Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I wonder if Apple would be ok with asking them to give up their email?

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. ...






I think it would come down to user hostility here.

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.


I think the problem is that once you want to be found, like for a grocery shopping app, most folks think you search and just find them and when it doesn't work....they don't know to go find some settings and figure it out.

Yeah but I dont want to be found. That's why I don't share my email. If I want to share with someone, I don't want the use that app to establish a link between us, because I don't want the app to know anything about us except what it must to do it's job.

"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.


I get your use case.

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.


I get that sharing is a core thing for this app. I just don't think sharing should have anything to do with my identity. It can be a hash that is shared across any communications platform (even by meat-space, vocally!).

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.


My anecdote: About 4 years ago, I looked a shared google spreadsheet with logged with my account. I thought that my account isn't shown to document owner but it seems not. I don't know whether I clicked something like share-account button.

I don't think Apple would care about asking for email for legitimate use. I thought the point of Sign in with Apple is that it decouples giving away your email from signing up. Not that it bans apps from collecting emails in any way.

I hope so.

Why should Apple be allowed to dictate if an app asks for an email address? They should not become the defacto law makers of our society

That ship sailed long ago. Apple basically has apps and app-developers by the balls, not to mention the 30% extortion money they try to get not just for app purchases but any transaction done within the app, so much as even banning an app from telling the user that they can do the transaction elsewhere.

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.


It’s not any transaction. It’s any digital transaction. You can sell physical goods and services either without giving Apple any cut, or by using Apple Pay and Apple just gets your standard credit card processing fee.

Does Walmart let you sell your product in their store and say you can look at it there but get it cheaper from Amazon?


My app is not the App Store. 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.

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.


> My app is not the App Store. 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.

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.


Not agreeing with what are arbitrary rules on the App Store and with the percentage that Apple takes as a cut, but this paragraph opens up many issues with running a platform:

> 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.


> once I have bought something from Walmart I can use it as I wish.

Not if it's a movie, music, or video game. I.e. anything with digital content.


Providers of digital content seem to be absolutely all over the place with this stuff

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


You don’t own any of these things, you own a license to the content and the physical disc.

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.


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.

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.


Actually, you're free to add "check out our online store" in the packaging of the product sold at Walmart or Amazon.

So Apple is being extra controlling here. They consider all Apple users property of Apple, so they take a cut off all digital transactions.


I have never seen a product at Walmart advertising that you should buy the product online at another retailer to avoid the “Walmart tax”.

It hasn't sailed yet. We'll have to see what comes out of the antitrust litigations in the EU and, if I'm not mistaken, also in the US.

They don't, the user controls this. When the user authorizes the client, they have the option to share their actual Apple ID email or use an obfuscated one.

Apple isn't forcing anything here.


I'm not sure they should be able to, but I assume they could disable Sign in with Apple for a given site if they wished.

This applies to any SSO.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: