11 votes

Apple plans to force app developers using OAuth to include their sign in and encourages them to put it above rivals.

10 comments

  1. [10]
    lionirdeadman
    Link
    I've changed the title because I thought : were the most important parts of the article.

    I've changed the title because I thought :

    In a press release about updates to its App Store review guidelines, Apple said its login button “will be required as an option for users in apps that support third-party sign-in when it is commercially available later this year.”

    Apple’s suggestion to developers to place its login button above rival buttons is part of its “Human Interface Guidelines,” which are not formal requirements to pass App Store review. But many developers believe that following them is the surest way to gain approval.

    were the most important parts of the article.

    4 votes
    1. [9]
      boltsky
      Link Parent
      The statement “Apple forces developers to add their sign in” isn’t true on its own. This is misleading.

      The statement “Apple forces developers to add their sign in” isn’t true on its own. This is misleading.

      8 votes
      1. cptcobalt
        Link Parent
        Agreed. I think where the original headline editorializes it in one misleading way, OP's headline also editorializes it in another misleading way. It works exactly as follows: If apps support 3rd...

        Agreed. I think where the original headline editorializes it in one misleading way, OP's headline also editorializes it in another misleading way.

        It works exactly as follows: If apps support 3rd party sign in, apps need to support Sign in with Apple. The order of buttons will not cause a rejection (but hiding the sign in with apple button likely would). If you implement your own auth service, and do not offer 3rd party sign in, you are not required to implement Sign in with Apple. Sign in with Apple is API compatible with OAuth 2 and Open ID Connect on the web, and offers its own native (and quickly implemented) APIs on-device.

        This is a privacy play. Where Apple does try to avoid situations to invoke the "monopoly" word, I think they feel pretty safe here. They're not forcing all users to pick Sign in with Apple all the time, they're merely forcing the option of user choice.

        6 votes
      2. [6]
        vakieh
        Link Parent
        From what I'm reading it is true. Limited in scope to 'if you allow any OAUTH you must include our OAUTH' and 'not yet', but not false at all. Only change I would see as useful would be 'to...

        From what I'm reading it is true. Limited in scope to 'if you allow any OAUTH you must include our OAUTH' and 'not yet', but not false at all. Only change I would see as useful would be 'to force', rather than 'forces'.

        3 votes
        1. [5]
          apoctr
          Link Parent
          But that scope isn't mentioned in the title, and omitting it misleads readers into thinking all apps with a sign in mechanism must allow Apple's.

          From what I'm reading it is true. Limited in scope to 'if you allow any OAUTH you must include our OAUTH' and 'not yet', but not false at all.

          But that scope isn't mentioned in the title, and omitting it misleads readers into thinking all apps with a sign in mechanism must allow Apple's.

          2 votes
          1. [4]
            cfabbro
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            So if I am reading this article and you all correctly, would "Apple plans to force app developers using OAUTH to include their sign in and encourages them to put it above rivals." be a...

            So if I am reading this article and you all correctly, would "Apple plans to force app developers using OAUTH to include their sign in and encourages them to put it above rivals." be a sufficiently accurate title? If so, I can change it to that.

            @lionirdeadman, @boltsky, @cptcobalt, @vakieh

            2 votes
            1. apoctr
              Link Parent
              That looks fine to me, at least.

              That looks fine to me, at least.

              1 vote
      3. lionirdeadman
        Link Parent
        Yeah, I almost included that it was for those who support third-party logins but I felt it was too long that way, I thought the mention of other rivals in the second part could've given the hint...

        Yeah, I almost included that it was for those who support third-party logins but I felt it was too long that way, I thought the mention of other rivals in the second part could've given the hint but It didn't really do that. My bad.

        1 vote