20 ms·

What took me aback was the withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac. That was only meant to be a check for known vulnerabilities/malicious software

What took me aback was the withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac. That was only meant to be a check for known vulnerabilities/malicious software. Apple was more within their rights to kick Fortnite until the dust has settled from the iOS store, that was the retaliation, but now a mechanism supposedly for security has been repurposed as punishment. That's a pretty nasty move and I feel the mask has slipped slightly here for Apple.

Hamuko 6y ago
Yeah, it's fucked up if Apple is going to start disabling macOS apps regardless of distribution if the developer has violated their App Store rules in some way. Definitely undermines my trust in macOS.
- zeroimpl 6y ago
  They are also being sued by Epic. Would you keep doing business with a company suing you?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - weixiyen 6y ago
    Curious to your thoughts regarding the mafia whacking witnesses who are about to testify in court.
    - zeroimpl 6y ago
      What on earth are you talking about? My response was based on the OP suggesting the account closure was based purely on the App Store policy violation. I’m pretty sure it’s based on more than that, such as the fact that Epic is suing them in bad faith. There’s probably a million app developers which have violated the policies in some manner at some point and yet very few get blacklisted by Apple.
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    You shouldn't require a business relationship in order to publish software on a general purpose computing platform. macOS was always a general purpose computing platform, anyone could publish software for it. iOS has not been seen as a general purpose computing platform, merely "a phone", and hence Apple's tight control has been seen as justifiable. Apple added notarization of software to macOS last year, and in response to fears that this was another step on the path of "iOS-ification" of macOS, promised that it was not going to be used for anything but to stop bona-fide malware. This stunt shows that that was bullshit, and the iOS-ification of macOS is complete. macOS is no longer a general purpose computing platform, it is now also a software console, with Apple as a gatekeeper.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      Yep. This action ensures my next computer purchase won’t be a Mac. Time to learn to love a Linux distro. If Apple retaliated against their publishing on iOS that would be one thing. Taking away their ability to notarize macOS software is my line in the sand.
grishka 6y ago
And so that's why I never liked nor trusted this whole idea of code signing with non-self-signed certificates, especially on desktop OSes. This notarization mechanism introduced a single point of failure: Apple. And now there is concrete evidence of how exactly this is bad. On a device I own, there should be no parties that are trusted more than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for this very reason. You might think it's ridiculous but the fight for the right to modify the software running on devices you own has been raging for 35 years and is bigger than ever.
  - bsaul 6y ago
    It hasn’t been a quarter in which i haven’t told myself how richard stallman was right, and a visionary, and how much we were fools to consider him an extremist.
    - beering 6y ago
      And many of the things that we thought he was pointlessly complaining about, instead grew into big issues a few years later affecting all of us.
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        That's why he was kicked out by people the like of Garreth who named him "enemy of the FSF" and mocked him on Twitter calling Stallman "bad" but he's a former Google employee...
    - ngngngng 6y ago
      Sometimes he's off his rocker, but a lot of the time he's right. We can have both.
JohnTHaller 6y ago
In Windows world, you can just pick a new certificate vendor. In Apple world, they have a monopoly and get to dictate who gets 'full access' to both their mobile devices and their desktops/laptops. They could still do unsigned MacOS apps from here out, but Apple has purposely made it difficult for end users to run them.
- yholio 6y ago
  Lock-in was their business model back in the 80s, it still is to this day. It got them to the verge of bankruptcy then, it will be their downfall now.
  - hapless 6y ago
    One may hope, but I doubt it. They make a majority of the money in mobile.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    How was Apple’s business model from the 1980s right through until the App Store got popular about “lock-in” though? You could say that any platform vendor’s business model is predicated on some form of lock-in. Apple’s poor financial state under Sculley was more because they had an objectively poor product (going by the technical merits alone), a confusing product line-up, a failure to recapture the education sector that was quickly switching to Windows due to its enterprise-friendly features like Group Policy and compatibility with Directory Services like NetWare, and because it didn’t have a plan going forward into the 21st century. I do note that in the 1990s under Sculley they both licensed macOS to third-party hardware vendors and were fine with PowerPC being adopted by other platforms (even Microsoft, and evening when it was incompatible with Apple’s architecture) - that’s the very opposite of the vendor lock-in-in that you’re describing. It can be argued that Apple’s “nice guy” approach further contributed to their decline - it certainly didn’t help raise sales nor their share-price. Aldo consider when Steve Jobs returned they made deals with Microsoft to ensure Office would still be available for the Mac. Apple’s stewardship of WebKit was about driving open web-standards, even though Safari is very much Apple-exclusive. Apple also made a big-deal about how the then-new Mac OS X was a POSIX-compliant BSD system. I think you’re confusing Apple’s aggressive control of the user-experience with IBM and Oracle-style lock-in. With IBM/Oracle a company or gov dept will have sunk $lots into a system that they cannot take away to a different vendor: there is literally no alternative than to continue with whatever gargantuan system their sales reps convinced the customer to buy. This is why banks and insurance companies are still rocking IBM Z-series today after 30+ years even though a system that’s just as resilient could be built for a fraction of the price on commodity hardware (I’m not going to pretend that Linux was a viable option back then, but systems like VMS or a project requirement to use POSIX were options back then). When people say that banks/insurance companies are “conservative” when it comes to technology I think it’s better to describe them as being technically inept or even corrupt which led to them being caught in vendor lock-in which paralysed them internally: I feel the arguments that they don’t want to risk losing billions over a bad technology move are just excuses for being unable to make a technology move even if they wanted to. I believe that Apple sees that their controlling of the user-experience of its customers creates value for the user - whereas IBM/Oracle-style lock-in rarely does. I reckon 90%+ of non-developers using Apple hardware today (iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc) could switch to Android, Surface, and Windows PC respectively without losing much in the way of capability - but they would lose a cohesive and well-thought-out user-experience, which is Apple’s moat.
Joeri 6y ago
Isn’t it a bit naive that we ever believed the notarization feature would not be used to blacklist developers for business reasons? I feel like a chump now. It is definitely clear that apple does not have the best interest of me, their customer, at heart. Epic were being very sneaky towards Apple, but not malicious towards users in any way. Apple is being malicious. If I want to run Epic’s software without disabling security features of the OS I feel I’ve definitely spent enough money on my iMac to get a say in that. This is the sort of thing 90’s microsoft would have done. “It’s just business, they knew what they were getting into.” would have been Gates’ excuse for throwing them from the windows platform.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jimmydorry 6y ago
  It cuts both ways though, doesn't it? Either Apple spends time / effort vetting all applications, including those made by people that don't pay Apple and aren't sold through their store. Or Apple doesn't vet all of these apps, and refuses to notarize any app that is not associated with a valid developer account. It's a whole other can of worms if you want to get into the merits of being able to install and run any app you find. Apple made the decision to not allow the average user to do that, and I don't see the mass exodus of people showing that the public doesn't agree with this design choice. Just like iOS and the app store, the average user seems happy with a curated and largely vetted selection of things to use that... 'just work (TM)'.
  - burnte 6y ago
    Or, a third manner, which is not forcing notarization at all. Not simple making it disableable, but not enforcing it at all.
floatingatoll 6y ago
Epic expressly snuck code through the door to activate a user-visible feature in direct prohibition to App Store rules. Apple could have revoked their developer certificate in response, which would have essentially killed all installations of Fortnite iOS/Mac worldwide within 24 hours. That they are merely revoking their ability to sign new code and giving them 2 weeks to perform an orderly shutdown is far less draconian than they're capable of being here. Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. Epic willfully violated their terms with Apple to make a point, and Apple is responding in the same way that they did to Facebook: taking away their access to the users, because they cannot be trusted to comply with the restrictions placed on their behavior. Most (if not all) of the restrictions on the App Store exist to protect users from app developers who prioritize their own greed over the rights of privacy and safety that Apple promises the users of the App Store. Developers are the threat model, and there's nothing inherently wrong with Apple's response to Epic declaring themselves a rulebreaker — and, thus, a threat. (If Epic was not trying so hard to be able to sue for damages, they might have been able to negotiate, same as Facebook did. But they wanted to be a martyr for the cause, so here we are.) Consider this thought experiment: At your employer, an IT employee goes rogue and installs malicious code on your computer to read your email. How would you feel if IT leadership said "they promised not to do it again" and allowed them to continue unsupervised work on your computer while you're away? Most people would feel awful, because you can't trust the IT employee's word — they literally just broke their agreement not to snoop! — and because your leadership clearly doesn't care about your privacy. Should Apple "fire" Epic, now that Epic's word can no longer be trusted? This answer should, in theory, match the answer above. I bet for most software developers, it does not. I encourage thinking through that dissonance rather than rejecting the thought experiment.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. No, notarization is about preventing malware. That's all. This has been promised to us by Apple many many times. Malware prevention only. Fortnite is not malware.
threeseed 6y ago
According to Apple: "Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement" So it doesn't sound like it was just for this Fortnite issue.
- mantap 6y ago
  That's what they want you to think. Which is why they say it. Sounds better than "Tim made the order to retaliate, sayonara"
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Given that there are lawsuits in place pretty sure they aren't going to lie about it. Question is how serious the multiple infractions are.
    - mantap 6y ago
      It's possible for one action to violate the terms in multiple ways. They probably mean the following two: 1) not giving Apple their 30% 2) publishing code without prior approval by Apple
      - threeseed 6y ago
        I don't think you understand how the App Store works. You simply can't pay Apple the 30% cut nor can you publish apps without Apple approving it. So it's impossible for a company to violate either of those.
        nodamage 6y ago
        Not sure why you think it is impossible when Epic literally did it. They hid the payment infrastructure in the version of the app that went through review, therefore it wasn't rejected during review. Then after it was approved, they enabled it it via a server side mechanism.
AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
> withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac Where do you see this specifically, or are we just inferring it from that fact that Epic will lose access to the developer portal?
heavyset_go 6y ago
> What took me aback was the withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac. That was only meant to be a check for known vulnerabilities/malicious software. When I brought up that Notarization was going to be used to gatekeep (literally with Gatekeeper[1]) access to the macOS platform, I was assured it would only be used for security and never for evil. Apple only made Notarization mandatory this February, too, so that didn't take long at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS)
- sneak 6y ago
  AFAIK it is still possible to run entirely unsigned apps on macOS.
  - ifmpx 6y ago
    Sure, but for how long.
    - sneak 6y ago
      I expect development, offline, (and thus execution of novel/unsigned binaries) to remain possible on ARM Macs, so for at least the foreseeable future. People have been claiming the iOS-style trusted/treacherous computing cancer will hit macOS “any day now” for most of a decade at this point, and it’s still not even on the horizon.
      - slaymaker1907 6y ago
        They just have to make it so dev builds are self signed but allow installing that certificate on a machine. Complicated enough to keep out normal users while still allowing developers to do their jobs. This would be horrific of course, but I could totally see them doing this.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        That is actually a very good solution.
kevin_b_er 6y ago
This is what I expected out of the notarization. It was DRM the whole time.
themihai 6y ago
>> , but now a mechanism supposedly for security has been repurposed as punishment. And you thought it wouldn't be used as punishment... I wonder, why people are so naive? I'm pretty sure that any kind of software that is not deemed good for the guardian's business(i.e. Apple in this case) will be blocked/suspended. DMCA related suspensions are the first that come into my mind.
zamalek 6y ago
This seems way beyond the "hyper-competitive" excuse (that I didn't buy in the first place). Claiming control of the store is one thing, but they have locked Epic out of the platform entirely. This is shameless anticompetitive behavior.
- musicale 6y ago
  Can you confirm that it is no longer possible to install or run unsigned binaries on macOS, even if you enable it in System Preferences? Or has that setting been removed?
  - zamalek 6y ago
    It is possible, but it is becoming progressively more difficult.
actuator 6y ago
While Epic can be accused of starting this intentionally to prove a point, this just goes into the territory of chilling effect now. I have always been wary of their power over iPhone/iOS ecosystem, but if they are going to use a mistake and their power there into a largely different ecosystem MacOS, that is beyond scary. Consider that the same company has many other ecosystems like TV, speakers too. Apple is too scary at this point for big developers like Epic who are well diversified on other platforms. Imagine the fate of small/upcoming developers who might start with Apple's products itself. Apple needs to be really reined in either by regulation or customers, latter being way harder because it is harder to convince people of long term detrimental effects. I stopped using iPhone long time back, but now I will make a conscious effort to not even live in the MacOS ecosystem.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  If a business partner is acting in bad faith (violating terms) I think it’s fair for the impact to spread across the organization.
  - actuator 6y ago
    We can debate about the validity of Apple's concerns on iOS, but since Epic violated terms of iOS, for now Apple is within its right to take action there. If they had stopped with just suspending their iOS publishing powers, it could have been understandable. Taking action on all platforms just seems like abuse, it is not like Epic was doing something like distributing malware, they broke the payment terms of iOS.
  - cma 6y ago
    I don't know what the right word for it is, but calling them Apple's business partner is like calling a statutory rape victim a sexual partner.
cageface 6y ago
This just shows that no matter how comfortable your walled garden may be it's all too easy for it to become a gilded cage. I've been warning my friends for years that giving Apple this much control was risky but without concrete examples like this those warnings were too easy to ignore.
raxxorrax 6y ago
I am sorry, but I am puzzled of the naiveté of people thinking code signing like this is for extended security and not market lock in. Sure, instead of just checking the integrity of an archive/package/executable, you can also add info to identify the developer and source. But it just isn't worth it on the current software market. Create a public key register if security +++) is that important to you and you get the same features but don't try to tell me a developer certificate from FAANG isn't for business purposes. +++) completely neglecting the fact that malware was even introduced in signed software...

Hamuko 6y ago

Yeah, it's fucked up if Apple is going to start disabling macOS apps regardless of distribution if the developer has violated their App Store rules in some way. Definitely undermines my trust in macOS.

zeroimpl 6y ago
They are also being sued by Epic. Would you keep doing business with a company suing you?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- weixiyen 6y ago
  Curious to your thoughts regarding the mafia whacking witnesses who are about to testify in court.
  - zeroimpl 6y ago
    What on earth are you talking about? My response was based on the OP suggesting the account closure was based purely on the App Store policy violation. I’m pretty sure it’s based on more than that, such as the fact that Epic is suing them in bad faith. There’s probably a million app developers which have violated the policies in some manner at some point and yet very few get blacklisted by Apple.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  You shouldn't require a business relationship in order to publish software on a general purpose computing platform. macOS was always a general purpose computing platform, anyone could publish software for it. iOS has not been seen as a general purpose computing platform, merely "a phone", and hence Apple's tight control has been seen as justifiable. Apple added notarization of software to macOS last year, and in response to fears that this was another step on the path of "iOS-ification" of macOS, promised that it was not going to be used for anything but to stop bona-fide malware. This stunt shows that that was bullshit, and the iOS-ification of macOS is complete. macOS is no longer a general purpose computing platform, it is now also a software console, with Apple as a gatekeeper.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    Yep. This action ensures my next computer purchase won’t be a Mac. Time to learn to love a Linux distro. If Apple retaliated against their publishing on iOS that would be one thing. Taking away their ability to notarize macOS software is my line in the sand.

grishka 6y ago

And so that's why I never liked nor trusted this whole idea of code signing with non-self-signed certificates, especially on desktop OSes. This notarization mechanism introduced a single point of failure: Apple. And now there is concrete evidence of how exactly this is bad. On a device I own, there should be no parties that are trusted more than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.

rabidrat 6y ago
Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for this very reason. You might think it's ridiculous but the fight for the right to modify the software running on devices you own has been raging for 35 years and is bigger than ever.
- bsaul 6y ago
  It hasn’t been a quarter in which i haven’t told myself how richard stallman was right, and a visionary, and how much we were fools to consider him an extremist.
  - beering 6y ago
    And many of the things that we thought he was pointlessly complaining about, instead grew into big issues a few years later affecting all of us.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      That's why he was kicked out by people the like of Garreth who named him "enemy of the FSF" and mocked him on Twitter calling Stallman "bad" but he's a former Google employee...
  - ngngngng 6y ago
    Sometimes he's off his rocker, but a lot of the time he's right. We can have both.

JohnTHaller 6y ago

In Windows world, you can just pick a new certificate vendor. In Apple world, they have a monopoly and get to dictate who gets 'full access' to both their mobile devices and their desktops/laptops. They could still do unsigned MacOS apps from here out, but Apple has purposely made it difficult for end users to run them.

yholio 6y ago
Lock-in was their business model back in the 80s, it still is to this day. It got them to the verge of bankruptcy then, it will be their downfall now.
- hapless 6y ago
  One may hope, but I doubt it. They make a majority of the money in mobile.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  How was Apple’s business model from the 1980s right through until the App Store got popular about “lock-in” though? You could say that any platform vendor’s business model is predicated on some form of lock-in. Apple’s poor financial state under Sculley was more because they had an objectively poor product (going by the technical merits alone), a confusing product line-up, a failure to recapture the education sector that was quickly switching to Windows due to its enterprise-friendly features like Group Policy and compatibility with Directory Services like NetWare, and because it didn’t have a plan going forward into the 21st century. I do note that in the 1990s under Sculley they both licensed macOS to third-party hardware vendors and were fine with PowerPC being adopted by other platforms (even Microsoft, and evening when it was incompatible with Apple’s architecture) - that’s the very opposite of the vendor lock-in-in that you’re describing. It can be argued that Apple’s “nice guy” approach further contributed to their decline - it certainly didn’t help raise sales nor their share-price. Aldo consider when Steve Jobs returned they made deals with Microsoft to ensure Office would still be available for the Mac. Apple’s stewardship of WebKit was about driving open web-standards, even though Safari is very much Apple-exclusive. Apple also made a big-deal about how the then-new Mac OS X was a POSIX-compliant BSD system. I think you’re confusing Apple’s aggressive control of the user-experience with IBM and Oracle-style lock-in. With IBM/Oracle a company or gov dept will have sunk $lots into a system that they cannot take away to a different vendor: there is literally no alternative than to continue with whatever gargantuan system their sales reps convinced the customer to buy. This is why banks and insurance companies are still rocking IBM Z-series today after 30+ years even though a system that’s just as resilient could be built for a fraction of the price on commodity hardware (I’m not going to pretend that Linux was a viable option back then, but systems like VMS or a project requirement to use POSIX were options back then). When people say that banks/insurance companies are “conservative” when it comes to technology I think it’s better to describe them as being technically inept or even corrupt which led to them being caught in vendor lock-in which paralysed them internally: I feel the arguments that they don’t want to risk losing billions over a bad technology move are just excuses for being unable to make a technology move even if they wanted to. I believe that Apple sees that their controlling of the user-experience of its customers creates value for the user - whereas IBM/Oracle-style lock-in rarely does. I reckon 90%+ of non-developers using Apple hardware today (iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc) could switch to Android, Surface, and Windows PC respectively without losing much in the way of capability - but they would lose a cohesive and well-thought-out user-experience, which is Apple’s moat.

Joeri 6y ago

Isn’t it a bit naive that we ever believed the notarization feature would not be used to blacklist developers for business reasons? I feel like a chump now. It is definitely clear that apple does not have the best interest of me, their customer, at heart. Epic were being very sneaky towards Apple, but not malicious towards users in any way. Apple is being malicious. If I want to run Epic’s software without disabling security features of the OS I feel I’ve definitely spent enough money on my iMac to get a say in that. This is the sort of thing 90’s microsoft would have done. “It’s just business, they knew what they were getting into.” would have been Gates’ excuse for throwing them from the windows platform.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jimmydorry 6y ago
It cuts both ways though, doesn't it? Either Apple spends time / effort vetting all applications, including those made by people that don't pay Apple and aren't sold through their store. Or Apple doesn't vet all of these apps, and refuses to notarize any app that is not associated with a valid developer account. It's a whole other can of worms if you want to get into the merits of being able to install and run any app you find. Apple made the decision to not allow the average user to do that, and I don't see the mass exodus of people showing that the public doesn't agree with this design choice. Just like iOS and the app store, the average user seems happy with a curated and largely vetted selection of things to use that... 'just work (TM)'.
- burnte 6y ago
  Or, a third manner, which is not forcing notarization at all. Not simple making it disableable, but not enforcing it at all.

floatingatoll 6y ago

Epic expressly snuck code through the door to activate a user-visible feature in direct prohibition to App Store rules. Apple could have revoked their developer certificate in response, which would have essentially killed all installations of Fortnite iOS/Mac worldwide within 24 hours. That they are merely revoking their ability to sign new code and giving them 2 weeks to perform an orderly shutdown is far less draconian than they're capable of being here. Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. Epic willfully violated their terms with Apple to make a point, and Apple is responding in the same way that they did to Facebook: taking away their access to the users, because they cannot be trusted to comply with the restrictions placed on their behavior. Most (if not all) of the restrictions on the App Store exist to protect users from app developers who prioritize their own greed over the rights of privacy and safety that Apple promises the users of the App Store. Developers are the threat model, and there's nothing inherently wrong with Apple's response to Epic declaring themselves a rulebreaker — and, thus, a threat. (If Epic was not trying so hard to be able to sue for damages, they might have been able to negotiate, same as Facebook did. But they wanted to be a martyr for the cause, so here we are.) Consider this thought experiment: At your employer, an IT employee goes rogue and installs malicious code on your computer to read your email. How would you feel if IT leadership said "they promised not to do it again" and allowed them to continue unsupervised work on your computer while you're away? Most people would feel awful, because you can't trust the IT employee's word — they literally just broke their agreement not to snoop! — and because your leadership clearly doesn't care about your privacy. Should Apple "fire" Epic, now that Epic's word can no longer be trusted? This answer should, in theory, match the answer above. I bet for most software developers, it does not. I encourage thinking through that dissonance rather than rejecting the thought experiment.

_qulr 6y ago
> Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. No, notarization is about preventing malware. That's all. This has been promised to us by Apple many many times. Malware prevention only. Fortnite is not malware.

threeseed 6y ago

According to Apple: "Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement" So it doesn't sound like it was just for this Fortnite issue.

mantap 6y ago
That's what they want you to think. Which is why they say it. Sounds better than "Tim made the order to retaliate, sayonara"
- threeseed 6y ago
  Given that there are lawsuits in place pretty sure they aren't going to lie about it. Question is how serious the multiple infractions are.
  - mantap 6y ago
    It's possible for one action to violate the terms in multiple ways. They probably mean the following two: 1) not giving Apple their 30% 2) publishing code without prior approval by Apple
    - threeseed 6y ago
      I don't think you understand how the App Store works. You simply can't pay Apple the 30% cut nor can you publish apps without Apple approving it. So it's impossible for a company to violate either of those.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        Not sure why you think it is impossible when Epic literally did it. They hid the payment infrastructure in the version of the app that went through review, therefore it wasn't rejected during review. Then after it was approved, they enabled it it via a server side mechanism.

AdamJacobMuller 6y ago

> withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac Where do you see this specifically, or are we just inferring it from that fact that Epic will lose access to the developer portal?

heavyset_go 6y ago

> What took me aback was the withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac. That was only meant to be a check for known vulnerabilities/malicious software. When I brought up that Notarization was going to be used to gatekeep (literally with Gatekeeper[1]) access to the macOS platform, I was assured it would only be used for security and never for evil. Apple only made Notarization mandatory this February, too, so that didn't take long at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(macOS)

sneak 6y ago
AFAIK it is still possible to run entirely unsigned apps on macOS.
- ifmpx 6y ago
  Sure, but for how long.
  - sneak 6y ago
    I expect development, offline, (and thus execution of novel/unsigned binaries) to remain possible on ARM Macs, so for at least the foreseeable future. People have been claiming the iOS-style trusted/treacherous computing cancer will hit macOS “any day now” for most of a decade at this point, and it’s still not even on the horizon.
    - slaymaker1907 6y ago
      They just have to make it so dev builds are self signed but allow installing that certificate on a machine. Complicated enough to keep out normal users while still allowing developers to do their jobs. This would be horrific of course, but I could totally see them doing this.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        That is actually a very good solution.

kevin_b_er 6y ago

This is what I expected out of the notarization. It was DRM the whole time.

themihai 6y ago

>> , but now a mechanism supposedly for security has been repurposed as punishment. And you thought it wouldn't be used as punishment... I wonder, why people are so naive? I'm pretty sure that any kind of software that is not deemed good for the guardian's business(i.e. Apple in this case) will be blocked/suspended. DMCA related suspensions are the first that come into my mind.

zamalek 6y ago

This seems way beyond the "hyper-competitive" excuse (that I didn't buy in the first place). Claiming control of the store is one thing, but they have locked Epic out of the platform entirely. This is shameless anticompetitive behavior.

musicale 6y ago
Can you confirm that it is no longer possible to install or run unsigned binaries on macOS, even if you enable it in System Preferences? Or has that setting been removed?
- zamalek 6y ago
  It is possible, but it is becoming progressively more difficult.

actuator 6y ago

While Epic can be accused of starting this intentionally to prove a point, this just goes into the territory of chilling effect now. I have always been wary of their power over iPhone/iOS ecosystem, but if they are going to use a mistake and their power there into a largely different ecosystem MacOS, that is beyond scary. Consider that the same company has many other ecosystems like TV, speakers too. Apple is too scary at this point for big developers like Epic who are well diversified on other platforms. Imagine the fate of small/upcoming developers who might start with Apple's products itself. Apple needs to be really reined in either by regulation or customers, latter being way harder because it is harder to convince people of long term detrimental effects. I stopped using iPhone long time back, but now I will make a conscious effort to not even live in the MacOS ecosystem.

enos_feedler 6y ago
If a business partner is acting in bad faith (violating terms) I think it’s fair for the impact to spread across the organization.
- actuator 6y ago
  We can debate about the validity of Apple's concerns on iOS, but since Epic violated terms of iOS, for now Apple is within its right to take action there. If they had stopped with just suspending their iOS publishing powers, it could have been understandable. Taking action on all platforms just seems like abuse, it is not like Epic was doing something like distributing malware, they broke the payment terms of iOS.
- cma 6y ago
  I don't know what the right word for it is, but calling them Apple's business partner is like calling a statutory rape victim a sexual partner.

cageface 6y ago

This just shows that no matter how comfortable your walled garden may be it's all too easy for it to become a gilded cage. I've been warning my friends for years that giving Apple this much control was risky but without concrete examples like this those warnings were too easy to ignore.

raxxorrax 6y ago

I am sorry, but I am puzzled of the naiveté of people thinking code signing like this is for extended security and not market lock in. Sure, instead of just checking the integrity of an archive/package/executable, you can also add info to identify the developer and source. But it just isn't worth it on the current software market. Create a public key register if security +++) is that important to you and you get the same features but don't try to tell me a developer certificate from FAANG isn't for business purposes. +++) completely neglecting the fact that malware was even introduced in signed software...