3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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.