4 ms·

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 o

by 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.

by dwaite 7y ago

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.