Hi Greg In regards to a Xamarin app, I've not used B2C but I've used Mobile Services which promises the Facebook authentication. It's important to note that the social authentications is only in a webview which means a user needs to enter their username and password. It's not the app integration that you see in majority of apps that have social auth, generally that's a abysmal user experience. It's possible to have the Native app integration it just needs to be implemented using the Native SDK with your app and integrated with Azure.
Thanks *Michael Ridland | Technical Director | Xamarin MVP* XAM Consulting - Mobile Technology Specialists www.xam-consulting.com Blog: www.michaelridland.com On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, is anyone familiar with Azure Active Directory B2C? I ask because > it looks like it might be useful for us, but I'm not sure because the info > HERE <https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/active-directory-b2c/> > is more marketing than technical. Here's why I'm asking... > > At the far backend of one of our REST services is an authentication system > that is at least 20 years old and holds the login names, roles and > permissions in text files, seriously! The files are vaguely like the INI > format. About a year ago my task was to put this information into a SQL > Server database, which I did as an experiment, and it went quite well as > the data could be nicely normalised. > > I revisited this issue this week and I think the SQL DB migration idea is > already clumsy and outdated. We'd have to host the DB in a VM or in Azure > which can get expensive (ref my posts months ago). So I went looking for a > more modern idea and stumbled across Azure B2C. It claims to hold all of > your authentication credentials and integrate with popular providers like > Facebook, Live.com, etc. In theory it would be fabulous if users of our new > mobile apps could have a unified sign-in that accepts either our custom > credentials or their existing well-known ones. I cannot yet picture the > technical difficulty of this, or exactly what's possible or not, but it > sounds hopeful. Any ideas anyone? Or are there other choices for a unified > sign-in system? > > *Greg K* > ᐧ
