
Apple's Audacity - denzil_correa
https://stratechery.com/2019/apples-audacity/
======
giobox
"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.

~~~
scarface74
It never ceases to amaze me the trust that the tech industry has in both the
competence and the benevolence of the government.

~~~
pwinnski
I don't think that the government is generally competent or benevolent, but I
am 100% sure that the tech industry is not benevolent, and that bothers me in
direct proportion to their competence.

~~~
enraged_camel
Furthermore, with government, there is at least _some_ notion of
accountability. Imperfect as it may be, _generally_ speaking when people in
government fuck up, they have to deal with repercussions and consequences.
Furthermore, there are mechanisms such as FOIA that any citizen or
organization can utilize to find out if and when those fuck ups happen, as
well.

Big Tech though is basically a closed black box that has immense power and is
almost totally unregulated. This leaves an incredible amount of room for
abuse. Therefore, I am totally okay with a semi-competent, sometimes-
benevolent entity that is accountable to the public (government) to much more
tightly regulate this industry.

~~~
bko
> generally speaking when people in government fuck up, they have to deal with
> repercussions and consequences.

Re-election rates for congressmen over the years hovers at around 90%.
Senators are around 85%. Perhaps they're all doing a great job, but I'm
skeptical

[https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php](https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php)

------
cromwellian
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.

~~~
scarface74
And then you have to trust the third party.

~~~
cromwellian
You only have to trust a third party with a throw-away email forwarding
system. But we know how to do anonymous remailing/forwarding already, and
Apple could have adopted a spec that forces developers to use a forwarding
system that is end-to-end encrypted if they want to email your throwaway.

~~~
scarface74
And part of that “email forwarding” is access to all of your mail including
your password resets.

~~~
cromwellian
You missed the point. There's no access because you can require end-to-end
encryption for mails that use the forwarding system, just like the PGP
remailer/forwarding systems, so the remailer node isn't subject to MITM.

Moreover, if you're using "Sign in with X" in the first place, there's no
password and no password reset. Key Exchange is the big MITM vulnerability.

There's decades of experience now around building distributed identity.
Bitcoin wallets are a large scale example of that. If we're going to finally
flip the switch on not using verifiable, public email addresses as part of
credentials, we should rip the bandaid off and get rid of the centrality all
together.

~~~
scarface74
So instead of asking developer to support another Oauth provider which should
be a simple change, now they have to support an encrypted email system that
isn’t widely supported. Also, an iCloud ID doesn’t require you to use an Apple
email address. So you also have to have an email provider that supports E2E
encryption.

~~~
cromwellian
Sure, why not. Folks have no trouble laying on all kinds of requirements when
GDPR is brought up, but now suddenly requiring S/MIME or alternatives is a
bridge to far.

If we're going to have single signon for the world, and finally get rid of
passwords, it should not be locked into one OS platform.

If I sign on from Apple, how go I log in on my Linux desktop or non Apple
device?

~~~
scarface74
You’re depending on every single email provider and client to support it.

GDPR is not a great example. A lot of American companies didn’t even bother
and just blocked everyone with an EU IP address.

~~~
clay_the_ripper
Well as an end user, I do trust Apple. I want to put this in the hands of a
for profit company that has the reach and know how to make this viable right
now, not in some far distant future where adoption is low. While I like the
idea, in practical terms the goal is:

1\. Make a login system that is private, secure and easy

2\. Have it be widely adopted right now

3\. Have it work forever, seamlessly

A for profit company with the reach of Apple is the perfect solution for all
three points.

------
oflannabhra
> 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.

~~~
jonas21
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.

~~~
r00fus
What's audacious is that Ben thinks Apple hasn't considered the antitrust
implications of the above hypothetical.

I really doubt they'd force developers to use Sign in with Apple, instead
they'll just make it desired and profitable. My guess: this goes as far as
Apple Pay app integration does now - some but not all apps, and in the least
required.

~~~
pwinnski
> I really doubt they'd force developers to use Sign in with Apple

If developers allow any third-party authentication (Google, Facebook, etc),
they must also allow Sign In with Apple. This is a June 3 update, and it will
be a requirement before the end of the year.

------
timtas
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.

------
eoinmurray92
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.

[https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices](https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices)

~~~
Robelius
> 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_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/9v45n9/the_cost_of_each_iphone_at_launch_adjusted_for/)

------
drivingmenuts
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.

~~~
gwd
> 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.

~~~
Drew_
> 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.

Google is doing just fine with 70-80% of the world I'm sure Apple can figure
it out.

~~~
scarface74
As long as you exclude China from the world - they mostly use AOSP variants
with no Google Services.

------
jolesf
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.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
giobox
> Being "the big tech company that doesn't stalk you like a creepy ex" is a
> potentially huge market.

Genuine question - has anyone actually reliably demonstrated a pro-privacy
position to meaningfully increase sales in the tech industry? Doing the
opposite certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed the financial success of many
so far...

Sure Apple are very pro-privacy and I applaud them for that, but if their
approach was, say like Googles, I think they would probably still be selling
largely the same number of iPhones.

Perhaps I am wrong, and let me be clear I like Apple's position. I just don't
know today that it translates to the masses as a sales driving proposition.

~~~
graeme
I don’t know of any numbers, but it is certainly a lockin factor. I once
thought about android, now I never would as long as apple has this privacy
stance. I have talked to others who feel the same.

Again, no hard numbers, but it’s at least common enough that others I speak to
routinely agree its important to them.

------
fludlight
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.

~~~
RandallBrown
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.

~~~
PascLeRasc
Macs are so, so, _so_ good for audio, nothing else comes close. Super low-
latency out of the box, no drivers to install for either interfaces or MIDI
controllers, and compatibility with Firewire and Thunderbolt interfaces on
every machine built in the last 10 years. CoreAudio is incredibly stable and
performant thanks to a double-buffer queue [1]. Logic Pro is an incredible
feature-complete DAW for $200 that competes with Digital Performer ($500),
Ableton ($750) and Pro Tools ($600).

[1]
[https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~music/cmsip/slides/09-audio.pdf](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~music/cmsip/slides/09-audio.pdf)

~~~
timc3
That’s not really true because Windows does come close, and I say that as
someone whose every day DAW is running on MacOS. I also have Windows on other
machines to compare it to. Out of the box a Mac is fine as is but a well
configured well spec’d Windows box is really good once paired with a decent
interface.

------
just_myles
The audacity of the monitor stand?

~~~
kccqzy
More like the audacity of using its monopoly position on app distribution to
push for their new SSO solution, Sign In With Apple.

------
ryeguy_24
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?

~~~
saveferris
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...

------
wutman
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.

~~~
nostromo
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.

~~~
partiallypro
You don't have to have the majority of the market to display anti-competitive
behavior.

~~~
anoncake
The EU assumes you have a market-dominant position at a market share of 40%.
You don't even need a majority of the market to be treated as a "monopolist".

------
taauji
What happens if sites start blocking Apple's anonymized login just like they
block disposable emails?

------
ryeguy_24
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.

------
781
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.

~~~
jethro_tell
don't worry, green texts keeps people snobby even if they don't know what it
means.

~~~
anchpop
There's definitely snob, but SMS is a really bad protocol by today's
standards. (Most of my family is on RCS (aka Google Chat) now, and it's a huge
improvement while still being worse than iMessage.)

~~~
scarface74
So unencrypted RCS is better than unencrypted SMS?

~~~
anchpop
The vast majority of people don't care about E2E encryption, and those that do
still probably prefer RCS to SMS (typing indicators, messages send faster,
images aren't compressed as all hell, group chats work, read receipts)

------
panpanna
This sort of articles always show up after Apple announcement.

I see the same cycle over and over again: laughter, rage, acceptance, repeat.

~~~
simonrobb
The sentiment of the article leaned more toward praise than any of those you
enumerated.

~~~
panpanna
You are correct. I saw the 6000 figure at the top and thought oh not again.

Serves me right for not reading the rest before commenting :(

------
toddh
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.

~~~
rakoo
Unless I misunderstood, _Sign in with Apple_ is a required option, not the
only required way to login. Of course it remains to be seen how long other
options are allowed to coexist.

~~~
MBCook
Required if you have other THIRD PARTY logins.

If you are your own (and only) account provider you should be fine.

~~~
basch
is active directory (a product not a service) a third party?

------
lowdose
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...](https://editorial.azureedge.net/miscelaneous/chart1-636517773869379779.jpg)

------
Exuma
️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

~~~
Hamuko
What if I'm in the market for a solid Mac workstation? The lowest spec option
for a Mac Pro is 6000 dollars. That is a lot of money for a computer.

Barring the Mac Pro, what are my options? There's the Mac Mini. Reasonably
priced perhaps, but pretty low on specs and upgradability. I also have my
concerns over the cooling.

Then there's the iMac. Again, concerns with the upgradability and cooling. At
least the pricing is decent for a Mac. That is unless you go for the iMac Pro,
which is almost the same level as the entry-level Mac Pro. At least the iMac
Pro comes with a monitor stand.

~~~
Exuma
I guess if a fully loaded iMac or MBP are not suitable to your needs, then you
are in a particular niche where I would expect a person not to balk at $6000.
There's not much either my MBP or iMac can't do and I heavily abuse them. The
only thing I can think of would be very very intensive video editing, and in
that case, $6000 is a drop in the bucket compared to most professional editing
tools and software.

~~~
timc3
Except it’s not a drop in the bucket anymore. All of the costs have come way
down. To be honest I don’t think they are targeting the everyday video
producer. They are targeting the high end as like you say a lot of people
could use the other products.

So why wouldn’t we use the other products - they are not upgradable and rely
on lots of cables and external boxes hanging off them. And for me personally
the thermal design is poor. My MacBook Pro gets too hot, the fans kick in and
then it’s throttled.

