3 ms·

This article fails to address two key points that could significantly weaken its core arguments if answered. Those points and the questions that arise from each

This article fails to address two key points that could significantly weaken its core arguments if answered. Those points and the questions that arise from each are: 1) Apple charges a flat rate of $100/year for notarization access. Steam and Mac App Store take 15-30%. What additional percentage of Mac sales (either subscription and/or one-time) is being spent on this annually by this developer? $100/year & 100 units/year = $1.00/unit $100/year & 1000 units/year = $0.10/unit $100/year & 10000 units/year = $0.01/unit EDIT: Steam indicates that this game has sold 0-20,000 units (max 168 concurrent players), between May 2015 and September 2019, so using a straight flatline average of the best-case scenario for sales, the cost to date per unit is: $500/5y & 23000 units/5y = $0.22/unit 2) Notarization can be added to command-line build scripts and Makefiles and third-party processes, so that it is simple to ensure that builds are notarized as part of releases to Steam. What, if any, engineering obstacles in the developer’s build process blocked this integration? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution/customizing_the_notarization_workflow https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_y...

CrendKing 7y ago
The argument from the article is that in non-Apple ecosystem, the ongoing fee is 0, which is smaller than all 3 of your listed examples. Also, as opposed to "simple command-line build scripts", in non-Apple ecosystem, there is no script required to release versions. I don't see the argument weakened, but rather strengthened.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Your argument is based on an unstated framing assumption: “A cheaper and simpler process is better for developers and users, and therefore the absence of both cost and complexity is universally the best solution, without regard for any other factors.” That is not a widely agreed-upon assumption. Since the post relies on this same assumption-by-framing approach, its arguments are weakened by their dependence on an unstated assumption. Answering my questions would force that assumption to be considered openly - and potentially challenged. Is it better for users that Apple is doing this, regardless of the extra cost and time it assigns to developers? That’s the question that should be being asked here. Unfortunately, it is not.
- judge2020 7y ago
  If Windows also required code signing as a deterrent to malware being distributed, we'd see similar prices (depending on the code signing reseller, currently cheapest is $59/year for 3 years). Instead, we have a huge third-party antivirus market that only deals with malware after the fact. Notarization is Apple's approach to pre-screening applications and will certainly be constantly improving its detection.

CrendKing 7y ago

The argument from the article is that in non-Apple ecosystem, the ongoing fee is 0, which is smaller than all 3 of your listed examples. Also, as opposed to "simple command-line build scripts", in non-Apple ecosystem, there is no script required to release versions. I don't see the argument weakened, but rather strengthened.

floatingatoll 7y ago
Your argument is based on an unstated framing assumption: “A cheaper and simpler process is better for developers and users, and therefore the absence of both cost and complexity is universally the best solution, without regard for any other factors.” That is not a widely agreed-upon assumption. Since the post relies on this same assumption-by-framing approach, its arguments are weakened by their dependence on an unstated assumption. Answering my questions would force that assumption to be considered openly - and potentially challenged. Is it better for users that Apple is doing this, regardless of the extra cost and time it assigns to developers? That’s the question that should be being asked here. Unfortunately, it is not.
judge2020 7y ago
If Windows also required code signing as a deterrent to malware being distributed, we'd see similar prices (depending on the code signing reseller, currently cheapest is $59/year for 3 years). Instead, we have a huge third-party antivirus market that only deals with malware after the fact. Notarization is Apple's approach to pre-screening applications and will certainly be constantly improving its detection.