13 ms·

Apple doesn't require a paid developer account to do this, and it's also not actually required. A user can still click "Open" from the right-click menu on a new

Apple doesn't require a paid developer account to do this, and it's also not actually required. A user can still click "Open" from the right-click menu on a newly downloaded app to open it for the first time, and then double click the app to open it subsequent times like normal. This is Apple's official line, but no one is going to actually have to do anything different if they don't want to. Some not-so-tech-savvy users might end up with apps they don't understand how to open after downloading them, but those are also the user most susceptible to falling for malicious downloads, so I'd call it a pretty good security feature. Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse?

rbanffy 7y ago
> Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse? I was concerned MacPorts would stop working on my computer. I don't plan on publishing apps for Mac, but I depend on apps others publish.
- klodolph 7y ago
  No, from what I understand this only affects binaries through Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper is “opt-in”—sort of. The way it works is that your web browser has an option “LSFileQuarantineEnabled” set in the bundle, and this makes it so files it creates have the “com.apple.quarantine” extended attribute on them by default. This attribute is propagated when you extract archives. When you open a program with the quarantine bit, you get the Gatekeeper warning. All MacPorts has to do is either avoid setting the quarantine bit in the first place (easy enough) or remove it. The quarantine bit is nothing more than an xattr called “com.apple.quarantine” which you can inspect or remove with the xattr tool.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The MacPorts .pkg installer is probably the only thing affected, and they should be able to get that signed. (Plus, anyone using MacPorts should be capable of the right-click+open workaround.)
    - e12e 7y ago
      Actually an interesting question: will Apple be happy to sign third party app stores and package managers? Including those that, say, sell apps and take a percentage?
      - plorkyeran 7y ago
        They sign literally everything. There is no human review process involved in notarization.
        e12e 7y ago
        They sign malware?
        daxelrod 7y ago
        Pretty sure they do. Part of the point is that they can revoke the signature once it’s found to be malware, and likely the signatures for everything associated with that developer account.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        They've probably got enough info from your signup for the developer program to send the FBI to your door afterwards.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        They try not to, but it certainly seems like Notarization is more to be able to disable malware after it's detected than preventing it from being signed at all.
  - narag 7y ago
    So is this similar to Windows "this file was downloaded from the Internet" warning?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Yes, but slightly more difficult to override - it's not presented as an option in the warning itself.
    - zwily 7y ago
      Basically.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- l2dy 7y ago
  https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-April/040593.html https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-April... > The MacPorts installer pkg will need to be submitted, but I don't think much else will change. Using MacPorts-built kernel extensions is already impossible because of signing requirements (we don't have a kext signing certificate and I don't think we qualify for one.) > For general apps, Gatekeeper doesn't prevent running locally built ones due to them being unsigned, and I gather than notarization is only required in the same circumstances as signing. (It would be incredibly inconvenient for developers to test anything if this were not the case.) https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-September/041065.html https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-Septe... > * For 10.14 users: The pkg meets Apple's new requirements for notarization. This includes enabling the hardened runtime for all executables, which has the potential to cause new issues due to denying access to certain system resources and preventing the loading of unsigned plugins. Please let us know about any such problems. MacPorts .pkg installers are notarized since 2.6.0.
0x0 7y ago
Isn't the "right click > open" trick only valid for user accounts who are Administrators?
- docbrown 7y ago
  In defense of Apple, if the account someone is using is not an administrator, they probably shouldn’t be downloading things in the first place.
  - twodave 7y ago
    Huh?! Explain your position here, please.
    - brazzledazzle 7y ago
      Not the OP but: Some sysadmins and devs work in institutions where this wouldn’t be allowed or be practical to support (e.g. schools, some healthcare, etc.). It’s not universally applicable to every environment but it’s easy to get in the mindset that it is after you’ve seen what a determined idiot can do.
      - twodave 7y ago
        Oh, I agree there are plenty of scenarios where you want to restrict a user's ability to do something. But to draw that line at the admin level seems a bit overkill to me (and de-values the idea of having varying levels of privilege, which is more or less exactly what's going to happen for organizational users anyway). I'm not super familiar with Apple's business features but in a Microsoft shop this would (to an extent) be managed through group policy on the domain controller anyway.
    - filleduchaos 7y ago
      I'm curious about _your_ position, actually. If a user doesn't have admin privileges and doesn't have the credentials to gain admin privileges, that's a clear indication that they both do not own the device _and_ haven't been trusted by the owner of the device to do whatever they want with it. Why exactly should they then be able to install and run random untrusted software on it?
helpPeople 7y ago
"were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS" I have the chicken and egg problem. I refuse to develop for Apple due to their anti-developer and anti-consumer policies. So would I make Apps for Apple is they played nicely? Yes.
- ftio 7y ago
  Anti-developer? Sure. But anti-consumer? How is this anything but good for 99% of Mac users? It keeps totally un-savvy users safer, puts savvier users on high alert, and doesn’t affect power users at all (other than the minor inconvenience of right clicking the first time you open a non-notarized app).
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    This particular policy isn't anti-consumer, but other policies they have are anti-consumer - like breaking functionality that applications you bought are depending on in newer versions of the OS (which you need to update to because other applications and/or hardware will require it very soon).
    - Communitivity 7y ago
      I can see anti-consumer and pro-consumer at the same time. Over the recent years I've perceived Apple as being more and more anti-consumer, for consumers that are developers or graphic artists, and pro-consumer if you are a non-developer/non-graphic artist. This is regrettable, especially since devs and graphic artists were among their original consumer base that helped get them where they are today.
      - Crinus 7y ago
        I'm not sure how that dichotomy applies, especially when you are -say- a graphics artist who wants to stick with an older pre-subscription model version of -say- Photoshop that you bought in a box, instead of being forced to pay a rent for the latest version.
filleduchaos 7y ago
> Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse? Anecdotally, I find that the people who are loudest about Apple's misdeeds (both real and assumed) are often people who've never even used an Apple product. There is plenty of legit criticism of Apple to be made, and you certainly don't have to be an Apple customer to make it. But half the time what I see instead is pearl-clutching from people who don't have enough experience with the platform in question to tell what an announced change even does, blowing up what amount to minor inconveniences into the end of all life as we know it.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > Anecdotally, I find that the people who are loudest about Apple's misdeeds (both real and assumed) are often people who've never even used an Apple product. The other side of this is, when I complain about Apple not allowing sideloading on iOS, I get asked why I use an iPhone if I don't like the policy. (fwiw, I have no issues with macOS as long as unsigned apps can still be run, and lots of issues with iOS where they cannot be.)
  - filleduchaos 7y ago
    And that's a legitimate complaint, and one I have as well (though my issue is less with not allowing sideloading and more with the pretty high barrier to entry to the only official distribution method. I'd be pretty much okay with being unable to sideload apps on iOS, but having a free and more lax tier of the App Store for hobbyists (somewhat akin to Youtube's unlisted videos or Qt's licensing).
  - hultner 7y ago
    But you can sideload an application, you just need to use as computer to do it.
    - rock_artist 7y ago
      there’s no way to publish apps to iOS except paid Apple Developer account. That’s different than all other platforms where we can get any binary to run. Other companies only require account for using non-OS API such as Firebase / Google Services for example.
heavyset_go 7y ago
> Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS Yes. I take offense to you generalizing all complaints as just wanting to "beat a dead horse"
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  Yea for real. Just google "macOS signing issues on GitHub" and you can see a whole swarm of real example complaints.
trothamel 7y ago
How does one get something notarized without a paid developer account? Is apple now letting people submit their apps for notarization without paying?
- galad87 7y ago
  You don't. But even before you couldn't sign an app without paying Apple, because the only valid certificates (Developer ID) are distributed by Apple (with the $99 Developer program).
duxup 7y ago
>Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse? I find this a common problem when it comes to just about anything these days including tech sites where I appreciate that the local community generally is knowledgeable and the likelihood is high that someone(s) has granular knowledge of the topic. But man when it comes to the big general topics that get a lot of spin in the press it's all "OMG Google" "OMG Apple" "OMG JavaScript" and so forth. But nobody really talks about what the topic means on a functional level.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  Ok, imagine if EVERY OS out there had their own signing system like this. Can you imagine how hard it would be to publish multi-platform software!? Sure macOS and Windows are the largest consumer OSes, and I'd be very shocked to hear Linux OSes doing this, but does that really make it OK?
  - ridiculous_fish 7y ago
    Every OS does have their own signing system like this! That's how all the Linux package managers work.
    - nixpulvis 7y ago
      I must be misunderstanding this then... if all I need to do is sign the binary with my GPG key (or comparable) then I don't see what all the fuss is about either! I was under the impression there's a process involved with Apple to approve these things. From: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... "Give users even more confidence in your software by submitting it to Apple for notarization" So it seems the "key" difference here is that while most Linux package managers seem to use GPG to sign based on the author's verification, here Apple is the trusted source, forcing application authors to bow down and submit to review (even if it's automated). Whereas for all GPG packages I just sign the same way, here my process is different, and Apple is forcing my hand. Don't get me wrong, I don't want users getting viruses or generally bad software any more than the next guy, but it seems out of place to rely on some specific Apple protocol to do this. Though, it doesn't surprise me at all that Apple wouldn't try to "play nice" in this space. Edit: further reading finds the following. "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later. Building a new app for notarization requires macOS 10.13.6 or later. Stapling an app requires macOS 10.12 or later." As a developer of some cross platform applications who happily doesn't know anything about Xcode (and plans to keep things that way) I'm upset by this.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
I'm just here to complain because it's annoying to incorporate yet another step in a CI flow.
mistahenry 7y ago
In early versions of the MacOS beta, the right-click open did not work, nor did starting the app from the command line. I never tried checking for the quarantine attribute and subsequently altering so I cannot comment there. You also couldn't notarize old apps that weren't built with secure timestamp, hardened runtime, etc (a lot of versions of some software I'm supporting back to 10.7 preexisted some of the required criteria) until the beta release that coincided with this announcement in early September. I think Apple relaxed their stance here because they did not want the average person to think that Catalina was breaking their apps and have subsequently deferred their "hardening" to January 2020.
- WaltPurvis 7y ago
  >and have subsequently deferred their "hardening" to January 2020 Two months? So Catalina will start breaking apps for average users after only two months? It hardly seems worth it for Apple to have that short of a delay.
  - galad87 7y ago
    Nothing will break. Apps signed before will continue to work like before, apps signed now will required to be notarized. Unsigned apps will work like before.
    - WaltPurvis 7y ago
      I was just going by what the person I was replying to (who wasn't you) was saying. If, as that person said, apps will break (or appear to break to average users) once "hardening" kicks in, then delaying it by a mere two months seems almost pointless. On the other hand, if as you say nothing will break, then a two-month delay in hardening seems equally pointless.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Apps that you currently have will not break, as they will not be quarantined. The requirement helps developers of apps that will be downloaded in the future.
notJim 7y ago
Isn't the experience for a notarized app the same as the current experience for an unsigned app? (i.e., right-click or go into the settings and allow.) If so, I really feel all this freak-out is unwarranted, because any moderately technical user will know how to do that.
jolux 7y ago
How does one actually notarize an app without paying? I believe it requires Developer ID, which does actually cost $99/year I’m unclear on this.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  I too am curious.
- geocar 7y ago
  You only need an apple id to notarize apps for macOS. https://appleid.apple.com/account#!&page=create https://appleid.apple.com/account#!&page=create
  - atopuzov 7y ago
    Nope, you need to have a Developer account.
pjmlp 7y ago
I for one welcome it, and would like to see sandboxes everywhere, given that it doesn't seem to be any other way to force people to actually care about security.
trandana 7y ago
I have published apps for iOS and Mac. It was a horrible experience. Apples ecosystem is dogshit and they make you jump through far too many hoops, all just to target a small minority of overall smartphone/computer users. Most of the time it's just not worth it.
Tepix 7y ago
What is the default user setting? Do you have to go to the setting and change it to be able to launch apps not downloaded from the app store or unsigned apps? If so that's a huge barrier.

rbanffy 7y ago

> Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse? I was concerned MacPorts would stop working on my computer. I don't plan on publishing apps for Mac, but I depend on apps others publish.

klodolph 7y ago
No, from what I understand this only affects binaries through Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper is “opt-in”—sort of. The way it works is that your web browser has an option “LSFileQuarantineEnabled” set in the bundle, and this makes it so files it creates have the “com.apple.quarantine” extended attribute on them by default. This attribute is propagated when you extract archives. When you open a program with the quarantine bit, you get the Gatekeeper warning. All MacPorts has to do is either avoid setting the quarantine bit in the first place (easy enough) or remove it. The quarantine bit is nothing more than an xattr called “com.apple.quarantine” which you can inspect or remove with the xattr tool.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The MacPorts .pkg installer is probably the only thing affected, and they should be able to get that signed. (Plus, anyone using MacPorts should be capable of the right-click+open workaround.)
  - e12e 7y ago
    Actually an interesting question: will Apple be happy to sign third party app stores and package managers? Including those that, say, sell apps and take a percentage?
    - plorkyeran 7y ago
      They sign literally everything. There is no human review process involved in notarization.
      - e12e 7y ago
        They sign malware?
        daxelrod 7y ago
        Pretty sure they do. Part of the point is that they can revoke the signature once it’s found to be malware, and likely the signatures for everything associated with that developer account.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        They've probably got enough info from your signup for the developer program to send the FBI to your door afterwards.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        They try not to, but it certainly seems like Notarization is more to be able to disable malware after it's detected than preventing it from being signed at all.
- narag 7y ago
  So is this similar to Windows "this file was downloaded from the Internet" warning?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Yes, but slightly more difficult to override - it's not presented as an option in the warning itself.
  - zwily 7y ago
    Basically.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
l2dy 7y ago
https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-April/040593.html https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-April... > The MacPorts installer pkg will need to be submitted, but I don't think much else will change. Using MacPorts-built kernel extensions is already impossible because of signing requirements (we don't have a kext signing certificate and I don't think we qualify for one.) > For general apps, Gatekeeper doesn't prevent running locally built ones due to them being unsigned, and I gather than notarization is only required in the same circumstances as signing. (It would be incredibly inconvenient for developers to test anything if this were not the case.) https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-September/041065.html https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2019-Septe... > * For 10.14 users: The pkg meets Apple's new requirements for notarization. This includes enabling the hardened runtime for all executables, which has the potential to cause new issues due to denying access to certain system resources and preventing the loading of unsigned plugins. Please let us know about any such problems. MacPorts .pkg installers are notarized since 2.6.0.

0x0 7y ago

Isn't the "right click > open" trick only valid for user accounts who are Administrators?

docbrown 7y ago
In defense of Apple, if the account someone is using is not an administrator, they probably shouldn’t be downloading things in the first place.
- twodave 7y ago
  Huh?! Explain your position here, please.
  - brazzledazzle 7y ago
    Not the OP but: Some sysadmins and devs work in institutions where this wouldn’t be allowed or be practical to support (e.g. schools, some healthcare, etc.). It’s not universally applicable to every environment but it’s easy to get in the mindset that it is after you’ve seen what a determined idiot can do.
    - twodave 7y ago
      Oh, I agree there are plenty of scenarios where you want to restrict a user's ability to do something. But to draw that line at the admin level seems a bit overkill to me (and de-values the idea of having varying levels of privilege, which is more or less exactly what's going to happen for organizational users anyway). I'm not super familiar with Apple's business features but in a Microsoft shop this would (to an extent) be managed through group policy on the domain controller anyway.
  - filleduchaos 7y ago
    I'm curious about _your_ position, actually. If a user doesn't have admin privileges and doesn't have the credentials to gain admin privileges, that's a clear indication that they both do not own the device _and_ haven't been trusted by the owner of the device to do whatever they want with it. Why exactly should they then be able to install and run random untrusted software on it?

helpPeople 7y ago

"were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS" I have the chicken and egg problem. I refuse to develop for Apple due to their anti-developer and anti-consumer policies. So would I make Apps for Apple is they played nicely? Yes.

ftio 7y ago
Anti-developer? Sure. But anti-consumer? How is this anything but good for 99% of Mac users? It keeps totally un-savvy users safer, puts savvier users on high alert, and doesn’t affect power users at all (other than the minor inconvenience of right clicking the first time you open a non-notarized app).
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  This particular policy isn't anti-consumer, but other policies they have are anti-consumer - like breaking functionality that applications you bought are depending on in newer versions of the OS (which you need to update to because other applications and/or hardware will require it very soon).
  - Communitivity 7y ago
    I can see anti-consumer and pro-consumer at the same time. Over the recent years I've perceived Apple as being more and more anti-consumer, for consumers that are developers or graphic artists, and pro-consumer if you are a non-developer/non-graphic artist. This is regrettable, especially since devs and graphic artists were among their original consumer base that helped get them where they are today.
    - Crinus 7y ago
      I'm not sure how that dichotomy applies, especially when you are -say- a graphics artist who wants to stick with an older pre-subscription model version of -say- Photoshop that you bought in a box, instead of being forced to pay a rent for the latest version.

filleduchaos 7y ago

> Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse? Anecdotally, I find that the people who are loudest about Apple's misdeeds (both real and assumed) are often people who've never even used an Apple product. There is plenty of legit criticism of Apple to be made, and you certainly don't have to be an Apple customer to make it. But half the time what I see instead is pearl-clutching from people who don't have enough experience with the platform in question to tell what an announced change even does, blowing up what amount to minor inconveniences into the end of all life as we know it.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> Anecdotally, I find that the people who are loudest about Apple's misdeeds (both real and assumed) are often people who've never even used an Apple product. The other side of this is, when I complain about Apple not allowing sideloading on iOS, I get asked why I use an iPhone if I don't like the policy. (fwiw, I have no issues with macOS as long as unsigned apps can still be run, and lots of issues with iOS where they cannot be.)
- filleduchaos 7y ago
  And that's a legitimate complaint, and one I have as well (though my issue is less with not allowing sideloading and more with the pretty high barrier to entry to the only official distribution method. I'd be pretty much okay with being unable to sideload apps on iOS, but having a free and more lax tier of the App Store for hobbyists (somewhat akin to Youtube's unlisted videos or Qt's licensing).
- hultner 7y ago
  But you can sideload an application, you just need to use as computer to do it.
  - rock_artist 7y ago
    there’s no way to publish apps to iOS except paid Apple Developer account. That’s different than all other platforms where we can get any binary to run. Other companies only require account for using non-OS API such as Firebase / Google Services for example.

heavyset_go 7y ago

> Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS Yes. I take offense to you generalizing all complaints as just wanting to "beat a dead horse"

nixpulvis 7y ago
Yea for real. Just google "macOS signing issues on GitHub" and you can see a whole swarm of real example complaints.

trothamel 7y ago

How does one get something notarized without a paid developer account? Is apple now letting people submit their apps for notarization without paying?

galad87 7y ago
You don't. But even before you couldn't sign an app without paying Apple, because the only valid certificates (Developer ID) are distributed by Apple (with the $99 Developer program).

duxup 7y ago

>Anyway, were any of you who are complaining in this thread planning on actually publishing an app for macOS, or just here to beat a dead horse? I find this a common problem when it comes to just about anything these days including tech sites where I appreciate that the local community generally is knowledgeable and the likelihood is high that someone(s) has granular knowledge of the topic. But man when it comes to the big general topics that get a lot of spin in the press it's all "OMG Google" "OMG Apple" "OMG JavaScript" and so forth. But nobody really talks about what the topic means on a functional level.

nixpulvis 7y ago
Ok, imagine if EVERY OS out there had their own signing system like this. Can you imagine how hard it would be to publish multi-platform software!? Sure macOS and Windows are the largest consumer OSes, and I'd be very shocked to hear Linux OSes doing this, but does that really make it OK?
- ridiculous_fish 7y ago
  Every OS does have their own signing system like this! That's how all the Linux package managers work.
  - nixpulvis 7y ago
    I must be misunderstanding this then... if all I need to do is sign the binary with my GPG key (or comparable) then I don't see what all the fuss is about either! I was under the impression there's a process involved with Apple to approve these things. From: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... "Give users even more confidence in your software by submitting it to Apple for notarization" So it seems the "key" difference here is that while most Linux package managers seem to use GPG to sign based on the author's verification, here Apple is the trusted source, forcing application authors to bow down and submit to review (even if it's automated). Whereas for all GPG packages I just sign the same way, here my process is different, and Apple is forcing my hand. Don't get me wrong, I don't want users getting viruses or generally bad software any more than the next guy, but it seems out of place to rely on some specific Apple protocol to do this. Though, it doesn't surprise me at all that Apple wouldn't try to "play nice" in this space. Edit: further reading finds the following. "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later. Building a new app for notarization requires macOS 10.13.6 or later. Stapling an app requires macOS 10.12 or later." As a developer of some cross platform applications who happily doesn't know anything about Xcode (and plans to keep things that way) I'm upset by this.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 7y ago

I'm just here to complain because it's annoying to incorporate yet another step in a CI flow.

mistahenry 7y ago

In early versions of the MacOS beta, the right-click open did not work, nor did starting the app from the command line. I never tried checking for the quarantine attribute and subsequently altering so I cannot comment there. You also couldn't notarize old apps that weren't built with secure timestamp, hardened runtime, etc (a lot of versions of some software I'm supporting back to 10.7 preexisted some of the required criteria) until the beta release that coincided with this announcement in early September. I think Apple relaxed their stance here because they did not want the average person to think that Catalina was breaking their apps and have subsequently deferred their "hardening" to January 2020.

WaltPurvis 7y ago
>and have subsequently deferred their "hardening" to January 2020 Two months? So Catalina will start breaking apps for average users after only two months? It hardly seems worth it for Apple to have that short of a delay.
- galad87 7y ago
  Nothing will break. Apps signed before will continue to work like before, apps signed now will required to be notarized. Unsigned apps will work like before.
  - WaltPurvis 7y ago
    I was just going by what the person I was replying to (who wasn't you) was saying. If, as that person said, apps will break (or appear to break to average users) once "hardening" kicks in, then delaying it by a mere two months seems almost pointless. On the other hand, if as you say nothing will break, then a two-month delay in hardening seems equally pointless.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Apps that you currently have will not break, as they will not be quarantined. The requirement helps developers of apps that will be downloaded in the future.

notJim 7y ago

Isn't the experience for a notarized app the same as the current experience for an unsigned app? (i.e., right-click or go into the settings and allow.) If so, I really feel all this freak-out is unwarranted, because any moderately technical user will know how to do that.

jolux 7y ago

How does one actually notarize an app without paying? I believe it requires Developer ID, which does actually cost $99/year I’m unclear on this.

nixpulvis 7y ago
I too am curious.
geocar 7y ago
You only need an apple id to notarize apps for macOS. https://appleid.apple.com/account#!&page=create https://appleid.apple.com/account#!&page=create
- atopuzov 7y ago
  Nope, you need to have a Developer account.

pjmlp 7y ago

I for one welcome it, and would like to see sandboxes everywhere, given that it doesn't seem to be any other way to force people to actually care about security.

trandana 7y ago

I have published apps for iOS and Mac. It was a horrible experience. Apples ecosystem is dogshit and they make you jump through far too many hoops, all just to target a small minority of overall smartphone/computer users. Most of the time it's just not worth it.

Tepix 7y ago

What is the default user setting? Do you have to go to the setting and change it to be able to launch apps not downloaded from the app store or unsigned apps? If so that's a huge barrier.