6 ms·

Yes, absolutely, poor people should not be able to try to develop their skills and attempt to make apps.

PeterisP 7y ago
They can make apps and develop these skills, however, the apps listed for random end-users in the Apple store shouldn't contain all these experiments. This is about access to a particular distribution and advertising channel, which should happen after you've already developed the skills and are ready to offer something serious in context of which a $100/year investment is trivial.
- damnyou 7y ago
  Notarization is a requirement for distributing your content outside the app store. Within it the requirements are even higher.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Notarization isn't the same as the App Store. This is about whether a 3rd-party application downloaded from a 3rd-pary website can be run. It used to be that you only needed to pay to get onto the distribution and advertising channel, now you need to pay not to make your user jump through special hoops on an admin account. It's not implausible to suggest that in the future, that loophole will be removed as well. Apple does not want you to download apps that they can't personally vet. The complaint isn't that you need to pay to get into their store. Of course you do, that isn't surprising to anyone. It's about whether distribution channels exist outside of their store. As to why that's a problem? To quote the author: > It really upsets me because the iOS App Store policies basically prohibited art or anything interesting (nudity, glitch, error art...temperamental depending on who reviewed you for approval). > It was hell for me to get things approved, and even when I got them approved I had to change so much about my work it really wasn't my work anymore. A platform holder shouldn't dictate so much about someone else's work. Apple has been consistently behind the curve when it comes to recognizing the artistic potential of games[0]. On a cultural level, we don't want want them to be a gatekeeper for a medium. As a company they aren't responsible enough or smart enough for that job. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3879194/apple-app-store-guidelines-tell-game-developers-to-avoid-serious-themes https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3879194/apple-app-store-g...
  - dwaite 7y ago
    I fail to see the (new) change. Gatekeeper was added in 2012, and required the user to either take steps (right click open, or disable gatekeeper via the Gui or command-line) to run apps not signed by a developer ID, which costs $99/yr. Eventually Apple removed the option to disable Gatekeeper via the GUI due to developer abuse (e.g. games, including Minecraft, walking children through globally disabling security settings rather than signing their apps). Notarization doesn't add the requirement of signing, nor does it change that you need a developer ID for $99/yr
    - danShumway 7y ago
      If Apple considers walking users through the process of disabling Gatekeeper to be developer abuse, then I don't see how anyone can claim that notarization or the developer fees are optional. The change is that in each release of Mac OS this process is getting harder to avoid and is starting to include additional requirements. "You need to sign apps" becomes "we need to run an automated review on our servers for every release you make." This matters because a lot of the original criticism around the original Gatekeeper was dismissed via the argument that it was just an optional security feature that was turned on by default. It wasn't like Apple was going to block 3rd-party marketplaces, this just made Mac OS safer for computer illiterate users. With El Capitan, people are starting to suspect Apple does not want unvetted apps on the Mac in any context, and it seems more likely that future Mac OS versions will continue the trend of having stricter, more burdensome vetting requirements. It is increasingly harder to take advocates at face value when they say that 5 years from now I'll be able to run a 3rd-party app on my Mac that didn't go through a manual review. Which might sound great to some people, some users love the app store. As to why I think that could be a problem for creative mediums, see my parent post. It may not matter if Gatekeeper begins to live up to its name, because creative mediums may just migrate off of Mac. But if Mac becomes a platform too big to ignore, or if other platforms like Windows follow suite, then I think creative mediums will suffer.
- olyjohn 7y ago
  Good lord, didn't anybody read the article? Or at least skim it?
- w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
  Mac App Store apps are pure crap, for most of them. Cheap apps developed by chinese or indian developers or other coming from developping countries. A few apps are good but sell at inflated price. Games prices are outragious and sell for half the price on Steam.
- gowld 7y ago
  My users and I both already paid an eyewatering price to get our Macs. Why should I have to pay to distribute my non malware app, which might even be free and open source, because my users want to defend against other people's malware? Why is Apple blackmailing the industry over malware protection instead of making it a core part of the OS experience? I'd rather have malware protection than losing my Esc key or redoing the app window background textures yet again.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    Why should I let you run non-sandboxed code on my machine? What do you offer to earn my permission to allow your app?
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
If you are poor you probably aren't going to start with a Mac.

They can make apps and develop these skills, however, the apps listed for random end-users in the Apple store shouldn't contain all these experiments. This is about access to a particular distribution and advertising channel, which should happen after you've already developed the skills and are ready to offer something serious in context of which a $100/year investment is trivial.

damnyou 7y ago
Notarization is a requirement for distributing your content outside the app store. Within it the requirements are even higher.
danShumway 7y ago
Notarization isn't the same as the App Store. This is about whether a 3rd-party application downloaded from a 3rd-pary website can be run. It used to be that you only needed to pay to get onto the distribution and advertising channel, now you need to pay not to make your user jump through special hoops on an admin account. It's not implausible to suggest that in the future, that loophole will be removed as well. Apple does not want you to download apps that they can't personally vet. The complaint isn't that you need to pay to get into their store. Of course you do, that isn't surprising to anyone. It's about whether distribution channels exist outside of their store. As to why that's a problem? To quote the author: > It really upsets me because the iOS App Store policies basically prohibited art or anything interesting (nudity, glitch, error art...temperamental depending on who reviewed you for approval). > It was hell for me to get things approved, and even when I got them approved I had to change so much about my work it really wasn't my work anymore. A platform holder shouldn't dictate so much about someone else's work. Apple has been consistently behind the curve when it comes to recognizing the artistic potential of games[0]. On a cultural level, we don't want want them to be a gatekeeper for a medium. As a company they aren't responsible enough or smart enough for that job. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3879194/apple-app-store-guidelines-tell-game-developers-to-avoid-serious-themes https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3879194/apple-app-store-g...
- dwaite 7y ago
  I fail to see the (new) change. Gatekeeper was added in 2012, and required the user to either take steps (right click open, or disable gatekeeper via the Gui or command-line) to run apps not signed by a developer ID, which costs $99/yr. Eventually Apple removed the option to disable Gatekeeper via the GUI due to developer abuse (e.g. games, including Minecraft, walking children through globally disabling security settings rather than signing their apps). Notarization doesn't add the requirement of signing, nor does it change that you need a developer ID for $99/yr
  - danShumway 7y ago
    If Apple considers walking users through the process of disabling Gatekeeper to be developer abuse, then I don't see how anyone can claim that notarization or the developer fees are optional. The change is that in each release of Mac OS this process is getting harder to avoid and is starting to include additional requirements. "You need to sign apps" becomes "we need to run an automated review on our servers for every release you make." This matters because a lot of the original criticism around the original Gatekeeper was dismissed via the argument that it was just an optional security feature that was turned on by default. It wasn't like Apple was going to block 3rd-party marketplaces, this just made Mac OS safer for computer illiterate users. With El Capitan, people are starting to suspect Apple does not want unvetted apps on the Mac in any context, and it seems more likely that future Mac OS versions will continue the trend of having stricter, more burdensome vetting requirements. It is increasingly harder to take advocates at face value when they say that 5 years from now I'll be able to run a 3rd-party app on my Mac that didn't go through a manual review. Which might sound great to some people, some users love the app store. As to why I think that could be a problem for creative mediums, see my parent post. It may not matter if Gatekeeper begins to live up to its name, because creative mediums may just migrate off of Mac. But if Mac becomes a platform too big to ignore, or if other platforms like Windows follow suite, then I think creative mediums will suffer.
olyjohn 7y ago
Good lord, didn't anybody read the article? Or at least skim it?
w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
Mac App Store apps are pure crap, for most of them. Cheap apps developed by chinese or indian developers or other coming from developping countries. A few apps are good but sell at inflated price. Games prices are outragious and sell for half the price on Steam.
gowld 7y ago
My users and I both already paid an eyewatering price to get our Macs. Why should I have to pay to distribute my non malware app, which might even be free and open source, because my users want to defend against other people's malware? Why is Apple blackmailing the industry over malware protection instead of making it a core part of the OS experience? I'd rather have malware protection than losing my Esc key or redoing the app window background textures yet again.
- Razengan 7y ago
  Why should I let you run non-sandboxed code on my machine? What do you offer to earn my permission to allow your app?

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

If you are poor you probably aren't going to start with a Mac.