6 ms·

So this is another step for Apple to try to get everyone paying them their software development tax, since "notarization" requires you paying the $100 annual fe

So this is another step for Apple to try to get everyone paying them their software development tax, since "notarization" requires you paying the $100 annual fee. While you currently can still run digitally signed software that is not notarized, this document admits that in the future signed software will require Apple's approval, so Apple will make everyone's software LESS secure (by forcing developers to not sign the code if they aren't paying Apple) so that it will continue running. Sigh.

seandougall 8y ago
As others have pointed out, you already have to pay the tax to get a trusted signing certificate. So as far as the economics go, this isn’t a change.
- thefounder 8y ago
  It's actually a big change. One issue is that Apple may not approve you(for whatever reason) or keep you on the waitlist for weeks(happened to me). Not to mention that there won't be any competition. Next would be to make Safari and any browser running on osx accept only Apple tls certificates. That would be "awesome"! Finally Apple "secures" the internet
  - millstone 8y ago
    It's a big change because Apple may keep you on the waitlist for weeks, which already happened to you? Why is a time traveler speculating on the future?
    - thefounder 8y ago
      You don't need to be a time traveller to see that Apple will be the only one accepted as issuer. I really don't understand how people can feel comfortable with that. The next step is making the browsers trust only Apple's tls. At some point Apple will have to "obey the law" and ban any application that either violates certain country laws or its own TOS.
ronreiter 8y ago
Your post is full of assumptions. First of all, $100 per year merely covers the costs for this service. Apple will never force apps to always be notarized, although they might enable admins to enable such a feature for security purposes which I think is great.
- SyneRyder 8y ago
  > Apple will never force apps to always be notarized... Apple's website actually says that they will: "Note that in an upcoming release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer ID signed software to be notarized by Apple."
  - stephenr 8y ago
    I think this is about what is required. To get the benefit of being signed (i.e opening without user interaction to get past Gatekeeper) will in the future require being notarised. So you will still be able to ship an unsigned app, but you won't be able to ship a signed, un-notarised one.
danieldk 8y ago
So this is another step for Apple to try to get everyone paying them their software development tax, since "notarization" requires you paying the $100 annual fee. I don't think Apple really cares about the fee. I know that the three platforms are now bundled together under one developer program, but suppose that there are 100,000 Mac developers that publish signed or App Store applications (which is probably an overestimation), the fees will make Apple 10 million. This is less than pocket change to them. To me it seems that the $100 annual fee is to prevent fraud: (1) using a credit card to tie the developer account to an actual person; (2) make it expensive enough to avoid playing whack-a-mole with malicious account creation.
- cm2187 8y ago
  And making it expensive enough to turn down hobbyists or teenagers. I don’t think I agree with this approach.
  - azinman2 8y ago
    The $100 is for distribution that apple can provide via its store and signing. You can build a non-signed version or a local only version for free.
    - thefounder 8y ago
      And what to do with the local app? Stick it in your own a?
      - SyneRyder 8y ago
        You can (currently) distribute unsigned Mac apps on your website. If I remember correctly, Parallels Desktop is actually an unsigned application.
        JohnStrangeII 8y ago
        The context of the discussion is that this will change in the future. I have predicted that from the day Gatekeeper was invented. I still hope I'm wrong and it will always remain possible to run unsigned apps on MacOS. If this changes some day, I already know what I tell the users of my program, though: I, the developer, have not made any changes to the application and the reason why it no longer runs is solely Apple's responsibility. Please contact Apple's Customer Support and/or sue the company in case you cannot access your data any longer. Further support requests will then be forwarded to Apple.
pjmlp 8y ago
$100 is nothing compared with game consoles fees, or enterprise software licenses.
- kzrdude 8y ago
  Hopefully Apple's platform continues to be a general purpose computing platform and not a console.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Interestingly enough I only see such complains from devs that are using OS X as pretty Linux, and seldom from those that are actually selling OS X apps.
    - Tsubasachan 8y ago
      We all know that software devs love Apple because its a walled garden. No competition from F-droid or piracy to worry about it.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        We love Apple because of their Objective-C and Swift stacks and related OS APIs. Having a POSIX layer is a minor detail. Anyone that buys Apple, but actually wants a GNU/Linux laptop should do so.
csomar 8y ago
I don't think Apple is making any significant money out of these $100 subscriptions. The payment fee is the best SPAM detector out there.

seandougall 8y ago

As others have pointed out, you already have to pay the tax to get a trusted signing certificate. So as far as the economics go, this isn’t a change.

thefounder 8y ago
It's actually a big change. One issue is that Apple may not approve you(for whatever reason) or keep you on the waitlist for weeks(happened to me). Not to mention that there won't be any competition. Next would be to make Safari and any browser running on osx accept only Apple tls certificates. That would be "awesome"! Finally Apple "secures" the internet
- millstone 8y ago
  It's a big change because Apple may keep you on the waitlist for weeks, which already happened to you? Why is a time traveler speculating on the future?
  - thefounder 8y ago
    You don't need to be a time traveller to see that Apple will be the only one accepted as issuer. I really don't understand how people can feel comfortable with that. The next step is making the browsers trust only Apple's tls. At some point Apple will have to "obey the law" and ban any application that either violates certain country laws or its own TOS.

ronreiter 8y ago

Your post is full of assumptions. First of all, $100 per year merely covers the costs for this service. Apple will never force apps to always be notarized, although they might enable admins to enable such a feature for security purposes which I think is great.

SyneRyder 8y ago
> Apple will never force apps to always be notarized... Apple's website actually says that they will: "Note that in an upcoming release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer ID signed software to be notarized by Apple."
- stephenr 8y ago
  I think this is about what is required. To get the benefit of being signed (i.e opening without user interaction to get past Gatekeeper) will in the future require being notarised. So you will still be able to ship an unsigned app, but you won't be able to ship a signed, un-notarised one.

danieldk 8y ago

So this is another step for Apple to try to get everyone paying them their software development tax, since "notarization" requires you paying the $100 annual fee. I don't think Apple really cares about the fee. I know that the three platforms are now bundled together under one developer program, but suppose that there are 100,000 Mac developers that publish signed or App Store applications (which is probably an overestimation), the fees will make Apple 10 million. This is less than pocket change to them. To me it seems that the $100 annual fee is to prevent fraud: (1) using a credit card to tie the developer account to an actual person; (2) make it expensive enough to avoid playing whack-a-mole with malicious account creation.

cm2187 8y ago
And making it expensive enough to turn down hobbyists or teenagers. I don’t think I agree with this approach.
- azinman2 8y ago
  The $100 is for distribution that apple can provide via its store and signing. You can build a non-signed version or a local only version for free.
  - thefounder 8y ago
    And what to do with the local app? Stick it in your own a?
    - SyneRyder 8y ago
      You can (currently) distribute unsigned Mac apps on your website. If I remember correctly, Parallels Desktop is actually an unsigned application.
      - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
        The context of the discussion is that this will change in the future. I have predicted that from the day Gatekeeper was invented. I still hope I'm wrong and it will always remain possible to run unsigned apps on MacOS. If this changes some day, I already know what I tell the users of my program, though: I, the developer, have not made any changes to the application and the reason why it no longer runs is solely Apple's responsibility. Please contact Apple's Customer Support and/or sue the company in case you cannot access your data any longer. Further support requests will then be forwarded to Apple.

pjmlp 8y ago

$100 is nothing compared with game consoles fees, or enterprise software licenses.

kzrdude 8y ago
Hopefully Apple's platform continues to be a general purpose computing platform and not a console.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Interestingly enough I only see such complains from devs that are using OS X as pretty Linux, and seldom from those that are actually selling OS X apps.
  - Tsubasachan 8y ago
    We all know that software devs love Apple because its a walled garden. No competition from F-droid or piracy to worry about it.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      We love Apple because of their Objective-C and Swift stacks and related OS APIs. Having a POSIX layer is a minor detail. Anyone that buys Apple, but actually wants a GNU/Linux laptop should do so.

csomar 8y ago

I don't think Apple is making any significant money out of these $100 subscriptions. The payment fee is the best SPAM detector out there.