3 ms·

> That seems to me like the system is working exactly as intended. Not for me, the end user. Less developers releasing applications for my Mac means less optio

> That seems to me like the system is working exactly as intended. Not for me, the end user. Less developers releasing applications for my Mac means less options for me.

dkonofalski 7y ago
That's not what's happening, though. The same number of developers can release their applications. The only difference would be that some applications will say that they come from a source that's known to distribute reliable software. You can still release apps without notarizing them. You just can't get around the warning message that the application hasn't been verified because, well... it won't have been verified. You can still release it and users can still run it.
- simple_phrases 7y ago
  This thread is full of developers considering or actively abandoning macOS as platform. That means less options for end users like me.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    This thread is also full of people arguing with them. Meanwhile for end users like me, I see only benefits if Apple keeps the bar high. If I really want to run an app that is not notarized and I trust its developers, I can always manually allow it to run.
    - Bystroushaak 7y ago
      I would not develop for mac with this policy.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        With respect, then don't. I don't see why your unwillingness to establish trust with your end users is an issue. There are multiple ways you can do that and you don't seem to want to. If that's the case, I don't want to use your apps anyways.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    Mostly because they're imagining what the worst-case scenario in the future is. They're looking at it completely from their own perspective, which is admittedly more challenging for them, while ignoring that it makes the experience for their users 1000x easier, better, and safer.
    - heavyset_go 7y ago
      > Mostly because they're imagining what the worst-case scenario in the future is. I'm one of those developers, and I don't appreciate being strawman'd and dismissed.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        I'm doing neither of those things. Unless you have some kind of evidence that shows that Apple is going to prevent software from running if it's not notarized, you're imagining the worst-case scenario and reacting to that. Now, granted, that statement can't possibly cover every single reason that someone might have for leaving Apple's platforms but those don't seem relevant when having a discussion about this specific context which is what the article and these comments are about. The fact is that nothing that's been done changes the ability for people to run software as a developer. The difference is whether the end users trust you directly or whether the expect Apple to verify that trust for them. Both scenarios still allow them to run your software. If you want to bring more clarity and point out where I'm arguing a straw man, I'd appreciate it.

> That seems to me like the system is working exactly as intended. Not for me, the end user. Less developers releasing applications for my Mac means less options for me.

dkonofalski 7y ago

That's not what's happening, though. The same number of developers can release their applications. The only difference would be that some applications will say that they come from a source that's known to distribute reliable software. You can still release apps without notarizing them. You just can't get around the warning message that the application hasn't been verified because, well... it won't have been verified. You can still release it and users can still run it.

simple_phrases 7y ago
This thread is full of developers considering or actively abandoning macOS as platform. That means less options for end users like me.
- Razengan 7y ago
  This thread is also full of people arguing with them. Meanwhile for end users like me, I see only benefits if Apple keeps the bar high. If I really want to run an app that is not notarized and I trust its developers, I can always manually allow it to run.
  - Bystroushaak 7y ago
    I would not develop for mac with this policy.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      With respect, then don't. I don't see why your unwillingness to establish trust with your end users is an issue. There are multiple ways you can do that and you don't seem to want to. If that's the case, I don't want to use your apps anyways.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  Mostly because they're imagining what the worst-case scenario in the future is. They're looking at it completely from their own perspective, which is admittedly more challenging for them, while ignoring that it makes the experience for their users 1000x easier, better, and safer.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    > Mostly because they're imagining what the worst-case scenario in the future is. I'm one of those developers, and I don't appreciate being strawman'd and dismissed.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      I'm doing neither of those things. Unless you have some kind of evidence that shows that Apple is going to prevent software from running if it's not notarized, you're imagining the worst-case scenario and reacting to that. Now, granted, that statement can't possibly cover every single reason that someone might have for leaving Apple's platforms but those don't seem relevant when having a discussion about this specific context which is what the article and these comments are about. The fact is that nothing that's been done changes the ability for people to run software as a developer. The difference is whether the end users trust you directly or whether the expect Apple to verify that trust for them. Both scenarios still allow them to run your software. If you want to bring more clarity and point out where I'm arguing a straw man, I'd appreciate it.