4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoOr, a third manner, which is not forcing notarization at all. Not simple making it disableable, but not enforcing it at all.