5 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. 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.
        xoa 8y ago
        >I have predicted that from the day Gatekeeper was invented. And I have predicted people like you are wrong because there is no hardware backing for it yet, unless by "the future" you mean literally a good decade or more down the line which for tech is getting into really hazy land. But equating the Mac to iOS devices right now just plain makes no sense because the Mac doesn't have that whole hardware chain. iOS isn't magic, while I think Apple's level of lockdown should be illegal on a cultural level on a technical level what enables it is the hardware. On the Mac maybe the newest ones with Apple's T-series chips represents first steps in that direction, and of course if Apple does in fact someday decide to switch the Mac from x86 to their own ARM-based processors they'd have far more power there. But even that doesn't solve the legacy issue, and at this point Apple has built a great deal of culture and brand around supporting hardware for a long time. They still support Mojave officially on 2010 Mac Pros [1] for example, and right now they're still selling new Macs without even T-chips. Sure, it's not impossible that they could release an ARM Mac system in 2020 and then immediately put all "legacy Macs" on life support [2], but that'd a big a pretty surprising choice wouldn't it? It'd engender a lot of justified fury. >If this changes some day, I already know what I tell the users of my program, though I hope you realize how pointless this is likely to be? It'd be better to work on a political answer around it and inform your users accordingly. ---- 1: A few unfortunate caveats around features hampered by the MP's very old EFI aside, which is a complex discussion on its own. 2: Though I'd expect lawsuits over a decision like that at least in the EU.
camillomiller 8y ago
Indeed. Plus don't underestimate the psychological barrier that value can provide. 100$ are a sweet spot: it keeps everyone and their dog from signing up just because ("it's free, I might give it a go"), but at the same time it's not too much for a motivated developer who wants to dabble into programming for the Apple ecosystem of devices.
- michaelmior 8y ago
  > it's not too much for a motivated developer This is pretty subjective.
  - camillomiller 8y ago
    Ok, what entitles anyone to be able to publish their software in the repository of a for profit company? Why should it be open for free to everyone? You don't want pay that fee? Cool, there's Android and many other open platforms to program for. I will never understand the sense of entitlement people have against Apple. You are free not to buy Apple products and services if you think they are overpriced. Plus, no, it's not subjective. It's objectively low compared to many other access or licence fees a developer might pay in heesh professional life.
    - michaelmior 8y ago
      I'm not sure where you get a sense of entitlement from my comment. But my point about the fee is that even if it is low compared to other fees, that doesn't mean all developers who want to publish in the Apple ecosystem can afford to do so.
- SSLy 8y ago
  >it's not too much for a motivated developer living in a first world state.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    We're talking about owners of a Mac. They're not likely to be that strapped for cash, regardless of where they live.
pakitan 8y ago
Isn't all this achieved with a generic code signing certificate? What additional benefit does Apple's "notarization" offer, other than further fragmenting the market?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The page has a list. In short, you get a better experience with regards to Gatekeeper, and you will need to notarize your apps if you want them to continue to work on later versions of macOS.

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.
      - xoa 8y ago
        >I have predicted that from the day Gatekeeper was invented. And I have predicted people like you are wrong because there is no hardware backing for it yet, unless by "the future" you mean literally a good decade or more down the line which for tech is getting into really hazy land. But equating the Mac to iOS devices right now just plain makes no sense because the Mac doesn't have that whole hardware chain. iOS isn't magic, while I think Apple's level of lockdown should be illegal on a cultural level on a technical level what enables it is the hardware. On the Mac maybe the newest ones with Apple's T-series chips represents first steps in that direction, and of course if Apple does in fact someday decide to switch the Mac from x86 to their own ARM-based processors they'd have far more power there. But even that doesn't solve the legacy issue, and at this point Apple has built a great deal of culture and brand around supporting hardware for a long time. They still support Mojave officially on 2010 Mac Pros [1] for example, and right now they're still selling new Macs without even T-chips. Sure, it's not impossible that they could release an ARM Mac system in 2020 and then immediately put all "legacy Macs" on life support [2], but that'd a big a pretty surprising choice wouldn't it? It'd engender a lot of justified fury. >If this changes some day, I already know what I tell the users of my program, though I hope you realize how pointless this is likely to be? It'd be better to work on a political answer around it and inform your users accordingly. ---- 1: A few unfortunate caveats around features hampered by the MP's very old EFI aside, which is a complex discussion on its own. 2: Though I'd expect lawsuits over a decision like that at least in the EU.

camillomiller 8y ago

Indeed. Plus don't underestimate the psychological barrier that value can provide. 100$ are a sweet spot: it keeps everyone and their dog from signing up just because ("it's free, I might give it a go"), but at the same time it's not too much for a motivated developer who wants to dabble into programming for the Apple ecosystem of devices.

michaelmior 8y ago
> it's not too much for a motivated developer This is pretty subjective.
- camillomiller 8y ago
  Ok, what entitles anyone to be able to publish their software in the repository of a for profit company? Why should it be open for free to everyone? You don't want pay that fee? Cool, there's Android and many other open platforms to program for. I will never understand the sense of entitlement people have against Apple. You are free not to buy Apple products and services if you think they are overpriced. Plus, no, it's not subjective. It's objectively low compared to many other access or licence fees a developer might pay in heesh professional life.
  - michaelmior 8y ago
    I'm not sure where you get a sense of entitlement from my comment. But my point about the fee is that even if it is low compared to other fees, that doesn't mean all developers who want to publish in the Apple ecosystem can afford to do so.
SSLy 8y ago
>it's not too much for a motivated developer living in a first world state.
- icebraining 8y ago
  We're talking about owners of a Mac. They're not likely to be that strapped for cash, regardless of where they live.

pakitan 8y ago

Isn't all this achieved with a generic code signing certificate? What additional benefit does Apple's "notarization" offer, other than further fragmenting the market?

saagarjha 8y ago
The page has a list. In short, you get a better experience with regards to Gatekeeper, and you will need to notarize your apps if you want them to continue to work on later versions of macOS.