zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. isodev+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-25 18:05:52
It’s really not the same intention or implementation.

We should also consider that Apple’s solution is a way to distinguish between human vs. Non human users on an Apple device. It doesn’t allow a service to randomly lockout browsers and/or OS (which Google’s proposal does), just that if you’re already on your Apple device, you don’t have to do a “verify I’m a human” captcha.

cf. https://developer.apple.com/wwdc22/10077

replies(1): >>mander+4z
2. mander+4z[view] [source] 2023-07-25 20:28:26
>>isodev+(OP)
Why wouldn't it allow a service to do exactly that?
replies(1): >>philis+U31
◧◩
3. philis+U31[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-25 22:48:29
>>mander+4z
It's in the nature of the device you're using: an Apple device. This implies there are non-Apple devices out there who will inevitably fail the check.

It's also in the way Apple allows its use; however that's not as strong. Apple has positioned this as a way to prevent CAPTCHAs from reaching the customer. Apple is interjecting with the provider and saying Hey, trust us. We can prove its a human because they're saying they're on iPhone. They're not positioning this as a way to deny service. Only to speed up access.

replies(1): >>smolde+u63
◧◩◪
4. smolde+u63[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 14:50:42
>>philis+U31
> They're not positioning this as a way to deny service. Only to speed up access.

Remember Net Neutrality? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[go to top]