> Where was that made clear?

The post appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to cajole people into giving app developers access to their email inboxes as a general rule by throwing insults at Apple for daring to hide email addresses from app developers. Even if this person never tries to sell me things, that rule is clearly meant to enable other people to do so.

It frames "sending personalized emails" as though:

1) The only reason to send personalized emails is for "offering alternative payment methods".

2) Sending personalized emails is no big deal.

But both of those are wrong.

I don't get that impression at all. The author is annoyed at being strong armed into using Apple ID, on Apple's terms.

They speculate about why Apple are so keen on people to adopt Apple ID - not say they actually want to do those things. I think they're probably correct about why Apple wants more control by sucking tech into it's ecosystem.

> I have a problem with how Apple forced it on me. Not nice

Every single point you bring up is about you and not your users. All of your complaints in your post and in your comments in this thread ignore the fact that what Apple is doing is better for the humans on the other side from you.

And your stinger at the end?

> Apple users who logged into Groups via the app with Apple ID will need to create a second account. Am I hurting myself? Am I shooting myself in the foot? Probably. But this is war.

You're not hurting Apple. At best you're hurting your users, but you're so focused on your own petty brigade that you don't see it or care. The war that you've just started is not against Apple but against the human users using Apple devices. They're the ones who would suffer from your decisions.

Making the button uniform across domains so that it's instantly recognizeable is user-positive.

Offering Apple ID as a sign-up option instead of making me give you my email address is user-positive.

If you don't care about being user-positive, if you're going to vociferously argue against it, why should users trust you?

Well, what can I say, I am sorry. I am sorry for having to do this and wish things were different

But it is the only way I can shed light on Apple's behavior. I promise to add a transition mechanism, happy? I will still make sure users get to read some "Apple bad" message to highlight the reason behind Apple ID not being straightforward on the web

> But it is the only way I can shed light on Apple's behavior.

It still sounds like Apple's behavior is 100% good for users and your behavior is not. You wanting to circumvent things that are positive for users makes you as a developer look extremely bad (user-hostile). I don't know what else I can say if you don't want to hear it.

Sure, I don't expect you to empathize with me as a developer. The point is, if you let this go unchecked for developers, it will spread to as many areas as they can get away with, in the name of what is "good for users". The EU's anti-trust probe is already looking into this. Have a good day

It's not 100% good though :)

I'm a user and I wouldn't touch "signin with Apple" with a 10 foot pole. That's waaaay too much lock-in.

> I'm a user and I wouldn't touch "signin with Apple" with a 10 foot pole.

For Apple device owners there's significant upside and little-to-no downside. You not wanting to use it doesn't mean that it isn't 100% good for Apple device users.

> That's waaaay too much lock-in.

If the app developer cared, they'd give you a way to migrate your credentials.

Anyway, you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Apple just makes it so that you have the _option_ to. But you should at least recognize that it's the only given option that allows people to use the service without giving away their email address to random app developers. That's a huge privacy win for users.