[swish_bob]

Yes, but while I can choose to log in with facebook, or google, or whatever, it appears that Apple are mandating that app providers use the Apple sign-in, which means app users no longer get to choose.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what the mandatory part is.

[oarsinsync]

They are mandating that if you offer any other authentication provider (e.g. Facebook, Google, etc), that you have to offer Apple sign-in as an option as well.

The option is mandatory. End users using it is optional.

[swish_bob]

If the policy is "if you offer one or more authentication providers, you must include Apple sign-in", while it's still a little harsh, I think it's much more defendable and reasonable.

[sturgill]

Only if they grandfather existing apps. We made the decision a long time ago to support FB login. That decision now requires us to either stop having an app in iOS, remove FB login (which a good portion of people use exclusively), or implement a new authentication provider _that won't work for people that already have an account with us_.

Again, the tech is fine. The strong-arm is indefensible.

[gwright]

Why would someone already authenticating via an existing identity provider be affected by you adding an additional identity provider?

If you support FB login now and decided to add Google, for example, that doesn't require your existing FB users to do anything different. It should only affect new users who are creating an account and choosing to use the new provider. Wouldn't that be the same for Apple Sign In?

Note, I'm not taking a position on the strong arm tactics, just pushing back on your claim regarding existing users being affected by a new identity provider. That doesn't sound right to me.

[danielscrubs]

You can always choose another platform to develop for if you want to screw the customer over.