Why we won't be supporting Sign in with Apple - <AUTHOR> https://blog.anylist.com/2020/06/sign-in-with-apple/ <comment><USER3> As they point out at the very bottom, all their arguments apply to _all_ third-party sign-ons, so they're removing Facebook as well.

So there's nothing specifically against Apple, despite the title seeming to imply it -- just that they're taking the move right now because of Apple's new policy coming into effect.

I've got to say, I really wish there _were_ a way to know whether I already used Facebook, Google, or Apple to log into a site or app before. My password manager is usually pretty good at letting me know if I've got a "normal" account with user/password, but it doesn't do _anything_ to remind me if I ought to log in with one of the other services.

Every time I'm occasionally asked to sign into Spotify, Pinterest, Medium, Quora, etc. -- it's like, I'm _pretty sure_ I've signed up with _something_ before, but who even knows which one, or multiple?

If password managers could start saving that you've got accounts associated with Apple/Facebook/Google and highlight the relevant button on sign-in, it would be a big feature improvement.

<comment><USER4> "all their arguments apply to all third-party sign-ons"

No they don't. Other sign-on options don't obfuscate the email address.

They are likely removing FB login as otherwise their next app update will be rejected by Apple for supporting third party login but not Apple login.

<comment><USER5> Obfuscation of the email address is an explicit choice by the user when using Sign in with Apple. It's not something forced by the service. If users are choosing to do that, it says something about the lack of trust the users have with whatever they're signing up for.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily. I have an app with 1,000 users, and about 99% of them choose to obfuscate.

My app isn't untrustworthy at all either. It's an experimental app which attempts to let users create an iOS app on iOS. My suspicion is that people choose to obfuscate because it's what's selected by default.

<comment><USER7> It's also likely that 99% of users have no reason to share their email with you. Also, your app is _extremely_ untrustworthy. It sounds like a random app you find by searching for key words. You're not Microsoft or Google, you have no reputation or credibility. They have no relationship with you, they don't know you, they likely have never interacted with your company before this.

If I need an email to verify I'm not a bot, that's fine. But if a trusted 3rd party can verify I'm not a bot, then the only reason you would want my email is to do something unethical with it: namely, use my data in a way that I never intended gave you permission to use it.

Being default probably helps, because most people don't know they're doing with software and just accept the defaults assuming they're best practices. If the default were to share the email, you might see more people sharing email, but I would argue it's because people don't know they can and should obfuscate it.

<comment><USER8> > If I need an email to verify I'm not a bot, that's fine. But if a trusted > 3rd party can verify I'm not a bot, then the only reason you would want my > email is to do something unethical with it: namely, use my data in a way > that I never intended gave you permission to use it.

This was addressed in the article. If the service provider does not have your email address, they are severely hampered with regards to customer support.

<comment><USER9> > If the service provider does not have your email address, they are severely > hampered with regards to customer support.

No, they're not. They're just relying on email as a user verification methods as it's the easiest approach. Other methods are possible.

<comment><USER10> Verification is only one part of the problem. The other is communication.

If I can't contact my customers, how do I support them (e.g. report a security problem)? If my customers can't communicate which account is theirs, how do we help solve problems? Email addresses and/or phone numbers make this a lot easier.

<comment><USER11> Simple, have them create a user id, and/or expose a "support id" somewhere in the system that lets you tell the support person which account record is yours.

I never want "communication" from an app developer unless I initiate it.

<comment><USER12> What about when you lose access to the account and don't remember what string of numbers you had to use after your preferred username because it's not a universal identifier that only you can use? In the case of the support ID, you'd need to be able to access the account to even view it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A lot of the points they make here are real points, and I think AnyList has validity in their actions.

I also think it's not as unmanageable as it seems.

Let's analyze this quote, from the article, as it highlights what I imagine are a big crux of this issue:

> with the "Hide My Email" option, your spouse or friends obviously won't know > your privaterelay.appleid.com email address, so when they enter your email > address, our systems will believe that you don't have an account

Since you know this to be the case, why not have an onboard if flow they _Sign In with Apple_ where you have them A) choose a visibility email used for sharing/communication etc. and B) allow for this email to be their backup email? So if they forget their login or whatever you could just transfer the account to this email instead? Of course this should be opt-in but you can always Under good faith explain benefits there in.

It's more work, but I don't believe that it's going to run issue with Apple and provides end users with flexibility.

Of course this may not be worth it, at all. This is just a consideration worth thinking about as an app developer

edit: Of course another alternative here is they just make users aware of what their sharing email is and allow users to optionally change that, if they want to. This most definitely wouldn't run counter to this I'd think

<comment><USER14> 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. ...

<comment><USER15> 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

<comment><USER16> 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.

<comment><USER17> 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?

<comment><USER16> 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.

<comment><USER18> > 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.

<comment><USER19> 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

<comment><USER15> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Furthermore, if there are platforms where AnyList doesn't support Sign in > with Apple, like Android, and someone wants to log into their account, > they'd have to know their privaterelay.appleid.com email address. (And that > certainly won't be easy to find if you no longer have an iOS device.) And > then they'd have to create a password with us, since they wouldn't be able > to sign in using Sign in with Apple.

The easy answer is: they should just support "Sign in with Apple" on every platform. (That absolutely works. Sign in with Apple is a [mostly] standard OpenID Connect provider and has a web frontend that should work on every non- Apple platform just fine, just like FB/Google/etc.)

You wouldn't think to only support "Sign in with Google" only on Android devices? Maybe "Sign in with Facebook" should only apply to web browsers?

It's an interesting misconception or miscommunication that so many developers think "Sign in with Apple" should only show up on Apple devices.

<comment> tech-historian Sure, except there is no documentation for it. From the article:

"For example, Apple vaguely states that you can implement Sign in with Apple on Android, but there is no direct documentation on how to do it. We understand that Apple probably doesn't care much for Android, but if they are going to provide a login system, and are going to force developers of multi- platform apps to adopt it, then providing no real support for a major platform that these multi-platform apps run on is not acceptable."

<comment><USER21> [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple/sign_in_with_apple_js/incorporating_sign_in_with_apple_into_other_platforms) is more "direct" than most of the documentation I've seen on how to implement "OAuth" with other providers. (Trying to figure out how to integrate with "Microsoft 365" is particularly painful...)

Eventually you might realize it's based on an open standard [https://openid.net/2019/09/30/apple-successfully- implements-...](https://openid.net/2019/09/30/apple-successfully-implements- openid-connect-with-sign-in-with-apple/) and that it's relatively similar to other such standards, except with the option to mask your email, etc.

As an geeky end user, the only way I trust these services for login is if I can link more than one, or even more than one email from the same provider. That way I know I'll have a backup in case I lose access to the social network or email address that I signed in with... it's annoying when I can't add a password or set an email just because I also want to login without a password sometimes...

<comment><USER22> It was way worse when I had to implement it a few months back.

It's still incomplete, their implementation deviates from the standard or use some lesser used mechanism like the form_post response_type, requiring custom code.

Implementing this was not a pleasant experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > _Apple reserves the right to disable Sign in with Apple on a website or app > for any reason at any time._

Holy cow, how is this acceptable to _any_ app developer or software company? This is reason enough for me to never use Apple/Facebook/Google sign-on as a developer -- huh, or even as a user. Apple/Facebook/Google could lock out all your users and literally destroy your business in a split second for an arbitrary policy violation, without explaining why, with no way to contact a human being. Haven't we seen enough HN headlines where an independent developer or a small software company is begging for help because <LargeCorporation> canceled their account or locked them out of something with no recourse?

EDIT: I know that AnyList is dependent on Apple's app store. This is still no reason to give Apple (or Google or Facebook) even more power over you.

<comment><USER24> You know the reason. It's on the front page of HN today even. Apple will support Sign in with Apple until it is co-opted by "white nationalists" or other scary characters, at which point they will disassociate with that website or app and prevent their services from working with them.

Which is their right of course, but at the end of the day it means we get changes like these in the fine print. Gatekeepers like Apple and Google gain more control over what is allowed on their platforms, and subsequently what is allowed for the majority of the population to see.

<comment><USER25> Why have you put that term in scare-quotes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Buries the lede. They've chosen to drop support for Facebook login rather than also support Apple login. So working as intended!

<comment><USER27> I'm going to be fascinated to see what this does for conversions. My company built the Neil Young Archives, when doing so we initially launched with Social log ins and at one point Neil decided Facebook and Google were evil and wanted to remove the access. According to our logs a full 2/3s of all users were registering with a social account and we were having great success getting folks to log into a free service (We had 250k sign ups over the first weekend, we thought Auth0 might turn us off as we started on a tier capped around 40k)

We assumed this success would quickly taper off if it wasn't "one click" to sign up with your Google/Faceboook account an talked Neil off the ledge.

<comment><USER28> This escenario seems an clear candidate for A/B testing since I would be conflicted by wanting to provide privacy but understanding it might impact user signups.

Seeing some actual numbers would help me in making that decision.

<comment><USER27> I don't disagree with you and it was proposed. However we didn't have A/B infrastructure in place then and on a project that may never make money it just wasn't a high enough priority to justify the spend.

<comment><USER28> Fair enough, sometimes you have to make a decision with what you have. A/B testing adds complexity and specially when doing contract/agency work you don't have either the time nor the budget to pull it off. Been there myself.

Personally I would have considered to hack something on my own time just out of curiosity :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This makes perfect sense from their standpoint - especially since they've had similar problems to what they outline with Facebook sign-in and are now dropping that as well. This is also a win for Apple & end-user privacy, as there's one less app using FB's login feature now.

I think Sign in with Apple is a great step forward even if all it does is eliminate apps that _require_ Facebook and/or Google accounts to log in. I hate that - I actually ran into a feature on my mesh router system that required a FB/G login, which made it a useless feature for me. Fortunately I didn't need it..

<comment><USER30> I've never seen an app that required a FB or Google login. It was always possible to use email+password.

<comment><USER31> Lucky you! I've run into lot of these apps offering only FB/Google sign in. Or offering mobile number only login. For e.g. I like playing scrabble and Scrabble Go only support FB login so I'm playing only as Guest user for months now.

Mobile number login is even worse! Why do I need to share my mobile number for something where you don't need to have it!

<comment><USER32> I think a lot of services use mobile number login as a way of bot-limiting; harder to create lots of phony email addresses than phone numbers. But it's still a pain in the butt :(

<comment><USER33> > harder to create lots of phony email addresses than phone numbers

I think you got this the wrong way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Worth noting that AnyList automatically subscribed me to a marketing list without double opt-in or any kind of consent, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes me not want apps to have my real email address.

<comment><USER35> They mention customer support so many times in that article, but it's a grocery list app! When is the last time I asked for support for the sticky note attached to my refrigerator? I don't doubt that there are indeed customers who need support from time to time, but surely it's a small minority.

These seem to just be contrived arguments to protect their customer data selling bottom line.

<comment><USER36> Yep, my feelings exactly after reading. All this whining happens only when your business is very dependent on specific information that gets taken from you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This seems to be a common problem, made more visible when using third-party authentication, that your application has taken the concepts of "Account" and "Authentication Method" as if they were the same thing.

It appears that the "account ID", "preferred contact method+address" and "authentication ID" are all the same here - which then creates the "account management code into a rat's nest" scenario they describe in the post.

If an Account is, by design, it's own entity - you should be able to have 100 different authentication methods linked to that same account without impacting any other flow or part of the application.

Turn on and off authentication methods would also allow for seamless transition for users, without worrying about when one method is about to be killed.

<comment><USER38> I feel like they address this in the article. What you say makes sense in a technical UML diagram point of view, but that's not how people work.

The examples they give are getting support and sharing things with another person with an account. As a user, both of those things are easier for me if there is an email associated with the account.

Said another way, the Account needs some human friendly global identifier. The email you use to log in is an obvious choice, and anything else would require extra work from the user to set up. You could have usernames, for example, but that complicates the signup process and still makes sharing things hard. I know my friends emails already, but I don't know what username they ended up with on this site.

<comment><USER37> I'd argue that this makes more sense in the real world than in a diagram, after being burnt in multiple real life experiences :)

The assumption both you and AnyList are making is that an email is "THE obvious choice". From a user experience perspective perhaps this "global sharing identifier" should be defined by them.

You'll notice that different generations have different online behaviors. For some, email is their main id. For others, it's their phone number (they don't know most of their friends' e-mail, but know their phone). For others, it's either online handles or nothing at all - think about the device set up for grandma with her daily To Do list.

Of course, having this approach would add some upfront dev work to them but allow them to navigate this much easier later on. And for anyone starting to develop their new app/site/product thinking about this early on can reduce a lot of future headaches.

<comment><USER39> That's a very idealistic opinion.

People don't care about usernames and other crap. They want an easy option - enter email, communicate over email and be found using email. This isn't their banking app or anything that important.

<comment><USER40> Nobody "wants to use their email". They just want to start using whatever app or service they're trying to connect to as quickly as possible - why exactly do you think "Sign in with X" became so popular in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> In my experience the "Sign on with Apple" option makes it totally risk free to click and I don't even think twice before clicking to create an account whereas a typical registration page will definitely raise the possibility of me bouncing.

Sign-in With Apple is perfect for those accounts that you basically never wanted to have anyway. If it's something where I want a "real" login, especially one that I might want to share, then I'll go through the trouble of actually registering and picking a shared secret that my wife and I know.

But for the average app that needs a way to keep a user profile for me, it's just right, and from a UI perspective on iPhone it really is magic. Two taps and I'm just _in_ with zero mental baggage and an email relay to eliminate the possibility of spam.

</comment><comment><USER42> > Another issue is Sign in with Apple's "Hide My Email" feature. With this > feature, if you create an account with us, Apple will generate a special > email address just for that account. So rather than your email address being > email@example.com, we will see your email address as something like > firstname.lastname@example.com.

Ironically, this is also why I use Sign Up with Apple at every opportunity I can

<comment><USER43> How is this ironic? It is by design and obviously they know why people do it because the very next sentence says that. Why on Earth would you'd want to use a list-sharing app that uses email as the addressing system and then not share your email.

<comment><USER44> The anonymous e-mail that Sign-In with Apple generates forwards to the e-mail used to set up your Apple ID. So it's not like it's a random e-mail that acts as a /dev/null.

This is by far the biggest selling point of Sign-In with Apple for me and I will continue to use it, and continue to not use apps that don't support it. I have plenty of e-mail aliases, but having an alias auto-generated for you is very convenient, and not having to generate a secure password is also very convenient.

The day AnyList gets hacked (not saying it will - but it's highly likely, the way security has taken a backseat due to "features") then at least my personal e-mail and password won't be there for every hacker on Earth to see and try to spam passwords to get into all of my other accounts.

<comment><USER43> Perhaps you don't use AnyList? It doesn't make sense to use with a private mail relay because they use email as an addressing system. And honestly, few users will go look up their per-app address and tell people to add them.

<comment><USER45> This is where their article lost credibility with me. Their decision to base their sharing and addressing system on email was their mistake, and Apple is just the first to force them to face their mistake.

I don't want to share my spam email with all my friends to get them to share with me. And I don't want to give my primary email to an app that will spam me.

If I want to share something, I'll send a link and the recipient can connect to me that way. I don't need to search them within the app to get in contact, that's useless.

> so when they enter your email address, our systems will believe that you > don't have an account. At that point, you'll get an email from us asking you > to create an account.

This is a trivial part of the problem to solve. Why am I being asked to create an account in an invite email? Why not "log in or create account" and having the link itself be the piece that connects the share to me.

<comment><USER39> It's not a mistake, by any means.

It's dead clear that you don't work with consumers. Your technical bias shows what you care about and you're(an me) are an utter minority.

If you want security, btw - you should have multiple passwords for different things. And ideally not even use a password manager.

<comment><USER46> Why should he not use a password manager?

<comment><USER39> You're storing all of your password in one location. Behind just one password.

What's the point in password manager, if all you need is one time auth - <USER2> you're in!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> We've implemented a bunch of third-party login solutions on our platform, but in retrospect I think it was not worth it for us. I think integrating third- party logins makes sense if you know that most of your target users come from a given platform or your application wants to interact with a specific platform (e.g. a Github integration).

Otherwise the points the author makes seem painfully correct from our experience. Adding third-party sign-in immediately complicates the frontend as you need to support OAuth/OpenID-Connect workflows that are much more complicated than sending a password & e-mail combination (and possibly an OTP token) to a backend and reading the result. In addition, even though OAuth/OpenID-Connect are standardized it seems that almost every provider has decided to add its own quirks to it, so you can almost never just reuse the same code for integrating e.g. Github and Gitlab sign-ins.

What we currently do is to always add an e-mail using the third-party provider and use that to allow a password reset or password creation. You have to be quite careful with this as well though unless you want to open new security isues. Incorrectly implemented sign-in workflows via third-party providers can open avenues for account takeovers if you implement e-mail validation or account reconciliation incorrectly (e.g. an adversary might register an account with the victim's e-mail on a third-party platform and try to use that to sign into the victim's account; if the sign-in flow is configured incorrectly [happens a lot] the system will recognize the e-mail and sign the attacker into the victim's account).

Also, don't trust any validated information from third-party providers (especially e-mail addresses), as this can provide another attack vector. Always do your own validation.

</comment><comment><USER48> > One problem is that most Apple IDs are tied to an iCloud email address. So > most accounts created via Sign in with Apple will use an iCloud email > address. But many of those iCloud email addresses are unused and unchecked, > because a customer's "real" email account is their Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail > account.

Wow, this is a really good point. I just checked and yup -- my AppleID is directly linked to my icloud email, and I've never once checked my icloud email account. I wonder what's in there. Meh, too lazy to go check it

<comment><USER49> This seems strange to me. My iCloud account is my Gmail address (even though I also have an iCloud one on the account) and when I use Sign in with Apple I get an option to redirect all emails to Gmail.

But the system is indeed weird, I signed up for an account in an app with bike routes and wanted later to check it in the browser and had no idea what or how to find out what my account is or how should I sign in (could be also the app/website didn't implement this properly).

<comment><USER50> Things may differ from person to person depending on when they created their Apple account(s).

At first, before they had cloud services, you created an Apple account to purchase things from the iTunes store. You could use any email address.

Then they created MobileMe (which was rebranded to .Mac), and that came with an email address @mac.com. (I believe there were a couple of other domains you could choose instead, but don't remember what they were).

That was eventually discontinued, replaced with iCloud, and .Mac accounts were migrated.

Somewhere in all there Apple loosened requirements so that you could use an outside email address as your cloud ID, and made it so a cloud account could could also work as an iTunes account.

For those who created their accounts after that point, it's all sane. Create your Apple account using your outside email address if you want, or using an Apple provided address if you prefer, and then that one account can be used for all your Apple stuff. Buying music, buying or renting video, buying apps, and the cloud stuff.

For those of us who created our accounts before all that, we ended up with an account using our outside address which has our music, video, and app purchases on it, and an account using our @mac.com address that has calendars, photos, and the like.

When they changed it so all Apple accounts could be used for everything, it got even more annoying for us. Whenever we'd see some dialog asking us to sign in to our Apple account, we'd have to guess if it wanted our music/video/app account or our cloud account. If we guessed wrong, we could end up accidentally purchasing apps or media on the cloud account.

Apple does not provide any way to transfer purchases between your accounts, so if you end up with media or app purchases on both accounts there is no way to consolidate other than purchasing duplicates.

If you are willing to do that, or if you have avoided duplicate purchases, you can kind of manually consolidate accounts. You can export calendars, contacts, and the like from your original cloud account, and import them into your original iTunes account. Same for photos, online disk space, and anything else you have on the original cloud account.

Once you've got it all in the original iTunes account, delete everything from the original cloud account, and then just make sure to never again sign into that account. Any time you see the Apple account login dialog, give the original iTunes account.

<comment> X-Istence Even if you have alternate email addresses associated with your iCloud account, you are free to update it to have your external email address be the default for your iCloud/Apple ID.

Visit [https://appleid.apple.com/account/manage](https://appleid.apple.com/account/manage) to make those changes.

Help article: [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT202667](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202667)

Although I will note that it says you can't change your Apple ID email address if you choose an @me.com, @mac.com, or @icloud.com email address for your Apple ID, which is the first time I've seen that warning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Another issue with Sign in with Apple is the fact that their private relay has a pre-set allow-list per app for sending email to relay addresses.

This means that you must either prove ownership of domains, or pre-add email addresses to Apple's systems. I understand why they have done this, it will reduce spam considerably, but the private relay system is already designed to empower users to do this and this extra step may be impossible for some developers.

Take for example a retailer – they need to dispatch goods and use different carriers in different countries. When the user buys something they very likely want email notifications about delivery, a feature that most carriers provide. For the carriers to send those notification emails you'll need to pre-add them all to Apple's systems. You can't prove domain ownership because fedex.com isn't your domain, but where are those emails going to come from? Better hope your carrier doesn't change sending address at some point or the email goes into a black hole.

Apple also limits the number of domains and addresses you can send from. In the original documentation it was "10 domains and addresses" (not sure if 10 of each, or 10 total). This was raised to 100 I believe, but that's still probably an issue for larger multi-national companies, or those who necessarily have to integrate with many external services.

The really hard-line privacy stance is that the retailer shouldn't share the emails and should do the notifications themselves, but for many this is prohibitively difficult to do, or at least detracts from places where the retailer can actually add value. The benefits are also very small, as the contracts with carriers typically protect user data, require deletion quickly after delivery, and retain most privacy benefits while allowing for a good UX.

<comment><USER52> That's a good point, but I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't have (or is building) a mechanism to allow certain well-known domains to be trusted sender, in the circumstances you note. Like, have "enter your custom domain", but also "checkboxes for fedex.com, etc".

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> That was an interesting read. Also, they close with...

"These are both excellent points, and it's absolutely true that some of the arguments above apply to creating an account via Facebook. That's why we're also announcing that we'll be removing the Facebook Login from AnyList."

<comment><USER54> Well, that, and also if they don't remove FB login, then the would be required to also implement Sign in with Apple.

They didn't want to implement Sign in with Apple, so they had to remove FB login.

<comment><USER55> Which is a pretty anti-competitive move on Apple's part.

They're essentially using their control of the iOS ecosystem to benefit unrelated products.

I seem to remember that those kinds of actions didn't work out well for Microsoft :)

<comment><USER56> Apple takes many anti-competitive and consumer-hostile actions. They can freely get away with it, though, as they aren't a monopoly.

<comment><USER17> How is this _user_ hostile - forcing app developers to give users a choice that doesn't give the app developer your real email?

<comment><USER56> I said "Apple takes many anti-competitive and consumer-hostile actions. They can freely get away with it, though, as they aren't a monopoly." I did not say this action was consumer-hostile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> If you implement Sign In With Apple, you don't have a relationship with your customers anymore. They're Apple's customers, and Apple can take them away at any time.

<comment><USER58> It's good that you read Hey's blog post and are repeating it here, but it's not very accurate in this case.

Specifically, if you implement Sign In with Apple, then they are still your customers as much as ever, they just might choose to hide their information from you because they don't trust you, which means that the power in the relationship is transferred to the user instead of the app developer.

<comment><USER59> > "Apple reserves the right to disable Sign in with Apple on a website or app > for any reason at any time."

I think GP is absolutely right here. Apple can take the customers at any time _for any reason_. Apple could ban you from using Sign in with Apple simply because Tim Cook doesn't like what food you eat for breakfast. So, I have to agree with GP that these are Apple's customers at this point.

<comment><USER13> The check on this is that you are now putting an inconvenience on that apps users. Maybe it's okay in some isolated circumstance however, I imagine this won't sit well if it becomes a reoccurring theme for iOS users, as they will come to view Sign In With Apple as unstable/unsafe (like Google and it's graveyard). It would quickly render Sign In With Apple useless if the trust that it will continue to work whenever used is not there

I actually think this wouldn't really happen in practice as consumers are quick to respond negatively to this behavior, so I'd be shocked if Apple actually did this without some darn good reason (I imagine it will also include removing said app)

<comment><USER60> > The check on this is that you are now putting an inconvenience on that apps > users.

That hasn't stopped Apple from remove apps or preventing updates -- clearly inconveniences on users -- for whatever reasons they want. It has happened and it will happen again.

There is no check on this unless your app's audience is Netflix/Spotify/Facebook _huge_. If you're just an average developer you can be killed off at any time.

<comment><USER13> I'm not exactly sticking up for Apple as much as I'm trying to demonstrate practical thresholds that would realistically limit this behavior. I don't think Apple wants 100,000 upset customers let alone millions.

Hardware requirements for software is a decades old concept, and it's true they deprecate and obsolete supported software and hardware on for older platforms, but it's rare I've seen Apple taken a user hostile approach here within supported lifetimes though it has happened yes it is rare.

Their developer experience on the other hand does not see the same care and attention a lot (most even) of the time. That's because, and I believe this strongly, Apple never wants 3rd party software to have platform influential power over them again, like Microsoft and Adobe did for decades. It's sad but not unsurprising that their platforms can be very developer antagonistic if you don't take their happy path (and sometimes even then). To them though, it doesn't matter until it affects a large quadrant of the Apple consumer base and in some occasions yes not even then, but largely it's the consumer who has the biggest voting block with Apple in terms of pressure on the platform, as I've watched it play it they never had a history particularly after the iPhone came out of having the best developer relations relative to say, Microsoft, who provides a very positive experience in comparison

It's just not in their DNA because of the fear of having too powerful of vendors putting pressure on the platform that they otherwise control outright. When you look at their policies in this context they make a heck of a lot more sense (even if you don't agree. I certainly do not always)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> There are 3 major problems with this kind of sign-in from the user perspective they apparently omit: whenever you sign-up for a service B with an account at A (usually Google, probably applies to Apple, Facebook and the rest as well) 1. A will block your account at B at any time as soon as its (A's) algorithms realize they don't like you for some stupid reason they won't even tell you (which is icky but understandable given how many users they serve) 2. A tracks your usage of B (obviously). 3. _The most overlooked_ \- A discloses many additional details about you (like your contacts, your location, your birth date, your real name etc.) to B. Sign up to some shitty website once and they immediately have enough data on you to apply a wide range of social engineering / identity theft attacks with ease.

I actually can consciously accept the 2 in many specific cases but 1 and 3, each alone, are enough for me to avoid using this kind of sign-in.

<comment><USER62> Why is 2 so obvious? I imagine many implementations would do that, but basically once you exchange your SSO token for the site-specific token, you could stop making any requests to the SSO provider. The only part of your SSO provider's offering that inherently needs to track you is running detection if you're a bot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> There's a subtle sense of exuberance shining through in this article that makes it a gratifying read, even if you've never heard of the company before. Kudos to them for their decision not to bow to Apple's demands. Please tell us how it goes!

<comment><USER64> > bow to Apple's demands.

Apple "demanded" companies either add their privacy friendly sign in option, or give up on the data-slurping Facebook google sign-ups. This company gave up FB sign in, which they acknowledge is pretty gross and bloated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> > One problem is that most Apple IDs are tied to an iCloud email address.

Is that actually true? None in my household are.

<comment><USER66> It depends mostly on the demographic in my experience. For example, my parents have icloud email addresses that they occasionally email me from and never reply to for the reasons mentioned in this post.

<comment><USER17> My anecdote is similar. I first created my Apple account when the iTunes music store was introduced in 2003.

But, when I setup the account for my mom and my wife, I just created an iCloud email address.

My wife never uses her iCloud email address. I don't think she uses the default mail client - she uses the gmail app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Last year we pulled all social logins (facebook, google, yahoo) out of our app, after supporting them for years. The UX / customer service issues mentioned in this post are absolutely legit, a complete PITA. While we were nervous about adding the extra signup friction, a year later I can easily say it was worth doing.

</comment><comment><USER68> > We're a small company that makes money when people like our app and pay for > it. We do not make money with creepy tracking or by selling your > information. When you provide us with your email address, it is never sold, > shared, or used to invade your privacy.

You're the only one, then.

What's happening here is another revolution. Email spam got so bad, that Congress actually passed a law. Which, of course, did almost nothing. People got so tired of spam, that they avoided email, and allow the services to silently remove 90% of the crap.

This has now spilled over into voice calls, where it got so bad, so quickly, actual legislation was considered again. But people quickly realized that their phone contained a curated whitelist. Now, I never answer unless the number is recognized, and I think most people are doing the same.

Texting is also similarly whitelisted.

At this point, email systems and clients need to start with the assumption of whitelisting. Instead of just a "spam" folder with obvious crap, and controls to flag or unflag messages in that folder, we also need a "questionable" folder, with controls to mark as "known" or "unknown", as well as "spam". Emails shouldn't make it to my inbox unless they pass BOTH the whitelist AND the spam check.

</comment><comment><USER17> Your iCloud account does not have to be paired with an iCloud email address. Mine is paired with my regular email address.

<comment><USER69> Yes, but many are. This app in particular needs an email address that is actually checked.

<comment><USER17> From what others have said, they also need it to add to their marketing list....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Apple's developer docs on the Private Email Relay Service are relevant to those evaluating the technicals of AnyList's position. Three specific highlights from that doc are relevant when considering AnyList's objections:

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple/sign_in_with_apple_js/communicating_using_the_private_email_relay_service)

 _After the user has shared a private relay email address with your app, they can find, view, and manage it in their account settings at Settings > Apple ID > Password & Security > Apps Using Your Apple ID._

 _The relay server transforms your email address so it's readable to the user. For example, email@example.com may become sales_at_xyz_com_ <something>@privaterelay.appleid.com instead of a random email address. Replies from the user are still routed back through the service to preserve the user's privacy._

 _To send emails to users with private email addresses, you must register your outbound emails or email domains and use Sender Policy Framework (SPF) to authenticate your outbound emails._

</comment><comment><USER71> 3rd party logins have the advantage that sharing content from within your app on those social platforms becomes less of a friction unfortunately - if that's what your app relies on.

Email-only logins work fine with technical users, but non-technical ones absolutely suck at maintaining their logins and passwords. You lose users because they can't login for whatever stupid reason - one of the thousand stupid reasons - and they turn away to never come back, or they register afresh. This is the reality and yes, 3rd party auth is beneficial for popular (non-techie) services.

As for Apple Sign-in, haven't tried it on the development side yet but I can imagine it reduces friction even further and makes the user experience even nicer. This may be such a big bonus for your service that you may ignore the fact that you can't always collect your users' real email addersses. Find other ways to communicate: in-app messaging for example. If the user deletes your app then retargeting via email won't help much anyway - they will mark you as spam and overall it will probably do more harm than good, I think.

</comment><comment><USER72> I usually uninstall apps with a 1-star review if they provide zero functionality until you provide your email address.

Apps and devices serve me, not the other way around.

<comment><USER73> So you don't use social media on your phone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> After reading the article and comments i'm honestly a bit baffled.

Why is email address obfuscation an important component of online privacy? There are so many other more invasive and pernicious privacy concerns to worry about. It seems like we're spending an enormous amount of time to build far more complex authentication systems that are brittle and confusing just to avoid sharing an email address. Why?

Email addresses are supposed to be semi-public. If I share it with you I want you to contact me. People do abuse this, of course, but the open nature of it is exactly its best quality. I can sign up for new services easily, they can contact me, and if they bother me I block them.

I've had the same email address for almost 20 years now and have never had issues managing it. I cannot say the same for Facebook connect and Google Auth. I actively avoid signing up for services if I have to use a 3rd party auth service.

<comment><USER75> An e-mail address is as close to a unique id of a user as you can get online.

It makes cross-site/service tracking very easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> > _" One problem is that most Apple IDs are tied to an iCloud email address."_

Is this really true? I've had Apple IDs for pretty much as long as they've existed, but I've never had an iCloud email. Any email address can be an Apple ID.

(...in fact, early on, it didn't even have to be an email address. I still have one of those old-style Apple IDs.)

</comment><comment><USER77> In a rat-race of adding a bunch of (Sign in with xyz) buttons everywhere in the login forms, this news feels good in a weird way. Most developers use OAuth login support using several other services to reduce the friction of signing up, but this article made me think about this for a while. I've been in a situation where I could not remember whether I signed up using a provider.

Password managers and 2FA options are getting popular in the mainstream media, and most people know about it after their financial service providers are mandating 2FA. It's probably time we figure out an easy way for users to sign in using a random alias of their email address to sign in to any service. Something that is generated using their real email address, the service provider's domain name and some kind of salting. This is the time the plain old username-password login came back.

</comment><comment><USER5> The only authentic point I saw in this entire article was the one about the lack of documentation by Apple in implementing this across different platforms.

Everything else applies to logging in with Facebook (or can be dealt with in other ways), which the company has supported for years and is now forced to remove it because of Apple's restrictions. Without Sign In with Apple, I doubt if they would've chosen to remove the Facebook login anytime soon, thus putting more users into privacy hell holes despite making statements like this:

 _"At AnyList, we respect your privacy.

...

When you provide us with your email address, it is never sold, shared, or used to invade your privacy."_

If the documentation had been good enough, I'm sure they would've implemented it and also retained Facebook login for a longer time. Seeing Facebook login being removed gives me some comfort and a sense of "all's well that ends well".

</comment><comment><USER78> Given all these third-party sign-ins are a fairly transparent grab for power by the central company, I'm not sure why anyone would implement any of them. By doing that you're giving up power over your sign-in process, which is a pretty enormous concession.

</comment><comment><USER79> Not an Apple use but I had a question. If one signs up with Signin with Apple, how can that user move over his stuff to say an Android app? Or even Desktop app? (Or does the Apple ID keep track of all this anonymous id to app mapping?)

<comment><USER80> You still have your apple account on your PC/Android phone/etc. You just login on apple's website with your apple account and it passes the token/id to whatever app needs it.

For example you can goto dropbox on your pc/whatever and click signin with apple to see how it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> I had never heard of AnyList and this makes sure I will never use them.

Before Sign in with Apple, I uninstalled most apps that required me to sign up before I could even try them at all. Now I specifically look for apps that support it.

I don't want to give my email to 100 different companies (I get spam on the aliases that I did hand out long ago to apps that aren't even around anymore).

Though, all these hitherto obscure companies jumping into the spotlight just by setting themselves up as the underdog against the Apple world tree gives me an idea of what to do when I want a quick boost in popularity.. :)

</comment><comment><USER82> > your email address, it is never sold, shared, or used to invade your > privacy.

This is ambiguous. "..to invade your privacy". They should have stopped at "sold, shared. The "to invade your privacy" is a bit doublespeak. One can say "we do not invade privacy, we merely inform of new products and services (aka marketing).

I know I am being pedantic, but hey.. it doesn't write "never" it writes "never for A".. we never wrote "never for B", so B is allowed by our T&C (which I haven't read so I may stand corrected).

</comment><comment><USER83> Developer should just ask for user's email after new sign up using third party provider. Even Facebook does not require email for user to sign up. They should separate the email used for the account & the email used for third party sign in. Because 1 user can have multiple third party sign in, all with different email.

I think they did not need to care about customer who did not check the reply email from support, because customer can also have multiple email and did not use their primary email to sign up to your service.

<comment><USER84> What's to stop someone signing up with a fake email and sharing it on a forum so that many people can sign in with it?

Yes, I know that there are ways to reduce this by scanning IPs and so on, but by using third party auth you offload that onto the auth providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Recently went through the same debacle. Our hope was that we could solely rely on Magic Link instead of email/password ... but it turns out many users don't really understand it [1]. So your options are:

1) Email/Password Sign In

2) Bite the bullet and add Apple / the "full auth stack" (FB/Google/etc.) & deal with account linking issues.

[1] [https://snaphabit.app/blog/password-less- login/](https://snaphabit.app/blog/password-less-login/)

</comment><comment><USER86> I wonder why we still have passwords. Couldn't we have a simple USB device that is encrypted, cooperates with the native O/S in an encrypted manner, and then allows remote login to sites also in an encrypted manner?

The device could be programmed to automatically generate new passwords/keys/whatever needed for remote authentication.

It would also have a 'disable' functionality that would render it useless if stolen.

(Perhaps this thing already exists. I am too lazy to google it as I type this :-)).

</comment><comment><USER87> Side note: there's (almost) no problem implementing Apple sign in on Android. It is basically the same OAuth flow as Facebook or Twitter, with couple of minor quirks.

</comment><comment><USER88> I seriously hope I'll see the day when OpenID takes off. It doesn't seem to be going the right way, but it would solve most of our login problems.

One way to sign in, used everywhere, decentralized, set up 2FA for everything in one place, switch providers with ease or be your own provider.

Apple could promote a decentralized solution instead of forcing the sign in with apple shit on people, but clearly they want all your data so they can lock you in.

</comment><comment><USER89> I dunno. There are simple solutions to the issues raised in the blog post, many good ones here in the comments. Seems likely they wanted to get rid of third party logins and oddly chose to throw it on Apple. And I'm not sure anyone, including Apple, cares if they adopt Sign In with Apple. In the end, I think everyone just wants to end creepy sign-in practices. Facebook login deleted from Anylist... that's a win for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER90> Love it. I hate it when I'm presented with a "sign in with Google". I feel pressured to have a Gmail account or a Facebook account (which I honestly don't want).

I get the fact that login is broken across the web and there is no centralized login authority, but sorry Google/Facebook are not it imho.

We can/should look at other ways to authenticate, but thats a larger discussion.

</comment><comment><USER91> It's a grocery list app, how much customer support do they have to do!? Feels like they just really really want to have my email.

</comment><comment><USER92> The larger problem is trying to get the average Facebook and Instagram user to care about security (if they cared about those things they wouldn't be on a Facebook product but I digress).

I applaud Apple's _intentions_ but as this article proves, if the user isn't driving the push to be more private then initiatives like Sign In With Apple cause little more than support headaches.

</comment><comment><USER93> Is it just me or do these sites not realize that "We will never sell your email" does nothing for me? It's not that you'll sell it's that you will get hacked or lose a laptop or have an admin email everyone and then I will get spam. How do others at HN deal with this (disposable emails and prefix/suffix are a huge pain)

</comment><comment><USER94> It's pretty user-hostile to refuse to support the authentication provider the user wants to use. If I'm already in the Apple ecosystem, using Sign In with Apple, a service that doesn't implement Sign In with Apple but could is preventing me from doing what I want, just as much as Walmart not accepting Apple Pay.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why do you need to log in in this app? All the problems indicate that app is used on one device only

</comment><comment><USER95> All of them good points. I'll add another wrinkle; for some reasons I can barely remember, I have 2 different Apple IDs. I was a paid .Mac user when it was a thing, but I also had a different account to make iTunes purchases back in the day. Currently I need to log in with both in my devices; one of them is used for purchasing in iTunes/App Store, the other one is used for iCloud Photos/iCloud Drive. However you can also make purchases in the Books app (which I use it to sync PDFs), so this always trips me up. There's no way to merge two Apple IDs, and setting up a new device is always an adventure. Knowing when to use which Apple ID can be confusing (don't get me started on 2FA, I'm afraid that having 2 Apple IDs will eventually lead to me getting locked out!).

I liked the concept of Sign in with Apple when I first heard about it, but at this point it might be too confusing (I also never check my "main" Apple ID email).

</comment><comment><USER96> Identifying users by email is a bad practice anyway. Such systems usually don't provide a way to change the email address, because it's literally your id. This makes it unnecessarily difficult to migrate between email addresses.

</comment><comment><USER97> Apple having a major flaw is a pretty bad mark against this. But in my experience, companies doing it themselves are far worse.

The correct response to "Yo, they fucked up." is not "Oh screw it. We'll just do it ourselves."

</comment><comment><USER98> I find Apple's Sign in approach shady (forcing apps to have it, and have it first on the list), but this response is also about not liking the privacy features of Apple Sign in so... I wouldn't read much into it.

</comment><comment><USER99> This is a war between apps and platforms on who gets direct access to customers.

</comment><comment><USER100> Makes sense to support it and respect users privacy. If they forget their login, they can just sign in with apple again? And if they contact you for support they can provide their email address to you then.

</comment><comment><USER101> Some of this can be solved by asking a user for their email when they open a support ticket. Also allowing them to link accounts from multiple login providers. These are largely "solved" issues.

</comment><comment><USER102> How long till it becomes mandatory by Apple? I give it a year. Then they'll say "our users expect it, so now we do" and it won't matter if that's true or not.

</comment><comment><USER103> What about vendor lock-in? Apple forced many apps on the App Store to use Sign In with Apple for increased "convenience" but it also makes it very inconvenient for people to switch to Android.

<comment><USER104> Yes, that's mentioned in the article:

> if there are platforms where AnyList doesn't support Sign in with Apple, > like Android, and someone wants to log into their account, they'd have to > know their privaterelay.appleid.com email address.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> I mean, if this is pushing them to remove Facebook login, Sign in with Apple and the resulting requirement to use it has been a net positive for privacy for AnyList as well.

</comment><comment><USER106> The convenience and supposed privacy of signing in with Apple ID out weights the cons. People will still have problem remembering which email they used down the road.

</comment><comment><USER107> I support their decision. They shouldn't be dictating developers which SSO services to use or not. It's developer's app not Apple's.

</comment><comment><USER108> > Furthermore, if there are platforms where AnyList doesn't support Sign in > with Apple, like Android, and someone wants to log into their account, > they'd have to know their privaterelay.appleid.com email address. (And that > certainly won't be easy to find if you no longer have an iOS device.) And > then they'd have to create a password with us, since they wouldn't be able > to sign in using Sign in with Apple.

I'm an avid iOS user with a Windows desktop. I will never use "Sign-In with Apple" for this reason. It's not useable unless you exclusively use Apple devices. Which I don't.

<comment><USER20> Sign-In with Apple is a (mostly) standard OpenID Connect provider that works _everywhere_ (and works just like sign in with FB, Google, et al from a technical implementation), including the Web and Android. It's an interesting miscommunication or misunderstanding (and I was not surprised to see it in this article) that applications and developers think the "Sign in with Apple" button should only show up on Apple devices. It should show up on the web and in Android apps, Apple only _requires_ it on Apple devices because that's the only devices that they control.

I wish Apple communicated that better and/or developers better understood that Sign in with Apple really is a FB/Google/social login button like all of the others and should be supported everywhere, not just Apple devices.

(I'm in the iOS/Windows dual mode user team myself these days and find that I trust Sign-In with Apple, but I've definitely had to already email developers to request that they add the Sign-In with Apple button to websites and explain why they would/should.)

<comment> tech-historian If you read the article, you'd see they address the reason they cannot implement it on Android yet. Apple hasn't provided documentation for it. Apple doesn't seem to be taking it seriously.

<comment><USER20> To keep my reply in a single place: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23684452](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23684452)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Well, that's another app I won't be using.

</comment><comment><USER110> I've got a new sign in flow I'll be using for all my indie apps. It solves 2 problems I have with Apple.

1) no PWA support for notifications

2) forcing stuff like this on everyone

I use a telegram chat bot. After signing up via the bot that sends you a link to set your password, you then also request a short expiry sign in link everytime you wish to sign in. The chatbot doubles as a notifications channel. I'm thinking of enhancing notifications do you can interact with them directly from the chatbot interface too.

The signin flow is great as it has 2fa built in by default.

<comment><USER111> I am pretty sure I would never create an account on a website that wants me to chat with a bot on Telegram. This sounds particularly user-hostile.

<comment><USER110> Why is it user hostile? Maybe you're misunderstanding what it is but for signup it's just a wizard and for login it sends you a link. Pretty seamless experience. To signup you click a deeplink button into the chatbot follow some simple steps and then get logged into the app. Otherwise the notifications work just the same as you're used to except it leverages the chat platform instead of the developer hostile native platform.

<comment><USER111> Sorry, hostile was probably too much.

I understand after having read the explanation. However, my experience with chatbots is that they are unreliable, unhelpful and obnoxious, and I tend to go out of my way to avoid using them. I don't think a conversation is a right model for this. I also don't think it looks good when a website or app wants me to install a messaging app to create an account (though of course some people already use Telegram). It would have to be very enticing for me to overcome that friction.

The platform (Apple's, in this case) might be hostile to developers to some extent, but the whole web is hostile to users, in no small part thanks to websites slurping as much PI as possible and then leaking it one way or another. I get spam and phishing attempts every day, as do all of us, and I regularly see some of my burner emails show up on haveibeenpwned. Any service that helps me separate my accounts from me is some progress.

<comment><USER110> Well I also have no intention of slurping PII beyond the bare minimum. I understand there may be some added friction for some users but as a one man show I can't deal with the maintenance necessary to be on the mobile app stores. I look at it as a constraint to encourage creativity. As I develop ideas I am exploring more and more how to make the ux and the approach gel in a seamlessly natural manner. I guess I'll find out if I'm successful after launch...

<comment><USER111> It certainly is creative, and not abusing data is commendable (and I am sincere). We would not be in this situation if websites were better behaved overall. However, I necessarily use heuristics informed by my experience, because I cannot afford the time or money to do a background check for every site or app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> AnyList does not like Sign In with Apple (and others), but they helping with the sign on jungle.

</comment><comment><USER113> If you disable your account through Apple's website the email is no longer valid. Does anyone know if they recycle the emails?

</comment><comment><USER114> Why not just bind the sso Mail to an local Account, then it doesn't matter what identity Provider gets used by the customer. In addition, add a check that prevents Account creation of ...@privacyrelay...if you have a problem with it or nag the user to provide a real mail for this account if you detect this type of mail. This way you would have a user friendly implementation without giving up on sso.

</comment><comment><USER46> Wouldn't their problem be solved by using usernames?! Usernames are easy to remember, share and setup.

</comment><comment><USER115> Um, it doesn't forward to their iCloud email address, it forwards to the email they use for their iCloud login - eg the primary gmail or whatever address.

Users have the option to provide their personal email address, but given the track record of these being sold it's reasonable to expect users to not trust you.

You can email them correspondence because as above that goes to their primary email.

What you lose is the value of the email address as an asset.

</comment><comment><USER116> Well opined piece, as a customer of Anylist for over 3 years you have my full support in this decision.

</comment><comment><USER117> I'd like to see Apple allow users to use "Sign in with Apple" to maintain Apple ID account and purchase hardware/software? Imagine if they had to go through what they're asking all the services on their platform to go through... yeah... never gonna happen. Bravo AnyList for calling Apple out for pushing immature software ecosystem harmful software agenda.

</comment><comment><USER118> As a user, I won't be supporting them either.

Just give me sign in without involvement of a third party.

</comment><comment><USER119> For me it sounds like they didn't like the additional work Apple made them do, that would actually benefit the end user - I love sign in with apple, the best part is the unified workflow without typing on a phone.

I dream of a world when I won't have to type passwords on a phone anymore.

<comment> tech-historian Their blog post is well written and explains point by point why implementing it would be problematic for them AND for end users. Strange that you arrived at the conclusion "they didn't like the additional work Apple made them do"

<comment><USER119> They describe and edge case of someone not getting the email or wanting to login on another platform.

I'm talking about the most common happy path that they don't want to optimize - the user registration/login

I hate typing a secure password on a phone and I want to evade this process whenever possible. Using Sign in with Apple you don't have to type a thing and you confirm using FaceId.

It seems like the problems they were facing require different UX solutions than they already had or some bug reports to Apple (if the feature is really missing something).

For me it is much better to use Sign in with Apple as the user as the flow is simple, unified and Apple has a track record of caring about privacy, where it is often not the case for randomservice.io

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> so all of this could be fixed by AnyList just asking the user to type in their email address instead of tying it to a data mining operation from their login name

well at least they are honest!

</comment><comment><USER121> >> Third-party login systems like Sign in with Apple cause many user experience and customer support headaches.

It's not. It's perfectly slick , simple and powerful and even non technical user can use. Please enable.

</comment><comment><USER122> What a well written and forceful argument.

</comment><comment><USER123> cry me a river

</comment><comment><USER124> They will get removed. They don't have the power to fight Apple.

<comment><USER54> No, they're fine -- if your only login is first-party, you don't need to support Sign in with Apple. (They're taking out FB login to comply.)

<comment><USER30> I do wonder, though, whether the requirement for Sign in with Apple is coming in a few years. As in, if you allow users to sign in with email/password, you must allow users to sign in with "sign in with apple". It might be more subtle, like suggested auto-fill to create a new account.

<comment><USER125> That sounds like a bridge too far even by Apple standards. I can get on board with "if you support Facebook, you have to support us as well", but not allowing _any_ kind of escape hatch feels particularly scummy. At some point it's none of Apple's business how people sign up with my service.

<comment><USER30> I don't understand how "if you support Facebook, you _have_ to support us as well" is ok. Only by holding the relationship between the user and the developer "hostage".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> Well, though titty. Honestly, as a user, I don't give a damn about the pains this can cause to developers. The amount of spam and unsolicited email crap this is gonna save me from is worth it 100% for the users. And as a developer, I honestly think that Third party sign ins are lazy solutions that empower data-hungry companies way more than they deserve. If your business model relies on people giving you their data or reselling their email or using it for unsolicited purposes (these are the only reasons you would be affected financially by a privacy-driven solution like SIWA) then your business model is bullshit. Suck it up.

EDIT: I really love the downvotes from developers that are perfectly aware this is how the things are.

</comment><comment><USER127> I found it jarring that Apple would present themselves as the vanguard defenders of privacy by announcing what is basically an email relay service. Most privacy-conscious people wouldn't exactly think of their emails going through Apple as any particular win in privacy.

And even for the "general user" I find the argument very weak, since it doesn't look as being any easier than using any other email relay, and there is a huge obvious conflict of interest for Apple here (they get data they may not have had otherwise PLUS have yet another tool to bind you to their services).

It reminds me of the days where everyone in the www was making OpenID providers but no one was actually willing to do an actual OpenID _consumer_. So that I could actually use _my_ identity provider on a server of _my_ choice instead of going through the hoops of yet another large company for no reason.

<comment><USER128> How is it anything but a win to have an additional easy option to use a more trusted relay rather than not? Many people have never heard of a relay, and wouldn't understand its benefit if the option wasn't presented to them like this.</comment></comment>


The Intoxicating History of Gin - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/the-intoxicating-history-of-gin <comment><USER2> While we're on the subject of gin:

A martini is comprised of gin, vermouth and between 0 and 3 olives.

If there is no vermouth it isn't a "bone dry martini". It's just "a glass of cold gin".

The modifiers "perfect" and "dirty" are also permissible when applied to to a martini.

If it's made with vodka, not gin, it's a vodka martini.

Other concoctions served in a cocktail glass are just cocktails. Which are fine, but please don't co-opt the name "martini" because it sounds cosmopolitan.

Wait.

Shit.

<comment><USER3> Looking at the bottle of vermouth while stirring the gin provided enough vermouth for Churchill and it provides enough for me.

<comment><USER4> A solemn nod in the general direction of France is sufficient, and don't skimp on the olives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _From the outset, it was laced with memories, or myths, of imperial rule; > what Schweppes first sold in 1870 was not just tonic water but "Indian Tonic > Water," and today, though besieged by an army of Fever-Tree tonics, it still > holds considerable sway. The water is tonic because it contains quinine, > which is anti-malarial—a lifesaver, if you happen to be invading or > infesting a marshy foreign land._

Oh yes - gin and tonic should be rightfully considered India's national drink. Its what the British had to invent to not die.

<comment><USER6> _Its what the British had to invent to not die._

Exactly. G&T is essentially an important preventative medicine, and I should drink it more often so I won't get malaria here in the North East of the UK.

<comment><USER7> G&T was the most disgusting thing I had ever tasted until I acquired a taste for it and now it is one of the nicest. Mind you for some reason my recollection of how I acquired a near-constant craving for G&T is somewhat blurry.

Edit: Note that I don't drink that often but even thinking about a G&T literally makes my mouth water.

<comment><USER8> I also assumed it was one of those "acquired taste" things - like as a teenager I really couldn't stand the taste of beer but I drank it because all my peers did. Now I love the stuff.

Unfortunately the same can't be said for G&T, much as I want to like it.

<comment><USER6> Given the proliferation of different flavored gins[1] I think it's possible no one actually likes the taste of gin. There are hundreds of flavors on Amazon.co.uk[2].

[1] [https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=gin&rh=n%3A340834031%2Cn%3A3598...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=gin&rh=n%3A340834031%2Cn%3A359896031&dc&qid=1575468496&rnid=1642204031&ref=sr_nr_n_2)

[2] Amazon.com doesn't sell beer or spirits. Weird.

<comment><USER9> >Amazon.com doesn't sell beer or spirits. Weird.

It isn't weird if you know how strange the alcohol laws can be across North America, including Canada. Shipping alcohol from one state (or province, in my case) to another isn't always possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "a drink that spoke more unfathomably to the deeps of the British soul than to that of other races"

Quite fathomable, we're a bunch of alcoholics (only partly joking).

#6 in this list of 33 countries (2015)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita#2015_WHO_data_for_OECD_%28Organisation_for_Economic_Co- operation_and_Development%29_countries)

#25 in this list of 191 (2010 figures)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita#2010_WHO_data)

Nothing against booze (certainly not allergic to a G&T either) but we can go a bit OTT with it.

</comment><comment><USER11> BBC's In our time podcast has a fascinating show on the Gin Crazy, paneled by 3 experts: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084zk6z](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084zk6z)

</comment><comment><USER12> Gin and bourbon are my desert island spirits. I love how they are surging into the cocktail space and you can find both gin and whiskey exclusive bars all over (in wisconsin at least!). Lots are starting to barrel rest their gins which give it an oaky flavor reminiscent of whiskey. Monkey 47 is a favorite of mine which I drink straight, maybe with an ice cube. But some local gins here in Madison, WI do a really great job as well. Look out for "bartenders" edition gins from england, which generally are kicked up versions.

</comment><comment><USER13> Regrettably I only properly discovered gin - via a Negroni - about 8 years ago.

Curiously TFA didn't dwell on advances & experiments in Australia, particularly the southern states, such as Tasmania, where there's been a some tremendous examples of the art.

Shene Poltergeist gin would bring into the fold even the most vehemently anti-g&t drinker. (Though mixing that with tonic would be a ghastly waste.)

Ophir (UK), St George Terroir (US), or Gin Mare (ES) are great places to start if you've historically just spurned the idea of gin.

<comment><USER2> Do you have a preferred recipe for a Negroni? My partner and I have been having a hard time getting over the flavor of Campari.

We usually have Tanqueray in the house for G&Ts and Carpano in the house for Manhattans, but we've had no luck getting a drinkable Negroni.

To the uninitiated, I would describe Campari as having the flavor of burning tires. I don't mean that perjoratively, I just don't have a better description.

Or please feel free to inform me that our palates lack sufficient refinement :-D

<comment><USER14> A negroni is equal parts Campari, Vermouth and Gin. Varying the brand of Vermouth or Gin has the biggest impact. Subbing out Campari makes it another cocktail. Should be swapped out for another Amaro (Herbally Bitter Liquer) such as Cynar, Gran Clasico or Brut Americano (never Aperol, too sweet). I'm partial to using Cynar (pronounced chee-nahr) which I've heard be called a Sin-Cyn (sin-chin).

You can also try swapping the gin for whiskey to make a boulvadier and see if that more to your liking as well.

<comment> blaser-waffle I've had mixed success subbing Montenegro Amaro or Fernet for Campari.

Very different flavors, though, and the type of "aromatized wine" (aka vermouth) will have an impact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Where I live in Bend, Oregon there are tons of western junipers to the east of town in the "high desert". I chatted with a local distiller and apparently they don't use them for their gin, though. They import them from Italy of all places.

<comment><USER16> Are western junipers not suited for making gin?

<comment><USER15> Guess that distillery doesn't prefer it. Other articles on line show people trying to use it with some success...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Dollop podcast did a hilarious episode on the British Gin Craze recently: [https://dollopengland.libsyn.com/10-the-gin- craze](https://dollopengland.libsyn.com/10-the-gin-craze)

</comment><comment><USER18> Love the article. Were I reading it last last night, it would be while sipping a Sapphire and tonic for sure. Learned much I did.</comment>


Fully Typed Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://berger-files.blogspot.com/2011/05/fully-typed-lisp.html

<comment><USER2> As pointed out in a blog comment, there has already been work on typed Lisp dialects. I was personally surprised not to see a reference to the Stalin compiler for Scheme:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_(Scheme_implementation)></comment>