in-with-apple/
85 comments
> they don’t give away stuff for free
Apple used to have a separate, free Safari extension developer program where you can get free signing certificates. Then one day they retired that program and to sign Safari extensions you have to enroll in the $99/yr program.
I highly doubt they made that decision based on the few extra $99 they would make each year. (I certainly didn’t sign up, I just stopped porting my extensions to Safari...) They probably just wanted to unify the developer program, as the separate free program was too insignificant for them to bother maintaining. Same here I suppose. In a way this is similar to getting rid of ports that an insignificant (and sometimes seemingly significant) segment of their user base depends on.
(Not defending Apple’s action, just putting forth my take on their motivation.)
Apple used to have a separate, free Safari extension developer program where you can get free signing certificates. Then one day they retired that program and to sign Safari extensions you have to enroll in the $99/yr program.
I highly doubt they made that decision based on the few extra $99 they would make each year. (I certainly didn’t sign up, I just stopped porting my extensions to Safari...) They probably just wanted to unify the developer program, as the separate free program was too insignificant for them to bother maintaining. Same here I suppose. In a way this is similar to getting rid of ports that an insignificant (and sometimes seemingly significant) segment of their user base depends on.
(Not defending Apple’s action, just putting forth my take on their motivation.)
In addition to unifying the developer program, it allowed Safari extensions to take advantage of the same system level sandboxing used by full blown apps, which is a big win in several ways — most notably, it lifts a ton of duplicated work off the shoulders of the Safari team.
Aside from that, these newer gen Safari extensions are technically a good deal more capable their traditional JS counterparts, because they have access to just about anything that LLVM/clang will compile into a Mac binary — Swift and Objective-C of course, but also the vast majority of AppKit, Grand Central Dispatch, C++, and plain C among other things. Extensions that do more than basic DOM manipulation could see massive performance boosts written this way, but unfortunately I have yet to see a Safari extension that makes novel use of these capabilities.
Aside from that, these newer gen Safari extensions are technically a good deal more capable their traditional JS counterparts, because they have access to just about anything that LLVM/clang will compile into a Mac binary — Swift and Objective-C of course, but also the vast majority of AppKit, Grand Central Dispatch, C++, and plain C among other things. Extensions that do more than basic DOM manipulation could see massive performance boosts written this way, but unfortunately I have yet to see a Safari extension that makes novel use of these capabilities.
I think the end of the Safari developer program predates Safari App Extensions, but I could be wrong.
By the way, in addition to making porting miserable, they also introduced annoyances like not being able to use the 1Password extension on Safari Tech Preview[1].
[1] https://discussions.agilebits.com/discussion/96182/1password...
By the way, in addition to making porting miserable, they also introduced annoyances like not being able to use the 1Password extension on Safari Tech Preview[1].
[1] https://discussions.agilebits.com/discussion/96182/1password...
IIRC they ended the Safari dev program shortly before removing support for old style extensions. Safari App Extensions and old extensions were supported for something like 3 or 4 major Safari releases.
Hmm, then my memory of Safari App Extensions must have only started from when they became mandatory ;)
As somebody who used to develop a small Safari extension and dropped it when the fee was introduced, I was really disappointed at the time. All the critiques of the time are still valid today and I believe have been vindicated: developer adoption has plummeted, there is no real growth in the number or quality of Safari extensions, the browser itself is lagging by any popularity metric one might care about... The same fate will likely befall Sign-in, although I guess leverage from iOS is stronger than Safari’s.
This said, Apple’s approach is consistent: “this is a walled garden, you play by our rules, but we will make it worth your while”. The fee helps existing ecosystem developers defend from newcomers and challengers. It’s one of the ways the feudal ruler discharges its duties in the vassalage agreement, and then ensures loyalty by exploiting the sunken-costs fallacy. If you invest even a small amount of money in the agreement, you are much more motivated to actually produce something with it; and you’ll have less competition because a lot of people won’t even bother starting. The ecosystem will be markedly different from others, so that people that live entirely within its borders will struggle to ever leave, and developers won’t have to worry about expanding to other platforms.
This said, Apple’s approach is consistent: “this is a walled garden, you play by our rules, but we will make it worth your while”. The fee helps existing ecosystem developers defend from newcomers and challengers. It’s one of the ways the feudal ruler discharges its duties in the vassalage agreement, and then ensures loyalty by exploiting the sunken-costs fallacy. If you invest even a small amount of money in the agreement, you are much more motivated to actually produce something with it; and you’ll have less competition because a lot of people won’t even bother starting. The ecosystem will be markedly different from others, so that people that live entirely within its borders will struggle to ever leave, and developers won’t have to worry about expanding to other platforms.
> The same fate will likely befall Sign-in, although I guess leverage from iOS is stronger than Safari’s.
I believe that, if you're releasing an iOS app that uses 3rd party sign-ins, you will be required to also include "Sign In with Apple". (The fee is irrelevant at that point since you'll already need to have a paid developer account to release your app.)
I believe that, if you're releasing an iOS app that uses 3rd party sign-ins, you will be required to also include "Sign In with Apple". (The fee is irrelevant at that point since you'll already need to have a paid developer account to release your app.)
> The same fate will likely befall Sign-in
I highly doubt it, at least not for the “fee” reason. The number of Safari extension developers without a paid membership when they introduced the fee (or the number of browser extension developers of any kind, really) is hardly even a rounding error compared to the number of iOS developers who already have a subscription.
I highly doubt it, at least not for the “fee” reason. The number of Safari extension developers without a paid membership when they introduced the fee (or the number of browser extension developers of any kind, really) is hardly even a rounding error compared to the number of iOS developers who already have a subscription.
...although I guess leverage from iOS is stronger than Safari’s.
Apple does care about market share in some sense. When they announced apple sign-in, they said any iOS that features any third-party sign-in, they MUST add apple-sign. This is shoehorning their way into "relevant OAuth providers". Not that I complain, it's their platform, and they can make developers dance to their beat.
This is honestly one of the shittiest moves that I've seen Apple make, but these are the same people who blatantly steal developers work and incorporate it into iOS, so I guess I really shouldn't be surprised at how big their balls are.
I hope it causes more developers to opt for first-party sign-in (because fuck 'em).
I hope it causes more developers to opt for first-party sign-in (because fuck 'em).
> This is honestly one of the shittiest moves that I've seen Apple make
Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions. Releasing a privacy focused login is irrelevant if nobody supports it, this is Apple telling people that, if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy.
Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions. Releasing a privacy focused login is irrelevant if nobody supports it, this is Apple telling people that, if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy.
> ...if they want access to the iOS customer base, then they'll need to support their users' desire for privacy.
It's not strictly required. Devs can use first party logins, newsletter signups and so forth. It's not protecting me from any of the big players that deal in my information. Nefarious actors will work around it if they really want your actual email address.
It's a minor speed-bump for the organizations that we're allegedly being protected against, but one which amounts to a huge excuse for Apple to get their hooks more into your life, getting between you and whomever else you're trying to deal with, all while locking you in more and charging a premium for it without giving you much choice about anything.
But the larger issue IMO, is that depending on your industry, you can't NOT have an iOS app if you're going to have an app at all. Does it really matter what percentage of the market they have at this point? Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly. That's why you don't need a majority market share to be prosecuted as one.
> Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions.
Perhaps the ends justify the means for you. Maybe you haven't thought about the larger issue or you don't care about it. I don't know, but to be completely honest Apple runs their platform like a bunch of tyrannical assholes and I just can't support that.
I value technical freedom higher than comfort. I like a good balance at least. So, I'm going to continue hoping that global anti-trust laws will make this kind of thing harder for them to do. There's already one antitrust suit pending against them. They also got caught price fixing. The higher ups at Apple certainly don't work just to "protect the users". They do it to get control of you themselves.
It's not strictly required. Devs can use first party logins, newsletter signups and so forth. It's not protecting me from any of the big players that deal in my information. Nefarious actors will work around it if they really want your actual email address.
It's a minor speed-bump for the organizations that we're allegedly being protected against, but one which amounts to a huge excuse for Apple to get their hooks more into your life, getting between you and whomever else you're trying to deal with, all while locking you in more and charging a premium for it without giving you much choice about anything.
But the larger issue IMO, is that depending on your industry, you can't NOT have an iOS app if you're going to have an app at all. Does it really matter what percentage of the market they have at this point? Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly. That's why you don't need a majority market share to be prosecuted as one.
> Whereas I see it as one of their best decisions.
Perhaps the ends justify the means for you. Maybe you haven't thought about the larger issue or you don't care about it. I don't know, but to be completely honest Apple runs their platform like a bunch of tyrannical assholes and I just can't support that.
I value technical freedom higher than comfort. I like a good balance at least. So, I'm going to continue hoping that global anti-trust laws will make this kind of thing harder for them to do. There's already one antitrust suit pending against them. They also got caught price fixing. The higher ups at Apple certainly don't work just to "protect the users". They do it to get control of you themselves.
> Once you can affect entire industries surrounding your product, you're certainly a monopoly.
That’s not at all what a monopoly is.
That’s not at all what a monopoly is.
When you have the same kind of control over an entire industry, you might as well be a monopoly.
There are other related terms that also certainly apply to Apple in a stricter technical sense that you can read about here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
And there also is certainly an antitrust case pending against Apple right now is there not?
There are other related terms that also certainly apply to Apple in a stricter technical sense that you can read about here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
And there also is certainly an antitrust case pending against Apple right now is there not?
> (1) they don’t give away stuff for free
Well, they do give away OS updates and Xcode. Those seem like pretty major exceptions to your rule.
Well, they do give away OS updates and Xcode. Those seem like pretty major exceptions to your rule.
Which require a paid Macintosh computer. Is it really free? Or did you already pay for it without knowing it?
Linux also requires a "paid computer". I guess I'm not really seeing your point here.
no business gives away anything for free. You “pay” for Google searches with you searches/data being sold (and this is mostly a good thing). Alternatively “free stuff” is paid for by being bundled with something you pay for.
(2) market share matters little compared to “profit” share which is what Apple is after
Then I'm wondering how LetsEncrypt stays afloat.
Let me Google that for you: Corporate sponsorship[1] and community sponsorship (crowdfunding)[2].
[1] https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/ [2] https://letsencrypt.org/2016/11/01/launching-our-crowdfundin...
[1] https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/ [2] https://letsencrypt.org/2016/11/01/launching-our-crowdfundin...
Market share matters if you actually care about improving the most people's lives instead of just chasing money.
[deleted]
I'm perfectly fine with the $100 I pay to Apple a year the same way I was perfectly find paying :tenbux: to Lowtax to access the somethingawful boards years ago. A fee, even a nominal one, filters 90% of the bullshit.
I've implemented this elsewhere as well. Charging a measly $5 for an event (and not being chuffed if you don't collect it from one or two people) is a great way to filter out the wishy washy, the stingy, and most of the people who will waste your time without providing any value.
There is a stark difference between someone willing to put >$0 (even $.25) into a group project vs not. And I don't really do business with the second anymore.
I've implemented this elsewhere as well. Charging a measly $5 for an event (and not being chuffed if you don't collect it from one or two people) is a great way to filter out the wishy washy, the stingy, and most of the people who will waste your time without providing any value.
There is a stark difference between someone willing to put >$0 (even $.25) into a group project vs not. And I don't really do business with the second anymore.
>filters 90% of the bullshit.
Why would Apple want to filter out people from integrating with sign in with Apple? I can see they want to filter out junk from the App Store, because junk on the App Store (like junk on Something Awful) reduces the signal to noise ratio. But I don't think there exists a signal to noise ratio when it comes to sign in with Apple. A user wants to join a website, and that website either supports sign in with Apple or it doesn't; there's no noise to wade through.
Why would Apple want to filter out people from integrating with sign in with Apple? I can see they want to filter out junk from the App Store, because junk on the App Store (like junk on Something Awful) reduces the signal to noise ratio. But I don't think there exists a signal to noise ratio when it comes to sign in with Apple. A user wants to join a website, and that website either supports sign in with Apple or it doesn't; there's no noise to wade through.
I believe their sign in API comes with a ‘is this user a bot’ confidence value. They probably want real interests joining first, so they can train their models better.
I grew up lower middle class in a poor country and could never access Something Awful because the fee was literally a week's worth of groceries.
shrug COL adjustments between countries is a different problem.
shrug "why would you want to access our website if you dont have $5 anyway"
You're being facetious but much of the time that's the logic.
Flip it around, "Why would I spend resources on you if the chance that you're going to generate a return on those resources is minimal?"
Flip it around, "Why would I spend resources on you if the chance that you're going to generate a return on those resources is minimal?"
Because you (Apple) are supposedly in the business of making the best experience for the people buying your devices, and your cool privacy-friendly authentication provider being available on less websites makes their experience worse?
Sign-in with Apple does not make sense as a product with the goal of direct profit, (and the majority of its developer target market already pays, because they only implement it because it's an requirement for them building their apps), so this logic doesn't work so well.
Sign-in with Apple does not make sense as a product with the goal of direct profit, (and the majority of its developer target market already pays, because they only implement it because it's an requirement for them building their apps), so this logic doesn't work so well.
I'm more inclined to spend money on a product that goes out of their way to implement Apple Sign In because I know they're catering to me. It's not going to be the only thing that goes into the equation, but if I have a choice between two equals it can tip the balance.
How are you going to buy an iDevice when you can't afford a SomethingAwful subscription?
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but I think you're either confusing who is paying here (if I run a website, I'm paying the apple fees, my users are the ones buying the iDevices) or thinking you can't run a website without an iDevice?
Also, my comment was addressing the direct parent comment, not the entire thread above it.
Also, my comment was addressing the direct parent comment, not the entire thread above it.
I agree, but the question is of course about the "float resources" not "boolean resourcesSpent"
An example would be free/paid website, where you constantly are trying to automate and improve the free version with features that used to be paid
You are free to choose how to run your biz of course and the market will decide how valuable your idea is, and judging from your experience it sounds like it makes you money, which is a good thing :)
An example would be free/paid website, where you constantly are trying to automate and improve the free version with features that used to be paid
You are free to choose how to run your biz of course and the market will decide how valuable your idea is, and judging from your experience it sounds like it makes you money, which is a good thing :)
I don't work for free.
The communities I'm part of now go out of their way to be inclusive. People who can afford it are strongly encouraged to pay more to subsidize people who can't. People who pay more don't get any special privileges either. Those are the sorts of communities I want to be in, not some fee gating bullshit.
A community is not a business. In fact it's hard for me to conceive of two conceptual entities further away from each other.
A business is interested in profit. Apple is no different. If you're not paying in, they're directly incentivized to make your experience suck as much as they can without crossing legal lines, to get you to do so.
I'm not saying I want to be in the fee-gating communities, I agree with you on that point. I'm just saying expecting a multi-billion dollar corporation to be interested in fostering that same sense of community is ridiculous.
A business is interested in profit. Apple is no different. If you're not paying in, they're directly incentivized to make your experience suck as much as they can without crossing legal lines, to get you to do so.
I'm not saying I want to be in the fee-gating communities, I agree with you on that point. I'm just saying expecting a multi-billion dollar corporation to be interested in fostering that same sense of community is ridiculous.
We're talking about Something Awful in this thread, not Apple.
You're right that a community is not a business. That's ultimately the fundamental rot in capitalism.
You're right that a community is not a business. That's ultimately the fundamental rot in capitalism.
If your response to someone explaining how a fee gate impacted them is just a shrug, then I'm afraid our worldviews are so different that communication between us is impossiblr.
edit, response to a comment below: people can come up with the same ideas independently too. You may have heard of Newton and Leibnitz.
edit, response to a comment below: people can come up with the same ideas independently too. You may have heard of Newton and Leibnitz.
It's also a little ridiculous to believe that every single site or group needs to cater to every demographic.
If you are so corrupt you need to plagiarize your “woke” rhetoric, then it is improper to attempt communicating with you.
“If you’re [collection of virtue signaling words] there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged.”
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59519811e4b0f078efd98440
“If you’re [collection of virtue signaling words] there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged.”
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59519811e4b0f078efd98440
Firebase Auth has it. Let Google pay that $100 for you
https://firebase.googleblog.com/2019/11/sign-in-with-apple-a...
https://firebase.googleblog.com/2019/11/sign-in-with-apple-a...
You need to pay the $100 fee to Apple, to actually use that.
The garden walls grow taller.
While it's valid to want to keep email addresses out of the hands of app developers, it's disingenuous to see this as anything but Apple deepening its moat.
One day Apple will be able to cut off communication to your customers. You can say that's not what's happening, but I never imagined living in a world where we had to pay to distribute our code, and that distribution was finely controlled and revocable.
It's hard to imagine that Apple sees its developers as anything other than dancing monkeys. All they do is take and yet they're still praised.
We should really be rallying against Apple and Google. It disheartens me every time someone says "this is fine".
While it's valid to want to keep email addresses out of the hands of app developers, it's disingenuous to see this as anything but Apple deepening its moat.
One day Apple will be able to cut off communication to your customers. You can say that's not what's happening, but I never imagined living in a world where we had to pay to distribute our code, and that distribution was finely controlled and revocable.
It's hard to imagine that Apple sees its developers as anything other than dancing monkeys. All they do is take and yet they're still praised.
We should really be rallying against Apple and Google. It disheartens me every time someone says "this is fine".
Using a service for sign-in without making users create an email/password login is a usually a mistake.
Avoid this lock-in, and own your own users. Email and password is still the best and simplest way to go.
Avoid this lock-in, and own your own users. Email and password is still the best and simplest way to go.
Unless I NEED to use a new app I skip any sign up process as soon as I'm asked to share my e-mail. You rarely need to actually have contact info for the vast majority of products unless your business model is based on selling that info.
Yeah the whole reason Sign In with Apple is appealing is because sites/service are notoriously bad about abusing access to one’s inbox. The ability to cut off any site/service I please without trickery with email aliases, etc is invaluable.
I forgot to mention in the article that the official reason I was given is that the "Sign in" functionality requires generating the same certificates used to sign an app, therefore, the the cannot be separated.
I got many accounts. Google, Apple, LinkedIn. How do I know which one I used last time I logged into some service?
The author speaks about narrowing down this mess, so I think it's quite related.
The author speaks about narrowing down this mess, so I think it's quite related.
Isn't $100 a pretty reasonable nominal fee to vet a company compared to what Google requires before granting access to security sensitive APIs?
>To prevent a data grabbing snafu along the lines of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal, Google is asking developers who use sensitive Gmail APIs to pay for a security audit that proves their apps play by the rules.
And the cost – anywhere from $15,000 to $75,000 or more, every year – could put some smaller companies out of business.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/11/google_gmail_develo...
>To prevent a data grabbing snafu along the lines of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal, Google is asking developers who use sensitive Gmail APIs to pay for a security audit that proves their apps play by the rules.
And the cost – anywhere from $15,000 to $75,000 or more, every year – could put some smaller companies out of business.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/11/google_gmail_develo...
Full e-mail access is "slightly different" from an authentication provider, which everyone else allows to use for free.
They made a privacy-friendly authentication provider and instead of making it easy to use for devs and hopefully getting its benefits for Apple customers in as many places as possible, they discourage its spread by making it the pretty much only paid option in the market.
They made a privacy-friendly authentication provider and instead of making it easy to use for devs and hopefully getting its benefits for Apple customers in as many places as possible, they discourage its spread by making it the pretty much only paid option in the market.
Summary of the article: You need an apple developer account to use the feature. Those cost $100 / euros per year.
This was a really anticlimactic reason. There are a lot of things you can do with a developer account. They are essentially just throwing this new feature/benefit onto the pile.
Whining because "I'm not an Apple developer but I still want to use the Apple ecosystem" is kind of silly in my opinion.
Yes. We all get it. Why can't we go back to the days when developer accounts were all free on every platform? Sorry. Those days are gone. Buck up and deal with it.
This was a really anticlimactic reason. There are a lot of things you can do with a developer account. They are essentially just throwing this new feature/benefit onto the pile.
Whining because "I'm not an Apple developer but I still want to use the Apple ecosystem" is kind of silly in my opinion.
Yes. We all get it. Why can't we go back to the days when developer accounts were all free on every platform? Sorry. Those days are gone. Buck up and deal with it.
As an aside, have any major apps implemented Sign in with Apple? I thought that was a requirement for newer apps but I haven't seen any.
It's only required for applications that exclusively use third-party auth, and this rule is only being enforced for new applications at the moment. After April 2020, existing applications will also have to follow this rule.
Trulia’s app has. I’m trying to think of others but I haven’t seen many yet.
I think I heard it’s only a requirement for apps that offer alternative social logins? And I’m guessing developers have a bit before that takes effect?
I think I heard it’s only a requirement for apps that offer alternative social logins? And I’m guessing developers have a bit before that takes effect?
Existing apps have until April to implement it (after which they won't accept new versions of an app without it) and this developer season has been particularly busy so I expect many developers will wait until April.
I think Kayak was one of the first few to implement this since it was there the day iOS 13 rolled out.
I used it for the first time with TikTok just a few days ago.
in native IOS i've seen Mapster & TikTok
Zillow.
Hear me out, Apple does this kind of stuff to keep the quality of the experience up.
So what if it’s only 15 out of 100 people who can’t or won’t pay to play that would be the ones to create a poor experience? They decided it’s worth keeping out the rest of them.
This is the same reason why they purposefully break apps on iOS updates (it’s not just about being too lean to care about backwards compat) but it forces people to update their apps and many times this comes with a QoL refresh from the developer.
They also require a DUNS number in order to publish an app as a company rather than an individual, and $100/year to publish at all.
Similar line of thinking, hoops that force people to show that they are capable of meeting a standard, even if it is just the 80/20 rule (20% of the producers who can’t jump the hoops produce 80% of the garbage) but they decided it’s worth the cost of the other 80%.
So what if it’s only 15 out of 100 people who can’t or won’t pay to play that would be the ones to create a poor experience? They decided it’s worth keeping out the rest of them.
This is the same reason why they purposefully break apps on iOS updates (it’s not just about being too lean to care about backwards compat) but it forces people to update their apps and many times this comes with a QoL refresh from the developer.
They also require a DUNS number in order to publish an app as a company rather than an individual, and $100/year to publish at all.
Similar line of thinking, hoops that force people to show that they are capable of meeting a standard, even if it is just the 80/20 rule (20% of the producers who can’t jump the hoops produce 80% of the garbage) but they decided it’s worth the cost of the other 80%.
I believe Apple claiming this makes the experience better is very weak. What this really is is Apple creating a market where its apps thrive and competitors aren't allowed.
The other big sticking point for me? You can't develop for Apple without an Apple. I can write code for Android on any OS and don't force developers to pay thousands into the ECOsystem to release a _free_ application
The other big sticking point for me? You can't develop for Apple without an Apple. I can write code for Android on any OS and don't force developers to pay thousands into the ECOsystem to release a _free_ application
Requiring a Mac reduces the number of low-effort “checkbox ports”, which the google play store has no shortage of. Nobody who just wants a quick, easy presence on iOS will buy a Mac, leaving (mostly) devs with the intent of building decent iOS apps.
Disclosure: I work for Apple but not on anything related. I think there are reasons to believe there is some dark purpose behind this, but I think there are also reasons to believe its just Apple continuing its privacy push and not wanting to see even more data go unnecessarily to the data hoarders. I'm personally super happy I can decide to not hand over my email address, I think that's a huge improvement.
Why would Apple spend the time and resources to port their development environment to other platforms?
Have you seen the few apps that Apple has ported to other platforms like iTunes?
Have you seen the few apps that Apple has ported to other platforms like iTunes?
It may not actually work as much as they would like to believe but I do think that is their thinking here, I don’t think the goal is just to gouge us for money.
An Apple developer’s license is $99, not thousands.
The point is that the developer license isn't enough, you have to buy a Mac to develop iOS apps
As others have pointed out, you need a Macbook to develop said app.
I am surprised to hear the priced decreased - back when I did that sort of development is was $150 to publish free apps
I am surprised to hear the priced decreased - back when I did that sort of development is was $150 to publish free apps
[deleted]
He's talking about the price of the mac, not the license
How does a website offering just Facebook/Twitter/Google login instead of Facebook/Twitter/Google/Apple "keep the quality of the experience up" for the Apple user?
Today I am Thankful that I don't have to perform mental acts of contortion to justify my corporate allegiance.
Today I am thankful that I’m not allied to any corporation nor am I a discussion board revolutionary ;)
Really? You don't use Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung, Huawei, or anybody else who tracks you online? I'm curious about how you arrange your DNS access...
Personally I have seen fit to centralize all my PII with Google, since GMail was new. If my data leaks I know who to blame.
Personally I have seen fit to centralize all my PII with Google, since GMail was new. If my data leaks I know who to blame.
I do make it a point not to use Google or Facebook products (because they are both evil companies that don’t have my best interests in mind) but I don’t understand what such a thing has to do with “corporate allegiance”, or maybe I misunderstood.
If I want a product I buy it, if it doesn’t let me down or exceeds my expectation I’ll buy again, but it’s nothing personal, I have nothing to gain from trying to make them look better than the deserve.
Google sucks though they are not loyal to the US, but they do act on their loyalties.
If I want a product I buy it, if it doesn’t let me down or exceeds my expectation I’ll buy again, but it’s nothing personal, I have nothing to gain from trying to make them look better than the deserve.
Google sucks though they are not loyal to the US, but they do act on their loyalties.
> So what if it’s only 15 out of 100 people who can’t or won’t pay to play that would be the ones to create a poor experience? They decided it’s worth keeping out the rest of them.
Here we are again at the "Apple-Experience" where the customer base is ready to pay ridiculous prices because it's part of it to show that you can afford it. How this says something about quality is beyond me but maybe you need to participate first before you can come to this conclusion...it's not like you are taking a credit from Apple where you need to show you can pay it back or rent a car where you need to show your drivers license or something.
I don't even understand what you mean by "quality" in the first place. So the quality of the product is not there yet and you have to pay so they can set it up/keep it up? What part exactly does require such a hefty sum?
Here we are again at the "Apple-Experience" where the customer base is ready to pay ridiculous prices because it's part of it to show that you can afford it. How this says something about quality is beyond me but maybe you need to participate first before you can come to this conclusion...it's not like you are taking a credit from Apple where you need to show you can pay it back or rent a car where you need to show your drivers license or something.
I don't even understand what you mean by "quality" in the first place. So the quality of the product is not there yet and you have to pay so they can set it up/keep it up? What part exactly does require such a hefty sum?
A few things seem to run deep in Apple’s blood: (1) they don’t give away stuff for free, and (2) they don’t care much about / chase market share. There may be some exceptions here and there, but those seem to be the defaults, so I’m no longer surprised when Apple follows them even when it doesn’t seem like the best plan from my personal POV.