But lets look at it another way:
* I buy an app on the App Store, and then find out that I have to use FB or Google login.
* So to use the app I have purchased I am required to allow the app and/or Google or Facebook to further their abuse of my privacy.
Alternatively:
* An App is shown as "Free"
* I install it, and it require FB or Google sign in.
That isn't free. Again, signing up for abuse of my privacy is not free.
Surely the logical extension of this is that no app with ads should be marked as "free". Your attention is not free. Right?
Additionally, if the app only has FB or Google login and you don't use either, you can just not use the app
Why should an app be listed as free if using it requires sacrificing my privacy to use it? That's fundamentally not free.
If the app cost me money then I've purchased an app I cannot use.
This is very simple: they're saying that you cannot require Apple's (and by extension your) users to submit to abuse of their privacy in order to use your app.
You're complaining that someone else is building apps in a way you don't like. That's their right; they aren't building them for you.
Why should Facebook?
Why should I have to get accounts for those services just to use your app?
Why should apple list apps that can't be used by users because of they require user's to create accounts with companies that are known to abuse user privacy?
The last point I think is the most reasonable: why should I, a user, be required to use some arbitrary third party just to use your app?
If you are solely using them for login support, and nothing else, then all you're doing is adding one more OAuth provider. What makes it so hard to require an Apple identity if you're already willing to accept google or facebook ones?
You are entitled to not use my app. I am entitled to not care.
The common and almost universally accepted understanding of "free" is "no exchange of money". Saying those who don't adopt an extreme viewpoint are lying is dishonest.
But what good would “open source tools” do overall if you still have to integrate with Apple’s services/APIs to do anything useful - the same is true with Android/Google Play Services.
Free in the colloquial sense means "no money required", otherwise nothing is free since there is always some cost, if not an opportunity cost. What are you going to do, complain that an app required bandwidth to download?
But the problem they're going after is bigger: how do you allow users to keep using their favorite apps (because most people aren't super privacy-conscious) while at the same time making sure those apps don't track users or sell their data? And, like it or not (and many people won't), I think forcing developers' hand is the only real way to make this happen.