Apple clearly likes the idea of the hide option... personally I would expect a less than positive reception from Apple.
I get where both AnyList (if they asked) and Apple (if they didn't like it) would be coming from here.
It does seem to be a shortcoming here where outside of a user one time sign up situation... you don't want to have to burden the user with coming up with silly names and codes to use social like features that require someone else knowing an identifier for you that isn't email.
I don't want to go back to a time where we have to remember / pass along everyone's ICQ number. ...
If I sign in with Apple and opt out of giving my email only to be faced with a prompt demanding I give up my email address, I'll be upset. I JUST told the app (via checking the box in Apple) that I don't want to give my mail, so why is it now suddenly required?
However if the app allows me to sign in and only asks for my email when I try to interact with a feature that would be more usable had I given my email, then I would be more accepting of it. Though I would still fully expect to be able to use the app in its entirety even if I opt out.
Now what Apple will say to this, I have no idea. But as a privacy conscious user, I would be happier with this.
As for having to come up with silly names, I don't understand why I need to be discoverable within an app. We have established social media and communication platforms, use them. Let me send a link to a friend to connect with them in your random app. I don't need to be able to add them within the dang app.
"Go find some setting and figure it out" is a UX fail. When I share eg a Dropbox link or a Google Photos link, you can get to it whether you have an established account or not. If there's something special about an app that requires an account before interaction is possible, then you can still make it a one-time share.
Yes, it does make user support more complicated. Yes, that's what I want and expect. I hope when I come asking for help, you can't help me because you have no clue who I am and have no way to get in touch with me because I used some email obscuring service. That's on me.
But in this case the company is someone who claims to be "The best way to create and share a grocery shopping list and organize your recipes."
Sharing is part of the deal with them and a sign in process that from the start complicates it is understandably a no go / introduces all sorts of complications that they detail in the article.
If the goal for the app is for itself to be a tool for identity management, then knowing my email is especially not needed...after all, all identity context is already in the app!
UX should center around ease of sharing some hash value across some other medium, not "searching by identity."
I do honestly empathize with the app creators. But anybody choosing an obscuring email by definition does not want to be identified by email.
It makes my blood boil but from the discussions I see on HN about it, most people here seem to be more or less ok with it.
Does Walmart let you sell your product in their store and say you can look at it there but get it cheaper from Amazon?
Similarly, once I have bought something from Walmart I can use it as I wish. Our business transaction ends there, so your analogy isn't really apt.
> Does Walmart let you sell your product in their store and say you can look at it there but get it cheaper from Amazon?
Funny you say that, because Walmart and many other brick-and-mortal retailers will happily price-match Amazon and each other. You know why? Because they are not a monopoly or pseudo-monopoly and so need to do good by their users to compete.
Of course you can justify Apple's behavior any way because you can claim that I am on an iPhone so I am on their property or something and so they are my overlords but that is precisely what users here are trying to argue against.
Or to be honest, you don't even need to justify it that way. The magical market justifies it because the fact that these apps are on the Apple ecosystem means that staying on it is better for them than staying off it. And no other justification is necessary. And you would not be wrong.
But people have a moral intuition about these things based on how they see the world work, and so they have an intuitive sense for when something seems 'off', even if the market seems like it's working. That's why they complain against things like exorbitant pay-day loans despite them too being an example of a market that seems to be working.
Last I checked, I did not get an iPhone on lease from Apple. This attitude where just because I am on an iPhone means I owe Apple in perpetuity needs to die.
It seems like you are the one who would like to claim otherwise, since to get your app in the store you have already agreed both to the terms of the developer program and to follow Apple's guidelines.
> The user has already paid to download my app from the App Store and Apple has gotten 30% of the cut. What users do on my App after that is none of Apple's business, though of course Apple would like to claim otherwise.
If the App Store runs the way you describe, then everybody would offer their apps for free to avoid the 30% cut and also not have any in-app purchases (since those also have a cut). The result would be the user installing the app and having to go to a website (even if it’s embedded in the app in a web view) to create yet another account, finish the signup process, go through a separate (and usually lengthy) payment process to actually buy the app and managing those payments in cases where those are subscriptions.
One can argue on the merits and demerits of Apple’s current system (which needs an overhaul, IMO), but the other option isn’t without demerits as far as users and user experience are concerned.
Not if it's a movie, music, or video game. I.e. anything with digital content.
Comcast of all people offers the ability to buy movies on demand. Not just rent but outright purchase. If you leave Comcast as a customer, you can have every purchase mailed to you as either a DVD (SD) or Blu Ray (HD) purchase
Steam has provisions in place that if its service ever gets terminated to allow users to continue to use games they've purchased on the platform. They also allow users to continue to download and play games either removed from the store or no longer sold (Alan Wake and Deadpool being two examples in my own library)
Conversely Microsoft's Xbox will de-list titles and make them excruciatingly hard to download, such as Marble Blast Ultra. Requiring you to find the game in your account history and then use that to navigate to a download page
Sony's Playstation is downright malicious with their digital store. Konami's "P.T" was offered as a free download as a teaser for an upcoming Silent Hill game
Once Konami changed their mind however, the game was not only removed from the store but actively wiped from the users console! If you connected to Playstation Network the game would be forcefully deleted from your device
It’s completely different to owning something.
Steams provisions are helpful in practice but ultimately meaningless because you don’t own any of the actual games, you merely have a license to run the code under their terms.
Many stores get around that by having special SKUs that are only available in their store.
Also, Android has a slightly larger share in the US and a much larger share worldwide. Apple is no more of a “monopoly” than the console makers.
So Apple is being extra controlling here. They consider all Apple users property of Apple, so they take a cut off all digital transactions.
Apple isn't forcing anything here.